Nifon Disbarred

After resigning Friday, Durham County DA Mike Nifong was disbarred yesterday. While on some level he is an utterly pitiable sight - unemployed, unable to work in his field now, etc. - but in my eyes he deserves it. He set out to wreck the lives of three entirely innocent Duke students, for nothing more than pure political gain. He deserves every bit of this, including the public shame.

Karma

Looters raid Arafat's home, steal his Nobel Peace Prize.

h/t Instanpundit

Nifong Resigns

The odious bastard (ahem - prosecutor) at the center of the Duke Lacrosse case "tearfully resigned" from the stand today, claiming he wasn't a liar. Right and pigs fly Mr. Nifong. Just so glad to have this over with - now can we begin firing the Group of 88? Or at least putting them on trial for slander?

News & Observer

Chavez Pushing the Envelope

Apparently Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, in addition to previous arms buys, is attempting to procure nine submarines from Russia. That would make the socialist regime in Caracas one of only three nations in the Caribbean basin with such ships, with the US clearly having predominance. It's also typical caudillo/socialist nonsense: no conventional weapon employed by the Venezuelans is a serious threat to US forces (tends to happen when ideological purity is the foremost criterion for advancement) but just possessing them makes them more macho.

I wonder if in retrospect Bush will be chastised for failing to put a stop to the reinfection of South America with socialism. Democracy has a less than sterling success record in the region, making me wonder if the old policies (he may be an SOB but at least he's our SOB) still aren't better suited. It also defies reason why we're not making a bigger scene over the stream of arms from Russia and China to Venezuela (somehow I think Monroe must be spinning in his grave for this violation of his doctrine).

Another Spurs Championship A Foregone Conclusion?

So I think San Antonio's 75-72 defeat on the Cavaliers pretty much seals the series; no team's ever come back from a 3-0 Finals deficit and given the way the Spurs are playing, the Cavaliers seem unlikely candidates to make history. Given that, I don't think it's premature to write a postmortem.

First off, the Cavaliers are only as good as the King. And LeBron can be damn good. His performance in game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals - the last 25 points for the Cavs, all 18 in overtime, 48 on the night - was nothing short of spectacular. The Pistons couldn't seem to stop him and when they finally got around to it in game 6, Booby Gibson burned them from outside the arc. But when LeBron doesn't deliver - see basically all three games to date in the Finals and credit the Spurs' Bruce Bowen for that - the Cavs are pretty mediocre.

The Spurs are good. Period. Feel free to hate Tony Parker with a passion, not only because he's marrying Eva Longoria (green-eyed monster + hatred) but because at what? 6 feet? he's ridiculous. Oh and because he's French.

The Bulls showed their stuff in that four-game sweep of the Heat. Add an inside scorer (Joakim Noah was working out for the team last week) and suddenly I think they're top 4 in the conference with Cleveland, Detroit and Miami (not in that order). It's also been suggested that Ben Gordon's a goner in the off-season - fine by me. Sure he delivered once or twice in the post-season and was pretty good in the regular season, but there seems to be few good arguments for keeping him. Luol Deng, by the way, is a baller (if you've never seen his single-handed demolition of UNC from one of the2003 Duke-UNC games, it's worth digging up and watching).

Obviously the most surprising storyline was the Warriors' defeat of the top-seeded Mavericks. However the greatest missed opportunity was a Warriors-Suns series, or as a friend characterized it "First to 200 points wins."

Game 4 is tomorrow night.

Go to Hell Carolina Go to Hell!

It's not basketball that's got me saying that right now, instead it's politics: former Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith endorsed Johnny-boy Edwards over the weekend. I think Dean's always been something of a liberal - he was something of a leader in the desegregation of NCAA D1 basketball - but this is just galling.



(Okay so it's not Duke-UNC but it's still the Crazies in fine form

The Map

Everyone's been posting it; despite that I thought it was worth putting up myself. Each state's individual GDP is compared to a country of roughly the same GDP. So Illinois's GDP is much the same as Mexico's. Alaska as Belarus? I don't know which side of that surprises me more - the oil-rich empty vastness or the authoritarian Baltic state.



















(Credit to Pajamas Media)

Fred and Rudy

In what's got to be the most over-reported news of the day, not-yet-declared candidate Fred Thompson is quickly catching up with (or even surpassing) Rudy Giuliani in some recent polls. It's not entirely surprising that the Fred Express is doing so well: he's well-liked by members of the conservative establishment (Mary Cheney, famously the target of John Edwards' assualt during the 2004 VP debate, just signed on to his campaign) and following their cues, the masses seem to have taken to him as well.

On to the news: a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll has Giuliani leading Fred 27%-21% (and Giuliani beating HRC by 10%). The poll doesn't test any Democrats against Fred, however, thus failing to illuminate the crucial "electability" dynamic.

However, a new Rasmussen poll found the two tied at 24% apiece, whereas Rudy was leading 23%-17% just a week ago. I don't think Rudy's peaked too soon, I just think the electorate (especially the conservatives who as of yet have not found anyone sufficiently conservative for their tastes yet electable) is excited by the buzz and his potential. Whether or not he can live up to the hype in a major way remains to be seen. He's got the star power - and although it's just Law & Order, at least it's not Bedtime for Bonzo! - and he's been making the right noises on the issues, but I'm still skeptical if this is any more than a temporary phenomenon.

The other thing that the Times/Bloomberg poll mentions is that Romney, who has been doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire (though they don't cite their own numbers to that extent) gets decimated by Clinton or Obama in the general. I have to believe it's his Mormonism: to "mainstream" Christians, it's a little too cultish and to secularists (to whom all of Christianity is just a little cultish), it's just down right freaky.

Anyone else notice the "values" buzz lately? I've been collecting some articles on it and pondering - maybe something tomorrow?

More Michael Yon From Iraq

Michael Yon, itinerant independent journalist and blogger, has given the world another unbiased look at things in Iraq; this is the sort of stuff that never makes it in the media. Yon's currently with the Queen's Royal Lancers in southern Iraq, where our allies are watching the border. Both pictures and coverage are great, be sure to spend some time reading it (as well as looking at some of his old pieces). I won't deign to comment extensively on it, because Blackfive has done it well.

On Top Of My Reading List

Coming out tomorrow: Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10. From Amazon:

On a clear night in late June 2005, four U.S. Navy SEALs left their base in northern Afghanistan for the mountainous Pakistani border. Their mission was to capture or kill a notorious al Qaeda leader known to be ensconced in a Taliban stronghold surrounded by a small but heavily armed force. Less then twenty-four hours later, only one of those Navy SEALs remained alive.

This is a story that I think barely made it into the media but finally it's being told. Powerline has a link to the first chapter online somewhere. Far more is available from the fine fellows over at Blackfive; especially noteworthy are two entries whose links I'll put directly here. Both are from Froggy Ruminations, home of two SEALS-turned-bloggers. One is one of their thoughts on the funeral of those that died that day, the other is their account of things as heard through the SEAL grapevine.


From what I can tell, this SEAL's story is truly incredible; I believe he's now back at it in Iraq. I don't know where we get these guys but the entire country owes them a debt of gratitude we cannot hope to repay.

The Forgotten Man

Some might remember Amity Shlaes; she used to write a column for the Financial Times. Now she's the author of the just-released The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Conservative economic historians don't often write histories of the era (or write much history in general), and if the book is anything like Shlaes' eminently readable columns, it'll be a treat. Check out reviews from Powerline and Opinion Journal if you're curious.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall

20 years ago today...

CAIR Membership Takes a Nosedive Pt. 2

The full Washington Times article on CAIR's declining membership is here; last night was obviously on a preview. Enjoy!

SecDef Levin?

It's something of a nightmare. Today's Opinion Journal spoofs the current state of affairs on the Hill with its 535 wannabe generals as well as Gates' refusal to go to bat for outgoing JCS Chair Peter Pace (though the White House inexplicably continues to support Gonzales!). They rightly question whether Gates is trying to be the "anti-Rumsfeld by appeasing the likes of Mr. Levin, but his kowtow only makes Mr. Bush look weaker as a Commander in Chief who can't even select his own war generals. Mr. Levin was quick to brag about his latest conquest, confirming for reporters that he had told Mr. Gates that General Pace's nomination would have resulted in a fight."

A fight? I'm not sure if Gates is keeping count but I say bring it on! Democrats would have to be sure to have all of their ducks in a row on this one (meaning ensuring Biden, Dodd, Clinton, and Obama are present); delay would leave them option to charges of hamstringing the war effort. Of course with us at 48 (49 as soon as Thomas [RIP] has a successor appointed) and likely Lieberman; though Johnson's healthy again (glad to hear it), he's not likely to return immediately. Thus that makes at worst (assuming McCain deigns to show up) a 50-49 Democratic victory along party lines (with Lieberman voting right) and likely a victory with several swings from the Dems (or the absence of any presidential nominee).

Obviously Gates' real desire was to avoid the inevitable accompanying hearings but this White House (and apparently this SecDef as well) remain terrified of going on the offense. Pace is a veteran of Hue; nothing Levin or the rest of the defeatists/revisionists on Armed Services could throw at him would rattle him. Though obviously he could never convince those close-minded hacks that this war is not only winnable but just. I say go for it - at the very least showing some spine will remind the Democrats there still is an executive branch and they don't have all the say on the war (though even if they did the media would still call this "Bush's war").

Several years ago in Washington I had the honor of meeting then-Vice-Chair Pace; he was an impressive man and an impressive speaker. He served his country courageously and well, putting his life on the line, for decades only to be discarded by an administration too craven to defend him as he defended his country. I'm honestly ashamed of my president and party. And it goes without saying that I'm disgusted with Levin and the rest of his party's grandstanding, abusing the freedom that so many brave soldiers, sailors and airmen (as well as Marines) have died to preserve over the centuries.

"Hate Crimes" Meets Theater of the Absurd

Though I don't think I've blogged on it, I consider the concept of "hate crimes" odious and almost Orwellian, punishing as it does not so much the action but the thought underlying it (this article from yesterday's ChiTrib also highlights the difficulties in charging blacks with hate crimes against whites - perhaps because there is no white Al Sharpton?)

Now it's once again gone from odious to absurd: a suit on appeal (unsurprisingly, from the crazy 9th Circuit) to the Supreme Court holds that "the words 'natural family,' 'marriage' and 'union of a man and a woman' can be punished as 'hate speech' in government workplaces."

Apparently this whole mess began when a gay/lesbian group of city employees in Oakland sent out an invitation to participate in "National Coming-Out Day;" when asked whether distributing such tripe was legitimate, the city manager responded (in his best ultra-PCese) that "'celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement' was part of the city's role to 'celebrate diversity.'" Since when do cities have to celebrate diversity?

A group of traditionally-valued employees which had formed in response and reached out via posted fliers to "people of faith" who opposed attempts to redefine marriage was then accused by a lesbian employee of making her feel "targeted" and "excluded." At this point, the courts issued a "ruling said the words 'natural family' and 'marriage' had 'anti-homosexual import.'" The two women accused of "targeting" and "excluding" this dyke (pardon - is that not PC?) complained that their first amendment rights were being compromised. Which is technically true, unless you may in any unintentional or imagined way insult minorities, gays, or women (white men, Southerners, and military personnel not included).

It's now up to the Supreme Court to decided whether - as the 9th Circuit ruled - an employer's administrative interests (in this case diversity) trumps the employees' free speech. I certainly don't consider that a compelling government interest (which must be shown to limit speech), and I doubt Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito will either. The Court already found "hate speech" constitutional in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) and though I'm not sure that's really the issue under consideration here, I hope that the Court takes this opportunity to overrule that precedent as well as throw out this latest bit of 9th Circuit BS. On the flip side of the "diversity" coin, I believe they previously found diversity to be a compelling interest in one of the affirmative action cases (Bakkae?) and thus have a certain degree of precedent (one that Ginsberg will no doubt cite in her dissent).

PC nonsense combined with judicial absurdity, topped with an infringement of our free speech: the Left finds a new way to repel me every day.

One final depressing side note: the then-city manager is now the DC School Board president, no doubt injecting such garbage into the District's curriculum, rather than working on things like, say, fixing the broken schools.

More Anxiety in Eastern Europe

Yesterday I discussed Bush's ecstatic reception in Albania as well as the historical circumstances partially underlying it. Now we're seeing more rumblings from the Balkans.

On the one hand, Bulgaria has asked to be covered by the proposed US missile shield. As a Soviet satellite, the government in Sofia is all too familiar with the Kremlin meddling in their neighborhood. Ironically, Bulgaria was created from Russian spoils of war in 1877 when Tsarist armies attempted to dismember the feeble Ottoman Empire. The Russians then came close to entering Constantinople itself, which would have produced a war with Austria and Britain as well; the former because it considered the Balkans its backyard, the latter because they feared Russian control of the Dardanelles and a warm-water port would threaten their lifeline to India via Suez (for much the same reason, Russia and Britain played the "Great Game" in Afghanistan).

Speaking of artificial state constructs (which Afghanistan most certainly is), Serbia reacted indignantly to Bush's support for an independent Kosovo; this is the same response that the international community has heard from Putin. The present warmth between the two states (at a time when few can tolerate Putin) is an extension of a rather long-standing friendship. Prior to the overthrow of the tsars, Russian often pursued a pan-Slavic policy, attempting to bring all Slavic peoples (including Serbs) under the double-headed Romanov eagle. Although that ethnic motive partially disappeared with the rise of the USSR (which thought far more globally than merely the Balkans), a large swath of the region - formerly under Austro-Hungarian rule - was reconstituted into Yugoslavia ("The Land of the South Slavs"). See where this is all going? The two feel a certain kinship. In contrast, Kosovo, which the Serbs claim as their own, is populated primarily by ethnic Albanians, thought to be descended from ancient Illyrians (which also contributes to Bush's reception).

What's unfortunate about all of this is that the Balkan Peninsula is a region the rest of the world ignores at their own risk, so often has it been a flashpoint for international events. But it's rarely on the media's radar screen, and only is at present because of the President's visit (the additional fact that some states, such as Bulgaria, are enthusiastic allies makes covering them especially unappealing to the MSM). Despite this, developments there are worthy of study: the region seems to finally be moving past its bitter sectarianism but simultaneously it remains ripe for Putin's meddling, especially if it is ignored by Western public opinion.

More Thoughts on France

A few pieces came to my attention today that I thought were worth highlighting in the wake of yesterday's French elections and the challenges that Sarkozy's government will face in coming months. First off, Socialist Segolene Royal, maneuvering to avoid total disaster at the polls, has proposed an alliance with Francois Bayrou's centrist Democratic Movement (MoDem). Many seem doubtful whether such a move will stave off electoral catastrophe or merely stanch the bleeding.

Despite Royal's outreach, I think that we may be seeing the death throes of France's Socialist Party (PS). While the Left in other European countries has moved away from pure socialism towards social democracy, the PS has remained firmly wedded to full-fledged socialism. Bayrou's relatively centrist MoDem was partially offering an alternative to the old left/right divide but he failed to make it into the second round. Should the PS suffer a crushing blow in the upcoming election, and should Sarkozy succeed in implementing his reforms, the party may be too devastated to offer any serious opposition, ceding its role as a major party to MoDem or another. This isn't to say it would disappear altogether but rather be reduced to the ranks of the minor parties of the left, which includes not only your garden-variety communists and greens but also parties devoted to "workers' struggle" party and at least one Trotskyist party (not kidding).

The second item of note was that French Sikhs have gone to the European Court of Human Rights, seeking permission to wear their turbans in school as well as in official identification photos. As to the former complaint this is a consequence (unintended or not) of the controversial law passed a few years ago banning students from wearing overt religious identifiers (aimed primarily at Muslim girls' headscarves) in schools. The law is rooted primarily in the traditional French zealousness for a certain national unity without regard for race or religious creed, a notion which has been severely abused in recent years.

The law came under fire from multiple directions when it was passed. Some accused it of being an assault on Islam (apparently Europe too has its grievance theater types). One of the more interesting criticism I remember at the time was the Economist's libertarian reaction. Of course young Muslim girls donning the head scarf may not actually be their choice?

CAIR Membership Takes a Nosedive

According to the Washington Times, CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization which claims to speak for all of America's Muslims while actively peddling grievance theater designed to show everything (including reports of suspicious activity) as bigoted anti-Muslim behavior - has seen a 90% drop in its membership over the last six years. As the author rightly pointed out, the organization's recent appearance in the news as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terror case likely won't bring the masses back. What I most found intriguing (and I hope the Times will more fully flesh this out tomorrow) are the individual donors who have been providing most of the organization's budget; more to the point, how many of them are members of the Saudi royal family?

Journalism AC (After-Couric)

Apparently Fox - whose news is sufficiently sensationalized (has Greta van Susteren ever discussed anything but Paris Hilton or murdered/missing white girls?) and whose reality TV shows are even worse - has come up with a harebrained new concept: letting a model do the news. The show, called Anchorwoman (no doubt an homage to Will Ferrell's misogynistic Anchorman), will feature a swimsuit model/WWE actress with no prior journalistic experience doing the local news in Tyler, Texas. Obviously the locals aren't happy. But if Katie Couric, who has experience but no gravitas, can do CBS Evening News whats to keep a bimbo with no experience and no gravitas from doing the local news?

What's priceless is journalists getting steamed over this apparently devaluing their profession. Please. Two words (one?): Rather-gate. Another two (definitely two this time): Paris Hilton. If we're going to make up news or cover bimbos all day long, a reality TV show with a bimbo doing the news isn't anything new. So long as she can read off a teleprompter she's fine.

Ron Paul the Money Man?

Ron Paul, the crazy Texan who entered politics because Nixon took us off the gold standard, is making waves with rumors that his campaign may have raised some $5 million. That would put him where McCain was last quarter and at about half of Giuliani and Romney's then totals. Now my question is who in God's name is crazy enough to donate to this guy? Obviously the same loons who overran LGF's post-debate polls but it doesn't explain who they are! Coming on top of Rasmussen's poll a few weeks ago which showed 35% of Democrats (and 22% of Americans overall) believe Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, I'm starting to doubt our national sanity.

Though I have nightmares about the infinitesimal chance that Paul becomes the nominee, I think a more like and realistic scenario is that he'll be rejected by the mainstream of the GOP; I have to believe that most of his supporters are cross-over independents and/or moonbat Democrats who can't vote in most GOP primaries, making his defeat more likely. However he'll refuse to accept defeat and pull a Lieberman, running independently and on a platform that would make Ross "Giant Suckin' Sound" Perot sound positively sane. What the hell is wrong with this world?

I'm Not Dead Yet!

Despite everyone's fervent wishes to the contrary (except perhaps for the President and Senator Kennedy), it would appear that the immigration monster is still stirring. Kaus (h/t Instapundit) outlines W's strategy to resuscitate his monster; AFP has Bush saying he'll take a more hands-on/personal role in working with the Senate to pass it. Let me get this straight: a President with a job-approval rating in the low 30s goes to the Hill to harangue a Congress with a job-approval rating equally as low or lower - and we expect this to work? I just wish Congress would do everyone a favor, declare this dead and move quickly to pass a toothy border security bill. With that done, Republicans might be more willing to talk, though I still think there are too many in both parties who are at least somewhat opposed to any guest worker program (i.e. most of those who voted for Dorgan's amendment last week).

And now for something completely different...

Death Penalty Deters?

Recent studies suggest just that! Obviously its opponents disagree, attacking the studies as "flimsy" and published in "second-tier journals" (perhaps top-tier journals wouldn't publish them because they violate liberal orthodoxy?). Still, the findings suggest each execution saves between three and fifteen lives. Read it all.

H-Bomb = Homo Bomb?

Apparently the Pentagon considered developing a "gay bomb," aimed at turning affected individuals gay. Some gay activists latched on and made a hullaballoo, and Jules Crittenden has some fun, analyzing the weapon using "the most progressive, libertarian, gender-orientation accepting, peace-loving standards possible." One offended liberal blamed the Bush administration for the weapon, developed, by the way, in 1994 what's next? Blaming W for don't ask don't tell? The stupidity of such individuals would almost be cute if they couldn't vote...as always, I find WSC's greatest argument against democracy ("a five minute conversation with the average voter") validated.

France Truly Ready for Reform?

Sure they elected conservative, reform-minded, America-loving, tough-on-crime Nicolas Sarkozy president, but it was unclear how serious the French commitment to change was. That commitment was made apparent today with the nation's parliamentary elections. According to the AP, Sarko's UMP (originally, "(Union pour la majorité présidentielle" now "Union pour un Mouvement Populaire") took 46% of the vote; in contrast the Socialists, party of presidential runner-up Segolene Royal, took roughly 36%. Of course, given the absurd complexities of the French electoral system, this is only the first round of parliamentary balloting. But it bodes well for the composition of the new Assemblée nationale, potentially with the UMP having an absolute majority. Obviously that'll help Sarko's reform program.

Some right-minded analysis is especially interesting (I plead ignorance: I was unaware that Pajamas Media had a correspondent in France); particularly that the "depressed" (61%!) turnout may signal bitter Socialists stayed home.

So what's Sarko going to do with this majority? Ideally, he'll implement major economic reforms - throw out the infamous 35-hour work-week, the generous welfare benefits, the difficulties in terminating employees - and address the violence in the banlieus, perpetrated primarily by disaffected Muslim youth (the surge of car-burnings that breached the US media's veil of silence was hardly exceptional). Whether or not he'll succeed remains to be seen, but this is definitely a move in the right direction.

NYT Newsflash!

There's a war on! Tigerhawk dissects a bit from the Times (all the news that fits) in which they seem to have stumbled over jihadi ideology - someone let their blinders slip - but desperately try and play dumb, digging up some ivory tower-dwelling navel gazing type to liken jihad-related deaths and civilian deaths in Iraq. Or something. His style's far better than mine. Read away. The original Times piece, discussing (I kid you not) "jihadi etiquette" can be found here - it might as well be from the Onion.

(h/t: LGF - here's to hoping they're back up soon)

George Will Abuses Democrats

Today's WaPo has George Will viciously abusing Democrats on their collective economic policy (bad pun); Democratic candidates are rehashing the same old tripe they've been bemoaning for decades, hoping Americans are sufficiently fed up with the GOP to allow them to raise taxes. In addition to abusing their policy notions and setting the record straight on the economic health of the current administration (you wouldn't know the economy's been healthy and growing if you only listened to Democrats and the media), he rightly questions the underlying philosophy (all too infrequently critiqued):

When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been "spread evenly"? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of "fairness" does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them?

Ouch. Fairness, when defined by the modern left is nefarious as well as a governmental concern. As the Gipper said, "the nine scariest words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help!'"

It's ironic: at a time when parts of the Continent may finally be moving away from their long-cherished and viciously destructive tax-strangled welfare states, Democrats want to implement exactly the sorts of policies that have rendered Old Europe's economies so sclerotic. Hillary as the anti-Thatcher?

I Love The New Criterion

Just throwing that out there. This particular outburst of emotion/warm fuzzies is in response to Roger Kimball's demolition of a new and allegedly "edgy" art exhibit at Bard College, an exhibit, as Kimball so wonderfully puts it, comprised of

"huge images of body parts—yes, those body parts—floating on the walls of a darkened room, minatory videos of men doing things—yes, those things—to each other, or to themselves, all of it presented in the most pretentious fashion possible.

Duke's gorgeous new Nasher Museum hosted a mind-numbingly awful exhibit that might have been called "Tree Hugger's Delight" - but it couldn't hold a candle to this rubbish. Art? Excuse me? But as bad as it is, Kimball borders on the dismissive - the critically dismissive:

the thing to appreciate about “Wrestle,” about the Hessel Museum and the collection of Marieluise Hessel, and about the visual arts at Bard generally is not how innovative, challenging, or unusual they are, but how pedestrian and, sad to say, conventional they are. True, there is a lot of ickiness on view at the Hessel Museum. But it is entirely predictable ickiness. It’s outrage by-the-yard, avant-garde in bulk, smugness for the masses. And this brings me to what I believe is the real significance of institutions like the art museum at Bard, the Hessel collection that fills it, and the surrounding atmosphere of pseudo-avant-garde self-satisfaction. The “arts” at Bard are notable not because they are unusual but because they are so grindingly ordinary...Far from “challenging” or “subverting” the status quo, the 1,700 objects she [Hessel] has accumulated are the status quo. And far from “struggling” with questions about gender or feminism or anything else, she has simply issued a rubber stamp endorsing the dominant clichés of today’s academic art world. “Academic,” in fact, is the mot juste: not in the sense of “scholarly,” but rather in the sense that we speak of “academic art,” stale, conventional, aesthetically nugatory. A wall full of photographs of two girls does nothing to “interrogate” (a favorite term of art- and lit-crit-speak) identity any more than a mutilated doll forces us to reconsider our usual notions of whatever-it-is those odious objects are supposed to make us reconsider. Really, the only thing exhibitions like “Wrestle,” or institutions like the Hessel Museum, challenge is the viewer’s patience.

Ouch. Just to reiterate: I love TNC.

PS - read the whole article and savor his historical perspective as he destroys modern art.

At Least One Muslim Country Loves America

Bush is currently visiting Albania - the first US president to do so - and has received an enthusiastic welcome. Many in the media, if they could find Albania on a map might be surprised not only because it's a foreign country (they all hate us, right?) but also because it's 70% Muslim. Of course until 1985, Albania was ruled by paranoid, xenophobic Enver Hoxha, a man who might give Kim Jong Il a run for his money if there was a "Least Cuddly World Leader" competition.

I think the warmth of Bush's reception is based on three interrelated factors. First off, Albania's traumatic experience with the "wonders" of Communism are so fresh - and the country still so desperately poor - that unlike elsewhere there is no knee-jerk lefty response; closely-linked is the fact that America is still seen as a force for good in the region. On a personal level, as the article noted, US programs (probably through USAID) are lending to Albanians - microfinance is one of the developing world's greatest weapons against poverty. On a regional level, the US remains a bulwark against Russian meddling, as with Putin's opposition to an independent Kosovo.

The Balkans have always been a playground for Russian imperialist/expansionist efforts. Prior to World War I, this was because Tsarist Russia feared the Ottoman Empire and later because (oftentimes wrapped in the veil of pan-Slav ideology) the declining Ottomans, the "sick man of Europe," was for Russian expansion. Russian and Austria sparred in the region (though not as far west as Albania) too before the Great War, again jockeying for control of former Ottoman possessions. After the Second World War, much of the region fell under communist (though not always Soviet) rule. Thus in a lingering Cold War sense, America is the regional Good Guy; the autocratic resurgence of Putin's Russia isn't likely to change that perception in the immediate future. (In fact, I'm wondering if such attitudes aren't prevalent in many parts of the former USSR).

Heh - two follow-ups

First another Ramirez gem:




Secondly, this quote from some Progressive Loon/Edwards-Lover over at Kos suggests how far from comprehension the Left really is:
"The best way to reduce terrorism

as was so eloquently stated here by another poster who I don't recall....

Stop being a dick to the rest of the world.

The "terrorists" don't hate us because we're free or rich or white or because we drive nice cars or have nice houses or any other bullshit right wing talking points.

They hate us because of what we do around the world.

If America stops being a dick to much of the third world, very few people would be willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in hopes of taking a few of us with them."

So far from the truth as to be comic if ignorance were not so dangerous.

Some Thoughts on John Edwards

It's not hard for me to be disappointed with the majority of the 18 Democrats and Republicans running for President right now. Democrats are hardly paying attention to some of their more thoughtful contenders (Joe Biden); Barack Obama's rhetorical gift is wasted, much as Churchill's would have been if it hadn't been paired with his clear-eyed understanding of the world and history, something Obama obviously lacks. On the right side of the aisle, I'm hard-pressed to be enthused about anyone - especially since many (the majority?) eschew science in favor of creationism - though for what it's worth that does align them with the majority of Americans.

But of everyone running, there is no one I despise as much as John Edwards. He's a smarmy shill, made rich off of frivolous lawsuits, boldly hypocritical and regularly espousing dangerous and/or stupid policies. No wonder the Left fawns all over him.

Let's begin with the hypocritical. For a man whose spent years harping on his ridiculous "Two Americas" theme, he's certainly done a fine job of exemplifying it. He is the anti-poverty crusader who famously paid $400 for a haircut and owns the largest house in Wake County, North Carolina. He is the anti-corporate activist who spent time working for a hedge fund; his excuse of "research" is as pathetic as they come. Why Leftists continue to willingly overlook all of these follies is confounding, until you look at his policies.

His platform kowtows to environmentalists and to the Democratic strawman of a struggling middle class, among other things. Though he's understandably vague, one cannot read his policies without suspecting that his economic program would be simple: raise taxes. But it's on our national struggle against Islamo-fascism that his rhetoric becomes truly dangerous.

Edwards recently dismissed the War on Terror as a mere "bumper sticker," showing that he is either naively unaware - or willfully ignorant - of the nature of our enemy. His recently released plan for fighting terrorism comprises six major planks:

• Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century
• Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods
• Hold regular meetings with top military leadership
• Create a "Marshall Corps" to stabilize weak and failing states
• Rebuild equipment
• Create a National Security Budget

The first of these is the usual Democratic argument that our troops are returning to Iraq with insufficient time home, and presumably that we're ill-equipped for our current mission. Never mind, of course, that our soldiers in World War II rarely got off the line at all, let alone a year home. And if our army is not the force we need for counter-insurgency and nation-building, much of the blame for that can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration. The nature of our War on Terror, which began far before 9/11, should have been clear to them; they failed, however, to respond accordingly.

His second is, if possible, even more extreme, ridiculously claiming that we cannot do anything that might "give terrorists, or even other nations, an excuse to abandon international law." Johnny Boy, any foe we face in this struggle doesn't give a damn for international law. And as for us, we should comply only so far as it corresponds to our national interest. He also promises to close Gitmo, restore habeas corpus, and ban terror, though he fails to say what will happen to current Gitmo detainees, that habeas isn't really dead, and that American personnel do not torture (unless of course you use the most absurd definitions of torture, as Democrats and the Left do so often); I suppose this means that in the "ticking bomb" scenario, we'll be left to sweet-talk any suspect into cooperating.

As to meeting with military officials: what nonsense. He claims that civil-military relations are strained and retired officers are speaking out as a result, thus necessitating this empty gesture. That the majority of officers remain aligned with the President's policies - with varying degrees of criticism - reduces this to mere rhetoric (not that the rest is anything else).

A "Marshall Corps"? Excuse me? We're effectively creating an Anti-Terror Peace Corps. I suppose we might be able to find 10,000 out of work idealistic ex-hippies to send to foreign countries, but it won't do any good. Such a suggestion suggests a basic misunderstanding of our struggle.

Equipment repair? Filler. Of course things are being used outside of their peacetime usage - this is a war. I have no problem stockpiling additional armored vehicles, helicopters, etc. However, such weapons seem at least partially antithetical to his warm, fuzzy approach to the issue - it's boots on the ground, face to face, not behind inches of steel armor, that will win people over.

A national security budget? Among other things, this means declassifying the Pentagon budget, which should be reason enough to discard it.

Is it clear I despise this man? Is it equally clear that he is utterly incapable of acknowledging the nature of our enemy, and that his plan is uniquely unsuited to face them? Thankfully, if the polls have even a kernel of truth, he has no chance of winning.

Stand by Impeached Men?

Hillary announced her Florida Campaign Co-Chairs today, Reps Debbie Wasserman Schultz and (drum roll) Alcee Hastings. Wait for it...wait for the media outrage...

Nothing.

No complaints from the media about the leading Democratic contender naming an impeached federal judge to be her Florida co-chair? No? Imagine the uproar if a Republican named, say, Mark Foley to be their Florida chair. Hastings has contended in the past that the impeachment was a political hatchet job - something akin to Dollar Bill Jefferson saying he's innocent - but even Democrats have said that the procedure was justified.

(oh and if the blogosphere gets on Hillary's case for this one, I predict we'll hear the Left whining about how vicious and abusive we all are...)

(h/t Taranto/Best of the Web)

Academic Inanity

KC Johnson (over at the peerless Durham-In-Wonderland) continues to blog about the aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse Travesty. Those unlucky enough to be under his microscope today? The "Group of 88," those academics (I use the term in the loosest possible sense of the word, and Johnson's research supports that) who decried the lacrosse case and the whole culture of the university on the tired lines of class/race/gender. Specifically, he highlights the kind of nonsense these people are teaching, often with an aim to brainwash their students. Just to cite a few gems:

Maurice Wallace (African-American Literature): 16 of 40 [It would seem that most Duke students do not respond to the pedagogical approach preferred by Wallace: “I have a responsibility to all of my students—every single one of them—to disabuse them of all of the national, racial, middle-class, gender and sexual myths they’ve been taught to comfort or flatter themselves and, of course, the people who, perhaps unknowingly, miseducated them.”

Kim Curtis (Ecological Crisis and Political Theory): 18 of 30 [The class explores the “ethical, political, economic, aesthetic, social, and technological approaches to contemporary ecological crisis,” though how Kim Curtis, of all people, can teach others about “ethics” is not clear.]

Wahneema Lubiano (Social Facts and Narrative: “Story telling as it establishes, relies on, and transforms socially recognized categories of [naturally] gender, class, race, sexual orientation, and region): 13 of 18

BS doesn't begin to do all of this justice. In laying all of this out, Johnson devastates the fallacious argument that the Group of 88 are popular; 'scuse me? Popular and under half-full? Mind you I've taken some incredible courses that were under-enrolled, but most of the truly great classes I've had at Duke have been over-enrolled! He also rightly points out that the reason for some of these somewhat respectable enrollment numbers may not be "quality of instruction;" when all you have to do is parrot your professor's neomarxist gobdleygook to get an A, many students will be there for the wrong reason (it's also reasonable to assume that these students don't entirely buy into the nonsense their professors peddle).

Check out the full post here.

Morning Amusement

Tunagate, Dollar Bill Jefferson, her own son being hired by shady, Clinton-connected InfoUSA, a failure to pass any sort of ethics reform. Thanks to Ramirez for pointing out the obvious...




















PS - how dumb does Jefferson have to be plead not guilty. How much more guilty can you get? A NoLa-born friend of mine and I have a running debate over whether pols from the Crescent City or Chicago are more corrupt; I finally have to concede defeat.

Updates

So I've spent some time tonight watching old Bond movies and working on the blog. The only new features of any note are: you can now subscribe via email! if you're using a feed reader (including the simple Google Reader) - click "Subscribe in a Reader" on the bottom to simply add it to your reader and get updated every time I post; hopefully that will be more frequently. So basically, that's the two of note. I've also been tagging or retagging posts so my Technorati cloud (if it ever gets working) can more accurately provide a sense of my musings.

Book Review: South Park Conservatives

Brian Anderson's South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias is a gem of a book; short, to the point, and leaving its reader (so long as you're right of center) with a renewed sense of hope. Starting with the same premise as so many other authors (Bernard Goldberg comes to mind), Anderson lambasts the hopelessly biased media. Rathergate is only one count of many in his indictment.

He is also, fitting for a fellow who is the editor of City Journal, willing to look at the disturbing degree to which modern liberalism is inherently illiberal. These are the people who whole-heartedly buy into Marcuse's doctrine of "liberating tolerance" and Rawls's argument that political debate must only take into account "reasonable" doctrines; both thinkers' constructs obviously have no place for conservatism or conservative principles. Thus liberal attempts to depict Republicans and conservatives as racist, misogynistic and homophobic bigots is part of their own internal effort to throw conservatism out of the bounds of "reasonableness." This is also, of course, a liberalism with a penchant for ironic Orwellianism and double speak, and the unspoken rule that free speech ends if you don't agree with them. See the treatment at Columbia of the Minutemen (or closer to home, the treatment at Duke of David Horowitz). Further this is the group that refuses to see bias in anyone that agrees with them; thus they can justify calling Dan Rather objective while working themselves into a lather over anyone who airs a conservative perspective. By extension, this is why Democrats are making noises about reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" (itself an Orwellian misnomer) - because only those that disagree with them are biased and in need of balancing.

But whereas this is as far as many go, Anderson rightly points out that things are changing. Quickly. Sure liberals still hold on to the Big 3 (whose viewership is plummeting) and many major newspapers, to say nothing of large swathes of the academe. But technological revolutions have given rise to a new media - talk radio, cable news, the internet - where Republicans are either a major force or effectively dominate. Rush and O'Reilly are the face of this new media. And they're not just disseminating the conservative message like never before, they (and especially the blogs) are holding the mainstream media accountable, calling BS when (often) appropriate, and forcing them to cover stories that would otherwise be ignored as incompatible with the liberal meta-narrative.

He also suggests that times are changing on campuses around the country as conservative principles, journals, College Republicans chapters, etc. are flourishing. He's quick to point out that the faculty, overwhelmingly liberal, still hold the high ground, but that conservatism is no longer invisible on campuses. Some of his interviewees suggest that this is the result of liberal indoctrination, a sort of classroom blowback; universities also act as a sort of ideological forge where faced with liberal nonsense in all its absurd glory, students embrace and refine their conservative principles.

But what Anderson doesn't point out is that these very instruments of conservative campus revival also suggest that liberals are doomed to another generation of failure. The modern Republican revolution - 1994 to the present (?) - has been grounded in ideas, in alternatives to tired Democratic policies (no matter how you frame it, tax and spend is still tax and spend, and cut and run is still cut and run!); the next generation of conservative activists are already getting introduced to that culture of innovation. Their liberal counterparts , in contrast, are too often picketing against some new "injustice" or soaking up the latest drivel of race/gender/class studies - nice if you're seeking a career in navel-gazing, but absolutely insufficient if you're going to shape the future of the nation.

Finally, the title itself points to an entertainment industry that is in places reacting viciously to the PC nonsense and condescension that characterize the Left as a whole and especially its Hollywood incarnation. Leading the charge here is Comedy Central's South Park - not so much conservative as anti-liberal, gleefully destroying liberal idols and mocking liberals such as Al Gore, Rob Reiner, and Michael Moore. Priceless stuff really.

South Park Conservatives isn't an equally intellectual counterpoint to Bloom's Closing of the American Mind; it isn't meant to be. Rather, it chronicles some critical evolutions in the media and suggests that incessant griping about liberalism's chokehold on the MSM is overwrought, that it is in many ways a colossus with clay feet. It's got a message, but it's light enough to be a beach read. Go forth and enjoy.

Check it out on Amazon

[Posted on Amazon as well, FYI]

Day By Day

So I finally got around to adding Day by Day, or what somone accurately called "the conservative Doonesbury." But aesthetically, I'm not sure what I think of it here. Thoughts?

Israel willing to trade security for..."peace"

By which I mean the Golan Heights to Syria for a Syrian promise of peace. Whatever exactly that means. And really, as this article makes clear, it's largely Olmert considering the deal, with widespread dissent by other parties. Olmert isn't so naive as to seek unconditional peace - Syria must sever its ties with Iran and Hezbollah - but they are conditions that the Syrians have little chance of actually living up to. Sadly we've apparently midwifed this deal, as Bush gave Olmert the go-ahead for negotiations last month. While I think any strategy to isolate Iran by splitting Syria from it is an interesting idea, doing so at the cost of Israeli security is dangerous and shortsighted. Most interesting quote:

Meanwhile, a Ma'ariv-TNS poll showed that only 10% of Israelis supported a full withdrawal from the Golan, 40% were in favor of a partial withdrawal and 44% were opposed to any withdrawal. The poll also showed that despite recent peace overtures from Damascus, 74% of Israelis did not trust Assad.

Obviously this deal won't be easily closed.

Another SCOTUS Confirmation?

White House is making noises (from ABC) about another Supreme Court nomination, raising questions about whether or not Stevens or Ginsberg may be retiring. I don't see Ginsberg retiring under a Republican president; Stevens also isn't likely but is 87 (?) and thus may not be around much longer regardless. If either does step down, their calculus may be that a retirement with a Democratic Senate is palatable. However (and assuming there are 60 votes for cloture), with Landrieu (LA), Pryor (AR), Johnson (SD) and Baucus (MT) up for reelection (as well as Lieberman), the Republicans may just have the necessary votes. On the other side of the equation, Sununu (NH), Snowe (ME) and Smith (OR) may all be Republicans looking to display their independence and moderation. But on some level, a Bush failure here would be beneficial: bringing Democratic intransigence into focus and rallying the base, as well as acting as a proving ground for Republican presidential candidates and opening Democrats running for reelection to criticism for their actions. Anyways, losing one of those two would make a better court regardless of replacement.

Vets and Free Speech

Today's Trib has an interesting article regarding veterans' right to protest in uniform. Personally I'm torn - they're no longer active duty soldiers so obviously they shouldn't be bound by conventional military rules, but on a less legal level, I feel these guys are disgracing the uniform they wear by consorting with anti-war activists. Not that that will stand up in court.

However, looking at precedent, in the past the Supreme Court has been rather accommodating to the military, as when they noted in Goldman v. Weinberger (475 US 503, 1986), that "[o]ur review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society." Obviously the pressing question is whether or not veterans are equally bound.

Good News

Despite the spate of well-documented clashes between the morality cops and average Iranians, it seems that the biggest issue facing our friends in Tehran is a burgeoning economic crisis. Amir Taheri's got the full story in today's WSJ. Check it out.

Nothing More Needed

Why Liberal Loons May be an Endangered Species...

A "green think tank" has released a report claiming that having multiple kids is an environmental "misdemeanor" on par with things like long-haul flights. Furthermore, such concerns should be factored in to parents family planning and no couple should have more than two kids.

I find this to be something of a mixed bag: on the one hand, if anyone takes this seriously in Europe or the world, it'll be the loons. And trust me, I'd love nothing more than to see them have fewer kids. In fact, many already do - the Democratic Party here is endangered in the long run as they eschew procreation while red-staters are simply pumping out future members of the Young Republicans.

Yet the ones who won't listen in Europe will be the ones of whom we already have far too many: Muslim immigrants with large families who are not only producing a horrific strain on an already overtaxed welfare system but whose children are increasingly being given anti-Western and illiberal educations. We don't need more of them.

Sarko Wins

France's Nicholas Sarkozy has resoundingly won today's French presidential election, defeating Socialist candidate Segolene Royal. Sarko's victory is on so many levels a good sign; it suggests the French are ready to swallow the tough tonic of economic reform. It also suggests that they're willing to deal with the thugs who dominate the suburbs. Closer to home, President Sarko will bring France closer to the US, as he's regularly decried anti-Americanism.

Another "I'm Back" Post

So I took a break because the second half of the semester because of a campaign I was running, finals, what have you. Anyways, I'm back.

Can You Put a Price on National Security?

Apparently Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) thinks there is. For $400 million, he's agreed to vote for the extant version of the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental - that is to say the version with withdrawal provisions.

But there is a silver lining: Queen Loon Maxine Waters has prmised to whip against the bill. Thank god for the crazies.

Earth to Karl Rove

Wow, just wow. Bush's legendary loyalty strikes again. This afternoon's press conference merely reiterated the president's support for embattled AG Gonzales at a time when any competent effort at damage control would throw Gonzo under the bus. This story is a tempest in a teacup but unfortunately, both Schumer and Emanuel feel that they haven't gotten sufficient credit for pointing this out and will react accordingly. What do I mean? They won't stop till they've had satisfaction which is unnecessary pain. Throwing them the AG might just be sufficient.

This isn't the hour for the White House to be truculent but rather for it to pick its battles. Hill Republicans aren't crazy about the guy and I'm not putting retribution past them. I keep getting the feeling that this White House isn't 100% comprehending the reality of a Democratic majority and another example of his misguided loyalty just reinforces that impression.

UPDATE: If I can give them any credit for the mishandling of this mess (they could have thrown some competent, friendly prosecutors out on their ass too - at least Demos might not have caught the scent for a while longer), it's that they didn't axe Fitzgerald and today's Post suggested was under consideration. Oh and I'm pretty angry with Senator Fitzgerald for giving us that hack - anyone with their head screwed on right understands the craven, self-serving motives of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and realize that there really was no case here (to say nothing of the bad precedent) - others would have been sufficient.

Just a little detail called the Constitution...

Democrats in Congress are at it again. A bill, HR 492, the "District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2007," is expected to come before the House for a vote this week. It proposes that DC residents be allowed to vote in US House races in Maryland. Sounds pretty innocuous, right? After all, DC famously decries "taxation without representation" on its license plates; others claim that opposition to giving DC a voice is a matter of racism. The District is, after all, 60% black and went 89% for Kerry in 2004 (off the top of my head, I think San Francisco went "only" 85% for him).

Well uh, actually folks, there's a pretty damn good reason why DC votes. Little thing called the Constitution - you may have heard of it? There's a lot of people in Congress who seem to believe they're recommendations. Or to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, Democrats often seem to say "Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway. " Unnecessary pop culture references aside, that musty old document proclaims in Section 8 that

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States

In modern English - DC's not a state, Congress has jurisdiction over it and it doesn't get its own representation. I've always wondered if this was because they never really intended DC to be a place of residence, merely one for the bureaucrats?

Now for the pragmatism: if Congress is going to force this sort of BS down our throats, this is relatively tame. After all, Maryland abutting the district is bright blue - throwing in DC isn't going to change anything. However questions need to be asked: is this going to cause a reapportionment of seats after the next census? If so, who's losing a seat? (Based on recent historical trends I'd have to guess another coastal state). If nothing then this is pretty much tame.

Why am I willing to not scream absolute bloody murder? Because this is a lot more palatable than making DC its own state (God forbid). The Constitution clearly didn't intend that to happen. And again on a pragmatic level, we really don't need two more Democratic loons in the Senate (51 is plenty, thanks) or any more kooks in the House. It's not racism folks, it's pure party politics.

...Unless of course they're willing to consider my other idea: separate Illinois into two states: Chicago and another part (they can keep Illinois or call it Corn or Soy - their pick), while ceding East St. Louis to Missouri. It'll give us two more Republicans in the Senate, a few in the House we can give Dick Durbin to Missouri (I almost feel bad doing that), and downstaters will no longer have to pay for Chicago's screwed up schools/Chicagoans will no longer have to pay for farm bailouts. Everyone wins. Except Missouri. Sorry guys.

Wow

This will have some people screaming. Great homage to daisies at the end.

Beware the Pander Bear?

Great new release from RNC Research here. Best line by far is Conan's:

"Hillary Clinton marched in today's St. Patrick's Day Parade, and spectators accused her of pandering to voters. They might be right because Hillary was wearing a button that said, 'Kiss me, I'm also Jewish, black, Puerto Rican, and a huge Yankee fan.'"

Just as true now, though these days she's also trying to be everything to everyone on Iraq...

Helped Wanted; Attorney General

Well some said Gonzo's political career had less than a week to go - it may be less than that. According to Politico, Republicans are actively searching for replacements. These might include:

--Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, the "Law & Order" star who is now considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

--Olson, who was Bush's first solicitor general and now is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington.

--Larry Thompson, who has been general counsel of PepsiCo Inc. since leaving his first-term job as deputy to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

--Retired federal judge Laurence H. Silberman, who was named by Bush to be co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

--George J. Terwilliger III, a former deputy attorney general and acting attorney general who was a leader of Bush's legal team during the Florida election recount.

Bush apparently hasn't spoken to Gonzales since last week.

Money Makes the World Go Round...

Also from Novak: potential signs that Giuliani's not fundraising as much as he'd like. While nothing's definite, as today's Note pointed out,

5. Heaven will need to help Hillary Clinton and/or John McCain if they are not the gross cash leaders in their respective party first-quarter fundraising derbies.

6. Every one of the Big 6 has the potential to be the big money story of the quarter.

7. It is possible that every one of the Big 3 Democrats will outraise every one of the Big 3 Republican candidates, which will cause the Old Media to go ga-ga-ga.

8. The only one of the Big 6 who appears to have the potential to be a first-quarter break-through candidate in terms of web fundraising is Senator Obama.

It's a perception game. Everyone with an eye to the race (myself included) is waiting with baited breath for the quarterly financials to be reported.

Law & Order DA as President?

Fred Thompson's better known as DA Arthur Branch of Law & Order than as the Senator he was previously, which is a sad statement on our polity. But he's making noises about running for president. I'm not going to judge but provide links to others' opinions.

• WSJ's John Fund's interesting interview with Thompson
• The Post's Chris Cilizza lays out "The Case for Fred Thompson"
• On This Week yesterday, Donna Brazile (I think) suggested that Thompson's candidacy may simply be a "stalking horse" for McCain, with whom he is close friends. The argument goes that Thompson would put together a campaign, gather some momentum andgarner some headlines, then endorse McCain
• From Novak's Inside Report:

  Actor-politician Fred Thompson's unexpected expression of interest in seeking the Republican presidential nomination has attracted an equally unexpected favorable reaction, especially among social conservatives.
  
  In Tennessee Republican politics, former Sen. Thompson was allied with Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander in the state party's more liberal wing. However, his voting record in the Senate was solidly conservative. He is viewed by the Christian right as more acceptable than any of the three Republican candidates leading in the polls: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
  
  Nobody is sure that Thompson really will run. He has been reported in line as successor to radio commentator Paul Harvey to fill one of the most prestigious and profitable broadcasting niches.

  Novak also touches on one of Thompson's other assets: he might get Frist's nomination, whatever that's worth after Schiavo.
  

What do you think?

Romney: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Thus far, Mitt Romney seems to have run a flawless campaign. That he did so is on some level unsurprising; he seems to be running it with a Third Way business-political outlook. No longer though. Speaking last night in Miami to the Cuban community, Romney finished his speech with Patria o muerte, venceremos! Bravo for speaking Spanish, Romney, but next time stay away from Castro slogans? Apparently the line, "Fatherland or death we shall overcome," is vintage Fidel, a conclusion to many of his speeches over the years. Whoops.

Beyond the fact that a Romney staffer is looking for another job this morning, this could have consequences. Romney's been aggressively courting the Cuban community, with one of the community's heavyweights, Al Cardenas, cutting radio spots for him and chairing his Florida campaign. His concern is understandable given the amount of support McCain seems to have in the state (remember when Charlie Crist ditched Bush to campaign with McCain late last cycle?) and the fact that Florida's angling to move way up in the primary calendar (which is a topic for another day, but it's bad for democracy).

The damage is done and it'll be interesting to see if Romney's shunned by the Cubans for his idiocy. But what will be more interesting to see is how his thus-far lillywhite campaign manages damage control. Can they handle it or are we going to begin seeing some cracks?

Wow

This is the first ad that's made me say that in a while. It's anti-Hillary, in the mold of Apple's infamous 1984 Ridley Scott ad, and while it's explicitly pro-Obama, his camp decries all knowledge.

Gathering of Eagles Wrap-Up

Apparently the Gathering of Eagles in Washington yesterday was a smashing success. That of the anti-war folks? Not so much. Oops. Not that the media cares to report that. Malkin's got the full run-down here.

Gems from the Journal

I'd missed it until the White House public liaison sent it out to the "White House Jewish Leaders" email list of which I am a member (don't ask, I don't know - but please don't disabuse them of the notion that I am in fact a Jewish leader!), but yesterday's WSJ op-ed is priceless. Though I'm unclear on the questions of constitutionality it raises towards the end, its satire of Congress's micromanagement is dead on. Even more, it highlights Pelosi's fundamental dilemma with her out-of-control majority. Both flanks - the progressives and the Blue Dogs - are both getting restless. I don't think anything too drastic will happen, but given that there are roughly 40 conservative Democrats, Pelosi can't afford to offend. Next few months should be priceless.

POLL: Iraqi Life Better Now Than Under Sadaam

Despite what George Stephanopolous's claiming on This Week right now, a new British poll finds that Iraqis perceive their life as better now than under Sadaam. Beyond the main finding, the most intriguing is that only 27% of Iraqis think their country is plagued by a civil war. This in contrast to the whole of the Left here, for whom "civil war" is a buzz word.

In the meantime, the Iraqi government is beginning to act with some assurance on things like the new oil bill. Am I the only one who believes that such confidence and the surge are unrelated? Funny what happens when you demonstrate your commitment and work for greater security.

Chuck the Schmuck Strikes Again

Has Senator Chuck Schumer been using AttorneyGate for political advantage? Looks like it. Surprised? Shouldn't be. Apparently Schumer's been mixing his roles as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, taking testimony from that fired New Mexico attorney and the next day using parts of that same testimony to slam Senator Pete Domenici in a press release. CQ's got the story here.

Happy St. Patricks Day!

Days like today that I miss sweet home Chicago. May the luck of the Irish be with you all.

Gathering of Eagles

In opposition to the aforementioned ANSWER-coordinated protest in DC, and motivated by concerns that the anti-American organizers would use the Vietnam Wall as a backdrop for their protest, a nationwide network of veterans known as the Gathering of Eagles has come together to silently protect the memorials and honor the memory of those who gave their lives for this country. They died so that ANSWER protestors and others (including mainstream Democrats, as evinced by Kerry and Rangel's comments) had the freedom of speech to slander our men and women in uniform. What exactly does the Gathering of Eagles stand for? Their mission statement says that

Our Mission Statement

1. Gathering of Eagles is non-partisan. While each member has his or her own political beliefs, our common love and respect for America and her heroes is what brings us together.

2. We are a non-violent, non-confrontational group. We look to defend, not attack. Our focus is guarding our memorials and their grounds.

3. We believe that the war memorials are sacred ground; as such, we will not allow them to be desecrated, used as props for political statements, or treated with anything less than the solemn and heartfelt respect they–and the heroes they honor–deserve.

4. We are wholly and forever committed to our brothers and sisters in uniform. As veterans, we understand their incredible and noble sacrifices, made of their own accord for a nation they love more than life itself. As family members, we stand by them, and as Americans, we thank God for them.

5. We believe in and would give our lives for the precious freedoms found in our Constitution. We believe that our freedom of speech is one of the greatest things our country espouses, and we absolutely hold that any American citizen has the right to express his or her approval or disapproval with any policy, law, or action of our nation and her government in a peaceful manner as afforded by the laws of our land.

6. However, we are adamantly opposed to the use of violence, vandalism, physical or verbal assaults on our veterans, and the destruction or desecration of our memorials. By defending and honoring these sacred places, we defend and honor those whose blood gave all of us the right to speak as freely as our minds think.

7. We vehemently oppose the notion that it is possible to “support the troops but not the war.” We are opposed to those groups who would claim support for the troops yet engage in behavior that is demeaning and abusive to the men and women who wear our nation’s uniform.

8. We believe in freedom at all costs, including our own lives. We served to protect the freedoms Americans enjoy, and we agree with Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

9. We will accept nothing less than total, unqualified victory in the current conflict. Surrender is not an option, nor is defeat.

10. We stand to challenge any group that seeks the destruction of our nation, its founding precepts of liberty and freedom, or those who have given of themselves to secure those things for another generation. We will be silent no more.

All I can say is God bless these people; I hope the media provides them some fair coverage (not likely) and that their clear-eyed and patriotic statements can be accepted (or reaccepted) by the majority of Americans. I feel that more and more, as the despicable tactics of Congressional Democrats become visible, as they continue to mouth their support of the troops while stabbing them in the back, Americans may be coming to realize that you can't support the troops without supporting the war.

Moonbats of the World Unite

To show their opposition of the fourth anniversary of the Iraq (and obviously winning converts by blocking roads and inconveniencing everyone, in addition to no doubt smelling foul), the usual moonbats are going to be protesting across the nation. CODEPINK has been camped out in front of Pelosi's house for days, prompting the usual questions about whether these people actually have jobs and if not are they simply suckling at the governmental teat while stabbing said government in the back? CODEPINK activists also took the time to be obnoxiously present in the background of the Plame circus yesterday; that video is here. The two biggest demonstrations, however, are planned for New York and DC.

In New York, the marchers are brought together under the umbrella organization "United for Peace & Justice," an innocent-enough sounding name. But in addition to grieving parents and veterans, you also have some out and out wack-jobs participating. Just to list a few, the Black Radical Congress, Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, International Socialist Organization - National, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, Socialist Party USA - National, Socialist Alternative, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and Young Communists League. Those are only the ones whose names are indicative of where they stand. Then there are others, such as the 50 Years is Enough Network; an examination of their website finds them to be a fringe anti-globalization group that demands a cessation to the activities of the IMF and World Bank and the formation of a "Truth Commission" to investigate the "crimes" of these organizations. The full list of these loons can be found here (excel file).

The DC march is organized by ANSWER ("Act Now to Stop War and End Racism" - what the hell is that supposed to mean?). Though they seem too bright to post a list of all the nebulous groups behind the facade - or perhaps they want both the Marxists and the Trotskyists to remain blissfully unaware that the other is involved? - but they do list a handful. Among these are the Muslim Student Organization, acting on many campuses as a front for Saudi extremism (an eye-opening article from the Middle East Forum can be found here), as well as the Party for Socialism and Liberation; the coexistance of such groups provides anecdotal evidence of the "unholy alliance" alleged by Horowitz in his thus-titled book. And although they don't list their constituents they do list something of a platform (so it's 18 months old - I doubt it's changed):

* Stop the War in Iraq
* End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine to Haiti
* Support the Palestinian People’s Right of Return
* Stop the Threats Against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran & North Korea
* U.S. Out of the Philippines
* U.S. Out of Puerto Rico
* Bring all the troops home now
* Stop the Racist, anti-Immigrant and anti-Labor Offensive at Home, Defend Civil Rights
* Military Recruiters Out of Our Schools and Communities

Wow.

What kills me is that these loons - most of them anti-American in the extreme - have become visible symbols of opposition to the war, a position now held by a majority of Americans (no doubt in part due to the misleading spin of the media). But if that majority were to realize who they stand with, some might reconsider their position. So any sane anti-Iraq war types out there, please consider letting the world know that these moonbats don't represent you?

Strange Bedfellows

Alaska's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case from 2002 will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow. Best of all, some Christian groups are supporting the sign-bearing student fearing a curtailment of religious speech on campus. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed

Khalid Sheik Mohammed testified in a hearing on his "enemy combatant" status yesterday at Gitmo, listing 31 different al Qaeda plots he was involved with in some capacity or another, including the September 11th attacks. Also,

I decapitated with my blessed right hand the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan

Bastard. The whole redacted and released transcript of the hearing can be found here. While I'm glad to see documents such as this one being released, I don't think it's necessary to have hearings to do so.

Amusing Loons

[NOTE: I almost wrote a radically different post on this topic, then went back and checked my story...first impressions can be deceiving (MATT STOLLER)] I'd privately noted a few weeks ago that when the DCCC released their "Frontline '08" list - the most vulnerable of their freshman reps, Carol Shea-Porter (NH1) was not on there. I was rather surprised as her opponent Jeb Bradley said he was running again and this is the kind of race that the DCCC must win to keep control of the House. I wondered if ideological disputes (and her rejection of establishment aid in 06) had come back to haunt her?

Apparently Matt Stoller, of progressive blog MyDD.com, thought the same thing, saying in a recent column bemoaning the alleged exclusion of progressives from party decision-making

From what I understand from talking to a few progressives on the Hill, the freshmen in Congress are being extensively 'trained' by Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record)'s DLC band of consultants and pollsters, which is one reason they've been silent. Carol Shea-Porter is an exception, and notice how she was shut out of the DCCC's front line program.

Uh Matt? Check any sources lately? That column was published March 3rd. On Febraury 19th, CQPolitics noted that Shea-Porter and another grassroots candidate, Nancy Boyda, both

ran as political outsiders last year, and they aim to maintain that independent posture even as they seek re-election from inside Congress.

“I wanted to stay with the kind of campaign I ran before,” Shea-Porter told CQPolitics.com on Friday. The freshman explained her desire to continue her state’s tradition of “retail politics,” which favors local, door-to-door efforts. “It’s really about building trust and relationships.”

So Stoller flips out citing Shea-Porter's absence from the list as evidence of an alleged anti-progressive conspiracy. In reality, it was public knowledge almost two weeks before that Shea-Porter herself rejected DCCC aid.

It's been said before but bears repeting: this faction of the Democratic Party exists in a reality-free void - factcheck, factcheck, factcheck.

Remembering a Travesty

I missed it by two days but it's still worth noting the one year anniversary of the Duke Lacrosse Fraud. What happens when a politically-motivated DA seeks to make hay out of the drug-addled accusations of a felon and a whore with the complicity of a hopelessly-biased, ultra sensationalist media establishment and a cabal of professors of dubious intellectual capacity involved in the worst sort of navel-gazing concerned only with undermining society and criticizing "white privilege"? You ruin innocent lives. Almost as bad as all of the component parts of this hoax is the silence of the university's administration.

That the administration, Trustees, and faculty council have not yet begun a serious discussion (though I'd prefer termination proceedings) of the inexplicable, inexusable commentary of the "Group of 88" is ridiculous. We should be questioning what every one of these faculty members adds to the university community. At a time when we're looking to hire more faculty in some major disciplines, wouldn't we be helped in unburdening ourselves of professors researching (to cite one example) "feminism & queer studies" in 16th C France or those (no names) who falsely claim to have published books and articles.

Every individual and organization that had a hand in ruining the lives of Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and Dave Evans and tarnishing the reputation of one of the nation's finest universities should be ashamed of themselves, and in many cases (Nifong, the hooker) subject to litigation.

Just Throwing It Out There

It's been asked before but I'll ask it again. If a Republican candidate belonged to a church which proclaimed that:

We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

It goes without saying they'd be reviled and demonized by the media, particularly by Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP, etc. But change white to black and what do you get? Barack Obama and nary a peep in the mainstream media. This should put to rest any questions about Obama's "blackness" but should raise serious issues about his dedication to an America where race doesn't matter, which essentially is what he praised in his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Just food for thought.

A Real Senate Race in Texas?

Trolling through the online insane asylum that is DailyKos today (as I do every day if only for amusement's sake), I found that Kos - who is sadly gaining more and more control of the Democratic Party, which should instead be finding and running more sane rational and admirable candidates like Lieberman - has selected for himself a candidate to run against John Cornyn in Texas. Now my initial thought was that a good Republican like Cornyn would be basically untouchable in so red a state as Texas but Kossacks are crowing about poll numbers that might suggest otherwise. Cornyn's fav/unfav are tighter than a candidate might want going into an election, but certainly not bad (Hillary's are pretty much in the same awful region too).

So who's this newly-crowned "people powered candidate" (and is only Kos's support needed to make him people-powered or do the...um...people actually need to approve too?)? He's a state senator from Houston by the name of Rick Noriega. Compelling resume, I must admit - Afghanistan veteran, KSG graduate - but whether he's got the substance to actually run remains to be seen. Should Noriega prove to be somewhat viable (and get past whatever the Texas DP establishment throws at him), this could be a noteworthy race in Texas. What's always an interesting aspect to Texas politics is the Hispanic dimension as both parties understand the importance of that vote and thus neither engages in the sort of anti-immigrant sentiment that too often boils over into xenophobic/racist anti-Latino rhetoric elsewhere. I love race season.

Bear on the Prowl

So we all know that Russia's awash in petrodollars, much like the theocracies of the Middle East are. But what I didn't know till today is that much like their Gulf counterparts, the Russians are also cozying up to anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. According to a story from the Weekly Standard, Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal is the guest of the Russian Foreign Minister - for the second time this year. The Kremlin willfully insists that Hamas isn't allied with Muslim terrorists in Chechyna, but Levitt's article makes the falsehood of such beliefs painfully obvious.

That of course begs questions about Russian aims and motives. Historically speaking, Russia has always been a bastion of antisemitism - the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion were authored by the Csarist secret police - but more more recently, the Soviet Union sided with Arab states against Israel. Now seeing that Israel is basically our only friend in the region (many regional leaders feared Sadaam but fear a viable democracy as well), it makes sense to encourage their enemies. But there's a larger lesson for our leaders in all of this: the Cold War is basically back, with a rich Russia funding mischief around the world, and we should begin to understand Russian machinations less as aberations but more as intentional practice. They've shown themselves willing to cause trouble (meddling with gas supplies, killing critics, threatening those who would host our missile shield, etc.) and we can't keep wishing the problem away.

(How Often Do I Post These Mea Culpas?)

So it goes without saying that I've been absent and silent for a while, really AWOL more than anything else as I could no doubt find the time to blog. That being said, I'm back for at least the time being. Not that anyone's missed me.

A Double-Edged Sword

While trolling Kos this morning [note: I do so for 2 reasons: 1) often times some real gems in their if you can strip away the reality-free spin and 2) whenever I find myself despising the GOP, a brief visit to Kosland reminds me that as bad as they may be, the alternative is incomparably worse], I came across a diary entry by Russ Feingold, the contents of which I feel are worth reporting and discussing.

Progressives/socialists/whatever label you love while despising corporations/Republicans/private property: you can exhale. Your knight in shining armor (I apologize for not using a gender neutral term like "person") is not running for President.

To clarify, this is the same Senator Feingold who voted against the Patriot Act, against the tax cuts, against the partial-birth abortion ban, and to restrict missile defense. Basically, if you were to combine every element of Democratic wackiness into an animate form you'd either get an ass or Russ Feingold...though I'm not sure the two are much different. On another note, Feingold is slated to be Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights & Property Rights...I'm hoping he doesn't think Kelo v. New London didn't go far enough!

But why do I say this is a double-edged sword? Although I think Feingold could be a semi-dangerous candidate, perhaps even winning himself a Cabinet post were he to make a decent enough showing (and at worst he'd STILL be in the Senate!), he would also adversely affect the whole race by dragging the rhetoric in the Democratic primaries far to the Left. If Tuesday was an aberation then this would be a good thing for the GOP. If, however, Tuesday was more than a moment of temporary insanity, and the American people are ready to vote Democratic regardless of the drivel they spout, this is noticeably a bad thing.

However, given that I'm optimistically embracing scenario 1 for the time being, and hoping the American people were only pissed off and will return to their senses about a hundred hours after Pelosi grabs the Speaker's gavel, then I would say Russ Feingold should run. Why? Because he'll bring out the true-blue loons on the left of his party, and the American people would get to see the Democrats for the head-cases they really are (as if a John Conyers-chaired Judiciary wouldn't do that already!)

Somewhere in all of this, one of my favorite Churchill aphorisms keeps bubbling up: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."