The "Debates"

The other night, we the people blundered into the age of the YouTube debate. I didn't watch. Why not? First of all because I was busy; but also because the entire concept disappointed me. Oh and I didn't care.

But let's return to the second (and perhaps most substantive) reason: the concept disappoints me. Really perhaps I'm wrong in saying this; perhaps it's a relief. Because instead of inane questions asked by "pundits" such as Chris Matthews ("Raise your hand..."), we get questions asked by snowmen (or this being a Democratic debate, snowpeople). This "debate" just serves to prove how hollow the entire "debate" concept has become - worthless questions asked by people sorely lacking in intellect or the necessary gravitas (which is why the GOP's Fox News debate was one of the only substantive ones to date) or questions asked by equally clueless average-joe voters. Instead, let's put candidates to a real test - throw them in front of Thomas Sowell or Dennis Miller (or their Democratic equivalents) and force them to answer questions of depth and substance. It may turn off voters, but that's a risk we should be willing to take. In fact, who is to say that if the level of debate is raised, voters won't follow along? Soundbytes and shallow debates are what's wrong with politics, and also I think what turns many people off of politics. If instead there was some honest, meaningful discussion of depth, voters might respond and the whole country would be better off. Though if we try to do so (such as the Democrats Iraq-only forum at SAIS), the candidates may flee rather than be exposed (at that forum, only Biden and other equally low-tier candidates showed up).

A YouTube debate has also been announced for the Republican field, but thankfully they may not be playing along. Giuliani's campaign has suggested that he's got a scheduling conflict September 17th, and Romney's unhappy with the format. If they choose not to show up, it could quickly become a debate filled with meaningless questions answered by meaningless candidates - sort of like the Ames Straw Poll for the digital age. Though I imagine Ron Paul would have fun with it.

But why the difference in reaction? In part, I think it's that Democrats are desperate to appear "hip" and win the mythical youth vote (though the "vote or die" campaign of 2004 was dead on arrival); Republicans frankly don't give a damn.

And while we're on the topic, if debates are entirely pointless (they are), can we at least make them truly entertaining? Have Colbert and Stewart co-host. That I would watch.

My First Musings on Turkey's Elections

Not really - made you look! I'm still trying to locate my Turkish correspondent, who is part of Citigroup's summer slave labor ("associate") program and thus incommunicado. In the meantime, while I pool my own thoughts and those of the blogosphere, check out Derb's view of the Turkish national psyche. I'd agree with both points, especially the former, and he fails to mention at all Turkey's hostility to Greece (manifested most recently in the tensions over Cyprus) which may perhaps be more a characteristic of Turks from the western part of the country, especially Istanbul. Further, my sense is that among the nation's elite, secularism is still deeply ingrained.

So maybe this is my first Turkish musing; there will be more (and in honor of that, note the new Turkey tag).

NYT: Court-Packing is Cool!

Brendan Nyhan rightfully slaps around NYT op-ed contributor Jean Edward Smith for suggesting that a Democratic president would need only a simple majority to increase the number of Supreme Court justices ("court-packing"), but he gives her a pass on the absurdity underlying her argument.

Now to begin with, prior to reading Smith's op-ed, I was unaware that the practice of court-packing has a long history (though I suppose I shouldn't be shocked). But let's just look at the opening and closing paragraphs:

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.
[snip]
If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

I don't know whether to vomit or to laugh, though I suspect the two together would be highly unpleasant. Put more bluntly, Smith says "We the coastal liberals don't agree with the Supreme Court. We used to, but now that we don't, we should find ways around them." It also pays no attention to the fact that this court doesn't have a "manifestly ideological agenda" any more than any previous court did (and significantly less so than the Warren Court). Her claim that the "five-man majority" is "thumbing its nose at popular values" is also absurd. Let's consider one decision that has produced much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Left, Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision that outlawed partial birth abortion. In doing so, was the Roberts Court "thumbing its nose at popular values?" Well if polls are to be believed, not exactly: a May Gallup poll found that 72% of respondents believed the partial-birth abortion procedure should be illegal. Popular values, perhaps, if you poll only Greenwich Village, Beacon Hill, Chapel Hill, and San Francisco.
It reminds me of Pauline Kael's infamous distress in 1976 - "No one I know voted for Nixon!" Times change, liberals don't.

But let's also look at this hare-brained scheme in the bigger picture. What other recent Democratic caper does this remind you of? If you guessed the "fairness" doctrine, you're right! In both cases, Democrats are throwing temper tantrums that they aren't getting their way - whether it's being blasted on talk radio or having their glorious social engineering projects judicially neutered - and they're determined to change the rules. And why does this happen? It may be tritely stated, but it's because liberal ideals aren't popular values, but rather the values of an insular elite - the academe, the media, etc. - which cannot be enacted through the usual channels. Thus they have to use other means, such as the courts. And when people call them on their BS, they'd rather muzzle the opposition rather than try and win an honest debate.

This thing ain't going anywhere, much to the dismay of the Upper East Side, but in his critique, Nyhan really missed the boat.

A Couple of Technical Notes

So in addition to adding a headlines link to the Victory Caucus, I've made a couple of other minor technical tweaks; the most notable of these is that posts are now archived weekly. This should reduce the size of the main page, which with only monthly archiving was getting large; this in turn means that the page should load quicker. Also hopefully makes it easier to find stuff (on that front, I'm still trying to get a Technorati cloud up, wish me luck).

The Source for All Things Iraq

The Victory Caucus is relaunched and should become your one-stop shop for anything related to Iraq: news, statistics, reports, maps, etc. It's run by a rather august group of individuals - Frank Gaffney, Hugh Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, et. al, and they have a mission and set of beliefs that should be common to all Americans. Oh and just to make things easy, you can find the latest headlines on the right sidebar of my humble blog.

John Doe Immunity Lives?

I, along with the rest of the conservative blogosphere, bemoaned last week's apparent demise of language that would shield citizens reporting suspicious activity from lawsuits. Except it turns out that it may have been a Hamas funeral - the dearly departed may not have been dead after all. Captain Ed has the tentative good news.

Oh and while we're at it, this may be as good a time as any to note that "dead" in Washington-ese isn't an absolute term as it is for the rest of the world. This can be good (John Doe immunity shield) or bad (immigration bill) - but either way it's worth noting.

My Third Russian Post of the Day

Captain Ed caught something I missed, namely that within the Russian expulsion of four British diplomats last week (which at the time he called a controlled escalation) was an act of brinkmanship, an attempt to force Britain's hand through economic pressures. However he notes that this may backfire, leaving Russia worse off than before. Putin may be crazier than most of us gave him credit for.

Oh and speaking of tonight's theme, "colonial mindsets," a century ago, few nations would have been impudent enough to use Britain's commercial interests against her. For one related example, read up on the Opium Wars.

Oh the Irony

In a follow-up to my previous post, some group of geniuses in the UK have decided that youths are more likely to become yobs if they drop out of school early; to prevent this they recommend more funding. Typical answer. Instead, I've got some suggestions. First off, make these kids want to stay in school. Stop teaching them politically correct, multicultural tripe; rather give them a hearty dose of British history in all its glory. Remind them of the greatness of Britain, built upon the blood and toil of their ancestors. Second of all, funding is the overall problem. As the New Criterion noted, part of the problem is that there is no incentive to get a job - or by extension to staying in school. Start cutting the welfare net out from under them and kids will realize that they actually have to get an education to get a paycheck; staying in school and getting a job means they won't have time to loiter on the street corners in hoodies.

If only Britain had Hell's Grannies to deal with, instead of yobs...

Another Reason to Love the New Criterion

I had a little fun with British terminology yesterday, specifically 'yob.' Now someone at the New Criterion (one of their interns I believe), takes aim at the root cause of all this, the British welfare state. A curt, but interesting read.

Speaking of Colonial Mindsets...

The Kremlin Krazies are now attempting to claim a bigger chunk of the Arctic, in hopes that global warming will provide access to oil, gas, and other natural resources reputed to be there. This is of course a blatant land grab (sans land) for the purpose of access to natural resources. Also known as colonialism. Oh and the tactic, basically "showing the flag" is also straight out of Colonialism 101.

But here's the real irony: Russians are intent on grabbing more natural resources, but given current demographic trends, in a couple of decades, there won't be any Ruskies left to take advantage of said natural resources. That's the issue they should be addressing, instead of some foolish pursuit of national glory.

Vlad Putin, meet Melanie Phillips

In the latest round of the Russo-British extradition spat, Vlad Putin blasted Britain's demands for the extradition of ex-KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi in light of long-term British opposition to the extradition of some thirty individuals taking refuge in London whom the Kremlin would like to speak to. No doubt these include some of the plutocrats accused of plotting the overthrow of the Putin regime.

British columnist-turned-author (most recently of the invaluable Londonistan) Melanie Phillips also noted that phenomenon, though in the context of repeated British refusals to extradite terror suspects not only to Middle Eastern countries but also to other nations such as France.

Both Putin and Phillips, an unlikely pair of commentators on two variations of the same theme, both have their reasoning; one is convincing, one is diametrically opposed (and incorrect). Putin attributes the British refusal to extradite anyone within their own country to a "colonial mindset;" in reality, he couldn't be more wrong. This refusal, as Phillips convincingly documents in Londonistan (specifically its second chapter, "The Human Rights Jihad"), is based in a muddleheaded attachment to "human rights law," one symptom of the intellectual and moral rot that has begun consuming the UK from within. I won't attempt to replicate Phillips' explanation in depth, read it yourself. But I'll try and give some of the highlights. First of all, the British refuse to extradite a suspect to any country where they may be subjected to torture or "degrading treatment," as well as opening refugee status to anyone who might be at risk of "harm" in their home country - the equivalent of hanging out a "Terrorists Welcome" sign. Phillips goes into far greater depth, but as I said, read it yourself.

What all of this really means is that Putin's explanation couldn't be more wrong; this isn't a colonial mindset so much as a post-colonial mindset, the antithesis of a colonial mindset.

What's Newt Up To?

Earlier this week, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich went absolutely ballistic on the Republican presidential field, comparing them to pygmies, as well as blasting the "debates" that have become a de rigeur component of the political process without providing anything substantive. Despite all of that, he continued to play coy on the possibility of his seeking the nomination, though the likelihood of him entering the race has been seen to diminish in recent months.

And now in what's truly an intriguing development, it emerges that at least one member of his inner circle has departed to work for Fred Thompson, and that Gingrich and his (third wife) Callista recently had a policy-fueled double date with the Senator and his wife Jeri. The ladies aren't as imposed upon as one might expect (and indeed have a lot in common), given that Callista was a Hill staffer when she met Gingrich and that Jeri is a reputable media consultant in her own right. So what's going on here? Politico's Jonathan Martin suggests that Gingrich may endorse Thompson, though not until October (remember that the possibility of a Thompson endorsement from McCain is also possible, if the Arizona Senator withdraws from the race).

This to me is a very appealing pairing (though never in a formal setting - Gingrich as VP would sink the ticket), given that Newt really is the "ideas man" of the GOP, a title he's never relinquished since the Contract with America, and Fred seems to be the favorite among conservatives. Mr. Popular and Mr. Brains - is this the start of (some sort of) beautiful friendship?

Senate Race Notes

Chris Cillizza (second post referencing him - any guess where I am on my bloglines?) has another excellent roundup and ranking of next year's Senate contests, with a couple of surprises. The first one that hits you is Mitch McConnell's presence, even without a serious challenger (though check out CC's later post for a potential emergence of one); I'm not discounting the possibility of McConnell being in hot water for all the reasons he lists (Kentucky GOP and governor besieged, McConnell as the face of an unpopular party, etc.), but he's also an extraordinarily strong campaigner. So was Daschle - just saying.

Speaking of South Dakota, does Governor Mike Rounds run even if Senator Tim Johnson decides to seek reelection despite his recent brain surgery (from which he hasn't yet returned to work)? I dunno about that one, primarily because South Dakotans may be inclined to give Johnson the sympathy vote, even if Rounds may be more in line with many of their views (though the presidential dynamic may change things, as it likely did in Thune's victory over Daschle in 04). Talking to my sole friend from South Dakota, I get the sense that no one there wants another nasty, brutish, and overly-long race like the 04 contest, with an absurd amount of money spent by both candidates in a state with dirt cheap advertising. Everyone got sick of it pretty quick, and that's the sort of race Rounds may have to run to win.

Cilizza's got Nebraska too low on the list (#8) for my taste. Why? Because Hagel looks unlikely to seek reelection, even if he does, there's a credible Republican challenger in Jon Bruning (who also raised credible sums last quarter), and it's a very red state in a presidential year. There's also no serious Democratic contender at present, though Cillizza is the first credible source I've seen to note the rumors of Bob Kerrey coming back to run. I'd put this higher on the list, maybe replacing Oregon at #7, given that Democrats haven't got an announced, credible candidate yet.

His #6, Virginia, deserves to be higher, especially as the rumors of John Warner's retirement grow. If John Warner retires, Virginia Democrat friends tell me Mark Warner will run, and likely win (especially if ex-presidential nominee Jim Gilmore and Rep Tom Davis start attacking each other).

His #3 is Louisiana, but given the state's topsy-turvy politics, Mary Landrieu may not be in too much trouble, dropping this one a spot or two. We've got a Democrat-turned-Republican looking to run against her and (if I'm not mistaken) a Republican-turned-Democrat running for governor. Assuming that Rep Bobby Jindal wins this year's gubernatorial contest (seems likely), he won't run against her; he might be the GOP's best hope. On top of all of this is the Vitter mess, and the fact that he seems determined to tough it out, further muddying the waters (though if Jindal runs, I think the chances of Vitter resigning increase noticeably). I haven't recently talked to my Louisiana source, so maybe her insights will change my thinking.

Given what he says, I'd flip his #2 and #1 races, especially due to that New Hampshire poll showing Jeanne Shaheen just walloping John Sununu (not surprising since the state went left in a big way last year).

So let's sum it up; my ten:
1) New Hampshire
2) Colorado
3) Maine (blue state, not a good time for a Republican, even if she's a moderate)
4) Virginia
5) Minnesota (see logic on #3, but change pronoun)
6) Lousiana (I know, gasps of protest that it's dropped this far; also sad that this the Republicans' best pick-up opportunity)
7) Oregon
8) Nebraska (if we're sticking with CC's formula of likely to change parties, this may go RINO to R)
9) South Dakota
10) Kentucky

At present, I see no reason to put Dole on this list; the Democrats can't find anyone credible to run against her (best shot Mike Easley is a no-go, as are a lot of less-notable others), Dole's savvy and tough (and can always trot out Viagra Bob), and it's a presidential year.

But it's an overall bad picture for the GOP: I don't see them picking up a seat unless Landrieu blunders or Louisiana politics get a little more straightforward (ha!) or unless Johnson announces he's not running again, or something crazy happens elsewhere (still think Dick Durbin's more vulnerable than is acknowledged for all the crap he spews). Democrats stand to pick up some combination of at least two (VA if J.Warner backs out or NH if Shaheen gets in are my most likely). But again, a lot can change and if the environment for Republicans improves, they may be able to hold steady (and even if it doesn't, Warner's repositioned himself on the war to a degree that if he chooses to run again, he may be okay - and may help the Republican presidential nominee carry Virginia, a less surefire proposition than in 04). Sorry this is so lengthy and convoluted, hope it was at least somewhat insightful.

Clinton and the War

Conventional wisdom holds that among members of the Democratic Party's base, Hillary Clinton's "support" for the Iraq war (or at least her refusal to apologize to the wild-eyed peaceniks for her vote for it) is something of an albatross. Conventional wisdom and polls collide. Hard data crushes fuzzy conventional wisdom. Both Chris Cillizza and Ben Smith responded to the findings in the latest WaPo/ABC poll, which suggests that HRC is the favored candidate among respondents who favore immediate withdrawal. Cillizza has the more substantive analysis, including an intriguing paragraph which notes that

when presented with potential negative consquences of that withdrawal they become more circumspect. Seventy-Three percent say they would support legislaton to set a deadline of next spring for withdrawing combat forces, but that number falls to 65 percent when an "increased chance of Iraq going into full-scale civil war" is floated and down to 60 percent if withdrawal "increased the chance that Al Qaeda could establish terrorist bases in Iraq."

That is to say when people stop and think about it, more realize what a dumb idea a withdrawal is. Put it another way: Washington shouldn't be listening to the fickle mob.

Smith also has this to say, which itself shatters conventional wisdom: Clinton "does better the farther left you go, and that the Democrats with the most doubts about her are the ones in the middle." This despite her attempts to reposition herself as a moderate, suggesting that the only ones buying into that farce are the media, who would like voters to believe in her moderation. Of course I find Smith's argument contradicted by those damned polls again (though of the less scientific variety) at places like DailyKos, where Edwards is always the favorite. In any case, if Smith is right, two conclusions can be drawn: first off, it helps explain why 52% of respondents in another recent poll said they could never vote for Hillary and second of all it suggests that the Edwards love-fest at places like DKos are aberrations, that Hillary's lefty credentials (however un-trumpeted) are what's putting her in first in almost all primary polls.

Supreme Court: Who Next?

As I alluded to in my previous post, regardless of the next President's political affiliation (save for the slim possibility of a Bloomberg victory), he or she will face a nasty fight to confirm any Supreme Court nominee. This is almost purely the product of abominable Democratic opposition to Supreme Court nominees in the past (Bork, anyone?); it's enlightening to compare the confirmation votes for, say Ginsburg, compared to say, Alito (the former passed almost without opposition, the latter was nearly party-line).

But who will the next nominee be? Tom Goldstein over at SCOTUSblog has given it some consideration; he's come up with two very worthwhile posts (original and follow-up) on potential Democratic picks, and one on those a Republican might tap. Especially noteworthy in the first of the three is his explanation of the logic underlying any nominee. Much of this isn't new, but making age a serious consideration is; no doubt this partially informed the relatively youthful nominations of Alito and Roberts (and serves to support Goldstein's suggestion that Republicans understand and take more seriously the importance of judicial nominees). As the time between vacancies increases, no doubt everyone will be looking to get more miles out of their picks. But take time to read the bios and the comments if you're interested in this stuff, Sb attracts a well-informed crowd of readers and so their reactions have some credibility.

For better or worse, Goldstein also notes that many of the brightest minds (often in the academe) haven't got a shot of nomination because of their superhighway-wide paper trails. In this category I'd add Erwin Chemerinsky who Clinton briefly considered for the 9th Circuit but who Republicans warned would be DOA (and to be DOA for that crazy court is saying something!), but whose views are too well-known and too controversial for appointment.

Oh, and if Democrats truly don't understand the importance of judicial nominees, they will if a Republican wins next year. Some scenarios posited by readers have the Republican president getting as many as three picks. Needless to say that might restore a measure of judicial sanity!

The Many Faces of Arlen Specter

If you haven't felt the urge to rip your hair out over some antic or another by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), I don't think you're really a Republican. Specter's always been a subject of some controversy within the party, alternately infuriating, and, well, infuriating, most often in his role as ranking member (formerly chair) of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Several of my truly conservative friends from Pennsylvania continue to rue Specter's narrow victory over challenger Pat Toomey in 2004's primary (even though a Toomey victory likely would have cost the GOP the seat).

All of the reasons for that widespread ambivalence (at best) have recently been on display. To begin with there was today's non-story story that he was planning on investigating any dissonance between statements Roberts and Alito made in their confirmation hearings and their opinions to date. That turned out to be overblown, as NRO noted with relief. That was the ugly which turned out to be not as ugly as was feared.

Then there was the good news a few days back that Specter had finally had enough of Democrats holding up Bush's nominees. The man is among the Senate's more irascible members
and thus him getting angry might actually accomplish something; more substantively, as is noted, he's got a long history of moderation and working across party lines. He's no steadfast friend of the White House nor a conservative ideologue, meaning there's merit to his complaints. At the center of the storm is the stalled nomination of Leslie Southwick of Mississippi, among other things a veteran of Iraq. In their attacks on a highly qualified nominee (especially Durbin, noted here, with more general stuff here and here), Democrats have succeeded in reaching new highs (lows?) of absurdity; I especially liked Dick Durbin's quote:

At Judge Southwick's nomination hearing, I wanted to be fair to him and I asked him maybe one of the easiest questions you could ask of a nominee. I asked him to name a single time in his career or in his life when he took an unpopular point of view on behalf of the voiceless or powerless. Mr. President, he couldn't name a single instance. And I thought perhaps that wasn't fair. The judge should be allowed to reflect on that question. I will send it to him in writing, ask him, was there a time in your life when you sided, for example, with a civil rights plaintiff when your court was split? He couldn't name a single case in his judicial career.

In the first of three parenthetical links above, Wendy Long demolishes this, so I won't bother to recap. Suffice to say, if this doesn't stick in your craw, you're probably on the wrong blog. Oh and it's worth pointing out that unlike at least one sitting Senator (Democrat Robert Byrd), no one's suggesting that Southwick has been riding around in a white hood burning crosses. No, just that he's never knee-jerk sided with a civil rights plaintiff.

The second article from Politico also notes the ridiculous claims from Democrats that more nominees have been approved under Leahy than under Specter. While I can't comment with any certainty on why that is, I have some guesses. Among other things, Democrats need to get something accomplished and to do so they've likely let some more "questionable" nominees (i.e. those that don't view Das Kapital as a serious economic text worthy of legal codification) through without serious "scrutiny," otherwise known as character assassination. On the off-chance that someone from their loony bin of presidential candidates actually wins next November, they should expect to sleep in the bed they've made when it comes to judicial nominations (something I'll touch on in a later post).

One final note in closing: I have been ambivalent about Specter in the past. But I wrote a nasty letter to the National Review when they wanted him stripped of his Judiciary Chairmanship in 2004. I think that opposition is vindicated: he's a maverick, but he knows who his team is and he has his limits. Reminding ourselves that we are a big tent and not alienating Specter seems to have been a wise move, as the moderate has become the focal point for activists while simultaneously being immune to Democratic slander (doesn't mean Durbin won't try).

Cindy the Crazy

Brendan Nyhan notes Dana Milbank's article on the antics of Cindy ("Momma Moonbat") Sheehan, which seem to be approaching the realm of clinical dementia. I hadn't realized that even the Kossacks had disowned her for challenging Sheehan...yikes.

Quick Thought on British Hooliganism

In Britain, much as in France, there is a not-insignificant problem of youthful hooliganism (the Brits just released a new report on it). In both countries, the problem is often associated (though only rarely publicly linked) to Muslim youths.

In Britain, this whole thing is called the "yob culture," "yob" being an inversion of boy. It could also arguably be an acronym, much as "wog" may have come from "wily oriental gentleman" (though it's now considered derogatory). In that spirit, I propose that yob become an acronym as well, for "young oriental brute." I think it fits.

Patton Returns

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."

Quick Thought on the Beckham Media Blitz

So tonight British soccer player ("footballer") David Beckham first took the field ("pitch") for his new team ("side") the LA Galaxy. No doubt Americans everywhere changed the channel. Beckham is the LA Galaxy (and in a way, Major League Soccer's) $250 million attempt to bring the sport into the mainstream. But the fact of the matter is that Beckham ain't all that great. He's past his prime and he more often made headlines for his off-the-pitch antics than for any match heroics (i.e. marrying Posh Spice, getting his hair redone, etc.) Don't take it from me, rather take it from the late George Best, a truly great soccer player ("footballer") from Northern Ireland:

"He cannot kick with his left foot, he cannot head a ball, he cannot tackle and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that he's all right."

Read it again. This is the Galaxy's $250 million investment, their bid to make soccer really matter in America. The US Women winning the World Cup a few years ago helped; so does the fact that satellite television makes it possible for stupid Americans to watch the World Cup and to watch good soccer on Fox Soccer Channel and other networks. But is there a place for soccer in the galaxy of American sports? Arguably, in a day and age where everything from competitive eating to curling to bowling can have its day on ESPN (and even get talked about on Sports Center and PTI), yes.

But will we ever be much more than the NFL Europe of soccer? Probably not. That doesn't mean you should shut your eyes to the sport. It just means that instead of watching a boring MLS match (they usually are) or a Mexican League match on Univision, the only part of which you understand is "GOOOOOAAAAALLLLL," find a way to watch a Premiership match. Or a UEFA Champions League match. Watch two truly great sides go at it for ninety minutes with Old Trafford, Emirates, or another of the legendary stadiums reverberating with the roar of the crowd, and understand why it often deserves its title of the beautiful game.

"John Doe" Amendment Dead

The John Doe amendment, which would shield citizens who report suspicious activity from lawsuits, died yesterday in both the House and Senate. Michelle Malkin's got a roundup on it, including votes. Hopefully the bill this is attached to will suffer at the hand of the president's veto pen, though we'll see. What is certain is that Democrats have shown that they value political correctness more than national security.

Of course liberals will get really and truly steamed when the public wises up to the fact that potentially the greatest domestic Islamic terror threat isn't your stereotypical Arab but rather black Muslims, oftentimes converted (and radicalized) in prison. Then people will start reporting suspicious African-Americans and the NAACP and Al Sharpton will get in on the act.

One final thought on the matter: if I'm not mistaken, Republicans could offer this as a separate bill in either chamber, because it was merely an amendment when it was struck down last night. The Senate Homeland Security Committee is chaired by Joe Lieberman, who was one of the few Democrats to vote in favor last night. As a separate bill, it might also garner more attention and thus force Democratic Senators to listen up for once.

Two Complementary Pieces on E-Jihad

The Economist has put together a readable and important survey on e-jihad (which may again be subscription only - if so, apologies). It looks how the inherent characteristics of the internet make it an enormous asset for jihadis and would-be jihadis, providing a secure means of communication (thanks to the proliferation of top-end encryption software), a forum for indoctrination and recruitment (including the usual appalling videos of killings and beheadings), and a means of disseminating information and tactics.

Meanwhile, the latest issue of Middle East Quarterly includes My Cyber Counter-jihad. The author, Shannen Rossmiller was an unremarkable individual, a municipal judge in Montana until she began infiltrating jihadist websites (by posing as a sympathizer). As part of her efforts, she learned Arabic and then began cooperating with the FBI in building cases against would-be jihadis, including one soldier who was looking to betray his comrades. Sadly (but unsurprisingly), Rossmiller is now forced to have permanent security for herself and her family.

Obama: Genocide? So What?

Bill Clinton said "Never again" in Rwanda; today's Democrats are hardly so principled. And Barack Obama is bordering on downright crazy. Today in New Hampshire, Obama said that "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there." Really? I'm glad you're bright enough to realize that. But (brace yourself for this bit): "It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions." I don't even know how to respond to that. He also has the "wisdom" to claim that we haven't lost in Iraq - no Senator, but you want us to - and that a withdrawal would leave troops in the region to intercede (with international help). Where have we heard this before? Maybe Murtha's proposal to redeploy to Okinowa?

This is wrong-headed, short-sighted, and truly does abandon America's position of leadership in the world (as well as our credibility in opposing genocide).

More Russian Shenanigans (with update)

I noted yesterday the Russian Foreign Minister's absurd comments, blaming the tit-for-tat expulsions between the UK and Russia on Gordon Brown. But in terms of what Russia's up to these days, it's just par for the course and a couple more tidbits simply reinforce that impression.

First off, the Kremlin continues to refuse a British extradition request for ex-KGB spook Andrei Lugovoi, who may have been involved in the Litvinenko assassination. However, they assure the UK that Comrade Lugovoi will be investigated in the Russian court system...which I don't find very compelling.

Second of all, Russia has been meddling in the Balkans again, threatening to veto any UN resolution calling for an independent Kosovo. The province, presently under a UN mandate, is technically still a part of Serbia; though its population of ethnic Albanians want independence, the Serbian minority there (as well as the Serbian government and its Russian allies) are opposed to such a development.

Meanwhile, a worthwhile piece in the Economist (subscription only?) chronicles Serbian divisions over that stance, given that a restive Serbian Kosovo may sink any bid for them to join the EU. Some (who no doubt still morn Milosevic's demise) feel that keeping Kosovo is worth such a price; others are more focused on the EU and willing to deal on Kosovo. But of course Russia isn't interested in seeing events in the region proceed without their approval; Putin recently claimed that the Balkans were a "sphere of Russian special interest and that it was 'natural that a resurgent Russia is returning there.'" Or perhaps a Kosovar put it more succintly: “we are just the first victims of the new Russian imperialism.”

The EU, US, and UN need to find a way to resolve this Kosovo impasse; perhaps unilateral recognition of the province's independence is the best remaining option. But Russia needs to be made to understand that it can't influence the Balkans as it used to (and it's unlikely that the Red Army could march on the Bosphorus as it did in the 1870s); indeed they really need to understand that theirs is an alcoholic, dying country, propped up by oil and gas revenues, but hardly mattering in the grand scheme of things. And the international community should recognize that and admit the authoritarian nature of its regime - expel Moscow from the G8, help Europe diversify its gas supplies, and staunchly support anti-Russian governments throughout the former Soviet Union. So long as Russia is allowed to throw its weight around, it will do so; how much longer that will be permitted can only be answered in Washington and Brussels.

UPDATE: Ed Morrisey's take on the situation, and the revelation (which I'd missed) that Russia has announced it will not cooperate with the UK on intelligence matters. While he's right in noting that this sort of controlled escalation tactic is also old hat, oft-used during the Cold War, it doesn't change the fact that Western governments seem to be deluding themselves as to the true nature of the Russian government (Bush has never been more wrong than with his Putin "I looked into his eyes" schtick).

The Earmark to Nowhere?

Say what you will about Ted Steven's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" - at least we knew what the money was being spent on. The same can't be said of an earmark inserted by John Murtha, potentially among the most corrupt members of Congress: no one actually knows if the recipient
organization actually exists.

But it's only a million dollars, right? Being such a paltry sum, Congress didn't bother to look into it too much, and overwhelmingly passed the bill.

Now here's the big question: is there more here than meets the eye? Is Murtha channeling money to nonentities for personal purposes? The man is corrupt, as well as inept, so I'm hoping someone looks into this; though despite the Democrats' love affair with subpoenas, I hardly expect them to bestir themselves for this.

Post-Lax Review of Durham PD Begins

It's about damn time: a formal review of the Durham Police Department's handling of the Duke lacrosse "case" begins today. From the beginning, police conduct was too often unprofessional and biased, without regard for due process or the presumption of innocence. The most egregious example of all of this was the police lineup for "victim" Crystal Gail Mangum in which she was shown only pictures of lacrosse players - no one else. The Police Department assumed that someone on the team had raped her, the only question was her. I'm looking forward to the results of this review, though I admit I haven't the greatest expectations; it is Durham after all.

Rematches

Given how many close House contests there were last November, it's no surprise that many losers (on both sides of the aisle) are back for another go. CQ's got what looks to me like a pretty good list. Most are to be expected, though I feel that there should be more freshman Democrats in marginal districts on the list. As for the narrowly-victorious Republicans, a friend of mine who worked on the Seals campaign wasn't too optimistic - she felt that in many races (likely including most of the ones on this list), Democrats had missed the boat. Whether or not she's right remains to be seen, though the enormous Democratic financial advantage may partially mitigate a more balanced environment (which is itself an enormous assumption).

Dumbest Comment of the Day?

And no it's not from a Congressional Democrat!

Rather, the winner is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Lavrov had the temerity to claim that the recent tit-for-tat expulsion furor between his country and the United Kingdom was the product of Gordon Brown's ascension. Not the fact that the Russian government killed Alexander Litvinenko and won't admit it while stonewalling an extradition request. Nope, it's all Gordon Brown's fault.

Russia's nearly as thuggish as it ever was back in the bad old days of the USSR, and many of the old institutions are back, albeit under new names. It's subscription-only now, but there's a worthwhile piece on Putin-worshiping youth organizations with more than an eerie resemblance to the Young Pioneers of old. Murdering dissidents and playing coy about it is old hat, no doubt something Putin picked up while working at the KGB (indeed, the Litvinenko assassination strongly resembles that of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in London in 1978, also using poison).

It also prompts another question: when are we going to stop deluding ourselves about the nature of the Russian government and start treating them like the autocratic thugs they are?

Congressional Democrats Get Really Serious About Surrender

Seventy Congressional Democrats have said enough is enough, they really want to surrender; or as they euphemistically state, they "will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office."

It would seem to me that in the space of two paragraphs, Politico succeeds in contradicting itself; they first cite the last fight over Iraq appropriations, in which a defeatist revolt almost undercut Pelosi. They then claim that this sets the stage for a battle royale between them and the President. Sorry but I think it's one or the other. If Pelosi offers a bill similar to the one she offered last time, and they rebel again, it's a battle between factions of the Democratic Party. Unless, of course, Pelosi follows her heart and supports them. But if reports from Iraq continue to improve, she may be hard-pressed to do so. This could be fun...

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)
Carl Levin (MI)	Ted Stevens (AK)
Daniel K. Akaka (HI)	George V. Voinovich (OH)
Thomas R. Carper (DE)	Norm Coleman (MN)
Mark L. Pryor (AR)	Tom Coburn (OK)
Mary L. Landrieu (LA)	Pete V. Domenici (NM)
Barack Obama (IL)	John Warner (VA)
Claire McCaskill (MO)	John E. Sununu (NH)
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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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%).