Right Wing Pundit

Thougths from Louisville Cincinnati

2008-11-14T21:01:00.000-08:00

Just watched the end of the game on ESPN2 and had a few thoughts.

Cincinnati's coach was being jerk about something. Refused to shake hands with the other coach. And his team won. Grow up, and set an example for your team.
After the game, fans of #22 ranked Cincinnati were chanting "BCS, BCS." How is it again that the ACC and the Big East have an automatic berth to a BCS bowl and the MWC doesn't?
ESPN2 was showing this doozy of an NCAAF game (sarcasm), and the ticker at the bottom aws showing NCAAWB scores, and then NHL news. Is ESPN2 really the station were they hide the crap that no one cares about?

Back

2008-11-14T21:00:00.001-08:00

Obviously haven't posted in forever. I'll see if I can keep this up regularly enough to make it worthwhile (for myself or for others).

Shifting Gears

2007-04-21T10:12:00.000-07:00

Its too much trouble to blog here and at Spanish Phrase of the Day so I will be doing all my blogging there from now on, about politics and whatever else comes to mind. Its been fun blogging here with Bear & J-Red.

So visit Spanish Phrase of the Day. I'm trying to update it regularly, at least 3-4 times a week. There is still a lot of good stuff here in the RWP archives, especially our tracking of the early stages of the Romney candidacy.

The Trouble with Islam

2007-04-04T14:05:00.000-07:00

Tawfik Hamid is a medical doctor, Muslim reformer, and former member of the Islamic terror group Jemaah Islamiya. In Yesterday's Wall Street Journal he wrote an Op-Ed on "The Trouble with Islam."

I would quote the whole thing if I could. We make apologies about targeting Islam as a source of terror. There is no doubt that the main source of terror today comes from radical Islam, but Islam is general is doing a poor job of standing up to those radical elements.

A few things

2007-03-24T20:02:00.000-07:00

I wanted to devote separate posts to a few of these issues, but here is what I've got:

The most pressing matter involves the detention of British sailors by the government of Iran. The Iranians claim that the Brits encroached on Iranian territory, something the UK firmly denies. A new development makes it all very problematic.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.
Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

Not good, but I wouldn't shy from a chance to stick it to Iran.

Peggy Noonan has written two very good columns in a row. I have been dissatisfied with her work of late. I think she tends to be a bit negative about the current situations in Iraq and domestically among conservatives. In these last two columns she has put her historical perspective to good use. The first is on the problem with loyalty as a motivator for political support. The second addresses the state of conservatism. Both are worth reading.

Warming Shwarming II

2007-03-21T19:14:00.000-07:00

I can't help but comment on the spectacle presented by the arrival of Al Gore (The Prophet) to Capitol Hill today. First, an appetizer, presented by none other than Katie Couric:

But today it was a triumphant return, this time as a private citizen, to declare that the world faces a "planetary emergency" over climate change. And now, a lot of his skeptics agree that Gore makes a powerful point. The scientific consensus is clear, and Gore urged Congress to listen to scientists, not special interests.

"A lot of his skeptics"...? Not this skeptic. Unfortunately for Al and Katie, the only clear thing is that there is no real consensus on the issue, particularly as Gore's exaggerations become harder to ignore. Gore's seeming hypocrisy on the issue is also troubling- his reliance on gimmicky carbon offsets is a joke.

The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, wrote recently on what he sees as the religion of Global Warming:

'Communism has been replaced by the threat of an ambitious environmentalism.' Klaus said poor nations would also be hurt by efforts to impose limits and standards on emissions of gases believed to cause global warming.
'They will not be able to absorb new technological standards required by the anti-greenhouse religion, their products will have difficulty accessing the developed markets, and as a result the gap between them and the developed world will widen,' he wrote.
'This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world,' he added.

Call me a crackpot or a paranoid, but I couldn't agree more. It may only be a matter of time before Global Warming idealogues move from mandating what kind of lightbulbs we buy to when we procreate. Wouldn't limiting population limit greenhouse gases? Is it so far for them to go? Once they assume control and we cede certain freedoms over how we live, for good or ill, we open the door to the permanent restriction on our freedoms.

Warming Shwarming

2007-03-19T19:58:00.000-07:00

Originally posted at Spanish Phrase of the Day:
--------------------------------

I've been stewing over this issue for a little while, and it's finally time to get up on the soapbox. I am going to do my best to back up my points with good information, so follow the links if you want more detail. It's a long one so hang in there.

There are a few major viewpoints on the issue of Global Warming. I'll do my best to outline them here, but I may leave some aspect out:

Global Warming is caused in large part by man, is a grave crisis, and man must act immediately to prevent disaster (Al Gore).
Global Warming is real, may be caused by man and could be problematic for the future.
There is no "Global Warming," aside from the normal cyclical changes in climate that have occurred many times in history.
There is no warming. There may even be cooling.

My own opinion is closest to #3. But my purpose is not to convince you of my viewpoint. My purpose is to provide, at the very least, a healthy skepticism for #1. #2 does not pose the danger that #1 does as it fails to cross into the realm of ideology. Here goes:

A major premise behind the Global Warming alarmism espoused by Al Gore is that coming worldwide climate change will have cataclysmic effect. First we will deconstruct the idea of "global temperature," a necessary component of Gore's warming. From ScienceDaily:

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.

So it is impossible to make blanket predictions of global phenomena based on a supposed "Global Temperature." Therefore it is also impossible to blame recent warming trends, or some kind of man made warming, on recent climatological events. That hasn't stopped Gore and the Hollywood machine, something that is of concern to scientists:

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, criticised fellow scientists they accuse of "overplaying" the message.
They sparked controversy after saying statements made by the highly respected American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were not justified. The AAAS said last month: "As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. "These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible." Professor Collier said that while he is not sceptical that such events could happen, it is important to be "honest" about the scientific evidence behind projected future impacts.
Professor Hardaker warned against the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate seen in films such as the 2004 smash hit film The Day After Tomorrow, which depicts terrifying consequences after the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. Such films, he said, only work to create confusion in the public mind. "I don't think the way to make people pay attention is to make them afraid about it," he said.

OpinionJournal's John Fund reports on the controversy surrounding this issue:

The New York Times last week interviewed many scientists who say they are alarmed "at what they call [Mr. Gore's] alarmism on global warming."
...Even James Hansen, a scientist who began issuing warning cries about global warming in the 1980s and is a top adviser to Mr. Gore, concedes that his work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws." Other flaws are more serious, such as Mr. Gore's depiction of sea level rises of up to 20 feet, which would cause Florida and New York City to sink below the surface. Sober scientists privately say such claims are exaggerated. They point to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that released its fourth report on global warming last month. While it found humans were the main cause of recent global warming, the report also indicated it was a very slow-moving process. On sea levels, the U.N. panel reported its s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. The new high-end best estimate is less than half the previous prediction, which was still far below Mr. Gore's 20 feet. Similarly, the new report shows that the panel's 2001 report overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

So the alarmism promoted by Al Gore may not be justified. The science on warming is not "settled" as some have claimed.

Another part of viewpoint #1 is that man must do something to counteract climate change or face dire results. Assuming that reversing a warming trend is a good thing, is it even possible? From the National Review:

These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to “do” something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years!It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various “solutions” for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto — i.e., less than nothing — for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).

Assuming that warming IS occurring, IS man made, and IS a solvable problem, the prescription is much more complex than what the average person understands. The threat of international terrorism and rogue state nuclear opportunism is of much greater concern to me. I just wanted to try and punch some holes into an ideology that is counterproductive and that threatens to take much of our attention from where it belongs.

Obama Love

2007-03-15T18:57:00.000-07:00

I don't mean to be dishing it around, but I thought this was an interesting article about Obama. A conservative law school peer has written about her experience with Obama.

It's worth looking at. Obama is an avowed liberal, and I don't want him to win, but I prefer him to Edwards and especially to Clinton.

Lieberman- The Only Sane Democrat?

2007-02-26T19:02:00.000-08:00

Senator Joseph Lieberman has written a very persuasive article in today's Wall Street Journal. He argues that the President and the armed forces need time to put their strategy in place in Iraq:

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

His logic is persuasive.

Hillary v. Obama Pt. 2

2007-02-24T10:51:00.000-08:00

More commentary on the Hillary campaign from Mickey Kaus.

Powerline points out how Obama has taken the public high road.

Hillary v. Obama

2007-02-23T23:18:00.000-08:00

The Hillary Clinton campaign has hit a bumpy patch following some direct statements by a former friend, music mogul David Geffen. Peggy Noonan looks at how this has impacted the Clinton candidacy, one that seemed destined to secure her party's nomination. You need to read her article and Bill Kristol's to get the background, but here's the significance of this kerfuffle:

...the outcome of the Geffen-Clinton episode is worthy of watching because it is going to determine whether it is remembered as the moment in the 2008 campaign when it became clear you are allowed to criticize Hillary--or as the moment it became clear you are not.

Kristol gives credit to the Obama camp for their handling of the incident. The Clintons seem to have stumbled. It is fun to watch, and it will be interesting to see the outcome.

Beneath the numbers

2007-02-23T08:17:00.000-08:00

Austin Bay has some insights into the Troop Surge and what it really means, going beyond the numbers and looking at how it fits into the larger plan.

Check it out.

A few things

2007-02-20T19:31:00.000-08:00

Actual weather data from Antarctica is not jiving with dire climate predictions.

Michael Barone hits two topics in this post, President Bush's political position and the seemingly early start of the Presidential campaign.

Read Michael Yon. His stuff is fresh from the Iraq battlefront and is important.

Former Senator Phil Gram is supporting John McCain. He makes a case, but I am unmoved.

California remains over-regulated, providing us another glimpse into government folly. Their plan to encourage the use of lower-polluting hybrids has led to a glut of same on the highways.

Romney Watch '08 Part XI

2007-02-19T10:00:00.000-08:00

Fox News Watch is a program on the Fox News Channel that examines media coverage of events. They looked at how the media is covering Romney's faith. It's a good exploration.

I think the coverage has a purpose, and its meant to weaken Romney's candidacy.

Barack

2007-02-16T12:08:00.000-08:00

This is a preview of the new conservative comedy show. It's a promising start.

Romney Watch '08 Part X

2007-02-15T14:00:00.000-08:00

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has a good round-up of the media stories surrounding the '08 Presidential Primaries. He spends the first half looking at media coverage of Mitt Romney, and applies a critical eye to the way that his religion has become such a focal point:

The press seems downright excited at the prospect of the first female president.

The idea of the first black president has journalists all but giddy.

But the first Mormon president? Whoa! That's a different matter.

It's interesting. I don't buy much of the criticism that Romney has changed his tune on abortion and gay rights. I think his policy choices have changed, but his personal beliefs are probably fairly static. I also think abortion and gay rights are ultimately peripheral issues (or at least they should be).

Comedy the Right Way

2007-02-15T05:58:00.000-08:00

I'm pleased by this news. The co-creator of 24, Joel Surnow, is teaming with Fox News Channel to create a conservative-leaning political satire show. It will debut this Sunday at 10 pm.

In one of the articles they mentioned a prospective sketch in which will target the trend of college students wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. I'd love to see that. Most of the idiots who wear those shirts have no idea what Che was really like. He was a true communist and revolutionary, as well as a ruthless killer. In the sketch they would sell his shirts next to shirts of Mao and Hitler. Sounds about right.

I hope the show is a success. It's on my DVR list.

Cooling on Warming

2007-02-05T13:57:00.000-08:00

The release of the UN report on Climate Change has brought forth a flurry of publicity, not all of it in favor of that report's conclusions. The central areas of contention:

There is no Global Warming- recent warming is evidence of normal climate cycles and is not true warming at all.
Global Warming is not man-made, but occurs naturally, as in the release of CO2 into the atmosphere through biological processes.
Global Warming is partially attributable to man, but man is not capable of reversing it owing to its cumulative effect and the added impact of natural biological processes.
Man is almost entirely responsible for Global Warming. We are heading for catastrophe, but much of the danger can be prevented via radical measures.

I've followed the debate pretty steadily, and I probably fall somewhere in the 2nd bullet point. I fail to be swayed by the arguments of Gore and his ilk.

This article provides reasons to doubt Global Warming orthodoxy. I'm low on time, so hopefully I'll be able to follow up more on this in a minute.

More Yon In Iraq

2007-02-04T19:15:00.000-08:00

Michael Yon continues to deliver some of the best reporting from Iraq. In one of his most recent dispatches he writes about an Iraqi man who likely saved many of his fellow Iraqis when he tackled a suicide bomber. He became a martyr for the right side and left a family behind.

He was interviewed by Glenn Reynolds and his wife for their weekly podcast. His insights are valuable and worth your time.

Tax Cuts = More Revenue

2007-02-02T23:46:00.000-08:00

The Economist is probably my favorite magazine, and they examine the criticism of a liberal blogger that doesn't understand the economic impact of tax cuts:

His incredulity is not surprising, but it is wrong. The historical average for tax revenues as a percentage of GDP for the last 45 years—roughly, the span of the modern taxation era—is 18.2%; in 2006, the government collected 18.4% of GDP as tax revenues. Even if you throw out the Bush budgets of 2002-2006, the average rises only a tenth of a percent, meaning that America is still above its historical average.

They also look at the real impact of the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP, how it is not far off its historical levels, and how growing revenues will eventually offset it.

Tax-raisers (as opposed to tax-cutters) imagine that taxes and economic performance exist independent of each other. They believe that had Bush left taxes as they were that our tax receipts would be even higher, or that the economy would have continued to roll along. There is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, such as the massive increase in capital gains receipts, which says that lower taxes spurs more activity of every kind.

Supporting the Troops

2007-01-30T20:05:00.000-08:00

It's not enough to say you support the troops

They need more than lip-service support. Hagel, Kerry, Clinton and their ilk are working against the interests of our country and its fighting men and women.

Iraq

2007-01-29T07:54:00.000-08:00

I have spent some time in the last few days thinking about Iraq. A few things have come together, and while hardly groundbreaking, I wanted to share them here.

The Troop Surge:

When we invaded Iraq there were questions about the appropriate size of the invasion force. Clearly the numbers were sufficient for Iraq's capture. The big debate since then has been the size of the occupying force. Many of the President's critics touted the numbers argument as a key reason why we were having so much difficulty subduing the insurgency. Now that a surge has been proposed, many of those critics are bowing to political expedience and opposing any addition of troops. Opposing the surge without offering any alternatives is to accept and work for defeat. Bret Stephens concurs in his Wall Street Journal column:

These are our options in Iraq: We can withdraw troops and equipment as fast as our Galaxys and Globemasters can carry them home (or to Okinawa). This is the Murtha Way. We can cap troop levels at 140,000 and withdraw them no later than Inauguration Day, 2009. This is Hillary's Way. We can redeploy our forces outside of Iraqi cities, conduct limited training and counterterrorism missions, urge reconciliation among the various political factions and seek diplomatic openings with Syria and Iran. This is the way of Sens. Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden. We can advocate and facilitate the partition of Iraq. This is the (Peter) Galbraith Way. Or we can surge troops into the toughest neighborhoods of Baghdad, Ramadi and Najaf and keep them there indefinitely.

That is the President's Way. It is going to mean many more American casualties -- perhaps as many in the months ahead as we've seen over the past four years. It may fail for lack of troops, or insufficient cooperation from the Iraqi government. It could be defeated in the field, or it could succeed -- only to be undermined in Washington, much as Gen. Creighton Abrams's 1972 battlefield victories in Vietnam were. It lacks an endgame. It's a political loser. But it is the only strategy on the table that aims at victory and has a chance of succeeding.

I agree. No one who opposes it has proposed an option that has as much chance for success. The political mess frustrates me to no end.

Poor reporting by the media:

Our best bet to find the great and important stories from the War on Terror are from citizen journalists like Michael Yon. They usually pay their own way, are not affiliated with any major media outlet, and they provide the most in-depth coverage of our soldiers.

Yon has a long dispatch but it is well worth reading. Please read it and see what our soldiers go through. Yon is not a Pollyanna, but there is an optimism to his writing that is born of his faith in our fighting men and women.

Bill Indolino has some very interesting photos from Iraq, providing a glimpse of our troops in some rare moments.

The American Iraq

Finally, this piece explores the state of Iraq in its historical and present context. Iraq is still worth fighting for.

Barone on the Union

2007-01-26T14:54:00.000-08:00

Michael Barone has an excellent commentary of The State of the Union on his blog. It is excellent as usual.

State of Disunion

2007-01-23T21:09:00.000-08:00

I was listening to the radio today and they highlighted this column from Boston Herald Editor Jules Crittenden. An excerpt of his proposed State of the Union:

So what is the best thing I can do tonight? I can tell you the truth. What none of you want to hear. What you’ve been stopping your ears to. The ugly truth. The State of the Union is a disaster. I did my best, but I made mistakes, and my best wasn’t good enough.
We went to war without building up our army, and now, I am trying to make up for that.
But that is not the disaster. The disaster is that you, Congress and the American people, do not care to fight.

Too bad that no one will ever say that. I find all the politeness and ceremony associated with the State of the Union to be tiresome. I think the event is an important one, and the President deserves a forum with as broad an audience as this provides, but it rankles me to know that he will give this speech and many of those who smiled and clapped and shook his hand will look for the fastest way to stab him in the back.

The President is not perfect. He has made some significant mistakes. But he has also been hamstrung by a gutless Congress and an ideological media. The war he is fighting here at home is almost as hard as the one in Iraq.

I may write more on the speech tomorrow. Instapundit would be a great place to find speech reaction and commentaty.

Debating the Surge

2007-01-14T10:48:00.000-08:00

I haven't written much lately about politics, and I think it's because the scene is a pretty depressing one:

Republicans failed to rally support for key initiatives proposed by the President, such as Estate Tax Reform and Social Security Private Accounts. This left Republicans with Medicare Part D, a massive entitlement that conservatives are uncomfortable with. Now that the Republicans are out of power those plans are as good as dead.
Republicans have not shown that they've learned any lessons from their losses in the 2006 mid-terms. I got a fundraising plea from the GOP and I threw it away, not on a money issue but a principle one. I don't want to give money to a party that tried to re-elect faux Republican Lincoln Chafee but that won't get unified on budget reform.
Republicans are jumping like rats from the Iraq War, at a time when solutions are needed and grandstanding is most detrimental.

It all is crystalized by the President's speech on Wednesday night and the subsequent uproar. Michael Barone has two excellent posts, and if you didn't hear the speech this one will give you an idea of some of the President's main points.

His second post goes into greater depth on the partisan response to the speech and the president's plan to bolster security with a "troop surge." The Republicans that are now striking at the President on the war are being irresponsible and are in dereliction of their duty to the nation. The Democrats that are doing so are less irksome because they aren't doing anything I wouldn't expect them to.

It's a sorry situation, and there's more to say but I don't feel like saying it right now.

Romney Watch '08 Part IX

2007-01-12T13:46:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney has officially announced his interest in pursuing the Republican candidacy for President. In a recent podcast with blogger Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) he discussed a variety of issues, including a YouTube video that uses old campaign footage to criticize Romney's positions (past and present) on some social issues.

I like Mitt Romney. I hope he is successful, which doesn't necessarily mean winning the nomination though I wouldn't mind that at all.

Quick Hits

2007-01-07T18:14:00.000-08:00

It has been a very long time since I've written anything here, so I wanted to post some quick hits on stuff happening right now:

The biggest news, if correct, is being reported by Drudge. According to his website, President Bush will outline specific military, political, and economic benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. He also reports that they have agreed to the benchmarks. To me this is the key. Iraqi leadership must be a part of the process. We will learn the benchmarks somtime after the presidential speech due this week.
I was saddened to see that the new Archbishop of Warsaw, Stanislaw Wielgus, stepped down after confirming his role as an agent of Poland's feared communist-era secret police. While in College I wrote a paper that discussed the role of the Catholic Church as change agent during communist rule in Poland. The strength of the Polish Church contrasted with the weakness of the Cuban Church. It's sad to see the Church tarnished in this way, especially because it was such an effective bulwark against godless Communism.
I have been following the Duke Lacrosse Rape case for a while and I am appalled with the way the prosecutor has handled things. A history professor named K.C. Johnson has been a close observer of the proceedings and offers an update on his blog. If the case interests you it is worth reviewing. Newsweek has an interview with one of the accused, Reade Selgimann, and it is a postive piece. The Durham D.A. declined to comment.
Iraq's oil wells may soon open to foreign investment. Good. Some will decry the terms that are more favorable than the norm, but given the security situation it makes sense to provide incentives to invest. Iraq must integrate with the global marketplace if it is to go from security threat to strength.
This is only available to subscribers of the WSJ, but it is a moving article about survivor's guilt for one Iraq War vet. His friend and superior saved his life by jumping on an insurgent grenade, and for that bit of heroism, Cpl. Jason Dunham has been posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Miller v. Stewart

2006-12-15T18:11:00.000-08:00

I like Dennis Miller. His transition to conservatism is interesting, but not all that uncommon, as many erstwhile liberals find conservatism more agreeable later in life.

This is a segment of The Daily Show and the repartee between Miller and Jon Stewart is worth watching.

More on Rumsfeld

2006-12-11T06:56:00.000-08:00

From blogger Smash. Read it.

Rumsfeld exits

2006-12-10T18:21:00.000-08:00

I've mentioned my admiration for Donald Rumsfeld in the past. I think he is a good man and I appreciated his remarks on his departure from the Pentagon. Read some excerpts here.

I think history will look very kindly on his tenure.

More on Warming

2006-12-04T13:43:00.000-08:00

Senators Snowe and Rockefeller have sent an open letter to ExxonMobil. When I read it I was stunned. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal have an excellent response to the letter.

Read both and draw your own conclusions.

Romney Watch '08 - Part VIII

2006-12-04T09:04:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney's religion is becoming an increasingly focal part of his candidacy for the Republican Presidential Nomination. John Dickerson provides a pretty good rundown of some of those issues in Slate.

The main concern appears to be how he will come across to Republican primary voters. Dickerson points out opinion from Bob Novak that Romney will not win due to rejection by Evangelical voters. I think Romney has the ability to overcome these issues, but it will be difficult.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is described by some as a cult, who question its missionary program and whether it is a bona fide Christian Church. As a member, I can say that we are indeed Christian, but I also welcome the distance between us and other Christian theology, even so-called Orthodox Christianity. At least we don't use phony offers like this to persuade people of our beliefs.

Bolton resigns

2006-12-04T07:42:00.000-08:00

I'm disappointed by the resignation of John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, but I don't fault Mr. Bolton at all. President Bush said the following:

They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation.

Our Congress is hardly composed of "the best and brightest." There are a few strong folks in the mix, but the Kennedys, Bidens, and their ilk paint a depressing picture. It's no wonder Bolton declined any further attempts to work around their tactics.

Quick Hits

2006-11-26T18:37:00.000-08:00

With the Thanksgiving Holiday I have been unable to post to the blog, so I wanted to cover a few quick items to start out the week:

Charles Rangel, on his draft crusade, perpetuates myths about the military and generally makes a fool of himself. See the video at Hot Air.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be subject to increased scrutiny with the presumed candidacy of Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. Ann Althouse has pulled a few pieces together. This will be something to watch.
For more on politics and the Mormon Church, check out this article about Harry Reid. To me Reid has been one of the biggest disappointments in recent political history.

That'll do for now.

Iraq Study Group

2006-11-16T17:49:00.000-08:00

When I read this post by Michael Barone I felt like it was a breath of fresh air. For the last week all we have heard is how the Iraq Study Group is going to recommend that we pull out of Iraq. We've also heard how the appointment of Robert Gates as Defense Secretary signals Bush's likely acceptance of that recommendation, as he is a member of the Study Group.

I hope that all that talk is wrong. Barone draws an analogy to the Vietnam Era, when Johnson appointed a successor to McNamara that was widely expected to be more hawkish about the prosecution of the war. He was not and the rest is history. Barone surmises that the reverse may be the case this time around.

I think President Bush is a good man. I think he has been sincere when he expressed his intention to continue in Iraq until the job is done. I don't believe that he will turn his back on what he has said. I think Barone is right.

Nice thoughts from Noonan

2006-11-13T13:58:00.000-08:00

I think I can agree with pretty much all that Peggy Noonan wrote in last Friday's column. I like her sentiments and think they reflect an attitude that we can all adopt.

I will add that the success of her hopes will depend largely on a party that has done all that it can to undermine it. The Dems have a chance. We will be better off as a nation if they can make the right choices. Unfortunately, as my previous post indicates, I'm a bit skeptical that they will take that course.

More on Iraq, Rumsfeld

2006-11-13T13:08:00.000-08:00

I am tired of the term "redeployment." I'm sure the Democrats are quite pleased with themselves for adopting it, because it sounds so much better than "withdrawl," nevermind that they are one and the same.

A redeployment of U.S. forces means one thing, movement from Iraq. This is a very, very, very bad idea. No matter how short the proposed redeployment might be or where the new staging area is, be it Saudi Arabia or Okinawa, the power vacuum in Iraq will be filled, and not by those friendly to the U.S. Redeployment, aka withdrawl, would be a disaster.

-----------------------------------

Today's WSJ has a great article on what the departure of Rumsfeld may mean in terms of the ideology now in control at the Department of Defense. New nominee Gates has been identified as a Realist. You need to read the piece to see what the author means, but the progressives (liberals, democrats) that have cheered Rummy's departure have abandoned their principles to see their personal enmity satiated. Not that it's surprising.

Farewell to a Good Man

2006-11-09T18:23:00.000-08:00

I like Donald Rumsfeld. I like the way he expresses himself. I like how he refused to take any garbage from politicians who thought they deserved deference. I like how was unafraid to show contempt for the combative press. I admire his long career as a public official, as well as his impressive tenure as an executive. I think he followed his instincts and his own best ideas in a very, very difficult time. Some thoughts:

This is from a speech Secretary Rumsfeld delivered today at Kansas State University. I am also convinced of this sentiment (my emphasis):
As we look back on those critical years during the Cold War, so too our grandchildren will one day look back on this time as a defining moment in America’s history. History will judge whether we did all we could to defeat a vicious extremist enemy that threatened our security, our freedom, our very way of life. Or, if we left it to the next generations to try to fight an enemy strengthened by our weakness, and emboldened by our lack of resolve.
Over my lifetime, I have had the opportunity to live in times of great consequence, times of war and times of peace. I have met countless Americans from every corner of our magnificent country, and I have developed an abiding faith in the wisdom and good judgment of free people over time to come to the right decisions. I have seen us triumph over dictators and tyrannies of many forms, and I believe that if we persevere today -- and I am convinced we will -- if we make the right choices, and develop a clear understanding of the war we face today, we can overcome the increasingly lethal threats of this young century.
Despite all the enemy tries to do to make the world think otherwise, America is not what is wrong with the world. America is a force for good. We are on the right side of history. Let there be no doubt that the great sweep of human history is for freedom and we are freedom’s side.
Victor Davis Hanson is an excellent commentator, and I enjoyed this entire column, but I include it here for the first item, his assessment of Donald Rumsfeld's tenure as Defense Secretary.
This is an entertaining look at the political aspects of the timing of the Rumsfeld resignation.

-----------------------------

Dick Armey was a key member of Congress and helped win the House for Republicans in 1994. He is a practical thinker and offers a helpful postmortem on the Republican Revolution that expired last Tuesday. This is an opportunity for Republicans.

Post-Election Roundup

2006-11-08T13:49:00.000-08:00

I've seen some interesting things regarding the election:

Michael Barone's insights are always interesting. It's worth a look for anyone that wants to understand some aspects of electoral politics better, such as exit polls and the state of the electorate.
John Fund continues his quest to examine voter fraud. Could that have played a role in places like Missouri? The Acorn organization is a central figure in the age-old problem.
I really liked Tom Coburn's statement on the election. He has made a name for himself as a champion of smaller government. It's long statement, but worth reading if you care about conservatism:

WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement tonight regarding the outcome of the mid-term elections:
“Although this election represents a short-term setback for Republicans, it could be an important turning point for the Republican Party and, more importantly, the country. Every incumbent was reminded that the American people, not party establishments, hold the reins of government. Throughout our history, when the American people rise up and force change our country benefits. In our system, the wisdom of many individual voters still outweighs the wisdom of a few,” Dr. Coburn said.
“Many factors contributed to these election results. The American people obviously are concerned about the conduct of the war in Iraq. Members of both parties have an obligation to work together to offer creative and constructive solutions that will help our troops accomplish their mission.
“The overriding theme of this election, however, is that voters are more interested in changing the culture in Washington than changing course in Washington, D.C. This election was not a rejection of conservative principles per se, but a rejection of corrupt, complacent and incompetent government.
“A recent CNN poll found that 54 percent of Americans believe government is doing too much while only 37 percent want government to do more. The results of this election reflect that attitude. Among the Republicans who lost their re-election bids a surprising number were political moderates who advocated a more activist government. Several Republican members of the appropriations committees, which have been on a spending binge, also were not re-elected. On the other hand, the two Republican senators who pulled off the most impressive victories were unapologetic conservatives, Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and John Ensign (R-NV). It is also notable that the Democrats who won or who ran competitive races sounded more like Ronald Reagan than Lyndon Johnson.
“This election does not show that voters have abandoned their belief in limited government; it shows that the Republican Party has abandoned them. In fact, these results represent the total failure of big government Republicanism.
“The Republican Party now has an opportunity to rediscover its identity as a party for limited government, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Most Americans still believe in these ideals, which reflect not merely the spirit of 1994 or the Reagan Revolution, but the vision of our founders. If Republicans present real ideas and solutions based on these principles we will do well in the future.
“What Republicans cannot continue to do, however, is more of the same. Our short-term, politically-expedient, bread and circus governing philosophy has failed. Iraq is an important issue in the minds of voters but it is not the only issue. Our majority was severely weakened by a long series of decisions that pre-date the public’s current concern about Iraq.
“Republicans oversaw a seven-fold increase in pork projects since 1998. Republicans increased domestic spending by nearly 50 percent since 2001, increased the national debt to $9 trillion, passed a reckless Medicare expansion bill and neglected our oversight responsibilities. While some of these decisions may have helped secure specific seats in the short-term the totality of our excess did not secure our majority, but destroy it.
“There should now be less doubt about whether overspending and pork projects are bad policy and bad politics. This year, in particular, pork did not save our vulnerable incumbents but helped drag them down. The challenges facing our country are too great and complex for members of Congress and their staff to continue to be distracted by endless earmarking.
“Some have said that Republicans and Democrats now need to govern from the middle. I disagree. We do not need to govern from the center as much as we need to govern from conscience. When politicians have the courage to argue their convictions and lose their political lives in an honest battle of ideas the best policies will prevail.
“The American people do want civility but they also want real debate. Civility does not mean an absence of conflict, but a return of honor and dignity in our politics. The great debates in American history like the Lincoln-Douglas debates or the debates about the Constitution were intensely confrontational, but no one feels soiled after reading them. That same quality of debate is possible today if politicians put their country first and party second. The problems facing our country are too great to not have these debates. Voters are bored and tired of partisan role playing in Washington. The answers to securing Iraq, winning the War on Terror, and preventing the impending bankruptcies of Medicare and Social Security will not be discovered by portraying the other party as the focus of evil and corruption. If we don’t debate these issues with honor and agree on solutions we will be the first generation of leaders that left the next generation worse off, and we will see our relative power in the world diminish.
“One of the great paradoxes in politics is that governing to maintain power is the surest way to lose it. Republicans have the ideas to solve our greatest challenges. If we focus on ideas, our majority status will take care of itself,” Dr. Coburn said.

Crow tastes like...Chicken?

2006-11-08T07:30:00.000-08:00

Well, it stinks to be wrong. If I have any excuse, it is that my predictions were based more on skepticism than hope, but wrong is wrong.

I meant to comment last night. I watched the results until about 12:30. It's been about ten years since I had reason to be as disappointed on election night, so I've tried to figure out exactly what I'm feeling about this. My thoughts:

Life will go on just as it has. A shift in power is far from the end of the world, as conservative ideals have often flourished when Republicans have been in the minority.
The War is a major concern. How will a Democratic-led house conduct the War? I heard Pelosi say something about "working together to find a solution to the Iraq War." This gave me pause. How about "a solution for the war" or "a solution to win the war?" I remain convinced that a pullout from Iraq would be a devastating defeat for the United States and our allies.
Republican control over the judiciary is greatly limited. It will be very difficult to get another Roberts or Alito on the court.
How will centrist Democrats like Webb and Casey legislate in Congress (if Webb is successful)? Will they follow a Lieberman approach?
Although it puts Republican Committee Chairmanships in jeopardy, the loss of someone like Lincoln Chafee is no loss at all.
I am already tired of Nancy Pelosi. She is an uninspiring speaker and will probably be an Uninspiring Speaker.
Republicans DID deserve to lose. Not so much that I would have skipped voting or voted Democrat, but this is a great opportunity for the party to remember 1994. That was a time when the party had exciting ideas and the drive to deliver on them. Today's Republicans have been a disgrace in terms of spending, failure to use their majority to work on Social Security, immigration, and abandonment of general conservative principals. Malfeasance was another major issue, and the party takes the blame for the misdeeds of the few. There's no reason to cry about it- that's the way it works.
This is not an embrace of liberal ideals. Arthur C. Brooks wrote an excellent piece in yesterday's WSJ where he discussed the continued march of the country to the right. This election is more about dissatisfaction with the way things are than a flight to the non-plans of the Dems.

I'll have more later.

Tonight

2006-11-07T08:43:00.000-08:00

OpinionJournal's John Fund has a helpful breakdown of the night's election returns. You can see which races will be reported at various times. Unlike the presidential election, where a complete picture is often unavailable until late, we may have a good idea of how the Congress will look by 9 o'clock.

Further thoughts

2006-11-06T13:48:00.000-08:00

I don't understand headlines like this, from FoxNews:

FOX News Poll: Dems Top GOP by 13 Points in Race to Control Congress

Aren't these local and state elections? What possible valid conclusions can we draw from national and regional polls, at least as it pertains to Congressional elections? I think a lot of people will be surprised tomorrow.

I might be completely wrong, but the last 3 national elections (2000, 2002, & 2004) have been proof that actual voter behavior is a mercurial thing. Instapundit agrees.

Michael Barone has some excellent analysis (READ THIS if you read anything).

---------------------------------

On the lighter side, Eric Snider has a very funny column on the current state of political discourse.

Predicting Tuesday

2006-11-05T18:21:00.000-08:00

So I thought I would take a moment on this election eve-eve to give some of my predictions on the mid-term Congressional elections. I was curious to find prognostication from other conservatives, to I visited the Weekly Standard. I was fairly shocked by the pessimism displayed there, but suppose that I shouldn't be. I just don't sense this enthusiasm for the Democrats that they will need to take both Houses of Congress. They don't have enough to offer.

I don't buy the results of many of the polls. I think it is too difficult to get an accurate sample of actual voter behavior. I don't think a Democratic takeover of the House is a long-shot, but its not a slam dunk either. Too many times the prognosticators have been wrong. Or to be more accurate, the pessimists have been wrong. Wrong on so many things, from the 2004 Presidential election to the direction and vitality of the economy.

John Kerry's idiocy plays in favor of the Republicans. I think many Republicans have a sense of the danger involved in ceding control of Congress to the Dems, despite their frustration with Washington politics.

Vote Republican. Why? Orson Scott Card, a long-time registered Democrat, is voting Republican, again, and it is because of the issue that matters- the War on Terror. For more on his views, read his whole column.

Did they, or didn't they?

2006-11-04T20:31:00.000-08:00

There's been a small brouhaha about the online publication of some documents detailing Iraqi weapons programs. It seems that, lack of WMD material to the contrary, Iraq was fairly close to developing a nuclear weapon, at least in terms of know-how.

Michael Barone:

On the whole issue of WMDs in Iraq, I keep coming back to the thought that no responsible American or allied leader could assume, before March 2003, that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction. It had developed and used them in the past, and it refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors. If your duty is to protect Americans, what piece of intelligence could convince you that Iraq was not developing WMDs? In my view, there was no need to continue the inspection process in 2002 and 2003, and we evidently did so to get the support of Britain and other allies.

So the NYT is mad that we published material that could help other people develop weapons, but they also criticize a war whose purpose was to remove the authors of that material. Makes you wonder whose side they're on.

So Hot

2006-11-02T14:47:00.000-08:00

Here is an article on Global Warming, one of my pet topics. The author, a professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is a believer in warming and also believes that it stems from human behavior. His purpose is to critique a recent study that he considers sloppy and ill-prepared, entitled the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.

Bjorn Lomberg writes:

The review is also one-sided, focusing almost exclusively on carbon-emission cuts as the solution to the problem of climate change. Mr. Stern sees increasing hurricane damage in the U.S. as a powerful argument for carbon controls. However, hurricane damage is increasing predominantly because there are more people with more goods to be damaged, settling in ever more risky habitats. Even if global warming does significantly increase the power of hurricanes, it is estimated that 95% to 98% of the increased damage will be due to demographics. The review acknowledges that simple initiatives like bracing and securing roof trusses and walls can cheaply reduce damage by more than 80%; yet its policy recommendations on expensive carbon reductions promise to cut the damages by 1% to 2% at best. That is a bad deal.

Mr. Stern is also selective, often seeming to cherry-pick statistics to fit an argument. This is demonstrated most clearly in the review's examination of the social damage costs of CO2--essentially the environmental cost of emitting each extra ton of CO2. The most well-recognized climate economist in the world is probably Yale University's William Nordhaus, whose "approach is perhaps closest in spirit to ours," according to the Stern review. Mr. Nordhaus finds that the social cost of CO2 is $2.50 per ton. Mr. Stern, however, uses a figure of $85 per ton. Picking a rate even higher than the official U.K. estimates--that have themselves been criticized for being over the top--speaks volumes.

He continues his criticism:

The Stern review's cornerstone argument for immediate and strong action now is based on the suggestion that doing nothing about climate change costs 20% of GDP now, and doing something only costs 1%. However, this argument hinges on three very problematic assumptions.

First, it assumes that if we act, we will not still have to pay. But this is not so--Mr. Stern actually tells us that his solution is "already associated with significant risks." Second, it requires the cost of action to be as cheap as he tells us--and on this front his numbers are at best overly optimistic. Third, and most importantly, it requires the cost of doing nothing to be a realistic assumption: But the 20% of GDP figure is inflated by an unrealistically pessimistic vision of the 22nd century, and by an extreme and unrealistically low discount rate. According to the background numbers in Mr. Stern's own report, climate change will cost us 0% now and 3% of GDP in 2100, a much more informative number than the 20% now and forever.
In other words: Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do. Mr. Stern's attempt to challenge that understanding is based on a chain of unlikely assumptions.

Moreover, there is a fourth major problem in Mr. Stern's argument that has received very little attention. It seems naive to believe that the world's 192 nations can flawlessly implement Mr. Stern's multitrillion-dollar, century-long policy proposal. Will nobody try to avoid its obligations? Why would China and India even participate? And even if China got on board, would it be able to implement the policies? In 2002, China decided to cut sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 10%--they are now 27% higher despite SO2 being nationally a much bigger health and environmental problem than climate change.

Read the rest for more.

Soldiers to Kerry

2006-11-01T12:00:00.000-08:00

For a hilarious follow-up to John Kerry's buffonery, check out this picture sent from some of our servicemen in Iraq:

You gotta love it.

Kerry Belittles U.S. Troops

2006-10-31T07:39:00.000-08:00

In sports this is what they call "Bulletin Board Material." John Kerry is a disgrace to the office he holds, but I'd rather he expose himself this way. It makes it harder for him to hide behind his "veteran" label.

Poll Problems

2006-10-30T09:14:00.000-08:00

More great commentary from Michael Barone, this time on the problem with polls. My favorite part, about the 2004 Exit Polls:

Serious pollsters concede that there are some problems with polling. Americans have fewer landline phones than they used to, and the random digit dialing most pollsters use does not include cell-phone numbers. Larger and larger percentages of those called are declining to be interviewed.
Interviewers can inject bias in the results. The late Warren Mitofsky, who conducted the 2004 NEP exit poll, went back and found that the greatest difference between actual results in exit poll precincts and the reports phoned in to NEP came where the interviewers were female graduate students -- and almost all the discrepancies favored the Democrats.

The polls really don't concern me. They is far too much disagreement in their results for me to be convinced about anything other than the fact that November 7th will be another long night. Indeed, the prevalence of early and absentee voting may lead to problems. From John Fund:

If the present trends continue, we will become a nation where half of us vote on Election Day and the other half . . . well, whenever. While that may not bother some people, it won't be good for democracy if a flood of absentee ballots means the country will have to endure a slew of lawsuits and recounts that could delay the final results of next week's elections for weeks. Election Day could become Election Month before we know who will control the 110th Congress.

It's a great explanation of the trend and its possible pitfalls.

Forgotten Civil Rights History

2006-10-29T17:16:00.000-08:00

This is an interesting bit about a monument to forgotten history in Wichita, Kansas. 19 months before the famous Greensboro sit-ins, some young blacks successfully changed the policy in a drugstore, allowing them to be served as any normal customer.

Read more about it here.

Long before the NAACP and Democrats turned civil rights into a partisan issue, there were some real things to be proud of, regardless of party.

Top Access

2006-10-26T08:50:00.000-07:00

Michael Barone was fortunate enough to find an audience with the president. Along with a small group of conservative-leaning commentators, he was invited to the Oval Office to talk to the President. The entire hour was on the record, and he includes a link to the audio of that conversation. His synopsis is excellent, and the audio reveals a president that understands the issues we are facing, notwithstanding the claims of the Left or the media.

Of particular interest to me is the President's interest in Churchill, as noted by Barone.

Beware the Taxman

2006-10-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

This is another funny video from David Zucker, film producer/director and Democrat-turned-Republican. Although it uses exaggerated sight gags, it makes its point pretty well.

Romney Watch '08 - Part VII

2006-10-23T08:40:00.000-07:00

My brother-in-law Ross sent me this interesting article about Mitt Romney and the continuing question of how his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might effect his candidacy for the Republican nomination.

It's from The Economist, and it's an excellent mag and the analysis is pretty good. An excerpt:

Mr Romney's emergence as a conservative champion owes something to luck. His two biggest rivals on the right have imploded: Bill Frist because of his lacklustre performance as Senate majority leader, George Allen because of his gaffe-ridden Senate campaign. But it owes more to years of investment. Mr Romney has not only fought harder than any other governor on “social issues”, particularly gay marriage. He has done so in the heart of enemy territory.
Mr Romney won the governorship of a state where only 13% of the voters are registered Republicans, and where the congressional delegation is 100% Democratic. And he succeeded in working with a legislature where 87% of the members represent the other party. When he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he found a $3 billion budget deficit; two years later he was running a surplus of more than $700m.

He undoubtedly has street cred. I think an ideal ticket would be a Romney-Giuliani or Giuliani-Romney pairing. Who knows?

Barone Roundup

2006-10-18T17:16:00.000-07:00

As I'm down in Sanibel, FL with Lacy and her parents, I thought I would pass along this link to a Michael Barone post. I won't have much time to blog this week, and he covers a few interesting topics, including the U.S. reaching 300 million population, the upcoming elections, and North Korea's biological ambitions.

Noble Nobel

2006-10-16T18:34:00.000-07:00

On Spanish Phrase of the Day I wrote a few things about Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank, the recipients of this year's Nobel Peace prize.

Check it out.

Al-Mormon

2006-10-14T20:35:00.000-07:00

I thought this was a pretty funny bit. While it pokes fun at the Mormons, it is a pretty funny commentary on the absurdity of Al Qaida's outreach efforts.

Which came first? The Axis or the Evil?

2006-10-10T09:56:00.000-07:00

In other words, Which came first? The President's characterization of certain states as the Axis of Evil, or the evil acts that made the characterization true? Some are claiming that Iran's unwillingness to negotiate and North Korea's alleged nuclear test are a byproduct of Bush's use of that term. Michael Rubin responds on the National Review Online:

To condemn the Axis of Evil speech is to condemn Bush for prescience. He didn’t create the Axis of Evil; rather, he voiced the problem. And if that shocked European diplomats, well too bad. If it’s a choice between national security and enabling European diplomats to remain secure in their illusions, I’d hope both Republicans and Democrats would favor the former. Clinton administration attempts to engage the Taliban and the North Korean regime were folly. Any attempt to do likewise with Iran would be equally inane. Certain regimes cannot be appeased. Dialogue is no panacea.

Ignorance of that kind can't last forever- can it?

Be your brother's Keeper

2006-10-04T13:44:00.000-07:00

When Cain replied that he was not "his brother's keeper," he answered poorly. The moral we are to gain from that story is that we are indeed our brother's keeper. The problem with Congress these days is that they don't really know who their brother is.

I wanted to avoid the Mark Foley issue. It is an ugly and distasteful story. Brandon Miniter, writing in today's Opinion Journal, forced me to change my mind when he wrote about the House Republicans poor job of policing their own. To me it is indicative of a widespread failing afflicting both parties.

Cronyism is ancient and widespread. In business, sports, entertainment, and even religion, we cut our buddies some slack at the expense of the letter of the law. There are cases where that is both justifiable and appropriate, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but there are cases where it is not. Public service in the national legislature of the United States of America is not one of those cases. As holders of the public trust they must be held to a higher standard.

The leaders of both parties see each other and their fellow congressmen as colleagues. They try to protect each other, as in the case of the FBI raid on Rep. William Jefferson. They offer a chance to shape up, as in Foley's case. They don't realize (or ignore) that the brothers they should be watching out for are you and me. They should be the keeper of their constituents and in this they fail miserably. There is fear among our elected officials- fear that they will not find acceptance and praise at the hands of their peers. They fear the loss of their power and prestige. They forget that their prestige and power is ours to give and theirs to earn. We give it at too cheaply to the underserving.

I am a proponent of term limits at every level of our government. The benefits far outweigh the limitations. Maybe I'll have a chance to enumerate them sometime soon.

Looking to November

2006-10-02T14:09:00.000-07:00

I predict that Republicans will maintain control of the House and Senate after the midterm elections are completed in November. I don't see a strengthening of control by any means, but I don't think the Democrats have a compelling story to tell, beyond pointing out the flaws of the Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem determined to make the Dems job easier than normal. The Wall Street Journal diagrams the GOP Record in today's edition (found here at Opinion Journal).

The truth, and it has been stated by man, is that the Republicans tenuous situation is of their own making. The WSJ has done an excellent job of highlighting the incumbency politics that mar the good work that Republicans should be doing.

All for Term Limits? One vote right here. Think of the vitality that could emerge from a political class that is both temporary and not hampered with thoughts of reelection. It's a nice thought.

Olbermann

2006-09-30T05:12:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd point out a little message board exchange from the other day. I often go to Eric Snider's website. He wrote for the BYU paper when we were freshman and I've followed him ever since. He doesn't normally get into politics, but asked a political question on his blog about Keith Olbermann. Olbermann is an idiot masquerading as an erudite commentator. I responded to the post, as did a few others, and I thought the exchanges worthy of linkage.

The lefties who respond seem unlikely to be swayed by anything I might have said. Just the same, I'll never turn down a chance to speak the truth, especially about a guy like Olbermann. Chris Muir, who writes the Day by Day comic, had this to say about Olbermann the other day.

I concur. Fortunately Olbermann's ratings are pretty pathetic.

Bush lays it down

2006-09-27T13:15:00.000-07:00

There has emerged some furor over the National Intelligence Estimate, portions of which were leaked to the New York Times (big surprise) last week. President Bush has responded quite well to the issue, and his answer to the question of whether the Iraq War has made us more susceptible to terror is worth relaying in its entirety:

President Bush yesterday, answering a question about the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism, which the White House said it would make public:
Question: Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

President Bush: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.
Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.
The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.
You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on Sept. 11. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.
We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.
You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.
This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.
Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE -- it was a intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions -- the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February -- at the end of February. And here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.
I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI [director of national intelligence]. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means that it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who have been around here long enough know what I'm talking about. But once again, there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign -- to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.
And so we're going to -- I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible. He'll declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself. And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.

Nicely done.

Chavez

2006-09-22T09:24:00.000-07:00

I am going to deal with Chavez on the Spanish Phrase of the Day, where you can also see a video of Lowdogg, Jr.

The Left and Terror

2006-09-19T14:09:00.000-07:00

I wanted to write a longer post, but have no time. For a clear idea of the point I wanted to make, just read James Taranto's Opinion Journal from last Monday. The first section is the key one, and my feeling is complete agreement. The Left as presently constituted has no business leading this country through the War on Terror.

Pondering "The Path"

2006-09-18T19:06:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to the furor over ABC's miniseries, The Path to 9/11, I wanted to point out some good commentary, as well as provide my own impression of the film.

The writer of the screenplay has an op-ed in today's WSJ (Opinion Journal page). He does a good job of relating the compromises that have to be made when making a film, especially on such an expansive theme. He also successfully addresses the shortfalls in both administrations on the terror issue.

What is key about The Path was how it made me feel. It took me about a week to watch the whole thing, and although there were some slow parts, I would say that it was generally captivating. The final 30 minutes are quite moving, and it was impossible to contain the mized emotions of sadness and anger. My anger today is different than the anger I felt 5 years ago, and its because of the way that the Left has handled the politics of the War on Terror. I plan to buy the film. It doesn't matter if it is 100% true to life. It tells the story that needs to be told and leaves the viewer with a clear idea of where our enemies stand.

Barone on Plame

2006-09-17T18:48:00.000-07:00

Michael Barone points out a nice article on the Plame issue. His synopsis is helpful and worth a look.

Good Journalism

2006-09-14T05:34:00.000-07:00

This is what journalism is all about. Slate published an article by David Plotz where he attacked Frank Rich for some comments he made last Sunday (9/10). Frank Rich is one of the worst commentators around, as partisan as it gets, and in this case downright wrong.

Rich mentions a photograph snapped on 9/11 and draws conclusions about what the subjects were feeling. Plotz disagreed with his assessment, and requested that the subjects contact him to provide their side of the story. One of them did and his response is quite different than what Rich imagined.

The benefit of Plotz work is that it shows just how twisted Rich and many of his colleagues are. His take on the photo was as negative and condescending as could be. But there is an even bigger problem- it is LAZY. In this case I am less concerned, because anything that undermines Rich's credibility is good for America.

The Path

2006-09-10T17:39:00.000-07:00

I have been watching "The Path to 9/11" and find it riveting. Although I am only 22 minutes into it my first impression is positive.

As a follow-up to my Friday piece, I thought this post from TigerHawk was appropriate. He concurs with my feelings about the way that Democratic outrage will increase viewership. He also has some insightful posts from other bloggers on the matter.

Here is a roundup from Instapundit.

Clintonista Revisionism

2006-09-07T17:22:00.000-07:00

You may have heard of the controversy surrounded an ABC film called "The Path to 9/11." It portrays events during both the Clinton and Bush administrations leading up to that day. It's source material is the 9/11 Commission report, which much of the media has conveniently forgotten is the product of a bi-partisan panel they once adored.

I first heard about the film when Michael Barone screened part of it a few weeks ago. He found it riveting, and thought that it was a helpful reminder of the enemy that we face.

During the last few days stories have emerged of Democratic discontent with the film. They think it is misleading. They have even demanded that it be pulled from the air in its entirety if it is not altered. Even the New York Times TV critic has entered the fray, with a review that blends critical 'commentary' with her own political views. I don't think her readers will notice, as their groupthink has them in a MoveOn state of mind.

So the Dems are steamed about a piece of media, on ABC no less! How refreshing! As it is, they have made so much of this story that the interest in the film has only intensified. Just as the furor over the NSA surveillance program did no harm to the Republicans, this will only make the Dems look bad (and guilty).

Plame Flame-out

2006-09-01T07:39:00.000-07:00

Well folks, as I predicted, the whole Valery Plame brouhaha has turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Here's what I wrote back in July of 2005:

I get the feeling that the Left is putting all their hopes and dreams into this Rove/Plame "scandal" and will ultimately end up dissapointed.

Here's what today's WaPo just wrote:

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue....

The article continues, finally realizing as many pundits have, that Mr. Wilson himself is the one to blame for the "ruining" of his wife's career.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Unfortunate indeed.

Reporting on the reporters

2006-08-30T13:42:00.000-07:00

We shouldn't be surprised about another instance of poor reporting, this time from the Associated Press.

The QandO blog looks at a speech by Donald Rumsfeld to the American Legion, particularly how AP writer Robert Burns "interpreted" it. You must look at their work to get the full effect.

As they conclude: "And you wonder how myths and memes get started?"

The Enemy Within

2006-08-29T08:00:00.000-07:00

This is a little old but worthwhile. Michael Barone, in his weekly column, wrote an excellent piece on "our covert enemies." They are those within our society that despise Western ideals and espouse moral relativism. His conclusion:

We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes. They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions. Our covert enemies don't want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose.

In his blog he mentioned some criticism of the piece. I think his conclusions are completely valid.

Fauxtography?

2006-08-25T07:20:00.000-07:00

Many of you might have heard reports of the IDF deliberately targeting Red Cross ambulances in Lebanon. The image to the left was highly circulated and reported on throughout the world.

The apparent bulls-eye shot of the Israeli missile was enough to propel this into a huge story world-wide.

Fortunately, such a tale is likely untrue.

Zombie has done extensive research examining photographs of the ambulance in question and combing over statements from those allegedly involved.

Most compelling to me are the facts that at the spot where the supposed missile pierced the ambulance roof, there just happens to be air vents of the exact same diameter on other ambulances. In addition, the bullet/shrapnel holes are entirely rusted. While the case isn't exactly closed, it makes the claims that the ambulance was bombed entirely implausible.

Consider the future

2006-08-17T08:16:00.000-07:00

Abortion is such an ugly topic. The act itself is ugly, and the feelings is provokes are no less so. I don't want to get into those. I just wanted to bring your attention to an excellent article written in today's Opinion Journal by Julia Gorin of jewishworldreview.com.

It is not a plea to pro-life militancy. It is a gentle urging to consider what might be, to review the real impact that a choice may have many years hence.

I hope you will read it, print it, forward it. It is a worthy effort.

Mexico

2006-08-16T14:23:00.000-07:00

Info on Mexican politics at Spanish Phrase of the Day.

Term Limits

2006-08-14T08:55:00.000-07:00

I have been a proponent of term limits for a long time. I feel it was the intention of our forefathers that Congress would be composed of citizen legislators, rather than the professional sort we are subjected to today. The entrenchment of incumbents in Congress leads to greater influence by special interest groups, as well as the morass that passes for legislation these days. The complexity of Congress' workings is nothing more than a barrier to entry, and it poses no benefit to the nation.

Voters like term limits. As a matter of principle, they like to know that the powerful people won't be powerful forever. They would like to know that the power of the purse is held by people more in tune with their ideas. Greater turnover in Congress would seem to provide such a fresh perspective. Unfortunately, term limits for the United States Congress will only come as part of a Consitutional amendment, and it seems highly unlikely that our self-interested representatives will become involved with that. Voters must be content to focus on states and municipalities, and they have been.

In today's Opinion Journal, John Fund writes about the fight over term limits. Take a look, and see if you don't agree with me.

Neocon is not a bad word

2006-08-13T18:22:00.000-07:00

Over a year ago I received a copy of an article by Norman Podhoretx, former editor of the journal Commentary and ardent supporter of the Bush Doctrine. A shortened version was published on Opinion Journal (still a lengthy piece). It is as good an articulation of the doctrine as anything else I've read.

I bring it up because the WSJ did a nice piece on Podhoretz, and if you are going to understand why he so ardently supportive of the War on Terror, you need to understand a little bit more about him. It is a worthy piece. Some of my favorite parts:

On the urgency of World War IV:

Does the president understand? Grant that there are no easy answers: Hasn't the administration, on the more intractable questions of Syria and Iran, shown by and large the same weakening of resolve? Mr. Podhoretz winces. The question seems to set his teeth on edge. "There are people who ask George Bush to do everything at once," he declares, "instead of picking his shots and moving at a politically viable pace. It's nice as an intellectual exercise, but what is the point of demanding things that no democratic political leader, not even George Bush, could conceivably do at this time? To my mind it's a kind of right-wing utopianism."

On the difficulties in Iraq:

Mr. Podhoretz attributes the troubles of reconstruction as much to our own irresolution as to what he calls "the recalcitrance and obduracy of the region." "The only reason in my opinion that we're having as much trouble as we're having in Iraq is that we're not getting intelligence. You cannot fight a revanchist insurgency and certainly not one that uses terrorist tactics without good intelligence . . . and you can only get that kind of intelligence by squeezing it out of prisoners. That's all there is to it."
Both domestic opposition and the international community, unhappily, are "defining torture down. The things they're calling 'torture' now have never been and have no business being considered torture." He keeps on: "It is an effort to disarm us that's succeeding to a frightening extent. No, it's worse than that. They're trying to make it impossible to fight terrorism. . . . Every weapon that's been developed to protect us from terrorism, and the Iraqis from internal terrorism, is under assault."

He doesn't mince words or apologize, and he understands the difference between formulating a larger world view and policymaking. Podhoretz voice has been among the most consistent and thoughtful supporters of the war against Islamofascism. An archive search on Opinion Journal yields pages of hits. It doesn't take long to see why.

Lessons From Iwo

2006-08-12T06:09:00.000-07:00

I know I mentioned it before but I think everyone should read the book Flags of our Fathers.

You've always heard that history repeats itself, or at least it has familiar ripples, and I think we have much to learn from WWII. In particular, as the Marines started taking island after island in the Pacific from the Japanese, the Emperor was faced with a few choices. His military commanders advised him that they would ultimately fail in defending the islands including the great island of Japan. The Emperor and his commanders concluded that perhaps their only hope was to force the US to realize that the cost in taking the islands would be so great that they would ultimately engage in some type of negotiations.

The Japanese realized that while militarily they would be doomed, their one real chance of success lied with the American people and its resolve to see it through. So the Japanese decided to dig in on the Pacific islands, building huge underground caves and cities, and ordering their soldiers to fight until the death with no option of surrender.

If the Japanese could inflict huge losses of life on the American forces, then the public back home might grow too uneasy with the casualties and pressure the Administration to negotiate with Japan.

History proved that while the Marines suffered much to advance just a few yards on every island they took, the American public was resolute.

In much the same way, the terrorists and insurgents of Iraq and accross the globe realize that militarily they are doomed to failure. Despite dressing as normal citizens and hiding behind women and children, they realize that they are just prolonging their inevitable failure. Their only hope, like the Japanese in WWII, is to try to weaken American resolve by making it as painful as possible. A large part of this includes using the Media as a tool in its hands. The Media was all to willing as the word "quagmire" came up just days after the invasion of Iraq.

It remains to be seen whether the American public has the same fortitude as that of the "Greatest Generation."

Responses to terrorism arrests

2006-08-11T11:14:00.000-07:00

I was listening to Michael Savage on the way home yesterday and a Muslim called in and said that he thought the British police were framing the 21 muslims that got arrested, and that they were innocent. Savage's response was stupid and rude, but even worse, he missed the best response. "Do you have any evidence to support this belief? What are the facts that have led you to believe this?" The guy would rather believe that police in several different countries were all out to get these few people, than that someone from his "community" (Islam) were actually guilty. I think its very similar to the way the black community often comes out in support of other blacks arrested by the police. It seems like the facts of the case don't matter, since the police are percieved to be racist and to be capable of altering the evidence.

This blaming others approach does two things. It gives the communities a impenetrable defense againt reason, since any fact against their fellows are obviously faked. And it adds to the perception among those on the outside that these communities are more interested in defending their own than in riding society of criminals,

Also, there's CAIR, the council on american islamic relations or something like that. Yesterday president Bush made the mistake of mentioning that the terrorists are supportive of a dictatorial islamic regime, or in his (and other's) words, that they are Islamofacists. CAIRs response (in part):

"You have on many occasions said Islam is a 'religion of peace.' Today you equated the religion of peace with the ugliness of fascism.
"The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as 'Islamic fascists,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire,' harms our nation's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world. It feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam. . .
"American Muslims stand ready to serve as a bridge of understanding to the Islamic world. We can best fulfill that role by offering advice that can help prevent misperceptions and misunderstandings between different nations and cultures."

Here's a good response to CAIRs response:

You complain about George W. Bush's use of a perfectly legitimate term you don't like on the day news of a massive terror plot breaks, so I get e-mails like this one (and I have an inbox full of them this evening/morning):
There's no difference between CAIR and "Islamic Fascists." NONE! CAIR totally sympathizes with and embraces them. It's time to let go of the myths of "moderate muslims" or "moderate Arabs." They don't exist. There's no difference between Sunnis, Shia, Shiites or whatever. They ALL want to kill us.
I cannot help but think that if anyone is fueling anti-Muslim bigotry right about
now, it is a group like CAIR who is doing it by raising the wrong fears and condemning the wrong people. George Bush, Rick Santorum, etc. help Muslims by defining our enemy as Islamofascists. You ought to take that ball and roll with it, moderate Muslims (you're out there, I've met you, I know it) — you need to make clear terrorists do not speak for you and your religion and groups who only serve to confuse things and stoke anger by misdirected outrage don't represent you. I don't speak Arabic and read the Koran so I can't do it. You who do, you might want to speak louder — we could all use your voice.

I agree with the "take that ball and role with it." By purporting that calling someone an islamic fascist is the same as calling all muslims fascists, CAIR either shows their failure to master English, or their true agenda in defending all muslims, wether fascists or not.
There are muslim fascists, who are willing and eager to kill infidels to further the goal of the caliphate. There are moderate muslims who are willing to live and let live (literally). CAIR would do well to point out and highlight the distinction, not to cover it up.

More Gore the Energy ...

2006-08-10T07:57:00.000-07:00

I have been longing for an article like this, about our dear friend Al Gore, doomsayer extraordinaire. Could it be that he is not the ecophile he purports to be?

Al Gore owns oil stocks, receives royalties from an allegedly polluting zinc mine, and has failed to take advantage of eco-friendly energy near his D.C.-area home. I don't find any of these things personally offensive. I do think they demonstrate a clear example of hypocrisy. There is also this notion of buying "renewable energy credits" to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. This concept has long bothered me, as it doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Read the article for more details.

Media Distortions- Then and Now

2006-08-08T09:40:00.000-07:00

To those who watched closely the media debacle that was the Dan Rather/CBS national guard story, and who are currently following the whole Reuters doctored photos fiasco, I think it is too easy to simply assume that such errors are only creatures of modern day journalism.

I recently read the book Flags of our Fathers, which discusses in depth the lives of the six young soldiers who raised the flag on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The photo taken at that precise moment is the most reproduced image of all time. In reading it I realized that the press was willfully ignorant to push a story/narrative that would present a false view of the facts. Contrary to press reports, the act of carrying and raising the flag on Mt. Suribachi was an anti-climatic event which was done without any enemy shots being fired. The bulk of the deaths occurred as the Marines tried to take the rest of the island. Despite these facts, the press intentionally added headlines and captions to paint an image that the flagraisers had to fight their way up the mountain and raised the flag in the midst of a hail of bullets and mortars.

In a very real sense, these journalists where attempting to paint a positive, inspiring picture of the war in the Pacific. While their intentions were good, their actions were not.

Fast forward fifty years and we face a press which is just as willing to distort the facts to fit a particular narrative, only the narrative is staunchly anti-American. While the journalists of yersteryear were perhaps too eager to praise allied efforts and lambast the enemy, modern day journalists are all to willing to second guess America and Israel, and give the benefit of the doubt to any other foreign nation or entity.

I'm not alone

2006-08-08T05:36:00.000-07:00

Michael Barone highlights the results of an interesting poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times. Its result, significantly higher support for Israel from Republicans than Democrats, is interesting. One part of his analysis:

American Jews, of course, continue to vote overwhelmingly Democratic--only 25 percent for George W. Bush in 2004. But not all American Jews care deeply about Israel, and not all Americans who care deeply about Israel are Jews--not even most of them, I think. Orthodox Jews are more pro-Israel surely than Reform and secular Jews, and they are more likely to vote Republican. But evangelical Christians, who vote heavily Republican, are much more likely than average to be pro-Israel. It seems that support for Israel is highly correlated with having strong religious and moral beliefs, while opposition to or strong criticism of Israel is correlated with moral relativism. If you don't think one moral values system is necessarily better than any other, then you're not likely to care much about Israel.

I like his assessment. Read the rest.

Why I Support Israel

2006-08-07T09:10:00.000-07:00

Various versions of this cartoon have been circulating for years. The recent war between Israel and Hizbullah remind me why it exists.

I don't know how any fair-minded person can object to the Israeli's use of force as a protective measure. The death of civilians is tragic, but it is a tragedy constructed by the Islamic terrorists that use civilians as shields.

Telling it Straight

2006-08-06T21:36:00.000-07:00

This is a gutsy ad produced by a man running for Congress in North Carolina. He's a conservative who is uncomfortable with the way many Republicans are governing. It is a straight-shooting ad and worth a look.

Cuba merece la libertad

2006-08-04T14:54:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the long absence. Family travel and work have kept me busy.

I just posted on the Cuba situation over at Spanish Phrase of the Day.

Maher Moderation

2006-07-20T19:50:00.000-07:00

I was pleased to read this post from NewsBusters on some even-handedness from Bill Maher. Maher is a funny guy, or at least possesses the capacity for humor, but has become such a lefty that his views are largely unpalatable to conservatives. Fortunately, he demonstrated the ability to praise the president, and makes a case for the existence of the patriotic liberal.

What do I mean? Liberals are so filled with hate for the President that they can't conceive that he could do anything right. This is their biggest weakness and I think it will contribute to their failure in November to claim either Chamber of Congress. And I don't think you can be truly patriotic if you are unwilling to ever support the Commander-in-Chief.

Taking the Gloves Off

2006-07-18T16:04:00.000-07:00

I've started and stopped this post several times over the past several days, never finding the time to finish it. I'm blogging from O'Hare International in Chicago (business trip) and finally have a moment to get my opinion out.

Its not new or ground-breaking. From conversations I've had with other people, I know its definitely not unique, but it is what I feel.

Israel has the right to defend itself. If we had rogue elements in Canada lobbing missiles into Detroit or Buffalo or Seattle, and Canada failed to curb that, we would be justified in using force to detain or kill those that are guilty. Israel has made siginificant concessions over the past several years. They own the high road, and I think they are completely justified. They have chosen their targets carefully, and I hope they endure and finish the job. That's all.

And as for the President's use of a swear word in conversation about Syria and Hezbollah- so what? I choose not to swear, but something about the president's word choice resonates with me. I know he is a regular guy, in the sense that his visceral reaction to the practice of terrorism is to equate it with excrement. It is apt, if indelicate, and the fixation of the media on it is a ridiculous waste of time.

Kerfuffle Shuffle

2006-07-12T18:17:00.000-07:00

It's old news by now, but I wanted to address the issue that brought us the word 'kerfuffle"- the Saga of Valerie Plame. Blogger Tom Maguire has followed this issue closely from the start, and he has a very good synopsis of Robert Novak's column on his part in the story, as well as commentary and background.

As we have stated here before, the Plame kerfuffle was much ado about nothing. All of the complaints from liberals about Rove, Libby, et al. were baseless, a fact evidenced by the failure of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to find anyone guilty of the crime he was tasked to investigate.

It should have died out a long time ago. Maybe it will now.

Buenas Elecciones

2006-07-06T14:52:00.000-07:00

Check out Spanish Phrase of the Day for a link to a great article on the Mexican presidential elections.

You can also check out Michael Barone's blog, where he has been following it closely.

Feliz dia de la Independencia

2006-07-04T06:16:00.000-07:00

That title probably belongs on the Spanish Phrase of the Day, but here we are. I just wanted to point out an insightful article about a "forgotten founder," John Witherspoon. He has not received a great deal of attention, but deserves it, having had a great influence on people like James Madison.

It really is an interesting story and I encourage you to check it out. Here's something to think about (from Roger Kimball's article):

For us looking back on the generation of the Founders, it is easy to deprecate the religious inheritance that, for many of them, formed the ground of their commitment to political liberty. Theological skeptics and even atheists there were aplenty in late eighteenth-century America. But for every Jefferson who re-wrote the Bible excising every mention of miracles, there was a platoon of men like Madison who wrote commentaries on the Bible. Witherspoon believed that religion was "absolutely essential to the existence and welfare of every political combination of men in society." Madison agreed. As did even the more skeptical Washington, who in his Farewell Address observed that "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion." For many, perhaps most, of the Founders, Morrison observes, the chain of reasoning ran thus: "no republic without liberty, no liberty without virtue, and no virtue without religion." John Witherspoon did as much as anyone to nurture that understanding. Which is perhaps yet another reason he is less known today than other figures from the period. Whether that is a sign of our maturity and sophistication or only, as Witherspoon might put it, our pride and natural depravity is a question we might do well ponder.

The Gore who cried Warming

2006-07-02T18:49:00.000-07:00

I wanted to point out an insightful article on Global Warming, echoing statements made here by Bear and me. In this week's Wall Street Journal, Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote an article disputing the existence of a consensus of the cause of Global Warming (republished yesterday on OpinionJournal). Professor Lindzen provides a really excellent basis to discount the alarmism of Al Gore.

I really encourage you to read his entire piece. I don't want to paraphrase it here for fear of missing something important. Besides, he is far more qualified than I even hope to be. I will relay his conclusion:

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Read it.

The Media’s War Against the War

2006-06-24T11:42:00.000-07:00

This is the best summary and opinion piece that I've seen on the NYCrimes and their revealing National Security Secrets (solely for their own personal gain. Well mostly...their claims at outing the SWIFT program for the "public interest" are only true if you consider the Dems/Libs interest of publicly trying to humiliate the Administration.)
Some points:
-it's a perfectly legal program
-does not involve domestic tracking
-the correct members of congress have been breifed
-it has directly led to the capture of terrorists
-it is directly responsible for the strangulation of terrorists funding

Quotes:

Appealing to the patriotism of these newspapers proved about as promising as appealing to the humanity of the terrorists they so insouciantly edify — the same monsters who, as we saw again only a few days ago with the torture murder
of two American soldiers, continue to define depravity down.
...
The blunt reality here is that there is a war against the war. It is the jihad of privacy fetishists whose self-absorption knows no bounds. Pleas rooted in the well-being of our community hold no sway.

And here's video of a press conference with some flat-out idiot journalists.
It's disgusting. (No, she is pretty scary, but I was talking about the suicidal indifference to danger exhibited by journalists in the cities most likely to be targeted by terrorists)

Great Article

2006-06-24T01:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/why_i_love_australia.html
Charles Krauthammer
Why I Love Australia

WASHINGTON -- In the Australian House of Representatives last month, opposition member Julia Gillard interrupted a speech by the minister of health thusly: "I move that that sniveling grub over there be not further heard.''
For that, the good woman was ordered removed from the House, if only for a day. She might have escaped that little time-out if she had responded to the speaker's demand for an apology with something other than "If I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally.''
...
Australia is the only country that has fought with the United States in every one of its major conflicts since 1914, the good and the bad, the winning and the losing.

Well worth the read.

Tre Arrow

2006-06-24T01:10:00.000-07:00

Here's a spotlight on a nutcase.

Hello to everyone. I wish you all a blessed father's, grandfather's, great grandfather's, etc, day!! What a powerful time to be alive on this planet, eh? I would like to acknowledge this time of year here in the Northern Hemisphere as we approach the longest day of the year, the summer solstice, and the time when we are closest to our grandfather sun. The summer solstice is occuring on Wed June 21 at 10:26 a.m. pacific (West Coast of Turtle Isl.) time. Without grandfather sun we would not have all the bounty that earth mother provides to nourish and heal our bodies and spirits. I give great thanks! I also pray for all the brothers and sisters who are sundancing at this time. I send a blessing to all the beings in the southern hemisphere celebrating the winter solstice.
...
I would like to share these words with you, which was the original lords prayer:“Cosmic Birther, Earth Mother Father Heaven present within the universe. Clear out the old and make the Holy of Holies within me. Come into this Holy of Holies, the bedroom of our hearts, and prepare us for the marriage of power and beauty. Heaven meets Earth in acts of compassion. We are now clear and ready to act. We take responsibility for wise, compassionate action. Give us this day, nourishment and understanding. Embrace us wholly as we embrace others. Allow us to remember what's important so that we may hone oportunities and continue to bear the fruits of our love. From you is born all creativity, the song of creation that renews from age to age.”
...
The reason that I was moved to this unit and reclassified to P.C. [protective custody] is because I've had many problems trying to fit in to the G.P. [general population] lifestyle. I have been a target by many people because of the life that I follow. I eat raw plant food and not dead animals (eating dead animals is seen as something matcho). My long hair and lifestyle has resulted in me being labelled as a 'hippie'.
[ed. You're kidding! Really?!]

More on Tre Arrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tre_Arrow

Eco-terrorism Apologist

2006-06-24T00:05:00.000-07:00

So I was reading in the Arizona Daily Wildcat (UofA's attempt at a newspaper) and saw a story about an "event" (read rally) against the governments classification of "environmental activism" as terrorism.

Some key quotes:
Members of the group are concerned that the government's use of words such as "eco-terrorism" to describe environmental actions to spread awareness are giving people the wrong idea about the group's intentions.
"Labeling people in action takes away the point they are making. You hear the word terrorist and you disregard what they stand for," said Wendy Van Leuveren, a women's studies junior.
...
Lee said environmentalists would prefer to use nonviolent actions to raise awareness, but many of these movements' activists think the matters are so pressing they require immediate action.
...
"As long as the FBI is arresting people in the community, and friends of ours, we will be reaching out to the community," said Jeff Davis, an organizer for "Resist the Green Scare."

So these terrorist and criminal apologists care about their friends who got caught in criminal acts "intended 'to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.'"
But say these folks are your friends, and you don't want to be their friends anymore. How do you get on their bad side? Keep reading...

So I googled "resist the red scare" and found a gem of a website, listing charged or convicted ecoterrorists. In the "recent news" section I found this.

ELP Information Bulletin (4th of June 2006)
Dear friends
Based on information sent to us by some of the Oregon 16 defendants, as well as statements by lawyers close to the cases, and looking at the proceedings at the 2nd of June 2006 bail hearing for Nathan Block and Joyanna Zacher, ELP is removing Chelsea Gerlach from our prisoner list. We are also withdrawing our support for Suzanne Savoie (who is currently on bail).
Chelsea Gerlach and Suzanne Savoie have both been named by some of their co-defendants, as well as by some of the lawyers, as cooperating with the authorities which has included making statements against others.
We have no yet confirmed the full extent of their cooperation with the
authorities (and there may be others who they have named), but we have confirmed that both Gerlach and Savoie have made statements against Nathan Block and Joyanna Zacher.
ELP will naturally release more information about this as our investigation continues. In the meantime should anyone have any information about the full extent of Gerlach and Savoie's cooperation with the authorities, please contact ELP as soon as possible.

They stop being friends if you tattle.

Read a little about these terrorists.
This page gives a little description of their story/crime. I keep seeing the phrase "direct action." Wanna guess what they mean?

HOLY FREAKIN CRAP! reading down, they list Ted Kaczynski. You know..the unabomber. You gotta be kidding me. I've joked about how lefty nutjobs might as well come out and join with the Islamist murderers since they are united in Anti-Americanism. These lefty nutjobs DID come out and support an anti-technology murderer, because he is an "Eco-Defence Prisoner."

Here's some of the real stories, without the euphemisms:
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/03/shac_7_and_free.html
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6156
http://www.localnewsleader.com/olberlin/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=191091
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2006-06/local/local-man-as-eco-terrorist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/jeffrey_luers.htm
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/coronado.htm

Global Warming

2006-06-22T14:00:00.000-07:00

A few items. First, an excellent article from the Canada Free Press on dissent in the academic community on global warming, something environmentalists never mention.
A great cartoon from Cox and Forkum:

Also, apparently ABC is asking for personal stories about how global warming has effected lives. Taranto rightly points out that these "reporters" are confusing climate change with weather change. But several people have submitted really funny spoof stories:

Tharg and me used to hunt mighty mammoth but he scared to cross ice bridge. It now too thin to take weight of even saber cat. Only mouse or rabbit can cross.
Many of my people have left the caves in search of food.
Sister's daughter's husband says it because of He-Who-Tamed-Fire. He say smoke from fire anger gods and they make it hot. Medicine Man say he full of mastodon droppings.
Medicine Man say Sun God told him Sun God get belly ache every 200 lifes of man. Belly ache make Sun God hotter, like when Og ate red berries birds don't touch.
Sun God say it good thing. He say now we can go south past ice to land he call "Iowa."
He mumble "junk science" and "media hype" and "poorly educated reporters." We no understand these powerful magic words. We afraid to say words now that Moon God warn us. She say magic words make research grants dry up. We no understand.
Must go, little Ky-Rock need help flaking obsidian.

World Cup Wusses

2006-06-22T13:21:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not talking about the US national team and they're sad performances. I'm talking about those who are criticizing this Nike poster.

The critics cite three offences:

It's too war like (aggresive)
If we have learned anything about football in the last few years, it should be that it doesn't need big business trying to inject even more aggression into the mix.

It's too reminiscent of the crusades
The other aspect of it is the aggression contained in it, bound up with the flag of St George, which you might see as a throwback to the Crusades, which is hardly going to go down well with Muslim countries. It's offensive on several different levels.
What this critic fails to mention is that the flag of St George is the national flag of England, or that it is part of the TEAM UNIFORMS.

It's too Christlike

It therefore brings to mind the crucifixion to many people, and why Nike would want to do that, I haven't a clue, unless it is simply as a publicity stunt.

Again, nevermind the fact that this is how Rooney celebrates when he scores

No title needed

2006-06-18T19:29:00.000-07:00

I don't usually make decisions about what films I watch or music I listen based solely on the political views of the performer. I think people are entitled to their opinions, and I may still want to watch a movie even if the actor is a liberal wingnut. Sometimes, however, the line must be drawn, and the Dixie Chicks have crossed it (again). From an interview in London's Telegraph:

The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism.

That was Natalie Maines (deleted ad hominem). Well Maines, you are dead to me now.

Defending the borders...works?

2006-06-13T07:56:00.000-07:00

Apparently it does. According to a Tucson TV station, detentions along the U.S. border have increased by over 20% during the beginning of June as compared to the same period last year. It seems that much of the decline may be due to the presence of National Guard troops along the frontera.

Referring specifically to a region of the border south of Yuma, near the small border town of San Luis, a border patrol spokesman commented on the decline:

The desert region's blistering June temperatures typically drive down the number of migrants, but not so drastically, said Mario Martinez, a spokesman with the U.S. Border Patrol in Washington.

I spent some time in that exact area while a missionary. It is frequently hotter than 115 degrees during the day, sometimes sustaining temperatures above 100 degrees in the evening. It appears that the troop presence in Arizona may be sending more illegals to California. Regardless of why it is happening, the decline is welcome news, and a sign that this part of the plan may bear fruit. If it does indeed funnel more traffic to other parts of the border, it will allow greater enforcement of those regions.

Romney Watch '08 - Part VI

2006-06-12T14:07:00.000-07:00

Saturday's Wall Street Journal featured a new article about Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (subscribers only). It was an interesting look, though it did follow a familiar pattern to other stories we've covered at Right Wing Pundit (find some previous posts here, here, and here). How so? See below:

Romney is Mormon, and many other Christians don't understand how that would impact his politics.
Romney has not always followed the model of a conservative politician, with some of his public expressions evolving over time.
He was a successful businessman and is credited with saving the 2002 Winter Olympics.
He has governed the state of Massachusetts, mostly as a fiscal conservative, and most would argue that he has done so very well. The new state health care plan is somewhat controversial.

I agree with this statement by Romney:

The great majority of Americans want a person of faith to be their leader.

Whether his personal faith becomes an issue remains to be seen.

Immigration Compromise

2006-06-11T13:45:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago J-Red wrote about immigration. I agreed with everything that he wrote, and now this plan by Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) would seem to be just the kind of legislation that we can support here at RWP.

It provides enforcement of immigration law (with penalties for violators) and a guest worker program (with no free passes for breaking the law). It seems to be a reasonable compromise. We need this kind of stricter enforcement to perpetuate the assimilation of immigrants.

Ah-nuld's Back?

2006-06-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

Jill Stewart has a column in today's WSJ, also found on OpinionJournal, and I found it surprising, but in a good way.

I have long been a fan of the Governator, because I think that the governorship of California would be a very difficult position to take. I don't agree with everything he does and says, but I think he has a lot of political savvy in a state where it is hard to lead as a conservative. Some highlights from Stewart's piece:

Mr. Schwarzenegger's phoenix-like rise is now quantifiable. His approval rating tanked at 31% last November. Now it has steadily increased to 44%. Soon, he may pull off that rarest of all California political feats--signing a budget by the constitutional deadline.
The reason for the change is simple: It finally dawned on the likable but cocky governor--who used likeability and cockiness to become the world's top box-office draw--that voters don't want the same things that sell with moviegoers...
Sure, Mr. Schwarzenegger is taking hits for making an "unannounced switch" to the Democratic Party. But more accurately, it's a move back to the center after a disastrous foray into partisanship. His move puts him in competition with Mr. Angelides--the ultra-liberal who Democratic primary voters chose on Tuesday to face Mr. Schwarzenegger in November.
And Mr. Schwarzenegger still hews to his Republican roots. His budget allows only $2.5 billion in deficit spending, down from $16.56 billion when he took over from wildly overspending Gray Davis. He's been helped tremendously by the fact that California's treasury is groaning with a $5 billion tax windfall, thanks to Californians who made money off stock profits, dizzying home sales prices and a booming California economy. The media is abuzz over the windfall, and rating agencies including Standard & Poor's are pleased that the governor is spending it mostly on one-time improvements and a rainy day reserve, not on programs that grow long after the treasury goes bare.
This is not to say the governor's revived centrism isn't strained, as with his absurd dithering over sending National Guard troops to the Mexican border. Voters, including many long-settled Latinos, support the measure, even if it is condemned by California's ridiculously strident Latino elected leaders. Mr. Schwarzenegger should ignore California's ethnic nationalist politicians--buffoons who still hysterically condemn the state's staggeringly successful switch to English immersion in schools.

It's a good piece and worth the read. Like I said before, governing a state like California is a tough job, particularly considering all of its problems. For more on governors (and my fave, Jeb) check out this previous post from the SPOTD blog.