Thursday, July 19, 2007

Pentagon to HRC: Shut Up!

The Pentagon, or at least Undersecretary Eric Edelman, gave Hillary Clinton a piece of its/his mind; it/he had enough of her Iraq rhetoric, specifically in regards to plans for withdrawal. Edelman's response is worth quoting at length:

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,"
While I entirely agree with Edelman's sentiments, I don't believe they should be coming from anyone at the Pentagon. That being said, Clinton shouldn't have been asking such questions to begin with.

Edelman's comments, and the fact that he is a protege of Cheney's, will no doubt stir up a hornet's nest on the left; unsurprisingly, the Senator's staff responded very sharply.

Another Reason to Call/Write Congress

Democrats in Congress have cut the language that would give anyone reporting suspicious behavior immunity from the sorts of lawsuits that CAIR is trying to file in the "flying imams" case. This, of course, is the same party that lauds governmental whistle blowers. Although the language went to conference at 1pm, there's no promise that it's been finalized. If your Senator or Representative is on the list below, contact them and let 'em know whats at stake.
Senate

Democrat Republican
Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman (ID) (CT) Susan M. Collins Ranking Member (ME)
image image
Carl Levin (MI) Ted Stevens (AK)
image image
Daniel K. Akaka (HI) George V. Voinovich (OH)
image image
Thomas R. Carper (DE) Norm Coleman (MN)
image image
Mark L. Pryor (AR) Tom Coburn (OK)
image image
Mary L. Landrieu (LA) Pete V. Domenici (NM)
image image
Barack Obama (IL) John Warner (VA)
image image
Claire McCaskill (MO) John E. Sununu (NH)
image image
Jon Tester (MT)

House - Democrats

Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2)
Chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security.

Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Vice Chair of the full Committee and Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism

Ed Markey (MA-7)

Norman D. Dicks (WA-6)

Jane Harman (CA-36)
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment

Peter DeFazio (OR-4)

Nita Lowey (NY-18)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)

Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)

Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection

Donna Christensen (USVI)
Rep. Donna M. Christensen continues to distinguish herself as a leader in the United States Congress. As a Member serving her fifth term, she is the first female physician in the history of the U.S. Congress, the first woman to represent an offshore Territory, and the first woman Delegate from the United States Virgin Islands...

Bob Etheridge (NC-2)

James R. Langevin (RI-2)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology

Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response

Christopher P. Carney (PA-10)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight

Yvette D. Clarke (NY-11)

Al Green (TX-9)

Ed Perlmutter (CO-7)

House - Republicans
Peter T. King, New York, Ranking Member

Lamar S. Smith, Texas
Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Tom Davis, Virginia
Dan Lungren, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Dave G. Reichert, Washington
Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania
Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
David Davis, Tennessee
Kevin McCarthy , California

Twits A-Twittering

Excuse the alliteration. Anyways, Valerie Plame's lawsuit against the administration for outing her has been tossed. Ergo twits a-twittering. I still don't entirely believe she was undercover, though that's not an argument to be had here. What everyone needs to admit (and only the right has been able to do so thus far) is that this was from day 1 a politically motivated affair; no great conclusions should be drawn from any of it, and Scooter Libby should never have been found guilty.

Anyways, Sandy Berger removed classified documents in his pants and later destroyed them. Where's the furor about that breach of national security?

Keith Ellison: 9/11 = Reichstag Fire?

And thus Bush = Hitler? Or so says former (?) Nation of Islam member-turned-Congressman Keith Ellison. I've been sort of ignoring this story, mostly because the rest of the blogosphere has been doing a great job covering it. But now I thought I'd provide some roundup. First of all, check out the video (it's long and painful, I'm sorry)

This is, mind you, an elected member of the United States Congress (and one whose own party apparently views him as something of a loose cannon). When Ellison first uttered this garbage, the media continued to blather away about their usual nonsense. The first time I saw the story picked up was a column in the Minnesota Star-Tribune. Unsurprisingly, the STrib edit board later ran a piece saying "okay, he was hyperbolic - but he had a point." The MSM as a whole, however, ignored the story - perhaps their silence was tacit agreement with his outrageous comments? But when Ellison starts feeling the heat and issues the de rigeur kinda/sorta/wishy-washy apology, the media notices.

This whole incident is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there's no chance that Ellison's constituents will return his sorry ass to the Land of a Thousand Lakes in 2008. They're just that crazy (Cindy Sheehan might do well there). On the other hand, this whole brouhaha again underlines the power of the blogosphere: without the internet and the new media, this would have been a non-story and Ellison would have gotten away with peddling this drivel. Instead, he sort of apologizes. If only we could get a real apology out of him.

This Actually Infuriates Me

Ted Rall is a vile human being; that, I think, is widely accepted. Except now he's managed to hit a new low. As NewsBusters so succintly puts it, "[i]n one fell swoop, Rall has offended our military, their families, religion, patriotism, our educational system, our president, and our very way of life." He has also just proven every stereotype about the left. Oh and he continues to push the discredit "poverty causes terror" meme.

(h/t LGF)

UPDATE: Apparently Rall has a blog of his own, and its bile-flecked and venom-filled response to those who can't believe his assault on our troops is here. For those with strong stomachs, it's almost worth reading.

What the Hell?

Are the British thinking? Apparently one of their jailed jihadis whiled away the hours by building a jihad website - as he was imprisoned in Britain's "most secure" facility. Wow.

A Lament and Request

If I were to blog every post/article/comment/"thing" I found of interest, I would have to be as prolific and pithy as the peerless Glenn Reynolds. Sadly, Instapundit I am not.

I also have a backlog of over 1900 unread articles on Bloglines. And folders full of links I want to post.

Any ideas on how I can make your experience here better? Let me know.

Michelangelo's "Creation of Man (Adam with a Diet Pepsi)"

Or at least NEA chief Dana Gioia on the destruction of American culture. I never thought I'd agree with a chief of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Oh and I don't think I could name too many living American artists, and it's not because I'm particularly nekulturny - it's because they're not particularly noteworthy.

A Stunner in Georgia

You probably had never even heard of Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA); never knew he died either, I suspect. But now his replacement has been chosen by a special election, and it's not who anyone expected. There are some interesting lessons from the race, namely don't get sloppy!

Welcome to Washington, Mr. Broun.

[Georgia's delegation having four doctors is like Louisiana's having two Rhodes Scholars - entirely unexpected]

Duke's iPhone Headaches?

Apparently iPhones can kill wireless networks - or at least that's what it's doing to Duke's. A tech-heavy article here (h/t Instapundit) or a more layman-friendly article here. The latter notes a real concern, that we're seeing this problem with only 100-150 phones on campus right now - next month with everyone back, things could get absurdly overwhelmed. I won't even comment on the absurdity of as many as 150 iPhones (retailing at $499-$599 a pop) already being on campus in the midst of summer school.

Clearly Apple didn't think through all of the issues its little baby could cause; hopefully they'll continue their commitment to service and help defray the costs (perhaps not at Duke, but if it overwhelms municipal wireless services for example).

Hyperbolic Harry and Other Fun

I missed Majority Leader Harry Reid's absurd comments on the Democratic Senate blog yesterday, but Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House didn't - and now Harry's hearing about it. Check it out. Oh and Carl Levin rightfully gets an earful as well.

I'm reading this after watching Band of Brothers last night, specifically the episode where Easy Company is ordered to Bastogne with limited ammo, no winter clothing, etc.; would Harry have cried about them lacking the proper equipment? Probably, if he could have scored political points in doing so.

Bill Richardson: In a Hurry to Surrender

Bill Richardson's got a new ad out, calling for a complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. On the one hand I have to give Richardson credit for being honest: while many of his competitors might agree with him, few have been so bold as to say it.

But it pains me to see him say this as well. Of all the Democratic candidates, Richardson has perhaps the most experience, especially when it comes to foreign policy. For him to be so misguided, as well as misusing his experience and talents, is a real waste.

Just How Far Outside the Mainstream Are the Democrats?

And I'm not saying this without reason either! Planned Parenthood's annual conference was held yesterday, and the usual Democratic dog and pony show ensued. All of the candidates no doubt overflowed with enthusiasm for "choice" and a world with on-demand abortions (without widely-supported provisions such as parental notification). This of course provides plenty of space for them to say something stupid and show how much they agree with the abortion absolutists - and thus are out of step with the majority of Americans. Both Obama and Edwards (or at least his wife acting in his stead) proclaimed their support for federally-funded abortions, something that may be back this year if Congress succeeds in passing the relevant appropriations bill. Obama went the extra mile and said that kindergartners should have sex-ed class. Yowza. Never mind that sex-ed seems unnecessary at a time when kids think the opposite sex has cooties.

There's a lot to be made of all of this. First of all, it can be (and often is) argued that it is their stance on abortion that drives people of faith away from the Democratic Party; their support for abortion also makes statements of faith by the Democratic front-runners ring rather hollow to many voters. Second of all, in their absolutist approaches to abortion (bemoaning, for example, the Supreme Court's outlawing of partial birth abortions, a procedure opposed by the majority of Americans), they cater to a rather fringe element that thus succeeds in alienating many other voters. Further in bemoaning judicial restrictions on abortion - and promising to appoint justices who would do away with such restrictions - they are effectively admitting this isn't popular (because if it was, it could be passed like normal legislation). Indeed it's their support for partial-birth abortion that renders me incredulous, and I am by no means an uncompromising pro-life advocate. The procedure is barbaric, and according to doctors, alternative practices are available (but what do they know); Democrats argue otherwise.

So when November comes around and Democrats can't figure out why they lost the White House again (which I still think is the more likely outcome), they should think back to days like today. And realize that until they stop catering to their extremist base (or at least do so behind closed doors), they only alienate mainstream America.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

An Unsung Hero Passes

Blackfive notes and mourns the passing of General Wayne Downing, Special Forces soldier extraordinaire - and a soldier's soldier.

More Congressional Harassment

Veterans for Freedom, a group that understands that the blood of Americans spread in Iraq cannot be in vain, is launching a push of their own to give our troops the opportunity to win. Check out their ten-week plan here. If you're a veteran, I'd urge you to get involved; they're doing great work and they rightly note that their strength is their numbers. And again, feel free to give a piece of your mind to your Senators, especially if they're spineless cretins like Reid (apologies to honest invertebrates everywhere).

The Senate Votes

Of course referring back to my previous post on the consequences of our withdrawal, that day may not be coming as soon as the fools on the (Capitol) hill might wish. The Levin-Reed withdrawal amendment went down in defeat today, with 52 voting for cloture (and thus seeking to raise the white flag) and forty-seven showing some evidence of spine. The yeas and nays are below (or here); if your Senator refused to second-guess Petraeus, call him or her and give your thanks; otherwise call and give them a piece of your mind (Invertebrate Republicans in bold). Find their contact info here (phone and email).

YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---47
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

[Oh and for the record, Surrender Harry had no change of heart - unsure whether he's got one - instead, he voted against it on procedural grounds.]
UPDATE: As someone commented, I forgot Hagel the first time through; Freudian slip?

The Consequences of Quitting Iraq

A stark statement of the facts: we can't flee and let utopian idealism convince us that everything will turn out for the better. We did that in Southeast Asia and two million Cambodians are dead.

From (of all places!) the Boston Globe!

Catholicism Returns to Its Roots

In a move much reported (and much maligned), Benedict XVI has announced that Catholic priests can celebrate the traditional Tridentine Mass in its original Latin if they so desire; previously bishops had to approve before priests could do so. Sadly, the wailing and gnashing of teeth has drowned out any reasonable commentary on the matter, which I finally found here. Arroyo makes several good points, most notably that it speaks to the church's international character; Benedict cited this as one of his motives. It also serves to reconnect Catholicism to its history which though filled with darker periods (most notably the Inquisition) also served as the foundation of Western Civilization for centuries.

I was also amused to note that the most vehement opposition to the move came from clergy in Western Europe. While they bemoan the return of traditionalism, their flocks are disappearing; if the pews are empty, what does the language matter? Indeed perhaps a Catholicism showing a little bit of spine and tradition, in the process rejecting the relativism that has become the norm in Europe, might actually draw people back.

On a practical note, I feel that having Latin masses more widely celebrated might spur some form of Latin revival in schools; no doubt the youth of the world would benefit from that.

I should also note that I'm not a Catholic; nor have I had the opportunity to sound out many of my Catholic friends on the matter. But given that they run from the most extreme cafeteria-variety to (I kid you not) members of Opus Dei, I'll be interested to hear reactions.

A Truly Great Historian

"Historians" such as the peerlessly awful Howard Zinn are the darlings of the intelligentsia, which is in itself tragic. But what's equally tragic is that truly brilliant (and right-minded) scholars such as Gertrude Himmelfarb are thus overlooked or ignored. Her brilliance is on display in a review of Michael Barone's latest book, which itself looks appealing. Most notable is her second paragraph, a call to arms which should be heeded:

In academia today, narrative history is as unfashionable as Macaulay himself. It is said to "privilege" political events over the social and economic forces that truly drive history, and, worse still, to privilege the individuals and elites that happen to dominate politics over the "anonymous" masses that are, or should be, the proper subjects of history--"history from below," as is said. The public has no such qualms. The histories that grace the bestseller lists are, for the most part, narratives, written by nonacademics and a few dissident academics. Barone's book is unashamedly and unapologetically in this genre. It is a detailed chronological narrative of the events (political, diplomatic, military) and the individuals
(high-born and high-powered) that contributed to the English Revolution --a tale well told.
Oh and as I said, she also makes Barone's book sound eminently worthwhile!

[Just for amusement's sake, I'll note that Himmelfarb is the wife of Irving Kristol - and thus the mother of the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol.]

Priceless Political Cartoonage






















Don't know what kinds of copyrights I'm breaking by posting this, but enjoy. Original is here.

Yon on Strykers

Michael Yon has another worthwhile piece, though this one is substantially different from some of his other dispatches to which I've linked in the past. He continues to cover what most of the media ignores, but instead of terror or barbarism, it's something more mundane to troops on the ground: their Stryker combat vehicle. Recently introduced, the Stryker was plagued by criticisms during its development and its baptisms by fire. The story Yon tells is fundamentally different: whatever bean counters and pundits may think, troops love the Stryker and it returns the love, getting them home alive despite situations which seem unsurvivable. On a personal note, last fall I spoke to an officer who served with the first Stryker brigade in Iraq (and who will be returning to command them in his third tour). When I queried him, based on those criticisms I'd heard in the media, his response was largely similar to what the troops told Yon. He loved the things.

I also think I overstated Yon's feelings towards the media in an earlier post. The more of his dispatches I read, the more I realize the depth of his ambivalence. I think he's got a love/hate relationship with both embedded reporters and everyone stateside because although they often surprise him with the fairness of their coverage (a topic he touches on in a Glenn & Helen podcast from March), at other times their willful ignorance seem to anger him (as when no one really picked up the massacre he reported). It's all part of the complexity that makes him one of the best (if not the best) people reporting from Iraq.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Dennis Miller Destroys Harry Reid

So I generally despise Fox's "Half-Hour News Hour" - it's a poor imitation of the Daily Show and Colbert report which succeeds in being many things - glib, self-satisfied, shallow, pathetic - without ever nearing funny. That being said, Dennis Miller destroyed Harry Reid there recently, and I felt it was worth sharing.Oh and note to the "Half-Hour News Hour" folks: you may think you're necessitated by the evil liberalism of Colbert and Stewart. But if they're so evilly liberal, why has Rahm Emanuel attempted to keep all of his Democratic reps from appearing on those shows? Is it perhaps because they're equal opportunity evil? Therein lies the beauty.

More Orwellianism

I've become increasingly suspicious of Democratic usage of words like "choice" and "fairness." Time to add "responsible" to the list. As in the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq" act that the House passed on Friday. Why include it? Because there's no such thing as a responsible redeployment. And if they were to be linguistically honest, it'd be called either the Iraq Retreat act or the Iraq Surrender act.

Who Does Bloomberg Hurt?

No answers of course, just more fuel for the fire: a poll has Hillary winning Ohio with a 40% plurality if it's her, Giuliani, and Bloomberg. What's significant is that it's Ohio, one of those infamous "swing states." But I still have a feeling that should Giuliani win, he puts some traditionally blue states (Illinois, California, New York) in play, making Ohio more or less irrelevant.

Also: can anyone think of a state other than Virginia that has been so much a center of national politics? And that was in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.

The Other Senator in Hot Water

While McCain's campaign meltdown continues apace, David Vitter (R-LA) also finds himself in trouble. In bed. Oops. His number appeared on those call logs recently released by a DC madam. On top of that, the proprietor of the House of the Rising Sun (or a similar establishment) also acknowledged that the Senator had frequented the place before he was elected in 2004. There were also apparently rumors back when he briefly sought the governor's mansion in 2003. For a party that's wallowing in scandal, I have to give Vitter credit for differentiating himself from the rest of the pack.

But the pressing question is whether or not he can survive. I originally thought so, based solely on the sordid nature of Louisiana politics; a friend of mine who's an astute observer of her home state's politics and an article in the Times-Picayune backed that up. But a more scientific argument for survival comes from Chris Cilizza:

First, he is not up for reelection until 2010. That means he has roughly two-and-a-half years to rehab his image before he has to face voters. Three years is a long time in politics, and while the issue seems like a silver bullet for Democrats (or a possible GOP challenger) now, it might not be so potent down the road.

Second, Louisiana is a state not unfamiliar with political scandal. The most prominent example was four-term Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), whose campaign slogan in his 1991 reelection race against former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke (R) was "Vote for the Crook, It's Important." Edwards won that race, only now he is incarcerated after being convicted in a racketeering case.

The sheer number of Louisiana politicians who have come under investigation from either state or federal authorities has, frankly, numbed the state's voters to scandal. A story like this could be absolutely devastating to Vitter in a notorious good government state like Wisconsin or Minnesota; in Louisiana, it might well pass for standard fare.

Third, the Louisiana Democratic Party is in dire straits. Their strongest candidate for governor this year -- state Sen. Walter Boasso -- was a Republican until a few months ago. Vitter's 2004 victory, coupled with Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's (D) struggles in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, have created a power vacuum. Old hands like Breaux seem inclined to stay out of the fray as evidenced by his decision not to run for governor after Blanco stepped aside. A fresh face like former Rep. Chris John saw his image badly tarnished by the less-than-stellar Senate campaign he ran against Vitter in 2004. As the old saying goes, you don't beat something with nothing.
I especially like "Vote the Crook, It's Important." Every time I think Chicago has a lock on the depths of corruption (running a drug ring out of the city water plant, anyone?), something in Louisiana robs me of that delusion. With luck, Vitter will survive. If not, Cilizza's right: can the Democratic Party really get rid of him?

Cry Me a River

From Western Resistance: a wannabe terrorist imprisoned in Britain is attacked and "scarred for life" and now seeks "differential treatment" because he's "subjected to differential treatment within the prison system." Well it's not every prisoner who's interested in setting off a dirty bomb in the US, so yes he's different. No word on the identity (or race) of the attacker, though I suspect it would be something like a white supremacist. In countries without the death penalty (the UK among many others), I've wondered whether terrorists who would otherwise merit the needle shouldn't simply be imprisoned alongside neo-Nazis and others who might want him dead. Not our fault, right?

Brown's Got it Right

British PM Gordon Brown often says things related to terrorism and Iraq that I don't agree with. But this time, he's right: Britain would be targeted by al Qaeda regardless of the war in Iraq.

As for the continuing presence of UK troops in-country, the PM also wisely rejects any "artificial" timetables. Again, bravo. Churchill once characterized Britain's policy on the frontier as "butcher and bolt;" today many in Britain would prefer the second part only (and I don't want butcher, just pacify).

Britain Stirs

Many people I've talked to (I hesitate to say experts, because that assumes previous examples) about the seemingly unstoppable collapse of Europe have said that any reaction will not begin with the government but with the common people.

Apparently that's happening in Britain, where as the BBC reports more than 255,000 people have signed a petition on 10 Downing Street's website stating their opposition to the mega-mosque planned for East London. This is the same mosque that will overshadow the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in 2012. Some officials quoted in the article are engaged in the usual games, claiming that it's "only" going to cost some 75 million pounds - not the 100 million that critics claim, rather than answering real questions about the project. And of course London's Red Mayor, Ken Livingstone, is on the side of the Muslims. The BBC also mentions the group behind the project, Tablighi Jamaat, without ever mentioning its ties to terrorist groups and the fact that some jihadis captured in Afghanistan were recruited by them. Typical.

The petition itself can be found here, though only British citizens can sign (and if you are and you haven't, I urge you to do so). Ironically, the petition's text calls for more money to be spent on the NHS. So let's not go forward with a development that will provide a meeting place for terrorists, but let's just import more from Pakistan!

But hey, it's a start.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

The Surge is Working

Or so says Kim Kagan. Democrats across the country cover their hears and scream "nah nah nah I can't hear you." But even the media has slowly been coming around to Kagan's perspective, that the surge is having an effect, and only weeks after it reached full-strength. This isn't to say that their coverage is always good, just that they're grudgingly admitting an improved scenario (and not all of them, it goes without saying).

But why do Democrats continue to ignore these developments, both in Congress and across the country? In both cases, I think there's the underlying fact that their psyches are so set against this war and this president that information that doesn't fit into this framework is rejected out of hand. (I'm pretty sure there's a technical psychological term for this, I've just forgotten it). In Congress, given the intelligence reports I'm sure they're getting, it must be somewhat harder to ignore. Their response? Launch another anti-war offensive, cut things off before the surge's progress can be digested by the public and so that General Petraeus can't make a good report in September. In other words, they're determined to declare defeat despite developments to the contrary, out of spite for the president, their own close-mindedness and that of their constituents.

People Are Stupid

Or at least that's the thesis of The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan. I'd previously seen it reviewed in the Economist, but now a review is available to the masses on Opinion Journal. Oh and in response to Mr Caplan, I say: No duh. Founders created a republic, we've thrown their masterpiece out the window and replaced it with a democracy, something akin to mob rule. We're supposed to elect politicians to make decisions for us - because we should be humble enough to recognize that as a bunch of average joes, we ain't bright enough or informed enough to make big decisions. Two problems with this: we elect idiots, and we're without humility. Instead, we get things like this Iraq "debate," with the people proclaiming they want an end to the war. I'm sorry, America, I forget - where did you get your PhD in International Relations from? Harvard? Princeton? SAIS?

Yes this may be something of a morning rant.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Keith Ellison, 9/11, the US Government...

He's not saying 9/11 was a government plot, he's just saying that if you say that they call you crazy...

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."
I was uncomfortable with Ellison as soon as he was elected not because he was a Muslim but because he's a member of the Nation of Islam. Now this. I'm hoping Minnesotans get their stupid "dontcha know" grins off their faces before next fall and elect someone slightly less crazy.

Oh, and he said all of this in front of a receptive bunch of atheists looking to rebuild the reputation of atheists. They think this helps?

(h/t LGF)

McGovern Weighs In

And Mr. "Come Home America" doesn't know if an anti-war Democrat can win. Check it out.

What Homefield Advantage?

If you listened to the buzz, you'd think Obama would be invincible in his home state. But a recent poll from ARG, reported by the Tribune, has Clinton within the margin of error: Obama 37%, Clinton 33%, MOE +/-4%. On the other side of the aisle, Giuliani's got a pretty commanding lead though Thompson's overtaken McCain.

This is Getting Absurd...

I've remarked previously that the Democratic Party isn't so much a party as a disparate group of interest groups that can hardly tolerate one another and are often willing to subvert the party's interests to those of their particular group. And because of their 'party' composition, Democratic presidential candidates have been pandering away. There was a forum discussing Spanish issues in Miami. There was supposed to be a debate co-sponsored by the CBC and focused on black issues - except that the nutroots couldn't stand Fox asking real questions. And now there's going to be a gay debate.

I find it bizarre to think that there's enough issues to keep them pandering away: aren't blacks, Hispanics and gays all concerned about jobs, national security, etc.? I also think these debates might be counterproductive for Democrats: if they don't sufficiently pander to the "concerns" of the interest group in question, the activists get pissed; if they actually say anything of substance, Republicans may have material for attack ads. Pretty absurd.

Cindy Sheehan (again)

More on crazy "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan's threat to run against "San Fran Nan" Pelosi. What's unclear, as far as I can tell, is whether Sheehan will run as a Democrat or a third-party candidate; I'm hoping it's the latter, which may be the more likely given the fact that she's publicly quit the Democratic Party. If so, she doesn't have to worry about winning a primary, and can run against Pelosi from now until next November.

I don't have a horse in this race (honestly I'd sell San Francisco to Canada or any other willing buyer for a buck fifty), but I hope Sheehan can run a quasi-credible campaign. If so, she might succeed in keeping Pelosi at home, rather than campaigning for Democrats across the country. It might also (if sufficiently threatening) cause the DNC and DCCC to pour resources into the district, resources that might otherwise be directed against Republicans. If Sheehan actually does have a shot, I wonder: will anti-war ultra-Leftists (Maxine Waters, Kucinich, et. al) who have publicly clashed with Pelosi endorse Sheehan? This could be a lot of fun.

Congressional Rematch

Last year in the northern suburbs of Chicago, Democrat Dan Seals gave Republican incumbent Representative Mark Kirk a run for his money. The funny thing about this race in the state's 14th district was its unexpected nature. Although the DCCC was targeting plenty of races around the country (including the nearby 6th District - Roskam and Duckworth), the 10th was largely ignored. Despite being largely ignored by the establishment, Seals ran a strong campaign; Kirk won 53-47, closer than most observers had expected.


Seals is back for a rematch, but he's got a primary challenger in Jay Footlik, a former Clinton administration aid. According to Politico, Kirk, Seals, and Footlik have all been fund raising at a frenzied pace. Combined with the fact that both the NRCC and DCCC will be pouring resources into the race, this'll be one to watch. Chicago's collar counties (basically suburbia) have been going purple over the last couple years as is the trend in suburban areas across the country (suburban Northern Virginia's move to the left helped both Kaine and Webb win there in 2005 and 2006); traditionally Republican voters have moved even further away from urban areas into "exurbia." This trend has been especially true of the 10th district, complicating Kirk's job.

In the big picture, watching the 10th will be instructive. If Republicans want to regain Congress and maintain their control of the White House, it's suburban districts and voters they'll have to win over.

UPDATE: I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner, but Rahm Emanuel is also a former Clinton staffer - perhaps he recruited an old buddy to run? Why? Is it because Seals is black in a predominantly white district? Ooh that'd make the CBC mad!

Monday, July 09, 2007

More Michael Yon

Michael Yon has written again, a wide-ranging report that must be widely read and disseminated.
Among other things, he paints a picture of General Petraeus - competent, considerate to his troops, and popular with them - that stands in stark contrast to the media and the Democrats' mud-slinging. Along with that, he notes how incredibly effective our veteran troops are; this in a city which threatened to be more lethal than Fallujah or Ramadi.

He also reports that the AQ-perpetrated massacre that he previously reported is actually worse than expected, that some local Iraqi officials believe there may be hundreds of bodies buried in the area. He also reports that al Qaeda seems to have plumbed a new depth of inhumanity in their behavior.


Finally he notes media issues - and how some things are unverified but assumed true while others are unverified and assumed to be false and while many journalists have other agendas or misuse their inherent credibility, many do good work and are in an extraordinarily dangerous line of work. As always, read and send. Yon's doing incredible work, I only wish that the media as a whole would follow his lead.

I Love the Democratic Party!

Apparently anti-war crazy Cindy Sheehan's threatening to run against Pelosi if Madame Speaker doesn't begin impeachment proceedings against the President. Given that that seems unlikely to happen, I think we could see the Democratic primary fight of the century. I just don't know who I'd more like to see win - the crazy who admits she's crazy or the crazy one who plays like she's sane?

And people wonder why Democrats have a hard time winning national elections? This fratricidal excuse for a party is not so much the big tent as the freak show on the side.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Romney: King of Iowa?

But does it mean anything? According to Politico, Mr. Organization has attacked the state's unique caucus system like it's an HBS case study; of the other top-tier Republican candidates, only McCain has a major presence there, and given his recent free fall, including him there is little more than a courtesy. Romney's also the only top-tier candidate who has remained committed to the state's August straw poll.

But if a tree falls on a mime in the forest/if only one "real" candidate competes in Iowa - does anyone care? Romney's playing to the emotions of Iowans by suggesting that nominating anyone else would undermine the state's "first in the nation" status. But what if there's no one but Romney to nominate? If Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain withdraw from the caucus itself as they withdrew from the straw poll, Romney's victory there would be hollow and enormously expensive.

Clinton's campaign circulated (and then leaked, perhaps accidentally) a memo suggesting she do exactly the same thing - withdraw from Iowa, effectively ceding it to Edwards. However, she quickly backpedaled, insisting that she would compete there. But there are different elements driving any Democratic decision, namely labor. Skipping Iowa would likely have the effect of angering large numbers of union members (and Democratic-minded voters), which isn't a risk Hillary is willing to take (she's getting enough flack from them on the Mark Penn front anyways).

But for any Republican to pull out now may be overly hasty - as Politico rightly points out, there are still plenty of uncommitted Republican voters in the state (some polls put undecided at 30%).

HRC & Faith

It doesn't take a very astute observer to notice the frequency with which many Democratic presidential candidates are playing up their religiosity. Obama's rhetoric has been the most pronounced, but Hillary Clinton hasn't been far behind. Why so much more God talk this year? I'm tempted to think that the absence of any viable Catholic candidates may play a role; Obama, Clinton and Edwards all hail from more "progressive" Christian backgrounds and thus aren't in danger of being undermined by conservative clergy as Kerry was in 2004.

Returning to Clinton, I stumbled across a post on Ben Smith's Blog (Politico) by Richard Allen Greene discussing an article on the Senator and her faith in today's NYT. Greene, echoing the Times Michael Luo, asks whether religion is a no-win situation for Hillary - that it will only anger the secular left while failing to win over the religious right.

I have to say that I'm leery of Clinton's adoption of religious rhetoric - even if it is underpinned by sincere belief - because of the suddenness with which it has appeared. A religious person who only chooses to wear their faith on their sleeve when beneficial is disingenuous. There's the old joke that a Republican prays in public and drinks in private while a Democrat drinks in public but prays in private - Hillary's moved her prayer into the public square for convenience. The article is noteworthy in the depth of the religiosity (false or otherwise) that she has adopted, but it makes it none the more palatable. Among all of the various testaments to her faith (many of which are very indicative of her Methodism and its liberalism), the most interesting is Mike Huckabee's quote:

“I think that she has genuine faith. I go to a church that’s very expressive,” Mr. Huckabee added in an interview. “It doesn’t mean my faith is more genuine than someone” who has a very reflective tradition “and maybe who worships in a much more liturgical manner, in a quiet way.”
But let's return to the big question - whether Democratic candidates hurt or help themselves by embracing religion and the language of faith. Liberal evangelical minister Jim Wallis has argued that many moderate people of faith - church-going independents or others who are religious but not politically ideological - are driven away from the Democratic Party by its absolutist rhetoric on abortion; Wallis, for his part, is pretty unequivocally pro-life. He suggests that moderating this stance could deprive the GOP of the support of independents it needs to win presidential elections. While that might be true, it could also deprive a Democrat of the support of one of the party's key constituencies - abortion absolutists.

So while Hillary or another Democrat might succeed in winning some moderates by embracing faith and moderating their stance on abortion, the cost of doing so should be balanced against discontent among both secularists and abortion advocates. The reasoning might be that such activists wouldn't rebel because they'll hold their noses (though Leftist single-issue voters have proven remarkably unpragmatic in the past) and support the Democrat; but if Nader gets into the race (as he's made noises about doing) or if Bloomberg's in, things might change. We'll see. But for the time being, it'll be interesting to see how Democrats handle the irreconcilable demands of their base and people of faith.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Again, Russia Lurches Towards Authoritarianism

The Russian Duma has recently passed a law that will "widen the definition of extremist crime to include offences committed for political motives." Obviously this is a disturbing development, and one aimed (without much in the way of obfuscation) at silencing Putin's opponents. But what does the West say? Not much of anything. One wonders how much longer the EU, the US, and others will go on coddling Putin.

On demographic grounds, Russia is a dying nation, so perhaps this is only a short-term problem (short-term being a century, so this is all rather tongue in cheek). But that same argument suggests to me that Russia has only a limited claim to keeping its permanent seat and veto on the UN Security Council. Or perhaps this is another argument about why we should disband the UN?
(h/t PaperChase)

Another Summer of Violence in Lebanon?

MEMRI suggests there's reason to worry that Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran (all essentially the same entity) are going to raise some more hell in Lebanon this summer. Obviously they haven't simply come out and said as much, but there are fragmentary reports that when put together paint a rather sinister picture. If I were a government minister in Tel Aviv, I might find this a rather perverse opportunity for action; this is especially true if one acknowledges a closing window of opportunity before Iran develops nuclear weapons. IDF forces could topple the Little Ass(ad) regime in Damascus without too much trouble, and any overt Iranian reaction may be limited by the presence of US warships off the coast. Of course if it so much as lifts a finger, Israel will be castigated in the media and the UN.

Librarians as Social Activists

Or so says the New York Times. Personally, I'd be happy if librarians were more at home with the Loeb classics collection than with the latest e-cause. Of course there's also a bias issue with leftist librarians - they filter (subconsciously or not - and I'm leaning towards not) the sort of information they expose their patrons to. That danger is borne out if one browses through the institutional reports over at Campus Watch, where it becomes evident that politicized librarians produced politicized resources - like the resource website created by a Duke librarian that referred to Hamas and Fatah as political organizations. Keep an eye on your local bookworm, though if their head is buried in Chomsky, I'm not entirely sure who you should complain to.

(h/t The Corner)

Another Anti-Fred Offensive

We're six months out from Iowa, sixteen from the general. Yet that hasn't stopped the New York Times from already going after families and spouses - this time Fred Thompson's second wife Jeri, whom they have the "class" to call a trophy wife. They go on:

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?
Thanks to CQ for picking up this story, and Captain Ed is right to note "the concern that Susan Saulny and the Paper of Record show for "values voters", a group that normally received little but scorn and ridicule from Pinch's crew." Yup. Of course to many in America, an attack from the Times is akin to an endorsement. And if you're going to attack one candidate's spouse, wouldn't you pick the one who isn't a high-powered media consultant?

It's a Mad, Mad World

I didn't bother to blog much on the revelations of the McCain campaign's crash diet or its paltry fundraising success. But this I do find noteworthy: "Republican" [nutjob libertarian] Ron Paul has more cash on hand ($2.4 million) than John McCain does ($2 million).

$2.4M vs. $2M is pretty paltry when the next guy, Romney, is sitting on $12 million. But having more to use than McCain does give Paul a certain credibility, and means that we may have to endure his bizarre opinions for a few more debates. However, it remains to be seen if there is anything behind this - whether his poll numbers jump, whether he's building viable organizations on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. I'm curious about how much of his fundraising totals came from non-Republicans (in terms of registration), but that's something FEC disclosures won't cover.

Paul also talks about how he feels like he's on the "upslope" compared to some other candidates who are already lagging - McCain - but as I said I don't think there's currently any metrics to determine the veracity of that statement. I do, however, think that all of McCain's recent troubles give more credence to the rumors that he'll quit the race by summer (unless of course Fred pulls out and endorses McCain, though is it possible the opposite could also happen?).

ACLU Wiretapping Case Thrown Out

The ACLU, defender of civil liberties (so long as you're not conservative, white, male, or Christian), sued the NSA over the supposed illegality of the NSA's executive-ordered wiretapping. The case was thrown out by a federal court in Cincinnati on the grounds that the plaintiffs couldn't actually prove that they were being wiretapped and thus had no standing. It seems a bit of a hazy ruling on some level - how do environmental groups who aren't actually developing cancer thanks to industrial waste get standing to sue? But the judge's ruling in the matter concisely lays out why they couldn't hear the case and overlook the plaintiffs' lack of standing:

The plaintiffs allege that the President, as an actor in our tripartite system of government, exceeds his constitutional authority by authorizing the NSA to engage in warrantless wiretaps of overseas communications under the TSP. But this court, not unlike the President, has constitutional limits of its own and, despite the important national interests at stake, cannot exceed its allotted authority. . . . It would ill behoove us to exceed our authority in order to condemn the President or Congress for exceeding theirs.
(emphasis my own, h/t Bench Memos)

Albania's Long-Lost Roman City

BBC's Malcolm Billings finds his way to Butrint, an almost-forgotten Roman city buried in the forests of the Albanian coast. It's a brief but interesting read about some of the challenges of post-communist historical preservation and archeology. To name one considerable hurdle, native archaeologists are practically non-existent so that in addition to work on the site, they must be trained. The entire preservation effort is the product of the passion of two British lords and an American entrepreneur, something of an odd alliance but engaged in some very important work. The ruins sound spectacular and clearly illustrate the sweep of the region's history - Roman ruins, a Venetian fort, an Ottoman bastion, strong points from Enver Hoxha's Communist regime.

It's unlikely that I'll find myself traipsing through Albania anytime soon, but suffice to say if I do Butrint will be on my list of destinations.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Most Americans Don't Understand Government?

Or that's what a poll regarding impeachment tells me. On the question of impeaching Bush, the public is split, 45% for and 46% against; Cheney's significantly less popular, with 54% in favor and only 40% of those surveyed opposed.

Now part of me asks what in God's name do most Americans know about impeachment and impeachable offenses? I find it unlikely that those surveyed were sufficiently well-informed to make any sort of honest judgment on the matter. That, of course, may just be the reactionary in me speaking.

It's unlikely that the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill will actually pursue such an extreme course of action, but if they do there are two schools of thought on the consequences. On the one hand, Democratic analysts suggest that forcing Republicans to vote against impeaching a highly unpopular politician (most likely Cheney) would hurt them at home in an election year (or alternately force them to support the measure). For Republicans, however, a well-played media strategy could result in the spotlight being focused on some of the loonier Democratic members, potentially producing party-wide blowback.

But let's admit that there's an easier way around all of this. Cheney should resign (Bush can appoint him Master of the Universe or whatever title he chooses); Lieberman should be nominated to fill his seat. Democrats could really be hung out to dry if they refused to confirm him, and no doubt 51 votes could be found. That, of course, would leave a Senate vacancy - in a blue state with a Republican governor. That'd produce a fifty-fifty split, but I'm not sure which way Lieberman would vote. Anyways, it'd be an introducing move.

RINOS and RATs

I think most of us are familiar with the derogatory acronym RINO - Republican in Name Only. I'll now add another one, for which I can sadly take no credit: RATS - Republican(s) Agreeing to Surrender. Lugar, Voinovich, Hagel, and now Domenici can all be classified as this rare species of vermin.

I've never been particularly fond of the term RINO just because "in name only" is really a matter of perspective and opinion - because I'm not unflinchingly pro-life or anti-immigrant, some might call me a RINO. RATS, however, seems far less subjective. (But perhaps change agreeing to amenable?)

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Two Relevant Speeches Worth Reading

Calvin Coolidge's "Speech on the Occasion of the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence"

Ronald Reagan's "Independence Day - 1981" speech

The second is less well-known than it should be, the first almost forgotten. So let's change that - read both.

Brown Americanizes Britain

New PM Gordon Brown has floated a series of "reforms" designed to introduce "accountability" into British government; these would include

giving members of parliament the final say on declaring war and the ratification of international treaties, allowing US-style confirmation hearings for certain public officials, consulting with the public and other political parties on a possible "British Bill of Rights and Duties" or a written constitution, moving election days to weekends and creating a national security council. Some of the reforms address complaints made over Britain's commitment of troops to the Iraq war; others continue the governing Labour Party's turn toward US-style political and administrative institutions. All appear to be in response to criticisms over Labor's apparent centralization of power.
Yikes. They're facing the prospect of a low-level (or worse) civil war and Brown's suggesting they essentially hamstring their ability to wage such a conflict effectively. Our founders gave the ability to declare war to both chambers, understanding that a more deliberative body than the mob-like mass of the lower house. Of course Britain long-ago unjustly castrated their House of Lords, many of whom must be spinning in their graves at these recommendations.

J.A.R. means "Republican" - but could also be "republican" or "reactionary." Brown wants to take Britain down a dangerous road; a complacent government and seething masses in the street isn't a good time to be introducing these sorts of reforms.

Liveblogging the Continental Congress

A great piece of historical writing by Rick Moran over at the Right Wing Nuthouse - check it out here (July 3rd); July 4th is here - read both of them!

Today is Indepdence Day

Because on the fourth of July, 1776, fifty-six boldly affixed their signatures to a Declaration of Independence, knowing that their future had only two possibilities: Liberty or death.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Musical Evidence of South Park Conservatives?

A punk-rap band by the name of Stuck Mojo made waves recently with a music video for their single "Open Season." Basically it's an attack on militant Islam and terrorists invocation of the cloak of Islam as a religion of peace. Check it out.


(h/t LGF)

Iraq? Surge? What Surge?

White House Press Corps has gone loony for Libby, as John Hinderaker notes. Check it out here.

Democratic Base Solid

Barone analyzes party ID numbers from Scott Rasmussen's polls; seems that despite an impotent Democratic Congress, the party's base remains solid; however the gap between them and the GOP is at its narrowest in the past year - a Republican revival? Too soon to be sure.

"Art" in the Loosest Sense of the Word

New Criterion's James Panero has filed two (really three) dispatches from Venice's Biennale, documenting the state of avant-garde art - specifically its anti-American and antisemitic components.
Part one (from the WSJ) is here.
Part two (from NC's blog) here.
Part three here (chronologically the first though most comprehensible in the context of one and two).

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Pigs Fly

And I recommend an article from the New York Times: US Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.s

Pots and Kettles

Hillary criticizes W's pardon of Scooter Libby...because Billy Bob never pardoned anybody. And by anybody I mean 140. Check out what Captain Ed has to say about it here.

Prince Harry's Shoutout to his Men

From the concert for his mother at Wembley the other night, Prince Harry acknowledged his band of brothers currently serving in Iraq, lamenting the fact that he wasn't there. Worth watching. Note too the enthusiastic reaction from the crowd.

Were we fighting a human, civilized foe, no doubt Harry would be over there. The prospect of his being taken prisoner, however, is too much. Remember, when royalty were captured on the battlefield in earlier ages, they were treated as royalty.

Iran in Iraq pt. 2

Just for amusement (and to stick another thumb in Greenwald's blindered eyes): the BBC, imperialist, reactionary war-mongering news outlet that it is, also presents the story of Iranian involvement in Iraq as pretty plausible.

Britain's Vanishing Military

Some MPs are voicing concerns over declining enlistment rates in all branches of the British military; among the cited reasons are "heavy workloads, frequent overseas deployments and impact on family life." No doubt.

Truly gone are the glory days of British arms. Presently, troops can look forward to tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere lasting months and with many comforts while off-duty. At the height of empire, enlistment was something like ten (fifteen?) years, and deployments on far-off posts in unhealthy climes (India, West Africa, etc.) were measured in years. During the Napoleonic Wars, sailors of the Royal Navy could go years without setting foot on dry land (and could go almost as long without their food being refreshed).

I've begun to think that war debts and a whiny Left (including the transmission of various nationalist doctrines into colonies) were only two of the most obvious causes of the decline of empires post-1945. Other under-studied causes could very well include the development of communication technology and rise of the welfare state. The second of these meant that men had a choice between starvation and service (which often wasn't a whole lot better). The former meant that overseas policy was conducted more cautiously by government bureaucrats rather than those on the front line. If he'd been blessed (cursed?) with satellite communications, no doubt Clive never would have fought Plassey. Instead, when England next heard from him, he'd annexed a large swath of India on his own initiative. It used to be that when troops were deposited on some distant shore, they acted as they saw fit until such time as they perished or received further "orders" (often hopelessly obsolete) from Europe. Compare that to LBJ's micromanagement of Vietnam!

What does this all mean? Perhaps national service (broadly construed) should be made a prerequisite for welfare benefits. Of course that would be seen as aimed at the lower classes, which is unfortunately true. A culture of public service needs to be inculcated into national elites, so that they too do their part (though aristocratic officers were often far more trouble than they were worth). Perhaps I am just a man born in the wrong time.

Defeatocrats

I noted the other day that Democrats are again trying to retreat; one means to this ignoble end is a "readiness" measure that wouldn't permit troops to return to combat until they'd spent an equal time in the US (so six months in Iraq, followed by six in the US). The Standard takes a look at it, listing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) among its proponents. The other day I mentioned that one flaw in our Vietnam operations was the definite time line for any troops to be in theater (a year). Webb's a veteran of that conflict, yet refuses to acknowledge how these kinds of strictures destroys the effectiveness of our troops. If troops in Vietnam had had a vested interest in ending the conflict, not getting out in a year, then perhaps things would have been different.

Iran in Iraq

The Weekly Standard's got a good roundup of the allegations of Iranian involvement in Iraq. Apparently they're looking to turn Iraq into another Lebanon, with all the social and economic turmoil that involves, to say nothing of the country's becoming a playground for terrorists. Oh and of course Democrats in Congress would like nothing more than to enable them in this effort.

Republican Money Game

So the news about Hillary and Obama's fundraising successes have been well-documented in recent days. Now numbers from Republican candidates are coming out: Giuliani raised over $17 million, with $18 million on-hand; Romney raised $14 million (plus a $6.5 million loan) and has $12 million on hand.

What I'm still waiting to see are the numbers from Fred Thompson's as-yet unofficial campaign; some rumors have him as high as $10 million. Not bad for a guy who's not officially running.

Michael Yon Update

I noted Michael Yon's latest (and perhaps most disturbing) dispatch the other day; now he's updated, with an open offer for the media to publish it and get the news of this atrocity into the public eye.

Muslim Prayer in Schools

In San Diego. Although they can't determine whether or not the students were led in prayer by school officials, what's not disputed is that there is a fifteen-minute afternoon break for student prayer.

To me this pushes the envelope - and if these were Christians, there's no doubt that the ACLU and media would be all over it.

Though for what it's worth, the San Diego Union-Tribune did cover this - but not much elsewhere.

Apologies

Sorry about yesterday's relative silence, I was doing that whole "being productive" thing.

I'll play some catch up right now.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

Though that phrase doesn't usually refer to husband and wife opponents. Both are running for the "moderate party" nomination and the honor to get beaten by Melissa Bean in the Illinois 8th. Bean's probably pretty well invulnerable this time around (the GOP's best chance of unseating her was last year), and it says something about the district that the Moderate Party can take more than five percent in the general.

(h/t PJM)

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Okay It's Official

I've given in and am supporting Fred Thompson for the Republican nomination. I like Rudy Giuliani a lot, but the man has a lot of baggage. For a lot of reasons, I think Fred has the best shot of winning our party's nomination, as well as winning the White House in 2008. I hope you'll do the same.

[Yes, this means there will now be a Fred Thompson post tag. Yes there will be a lot more articles.]

Illinois's Incompetent GOP

A professor once described the North Carolina Republican Party as a circular firing squad. The same could be said of the Illinois GOP, split as it is between moderates and conservatives, and with the threat of fractures emerging even among conservatives. Of course Rick Pearson's right, there is no better time to launch a revival than when the state's Democrats are at one another's throats in Springfield. There are also bigger underlying pressures - for example, Senator Dick Durbin and Mayor Daley aren't exactly warm friends, representing different wings of the Democratic Party. Chicago's collar counties are slowly going purple, and Republican incumbents at both the state and federal level there may come under serious electoral pressure if that shift isn't reversed.

A truly visionary program would focus not only on reviving the GOP's fortunes in suburbia but also trying to make inroads into Chicago's minority communities. Any statewide candidate has to win roughly a quarter of Chicago's votes (legal, that is, not the "vote early vote often" ones), which is presently almost impossible unless of course they effectively reach out to the city's blacks and Hispanics.

Things You Won't Hear on the Evening News

Civilian deaths decreasing in Baghdad. A sign that the surge is working? Perhaps; unless you're a Democrat (or Dick Lugar), in which case we can't possibly wait long enough to find out.

Pennsylvania House Races

Townhall's Salena Zito has a good roundup of this cycle's top House races in Pennsylvania. Sure it might seem absurd to focus on only one state, but there are eight potentially "in play" seats in the Keystone State.

Four of these (4th, 7th, 8th, and 10th) were Republican until 2006 when they went blue. I blogged about the 4th the other day, where Democrat Jason Altmire might be in serious trouble if former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann decides to get in. Zito suggests that Altmire will only have to worry if Swann runs a "top-notch" campaign, an assessment I agree with; his gubernatorial bid last cycle was marred by gaffs and missteps, making a tough race nigh-on impossible. She also argues (I agree) that Iraq veteran Pat Murphy in PA-8 is basically invulnerable, with Joe Sestak in the 7th only slightly less so. That makes, in her eyes, Chris Carney in the PA-10 the most vulnerable.

Of course how vulnerable is up for discussion. The 10th district went for Bush by comfortable margins in 2000 and 2004 (56-40 and 60-40 respectively) and is more rural than the suburban parts of the state trending purple (i.e. Philly suburbs). Don Sherwood, who Carney defeated, was also a less than stellar candidate, seeing as he had to admit an extramarital affair while denying that he'd assaulted his mistress. A lot will depend on who's on top of the ticket; I think Hillary hurts Carney while Giuliani or Thompson helps his eventual challenger.

Zito also looks at four Republican-held seats she thinks could be in play: Phil English (PA-03, Pittsburgh-area), Jim Gerlach (PA-06, southeastern part of the state), Charlie Dent (PA-15, Allentown area), and Tim Murphy (PA-18, southern Pittsburgh). Demographics would suggest that Dent or Gerlachhave the greatest challenge; Gerlach was heavily targeted by the DCCC in 06 but he survived 51-49, but he's battle-tested and has a savvy staff (including consultant Mark Campbell, also Rudy's national Political Director). Dent for his part has a purple district but is no ideologue and probably can't get tarred as out of touch. Murphy's got some ethical clouds on the horizon but fits his district, while English has had it easy the last couple of cycles and will need to get in fighting trim (simple sloth probably cost the GOP the 7th district last year). For what it's worth, a friend from English's district discounts the possibility of it going blue anytime soon.

While I generally agree with her logic, I think the presidential nominees will be a huge factor in any of these races. Fred or Rudy will likely attract moderates and energize the base, making things easier for all four Republican incumbents (especially Dent and Murphy), and turn the heat up on Carney and Altmire; that dynamic would also likely force the DCCC to play defense in some of its newly-conquered territories, again reducing the pressure on the Republicans. I also feel like in a lot of these blue-collar districts (often purple), Hillary Clinton won't go over well.

Last year was a massacre for the Pennsylvania GOP but it has to be seen as a perfect storm rather than a sign of things to come. Lynn Swann's gubernatorial bid was clumsy, Rick Santorum was a mite too conservative for the state, and the war was bad for everyone. Republicans shouldn't rest easy because of that, however - next year is their best chance to reverse some of these losses before the Democratic freshmen entrench themselves.

Fred's Take on Darfur and Global Warming

I noted the other day that the UN was laying at least part of the blame for Darfur on global warming. Well, Fred Thompson's not buying any of it:

Why, then, would the new UN Secretary General blame climate change? I think it’s pretty obvious.

Blaming the Islamic government and groups that have manipulated events in Sudan will get him nothing but enemies. Blaming global warming, however, is basically the same thing as blaming America. America is by no means the only major source of greenhouse gases, but we've taken the most political heat. The reason is that congress rightfully balked at ratifying the Kyoto international climate treaties during the Clinton presidency.

There is simply no downside to blaming America, because Americans don't punish their ideological foes. From the UN, we don't even require sanity sometimes. And there might even be an upside to blaming us, since there are Americans who suffer from such ingrained feelings of guilt, they’ll support increased aid to both the UN and Sudan.

There is a lesson to be learned here, though. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is arguably the most powerful man in the international community today. We know he's unwilling to blame those who actually gave the orders to commit genocide in Darfur. And apparently he's happy to shift the blame for ongoing deaths to those living peaceful, productive lives in the West.

Now hopefully we can work toward international cooperation with regard to environmental policies that make sense. It’s not very encouraging though when the head of the world’s leading international body uses climate change as an all purpose excuse in order to avoid hard realities.
I just have to agree; I'm tired of the media giving China and India a free pass for their CO2 emissions, and Fred's right to point out that "global warming" is in some ways code for covert anti-Americanism.

Senator Kennedy of Louisiana?

It may just happen, according to Bob Novak. Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy - currently a conservative Democrat - is rumored to be on the verge of switching parties and running against Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Even with this development, the Fix only rated the Louisiana Senate race the third most competitive, after New Hampshire and Colorado. Colorado's debatable, but Democrats still don't have a candidate to challenge Sununu in New Hampshire; furthermore, Landrieu has looked pretty vulnerable for a while. Her latest financials (out tomorrow?) should be telling about exactly how vulnerable.

Mayor Livingstone: Muslims More Law-Abiding

"Red Ken" whitewashes Islamic terrorism, gives cover to extremism.

Our Inhuman Enemies

More Michael Yon from Iraq: accompanying a mixed force of US and Iraqi troops, they stumble across an Iraqi village where al Qaeda had butchered the inhabitants, beheaded the children, and slaughtered the livestock. The buildings were left standing and the entire village filled with IEDs, a booby-trapped community which thankfully didn't take any soldiers' lives.

The brutality and "scorched earth" aspect of AQ's tactics is suggestive to me. It would seem that as their popular support wanes, they've resorted entirely to brutality in an attempt to cow the local populace. This in itself shows that the surge is working (sorry Democrats), though the spin on incidents such as exactly the opposite. But what this really demonstrates is the fate of Iraq should we quit the country.

[Warning: the photos are pretty graphic]

Thoughts on Glasgow and London

While no one is talking about the race of the two (?) thugs who rammed their SUV into Glasgow airport, it's pretty obviously Islamist terror; even the New York Times (!) admitted as much, reporting that bystanders heard one of the two men shouting "Allah, Allah!" while throwing punches and on fire. This last point makes me wonder whether these were wannabe suicide bombers whose nerve failed, or whether they were "homicide" bombers who were just incompetent.

I'll also be interested in the specific demographics of these two plus anyone arrested in connection to the unsuccessful London car bombings. Were these Arabs, "Arabized" South Asians, converts? Immigrants or citizens? Homegrown or veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan, or Chechnya? Based on bitter experience, I'd suggest the following profile: Pakistanis corrupted by Wahhabism, likely British-born, and perhaps not with any real experience of jihad but no doubt influenced by al-Qaeda (Lord Stevens, Britain's terror chief, said as much).

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has shown that he like his predecessor can string words together, proclaiming that "We will not yield, we will not be intimidated and we will not allow anyone to undermine our British way of life." But, and pardon me for being so damnably contrarian, isn't the reality that homegrown terrorists (as was the case in the 7/7 bombings, several other thwarted plots, and likely this one as well) have come to be in part from an undermining of their British way of life? That mushy multiculturalism has already taken hold to such an extent that these immigrants (or their children) can reject a British identity and wrap themselves in an Islamic, often Wahhabist, identity and ideology? What Brown should have said is that they will not be intimidated and they will work to restore their British way of life.