Arguments Yard

Bill Frist drove the pace car over the weekend for the race in North Carolina.

Sadly, 14 of the drivers simply refused to follow him, and instead drove the other way.

Muslims worldwide protested recently.

Were they incensed at the killing of hostages?

At the exploitation of hostages?

No, at the supposed destruction of the Koran.

Hum. I wonder how many Korans were destroyed by Muslims during this attack?
Maybe it's time for Muslims to reorient their priorities.

at the bathrooms, they don't need the government to insist on more stalls.

They just need to stop going to the bathroom in groups.

ain't got nothing on these guys.

about this...

Well, it didn't take long for that deal to break down.

On Monday, Democrats promised they wouldn't filibuster President Bush's nominees, and Republicans promised they wouldn't change the Senate's rules to demand that nominees be given an up-or-down vote.

Three days later, Democrats filibustered John Bolton.

""We are not here to filibuster Bolton -- we are here to get information," Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said on the floor shortly after the vote was taken. But a filibuster by any other name would still stink, and this is a filibuster by another name. After all, 56 Senators voted to end debate; that ought to be enough to get a vote.

Let's have another look at Monday's much-heralded deal to "prevent" filibusters. Here are the 14 senators who signed on to it:

Republican senators John McCain of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Democratic signatories included Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

Yesterday, all the Republicans, along with Democrats Nelson, Landrieu and Pryor voted to end debate. They've kept their deal.

The other four Dems are in violation. They've broken an agreement they made just days ago. Let's pause here for the media condemnation of their actions:





Hum. I'm not hearing anything. How odd.

Anyway, if Republicans were interested in governing, they'd go to the floor and demand the Senate change its rules. But, of course, they're not interested in governing. They're interested in getting along with Democrats who don't bother to keep their agreements.

What a sad commentary.

Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci will face trial on charges that she defamed Islam.

A few years ago, "Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Koran and said the Islamic faith 'sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom'."

Hum. I've read that twice and I'm still wondering what, exactly, about that is defamation. It is, after all, true.

Oh, my. Hope I don't now face charges under the Italian justice system.

My former employer CNN has vowed it will focus on "storytelling." That's why they're canceling "Crossfire," (which is dying the slowest death in network TV) for example.

So let's see how Jon Klein's storytelling project is going: Forget about Jennifer Wilbanks and live video of a man on a crane. CNN just did 10 minutes about the controversial Carl's Jr. ad.

You'll never see this ad during a spot set. No network outlet would run it. And that's exactly the point. It's not supposed to be shown on the air. It's supposed to generate buzz. And sure enough, CNN showed it OVER AND OVER AGAIN during a segment about whether or not the spot should be aired.

To review: A wealthy village idiot, with more boobs than brains, makes an obnoxious ad wherein she sprays a hose (how subtle!) while eating a hamburger (if this gets any subtler, I'll lose track of what I'm being sold!). Is that worthy of 10 minutes on CNN?

The ball's in your court, Mr. Klein: Does cleaning house at CNN simply mean canceling shows and possibly firing journalists, or does it mean putting a worthwhile product on the air?

The coming weeks/months will answer those questions, although I suspect I can guess how things will play out. Let me predict: The future of CNN will involve fewer jobs and more boobs. Man, I hope I'm wrong.

The earth is round. And it orbits the sun!

Today's Wash Post contains the stunning front page headline: "GOP Tilting balance of Power to the Right."

Really? You don't say. So glad the Post has finally caught on.

The Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 1994, and have held it ever since. They lost control of the Senate in briefly in 2001 when Jim Jeffords broke ranks. But they regained it in 2002, and built up that majority last year.

The news here isn't that the GOP is slowly shaping things to its liking; it's HOW SLOWLY they are shaping things. Rest assured that, if the Dems regain control of the House and the Senate, they won't wait 10 years to make sweeping changes. Those changes will be made in the opening days of the congressional session.

The problem is that Republicans have been far too responsive to the likes of the Wash Post, instead of the clear desires of the majority that's electing them. It'll be interesting to see if Republicans pay a price in the next elections -- not for "overreaching," but for failing to exercise the power that voters are attempting to give them.

Is that all it takes to win a vote? 56 percent and four years?

At this rate, we'll have the federal bench filled out around 2098.

Now that the Senate has put filibusters behind it, they can get to work on real issues.

Like steriod use in professional sports.

my hair would probably stand on end, too.

So after months and months of buildup, the nuclear option fizzles. The big loser in the whole thing has to be Bill Frist, whose presidential aspirations for 2008 took a severe hit. Who's going to vote for him now? Granted, he can appeal to the White Christian Right by saying he stood by his principles; but are they, or anyone else, realy going to want to vote for a guy to be world leader when he couldn't even lead his own party in the Senate? All he accomplished was to drag out the issue for months and set up John McCain to swoop in as the good guy.

Frist was already, in my opinion, something of a presidential longshot - who wants to vote for a guy whose fortune is bult on a hospital chain when everyone is feeling the hurt from health care costs? - but now he looks like an ineffectual leader, and that's gotta hurt.

Your folding chair may be dangerous.

Reminds me of the time I broke a chair (on New Year's Eve) just by sitting my fat ass in it. When they said "sit anywhere," I don't think they meant on the floor. My diet began the next day.

Oh, and speaking of New Year's Resolutions, a few years ago I resolved to never again make a resolution. Five years on, and I've finally kept one.

"Averts a Showdown."

We're being told the Senate has "averted a showdown."

But nothing has been averted. The last few months have been a showdown. Nothing other than this showdown has happened in D.C. in the last two weeks.

They've agreed to stop fighting about this issue, for now (although they will be fighting about it again soon enough.) But let's be honest -- they haven't averted anything.

You've successfully defused the Nook-you-lar option.

Now, think you've got time to fix Social Security, deal with the looming Medicare meltdown, trim the Medicaid rolls, control spending and update our tax laws?

I know that you've been "busy" for months haggling over a couple of district court judges -- but maybe, if you have a minute, you'd be able to GET TO WORK?

In one week, French voters will decide whether or not they'll accept the European Constitution.

French leaders have led the charge for European integration, but the French people seem less than thrilled -- "The channel RTLZ has commissioned a survey that shows 36 per cent of voters are "negative" towards the constitution, against only 30 per cent who are 'positive,'" as The Independent reported yesterday.

Even if France says "oui," the constitution would still have to pass muster in Holland next Wednesday, and in Britain next year.

Here's hoping our European allies make the right decision, and bury the EU constitution ASAP.

I've just found a finger in my Diet Coke.

Oh, wait. It's my finger. No worries.

...the "misuse" of your religion.

There's the American way: Letters to the editor, carrying signs, withholding donations.

And there's the Afghan way: Riots, fires, killings.

The planet will be better off when the Muslim world moves in our direction.

...when that new Star Wars movie starts?

I can't find a thing about it on the Web.

especially not Saddam.

So, the nuclear showdown looms. And the supposedly liberal media goes along quite happily with the Republican talking points. This week the NY Times had a headline about Democrats rejecting a compromise offer - let's see, the offer was that they don't get to filibuster, but they can talk a real long time anyway; in what way was that a compromise? No matter, the Times went with the Republican spin term.

The other talking point of course is that the filibuster is "unprecedented". Now, to the extent that it's been rare before, it was in large part because Republicans just used other methods to block Clinton's judicial nominees, methods they then revoked when they got the Presidency. But the supposedly liberal media also has not exactly gone out of its way to report that none other than Bill Frist himself voted against cloture in a debate over a judicial nomination back in 2000. Hmmmm...

So, Salon decided to try to get to the bottom of this. Frist clumsily avoided explaining this on the Senate floor, so they caught up with his press secretary in this depressing attempt at Newspeak. The ultimate conclusion? That Frist's attempt at a filibuster was okay, because it wasn't likely to work. Um, okay. Very principled.

The high schooler voted "most whipped" has broken up with his girlfriend.

Guess he managed to escape the whip without any help from thr PC police.

A blue ribbon panel is getting set to tell Fulton County how to fix its courtroom security.

Among their ideas: "In addition to the cameras, the recommendations include calling for proper retraints of inmates who are being taken between the jail and the courtroom."

Restrain inmates? What a concept.

Also, I know I'm a civilian, but here's an idea: a 6' 4" violent criminal shouldn't be guarded by a 5' grandmother and nobody else. How's about that?

These kids today...

A new poll "shows sagging support for Congress."

It's meaningless.

Look, ask anyone if he approves of "Congress," and the answer will probably be "no." But ask him if he approves of "his congressman," and the answer will probably be "yes."

In the last election, there were fewer than 2 dozen truly competitive congressional races. And most of those were triggered by redistricting. Of course, I for one wouldn't mind seeing a bit more competition for congressional seats, but it doesn't seem really likely.

Let's not get too excited, either way.

Larry King is irrelevant.

here's the "video of the day" on the all-news channels.

It replaces the much-played footage of the man rescued from flood waters in California earlier this year.

Canada's government is melting down.

This scandal has it all -- power, corruption, sex, betrayal. It's the Canadian "Monicagate!"

Be interesting to see if Paul Martin can manage to survive without calling new elections.

First, for staying on the air. Who knew it even existed at all?

Second, for rolling out a six week long series about Brittney Spears and Kevin Federline.

What makes the "network" think the marriage will even survive for six weeks? Her first marriage didn't last a weekend, and she and Kevin are already having a baby to save this marriage.

Don't be surprised if the couple suffers "irreconcilable differences" even before this little peep show is cancelled.

that Donald Trump and I would agree.

Rebuild the Twin Towers.

I can think of no better affront to the killers who brought them down.

CNN "Developing Story"

"Senate begins debate over judicial nominations."

Um, haven't they been debating for months now? We've heard so much about the "nuclear option" that even Kim Jung Il is bored by now.

Just change the Senate rule and get it over with. Our Republic will endure.

Lindsay Lohan, once quite attractive and, well, normal, seems to be disappearing.

When will Hollywood stars realize that you can, indeed, be too thin?

Bill Hemmer might be leaving CNN.

This would mean no more editions of "Bill Hemmer remembers," a highly popular segment aired in 2000 in which the youthful anchor would comment on great stories he remembered covering.

No doubt the Jennifer Wilbanks story, which Hemmer described recently as "fun," will someday be on the list of interesting stories he's covered.

but I do remember that before Kylie Minogue remade "The Locomotion," she said she never listened to the original version by Little Eva.

Said she didn't want to be influenced by it.

Okie Dokie.

that you're the editor of a magazine.

A story you published causes riots and gets people killed. And that story turns out to be untrue. Would this apology suffice?

"Whatever facts we got wrong, we apologize for. I've expressed regret for the loss of life and the violence that put American troops in harm's way. I'm getting a lot of angry e-mail about that, and I understand it."

That's Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker. Seem contrite enough?

How about this, from the reporter who wrote the story:

"Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it's important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here,"Michael Isikoff said. "We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the Pentagon ample opportunity to comment. . . . We're going to continue to investigate what remains a very murky situation."

Well, at least no journalistic standards were violated. Whew. I was more worried about that than I was about the people who've been killed.

Here's the problem with this story: Newsweek allowed an anonymous source to say something that wasn't true (that American investigators had flushed pages from the Koran down a toilet). Now, the official says he can "no longer be sure" that the statement was true. The Pentagon insists it isn't.

Here's the way to avoid these situations: Name the confidential sources. When a source has told a reporter something that isn't true, why does he deserve protection? Let's find out who spread this story, so we'll know if he had any ulterior motives.

It looks like the United States finally is going to have a national ID card. With the passage of the REAL ID provisions embedded in a military spending bill, the federal government will now have control over the standards states must meet to issue driver's licenses. The federal mandate, created by the Party That Once Upon A Time Supported Less Government, says that now people must present 4 forms of identification approved by the federal government in order to get a document which the federal government dictates is necessary to:
--Drive
--Fly
--Open a bank account
--Enter a federal building
--Check into a hotel
--Vote (in several states, and more on the way)

What's particularly galling is that the Party That Once Upon A Time Supported Less Government is passing such a major measure as an addendum to a big bill to support war efforts; in other words, it will be passed without any real debate, because as demonstrated last year against John kerry, if you vote against a defense bill for any reason, it will be brought back to haunt you as failure to support the troops. So if a legislator of actual conscience (are there any?) objected to this bill because of the REAL ID provisions, he could be cast as not supporting our troops in the next election. So, this expensive unfunded mandate for the states will pass without debate, thanks to the Party That Once Upon A Time Supported Less Government.

Moreover, as data security expert Bruce Schneier points out, the act requires that these licenses have actual addresses on them, not PO boxes or something else. This will mean that states and any business that scans or copies your license will have access to this information. Why is this bad? Imagine you're an abused wife who doesn't want a former spouse to know where you live; or a police officer, or a judge? No privacy for you!
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

And the galling thing is this - a national ID card, which this functionally is, makes us less safe, not more safe. While proponents sell this as making it harder for people to illegally be in the country, what it really does is make the driver's license into a holy grail of identity theft. Once you get it, you can do anything. The more a form of ID has the illusion of security around it, the more authorities will rely on it under the assumption that the person who has it must be trustworthy. So any terrorist who can fake the documents necessary to get one will be treated as even more trustworthy than they are today.

And then there are the other costs - if fewer illegal aliens can get driver's licenses, more will be driving on the road without any form of testing on insurance. This will lead to higher insurance rates to absorb the costs of accidents involving more untested, uninsured drivers. I mean, really, does anyone think that tougher DL standards will deter illegal aliens from coming to the US? Please.

All of this is is part of a big unfunded mandate brought to you by the party that once upon a time promised to get government off your back, to reduce the size of federal government, to return power to the states. All with no debate, for a bill that will improve national security not one bit.

As Hannibal Lector said, "Think carefully before you answer."

In the wake of BRAC, we'll be hearing all about how many local communities will be hard hit by it, etc.

For example, "I am sorely disappointed with this list, and I will fight like hell to change it," said Rep. Rush Holt. "I'm not about to let the Pentagon's error put the fort and the soldiers it serves in harm's way." The report continues to note that, "Fort Monmouth would lose all its 5,272 military and civilian jobs."

But if our military is just supposed to generate jobs, why are we wasting so much money on gadgets like aircraft carriers, guns, planes, etc.? Let's stop buying that stuff and spend it all on hiring clerks to work on local bases.

Oh, but if our military is more than a jobs program -- if it's supposed to protect us, let's do what's most cost effective. Let's close unnecessary bases and consolidate, so we'll have more money to spend on aircraft carriers, guns, planes, etc.

But let's decide right now, so we can get this all over with. After all, if the military's going to become a jobs program, I want time to move to Australia...

Actually, it's not a doctor. It's an important trade agreement.

Like all trade agreements, this one will have more enemies than friends. The people who benefit from free trade far outnumber those who suffer, but the sad fact is that the beneficiaries are too busy working or spending their earnings to lobby on behalf of free trade.

Meanwhile, the opponents are able to loudly declare, "we was robbed."

We'll hear a lot about how we need "fair trade, not free trade." But try to keep in mind what "fair trade" means. Here's a good definition from today's Wash Post. A GM worker who's losing his job tells the paper, "Our government let the imports come in and do that to us."

Right.

As we've discussed on other posts, GM makes lousy products. Free market competition has brought their market share down, and the company is closing plants. But an employee, who would surely say he was simply in favor of "fair trade," thinks the government should have prevented other automakers from selling the better cars that are running GM out of business.

Foreign auto makers have opened plants in South Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky and other states. They're creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and generating better cars. Those are among the benefits of free trade. Keep them in mind when the DR CAFTA protesters start to march.

at 12:25, I got this e-mail from CNN:

"Security alert prompts evacuation of U.S. Capitol and White House.

Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com for the latest news."

Of course, as I'd been watching CNN, I knew the all-clear had been issued about 10 minutes earlier.

Everyone evacuating the Capitol.

Fighter jets thundering overhead.

Ain't it grand to work in the nation's capital?

Yes, there are foreign fighters in Iraq. That's the bad news. But it's also the good news.

The front page of today's Wash Post has a fascinating story about a Marine attack on insurgents in northern Iraq. Note the headline: They came here to die. And die they did.

I remember feeling helpless on September 12. How could we ever get at the nebulous enemy which had attacked us and killed thousands of innocent Americans?

Well, we're killing that enemy in Iraq. The story says 3 Marines have been killed, and those deaths are tragic. But at the same time, the Marines killed at least 75 insurgents (other reports put the number at 100 or 110), people who surely would have been happy to attack American civilians; now they'll never get the chance.

And those foreigners are wearing out their welcome in Iraq. In this recent LA Times story, a Marine intelligence officer, "said many area residents who initially fought alongside insurgents trickling across the border have since become disillusioned with the militants."

It's a slow process, but we're making progress, and we will win in Iraq, and in the greater was against terrorism.

I was just logging in to comment on Untied Airlines, and I see Colin beat me to it.

What should make everyone nervous here is that we, the taxpayers, are now on the hook. And it's not just Untied. Now that they've dumped their pensions, Delta, American, Continental and every other airline will, too. They have to. It'll be the only way to remain competitive. That's a massive expense I doubt the feds have prepared for.

On CNN this morning, commentators were saying, "well, the government needs to step in, because air travel is a necessity." But that ignores the free market aspect of this. Let's allow Untied and others to fail. That won't mean no air travel -- it will mean that other companies will step in and fill the gap.

It's possible to run a profitable airline, as Southwest has shown. It just can't be done by following the formula Untied, American and the others have followed. Instead of the government bailing them out, we ought to allow the market to work.

As far as GM goes, BusinessWeek has an interesting story about its problems.

Its pension requirements, while huge, aren't the problem right now; GM's pension fund is fully funded. The problem as I see it is that GM depends so much on SUVs. That was fine when gasoline was $1.00 a gallon. But if the price of gas is going to settle in at $2.25, people are going to be reluctant to buy new SUVs.

That means that, over the next few years, GM would suffer a bigger hit, as its car sales and profits drop further. At that point, it might be willing to contract, and even attempt to hand its pension obligations over to the government. And that would be more bad news, for all of us.

Why is this allowed to happen? United Airlines - and surely others to follow - has negotiated a deal to get out from paying its pension obligations to its workers. These were deals negotiated in good faith, in return for which workers offered labor and loyalty. And apparently while doing all this for United, the airline completely failed to put away the proper funding to meet its side of the bargain. Result - taxpayers get stuck with a large part of the bill, and workers get screwed as their promised, negotiated benefits get slashed.

United Airlines, meanwhile, gets to dump a bunch of its debt. In a year when politicians have condescendingly passed through a bankruptcy bill to demand more responsibility of consumers (while the politicians themselves continue to spend our government into deeper debt), a major corporation gets to pass of its bill to the taxpayers. Swell.

More companies will follow this route, of course. George Will labels General Motors a welfare state because of the extent to which it is indebted to its workers. He rightly notes that this was, in essence, compensation for them, but his use of the term "welfare state' carries the loaded connotations of that term and an implication that the workers and their unions are the problem. Well, they're not. GM and United both should have been putting away the necessary funding over the years to meet these obligations to the workers who worked hard for them. But when push comes to shove, the workers, and especially the retirees, are the ones who will be screwed for the fiscal, bad-faith negligence of their employers.

This is the kind of behavior that demands bankruptcy overhaul, but such measures were largely ignored by Congress while they decided to protect the fiscal irresponsibility of credit card companies who market cards to risky customer whom they known damned good and well are bad credit risks to begin with.

for newspaper-TV-radio coverage of the filibuster fight?

If CNN's Inside Politics does one more story on it, they'll have to have Judy Woodruff reading from a phonebook.

There's nothing left to say. Hey, Senate: Change the rule. Or don't. And move on!

Sen. Harry Reid recently called the president to apologize for having called him "a loser."

Why apologize? It's pretty clear Reid does, indeed think the president is "a loser." So what's he sorry about? Thinking it, or saying it?

"Hate is not a family value," we're told. Yet the leader of the Democratic party declared back in January that he "hate[s] the Republicans and everything they stand for."

Folks should either stop hating or stop apologizing -- but they should sure as heck stop apologizing for something they're not sorry for.

maybe we should all move to Brazil. Sounds like a swinging place.

but I was stuck in traffic.

International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei and U.S. congressman Henry Waxman.

...we on the American right were quick to declare that a 51-48 victory was a mandate. So congrats to Tony Blair for doing even better than that yesterday.

For those keeping score at home, the war-mongers are now 3 for 3.

First there was John Howard of Australia. His re-election on Oct. 9, 2004 was reported on page A-34. But it was a sign of good things to come.

Then there was Bush's poll-defying victory in November, and now Blair's victory. Maybe there's hope for western civilization, after all.

Of course, the biggest issue wasn't even on the ballot, and it seems unlikely Blair will be in power to deal with it: The European constitution.

Later this month, French voters will decide whether they want to ratify the constitution. Polls are all over the map, but they'll probably end up voting yes. That will leave Britain (which never did join the Euro when Europe went with a single currency) as the big wild card.

Blair had promised to allow the voters to decide, and they will, probably next spring. But it's also likely that Blair will be gone by then, replaced by Chancellor Gordon Brown.

I'd expect Blair to step down by the end of the year, leaving Brown to campaign for the EU constitution. When that fails, Brown will be all but forced to call new elections, and in those elections, conservatives will take power. Here's why: The number three party, the Lib-Dems, exists simply to be pro-Europe. When the constitution goes down in flames next year, so will their support.

Meanwhile, the number four party, the UK Independence Party, exists simply to keep Britain out of the EU constitution. Again, once that is defeated, UKIP supporters will return to their natural home in the Conservative party, especially since the Conservatives will have worked hard to defeat the constitution.

In other words, this election was a win for Tony Blair, and sows the seeds of Gordon Brown's eventual defeat.

First of all, congrats to Tony Blair (since of course, he's reading) on his historic election victory. It's looking like a high-70s majority for now; this marks major progress for the conservatives, though tempered by the fact that left-of-center parties hold 2/3 of seats in parliament overall. The tories are not as dead as they have looked for some years, though, and Michael Howard is to be congratulated for their gains, even as he steps down.

Second, congrats to British politics for a civil election cycle. Man, there's a lot we could learn from them on that front. I suspect one month is likely a little too short for an American election, but somewhere between one month and two years there's a point better than what we currently have.

Of course, not all is purely great - their first-past-the-post parliamentary system means that a party which fell well short of a majority of the votes still has about a 60% majority in Parliament overall. Maybe they, like us, could use instant runoff voting.

Two minor electoral notes. First, George Galloway is back. Wow. Leveraging a high-Muslim district and anti-war sentiment he pushed out a favored Labour MP. Second, Scotland continues to be a predominantly left-wing country. What really strikes me as I look at their electoral map is how it's the opposite of that in the US - moderate Labour owns the cities, but as you get out into rural areas things get farther left (Liberal Democrats) and even farther left (Scottish Nationalists), whereas the US gets farther right as you get out of urban areas. Clearly there are many different issues at work here, but I thought it kinda interesting.

I was just thinking that, if Young MC ever made a comeback, he'd have to call himself "Middle-Aged MC" at this point.

Let's have those British exit poll results.

...have made such a big deal out of the Jack Abramoff story. No doubt he paid for some travel for Republican members of congress.

And for some Democratic members, too. Did they not realize that this would eventually come out?

Also, I agree with Colin that our Republican congress spends too much. Way too much.

One of the problems seems to be that congressional seats are becoming ever safer. Blame redistricting. Last year, there were something like 10 contested House races. There ought to be 435.

And, as their seats become ever safer, House members tend to become more nervous. They're constantly running back to "the district" to let the folks back home know they care, and they spend more on pork that's supposed to benefit "the voters." It doesn't, of course. It simply makes life more expensive for everyone.

So maybe this Abramoff thing is a good deal. After the bi-partisan House banking scandal, for example, we got a "throw the bums out" approach. Maybe we'll get a similar effect here, with free-spending Republicans being replaced by more conservative members.

Hey, a guy can dream.

I ask this of Rich - how can Republicans keep electing these people?

I'm just aghast at what has happened to the Republican Party since it came to power in Congress in 1994. I am aghast at the long-term harm they are doing to our economy via their reckless spending. And I am aghast that most Republican pundits just stand by while inventing cool new defenses like "Oh, deficits don't really matter!"

I sorta understand that rich doesn't want to elect Democrats, since he goes on so much about their being a party of no ideas. But even setting aside that the Republicans have now become the party of pure hypocrisy about their own ideas, what about the primaries? Are Republicans so content with the current state of affairs that they don't seek in any way to fix the recklessness of the candidates they routinely re-elect with 90%+ success?

Last year some group ran anti-Kerry campaigns dismissing him as a rich, free-spending, out of touch New England liberal. Apparently they should have been aiming those criticisms at the rich, free-spending, out of touch New England Republican.

So Kansas is trying to decide if evolution should be taught in schools. I'm pretty passionately against the teaching of religion in schools. But if Kansas wants to proclaim to the world that they don't actually care a whit about the practice of science. Let the state suffer when they try to recruit high-paying, high-tech and biotech jobs and the companies balk at the inferior science education their potential employees would be getting.

The debate over so-called "intelligent design" is, of course, another manifestation of the current Christian "we're persecuted victims of a secular society - waaaaaah!" mindset. Frankly, this nonscience should not even be subject to debate. It's so clearly not science that it boggles my mind that apparently serious people even pretend it is.

It all goes back to William Paley's famous argument from design - that the universe is so mind-bogglingly impressive that there must be an intelligent designer behind it. In order to get into the classroom, the Christian theocrats must proatitute their beliefs and offer this up without Paley's conclusion, which is of course that this designer must be God. However, there's a clear nudge-nudge-wink-wink that that's exactly what they mean.

But moreover, they ignore what makes it nonscience - that "intelligent" design is untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable; to that end, calling it a theory is flat-out wrong. Intelligent design, in fact, answers nothing - because if we conclude that all this is so impressive that there must be a designer, then surely we must also conclude that the designer is so very impressive that he couldn't just be there by accident, so he too must have a designer, and so on and so forth. The argument is inherently circular, and all it does is shift the question of impressive design on earth, to impressive design of God.

The Christian theocrats, of course, want to pretend it's not about their religion; funny, I don't see many folks of other religions offering up sanitized versions of their faith to try to force it into science classrooms, but there ya go. This is ALL about religion. Not content with the 133 hours a week they have outside of class to indoctrinate their own children, they want time in the classroom in order to indoctrinate other people's children too. To that end, they invented a sanitized version of their beliefs, called it "theory", and started what has been a pretty successful marketing campaign for "equal time".

Christians should be wary of this. What they are essentially trying to do is endow state and local bureaucrats and teachers they don't know with the power of religious education. From people who think of government as inherently incompetent, that would seem to me to be a bad idea. After all, in a science classrom if wee have two theories, then surely we can compare and contrast the two, evaluate which is better, and maybe even conclude that one is wrong. I can't wait to see how the theocrats respond when some science teacher tells a class of kids that intelligent design is bad science and is crap compared to the science of evolution.

But worse, if they think they are incapable in their families and churches of properly educating their children on their religious beliefs, that their influence is no match for a one hour lecture from a teacher in a biology class - well, maybe they have greater issues to worry about in their own families.

for the Wilbanks-Mason wedding.

I think a mixing bowl would be appreciated.

Or some china. I've been married 10 years and NEVER used mine. Tip for newlyweds: Don't bother with the china.

Somebody created a Match.com profile for Jennifer Wilbanks.

As a non-registered user, this is as far as I could get.

...with more on the Runaway Bride at the top of the hour.

First, though, here is 10 minutes of stories about animals."

Oh, and here's the transcript from CNN this morning:

"Bill HEMMER: Well, how stunned were you when you found out over the weekend? I was like missing bride found alive?"

After a few minutes of crosstalk, Hemmer adds, "This story was fun.

CAFFERTY: Fun?

HEMMER: In the end it was fun.

O'BRIEN: Not for her family so much."

So what was the fun part? That she was found alive? Or that we'd thought she was dead?

Again and again I claim the left has no ideas. Yet they insist on providing further evidence.

Here's Sen. Pat Leahy yesterday on FOX News Sunday:

"WALLACE: Senator, what's your idea to fix Social Security?

LEAHY: Well, you know, I'd like to see the president being willing to really engage in a bipartisan debate. He has said, basically: This is my plan, take it or leave it. I said there is a problem. Of course, when he ran for the House of Representatives years ago, he said Social Security is about to go bankrupt in a few years. It didn't..."

Host Chris Wallace is forced to interrupt:

"WALLACE: Senator, if I may...

LEAHY: No, but if I could answer the question...

WALLACE: Well, I'm not sure you have, though, because I'm asking you for what your idea is.

LEAHY: My idea is to be able to have the president put everything on the table. He's said that he won't negotiate on any of his points. You know, that's sort of a nonstarter."

And even one more time:

"WALLACE: The question I have is: Can Democrats get through this entire question of Social Security without offering a single constructive idea of your own?"

Followed by more filibustering by Leahy (read the transcript if you don't believe me).

Until finally:

"WALLACE: But, Senator, I still haven't heard a single idea of yours as to how to fix Social Security.

LEAHY: My idea is that we sit down and have a true bipartisan negotiation. The president seems unwilling to do that."

Ah ha! So the Democratic position is that Social Security can be fixed by simple bipartisan negotiation. Let's flip over to ABC, where former Democratic flack George Stephanopoulos pressed House Dem leader Nancy Pelosi:

"GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS(Off Camera) But [the president's plan is] still a better deal than doing nothing. And the Democrats still haven't come forward with a plan.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI No, it isn't because you're not saying doing nothing. You're saying pay the Social Security trust fund back.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS(Off Camera) How?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI Stop deficit spending.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (Off Camera) How?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI Pay as you go on your budget.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (Off Camera) Again, how? That's what I'm just looking for. What are the ideas?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (Off Camera) How is it, how is it, pay as you go is how.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (Off Camera) How is what's important and the question is why should American people trust the Democrats if you don't have a specific plan?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI The American people should trust the Democrats because we originated Social Security."

That's an even better reason to trust Democrats. A group of people who've been dead for decades started a program, so the people today who put (D) after their names are automatically good.

What a great idea.

Jennifer Wilbanks.

OK, not tonight.

Next Tuesday. Tonight it's Laura Bush.

Today's Washington Post notes that the White House is planning to send a delegation to the United Nations to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"Efforts were underway late yesterday to persuade Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to deliver the U.S. address today," the paper says. "U.S. officials did not rule out raising the profile of the delegation but said it would be difficult for Rice, who returned Saturday from Latin America and is scheduled to accompany President Bush to Europe tomorrow."

Hum. Well, here's an idea: Let's send John Bolton. He's already been a top arms control official. Let's get him up there and let him introduce himself around at the U.N.

I had assumed on Friday (as I expect most people did) that Jennifer Wilbanks was dead.

That seems coldhearted to say, but come on. A woman goes jogging, supposedly without ID, cash, credit cards, and simply disappears. Nobody wanted to believe the worst, but where could she have possibly gone?

Well, New Mexico, I guess. Maybe she always wanted to see that state ... I know it's one of my goals in life to physically appear in all 50 states before I die. Think I'm up to 36 right now. Still gotta tour the Northwest ... But I digress.

Still, the case serves as a perfect illustration of "why people hate the media." Constant updates. Tearful news conferences.

CNN's Bill Hemmer put the cherry on top of that cake this morning. "This story was fun," he announced. "In the end it was fun!"

Yea, a real laugh-a-minute riot.

Covering the tale of a woman we presumed had been killed was "fun." Think about that the next time you get angry with the media.