chronological - earliest first
return to main page
latest entry |
Meet the Press, 1/30/05
Kerry — Christmas Gunrunner
Did you see Meet the Press on Sunday? I didn’t — I only read about it later. If you aren’t aware of it yet, you won’t believe me if I tell you about it. It’s best if you either go to the transcript (at Meet the Press — search for “the hat” about half way through the transcript) or to one of the places that has quoted it (for example, Captain’s Quarters as well as on other sites). Absolutely unbelievable!
UPDATE: Here’s the key statement (emphasis added):
MR. RUSSERT: And you have a hat that the CIA agent gave you?
SEN. KERRY: I still have the hat that he gave me, and I hope the guy would come out of the woodwork and say, “I’m the guy who went up with John Kerry. We delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge* on the coastline of Cambodia.” We went out of Ha Tien, which is right in Vietnam. We went north up into the border. And I have some photographs of that, and that’s what we did. So, you know, the two were jumbled together, but we were on the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve, absolutely. * The Khmer Rouge were on the other side! Some have called this statement an admission of treason. I suspect it’s more a reflection of Kerry’s exceptionally tenuous connection to reality. And doesn’t this make us extremely glad we once more “dodged a bullet” and Kerry’s not in the White House!
Selective Amnesia
Jay Nordlinger makes a strong point at the beginning of his Impromptus column today:
It will be just like the Cold War, I think. George W. Bush and his allies will make progress in the Middle East, and then, with selective amnesia, those who fought Bush & Co. tooth and nail will say, “We, we, we.” We liberalized Afghanistan, we liberalized Iraq, blah, blah, blah.
This point, and his follow-up comment, are precisely on target.
Language Differences
Some years ago, I had to write a report on a short timeline. The only computer available had as its only available word processor a program with which I was not familiar — and I was familiar with a number of editors and word processors. I thought this one fairly unique. Any time I needed to perform some operation, I'd have to think of how it would be reasonable to do it, and then do the opposite. That process almost always worked. And yet these ways of doing things made sense to someone! The key lesson I learned from this experience was that there are people out there whose brains don’t work the same way mine does. (But not a huge number — that word processor never caught on.)
I thought of that again while listening to some of the interviews after Dr Condi Rice was ratified as the new Secretary of State. It sounded like a direct yes/no black/white disagreement — Dr Rice’s supporters insisted she was highly qualified, and her opponents claimed she was unqualified. But then I noticed something about their statements. Each time her supporters talked about her qualifications, they talked about her training and experience; each time her opponents talked about her qualifications, they talked about her viewpoints. This is a major difference in their use and understanding of language, and of the meaning of some fairly basic terms. And it explains what would otherwise be major discrepancies in the statements made by the opposing sides.
Something tells me this kind of difference applies more broadly, and I'll be revisiting this topic again.
Language Differences 2
A heavy ball hangs from a cord. You cut the cord. Did you drop the ball on those below? Or did you allow it to fall? And is the cord a normal part of the structure, or is it an artificial support — an extreme measure?
The language used reflects an underlying difference in principles and/or assessment of the facts. The same has been true in the Terri Schiavo case. One side says it’s about the right to die, while the other says it’s about the right to live. One side describes death by hunger and thirst as causing excruciating pain. The other side insists removal of the feeding tube results in a painless and peaceful transition. A spokesman for one side says she died quietly and peacefully, while a spokesman for the other says it was the worst thing he’d ever seen. One side says she was finally allowed to die, while the other says she was killed and identify her court-ordered death as an execution.
Words mean something. Words have effects. Differences in language produce differences in results. An example, in two polls: The Gallup poll asked the question Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat? By contrast, the question Zogby asked was If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water? Here, again, there was no agreement on the proper words to describe Terri Schiavo’s condition. And the words used made a substantial difference: The Gallup poll found that, by 63 percent to 28 percent, the public supported the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. The Zogby poll found that 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said she should. I suspect the discrepancy is actually larger, as some respondents must certainly have had independent thoughts on whether Terri Schiavo was or was not on life support and without consciousness.
“Anyone reading about how peaceful — even euphoric — it is to be starved to death, should shudder.” (quoted from Impromptus by Jay Nordlinger on National Review) I agree. But to me, probably the creepiest statement coming out of Pinellas Park, Florida, came from the husband and his lawyer in words similar to She’s not being starved or dessicated. She’s not dying of hunger and thirst.
She’s just having her nutrition and hydration removed. To me, the illogic incorporated in such a statement is extreme. “It’s not that — it’s its synonym.”
This posting is not about the facts of the case, as represented and/or interpreted by either side. This post is only about the differences in the language used. I may (or may not) later say what I think of the facts as presented by the two sides. Independent of those facts, however, it seems to me that Food and water are not medical treatments; providing food and water by mouth — in a natural way — is not a “heroic measure”. And “I’d rather die!” is an expression and not a literal statement for me any more than it is for any teenager (or adult, for that matter) that I’ve ever known.
That brings me to one thing about that case that bothers me in a different way. The judge who made findings of fact in this case ruled that Terri Schiavo had no consciousness and, in particular, could not be conscious of pain. The doctors weren’t really sure this death would be painless — which was why morphine was being given anyway. The judge also ruled that she was in a permanent vegetative state and incapable of taking any food or water by mouth. But he didn’t want to take the chance of being proven wrong. And so he tried to avoid being contradicted by prohibiting all tests and actions that could conclusively prove him wrong. I’ll have more to say about this kind of behavior later.
Namecalling
When is socialism not socialism? When is a socialist not a socialist?
Socialism is one of the leftist ideologies. Even the Communists have for many years identified themselves as socialists, presumably to avoid the taint of being known as Communists. All the socialists are parties of the left.
Except one. That one is identified as the party of the farthest right, even though it shares its primary belief structure with all the other socialists — especially its belief in common ownership of the means of production. Perhaps its sin is being a national socialism rather than an international socialism.
Or perhaps it’s one of the biggest scams on history — falsely identifying a party of the extreme left as a party of the extreme right. Either way, this reidentification (misidentification) has had a significant impact on political expression (and thought) for at least the last sixty to seventy years.
The thing is, it’s a totalitarian ideology, just like all the other extreme socialist varieties. Its adherents are convinced they know what people should feel and do, and that those who disagree with them do so out of ulterior and/or conspiratorial motives. (Some don’t really believe these things, but just take on this coloration as a means to achieve power.) They are also racists, just like their Communist brothers.
So why are the Nazis identified as extreme right and the Communists identified as extreme left, when the two are so very close together?
“The Compromise”
We’ve all heard about “the compromise” between seven Democrat and seven Republican Senators to avoid a direct vote on filibusters of judicial nominations. Some members of my party have been spinning like crazy saying it is a win for us. Some members of the other party have been spinning it as a win for them. Most of the media seem to side with us rather than them. And, of course, there's the other side. Some members of my party and more of the other party think “the compromise” is a serious mistake and a serious loss.
A few weeks ago I read something on the Web that I thought of immediately when I heard a “compromise” had been reached. (I had thought it was from someone like Mickey Kaus, linked from someone like Glenn Reynolds or PowerLine — but I haven’t been able to find it again, so now I don’t know quite where I saw it.) The item made a prediction. It suggested a group of “moderate” Democrats would find some way to avoid having a direct vote on the “Byrd option” (so named because of its prior use by Senator Byrd — also known as the “constitutional option” or the “nuclear option”) even if that meant breaking ranks with their party leadership to vote for cloture. That way, by avoiding a ruling and a vote, they would preserve their ability to filibuster judicial nominations later. By making this “compromise”, they get at least the perception of having gotten something in return for that kind of vote.
What did they give up, and what did they get, in this attempt? They agreed to up-or-down votes, with no further filibusters, on the three nominees identified by their leadership as the most objectionable. (That sounds like a direct admission that these three are far from the “out of the mainstream” “extremists” their leadership has been claiming they were for two to four years since their nominations.) They further agreed not to filibuster other nominees except in self-defined “exraordinary circumstances”. In return, they got a promise not to change the rules during this Congress (rules that can’t realistically be changed unless they filibuster anyway, thereby allowing the argument that they broke “the compromise”).
I can’t be sure what will happen, but here’s my best guess: First will be the votes on the Owen, Brown, and Pryor nominations (and the Bolton nomination, too, for good measure). All will go through by margins like that given to Justice Owen today (56-43). (I do expect the Democrat leadership will likely keep its partisans following orders.) Then another of the Bush judicial nominees will be brought up, though I don’t have any idea whether it will be one of those on which “the compromise” explicitly takes no position or one of those unmentioned in it. And one by one the other nominees will get their votes and will be approved by similar margins.
The bottom line is this: The Democrat leadership has shown itself to be like any other bully. When directly opposed and challenged, they backed down. And if the Republicans don’t lose their nerve, they will continue to succeed.
Update: Obviously my crystal ball was less than clear to include the Bolton nomination among those that would sail through the Senate. But the rest of what I've written still looks pretty good (so far).
Katrina
On August 30th, the hurricane named Katrina came ashore near the Louisiana-Mississippi border. Mississippi coastal cities were destroyed and coastal Louisiana was flooded, but New Orleans “dodged the bullet” as Katrina weakened somewhat and diverted a bit to the east shortly before landfall. By the next morning, however, well after the passage of the hurricane’s center, the levees had begun to break down and New Orleans began to flood. It rapidly became apparent that this was the largest natural disaster ever to hit the United States, clearly surpassing the San Francisco Earthquake of almost a century before.
Even before the storm winds had subsided, the carping began. Before the first looter/sniper shot at the first policeman, there were claims that federal units should already have been there. There were claims that we all knew what would happen in a storm like this. There were claims we should have, but didn’t, have a plan. There were (and continue to be) claims that large groups of refugees were left (some say deliberately) without food, water, or medical attention. And, of course, there were the claims that the response to this hurricane — especially the federal response — was delayed by racism and that specific groups were selected for denial of aid. On all these counts and more, I have my doubts. (Added note: Links in this paragraph link to posting sections below.)
Reason to Know
Did we have reason to know what a category 4 hurricane would do to the Gulf coast? Looking back, there were a number of predictions and simulations that came amazingly close to what actually happened. As is so often the case, though, there were many more that were far off. Very far off. Which predictions and which simulations were right seems pretty clear in hindsight. It really wasn’t anywhere near that clear before. And, or course, those predictions and simulations were wrong for other “similar” hurricanes. Maxim: Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight is legally blind.
Prior experience wasn’t much help, either. For the same kinds of reasons. Katrina came ashore as a category 4 hurricane. Last year’s hurricane Charley came ashore as a category 5 — a stronger hurricane. But Charley left a 10 mile wide swath of major damage, while Katrina’s major damage swath was more than 200 miles wide. The Gulf coast’s benchmark hurricane, Camille, came ashore just about the same place as did Katrina. And Camille came ashore as a category 5 — a stronger hurricane than Katrina. The fact that Katrina weakened into a category 4 storm some hours before landfall caused some area residents to figure “We made it through Camille OK. We can make it through Katrina.” Many of those people barely escaped with their lives, as Katrina did much more damage — over a much broader area — than did Camille.
Katrina is now the benchmark hurricane. It may not have been a category 5 storm, like some others that have reached our shores, but it is clearly the most destructive storm ever to hit the U.S. What demonstrated Katrina’s destructiveness most clearly to me was what it did to some very widely separated bridges. Both the bridge over Lake Ponchartrain in Louisiana (left, below) and that over Bay St. Louis in Mississippi (right, below) were destroyed. Even the most destructive storms normally don’t do this kind of damage.
 |  | | Bridge north of New Orleans, LA | Bridge east of Biloxi, MS |
Bridges are built to take extraordinary amounts of punishment. A storm that destroys homes, businesses, hotels, and casinos is still unlikely to damage major bridges. And yet, the damage to these and other bridges between New Orleans and Mobile is extreme. Even most category 5 hurricanes will be unable to cause this level of damage — especially in such distant locations.
Perhaps we need some additional characteristic to be identified, either in addition to or in palce of the peak sustained winds (category), to characterize hurricanes and typhoons. The current specification is clearly insufficient.
No Plan
The fact that a plan was not successfully executed does not mean there was no plan. Just ask New Orleans’ Mayor Nagin. His city’s evacuation plan called for the use of city and school buses to evacuate those who could not escape the city on their own. But that part of the plan was never activated, and those people were left trapped in their homes or at centers like the Superdome while the buses that were supposed to evacuate them stayed parked and drowned. Requests for an early and mandatory evacuation declaration were also ignored — by more than one executive.
There was a federal plan as well as the state and local plans. There was some variety of disaster declaration made while Katrina was still in the Gulf of Mexico. We know because, as part of that plan, the Albuquerque DMAT (Disaster Medical Assistance Team) was activated. The team was waiting in Houston when Katrina brushed New Orleans, ready to go into New Orleans as soon as the storm passed.
The Albuquerque DMAT provided medical support in the Superdome. Their operations were moved to Louisiana State University several days later, when they were no longer needed at the Superdome. The news stories on the DMAT in the Albuquerque Journal are part of the reason we in New Mexico know the persistent statements that the reports that the people in the Superdome were without food, water, and medicine were untrue.
Maxim: No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
That maxim is true whether the enemy is a foreign army or a disaster. The “fog of war” applies to disasters, too. Things get fouled up. Plan pieces fail. Things do not go as expected. That’s normal in such circumstances. We can either complain that performance has not been perfect, or we can continue all efforts to accomplish the rescue tasks — and be glad that performance has been better this time than it has ever been before (yes, it really has been!) and doubtless will be still better in future disasters.
Racism
I heard the statements by Senator Kennedy and Jesse Jackson and others that people were dying in New Orleans because of racism. I have read the reports of the statements made by Democratic party chairman Howard Dean and the Congressional Black Caucus and others to the same effect. These statements all said, explicitly or implicitly, that our national leadership wanted “these people” to die because they were black. They were all in the vein of “If they were white, they would already be rescued.”
“If they were white, they would already be rescued.”?!? Maybe they should tell that to the people of Waveland, Mississippi, 35 miles east of New Orleans. Katrina essentially wiped that small city off the map. (I saw a report on Waveland on Fox News on September 7th. It was reported in an AP story in the Arizona Daily Star on September 1st.) Only one building remained standing, and it was damaged severely enough that it may have to be demolished and replaced. And yet, as of September 7th, even the Red Cross hadn’t yet reached the town, much less any of the federal agencies. Meanwhile, the refugees from New Orleans — the ones whose rescues were supposedly delayed by racism — were settling down in other cities and states, including New Mexico.
With all due respect to Messrs. Kennedy, Jackson, Dean, et al., the true state of race relations in (nearly all of) this country is shown in the pictures on this soapbox page. As noted in a comment there, these days, “Race is only an issue for those who seek to profit from it, or for those who seek to blame it.” Are there still racists in America? Certainly. Also in France, Bosnia, Iran, Indonesia, Korea, and every other nation in the world. They come in all colors, in this country and in the others. They are of all genders and ethnicities. In some countries, the racists control the society and the government. But not here.
We still have disputes in this country. But, though some may try to give them a racial character, they are seldom racial disputes. They are really disputes between the pink and grey tribes — and sometimes among the wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. Yes, we’re still far from perfect, but we have our national ideals and a commitment to strive toward them. And we have made a lot more progress than some would have us believe.
Update: There are reports now that some areas of New Orleans began flooding, presumably by the category 4 storm surge coming over the top of the category 3 levees, before the time Katrina’s eye passed east of the city. This does not change what I have said above.
Update: I’ve now heard a truly insane claim. It was in an audio clip in which the preacher claimed a source he trusts — a friend — told him the New Orleans levees were breached on purpose, to kill blacks, and that he (the friend) had seen a 25 foot crater where the levee should have been. The best response to this was that of the talk show host, which was something close to “So his friend could see a 25 foot crater under 25 feet of rushing muddy water. Has he asked if his friend is still dating Lois Lane?”
Today’s Racism
 Straight from the headlines, an example of unhinged liberal hatred and bigotry: The first black to win a statewide election in Maryland, now running for the Senate, is attacked by other black political leaders (and by leading Democrats) because he’s not their “house n***”. The image on the right (from left-wing bigot blogger Steve Gilliard) proves that blacks can be vicious racists, too. The Washington Times (among others) notes:
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Another news article quoted black Democrats as saying “Party trumps race” — which caused Jeff Goldstein to write Lisa Gladden notes that racial jabs are to be expected in national politics, because “party trumps race” —in this case the argument being that (superficial) blackness being equal, the deciding factor in black identity politics is now political affiliation. Therefore, it follows that a move away from the Democratic party is tantamount to a move away from black authenticity, a willful act that opens to attack those “race traitors” who have surrendered the protections that proceed from adherence to the dictates of the group’s identity. Which is to say, racial jabs are okay when they are aimed at those who’ve surrendered the protections offered by the group, because those who’ve left the group no longer meet the requirements for protected blackness.Perversely, then, we have progressives sanctioning the kind of racial attacks they would normally decry on the grounds that those who choose the wrong party affiliation have surrendered the protection of their race. And what makes this so troubling is that it redefines the idea of “offense” as something that is to be decided upon by identity groups—and so is yet another way in which identity politics robs the individual of autonomy. That’s why ad hominem attacks like this are used only by the Left. As Michelle Malkin has noted, “For the unhinged Left, race-baiting has become an expedient substitute for substantive argument.” Ed Morrissey said a similar thing in a little more detail: That shows the leadership of the Democrats as they truly are — a hate-based faith system that takes any means necessary to win elections. Cheating, violence, smears, and now racism are all acceptable as long as Republicans are the targets. If the Republicans happen to be members of minority communities, so much the better. That’s how far the Left’s political discourse has sunk. And not one Democrat will speak out against this vile, racist behavior — at least, none has yet. It disgusts me that it’s people in my party saying and supporting things like this.
Yes, there are still racists in America — only now they’re called liberals, and many of them are black.
Frustrating Leftists
I get so frustrated, I want to yell at the radio or TV.
It has been long enough now (more than a month!), and there has been enough written, that there really isn’t any excuse. That’s why I get so frustrated when I hear some Leftist, in a call or an interview, ranting about how Bush violated the Constitution and the law by spying on Americans without getting the warrants the law requires.
At least some of these people sound as if they believe what they’re saying. For that to be true, though, they must have just accepted what some other Leftist has said as if it were fact, without bothering to look into what the facts (as they have been reported) actually are.
At the risk of being repetitive, let’s start by dealing with the “spying on Americans” charge.
First,it is not at all clear whether or not any Americans have had any of their conversations or e-mails monitored, or whether those monitored who are physically in this country are foreign visitors. That may make a difference in whether the law the Left wants to invoke applies. (As I understand it, the statute specifies that it applies to “U.S. persons” — citizens and legal residents.)
Second, the NSA program (as described by the New York Times) is not “spying” on people in the United States — it is “spying” on foreign terrorists. People in this country come into the monitoring when they call/e-mail or are called/e-mailed by these foreign terrorists. That does not require a separate warrant for the people or phones here any more than a separate warrant is required for an individual or phone who calls to or is called by an organized crime boss whose phone is being tapped under a warrant.
Stated a different way, this is not “domestic surveillance.” This is surveillance of foreign terrorists. But, yes, if a foreign terrorist is calling someone in this country, it seems appropriate to find out why. And, yes, following up on such leads would constitude “domestic surveillance” which would (and does) require a warrant.
So the question comes back to whether the Bush Administration and the NSA can legally monitor the communications of foreign terrorists who have openly stated they are planning attacks in the U.S. that will make 9/11 look small. For that, let me refer you to what I've written before in Breaking Laws and Breaking Laws 2.
It seems to me there are three categories of Leftists pushing these claims. One group is made up of people who are deliberately endeavoring to mislead those they can con into believing them. A second is made up of the truly ignorant. The third group is the one I really have little tolerance for — those who choose deliberate stupidity.
Politics Outline
You can understand the outlines of all of American politics (and, it now appears, Canadian politics as well) if you remember just one thing: Conservatives think liberals are misguided
Liberals think conservatives are evil More on this later.
Politics in Outline
| You can understand the outlines of all of American politics (and, it now appears, Canadian politics as well) if you remember just one thing: | Conservatives think liberals are misguided
Liberals think conservatives are evil | | (I have sometimes heard "ignorant" used instead of "misguided".)
The Left routinely makes accusations against conservatives. They claim conservatives want to stifle free speech, while they shout down conservative speakers. They claim conservatives represent the “fat cats,” while they are paid for by people like George Soros. They claim conservatives are abusive, while saying (as they have for more than a dozen years) that conservatives want to starve children and throw the elderly out on the street. They accuse conservatives of questioning their patriotism, while they directly call the President and members of his Administration unpatriotic. They claim to support the troops while opposing the war, but show what they really think with their signs and banners (like the one below).
| 
| | Overall, there seem to be just two choices. Either the Left is simply dishonest or they are projecting their own behavior onto their opponents. Either way, the validity of the saying is clear.
| | The Left doesn’t seem to be very good with logic, either. According to them, George Bush has made the United States a police state where dissent is forbidden. It never seems to occur to them that the very fact they can keep making these statements at demonstrations and rallies without being arrested — or even bothered — demonstrates their falsehood. (They must understand this at some level; they keep making the same statements.)
One more thing: It’s clear some political labels are no longer being used with their traditional meanings. John Kennedy was a liberal, and Hubert Humphrey was a liberal. But the policies they proposed and supported would make them both conservatives, not liberals, in today’s use of the terms. Meanwhile, the two Senators from Massachusetts (and others like them) are, in more traditional terminology, Leftists rather than liberals.
| 
| 
| Others have noticed this, too. Just this week, Austin Bay wrote thatThe anger tsunamis that struck Brady crash and smash every day, and by the far the worst waves come from the political left. Brady may wish to disagree with that assessment — I don’t know — but his virtual bruises (and the streams of vulgarities that appeared on his website) argue otherwise. I’ve had comment rules from the get-go. America’s contemporary left reminds me of America’s hard right in the 1950s — angry and conspiracy-ridden. Step back from the political tropes and consider the social psychology. The DailyKos combines John Birch Society-type fear and fever with high school trash talk.
|
What Color is the Sky in Their World?
I heard about the failure of the University of Washington student senate resolution to honor University of Washington alumnus, war hero, and former prisoner of war Gregory “Pappy” Boyington. One member of the student senate was quoted in the student government’s minutes as saying she “didn’t believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.” Boyington flew with the Flying Tigers in World War II before becoming the command pilot in charge of “The Black Sheep Squadron”. He was also shot down, and spent 20 months in a Japanese prison camp. Boyington was awarded the Navy Cross and the Congressional Medal of Honor.
And then there’s San Francisco, which doesn’t want anything related to the military to taint their territory. This city doesn’t want the Navy battleship USS Iowa docked there as a tourist attraction. And San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval said, further, that the United States should not have a military and should disband the one it has. According to Sandoval, too, the United States didn’t have an army in peacetime until the Cold War. He said we had no military at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (Who does he think was manning the battleships that were damaged or sunk in that attack, or the aircraft carriers that survived because they were at sea? Who does he think was manning Hickham Field and the bombers thatwere flying in that morning?) I didn’t just hear about this one — I heard it from Sandoval’s mouth myself in two different interviews (one on replay). Summaries can be found here and here. Even the San Francisco Chronicle, not exactly a conservative publication, described Sandoval as being “1000 years from reality”.
These events were this week, and were from our left coast. The ones I’ve heard about (recently, anyway) from the right coast haven’t had as high a profile. What these kinds of events have in common — what the people making these kinds of statements have in common — is a disturbing lack of historical context. People so lacking in historical foundation just can’t help making such flagrant statements, simply out of pure ignorance.
But ignorance doesn’t always carry the day. Now Popular Mechanics has a cover story Debunking Katrina Myths. That magazine also took a crack at a couple of the most obvious clunkers in the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina (based on a draft copy of the report) the night before it was released. I wrote about this subject last September.
Memories of Shostakovich
This item, from Jay Nordlinger’s Impromptus column, is too good not to pass on in full:
Last, you may remember the item (again Thursday) about the concert in western Massachusetts. I will repeat what the local paper said, just for fun: Bush partisans, beware. Tonight's Berkshire Symphony program comes with a political agenda.
Three works composed under Soviet regimes make up the program, which takes place at 8 in Chapin Hall. Each work is a response to war and injustice. Conductor Ronald Feldman chose the trilogy to suggest parallels between political repression under the Soviets and similar tendencies in the United States under the Bush administration.
The principal work is Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony, the composer's response to criticism — and the threat of imprisonment or execution — by Stalin himself.
Many readers wrote in to say, "Hey, Jay, look at the bright side! At least they're now acknowledging Soviet repression!" But Peter Kirsanow, that warrior of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and NRO, wrote in to say this: The theme of the Berkshire Symphony, suggesting parallels between Stalinist repression and "similar tendencies in the United States under the Bush administration," made magma come out of my nostrils, and I'm annoyed at myself as a consequence. After seeing hundreds of such comparisons from those who fancy themselves enlightened but succeed merely in showcasing galactic moral vanity, I usually just shake my head and return to the real world. But this one is particularly ironic.
My father used to spend many evenings listening to Shostakovich, often with a wistful expression on his face. As a Russian soldier in the Red Army, he had been detained and brutalized by the NKVD after WWII on suspicion of being less than a robust supporter of Stalin. He escaped before being executed, but not before he saw scores of others also endure horrific tortures before being killed.
He often related to me how people would disappear for no reason other than uttering a mild complaint about, say, the length of a bread line, the weakness of the tea, or the scarcity of toilet paper. Family members of the offending parties might also disappear — the dreaded knock on the door in the middle of the night (and they didn't even have a Patriot Act!). Of course, he was witnessing on a micro-level what we now know happened to millions of people during that era (thanks to Mr. Solzhenitsyn, no thanks to Mr. Duranty). Even listening to a disfavored composer like a Shostakovich would mean disappearance.
My father didn't spend much time worrying about frivolous artists who refuse to acknowledge that if any U.S. administration were even remotely like the Stalinists, those artists would be sent to ANWR for merely planning a program based on Shostakovich. Rather, he spent his last few years taking his little granddaughter for long walks and making sure they saluted every single American flag they encountered along the way.
Dumb Things
While I was gone, some folks did some really outstandingly dumb things. Like up in the Minnesota city named for one of Christianity’s first saints, where their “human rights director” banned the Easter bunny as a “Christian symbol” that “might offend non-Christians.” Pardon me, but can anybody tell me which denomination of Christianity reveres the rabbit? My education must be lacking, as I’ve not heard of one. Or perhaps I’m barking up the wrong tree — a commenter on Captain’s Quarters notes:
The Easter bunny, like Santa Claus, is a secular symbol of the holiday itself not a symbol of the religious event the holiday commemorates (and Christians celebrate). People who take offense at such symbols are not to be taken seriously. In fact, they offend me. CH, another commenter there, added:
Let's remember that Easter, as well as Christmas and Thanksgiving, are FEDERAL holidays. Until or unless CONGRESS chooses to repeal those holidays, does St. Paul, or any other city have the right to forbid an employee from honoring a holiday that the government has officially endorsed? Furthermore, can anyone tell me what religon a rabbit with a basket of colored eggs, is supposed to represent?
So who was it told them the bunny rabbit was a Christian religious symbol? Maybe it was the Democrats’ leadership in New Mexico! The New Mexico state Democratic Convention on or about March 20 th added into the party’s official platform a sentence that says “Resolved, that the Democratic Party of New Mexico supports the impeachment of President George Bush and his lawful removal from office.”  In the view of this Democrat, those convention delegates have clearly been drinking the kool-aid! Making this action even more stupid is that fact that it was taken even though, in the words of state Party Chairman John Wertheim, “Everyone understands President Bush is not going to be impeached.”
Sound Politics notes some other folks affected by Impeachment Mania. (That’s where this picture is from.)
In case you were wondering, and despite the date — just to be absolutely clear — no, these items are not April Fool jokes. I only wish they were!
Rewriting History
I find the attack on a Congressional Representative for daring to tell the truth to the people most interesting. (I thought Liberals were supposed to support that!)
Curt Weldon poses a real threat to the Clintons’ effort to rewrite history, aided by the NYT-WaPo axis. He has this really annoying way of telling the truth.Among the Clintonistas trying to bring down Curt Weldon are Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, John Podesta and Senator Hillary Clinton, the Commander-in-Chief-in-Waiting herself.
Category: Left & Right
|
A Red Guard’s Journey
Jay Nordlinger had a piece this week in his Impromptus column about Erping Zhang, a Chinese-American scholar, human-rights activist, and former staunch “atheist Red Guard.” One thing that struck me was his memory of the Reagan-Mondale campaign: I was for Mondale, very pro-Democrat — because I still had Communist views. He’s right, of course. That’s been the state of the national Democratic Party for at least the last two to three decades. Why can’t they go back to being the party that was led by JFK?
Nordlinger notes that Zhang meets with Chinese students in America every once in a while. Many of these students, unlike Zhang, are not former Communists. Often, the students decry “Western influence” in their country.
Erping [Zhang] delivers a jolting line to them. It goes something like this: “I, too, decry Western influence on China. I think it's a very bad thing. And, at present, there is only one Western ideology that is legal in China: and that is Communism. Communism has nothing to do with us, nothing to do with China. This is an ideology born in Europe, first practiced in Russia and elsewhere. There is nothing in our traditions or history like Communism. We have a 5,000-year-old civilization, and Communism has been with us for less than 60 years. Other countries, such as Germany and Russia, have discarded it. Why shouldn't we? “So, again, I agree with you: We must eradicate foreign influence in China. And the biggest such influence is Communism.”
And he’s right, of course. Nordlinger notes that usually leaves the students speechless. There’s more in the column — a definite must-read!
|
Political Correctness Run Amok
 A federal judge has (again) declared atheism to be the state religion of San Diego, as he evidently feels it should be of the United States.
“It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad cross on city property,” said U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson.Thompson first found the presence of the cross on city property unconstitutional in 1991 because it violated the separation of church and state. That statement — that holding — is patently absurd. That logic would also require the removal of virtually every military headstone from the national cemeteries. I’m surprised Judge Thompson hasn’t (yet) ruled the city’s name to be unconstitutional.
Gateway Pundit has some of the back story. A federal judge ruled on a 15 year-old ACLU case on Wednesday ordering the city of San Diego to remove a mountain-top cross within 90 days or face a fine of $5,000 a day.The Mount Soledad cross was built in 1954 as a memorial to veterans of the Korean War. It was used as a backdrop for sunrise services until atheist Philip Paulson filed a lawsuit in 1989. That’s right — one hypersensitive atheist, backed up by the ACLU (Anti-Christian Luddites - Unhinged) — has gotten a compliant judge to rule against precedent and history. And also against, and in violation of, the majority and the democratic process. The city’s voters have twice voted to save the Mt. Soledad Cross, most recently by voting to deed the site to the federal government. That decision has also been challenged in court, and is now on appeal. It looks to me that Judge Thompson’s determination to take action now, before the appeals court rules, is a reflection of his (probable) assessment that the higher court will allow the popular vote to stand and effectively overrule his previous (arrogant, in my view) decision.
 SMASH (formerly LT SMASH) has more:
One man — atheist activist Philip Paulson — has been repeatedly suing the City of San Diego for over 16 years to remove the offensive symbol. Most of the rest of us recognize it as a fitting memorial to our military heroes, and a striking landmark atop one of San Diego's most prominent natural features.Now, because one man's atheistic sensibilities were offended, the people of San Diego must suffer the loss of one of our most treasured civic landmarks. This political correctness has gone too far. If Mr. Paulson doesn't like the cross, he doesn't have to visit the memorial. But for a federal judge to force the rest of us to conform to Paulson's delicate sensibilities isn't only a mockery of justice, it's downright undemocratic. It seems to me Mr. Paulson’s squeamishness bespeaks a recognition that his position, and his belief structure, are untenable. His admission that he cannot stand even seeing a cross shows that his belief in atheism (San Diego’s new state religion) is very weak, indeed!
Category: Left & Right
|
Acid Rain
There’s a group of news stories out today saying that this past year was the warmest in 400 years. (Other stories make that 1000, or even 2000, years.) The question that brought up in my mind was: What made that earlier time so warm? And what produced the cooling after that (the “Little Ice Age”)? In Jay Nordlinger the same story produced another thought:
That story got me to thinking, What happened to acid rain? I mean, it was on the cover of Time magazine about 100 times. It was the concern of the century, the environmental crime of the century. Schoolteachers everywhere told their kiddies that Ronald Reagan and the Republicans were climbing into the sky to create that rotten rain. At a minimum, they were indifferent to it.
And then . . . silence. No Time magazine cover. No Democratic talking point. The enviro crowd just moved on to something else (chiefly global warming, a successor to the coming ice age).
To repeat: What happened to acid rain? Or rather — to ask this differently — what does the Left say happened to acid rain? Did their crusade take care of the problem — or did they simply get bored, searching out different alarmist pastures?
(You will recall that, at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration, the Left and the media claimed that the Republicans were “putting arsenic back into the water” — that was before the administration began wiretapping Aunt Hazel’s phone, for no good reason.)
I don’t know what happened to acid rain. But I continue to be amazed at the rapid flickering out of the most burning issues in American life. Just wait a little while: Global warming will be the dangerous new ice age again. Environmentalist scaremongering is sort of like hemlines.
Of course, now the issue isn’t global warming, and it certainly isn’t global cooling (and the coming Ice Age) — it’s “climate change”. (That covers all the bases.)
|
Political Correctness Run Amok — Again/Still
UPDATES BELOW A federal judge has (again) declared atheism to be the state religion of San Diego, as he evidently feels it should be of the United States. “It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad cross on city property,” said U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson.Thompson first found the presence of the cross on city property unconstitutional in 1991 because it violated the separation of church and state. That statement — that holding — is patently absurd. That logic would also require the removal of virtually every military headstone from the national cemeteries. I’m surprised Judge Thompson hasn’t (yet) ruled the city’s name to be unconstitutional.
|
|
Gateway Pundit has some of the back story. A federal judge ruled on a 15 year-old ACLU case on Wednesday ordering the city of San Diego to remove a mountain-top cross within 90 days or face a fine of $5,000 a day.The Mount Soledad cross was built in 1954 as a memorial to veterans of the Korean War. It was used as a backdrop for sunrise services until atheist Philip Paulson filed a lawsuit in 1989. That’s right — one hypersensitive atheist, backed up by the ACLU (Anti-Christian Luddites - Unhinged) — has gotten a compliant judge to rule against precedent and history. And also against, and in violation of, the majority and the democratic process. The city’s voters have twice voted to save the Mt. Soledad Cross, most recently by voting to deed the site to the federal government. That decision has also been challenged in court, and is now on appeal. It looks to me that Judge Thompson’s determination to take action now, before the appeals court rules, is a reflection of his (probable) assessment that the higher court will allow the popular vote to stand and effectively overrule his previous (arrogant, in my view) decision.
SMASH (formerly LT SMASH) has more: One man — atheist activist Philip Paulson — has been repeatedly suing the City of San Diego for over 16 years to remove the offensive symbol. Most of the rest of us recognize it as a fitting memorial to our military heroes, and a striking landmark atop one of San Diego's most prominent natural features.Now, because one man's atheistic sensibilities were offended, the people of San Diego must suffer the loss of one of our most treasured civic landmarks. This political correctness has gone too far. If Mr. Paulson doesn't like the cross, he doesn't have to visit the memorial. But for a federal judge to force the rest of us to conform to Paulson's delicate sensibilities isn't only a mockery of justice, it's downright undemocratic. It seems to me Mr. Paulson’s squeamishness bespeaks a recognition that his position, and his belief structure, are untenable. His admission that he cannot stand even seeing a cross shows that his belief in atheism (San Diego’s new state religion) is very weak, indeed!
UPDATE (June 23, 2006): The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the most reversed federal appeals court in the nation) has upheld Judge Thompson, and held that the mere presence of a Christian cross on public property is unconstitutional. In concert with San Diego’s Taliban-equivalents, that court supported the destruction of any and all religious symbols (on public property) that are not their own. To them, the will of the people (as expressed by their 76% - 24% vote to save the cross) doesn’t matter. Democracy is irrelevant. Political correctness must be preserved. This case must be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
UPDATE (June 26, 2006): And now it is. Category: Left & Right
|
Political Correctness Stopped — For Now
The majority of people in the San Diego area have always supported keeping the Mt. Soledad Cross — a Korean War memorial erected in 1954. They voted by a more than 3 to 1 margin to donate the monument to the federal government when it looked like that would be necessary to protect it from destruction. None of that mattered. In a classic example of tyranny of the minority over the majority, one man (aided by a federal judge) ordered the city to destroy the cross, and a $5,000/day fine if they didn’t do so. (See my previous post for more information.)
Now it’s out of the city’s hands. A bill went quickly through Congress, unanimously passed by the Senate after passing by a 349-74 vote in the House. The bill became law when it was signed by President Bush yesterday, and the memorial was transferred to the federal government. And so, as Captain Ed notes,
Now the government owns a cross, and one can expect the usual suspects to come out of the woodwork to protest this “endorsement” of religion. Once again, people mistake freedom of religion for freedom from religion, the latter of which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. That people get so offended by a religious symbol in the public square testifies to the power of symbology less than it does to the spoiled brattiness of American politics. This cross does no one any harm, and has sat on the mountaintop for over five decades without giving any distress to anyone except those who go out of their way to be offended. Unfortunately, this is probably not the end of it. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the lower court’s order, but has not heard this case — either the original one or the challenge likely to be brought against this new law. For now, though, some sanity has prevailed. The will of the people has prevailed. And it has done so in a way that hurts no one, “except those who go out of their way to be offended.”
Papers have already been filed in Federal District Court in San Diego claiming the mere presence of a cross on federal land is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs’ success would mandate a lot of digging in national cemeteries all over the country. And there would still be the issue of all the signs with religious names like San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, St. Louis, St. Augustine, St. Petersburg, St. Paul, etc., etc., etc.
|
What Liberal Media?
A colleague has often told me that I’m nuts, that the “liberal media” is a myth and a figment of my imagination. Well, if she won’t take my word for it (whether I’m nuts or not), or that of her own eyes, here’s some commentary from someone she considers a great president, William Jefferson Clinton (from the Washington Post, as cited in the Wall Street Journal):
He said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies — and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.“We’re all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the ’60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate,” Clinton said. “Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations.”
James Taranto comments on this: This Clinton is an astute one, isn’t he? We’ve made essentially the same argument many times — including with reference to Clinton’s own recent outburst on “Fox News Sunday.” The former president, used to sycophantic interviewers like David Remnick and Larry King, was unprepared for a tough question and lashed out, delivering an angry, paranoid rant.Somehow Clinton understands that “we,” his fellow liberals, are fatuous about the media but he fails to grasp that he is. The “bottom line” is the admission, in so many words, by the foremost (slickest) political practitioner of his times, that the primary “news” media have had a substantial liberal bias since at least the mid-1960’s.Myth? Figment? I guess not. Thank God for the blogosphere!
|
Disgrace in the Senate
I supported John Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election. I hadn’t decided about Bobby Kennedy before his assassination in 1968. But I’ve always known that Teddy Kennedy was completely dishonest and totally free of any scruples whatever. Now there’s word that all Teddy’s unethical and illegal behavior was just the “tip of the iceberg.” Political science professor Paul Kengor, in his new book (The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism) on Ronald Reagan, notes Teddy’s contacts with the Soviet KGB, and his offer and attempt to work with the KGB and the Soviet government to thwart the foreign policy of the government of the United States.
Comment on this case can be found (among other places) here and here. And Clarice Feldman notes that We know that Senator Kerry while still a reserve officer, negotiated with the enemy during the Viet Nam War and that Senator Rockefeller traveled to Syria before the war in Iraq to tip off our enemies about our battle plans. Now we know that Senator Kennedy offered help to the Soviets.
This man is a disgrace to the U.S. Senate, the Democratic Party, the Kennedy family, and the human race.
|
The Kerry Insult
... delivered at Pasadena City College on Monday: You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.
The reality (for the Air Force as an example):— Essentially all officers have bachelors degrees (at least); 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees; 39.4 percent have master’s degrees; 8.5 percent have professional degrees; 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.
— Essentially all Airmen have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor’s degree; 0.7 percent have a master’s degree; .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.
In point of fact, the educational qualifications of our troops, in all the services, are in every way higher than those of their civilian counterparts. Our troops are the best educated, and the best trained, on the planet. And, of course — though Kerry forgets it — there is no draft in the United States, and everyone in the U.S. military is a volunteer. |
|
The troops respond to John Kerry: 
No, I don’t think Kerry deliberately insulted the U.S. military. That would be stupid. I think the mask slipped — just a little — and his natural disdain for the military and for military personnel showed through.
UPDATE: A newspaper columnist says “No word yet on the identity of the troops in the photo”, but PowerLine identifies the unit as the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division (MN National Guard). That unit has done itself proud!
UPDATE: Kerry has now “apologized” — sort of. But he’s not sorry for saying what he said. He merely regrets that his words were “misinterpreted”. (Those terrible right-wing nut-jobs, taking what he said at face value!) John Kerry may not have intended to insult all the U.S. troops, but he did. An apology would have been something more like “I’m sorry I insulted you. I really didn’t intend that the way it came out.” Of course, that assumes he really didn’t mean what he actually said. Meanwhile, Steven Den Beste invites us to consider how new technologies (through the troops’ picture above) have given us all a horse laugh at Kerry’s expense.
|
The Election Results
In the weeks leading up to the election, a prominent talk show host in Albuquerque repeatedly expressed his wish for the Republicans to lose control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He (and others) felt the Republicans needed to be punished. He, as a Republican, believed the Democrats — restored to power — would behave more responsibly than the Republicans have the last couple of years.
As a Democrat, I was unconvinced. I haven’t heard any program from my party except “We’re not Bush”. (I’ve heard a LOT of program pieces — different ones from different office holders and ALL mutually contradictory. Just think of the ideas on Iraq being pushed by Joe Lieberman and John Murtha. There really is no “Democratic Party position” on anything.) And I was very concerned over the left-wing extremism of many of those slated to be committee chairmen in a Democrat-controlled Congress.
As always, Albuquerque Journal political cartoonist John Trever is right on point.
So, what’s going to happen now? That’s a good question! The one thing I know for sure is that predictions of the future are always wrong, especially in their details. All I really have are questions. Will the Democratic Party’s Congressional leadership follow through on their more extremist statements last May (for example), or their more conciliatory statements since election day? Are they going to make repealing every single “Bush tax cut” a priority (Rangel, last May), or will they insure that no taxes rise from their current levels (Schumer, after election day)? Will they push for a rapid or immediate withdrawal from Iraq, or not? There are similar questions on many other issues.
Another big question is the impact of the Congress’ newest members. The Democratic Party leadership’s drive to “win at any cost” drove it to recruit candidates who mirror their communities. That produced more conservative candidates, quite a number of whom ran against their Republican opponents from the right. How will the very liberal leadership and these much more conservative freshmen interact, react to, and affect each other? Will the ascendancy of this group mark the start of a movement in the Democratic Party back from the left toward the center?
As I said, lots of questions. The answers will emerge in time.
I really hope that talk show host is right. If he’s not, we’re all in for a very bumpy ride. In the meantime, I'm going to keep a couple of things in mind: - America is not only much, much stronger than you imagine; it is stronger than you CAN imagine. —Bill Whittle
- Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities. —Winston Churchill
|
Rangel’s Draft
After years of falsely claiming the Bush administration intended to bring back the military draft, with the only actual attempt to do so being his own, Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY, soon to be Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee) said on Sunday’s Face the Nation that he will introduce a new bill to reinstitute the draft when the new Congress convenes. He also said “I don't see how anyone can support the [Iraq] war and not support the draft.”
This is absolutely the dumbest idea and statement I’ve heard in a very long time. Despite strong disagreements with his political viewpoint, I’d always credited Rangel with an IQ in the high double digits, or conceivably (though unlikely) higher. This incident says I’ve been wrong.
Except for one thing: Charlie Rangel is a liar and a fraud. Despite his statement quoted above, he is not proposing a new military draft because he supports the war against the terrorists. He is proposing it as a means of undermining the military. On that same Sunday program, he “said he hoped his military-draft bill would discourage lawmakers from voting to authorize future military conflicts.”
Clearly, Rangel would rather have let those responsible for the 9/11 attacks remain free to plan — and execute — further attacks.
|
Jaw-Droppers
I noticed a couple or three jaw-dropping items today. One is from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled (5-4) that you and I are polluters. (See also this New York Times article.) Since the Supreme Court has now ruled that — whether or not science agrees — carbon dioxide is politically a pollutant which EPA has the authority to regulate, I wonder how long before we all have to get a license to be allowed the privilege of breathing.
Then I saw the article on the "Aroma in Tacoma" talking about the Washington State city officially blaming the victim for being attacked. Tacoma is billing the U.S. Department of Defense for their $500,000 costs in providing a significant law enforcement presence necessitated by the violent "peace" demonstrations against the military. This seems to me logically equivalent to the Saudi Arabian "justice" system punishing a woman for being the victim of a gang rape. Tacoma clearly has no principles in this. They just figure they have a better chance of getting money from their fellow victims than from the unscrupulous (and probably totally unproductive) "peace" protestors violently attacking those who protect them.
The first two items in today's Best of the Web were not quite that bad. In one, the Democrats in the House Armed Services Committee have made the Global War on Terror into "the war that must not be named" by banning the use of that phrase (among others). Column author James Taranto notes that America seems dangerously close to a tipping point: a return to the 9/10 mindset that led to 9/11. It may be that President Bush's steadfastness is the only thing standing in the way, and that his departure from the scene in January 2009 will leave a more timid America.
Or, more optimistically, it may be that the current opposition to the "global war" is less about the war itself than about partisanship and Bush-hatred — and that its apparent gain in strength is really only a reflection of the president's political weakness late in his term. Taranto also notes (second item) an interesting flip-flop by the Left. The Left previously demanded that Islamist extremists captured on the battlefield and in terrorist attempts be given Prisoner of War status, even though they are explicitly excluded from such status by the terms of the Geneva Accords. Now, however, they think Prisoner of War status is too severe since it mandates imprisonment until the war's end. The Left thinks that's far too long and wants these terrorist barbarians released soon (or now) so they can murder more innocent victims. In effect, they are insisting these war criminals be given more rights than legitimate Prisoners of War.
All in all, just unbelievable!
|
A New Island
A new island has appeared off the coast of Greenland, and it's being touted as a proof and consequence of global warming. It had been thought to be the end of a peninsula, but it turned out to be an island when the ice over it melted.
Something tells me this isn't the first time this island has appeared. After all, the Vikings called the place Greenland for a reason, and it wasn't because it was all covered with ice.
That was during the Medieval Warm Period. Then the Little Ice Age came, and the Viking settlements simply disappeared.
Riehl World View notes:
So this island has most likely come and gone before, hundreds of years before man invented electricity or the internal combustion engine, but, well, this time it's different, it's proof positive that man is the cause of Global Warming? Somehow that just doesn't make sense.
Incidentally, I remember that Al Gore and his global warming activists are saying the global warming ice melt will cause the sea level to rise twenty feet or more. But I also recall that Venice was thriving — and not flooded — during that Medieval Warm Period.
|
Non Sequiturs
Sometimes I read statements that simply make no sense at all. That's happened several times in the last couple of days. The outstanding ones, just from James Taranto's Best of the Web, are these:
In yesterday's entry of the continuing "Zero-Tolerance Watch" series, a student was told he was not being suspended while he was being suspended. Two days later, he said, Vice Principal Paul Deal told him that he was not being suspended or expelled, but that he might be a threat to the school or himself. J.K. [the student] said he was told to leave and not return until being cleared by a mental-health professional.
Today, there's an item titled "Violently Opposed to Violence". It seems there was a peace demonstration in the Palenstinian territories, but the demonstrators don't seem peaceful — some carry rifles, and others RPGs. As Taranto says: We've often noted that many so-called pacifists seem to have a taste for tumult, but only in Palestinistan would a peace protester carry an RPG launcher. Or should we say only in Reuterville?
The lead item today is about the statements by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He says the war is lost, but we can still win it ... or something like that. "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," Reid said at a press conference. He "knows" what Condi Rice, Robert Gates, and General Petraeus — and maybe President Bush — believe, which happens to be at odds with everything any of them has ever said. One thing he didn't explain is, if we have lost the war, who won? (At least Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee has balls enough to say we should claim victory and leave.) Other Democrats wouldn't say they agreed with Reid's statement, but said the war cannot be won militarily. That is, they don't agree with him but they agree with him.
It's not a non sequitur, but a particularly egregious statement cited in the Politico article was from Sen. Tom Harkin. When asked what our troops are doing in Iraq, he said "I don't know what they're engaged in, what they are trying to do. Our military is being abused, abused by this administration. Abused." In an actual non sequitur, he also said his 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq should not have been construed as a green light to invade Iraq.
Meanwhile, in the same column (second item), says Vice President Dick Cheney "took the unusual step of seeking out reporters." He was up on Capitol Hill — you'd think the reporters would be seeking him out. Guess they didn't want to hear what Cheney had to say.
What is perhaps my favorite continuing Leftist non sequitur, though, shows up in today's column in its fourth item, "Stand Up and Be Labeled a Terrorist." The extremists like to pretend their (they claim all of our) rights are being infringed, and they can't express their opinions. That's right, they are without any fear expressing their opinions that they are not allowed to express their opinions. Taranto's comment is right on point: What's odd about this is that the plaintiffs apparently have no fear of announcing in open court that they fear designation as terrorists. If they really feared it, you'd think they'd be lying low. This is similar to the plaintiffs in the wiretapping case last year, who made declarations to the effect that they had various ties to terrorists, and who claimed in the case that their civil liberties were under siege. If civil liberties were really under siege, people wouldn't be openly confessing their ties to enemies of the country. The only question left is whether these people are completely detached from reality, or are simply clueless.
|
“Fascist!”
In his Impromptus column on Tuesday, Jay Nordlinger notes that “All of us who are conservative, or classically liberal, have had to be called fascist.” He also notes, correctly, that “Fascist” is an epithet used by mean or stupid people against those they dislike who are perceived to be “on the right.” One result is that, when a real fascist comes along, there is no word left for him. The people calling others fascists or nazis almost never have any conception of the real meaning of the words. Followers of Jefferson, Lincoln, Churchill, Roosevelt, JFK, and Reagan are not nazis and fascists.
Perhaps we can help these poor ignorant people. We can follow the example of one of Nordlinger’s friends — instead of using the terms ‘nazi’ or ‘fascist’, we can use the more specific correct term ‘national socialist’. And that may help them understand that these were parties of the left, not the right.
Category: Left & Right
|
Culture of Corruption
From Powerline:
House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, who has falsely denied the existence of earmarks, now has decreed that earmarks in his bills will not be revealed until a measure passes both the House and the Senate. [emphasis added] So Obey has already lied to us all, and now he wants to hide his dishonesty and malfeasance — at least until no one can do anything about it.Seems to me the current Congressional (Democrat) leadership has a lot of brass trying to call the Republicans corrupt.
|
Three Quotations
"Captain" Ed Morrissey comments on reactions to the study showing how lopsided newsrooms are in their viewpoints: From campus speech codes to the BCRA [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold] to forcing journalists into political darkness, it seems that America has fallen in love with top-down solutions to hide political differences. Wouldn't sunlight be easier, more effective, and far less costly?
And here's something from an editorial on the National Review Online on the Supreme Court's decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case: The Washington Post, a longtime cheerleader for campaign-finance regulation, conceded that the specific advertisements involved in the case were “anodyne” but argued that it was nonetheless better to ban them than to take the risk that sham issue ads would also run: “Yesterday’s ruling reopens a dangerous loophole.”That dangerous loophole is otherwise known as the First Amendment. If that amendment means anything, it has to mean that government should err on the side of tolerating more speech rather than less. If the power of judicial review means anything, it has to mean that the federal judiciary will not enforce laws that violate that principle. If the pursuit of campaign-finance “reform” ineluctably leads its advocates to regard free speech as a loophole, maybe they should reconsider whether it is such a good idea.
On a little different subject, but still on the subject of Americans' rights, James Taranto of the Opinion Journal web site writes on “The Truth About Guantanamo” — as opposed to what the primary networks and newspapers have been telling us. He notes that the Associated Press (and others) want the terrorists held there to simply be released. But the courts have consistently ruled that Prisoners of War can be held for the duration of their conflicts, and that these prisoners don't qualify for the rights of POWs. He questions why the AP (and others) want to give terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants more rights than legitimate soldiers. Taranto's conclusion: By keeping terrorists out of America, Guantanamo protects Americans' physical safety. By keeping them out of our justice system, it also protects our freedom.
|
The 2007 Immigration Bill
I have thought, multiple times over a period of months, to write about the immigration issue and this year's immigration bill. But the problem with that, especially with any thought of writing about the immigration bill, is that it's not clear what's actually in the bill. A lot of folks have had a lot to say about what's in the immigration bill currently being considered in the Senate. And a lot of what's being said conflicts — not just in interpretation or implications of provisions, but in the basic facts of what the bill provides. Time and again, one senator would make a claim and another would make an absolutely contradictory claim. One would say the bill would allow imprisoned felons to get Z visas and citizenship, for example, while another would say those individuals were absolutely precluded from Z visas and from any consideration for U.S. citizenship. Obviously, I thought, at least one of them was lying. But now I'm not so sure, as the bill has apparently been being extensively modified and rewritten, even today — even tonight. Under such conditions, no senator can know just what is (and isn't) in the bill this afternoon, or this evening, or what was in it this morning. The same is true of the bill's amendments. So the senators are making different assumptions, relying on what they've been told by people they trust. The senators may not be lying, but they may well have been lied to.
That being the case, I cannot either support or oppose this bill based on what's in it. But I have decided I must oppose it.
The reason I've come down on the side against this bill is procedural. This bill has been brought up, and is being pushed through the Senate, in a unique manner. It has not been handled like any normal bill. There have been no committee hearings, no committee debate, and no committee amendments. Normally, this substantial and comprehensive a bill would be considered by multiple subcommittees and committees; this bill has been considered by none. Normally, a bill comes to the Senate floor in relatively final form; this bill is barely through its first draft, and the few amendments being allowed haven't yet been completed — even though they are being voted on. Harry Reid, the majority leader, is making senators vote on amendments and a final bill they haven't (and could not have) seen or read. That violates every normal principle and procedure of "the world's greatest deliberative body." The key question is why, and I don't see any possible answer that's good for this country or its people.
|
Libby Commutation
President George Bush on Monday commuted the sentence imposed by a federal judge on I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, removing the imprisonment but leaving the conviction intact with its fine and probation. The Left's response has been to attack Bush for the commutation, claiming it's an interference in the judicial process — ignoring the fact that executive clemency has always been an integral part of the process. Meanwhile, the Right has been angry that Bush didn't pardon Libby outright.
One thing every commentator I have seen has missed, however, is this: If Bush had pardoned Libby, the appeals process would have been aborted. By commuting the sentence, but leaving the conviction intact, Bush has enabled the appeal to go forward. Clearly he expects the conviction to be overturned by the appellate courts — perhaps in part because of several of the judge's rulings, but mostly because of the actions of a rogue prosecutor who knew at the beginning of his investigation (1) who the leaker was (Richard Armitage) and (2) that (probably) no crime had been committed; he ignored the actual leaker — the supposed object of his investigation — but continued anyway until he could find somebody he could convict of something. That's a result that may, as Bush and his advisors seem to feel, merit keeping the appeal alive.
|
|
