Arguments Yard

Ah, 2004...

2006-02-16T15:59:00.000-05:00

Remember when this guy was the hunting joke?

I've never received a telegram

2006-02-02T11:53:00.000-05:00

Get me the D.C. phonebook

2006-01-27T10:08:00.000-05:00

John Kerry vows to filibuster Alito. Well, to use his own words, "bring it on!"

Can the right really get this lucky? Would the liberals really filibuster a "well qualified" nominee right before the big State of the Union address?

Today's WashPost says Democratic heavyweights hope that, "extended debate may draw more Americans' attention to Alito's conservative stands on abortion, civil rights, presidential powers and other matters."

For a change, I find myself agreeing with Sen. Kennedy. I too hope that more Americans take note of Alito's positions, since his positions reflect the positions of most Americans, and since most Americans approve of his nomination.

Maybe some of those who are on the fence in "purple" states will realize they need to move to the right, toward conservatives who have ideas and are doing things and away from liberals who plan to do nothing.

Canada's role

2006-01-24T13:06:00.000-05:00

many of us hope Stephen Harper will make Canada a more active partner in the War on Terror.

It could hardly be less active, as this virtually blank page from the Toronto Globe and Mail makes clear:

My hero, Mark Steyn

2006-01-24T12:57:00.000-05:00

a Canadian himself, on the Canadian elections:

"As the Liberals warned Canadians - or, rather, shrieked at them - Stephen Harper will take away 'a woman's right to choose'! The unwanted boys you'll be forced to have will grow up to be Bush cannon fodder in Iraq, and the unwanted girls will be sold as white slaves for Halliburton corporate cocktail parties round the pool at Dick Cheney's ranch.

"Well, that's certainly why I voted Conservative, but it's hard to believe many of my fellow Canadians (and even my fellow Quebecers) felt the same way."

Alito moves ahead on a party-line vote

2006-01-24T11:00:00.000-05:00

Sen. Schumer is still to speak (filibuster? bluster?). But it's a pretty safe bet he'll follow his fellow Dems on the Judiciary Committee in voting against Alito.

Oh, well.

As we say in the NCAA tourney, "survive and advance." A 10-8 vote is the same as 18-0. He heads on to the full Senate.

Responding to the call

2006-01-23T16:01:00.000-05:00

The reason the Administration didn't want to go through FISA courts is that these courts (as I understand it) is that the court had, since September 11, started refusing to grant warrents for some calls. So the Administration went ahead and monitored the calls without asking the court for permission.

Sorry for my absence

2006-01-23T15:08:00.000-05:00

New policy at work, that we're supposed to be careful about what we blog. So I've been maintaining radio silence.

But the Ford story makes me want to log in again.

So Ford is going to lay off 30,000 people. Why? Because they make lousy cars that people don't want to buy.

I've got the same problem with GM. All my life, my family's bought GMs, but the Chevy I've got now is a lemon. I'll never buy a GM again.

The lesson is to forget marketing -- make a product people want to buy, and it'll sell itself. Make a lousy product and you'll eventually go out of business.

Also, think of this: The price of everything goes down. The computer I'm typing this on is probably worth $400, but 10 years ago a computer with this much power would have cost $4,000.

The price of computers has gone down. Why are cars so expensive? How come the price of cars has doubled (or whatever the amount is) while the components in the cars have, assumedly, become less expensive.

A Call for Information

2006-01-15T11:39:00.000-05:00

I'm asking this as a serious question. I ran it by Rich and another conservative friend a few weeks ago, so I'll throw it also out to Rich's conservative readers here. It's related to the wiretap controversy. I was traveling in December, so I'm not sure if I just missed my answer.

My understanding is that FISA courts not only can issue warrants quickly, but they can actually issue warrants retroactively, for up to 72 hours. So what I want to know is why the admin didn't use the 72 hour provision to get warrants for the wiretaps it deemed too urgent for an advance warrant.

I don't know if this is a procedural aspect of the FISA warrants or what, but I'm really trying to get an answer on this, even if it's just the official talking point.

Merry Christmas to all

2005-12-16T16:16:00.000-05:00

see you on the 27th.

Bob Novak

2005-12-16T14:40:00.000-05:00

leaving CNN.

Hope he takes his teeth over to FOX.

I wouldn't trade for all the money they've got

2005-12-16T12:57:00.000-05:00

having children is certainly expensive.

But it's well worth it.

Today, CNN told a sad story about couples who choose not to have children. One woman said, "You can turn the tables and say, gosh, isn't it selfish that you've had children that you expect to take care of you when you're old? Isn't [it] selfish that you want a replica of yourself?"

I had children so I could raise them in love, not to have replicas of myself. Still, if that's her attitude, maybe the world is better off without the children she'd bring into it...

Colin, this one's for you:

2005-12-16T09:17:00.000-05:00

Media bias. We all know it exists. But can anyone prove it?

UCLA thinks it has.

The first sentence says it all

2005-12-15T09:52:00.000-05:00

"Iraqi voters turned out in force countrywide Thursday to elect a parliament to remake their troubled nation, with Sunni-led Iraqi insurgent movements suspending attacks for a day so that Sunni Arabs could vote en masse for the first time."

Hum. Democracy putting a halt to violence?

Who could have written such a thing as this? "In the end, democracy -- the will of the people -- will prove especially dangerous to those who wish to rule by decree or establish a new caliphate."

I just don't get it

2005-12-13T11:00:00.000-05:00

I just don't get how conservatives can claim government is so incompetent that it can't even teach biology, but do think government is competent enough to execute its own citizens without ever making an error.

I just don't get how a party that claims to support a "culture of life" can overwhelmingly support the death penalty.

I just don't get how religious conservatives continue to support a process whereby government gets to decide when people will die, regardless of how much life they may have remaining in which to repent and try to build a relationship with God.

I just don't get how people can look at a guy who is actively campaigning to reduce gang violence and decide it's better for society if we execute him than if we let him continue to work to save the lives of both gang members and, by extension, their potential innocent victims.

I just don't get how a civilized society can continue to support revenge masquerading as justice.

Look, I don't care for Stanley Williams. What he has done in his life is abhorrent, and it has hurt a lot of people. But what he was doing from prison was helping society. It wouldn't ever make up for what he has done, but in what way does society benefit from killing a guy who is working to reduce gang violence? A guy who had the kind of life experience and influence to get the attention of gang members, and thus maybe persuade some small number of them to go straight, redeem themselves, and not follow his path of killing innocent victims?

Instead, government killed him. Some people will argue that executions serve as a deterrent, but to my knowledge no data back that up. Meanwhile, Williams was working actively as a living, breathing deterrent. Had he continued to live, it's entirely possible that he would have saved lives. Now he won't. His execution will likely contribute to more death.

But at least we got our revenge.

Picket yourselves

2005-12-13T10:02:00.000-05:00

In his annual year-ender, George Will reports, "In a Las Vegas suburb, the United Food and Commercial Workers union hired temp workers at $6 an hour to picket a nonunion Wal-Mart, where wages start at $6.75 an hour."

Missed that one in the Constitution

2005-12-12T21:59:00.000-05:00

"I have the right that every other author has, not to have the review assigned to someone whose book you've slammed," NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd whined recently.

Three things about this:

1) She has no such right.
2) Would it really be possible to find an author who's book Dowd hasn't slammed?
3) The spell checker wants to replace "Dowd" with "dowdy", which seems about right.

When I write a book, I'd be happy to have Dowd review it, even though I've slammed her.

It had to happen

2005-12-12T09:32:00.000-05:00

MSNBC's Rita Crosby to report from "Porn Valley."

Since Rita insists on being visible in EVERY SINGLE camera shot, this could get interesting. Will she don a teddy and join the Playboy girls on the couch?

Even if Captain Smith had survived

2005-12-11T12:51:00.000-05:00

the sinking of the Titantic, I doubt he would later have written an op-ed about it.

Steve Case has.

Here's a guy who probably ought to be in jail. Throughout 2000, as AOL was attempting to buy Time Warner, AOLiens propped up the company's ad sales so its stock wouldn't collapse. Case either knew about this, in which case he's responsible or he didn't, in which case he's criminally (in my humble view) responsible. That's why CEOs make the big $.

Anyway, it's grating for me, a man who lost my job because of this mega-merger, to read Case write "As one of the largest individual shareholders in the company, with holdings worth more than $250 million, I obviously have a stake in seeing all of Time Warner do better."

Yea, I feel for you, buddy. You only made out with $250 million? How do you possibly get by?

Here's a deal born in lies, built on a fantasy (that AOL was an actual company, making money, rather than a pretend artifice given substance by the silliness of the dot-com bubble) and held together by criminal activity.

As I said when the deal was announced in 2000, Time Warner was foolish to attempt to sell itself, a company that earned money, owned valuable properties and had a chance of long-term survival, to a company that was nothing more than an artificial stock price.

However, if I was Steve Case, I'd keep my mouth shut and count my loot, instead of reminding the world of the role I played in one of the greatest heists ever played on a corporation, its stockholders and employees.

Simply can't believe that...

2005-12-09T12:28:00.000-05:00

this woman needed to have sex with a 14-year-old.

Is Don Imus real?

2005-12-09T11:29:00.000-05:00

He looks like a dummy (well, he is a dummy, he looks like a mannequin) propped up in a chair. Nothing moves but his mouth.

Laws of physics alert

2005-12-09T10:01:00.000-05:00

Last night on the local news, the anchor reported he'd spoken to someone on the Southwest jet that skidded off a runway in Chicago.

The witness reported the plane "picked up speed" after it hit the ground.

Shades of Phil Rizzuto calling a Yankees game. "That ball picked up speed when it hit the artificial turf..."

Do you hear what I hear

2005-12-09T09:11:00.000-05:00

The sounds of silence?

(I wonder if I could do a post that was ALL song titles?)

Miles O'Brien on CNN this morning says, "Now to Iraq, where we're less than a week away from the elections we've heard so much about..."

Heard so much about? Have you heard much about them? I sure haven't.

A Google news search shows the NY Times and IHT have written about them, but they're far from mainstream front page news.

Now, put in Murtha, and then you get some hits!

"War debate keeps Murtha in public eyeThe Tribune-Democrat, PA"

"Jack Murtha and the Lessons of VietnamTech Central Station, DC"

"Murtha's Tough Stand Boosts His ProfileABC News"

"Murtha’s nerve rattles the rightCentre Daily Times, PA"

On and on and on and on.

But be honest -- in 20 years, no 10 or even 5 years, what's going to matter more, Murtha's speeches, or the Iraqi elections? My money's on the voters.

There's no way he'll get clemency

2005-12-08T12:42:00.000-05:00

even if the stars come out on his behalf.

Why not?

Look at those arms. Think Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to take the chance he'll ever have to face this dude in a pose off if he goes back to professional bodybuilding? No way.

Apparently a rumour is circulating

2005-12-08T09:52:00.000-05:00

that the CIA killed John Lennon.

The truth is more mundane.

Apparently, the CIA was trying to kill Vladimir Lenin, because it was unaware he had died in 1924. Such is the state of our intelligence.

baseball, baseball, baseball

2005-12-07T15:04:00.000-05:00

The Braves trade Johnny Estrada for two pitchers.

Not a bad deal. They've got a couple of catchers ready, McCann and another kid who's name escapes me. That's a tough position to have a backlog at.

Meanwhile, by losing Furcal to the Dodgers, they open a slot for Wilson Betemit at SS. They'll be OK next year.

Sorry, we're closed --

2005-12-07T11:36:00.000-05:00

it's Christmas, after all!

That's so funny -- just this week, my minister made a big deal out of the fact that Christmas was on a Sunday, and how we should come to church.

I can't believe any church would close its doors on Christmas.

I do have something of a different take from Mother Jones -- big surprise there. It seems to me the mega-churches are the ones that are more fundamental, not less.

Here's one from Kansas City that's growing fast by being more traditional. Pastor Adam Hamilton says "his church is successful because it doesn't water down its message and the congregation with all the trappings of a traditional church."

Then there's Rick Warren, of the best-selling book and megachurch. And the McLean Bible Church here in the D.C. area.

So maybe we can say that mega churches cater either to really religious people or people who really can't be bothered about religion?

The Consumerization of Religion

2005-12-07T11:22:00.000-05:00

I'm an atheist, but religion is something that I think about a lot - heck, I have a major in philosophy and religion to go with my degrees in psych. Anyway, I was struck by this article, about some megachurches across the nation closing on Christmas Day.

Mother Jones had an interesting article on megachurches earlier this year, one point of which was that these churches often water down religion to some extent in order to appeal to larger crowds, especially husbands who may be less interested in church than their wives. Not tied t specific denominational beliefs, they try for broader appeal of Christianity in general as opposed to doctrine at a specific level.

I'm not sure what to make of these - Rich likely has some views, I'm sure - but it does intrigue me that their consumer-driven approach apparently extends to the point of not making church services available on Christmas morning.

The mayor is correct.

2005-12-07T11:19:00.000-05:00

"Under no circumstances will this stadium cost $700 million," Mayor Anthony Williams told the D.C. city council.

I agree. Probably closer to $850 million. Certainly nothing like the $535 million Williams insists upon.

Meanwhile, baseball continues to violate its promises to Washington. It has no plans to sell the Nationals until a stadium deal is in place.

Of course, without an owner, there's no way this franchise can compete off the field. It's already lost one starting pitcher to free agency, and won't sign any players of its own.

The Senate should call baseball's bluff and tell Selig to sell the team right now. That's only fair.

Otherwise, Senators should lift baseball's immunity from anti-trust laws. Baseball is rigging the game because it can. But rest assured that, in an open market, the Tampa franchise would love to relocate to D.C. and its 30,000 fans per game.

I finally agree with a protester

2005-12-07T09:42:00.000-05:00

coming off the train today, there were a couple of people handing out flyers explaining that, as one dude put it, "it's all Dick Cheney's fault."

That's not what I agreed with.

I agreed with his partner, who said, "It's time to end all the Dick jokes."

Yes, indeed.

Reminds me of Riz Khan, a former colleague at CNN International, who's now an author and an anchor, I believe, at al Jazeera.

He told me one time he was at a party, and the two people he was chatting with were "Richard Jones" and "Richard Smith." When he was asked to introduce himself he said, "Well, I'm no Dick..."

If you don't have time this holiday season

2005-12-06T10:40:00.000-05:00

to watch "It's a Wonderful Life," here's a 30 second version. With bunnies!

You learn something new every day

2005-12-06T09:37:00.000-05:00

Washington can be lovely when it snows, so I decided to take a stroll past the Supreme Court building on my way to work this morning. What I saw there was ugly.

A small group, maybe 5 or 6 people, was holding signs reading "God Hates You" and "God hates Fags." You see, I've always known that missing that week of Sunday School back in 7th grade would come back to haunt me, and now it has. I'd totally missed that message somehow.

These protestors are apparently stirred up about this case.

Somehow I was able to resist the urge to pelt these fools with snowballs. Maybe because the snow was too fluffy to compress easily. Or maybe because it wouldn't be worth getting arrested for these idiots.

I did, however, pelt a mailbox and a road sign with snowballs.

baseball, baseball, baseball

2005-12-05T09:32:00.000-05:00

For some reason, the Mets are bringing all the Marlins north.

Hopefully Willie Randolph will do a better job managing these guys than Jack McKeon did.

As Colin notes, there's no luxary tax this year. The Mets, Red Sux and Dodgers are certainly taking advantage of that.

I can finally put my Swiss army knife

2005-12-02T09:03:00.000-05:00

back on my keychain, without worrying I'll lose it at an airport.

Of course, it'll put these folks out of business.

Science may have finally eliminated greenhouse gas

2005-12-01T14:56:00.000-05:00

by improving cow's diets?

Does this mean we can keep burning coal?

I'd have trouble sleeping too

2005-12-01T11:57:00.000-05:00

if I was a brutal dictator.

Can't feel too bad for the Dear Leader.

Whatever happened to...

2005-11-18T13:04:00.000-05:00

the lawsuit against major league baseball by the former minority owners of les Expos?

Is it March yet

2005-11-15T12:27:00.000-05:00

maybe not. But still time for bracketology:

Hold off on the obit

2005-11-09T08:51:00.000-05:00

Today the mainstream media is writing that the Republican party is dead. Or at least at death's door.

"Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, won the race for governor on Tuesday night, scoring a major political victory for his mentor, Gov. Mark Warner, and sending a powerful message that President Bush's political standing has fallen in this reliably Republican state," as the NY Times put it.

Well, not really.

Want a first-hand account from one voter? I refused to vote for either guy. Not because of President Bush, but because I didn't like either of them.

Kilgore spent all his time and money on negative ads. And his signature issue was that he would widen I-66 inside the beltway. Not to get all local on my national readers, but this isn't going to happen.

It's like saying, "nuclear fusion will solve our energy problems." Well, maybe it will. But not any time in the near future, so let's deal with what we can deal with instead.

Meanwhile, Tim Kaine turned me off with his hideous position on abortion. Jerry Kilgore will take away a woman's right to choose, leading many to die in back alley abortions and all that. Nice that Kaine could be true to his Roman Catholic faith on the death penalty (he's opposed) but not on abortion. Funny how that works.

Anyway, the point is this was a local race, decided on local issues.

It's worth noting that the GOP won the race for Lt. Governor and Attorney General. If voters were so incensed at Bush, shouldn't they have punished him by voting against him in less important races, too?

Can I get a loan?

2005-11-08T16:06:00.000-05:00

Let's check back in a couple of years. I'm certain these people will be miserable.

Back in 1998

2005-11-04T15:39:00.000-05:00

The Southern Baptist Convention voted that a wife should "submit herself graciously" to her husband's leadership.

That was certainly controversial...

It prompted a political cartoon in Newsweek showing a man pulling his wife by the hair. He was carrying a club, if I recall correctly.

At the time, I wrote a letter to the magazine, pointing out that it was misrepresenting reality. However, I wrote, how about another cartoon.

This one would show a Muslim man in the Middle East. His wives, wrapped head to toe in black burqas, are walking several steps behind him. They're practically melting in the scorching sun.

"Hot enough for ya in there?" he wisecracks.

Of course, no newspaper would ever print such a cartoon.

Here's why:

The face loses face

2005-11-03T10:12:00.000-05:00

Aaron Brown's out at CNN.

It's clearly a promotion for Wolf Blitzer, who deserves it. He works hard, and would never be caught playing golf during a big story.

And one more thing. It's time to finally retire the cliche he "is very much looking forward to some well-deserved time off with his family."

Please.

Brown'll probably pop up back on ABC overnights, or as foreign correspondent in a network's Islamabad bureau, within weeks. Just be honest: He was too expensive, so we fired him.

Much fuss about nothing

2005-11-01T16:14:00.000-05:00

Oh -- the Senate is in CLOSED SESSION! Wow! Wake the neighbors, gather the children, it's a historic day.

Or at least to those who care. In other words, 100 senators.

They seem to think this is a big deal because it means "the American people" won't know what's going on in the Senate. News flash -- people usually DON'T know what's going on in the Senate. And don't care.

If the Senate met in the middle of Pennsylvania Ave., most people would only care because it would make their commute more difficult.

As for Sen. Reid's claim that the senate needs a report on intelligence leading to the Iraq war, we've already had that. In July. July 2004.

Is the president a mad genius?

2005-11-01T10:18:00.000-05:00

Worth considering with the Alito pick.

First, he names an unqualified (if very nice) woman for an open Supreme Court seat. Predictably, those of us who focus on competence rather than gender opposed her. Meanwhile, those on the left, trapped by the fact that Miers was a woman, didn't dare mention she was UNQUALIFIED.

When Miers withdraws (under pressure from the right) Dems (including Schumer and Leahy) go out of their way to mention that "Democrats didn't oppose Miers."

Now Bush names a conservative judge who's perfectly qualified. They're bleating about it on the left, but will eventually be forced to approve Alito -- after making it clear that he has to meet a higher standard because he's a white man.

What better way to highlight the foolishness of affirmative action, even while replacing Justice O'Connor with a justice who just might vote to outlaw it.

It pays to select someone who's qualified

2005-10-31T12:13:00.000-05:00

The new Bush nominee is the man who should have been selected in the first place.

After all, this is the fight the president should want. He rolls out a guy who's qualified, and the left wants to play the politics of personal destruction. Some are already announcing they're against him.

Great, except they never said a bad word about Miers. She was completely unqualified (a do-over on the questionnaire? Please. No way this judge will need a do-over...) yet they couldn't rouse themselves to oppose her. This man is completely qualified, and they'll line up to vote "no."

Well, they're not all going to vote "no."

Let's name some Dems who will vote "yes": Nelson of Fla., Nelson of Nebraska, Baucus of Montana, Lincoln of Arkansas, possibly even Feingold and/or Kohl of Wisconsin. They're all Dems from Red states (or purple states) who need to appeal to conservative voters.

And the second-best candidate is...

2005-10-31T10:57:00.000-05:00

...a guy who's actually qualified! As the left-wing half of this blog, I have to say he's not my kinda judicial philosophy; however, like Roberts, the first glance suggests that he's qualified for the job. And no more of this screwing around with "stealth nominees"; this one shows a little ideological backbone and a history.

Again, I likely will not go for the decisions he's made or will make, but this is what Presidents should be doing - giving qualified nominees for our consideration. Not unknown quantities for the sake of slipping in a political agenda (or avoiding discussion of one), but people we can thoughfully consider for who they are and what they bring to the table.

Wolf Blitzer quote of the day:

2005-10-28T11:30:00.000-04:00

"We're about an hour away from knowing what's going on..."

But that won't stop us from filling the air with talking heads discussing what we know about what we don't know we know about.

Meanwhile CNN broke away from a presidential speech to interview -- David Gergan. Sad.

They could at least break away more often for some Mercury car ads.

Litmus test

2005-10-28T10:52:00.000-04:00

first of all, what a dumb cliche. Is there anybody who's ever used litmus paper? If I did, it was in 8th grade science and I don't remember it.

Anyway, the Miers case is interesting. Today on CNN, Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy claimed, "The right -- right wing has always said we shouldn't have a litmus test for a judge. Here, of course, they had litmus tests."

Well, we did have a test: The nominee had to be qualified. And however many good points Ms. Miers has, she wasn't qualified for this position. For some reason, Leahy's not sure about that. "I think we should have had the hearing and made up our mind after the hearing."

Why? What was going to change? She had no Con law background, little courtroom experience, she needed a do-over on her questionnaire ... what could hearings have shown us that we didn't already know?

"It was interesting that not a single Democrat raised a word of criticism about Harriet Miers," Leahy added. Interesting, and informative. Some 22 Dems voted against John Roberts, a man who was completely qualified for the position. None of them bothered to oppose Miers, who wasn't qualified. Doesn't that say something right there?

Edith Jones

2005-10-27T10:01:00.000-04:00

Please.

How would you like to be the next

2005-10-27T09:35:00.000-04:00

nominee for the Supreme Court? Probably wouldn't look good on a resume.

You may recall that, in the days after Harriet Miers was nominated, President Bush announced, "I picked the best person I could find," for the job.

Assuming that's true, the next person named would, by definition, be at best the "second best person" for the job.

On the bright side, Ann Coulter will have to find something else to write about.

Anyone want to coach Air Force?

2005-10-26T14:02:00.000-04:00

The position's about to come open.

We already have a winner:

2005-10-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

Allow me to name the 2006 Nobel Prize for Literature winner: "The Scorpion's Gate."

Yes, folks, Bush critic Richard Clarke has penned a novel.

At bookstores, it'll be a bomb, but that's fitting, since the Nobel prize was founded by the dude who invented dynamite...

Let the left's rejoicing begin

2005-10-25T16:15:00.000-04:00

even though they'll actually be gnashing their teeth -- again -- next fall.

You see, a new CNN poll claims that, "A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year."

Do I hear cheering from Howard Dean? If so, that cheering will eventually turn to screaming.

Begin with the fact that NO ELECTION WILL BE HELD THIS YEAR.

Asking who somebody would vote for in something that won't happen is as pointless as asking what you'd do if you won the lottery. You're not going to win the lottery, and President Bush will still be president until 2009.

What should frighten Dems is that the best their invisible candidate, someone with no positions to defend and no controversies to explain, is 55 percent. Once the mythical nobody in this poll becomes an actual somebody with a political past, that 55 percent will only go down.

Eyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

President Bush

2005-10-24T11:02:00.000-04:00

is reportedly set to name a new Federal Reserve Chairman.

Hopefully it won't be Michael Brown.

But, in light of another current nominee, you never know. And he has done "a heck of a job" in the recent past.

Wonder where I can get

2005-10-24T09:56:00.000-04:00

one of those red CNN rain slickers?

Even if I'm wrong about this...

2005-10-21T16:09:00.000-04:00

...it doesn't matter, because we'll all be dead.

But I'm not worried about global warming. I know, I'm supposed to be terrified. After all, this is already the hottest year on record, and more's sure to come.

Except, maybe, it's not. After all, as CNN reports, "Greenland's ice cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a team of scientists said on Thursday."

The scientists, of course, are sticking to the script: "However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars."

But for most of us, this is the money quote: "Most models of global warming indicate that the Greenland ice might melt within thousands of years if warming continues."

So even if we assume those models are correct (I doubt it) we'll have a problem in thousands of years. Forgive me if I think that's not a big concern.

You heard it here first

2005-10-21T09:57:00.000-04:00

Back in February, I wrote, "Syria's not ready to let Lebanon go; it probably won't ever be. So it killed the man most likely to challenge the status quo."

Today, the U.N. agrees with me.

Better late than never.

The strangest news of the day

2005-10-19T07:21:00.000-04:00

Maybe you've heard about the pink locker room at the University of Iowa.

But for me, the big news is that, according to this dispatch, Iowa has a Human Rights Committee. Is it chaired by Libya? Are human rights violations a big problem in Iowa City? Have they addressed the fact that their school, their city and their state all have Indian names?

As an aside, my alma mater once took the field wearing pink uniforms. The way they're playing, maybe they ought to do so again this year...

Must be seen to be believed

2005-10-18T07:16:00.000-04:00

UNICEF kills off the Smurfs.

Now we know where all the change collected in those orange Halloween boxes goes.

What's the political position?

2005-10-15T09:38:00.000-04:00

Today's Washington Post carries an odd story. It begins:

"Iraq's Sunni Arab minority made a violent reentry into politics Friday, bombing offices of a political party that urged support for a new U.S.-backed constitution while posting insurgents and tribal fighters at some polling places to ensure that Sunni voters could vote safely Saturday against the proposed charter."

Talk about getting it wrong.

"A violent reentry into politics?" The entire point of politics is that it's nonviolent. Politics is the art of settling disputes peacefully.

Look at Washington. Everyone here seems to agree we're a "closely divided nation" a 50-50 nation, whatever. There are extreme disagreements on dozens of issues. Because of those differences, people shout at each other, call each other names, etc. But we don't bomb each other's homes.

There was a time, of course, when congressmen hit each other with canes, but note that as our political process has evolved, such an act seems unthinkable today.

Iraq is moving, with surprising speed, toward a future where its people's differences will be settled through politics -- words -- instead of violence -- bombs. Remember that just three years ago, Saddam was in charge. There was no political process, only violent repression. Today Iraqis are lining up to vote for the third time this year.

The Sunni bombs yesterday are anything but a "reentry into politics." They're a flailing attempt to derail a political process that nevertheless moves forward, and will in days to come yield a political outcome that will make such bombings less and less likely in the months and years ahead.

Here's a question:

2005-10-14T10:28:00.000-04:00

The TV news networks are all worked up over the fact that yesterday's presidential chat with soldiers seems to have been scripted.

But, come on, was there anybody who didn't think it was? That much was obvious just in watching it.

The only unscripted moment was one of the most touching, when they handed the microphone to the Iraqi soldier and he announced, "Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you for everything, sir. Thank you very much for everything. ... I like you."

This week's column

2005-10-14T09:15:00.000-04:00

deals with my reaction to the current media obsession with bird flu. And disasters in general.

Welcome back to flu season

2005-10-12T21:16:00.000-04:00

Last year, as some of you may recall, the mainstream media marked the arrival of flu season by proclaiming a critical shortage of flu vaccine.

This accomplished very little beyond proving the MSM are still capable of stirring up a full-fledged "Media panic."

Oh, and it inspired me to write the following piece for my short-lived column in the Northern Virginia Journal (may the paper and my column rest in pieces).

Surviving the Epidemic of Fear
By Rich Tucker

(Chicago) – It can make your head spin. In fact, maybe you should just go back to bed, drink plenty of fluids and stay there until it passes.

No, we’re not talking about the flu -- we’re talking about the fear of getting the flu. Many Americans, having been told they can’t get a flu shot this year, are going into full panic mode.

For example, consider Barbara Zmoos. The Chicago Tribune caught up with her in a flu clinic in Vancouver. Zmoos says she traveled north at great expense because there’s no flu vaccine to be found near her home on Long Island. “It’s going to be a $1,400 insurance policy,” she told the Trib.

Well, there’s an easier way to get a flu shot: Become a world-class athlete. The NFL’s Chicago Bears made the front page after the team made shots available to all players, although fewer than half actually got them. The NBA’s Chicago Bulls also got flu shots as part of their preseason physicals.

All this is good news because it assures us that, while these teams have been making their fans sick for years, at least this year the players will remain healthy while doing so.

Or, maybe not.

After all, while the whole country is biting its nails about a lack of flu vaccine, let’s recall that flu shots aren’t always the answer.

Last December, an especially strong flu virus was said to be sweeping the country. Outbreaks were reported in almost every state. A mini-panic erupted.

In Alabama, a judge banned coughing, sneezing or wheezing in her court (although pleading was, presumably, still acceptable). “I don’t want the jury exposed,” Judge Gloria Gahakel said.

Elsewhere, a school in Minnesota closed its doors so maintenance people could scrub everything with bleach. Venerable radio newsman Paul Harvey urged his listeners to avoid shaking hands. Greet each other with a snappy salute, he advised.

Flu shots were little help against this scourge. “This year, the virus was a little bit different. So this particular strain was not in the flu vaccine this year,” Dr. Kevin Ferentz from the University of Maryland Medical School told CNN during the 2003 outbreak.

Somehow, we made it through. In fact, by Christmas the flu had burned itself out and didn’t make the news again.

So before we panic, let’s remember that very few of us really need a flu shot.

“We think there are 185,000 people who should be vaccinated,” Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control, told CNN last year, during the heat of the flu eruption.

Well, federal officials say they’re confident that some 20 million additional doses of vaccine will be delivered in the coming weeks. That’s enough to vaccinate everyone who needs a shot: The elderly, the very young, those with heart or lung conditions. Plus, there will still be plenty left over for people like Zmoos who merely want one.

Let’s not lose our heads over this. After all, there’s a war on. And when all is said and done, for most of us, flu shots are like NHL hockey games: We won’t be seeing them this year, and we won’t miss them, either.

Allow me to announce

2005-10-07T11:14:00.000-04:00

that I oppose President Bush and American foreign policy as charted by both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

There. I should now be the front-runner for next year's Nobel Peace prize, since opposing the U.S. seems to be the main criteria.

As the Wash Post noted, "ElBaradei, whose ouster was sought by the Bush administration led by controversial United Nations appointee John Bolton, is a longstanding critic of the president's decision to go to war in Iraq. So was former President Jimmy Carter when he won the prize in 2002, an award widely interpreted as a shot at the Bush administration."

There was also the 1997 award to Jody Williams, because she opposed the Clinton administration's position on land mines.

Since it has little or no relation to promoting "peace," (remember that late terrorist Yasser Arafat was a 1994 Nobel laureate) maybe they should rename the award the "Nobel Prize for tweaking the United States."

Don't speed if...

2005-10-06T11:34:00.000-04:00

...you've got stolen documents stuffed down your shirt.

making it public

2005-10-03T10:08:00.000-04:00

Playoff picks:

Boston v. Chicago

Red Sox in 4

New York v. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim California in the United States of North America

Angels in 5

ALCS:

Angels over Red Sox in 6

Houston v. Atlanta

Braves in 4

San Diego v. Saint Louis

Cardinals in 3

NLCS:

Braves over Cardinals in 6

World's Series:

Braves over Angels in 7

For those who wondered...

2005-10-03T09:42:00.000-04:00

...here's the difference between a Conservative and a Republican.

Sunday's NY Times reported that "More than a quarter of American children - and half of black children - belong to families too poor to fully qualify for the $1,000-a-year child tax credit."

Conservative reaction: "'This is completely and utterly predictable,' said Dan Mitchell, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington research group influential with Capitol Hill Republicans. 'People who don't pay taxes don't get a tax cut.'"

Republican reaction: "Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, expressed surprise at the racial gap. 'That's a stunning number,' he said, referring to the half of black children who fail to receive the full credit. 'I'd find a way to make sure those kids get the money' as part of a broader post-Hurricane Katrina plan, he said.

My friend Dr. Mitchell summed it up perfectly. "We [Conservatives] want less income redistribution, not more."

While too many Republicans want more redistribution, if it will allow them to appear compassionate.

stat of the day

2005-10-03T09:35:00.000-04:00

"the Seminoles used 77 players in the game," as they beat Syracuse 38-14.

That's a whipping.

Getting personal

2005-09-30T01:16:00.000-04:00

Sometimes my seven-year-old looks at me as though he completely understands me. Our eyes meet, and it’s as if he can look through me and see my sadness. I try to smile for him, because the moment never lasts more than a few seconds. Then he looks away and starts flapping his arms madly.

Some fellow parents, also raising an autistic child, have observed something similar. “It’s as if he lives his life behind filters,” they said recently. “Once in a while, all the filters line up and the boy can see out. But it doesn’t happen often and it doesn’t last long.”

I thought of these fleeting moments with my child while browsing a recent article at National Review Online by Catherine Seipp. She begins by railing about the tragic, and probably preventable, death of a three-year-old. It’s a sad story, and as Seipp tells it, there’s little doubt the girl’s parents and her doctors are at fault.

Seipp’s piece then goes off the tracks.

She begins by suggesting that if all schoolchildren would get vaccinated, rates of flu infection “would fall dramatically, because schoolchildren are more likely to infect large numbers of people.” What a great idea! Children already get about 20 shots in their first 2 years of life; what’s one more?

Oh, except for the fact that the flu shot is the only remaining one (supposedly) that still contains thimerosal. That’s a mercury product. You know, mercury -- the heavy metal that’s highly toxic.

Some parents of autistic children think there may be a connection between thimerosal and autism. That’s the basis of the book “Evidence of Harm” by David Kirby. He follows parents through their quest as they discover what was injected into their children and at what ages.
Of course, there’s no proven link between autism and mercury. Maybe that lack of proof is what allowed Seipp to write, “Too many selfish and medically illiterate parents are sending children to school unimmunized against basic childhood diseases like measles and mumps. They refuse to expose their children to the miniscule risks of vaccination, gambling that the herd mentality of other, vaccinated children will keep them safe.”

Where to begin.

First, “medically illiterate parents.” In our particular case, my wife and I diagnosed our son as having Celiac Disease at age 4 and autism at age 7. Even though he’d been to doctor after doctor, expert after expert, none of them diagnosed either of these conditions, despite a family history of the former and ample evidence (flapping arms, lack of eye contact, running in circles) of the latter.

On a larger scale, an interesting study from the University of Washington recently bolstered the case of these “medically illiterate parents.”

For years, parents have been telling their doctors that their children regressed after getting vaccinated. Impossible, the doctors insisted. Hitting a developmental milestone is like falling off a bike. Once you do it, you’ll always be able to do it. You parents must have somehow missed the signs.

Except the researchers at UW looked at video of autistic children on their first birthday and their second birthday. Lo and behold -- the children had skills, words, abilities at age one that they no longer had at age two. So much for medical experts. Score one for parents, the real experts when it comes to their own children.

Second, Seipp writes about a supposed “miniscule risk.” She continues, “Responsible families assume all the risks, while irresponsible ones benefit.” That’s a lovely assertion, as long as one assumes there is no risk (or even just a “minimal” one) from vaccinations. Again, there’s no proven harm from them. But there’s plenty of evidence, both biological and in stories from those “medically illiterate parents,” that points to harm caused by vaccinations. The case for whether to vaccinate or not isn’t nearly this black and white.

Even if it was, Seipp’s wandering into one of the logical fallacies that vaccination proponents frequently use: Since vaccinations have done so much good, they couldn’t possibly cause any harm.

Now, almost everyone will stipulate that vaccinations have done plenty of good. So has aspirin. But there are people who’ve overdosed, even died, from taking aspirin. That doesn’t make aspirin bad. It’s a great good. But it can have bad outcomes.

So it is with vaccinations. They’ve prevented thousands of diseases and no doubt saved millions of lives. That doesn’t make it impossible that they’ve also caused the alarming jump in autism.
As the CDC puts it on its Web site, “In 1994 ASDs [autism spectrum disorders] were the 10th most common disability serving children ages 6-21 in special education. Between 1994 and 2003 the number of children being classified as having an ASD has increased six-fold from 22,664 to 141,022.” Autism’s now the sixth most common disability. Since autism is supposedly genetic, that’s not supposed to happen; there’s never been a genetic epidemic. So there must be something triggering the outbreak.

By coincidence, or perhaps not, the rise in autism began soon after the number of vaccinations recommended by the CDC was increased in the early 1990s. As an Institute of Medicine report puts it, “Between 1938 and 1985, five vaccines (three childhood and two adult) comprising nine different antigens were available. In the next 15 years, the number of recommended vaccines more than doubled.” Again, the fact that autism increased along with the vaccination load is not proof of a connection. But it’s certainly well worth considering.

Seipp writes that schools should require vaccinations before they allow children to enroll. “California’s lax vaccination laws should be changed pronto, and maybe required annual flu vaccines for schoolchildren should be thrown in while we’re at it,” she writes.

Hum.

Some of us became conservatives because we believe we can make better decisions about our lives than the government can. We want to be as free from government interference as possible. How interesting to read an article in National Review basically saying, “Come on parents, get with the program. The government knows best and ought to be telling you what medical care to give your children.”

Oddly, I believe I can make better medical decisions for my son than the state or federal government can. And, as noted above, I can make better decisions than medical experts, too.

This all points to a second, and more important, fallacy: The idea that doctors ought to practice medicine with an eye on the “greater good.” That’s an odd concept. For some reason, pediatricians have bought into it -- they insist that all children should get all vaccinations on the same schedule because that’s what’s best for all of society.

Well, imagine if other doctors practiced this way. Suppose a 75-year-old man on Medicare comes in to an emergency room. He’s fallen and broken his hip. How should he be treated? Well, if we do what’s best for him, he’ll get an operation, plenty of antibiotics, a new hip, physical therapy … you get the picture.

However, let’s consider what’s best for society at large. All that medical care will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Let’s be realistic -- he’s an old man, doesn’t have many productive years left anyway. Why should taxpayers pick up such a massive bill? Give him a lethal shot of morphine and let’s move on to the next test case.

Suppose a 50-year-old man comes into the same ER. He’s morbidly obese, smokes and has had a massive heart attack, although he’s stable now. What to do? Again, if we’re thinking of what’s best for him, he should get invasive (and expensive) treatment, spend days or weeks recovering, etc.

But that man works in my company. If our insurance plan has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep him alive, my premiums will increase next year. That’s hardly fair to me, or to society at large. I mean, he smokes a pack a day. He hasn’t taken care of himself. Just give him a lethal dose of morphine and move on to the next case.

See how easy medicine becomes when you practice with an eye on the “greater good?” Still sure you want to wander down that road?

Now, I’d love someone to attempt to tell me that it was in my son’s best interest -- not society’s best interests, not everyone else’s children’s best interests -- my child’s best interest, for him to get four vaccinations, two containing mercury, when he was two-months-old and weighed 10 pounds.

How could those shots have been in his best interest? Should we have really been worried that he might get tetanus? That’s one of the things the DTaP shot Richard got at 2 months was supposed to prevent. Richard’s shot contained mercury, although I didn’t learn that until years later. There were only 36 cases of tetanus nationwide in 1994, and an estimated 24,000 children diagnosed with autism last year. Which threat should I, as a parent, have been more worried about?

Seipp tells a story in her piece. “One of my most intense childhood memories was sitting miserably down at the breakfast table with both fists pressed against my jaws as my parents laughed cheerfully, ‘Oh, she’s got the mumps!’ Another childhood milestone achieved, and not worth fretting about in their eyes. But it took decades before I felt pain remotely comparable to that.”

Our son’s pain isn’t physical. Which is unfortunate, because physical pain heals.
I didn’t cry last December when a doctor told me our son was autistic, would never be able to hold a job and would never be able to live on his own. “What happens when we die?” I wondered. “Then Charlie takes over,” she responded. Great. Our younger son is only three, and he’s already got a child to take care of, a child who will never grow up.

As I say, I didn’t cry (my wife did) because for some odd reason, I still have faith in modern medicine. I truly believe they will cure autism. I truly believe that my son will, someday, be able to experience a normal life. As I recently told some friends, if I didn’t believe that, I couldn’t get up in the morning.

“People with special religious or personal beliefs against vaccinating their offspring can keep them home or send them to special religious or personal schools that will accommodate their very special kids. I see no reason why we should be forced to accommodate them,” Seipp concludes.

How sadly ironic that her prescription would be to segregate children whose parents won’t vaccinate. My child was vaccinated, and he’s now segregated, possibly for life. As our friends said about their eight-year-old, “he’ll never have a friend, never marry a woman, never raise a child.” But he’s had all his shots, so at least he won’t infect Seipp’s children, or anyone else’s.

At the start of World War I, British Foreign Minister Edward Grey (whose failed policies did as much to trigger the conflict as anyone’s) announced, “The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.” For tens of thousands of children born in the 1990s, the lamps in their eyes have been put out. It’s not their fault; it’s ours. Our governments, our doctors, our pharmaceutical companies all failed these children.

Still, I believe we can rekindle the light in our children’s eyes. I believe my son will again play with toys and read books, as he does on videotape from years ago. Vaccinations may -- or may not -- have caused that light to flicker. But we need to find out for sure, because we need a cure for autism.Richard will someday have friends, will have a job, will raise a family. He will some day look into my eyes and truly, on every level, understand me. And when he does, I won’t be sad.

Some years ago

2005-09-29T14:55:00.000-04:00

a friend argued that CNN should hire a religion correspondent. After all, religion is important to many Americans.

At the time, I suggested the problem with that would be that, after doing a single story on Christianity, a single story on Judaism and a single story on Islam, the reporter would start filing stories about snakehandlers. Equal time, and all that.

Well, here's a paper that does have a "religion correspondent." Just note the stellar output she manages to come up with...

Worth thinking about

2005-09-29T13:42:00.000-04:00

Somebody smarter than me (or at least with more time) ought to look into what liberals were writing/saying about Bill Clinton circa 1997. Had they given up on him? Thrown up their hands in frustration?

The question occurs because Ann Coulter today turns her rapier on the Bush administration, and specifically, the president himself (identified from the first sentence simply as "Bush").

Of course, it was inevitable that she would eventually lash out at the president. Attack dogs are notoriously difficult to control.

Just ask Thomas Jefferson. Having used James Callender to attack political opponents for years, he was surprised when Callender turned on him and printed the Sally Hemmings story, which dogs the late Jefferson to this day.

These days, conservatives like to point to Clinton as the picture of liberalism. The failed health care scheme, the tax increases, the pointless visit to Nebraska (sorry -- I just threw that last one in because I've remembered it for 5 years but hadn't ever found the correct forum to use it in. Now I can forget it. Maybe.)

But in the mid-90s, Clinton would have looked far less liberal. He'd just signed welfare reform, for example, and some liberals hated him for it. Peter Edelman called it "the worst thing Clinton has done."

So -- is this just a predictable dip, with some loyal Republicans getting worked up? Or is it "the end" of the Bush administration and thus time to start the 2008 campaign in earnest?

MSNBC insists

2005-09-29T11:41:00.000-04:00

that John Roberts will be a "Conservative" chief justice. May be the most influential ever, according to familiar pundit Jonathan Turley (remember him from impeachment?)

Maybe.

But I'm skeptical. Afraid he might be the next Souter. We'll see.

It's clear

2005-09-28T16:05:00.000-04:00

that House Speaker Dennis Hastert is a former coach.

"We'll roll up our sleeves and complete our agenda this year with flying colors," he announced after the DeLay indictment.

Remember: There's no problem so large it can't be tamed by cliches.

CNN reports a female suicide bomber in Iraq

2005-09-28T09:46:00.000-04:00

Now, this is nothing to laugh at, but I'm wondering:

Does a female suicide bomber get her 72 virgins?

There are those who say the left isn't dead

2005-09-23T13:38:00.000-04:00

maybe they ought to listen to Charlie Rangel.

"George Bush is our Bull Connor," he told a Congressional Black Caucus forum. Attendees cheered wildly -- most of us say "Huh? Why?"

Another example of the fact that liberalism is history. There are merely a handful of people who haven't figured it out yet.

When you live in a hurricane zone --

2005-09-22T13:57:00.000-04:00

be prepared.

CNN's Sanjay Gupta is in Houston. Here's how he described a hospital there:

"A couple of things that jumped out at me, for example -- simple things maybe. But the generators of the hospital are not in the basement, as they were in the hospitals that you and I talked about when I was in New Orleans. They are several floors above sea level. They don't plan on those generators short-circuiting out like they did at Charity Hospital, for example.

"They also have these really amazing submarine-like doors, Daryn. These doors will actually close in the hospital to prevent flooding, again, from essential areas of the hospital so that they can continue patient care even through the hurricane and even after some possible flooding in the city around it. "

Hum. A city that might flood, prepared for that possible flood. Now, there's a concept.

Toot your own horn

2005-09-22T13:37:00.000-04:00

From a John Kerry e-mail:

"Dear Friend, In a few hours, I will deliver a major address at Brown University about what the rage and destruction of Katrina have revealed."

What makes it major? Well, the fact that Kerry's giving it almost guarantees it'll be major -- a major bore.

When you're wrong, you're wrong

2005-09-22T12:59:00.000-04:00

A couple of weeks back, I predicted the Senate Judiciary vote would be 10-8 for John Roberts, with all 8 Dems voting no.

Well, it was 13-5, so I missed by 3.

I still think it would be worthwhile for those 5 to explain why they voted no. Their long speeches today weren't convincing, and I suspect most voters agree with me on that.

I love the way

2005-09-21T13:58:00.000-04:00

Lt. Gen Russel Honore ends every statement with "over."

In case you are wondering

2005-09-21T13:43:00.000-04:00

It really is possible to offset Katrina spending.

But the question is: Are the president and lawmakers willing to do it?

Root for...

2005-09-20T16:49:00.000-04:00

...operation offset.

And, so we never forget

2005-09-20T15:40:00.000-04:00

great political satire never gets old.

Conservatives are pushing for smaller government

2005-09-20T15:31:00.000-04:00

We want to eliminate the pork barrel spending in the highway bill and make actual cuts elsewhere to offset Katrina spending.

DeLay is completely wrong. For too long, Republicans in Congress have governed like liberals -- spending freely for no marked return.

It's time for conservatives to lay down the law. We need to insist that lawmakers cut spending, or we need to vote for some different lawmakers who will.

There's certainly movement in our direction. Many, if not most, Americans are tired of waste.

Conservatives should win in 2006. Or lose, having run as conservatives. The time to cut the size and scope of government is now. It'll be interesting to see if the vested interests in congress are as responsive to this movement as they need to be.

The Big Lie Principle

2005-09-17T22:32:00.000-04:00

It's a classic claim of propaganda that the bigger the lie, the more likely people will be to believe it. So it comes as no surprise that Tom Delay, accomplished in the genre, has generated another whopper. Asked about the spending cuts the President has said will be necessary in light of the cost of Katrina recovery, Delay remarked that he wasn't sure where they'd come from, and that "After 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it (spending) down pretty good."

Um, okay Tom. As the hardly liberal Investor's Business Daily column suggests, this is not the case. People who claim to be conservatives have been voting time and again for big-government Republicans who have bloated government to ridiculous levels over their 11 years of congressional power and 5 years of total power.

Divided government is the only way to go. But conservatives don't have the guts to vote for that most inherently conservative form of government. Faith in Bush trumps his actual record and faith in religion trumps science, so be it. But any claimed conservative who has the remotest faith in the Republican Party as the party of small government is in a state of denial that is beyond blind and into the realm of the ridiculous.

But, of course, they'll keep voting for Republicans, because winning is more important than principle.

When will these reporters learn?

2005-09-16T11:44:00.000-04:00

John Roberts could tell them:

Never ask a question unless you know what the answer will be.

After yesterday's presidential address, ABC News went out to the parking lot of the Astrodome. "I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome," Dean Reynolds announced. "You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him?"

"Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us," "Connie London said.

Hum -- better try a different approach:

Reynolds: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?"

London: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs."

Reynolds: "And they weren't?"

London: "No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."

We'll have to forgive London -- she clearly hasn't read the talking points that this is all George W. Bush's fault. In fact, an evacuee named Mary went so far as to take responsibility herself:

"I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late." Mary was eventually rescued from her flooded home.

Reynolds seemed sure some of the evacuees would doubt the president's promise to help them rebuild:

Reynolds: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?"

Marshall: "No, I didn't."

Reynolds: "Good. Well, very little skepticism here..."

And very little insistence that the feds were responsible.

"I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it," an unnamed woman told Reynolds.

Rest assured that these soundbites will end up on the cutting room floor, and that the only bites we'll hear from evacuees will be negative ones that blame the president, and the president alone, for the failures.

Watching CNN, as always

2005-09-15T14:19:00.000-04:00

I have a few questions about "The Situation Room."

For example, right now there's news happening, but it's not being covered from "The Situation Room."

Can we assume that "The Situation Room" is manned (womaned? personed?) 24-hours-a-day? And that, the only time news isn't coming to us from "The Situation Room" is when the news doesn't measure up to some level of importance?

Or is it possible that other areas of CNN can actually cover news as well as "The Situation Room?"

Because, if that's the case, "The Situation Room" is actually just be a really cool den for Wolf Blitzer and his friends to hang out in and watch the world go by.

And speaking of flashbacks

2005-09-14T11:11:00.000-04:00

I think I woke up yesterday in 1985.

All the Dems in the Roberts hearings focused on the Reagan administration.

Sen. Spector: "This was a 1981 memo to Attorney General Smith, December 11th, 1981." "So that the views that you expressed back in 1981, raising an issue about "amorphous" and "so-called," would not be the views you'd express today?"

Sen. Leahy: "I look back to the time when you were a lawyer in the Reagan White House."

Sen. Kennedy: "As you know, we've had a chance to go through many of the documents that you authored during the early and mid-1980s when you worked in the Department of Justice and in the White House ... I'm deeply troubled by a narrow and cramped and perhaps even a mean-spirited view of the law that appears in some of your writings."

"Let me, if I could, go to the Civil Rights Restoration Act. In 1981, you support an effort by the Department of Education to reverse 17 years of civil right protections at colleges and universities that receive federal funds."

Sen. Biden: "The date of the memo was February 12, 1982. I'll give you a copy."

Sen. Kohl: "While you served in the Justice Department and in the White House Counsel's Office in the Reagan administration in the 1980s..."

Sen. Feinstein: "In a September 26th, 1983 memo to Fred Fielding, you rejected an alternative proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women."

There you have it. Every Democrat on this committee will vote against Roberts, because ...

Well, really because he was nominated by George W. Bush and they hate George W. Bush.

In fact, here's the hearings I'd like to see: After the committee votes 10-8 to approve Roberts, "The American people" should hold hearings and ask the 8 Dems to explain why they voted against Roberts. They'll say he's "outside the mainstream," but is he? Because he opposed the ERA? Seems to me that's the mainstream position.

Look, Roberts is a blank slate. I'm not convinced he's a staunch conservative; he certainly doesn't have a record that indicates he is one. He might well be the next Anthony Kennedy. We simply don't know.

But there's simply no reason to oppose him. He's smooth, smart, a great lawyer. Confirm him, and we'll see how it turns out.

Let's party like it's 1999

2005-09-14T10:51:00.000-04:00

Whoa -- flashback time.

For those who haven't been following, my friend Colin has been hammering away at Karl Rove. You can find this rant in the comments section of this lively blog:

"Let's face facts. You don't lack the imagination needed to consider this question. You know exactly what you would have done, what Joe would have done, what the single-note monolith of right wing radio would have done, the OpinionJournal, FoxNews and every right-wing blogger between here and Timbuktu.
"You would have attacked. Then you would have attacked some more. And then when people were utterly sick of it, you'd have attacked still more, just for good measure. Then you'd have included Hillary Clinton in your attack because, well, no right-wing attack campaign is complete without an attack on Hillary Clinton.
"It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. You know it, I know it. 8 years of Republican vitriol established a pretty clear pattern. Don't pretend to me that you'd have yawned and given it a free pass. That's just BS. Any claim that you don't know is just baloney.
"Your party's recent history is nothing if not clear on what it would have done.Rove is your man, to be protected at all costs. Close the ranks, discard all standards, discard all skepticism."

Yikes. Well, with the anger, vitriol and self pity of that post, it could have been written by Bill Clinton circa 1998.

Let's address a few things. First, I had nothing to do with right wing attacks in the 1990s. I was safely toiling away as a writer for the Cable News Network. If I had been of a mind to slip some negative Clinton comment into a script, say if I'd decided to note his dissembling over the Lewinsky matter, I'm sure a friendly editor would have removed it.

Would I have wanted a Clinton staffer fired if he'd given up the identity of a CIA operative? Yes. If it's proven that Rove gave up Plame's identity, I think he should be fired, too, and I expect he would be. That's far from proven yet.

Look, I'm no fan of Karl Rove. He's a good political strategist, but I'm more of a fundamentalist.

The Roves of the world insist the president should work to get Sen. Spector re-elected, even though Spector is about the least conservative Republican senator I can think of. I wanted the president to back Pat Toomey, a real conservative. Rove won out.

Rove will also insist that in 2006 the president should work to re-elect Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, another Republican who falls far short of conservative. Again, I oppose that. Work to get a real conservative in that seat. I'd rather lose an election with a conservative than win with a liberal.

That's not very political of me, I suppose, but the fact is that when conservatives run, they win. Look at Minnesota, where conservative Rep. Mark Kennedy will probably be elected to replace liberal Democrat Mark Dayton.

Minnesota's no conservative state; it's the only state that went for Mondale in 1984, it's the state that gave us Humphrey-Mondale-Wellstone. If a conservative can win there, a conservative can win in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania (as Rick Santorum has already done twice), no matter what Karl Rove says.

The end of real news

2005-09-13T09:36:00.000-04:00

All this news from New Orleans -- flooding, dead bodies, was so draining.

Thank God it's over. Bring on the non-news: The Roberts hearings.

In one of the most humorous moments yet, Sen. Pat Leahy, water-bearer for "People for the (un)American Way" announced that he hasn't yet decided whether or not he'll vote for Judge Roberts. He told CNN:

BLITZER: Is it fair to say you basically have an open mind or -- at this point?
LEAHY: Judge Roberts met in my office, he and I and Senator Specter, this morning. Both Senator Specter and I have said that we have an open mind. We'll make up our mind at the end of these hearings. Actually, you know, that's kind of an old-fashioned way of doing things. You actually hear the evidence before you make up your mind. I wish more senators would do the same thing.

So he hasn't made up his mind? SUUUUUUUUUUUUURE he hasn't.

Sen. Leahy will vote no. That was clear even before Roberts had been named. If President Bush had named Pope Benedict, Leahy would have voted no.

I'll bet anybody $100 that Leahy will vote no on Roberts, just as the NOW protesters I saw outside the Capitol this morning are instructing him to.

Problem solved

2005-09-12T14:58:00.000-04:00

Mike Brown has stepped down as head of FEMA.

That, according to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, should solve all our problems. Last week on CNN, she had this exchange with anchor Kyra Phillips:

PHILLIPS: So you think taking Mike Brown out of FEMA right now and replacing Mike Brown...
PELOSI: Essential.
PHILLIPS: ... with somebody else...
PELOSI: That's absolutely essential.
PHILLIPS: ... will change this entire dynamic and solve the problem.
PELOSI: I do, indeed. I think it's a question of the judgment of President Bush that he would have somebody in this crucial position who has no qualifications for the job. And if you need any further evidence of that, you need only look to the performance of FEMA.
PHILLIPS: Who would you recommend? Who would...
PELOSI: ... in the past week.

Guess we can put this whole New Orleans thing behind us and go back to talking about important things. Cindy Sheehan, where are you?

It's official:

2005-09-08T14:54:00.000-04:00

He's "Sandy Burgler."

And a pretty inept burgler at that...

But enough about you...

2005-09-07T16:22:00.000-04:00

...let's talk about us.

The Cafferty File this hour is asking: "Did Hurricane Katrina change your view of television news?"

Yes, that's what the country is crying out to know: has the storm saved TV news.

My question of the hour is: "Just how self-centered can you people be?"

Now, you stand over here, and you stand over there...

2005-09-07T14:21:00.000-04:00

As unhelpful as ever, moveon.org is at it again. In an e-mail today, the Bush-bashing organization says it's organizing a "protest to help Hurricane victims."

"Tomorrow four MoveOn members who were evacuated from New Orleans will travel to Washington, DC to deliver a petition to President Bush," the organization says.

What a great idea! Fly these poor people up here to DC! How productive. Wouldn't that money be better spent helping these people? Say by giving them food or shelter?

Moveon assures us that "signs will be provided. (Signs will say, "Shame" and "Help Hurricane Victims")"

Shame's on you, moveon. Why don't you do everyone a favor and "help hurricane victims" yourselves.

Simply the best

2005-09-07T10:35:00.000-04:00

I usually don't bother reading Harold Meyerson's weekly offering in the Washington Post. But his opening today drew me in: "We're not number one. We're not even close."

One assumes upon reading that the author will explain which country(ies) are ahead of us. There must be one or more, if we're not "number one." For example, if I want to say "The Braves aren't the best team in the NL East," I'd better be able to explain who, exactly, is better, since the Braves are far and away in first place.

Sadly, Meyerson never explains which countries are better than us. Instead his piece is just so much more leftist Bush bashing.

Meyerson seems blind to his own contradictions. He writes that, "As a matter of social policy, the catastrophic lack of response in New Orleans is exceptional only in its scale and immediacy," and he blames FEMA for that failure. Yet, he writes, "We are, of course, the only democracy in the developed world that doesn't offer health care to its citizens as a matter of right."

Well, doesn't Meyerson realize that, if we created a government-provided health care system, it would be run by the same sort of people who run FEMA? If the federal government can't respond properly to a hurricane on the Gulf coast, how could any intelligent person expect it to provide quality health care to 300 million people?

Meyerson claims that, "When it comes to caring for our fellow countrymen, we all know that America has never ranked very high." Has he been watching television?

People across the country are opening their homes to storm evacuees. Food water and medicine has been pouring south since the storm cleared. What seems to upset Meyerson is that Americans don't turn to government to solve problems. We'd rather do that through private and faith-based organizations. You know, the ones that work.

It's easy to roll out the usual socialist laundry list of supposed American failures. "Did the Walton family up in Bentonville raise the levees in New Orleans?" Meyerson asks. No. And neither did the various state and local governments charged with protecting New Orleans.

But the Walton family, and the empire they built, is supplying millions of dollars worth of aid to storm victims. In the end, private enterprise will do far more than any bureaucrats to help people.

Which explains why the United States remains number one.

Just what the world needed

2005-09-02T15:01:00.000-04:00

mega M & Ms...

Incompetent "Lords of Baseball screw Nats again

2005-09-02T14:18:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, baseball rosters expanded. Teams were allowed to call up as many as 40 players. That's a big deal for those still trying to reach the post season. It means fresh pitching arms, fresh running legs, fresh energy for the pennant run.

Unless your team is owned by those it's competing against.

That's the deal here in Washington, where the re-located Expos are still owned by the other 29 clubs.

The amazing Nats have somehow remained in playoff contention; people here expected a last place finish, and while that's the position the Nats are in, they're only 3 games off the wild card pace.

But the other teams don't especially enjoy the competition. So the Nats are only calling up a handful of players for the stretch run. ""At the beginning of the year, we have a budget that provides for a call-up of 'X' amount of players," Nationals President Tony Tavares told the Washington Post. "We're going to be over budget on that as it is. You can't call up 30 guys."

Well, you could. If you had an owner willing to pay for it. Bud Selig has been screwing around for years, meaning that while the Nationals now have a home, they're still ownerless.

Rumor has it billionaire George Soros is interested in buying. If he owned the team, there's every reason to expect he'd pour money in. After all, he spent $26 million on last year's doomed John Kerry campaign. The Nats have a better chance at winning the NL East than Kerry did of winning the executive mansion.

Baseball should do the right thing and sell the Nats as soon as possible. Baseball fans deserve real competition.

What can you do?

2005-08-31T16:10:00.000-04:00

New Orleans is under water. It's a disaster. As a friend points out, it'll be virtually impossible to get that water out of there. Who can possibly help?

According to former N.O. Mayor Sydney Barthelemy, only one man.

"We really need the president of the United States to make this a priority. We have to stop the breaches in the levee. We have to, or we're going to lose New Orleans and lose thousands of people there," he said on CNN this morning.

In case you missed his point, Barthelemy said it five times. "The president of the United States is the only person who has the resources to coordinate, to bring in the troops, to make this city a safe place, and solve the problems, particularly the breach in the levee," he said.

In other words, "we've got a problem, and President Bush needs to come in and solve it."

My golly, who does Barthelemy think Bush is, anyway? Those of us who grew up watching Superfriends cartoons on Saturday mornings wonder why he doesn't fly down in a supersonic jet, using its sonic boom to suck the water out of the streets. That's what Batman might do.

Or maybe he could make the earth reverse rotation, causing time to reverse so he could evacuate New Orleans and move it to a location above sea level. That's what Superman would do.

But Bush is only one man and, sadly, lacks super powers (except, according to liberals, his super power to deceive). The entire federal government is dealing with this disaster as best it can; there's nothing more the president or anyone can do to make things better.

Blaming the president is easy, and comforting for some, I suppose. Yesterday the Center for American Progress sent an e-mail in which it blamed Bush for the scale of the disaster. According to CAP, the president SLASH[ed] SPENDING ON HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS IN NEW ORLEANS, DESTROY[ed] NATURAL HURRICANE PROTECTIONS, GUT[ed] THE AGENCY TASKED WITH DEVELOPING HURRICANE RESPONSES and HELP[ed] FUEL GLOBAL WARMING, among other sins.

Folks, we'll all do whatever we can. But bashing Bush won't make things better.

It is worth wondering why the city of New Orleans, which is below sea level and is positioned on the hurricane-prone Gulf coast, wasn't better prepared. Everyone knows you can get the powerful rum drink "the Hurricane" in New Orleans -- why wasn't the city ready for a hurricane?

"I think, Soledad, everyone thought there was a plan," Barthelemy, mayor from 1986 until 1994, told CNN. "Everyone thought that we could handle most of the problems that would come due to a hurricane. No one ever dreamed that it would take -- be such devastation."

But it is.

Luckily, we're Americans. We'll attack the problem and fix it. We'll rebuild the city with better protections.

That's just what we do.

Hurricane homeless on the move

2005-08-31T12:30:00.000-04:00

More than 20,000 people who rode out the storm in the New Orleans Superdome will be moved to the Houston Astrodome.

Too bad they blew up the Seattle Kingdome, or they could go there.

The problem with polls

2005-08-30T14:23:00.000-04:00

is that you can't provide all the information someone needs to make a good choice.

The WashPost asked, "Do you think President Bush should or should not meet with Cindy Sheehan or not?" 52 percent said yes.

However, I suspect their answers might change if they were told that Sheehan, as George Will reported recently, "has called him a "lying bastard," "filth spewer," "evil maniac," "fuehrer" and the world's "biggest terrorist" who is committing "blatant genocide" and "waging a nuclear war" in Iraq."

It's not clear what they might "talk" about if they did meet. It would probably be more like "Crossfire," or whatever CNN is calling it now. Any meeting would be pointless, much like the Post's poll.

Help me, somebody help me

2005-08-30T14:17:00.000-04:00

CNN's running a commercial for the drug Avodart, which apparently shrinks a man's prostrate (not that you wanted to know that).

Anyway, the actor with the prostrate problem looks like Michael Tucker -- not the baseball player, but the dude from LA Law.

So, help: Is this the same guy? And if so, what an amazing career comedown...