To Jew or Not to Jew

I'm itching to do my typical (and cathartic) railing against journalism and it's unapologetic biases, but I'm going to hold off util Mike3000 weighs in. I have not been trained in journalism and so perhaps it is my ignorance that leads me to ask why a story about a very typical left-wing organization's opposition to a conservative court nominee would be written under the heading "Jewish Group Votes to Oppose Alito". Granted, the heading is technically correct, it is a Jewish group. But when one reads "Jewish Group Opposes..." it deliberately puts in your mind the idea that Alito has done something to offend Jews even bringing to mind possible anti-Semitism. Just as the title of a book is very carefully chosen, so is the "title" of an article. When I read this article I was surprised to find not a single Jewish reason for the opposition. The fact that it was a Jewish group had no bearing on their decision to oppose Alito, so why would the story be set up with an emphasis on the group's Jewishness? This story was so short that I'm confident as much time was spent on the headline as on the body, so "sloppiness" does not seem a reasonable defense.

You Showed Me Yours, I'll Show You Mine

I have no idea if it's inflammatory. But it is strong.

Interesting Read on Intellegence

Thought this was a fair piece that makes its points without being inflametory.

Joe Lost, and I'm Still Sorry

Yesterday the Senate reached a compromise on enemy combatants right to habeas corpus. There are two related votes and, at first blush, I'm ok with either of them. But what's also interesting is the civic lesson being played out. There's been a few posts on this blog about Bush's ratings and what that means. With the President recently hitting an all-time low, we're starting to see the fall-out, or pile-on, depending on your point of view. The Senate is now starting to reel in the broad authority it gave him just after 9/11. With language calling for Bush to explain what's happening in Iraq, and requiring him to report every three months on progress, restricting torture, and asking about secret detention centers, this is not the compliant Senate we've witnessed over the last five years. Also, the recent gubernatorial race in New Jersey saw the dem run an ad saying, "Doug Forrester, he's Bush's choice for Governor, is he yours?" And Forrester lost. Slamming your opponent as a Bush ally is a stark contrast to the Lousiana Senate race four years ago when both the Dem and Rep both ran largely on how much they would support Bush. The incumbant Dem, Landreau, even touted her high percentage of voting with the President as a reason to vote for her. A President's biggest weapons are his popularity and the bully pulpit. Bush's never been fond of talking to the people, at least not to a non-prescreened audience, and he's rested on his popularity numbers to get things done in congress. As long as his numbers stay down, and if he continues to be viewed as a liability, he will be in real trouble. And yes, I know that's an obvious statement.

UPDATE: Stalin and Unknown Agree, sort of...

Earlier, Mr. Malone said, " The purpose of using Clinton's words (and the words of all Democrats) is to show the complete hollowness of the "Bush lied to take us to war" charge. We generally agree here. I think many Dems voted for the war and failed at their duty because they were afraid to look weak and get the Sam Cleeland treatment. Personally, I think most of them voted for the war but did not believe the arguments, and looked the other way at intelligence inconsistencies because they lacked the courage to stand up and question the war. This was Kerry's biggest problem. He could not come out aggressive against a war he didn't support (I believe) because he made a political vote for it. Putting politics above conviction is what killed the Dems, and they continue to be trapped in the same dilemma. I agree with Mr. Malone that it is "hollow." But not because what is now coming out is without merit, but because at the "stand-up and be counted" moment, the Dems pulled the nifty trick of standing up because they cowed down.

There are two types of courage. The courage to fight and the courage not to. It's the middle ground where cowards dwell.

Jimmy Longs for Malaise

Confused and frightened by purposeful action, Jimmy speaks out!

Say it ain't so other Joe

Joe Lieberman defends his vote to deny foreign nationals the right to challenge their detention in court by stating, "A foreign national who is captured and determined to be an enemy combatant in the world war on terrorism has no more right to a habeas corpus appeal to our courts than did a captured soldier of the Axis powers during World War II." That's great. For torture, the argument is that "at least its not as bad as what Hussein did." Now, we're not even trying to be better that the most despicable people in history. Hey, if the Nazi's did it, it must be ok. Lovely standard. We are sinking into a very dark place.

PS. For you "original intenter's" out there, Habeas Corpus was one of the major points at the start of the Revolutionary War. This is a big give-up.

Word

The Torture Knot

So Bush says, "we don't torture." But we have, here, and here apparently want to again as Bush is threatening to use is veto, if he can find the thing, on an Anti-Torture Bill that passed the Senate 90-9. Sometimes I need a map to understand what's going on.
*Apologies for leaning so heavily on Sullivan, but he's been on this case for awhile, and does a good job of it.

Say it aint so, Joe

So Penn St. coach Joe Paterno becomes the next victim of "racism" by pointing out what everyone knows, in a very complimentary way. I've read this article several times looking for anything that could honestly be defined as racist. Is it that "black athletes have just done a great job as athletes and as people in turning the game around"? Man, now that's harsh. If Stalin Malone ever said that about me, "the Unknown Blogger has just done a great job as an athlete and as a person in turning the game around," I know I'd want to take a swing at him.

As a side note, I do think the Airforce coach should be reprimanded for apparantly not reading a newspaper in 40 years. "Afro-American?" I just have this image of this guy driving home in his Studebaker, chaninging into his sweater, and turing on his black-and-white TV.

Red Patriotism

Look like political PATRIOT's are really Soviets. The jist, the Feds can look at anything under the very specific title of potential threat, there is no oversight, records are kept even if the target is innocent (a new change), and over 30,000 probes are launched by random, unaccountable beurocrats every year. But don't worry, one, this is not abused (and since that kind of power never is, rest easy), and two, if your not guilty why should you care.

On the Fence

Not me. Not when my grass is high, or my salad is short a vine ripe. Who's going to trim my tree? Him?

"Simply adding more border agents won't work unless there is one every hundred yards or so along the entire border. That would require between 150,000 and 200,000 agents and support personnel, rather than the 11,000 at present, and an annual budget of five to ten billion dollars.

A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars."

--WENEEDAFENCE.com

Congressional Approval Ratings Skyrocket in Small UB District

I'm so happy with this Eminent Domain Bill that I may send flowers to every member that voted for it. Checks and Balances may work, AND both parties working together? Time to get Satan that parka.

WWF in Suits

What is absolutely amazing these days is the boldness of political spin. Politicians are behaving as if there is no public record of anything that happened before yesterday. The Democrats called a closed door session and served up a barrage of criticism aimed at the WMD intelligence used to partially justify our invasion of Iraq. Obviously an attempt to capitalize on the Scooter Libby indictment, the Democrats are trying to strengthen the surreal argument that the Bush administration concocted the evidence that showed Iraq as a WMD threat.

Here is the talking point, rarely challenged by the mainstream media: The Bush administration fabricated or exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. This line is often stretched to imply that no reasonable person would have ever concluded that Saddam was a well-armed threat. Bill Clinton amazingly went on the record to say that the Bush administration decided to go to war with Iraq "with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

Please stand for a moment of truth:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." - Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program..." - Hillary Clinton 10/10/2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." - William Cohen 4/03

"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of UN sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeline Albright 1998

This is a tiny sample of the proof that very few of today's critics did not share the views of the Bush administration. The statement that Bush lied to take us to war is not an argument...its slander, and all the Democrats know it.

Be Ready

No one knows when or where something might happen, so to stay on the safe side, I've staged a mock outbreak of bird flu:

"Chickens!"

"Stop touching me!"

[Millions die.]

UN-Necessary

Zvi Rav-Ner is correct, one UN member has just called, unapologetically, for genocide against another UN member. An organization that has already lowered the bar for bureaucratic uselessness (a Herculean feat in itself) with its failures in Rwanda, Sudan, North Korea, et.al., and raised the bar for Mafia-style deceit and corruption via the oil-for-food program, now faces a profound moral choice. That's right, a moral choice, the one thing that the UN is perfectly unsuited for. In a world in which the accidental killing of civilians (by Israel) is equated with targeted killing of civilians (by Palestinians) can any of us have any doubt as to the type of solution that will be coming from the halls of the UN? I wouldn't go out on a limb far enough to predict an actual slap on the wrist. I'm not even sure I see a threatened slap on the horizon. The absolute pointlessness of this pathetic organization will be on display through this entire process, and in the end the UN will be revelealed for what it is - unnecessary. My bet is that Iran will be punished, much like the despicable Sudan, with a seat on the Commission for Human Rights. Please let me be wrong.

Everything You Say is Correct

This is a Ford Cortina.

No, I'm sorry, NOW its dead

Standing in Jackson Square last night Bush signaled the rebirth of New Orleans, and the death of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism. Key quote: "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." So here's the President saying that we need to get used to more Federal authority, and as an added bonus here comes the military. So the "war on drugs" required that we give up the 4th Amendment, the "war on terror" requires that we allow the government unfettered access to our lives, and confiscate toe-nail clippers from air travelers, and the "war on natural disasters" requires that the Federal Government take an even larger role in local issues, and that it brings the military with it. The Founding Father's would be so proud. How do Reaganites stick with this guy? Hurricanes Camille, Andrew, and Charlie didn't require that the feds take over everything, nor did the San Francisco earthquake, the Chicago fire, the LA riots, or the last time my car didn't start. Not only that but the fix is "hey free money everyone." No Democrat could get away with this, why the long leash for Bush? No cap on spending? Well you can trust Congress to be frugal. But, just in case you're a cynic check here, and here. There is an argument, made famously by Cheney, that deficits don't matter. Now, I totally disagree. But for those that don't, just look at it this way. The deficit is the measure of government intrusion in our lives. That money's going somewhere and the first "here" link shows the programs. If you're at all a small government type, then rising spending should bother you because it signals a larger government. Its sad, but Reagan was betrayed by his own party.

Reagan's GOP officially dies

Tom Delay proudly claims that federal spending can't be cut anymore, in a must read article. I have a good friend who claims to be an independent but always votes Republican because he feels that he has the best chance of seeing a shrinkage of government with the GOP. Since House leader Delay believes there is no fat in the federal budget, and that all that spending is crucial to the economy (including, I imagine, the $231mm bridge to a small island in Alaska named after SITTING Senator Don Young). At what point does the illusion that there is any better chance for fiscal responsibility under the GOP give way. Over the last 11 years the budget has exploded, and we've added $2 trillion in debt since 2000. Reagan once vetoed a bill with 167 "pork" items, and the last budget had over 6000. In true Orwellian fashion, the GOP has taken the Reagan dream of less government, promoted it endlessly during campaigns, but has acted in exactly the opposite manner at every opportunity. The country has had six years of total GOP control, and has not moved one inch closer to Reagan's vision for the country. Reagan has been characterized as a "tax cuts only" visionary, but that's only part of the story. He wanted less government, and saw tax cuts as a method to that end. The current GOP makes FDR look like Scrooge. It keeps the tax cuts (good) but endlessly ramps up spending (bad). I just don't see how long GOP loyalists can continue to buy into the illusion that the GOP is for fiscal restraint and less government. The proof is in their actions, and the actions are very, very clear. Now that the head of the GOP congress says that there is no fat in the budget, all GOP voters have to confront that real statement with the election cycle hype.

It's a gas, gas, gas

I will never cease to be amazed by the level of economic ignorance that is sustainable in a great economy. I have yet to hear the man on the street (or the woman in the next cubicle over) say anything even close to realistic while attempting to explain the short term fuel crunch we are now experiencing. Supply and demand are lost on people. Market-pricing is a concept they have never heard discussed on The View. What's really sad is that these people have 16 plus years of education and yet remain utterly ignorant of the simplest economic concepts. While struggling to explain our current situation I actually heard someone say, "It's all in The Movie." Which is a reference to the Michael Moore fantasy piece of the last election cycle. It's no wonder that we have people who follow religions started by science fiction authors. I'm guessing that critical thinking has never been a strong suit of humanity and that I'm probably falling into the short-sighted "this is really bad so it must be the worst ever" camp by even acting surprised. If education has the ability to improve the thought processes of the masses as some argue, I say let's have some.