This cannot pass

I should be downstairs already, but this story turns my stomach.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

I have to agree with the author of the editorial:

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

A very political apology

After insulting all the troops earlier this week, Presidential-hopeful John Kerry has issued what I find to be a very distasteful and half-hearted apology. His statement, at a campaign rally:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

This drew some very direct and pointed responses from the White House and directly from President Bush. Kerry’s immediate response was scattershot and obviously rushed.

This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it.

In a press conference later that day:

SENATOR KERRY: Let me make it crystal clear, as crystal clear as I know how: I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy.

If anyone owes our troops in the fields an apology, it is the President and his failed team and a Republican majority in the Congress that has been willing to stamp -- rubber-stamp policies that have done injury to our troops and to their families.

My statement yesterday -- and the White House knows this full well -- was a botched joke about the president and the president's people, not about the troops.

...

QUESTION: Senator, John McCain said that you owe an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered this country's call because they are patriots.

To those people who didn't get your joke, who may have misinterpreted you as saying the undereducated are cannon fodder, what do you say?

KERRY: I never said that, and John McCain knows I've never said that and John McCain knows I wouldn't say that.

And John McCain ought to ask for an apology from Donald Rumsfeld for making the mistakes he's made. John McCain ought to ask for an apology from this administration for not sending in enough troops.

That kind of answer leads me to believe that Kerry doesn’t understand just how offensive his statement was. Taken out of context? Maybe. Flubbed the wording? Definitely. But what he said is what he said, and if your statement was not what you intended, an apology is needed, not a justification, not rationalizations, and certainly not political hay.

The uproar escalated, bringing on board Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. Now, with everyone you can think of (except Howard Dean) calling for an apology, he has apologized. Well, sort of.

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

I also sincerely hope the voters of this country will not allow their own misunderstanding of my words to distract them from voting for me for President in 2008.

OK, I made up that last sentence. But seriously, why is he apologizing for the reader/listener misunderstanding? An apology is supposed to include some statement of personal culpability for which there is regret. “I apologize for hurting your feelings (but I think it was the right thing to do)” is not an apology, it’s political lip service. And please, how exactly do you “personally apologize” in a press release? He can say he personally apologizes, but he hasn’t, just like he didn’t personally insult the troops but slandered them as a group.

The only reason Kerry apologized is because he had to, politically. This is the same way he makes all his decisions, and exactly why he must never be President.

[via Drudge]

Update: Scrappleface made the same points and a few more.

Sen. Kerry said his poorly-worded apology, however, does reinforce the premise of his original ‘botched joke’ about bad students being sent to war, since he is a combat veteran.

Update 2: The photo above was by the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division

Related posts: Camille Paglia gets it... sort of, Too much truth in one place, Foley, A great choice for President, On chickens and roosts

Camille Paglia gets it... sort of

You know it’s pretty bad when even some Democrats in the MSM (Camille Paglia in this case) are describing the Foley incident with words like “collusion” and “suspiciously” - and they’re talking about the Democrats and MSM!

The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was "Foley, Foley, Foley!" -- and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley's name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil.

The article digresses into a rationalization of the nobility of homosexuality, but then acknowledges Matt Drudge’s coverage of the issue.

The Foley scandal exploded without any proof of a documented sex act -- unlike the case of the late congressman Gerry Studds, who had sex with a page and who was literally applauded by fellow Democrats when they refused to vote for his censure. In the Foley case, there was far more ambiguous evidence -- suggestive e-mails and instant messages. Matt Drudge, to his great credit, began hitting this issue right off the bat on his Web site and radio show. What does it mean for Democrats to be agitating over Web communications, which in my view fall under the province of free speech? It's a civil liberties issue. We can say that what Foley was doing was utterly inappropriate, professionally irresponsible, and in bad taste, but why were liberals fomenting a scandal day after day after day over words being used? And why didn't Democrats notice that they were drifting into an area which has been the province of the right wing -- that is, the attempt to gain authoritarian control over interpersonal communications on the Web? It's very worrisome and yet more proof that the Democrats have lost their way.

I, for one, would welcome a future where the GOP has a real Democratic party to compete with.The irony of this article is the self-feeding nature of the “interview”. The two parties in this “interview” are an anonymous Salon reporter and one of Salon’s founding contributors. This is less interview than a transcript over lunch, and the flow of the interview reflects that. Continuing immediately after the previous quote:

It also advances a line the far Christian right has employed for years -- to make a connection between gay men and child molesters. It's one of the most despicable smears imaginable.

And with the Democrats' record of sex scandals, what the hell were they thinking of? For heaven's sake, after we just got through the whole Clinton maelstrom!

The boldface indicates that the interviewer speaking. In a trial court, this is known as “leading the witness”. In modern journalism, it’s “expanding on a point”.

Still, I am pleased to hear a self-proclaimed Democrat and atheist make some of these points that are often lost on the left:

I think the center of the Republican Party really is small-businessmen and very practical people who correctly see that it's job creation and wealth creation that sustain an economy -- not government intervention and government control, that suffocating nanny-state mentality. The Democrats are in some sort of time warp in always proposing a government solution to every problem. It's like Hillary's philosophy that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, does it? Or does it take a strong family and not the village?

What's broadened the appeal of conservatism in recent years is that Republicans stress individualism -- individual effort and personal responsibility. They're really the liberty party now -- I thought my party was! It used to seem as if the Republicans were authoritarians and the Democrats were for free speech and for the freedom to live your own life and pursue happiness. But the Democrats have wandered away from their own foundational principles.

The Democrats have to start fresh and throw out the entire party superstructure. I was bitterly disappointed after voting for Ralph Nader that he didn't devote himself to helping build a strong third party in this country. When the American economy was still manufacturing based, the trade unions were viable, and the Democrats stayed close to their working-class roots. But now the Northeastern Democrats, with their fancy law degrees and cocktail parties, have simply become peddlers of condescending bromides about "the people."

I, for one, would welcome a future where the GOP has a real Democratic party to compete with. Today, only the Republican party seems to have anything close to a grasp of reality, and even if I agree with them, that’s still not choice. If the Democrats would get back to what they supposedly stand for and stop trying to be more like Europe, we might actually have some thought-provoking choices in the voting booth.

But Clinton went off on a tirade, waved his finger in Chris Wallace's face, and accused him of sitting there with a "smirk." That was over-personalizing the interview by any standard. And to charge Wallace with setting his guest up, with ambush journalism -- good heavens, the problem with American journalism is hardly that it's too severe and punitive. [...] So for Clinton to make a huge fuss about a mild question about his administration's record in dealing with Osama bin Laden was a bullying of our journalists -- an act of war, in fact, on American journalists, saying, "Don't you dare go off our agreed-to list of questions!"

...

The recent filing for bankruptcy by Air America dramatizes my party's abject failure to produce shows that are informative and entertaining and that systematically build an audience -- the way all the top radio hosts did who climbed the ladder from obscurity to their present prominence. Aren't we the party of Hollywood? The fact that we've failed so miserably at this central medium of communication shows how something has gone very wrong in Democratic sensibility.

Preach it, sister! Speaking of religion...

It seems like religion has never been a bigger issue in American politics, recognized on both sides of the aisle as something that needs to be addressed. Have the Democrats changed the longtime Republican characterization of them as godless?

Well, as long as the Democrats are perceived as the anti-religion party, we're going to lose the culture wars. That's why Hillary has made such a show of churchgoing and wearing crucifixes -- even while there seems to be little connection between her Christian ideals and her backstage activities as a politician and money raiser. But religion is absolutely central to this country in ways that Europe's secularized intellectuals fail to understand. I'm speaking here as an atheist who studies religion and respects it enormously. In the history of mankind, the benefits that religion has brought to society in shaping behavior and moral choice are overwhelming in comparison to the negatives, which anyone can list -- like religious wars and bigotry. Without religion, we'd have anarchy.

It’s good to hear that some Democrats actually get it on some of these issues. I don’t mean that as a slam against Democrats in general, but the people who get the press time seem to me to be totally disconnected from reality here in “flyover country”.

[via Drudge]

Related posts: Point:Counterpoint, Too much truth in one place, Meta-meta-meta-censorship, The future of news, Foley, A great choice for President, On chickens and roosts

Point:Counterpoint

After reading Geoffrey R. Stone’s column “What it means to be a liberal” from the Chicago Tribune, and “What It Means To Be A Conservative”, Cassandra’s point-by-point response, I felt like these two documents deserve a side-by-side comparison. Hopefully, reposting both in full won’t get me in any kind of trouble with either party.

This comparison really highlights for me the ways that Liberals misunderstand or mischaracterize Conservatives. I’m sure there’s some of that going the other direction as well, and I’m probably too close to this issue to spot it. Despite Stone’s suggestion in point 1, I am very interested in finding my biases so I can better understand those I disagree with.

Comments?

What it means to be a liberal		What it means to be a conservative
For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling. In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them. Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.		In response to something Charlottesvillian posted on What it means to be a Liberal, my off the cuff ideas on what it means (at least to me) to be a conservative:
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.	1. Conservatives believe that while many matters are open to debate, there are also some eternal truths. We do not believe right and wrong are flexible concepts, wholly dependent on one's frame of reference. Like Liberals, Conservatives are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate. Moreover, we understand that in a society where people use threats or intimidation to force their views on others, enforcing the rules is needed or our rights become meaningless. One cannot "fairly and open-mindedly consider the truths of others" if speakers are shouted down or forced off the stage, no matter how distasteful their ideas may be. The way to defeat inferior ideas is with better ideas, not with brickbats or heavy-handed threats of government censorship.
2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)	2. Conservatives believe we have an obligation to live together peaceably and tolerate each other's differences, but we have no duty to subsidize, support, or lend our approval to choices we find wrong or destructive. Responsible adults understand that we all make our own way in life. While we have no right to interfere with the lives of our neighbors, they have no right to reach into our pockets and ask us to pay for the consequences of lifestyle choices that we may find difficult to understand or approve of. We do not ask that they change what they are doing. We only ask that they not expect us to fund a lifestyle we don't agree with. Live and let live. This, to us, is the true meaning of tolerance.
3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."	3. Like Liberals, conservatives believe individuals ought to participate in public debate. However we are not inclined to force them, or to round them up like cattle come Election Day. We believe voting is an individual responsibility, and we have seen what happens when liberals load first-time voters who don't understand how to fill out a ballot, or even know the names of the candidates or what they stand for, onto buses on election day to swell the ranks of Democrat voters. These people are not stupid, but they are not prepared to vote and the nation is not well served by sending an uninformed electorate to the polls. The nation is also not well served when the parties exacerbate racial tensions at election time.
4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)	4. Conservatives see government as a social contract in which individuals freely and intelligently barter some small part of their freedoms for mutual protection from the more rapacious elements of human society. This is a factor which Liberals often forget, preferring to take all the benefits of government protection while giving up none of their freedom, an inherently unworkable proposition. With their inherent suspicion of all authority liberals cede too much power to the press, setting up a completely unelected and unaccountable fourth branch of government which openly defies the law with complete impunity, releasing classified information at will, blowing federal terrorism investigations, interfering with law enforcement, and defying grand juries. Liberals are fond of talking about reproductive freedom and "choice", but their rhetoric conveniently ignores the fact that men have exactly zero reproductive choice: Legally, from the point of view of a woman: the fetus is a lump of tissue which may be excised at will if she subsequently regrets having conceived a child. It imposes no obligation or legal duty unless she chooses to accept it. Legally, from the point of view of the man: the fetus is a human being which must be allowed to live, even if he subsequently regrets having conceived a child. It imposes an absolute and irrevocable legal duty, regardless of his wishes in the matter.
5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.	5. Conservatives believe that justice ought to be blind: there should not be different laws for whites, blacks, Latinos, females, gays, or other demographics. We are not blind to the fact that humans can and do discriminate, but we do not believe the law should, in addition to the thousand inherent injustices and inequalities which exist in nature, impose additional unfairness via our justice system. How does a human system weigh unfairness? How do we compensate individuals for the hardships imposed by skin color? Gender? Nationality? What if there are offsetting factors - what then? Does that rich black kid who ends up at Harvard get the same compensation as a poor black kid from the inner city? How about the poor disadvantaged white boy from West Virginia with the alcoholic parents? Does he get nothing, just because his skin is the wrong color? Isn't that institutionalized racism? Or is it just Liberal values in action? Equal protection is often what liberals call a "code word" for making exceptions in treatment based on race or gender. Enforce the laws strictly, across the board, regardless of gender or skin color. Period.
6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."	6. Conservatives believe people have a fundamental duty to help themselves and they will be stronger and better if they develop the habit of self-reliance rather than dependence on government. We don't believe people are helped by programs that sap personal industry and initiative and undermine family bonds, as Daniel Moynihan warned in the 1960s. Rather, we prefer to see the private sector handle charitable giving, perhaps with tax incentives to encourage donation. This is a more ethical alternative to forcibly appropriating the paychecks of the more productive members of society to support less productive members, regardless of the wishes of the former.
7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.	7. Most conservatives don't wish to see entanglement of church and state either. The difference between liberals and conservatives here is that conservatives understand the purpose of Establishment Clause was to protect the free exercise of religion, not to drive all mention of God from public life. Even non-churchgoing conservatives like me are offended by the ACLU's open persecution of Christians and Christian symbology. Not every historic cross on a county or city seal amounts to state sponsorship of religion and the miscasting of abortion as a religious debate is beyond dishonest. There are atheist liberals who oppose abortion and religious conservatives who are pro-choice. The Left's near-obsession with, and paranoia about, religion is as good a proof as any that the Party of Tolerance and Diversity, isn't.
8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)	8. Conservatives understand that our individual liberties are bound up in many of those larger societal rights liberals love to decry. Try exercising your so-called "individual" rights (your sexual freedom, perhaps?) once the city you live in has eminent domained your home right out from under your feet, a lovely court decision for which you may thank the liberal half of SCOTUS and its stunning disregard for the original, and quite plain, meaning of the Public Use clause. There is such a thing as competing interests, like the tension between freedom and security. Liberals like to argue, because we already have security, that personal freedom should somehow be unlimited. But without the former we will not long possess the latter. They are intertwined. Our fellow humans prey on the helpless and on children and and liberals (in addition to championing some very valuable causes) have also championed some pretty worthless causes like the freedom to view child pornography (which is illegal) and the freedom of ten year old girls to get abortions without their parents finding out. Personally I am not convinced a ten year old girl really needs the freedom to have sex with pedophiles. She is not a "woman" yet, so it is neither a "woman's right to choose" nor a "woman's sexual privacy" that is at issue. But apparently this shocking opinion makes me some sort of snake handling Jesus freak, though I don't attend church and am something of a libertarian. Not all individual freedoms are worth protecting.
9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.	9. In response to the liberal statement of belief below, conservatives believe government must protect us also. What we believe, however, is that liberals often assert the rights of individuals over the collective right of society to be secure, often to a degree that is unreasonable. A good example is the NSA wiretapping brouhaha. Most Americans when polled don't object to having the NSA monitor and sample from a large number of calls. They understand the risks and they don't wholly trust the government, but they also understand the risks of inaction, and on balance they trust our own government more than they do the terrorists. Liberals, on the other hand, have allowed their dislike of this administration to lead them to make statements like "the administration is more of a danger to our freedoms than the terrorists". The bottom line is that they may well believe that, but they don't have the right to allow their subjective doubts to imperil the rest of us, and unless and until Congress is willing to call a halt to the NSA program (and it's not) they need to stop with the conspiracy theories. The truth is that democracy is functioning exactly as it should. They are simply outnumbered and their side didn't win the argument. Get over it. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.
10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."	10. Conservatives believe there is an inherent tension between the rights of the accused and the safety of citizens. Therefore government must intelligently balance the rights of accused criminals against the rights of crime victims and ordinary citizens to be secure in their homes and on the streets. There is no liberty without security. On the extreme end of the scale, when we have liberal judges defining pedophilia as a disease and letting defendants off because they're "sorry" (there's an inconvenient truth for you), something is wrong. This is about as fair to your average liberal as tarring all conservatives with the excesses of the religious right, but it is liberal philosophy carried to the illogical extreme: individual rights trumping societal rights. Yet liberals can and do tar conservatives with that broad brush - all the time.

[via Patterico]

Too much truth in one place

You’ve got to see this video. It’s created by David Zucker, the producer/director of “Airplane”, “The Naked Gun” and “Scary Movie 4” with the intention of allowing the GOP to use it in campaigns. Zucker, a longtime Democrat, voted Republican in 2004 based on concerns he had about national security.

One GOP strategist said "jaws dropped" when the ad was first viewed. "Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad. It makes a point, but it's way over the top."

The comedy is polished, and the point it makes is rock solid. It's too bad this is so politically hot that it can't be used, so I'm doing my part to make sure people can see it. Hopefully it will stay up for a while. I’ve created a transcript of the video in case it’s taken down. Please email people to the link below instead of just forwarding this message.

Announcer: In the year 2000, in an effort to stop the North Koreans from building nuclear weapons, President Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright [“Pyongyang - North Korea” Pan in on North Korean state building (?)] gave North Korean leader Kim Jong Il a basketball signed by Michael Jordan. [“October 25, 2000”, MA presenting basketball to KJI, clinking glasses for cameras. “We’re not making this up”]

A: The Democrats’ thoughtful gift had two major results. This first was this. [Rocket launch] And the second was this. [KJI playing basketball]

A: In a post-9/11 world, [U.S. Embassy - Tanzania] making nice to our enemies [U.S.S. Cole - Yemen] will not make them nice to us.

A: On the contrary, to them it is a sign of weakness. [MA serving cookies and singing Kum Ba Yah in the house while terrorists run from the basement. Singing continues to end.]

A: The Democrats have their own ideas on how to stop North Korea from building nuclear weapons. [“North Korean Nuclear Weapons Lab”, MA mowing the lawn]

A: Some people think the terrorists will change their ways if only show our good intentions. No matter what we do, the fact remains there is evil in the world. [“Afghanistan”, cave interior, MA painting cave wall while Osama Bin Laden lookalike holding gun makes a video.]

OBL: You missed a spot

A: History has taught us that evil needs to be confronted, not appeased. Evil dictators will be evil dictators, no matter what we do. [MA changes the tire on a Middle Eastern dictator’s limousine.]

Dictator: “Place the bomb in the cargo hold.” [points at watch]

A: Unlike basketball... [KJI coming off the bench at a basketball game]

MA: “Go get 'em you animal”

A: ...the security of the United States is not a game. [MA waving pom poms, fans holding signs reading “go great leader”. KJI comes up from fall with an automatic rifle.]

A: Can we afford a party that treats it like one? [Gunshots, crowd runs, zoom on scared MA staring into camera, fade to black]

[via Drudge]

Related posts: Foley, A great choice for President, On chickens and roosts, Armed and Dangerous

Foley

I’m disturbed by a lot of things in the scandal about Mark Foley, but not necessarily all the things the MSM would like.

• First of all, it’s disturbing to the core that any adult would proposition a child. The homosexual slant, the location (Congress) and specific person (chair of a committee for child protection) only compound this main problem.
• Foley’s excuse is that he was drunk, and he says he resigned in order to enter an alcohol rehab center. This is nothing short of a thinly veiled plea-bargain with the public. Propositioning a minor is a crime, elected official or not.
• Besides the plea-bargain, I’m also concerned that this escape will further reinforce the idea that homosexuals “just can’t help it” and that somehow their urges are beyond their control. When heterosexual people don’t control their sexual urges, it’s called rape, adultery, child abuse, and many other things.
• The page (the youth who Foley propositioned) was obviously baiting the Congressman in the conversations. As a minor he is entitled to some protections, and the adult in this situation is obviously far more culpable, but I think the page should also face some investigation and possible charges.
• I’m bothered by the appearance that several news agencies had this story for some months and sat on it. There’s some suggestions they did so to avoid appearing like they attacked him because he was gay. Crime is crime, even if you’re gay.
• The ABC reporter said he didn’t report it until now because he was too busy covering the anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. Yet for any Republican who knew about this even a day before the story was broken, it’s all about “the safety of children”.
• I’m bothered that the Washington Post has already started calling for Speaker Denis Hastert’s resignation before all the facts are out.
• I’m concerned at how willing the Republican party seems to be to throw each other off the island in order to appease the left and the media.
• Biased reporting is a concern, as always. Remember Barney Frank, who used his Congressional influence to get his homosexual-boyfriend-prostitute out of 30-odd parking tickets? Not many in the press seems to remember. Frank neither resigned nor checked into any kind of rehab. Today he’s one of the most influential members of the House.
• I’m highly disturbed that someone like Foley could be elected in the first place, regardless of party affiliation. By that, I mean someone whose character allows them to proposition children over an extended period of time, lie repeatedly when confronted, and then bails out on an excuse. Representatives need to be accountable and honest.
• As an extension of that last thought, I’m bothered to think how many other skeletons are in the closet. Foley’s emails (known for several months) were perhaps over-friendly, but not criminal, but even at that they were a big waving red flag. If Foley had been censured or asked to step down at that point, the damage (to the kids, to the GOP, to his reputation, to the people of Florida) could have been much less. What kind of culture in Congress allows someone with these habits to be given more time to cause damage?

Related posts: A great choice for President, On chickens and roosts

Speaking of MM

There’s a little spat going on between Michelle Malkin and leftie blog Wonkette (and friends).

And yet … there appears to be a picture of Malkin doing the “Girls Gone Wild” semi-boob flash, while cavorting about in a string bikini like a common hussy, from 1992!

The picture on that page is clearly a result of some creative work with Photoshop. Even the first person to comment on Wonkette said so. That hasn’t stopped people from running with it. There’s even talk (from others) that Michelle should sue.

I had to laugh when I read this comment, though:

From Steve:

My eye has been honed by decades of girl-watching and my professional opinion on this bikini girl is that:

1) Her head is too small for her body.

2) Her body is too fleshy to be mistaken for you. You are a skinny little bone. Bikni Girl has chowed down a few extra pork chops.

3) That's one ugly bikini.

Anyway, it's an insult that they are passing off as you a girl who hasn't skipped any desserts. The only way to put this controversy to rest is for you to post your own photo of yourself in a bikini, circa 1992, so that we, your loyal legion of fans, can compare and contrast the Real Michelle and the Bogus Michelle, point out all the discrepancies between the two, and demonstrate the superiority of Our Michelle to Their Michelle. It's the only way to be sure. Accept No Substitutes!

In fact, to stop this kind of lefty outrage in the future, we probably should have bikini shots on file for all conservative commentators such as yourself, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, Page Hopkins, et cetera, so that we conservative males can instantly rebut small-minded slurs against the honor of our womenfolk. No need to thank us. We're happy to do it as a favor to you.

Uh, no thanks!

Reminds me of this picture I found on the web yesterday. Makes you grateful to be a Republican, don’t it?

The lessons of McCarthyism

Arthur Herman has a great piece in the New York Post today (free login required).

He recounts the story of Senator McCarthy (after whom McCarthyism is named) – a story I haven't heard before – and proceeds to compare it to the recent treatment by Democrats of Judge Alito in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Republicans, and the conservative movement, learned a powerful lesson. They would now pay a high price for their rhetorical excess or hysteria, which the media would instantly denounce as "McCarthyism."

GOP attacks on the Truman presidency during the Korean War had been reckless and bitter, much like what today's Democrats hurl at George W. Bush. As American soldiers were dying, McCarthy and his colleagues speculated publicly if top administration officials might be in the pocket of the Kremlin. They dismissed Truman as a stupid, weak stooge addicted to "midnight sessions of bourbon and Benedictine." They smeared Secretary of State Dean Acheson as pro-Soviet, nicknaming him the Red Dean; on the floor of the Senate, Sen. William Jenner even called Gen. George Marshall "a living lie."

THE fall of McCarthy forced conservatives to change their political style. Smearing opponents as "commies" or "pinkos" only backfired. Appealing to racial or anti-Semitic stereotypes told the public more about the accuser than the accused.

The right began policing its own. Conservatives who didn't or couldn't make the adjustment were relegated to the swamps of the John Birch Society - or later, like white supremacist David Duke or evangelist Pat Robertson, instantly denounced. The new attitude was embodied in a new magazine that appeared soon after McCarthy's fall, William F. Buckley's National Review, which taught conservatives that they could gain more through reasoned debate than through conspiracy theories, name-calling, and sleazy innuendo.

Conservatives learned their lesson: The Reagan Revolution would be the result.

But liberals have not learned this lesson. McCarthy's defeat seemed to vindicate their own excesses. Liberals began to label conservatives as closet fascists, embodiments of a primitive and pathological "paranoid style" of politics, while the media applauded.

Over the next decades, while conservatives were reining in the rhetoric, liberals were settling into the habit of attacking every Republican as a crypto-Nazi, a racist, a sexist and a religious bigot — and those who supported them as an ignorant redneck lynch mob.

I find the comparisons striking, and I really hope that the backlash against the Dems is as strong and long-lasting as the term McCarthyism has been. Of course, every silver lining has its cloud – in this case, learning their lesson might result in a more influential and representative version of the DNC. Still, there are things the DNC stands for which are true and right, and which can serve as a good and necessary balance against the goals of the Republican party. Those things have been lost behind the rhetoric and slander of the current liberal left. Having the "real" Democrats back wouldn't be so bad – losing to an honorable opponent is far more palatable than losing to a cheater.

Side note: what does it mean about education in the USA that I had never heard the story of McCarthyism? For years, I thought McCarthyism was a variation of Chicken Little. According to this, it sounds like he was more guilty of wrongly accusing people, and going over-the-top in how he accused them.

[via Powerline]

GOP playing hardball

It looks like the Republican majority in the house is finally starting to flex some muscle. Despite the rhetoric about how we need to pull out of Iraq, when presented with a bill to do just that, only three Democrats voted in favor, and six abstained (total vote: 3-403-6).

Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) wrote a resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq according to the comments of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) which had attracted so much news recently. It's pretty clear this resolution was written to call the Democrats' bluff.

Though even many Democrats think Murtha's immediate withdrawal plan is impractical, it struck a chord in a party where frustration with the war and the Bush administration's open-ended commitment is mounting fast. Murtha galvanized the debate as few others could have. He is a 33-year House veteran and former Marine colonel who received medals for his wounds and valor in Vietnam, and he has traditionally been a leading Democratic hawk and advocate of military spending.
Murtha's resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such as "the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress" toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable date," although Murtha said in statements and interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.

For those keeping score, the three Democrats who went on record voting to leave Iraq are Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) and Cynthia McKinney (Ga.). If you have the opportunity to vote in these states, or influence those who do, make sure they know how they voted on this issue.

Along the way, a very junior Republican (Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), elected only in August of this year) called a spade a spade and raised a few tempers on the other side of the aisle.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

No, Rep. Meehan, what is pathetic is saying anything and everything to undermine the President and the effectiveness of our troops in time of war when you don't really mean it. When the chips were down all but nine Democrats — including you, Rep. Murtha — voted to stay in Iraq.

[from The Washington Post via Scrappleface]

Quick shot

Scrappleface is good as usual. I'll pass up the obvious Harriett Miers items, for this more painfully pointed remark.

Iraq Constitution Approval Another Setback for Bush

by Scott Ott

(2005-10-25) -- In yet another setback for the Bush administration, Iraqi electoral officials announced today that voters have approved the new Iraqi Constitution by a margin of 78-to-21 percent.

This new bit of bad news will likely drive President George Bush's popularity ratings into the single digits, according to an unnamed expert from a non-partisan, progressive political think-tank.

"The Bush foreign policy continues to be fatally-wounded by clarity of purpose, dogged persistence and a pathetic failure to capitulate in the face of opposition," the source said. "At a time when a real leader would be paralyzed with self-doubt over the meaningless deaths of 2,000 American troops, Bush continues to act as if freeing 25 million Iraqis from decades of oppression, torture and death is somehow worth the price paid by those who volunteered to fight."

"It's sad to watch our international credibility crumble like this," the anonymous policy expert said. "In 2008, I'm afraid you're going to see voters leaving the Republican party in droves, desperate to find a leader who provides a stronger sense of nuance and ambiguity."

Oh, and in case you haven't heard, some local team appears to have won some kind of championship. As a confirmed sports agnostic, I couldn't say who.

John Kerry raises campaign money from Katrina rhetoric

Yes, our dear friend John Kerry is hard at work, earning a living off the misfortune of others.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) unleashed a furious attack on the Bush administration at a Brown University speech yesterday, upbraiding the president’s response to the hurricane that recently devastated the Gulf Coastand tying it to what he sees as other flaws at the White House.
“This is the Katrina administration,” read prepared remarks posted on 2004 Democratic presidential nominee’s website, www.johnkerry.com. “Katrina is a symbol of all this administration does and doesn't do,” read Kerry’s script, portions of which were included in an e-mail to supporters that ended with a fundraising appeal.
...
In a brief interview, Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called Kerry’s pitch for cash “repulsive.”
In a news release, she said, “John Kerry's attacks on President Bush's efforts to assist the victims and rebuild the Gulf Coast don't come as a surprise. Armchair quarterbacking on tough issues has never been a problem for Senator Kerry. The American people have pulled together during a difficult time and Democrats’ efforts to politicize this tragedy are unsavory at best.”

This illustrates why I see the DNC as the party of vicious opportunism. I have yet to see a claim so outrageous, a connection so tenuous, or a position so outlandish that Democrats will not line up behind it, so long as the result is to show that they oppose the President.

I read this trend as an act of desperation. The Green party has shown itself to be a more moderate option, and one which numbers of people may consider. Independents have also been gaining traction in each election, even in Congress. After the spanking they got in the last presidential election, I'm sure more than a few Democratic candidates are searching around for a tenable platform. Unfortunately, with President Bush advancing all the good ideas (even if he doesn't always implement them correctly), and no compelling alternative plan, the democrats are limited to ad homenim attacks.

[From The Hill via Drudge Report]

Is it racist to require a photo ID?

That's what the American Civil Liberties Union, Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials and Rainbow/PUSH Coalition seem to think.

As reported at CNN, the state of Georgia has received approval from the Justice Department for a change in their voting laws. The Voting Rights Act of years ago requires states with a history of suppressing minority voting to get federal permission to change their voting laws. While it would be nice to think this isn't necessary, I don't see any great harm in having the rule in place, either.

After all the voter fraud in the last presidential election, many states have been looking for ways to keep voters honest. With the approval from the Justice Department, Georgia becomes the first state to require photo ID for voters.

I think this is a common-sense solution. If you say you are entitled to vote, you should be able to prove your identity to the polling official before they let you exercise your right to vote. We require photo IDs to board an airplane, write or cash a check, cross our borders, or even to enter many buildings. Why should we not require a photo ID for our most important civic duty?

The Republican-backed measure sparked racial tension during the state's legislative session last spring. Most of Georgia's black lawmakers walked out at the state Capitol when it was approved.

Democrats had argued the idea was a political move by the GOP to depress voting among minorities, the elderly and the poor -- all traditional bases for Democrats.

The measure would eliminate the use of several currently accepted forms of voter identification, such as Social Security cards, birth certificates or utility bills.

Quick: which of these do you have on your person right at this moment? Social Security card, birth certificate, utility bills (Indiana requires two, from different utilities), driver's license. If you're like most people, you probably only carry your DL, perhaps also your Social Security card. I bet if they kept any records, they'd find that 95% or more of ID's presented at the polls were photo ID's anyway.

"The decision to clear the measure now gives Georgia the most draconian voter identification requirement in the nation," said Daniel Levitas of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project in Atlanta.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, a veteran of the civil rights movement, said, "It is unbelievable, it is unreal the Department of Justice -- an agency who is supposed to protect the American public by enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- is now involved in attempts to weaken the act.

"This decision takes us back to the dark past of literacy tests and other insidious devices that were carefully devised to hamper the participation of all of our citizens in the political process," Lewis said.

"carefully devised to hamper"? If I lived in Georgia and was a minority, elderly or poor, I would be offended at that statement! He is implying people who are poor, old, or not white don't have photo IDs. I'm not positive, but I think all 50 states issue a "State ID" with photo for identification of non-drivers. There's usually a nominal fee to obtain the card - perhaps they think these folks can't afford it?

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, head of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, said he was disturbed by the federal decision.

"My fear is that this will spread across the country like a virus," he said. "This just shows how the anti-civil rights' machinery is in motion."

Please note that protecting the vote has two major components: 1. Making sure legitimate voters can vote unimpeded; and 2. Making sure nobody votes illegitimately. Most of the outcry from the Democrats focuses on the first point - accusations of turning away legitimate voters, or making it hard to reach polls. The second point is at least as important if not more. Guaranteeing I can register my one vote is only useful if I can be sure that others are not recording multiple illegitimate votes. I don't mind being outvoted by a true majority, but stuffing the ballot box with fake votes is not right, no matter who does it or for what reasons. Allowing fake votes dilutes the value of the honest votes.

Rev. Jackson, if you really want to protect civil rights, please make sure you are protecting my right to have my vote count in full.

Fili-busted!

At the heart of this is the issue of how federal judges are appointed. According to the Constitution, the President nominates and the Senate either approves them or votes them down. The Senate as a whole can approve or deny a candidate, but a minority is nowhere granted the ability to defy the majority. In this matter, as with most every other I can think of, the majority rules. Isn't that the central concept of democracy? Not according to quite a few anti-Bush people holding public office or positions of public trust. The MSM and vocal democrats (is there a difference?) have pulled no punches in claiming that filibusters are a time-honored component of our democracy. Oddly enough, many of the same people who now want to protect the filibuster are on the record as denouncing the practice when the shoe was on the other foot. Senator Joe Biden:

The Washington Times notes that, in an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Biden flatly denied having said in 1997 that judicial nominees are entitled to an up-or-down Senate floor vote. Yet according to the Congressional Record, Biden stated just that on March 19, 1997:

I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune:

...we quoted a Strib editorial dated September 30, 1994, which said: "[Reformers] should crusade for changes in Senate procedures that would prevent an obstructionist minority from delaying action indefinitely." Today we got an email from Jim Boyd, titled "Oops." It said:

John: Re. the filibuster: I was looking only at the one 1993 editorial about filibusters. There was a second editorial in 1994, in which we endorsed a Don Fraser proposal for revising senate rules. We'd missed the second one in a search we did before running our Sunday editorial. We found it about half an hour ago. I think you actually have caught us in a contradiction. We can change our mind, as we did on light rail, but in this case, we really didn't. We simply missed the precedent and, like a court, if we make such a shift, we owe readers an explanation for why we did it.

And, to nobody's great surprise, the New York Times. Watching the NYT talk out of both sides of their mouth is too good to pass up, so forgive the long excerpts.

... Free Republic has posted the text of the still-timely January 1, 1995 New York Times editorial: "Time to retire the filibuster." Here is the Times's 1995 teaching:

The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. The greatest obstructive body is more like it. In the last season of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. ... One unpleasant and unforeseen consequence has been to make the filibuster easy to invoke and painless to pursue. Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60 required votes. Mr. Harkin, along with Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, now proposes to make such obstruction harder. Mr. Harkin says reasonably that there must come a point in the process where the majority rules. This may not sit well with some of his Democratic colleagues. They are now perfectly positioned to exact revenge by frustrating the Republican agenda as efficiently as Republicans frustrated Democrats in 1994. ... The Harkin plan, along with some of Mr. Mitchell's proposals, would go a long way toward making the Senate a more productive place to conduct the nation's business. Republicans surely dread the kind of obstructionism they themselves practiced during the last Congress. Now is the perfect moment for them to unite with like-minded Democrats to get rid of an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

The Free Republic thread includes Senator Cornyn's March 10, 2005 letter to the editor regarding the Times editorial earlier that week. We yield the floor to Senator Cornyn:

"The Senate on the Brink" (editorial, March 6) supports the "historic role of the filibuster," which is a curious position for a newspaper that 10 years ago said filibusters were "the tool of the sore loser" and should be eliminated ("Time to Retire the Filibuster," editorial, Jan. 1, 1995). Federal judicial appointments have certainly been controversial, but surely all Americans can agree that the rules for confirming judges should be the same regardless of which party has a majority. Now you praise the filibuster as a "time-honored Senate procedure." In 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, you called it "an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose." You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as "nuclear," even though they were once endorsed by such leading Democrats as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer and Robert C. Byrd.

Rhetoric aside, what is the right thing to do? Outside of Those In High Places, it seems most people think the candidates should be voted up or down. So does Senator Bill Frist, majority leader. In his speech before the Senate today (full analysis here), Frist called for new Senate rules disallowing filibuster of Judicial nominees either on the floor or in committee.

• The judiciary committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee -- whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats -- will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.
• When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, [the Senate] will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.
• [T]hese proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution.
• The filibuster -- as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress -- will remain unchanged.

The 100 hours rule allows for one hour of debate per senator, a fair compromise for a body which only has the role of "advise and consent". The speech and analysis both make reference to the fact that Democrats have a few grudges on account of Clinton nominees who were blocked in judicial committee. Neither side is without blame here, though filibustering in the Senate takes it to a new extreme. Especially interesting is PowerLine's analysis of the political impact of presenting this offer.

Will the Democrats accept? I think they might, since they know (at least, I think they know) that the Republicans have the votes needed to change the Senate rule and ban the filibuster with respect to judges. For the Democrats, it comes down to a political calculation. The first part of the calculation is, if they reject the compromise and force the Republicans to proceed with the Constitutional option, do they gain or lose votes? Notwithstanding their bravado, my guess is that the Democrats fear they will be the political losers if they go to the wall for the principle that a minority should be able to block a judicial nominee from receiving a vote. But the calculation has a second stage: whatever the general public may think, do Democratic Senators risk losing the support and enthusiasm of important elements of their base if they stop short of doing everything possible to block President Bush's judges? I suspect that they do. Among the Democrats' richest and most fervent supporters, this may be the number one issue. So Senator Frist's proposal puts the Democrats in a very difficult position.

There's no doubt it's fortunate for the Republicans that this situation is currently playing in our favor, but Frist's proposals make sense for the long run as well as the short term. The Democrats are between a rock and a hard place, and Frist's proposal has done much to force them to fish or cut bait: go on the record supporting the indefensible filibuster, or play ball and let the nominees come to a vote. Before I run out of cliches, I'd better end with sober news from the analysis of Frist's speech:

Frist said previously that he would not accept any offer that lets Democrats filibuster past or future judicial nominees. And [minority leader] Reid said he would not accept any deal that keeps Democrats from blocking future nominees.

Twisting the news

OK, class, today we're going to talk about how the news media craft the news to advance their own political agenda. Turn in your browsers to this story at Yahoo! News about Florida bill S436. Read the article first for the content of the bill, then read it again for tone and bias. Please look up when finished reading. OK, everyone ready? Let's examine the article paragraph by paragraph.

Florida eyes allowing residents to open fire whenever they see threat MIAMI (AFP) - Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.

Notice the emotion-grabbing words "open fire against anyone". Also, by using the words "anyone they perceive as a threat", they seem to be leading one to wonder if each person can decide for themselves, including all the loonies out there. The current law does say you must try to retreat, unless (a) you are in a place you have a right to be, such as your home or vehicle, or (b) retreating would increase your risk of death/bodily harm.

Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality. Supporters argue that criminals will think twice if they believe they are likely to be promptly shot when they assault someone.

More alarm words, "Outraged opponents", "encourage Floridians to open fire", "statewide Wild West shootout". These phrases are design to make you feel empathy for these opponents. On the other hand, supporters are "arguing", but we still see the words "promptly shot", again suggesting that the law allows fire-at-will for everyone. In my journalism class, I was taught that "said" is the only truly neutral word for attribution of quotes. Any other word (argued, urged, revealed, pleaded, maintained) expresses some bias of the author. This relates back to the one, main responsibility of a reporter: to report. Not to interpret, not to select what news is convenient or which voices are reported, but to accurately record all that was said or done. A reporter should never be talking in his own voice, but only repeating what others have said. It's also more natural to state the supporters point of view first, but this can be a matter of editorial preference.

Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue."

Notice how they emphasize that Governor Jeb Bush is a Republican? To many journalists, this is an insult only slightly lower than "Conservative" (or worse yet, "Conservative Christian"). They can't actually say it in so many words, but they can arrange their words in order to lead you to that impression. The author has already done their best to imply that the bill, if passed, will lead to gunfire in the streets. Now he is trying to show that Gov. Bush is too out of touch with reality to see this.

Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant." But it also states that if a resident is confronted or threatened in a public place, he or she must first try to avoid the confrontation or flee before taking any violent step in self defense against an assailant.

Notice, class, that the second paragraph above is a sentence fragment. This is a grammatical error often used to add emphasis. Putting the fragment in a paragraph of its own brings even more emphasis. In this case, the author doesn't want you to miss his point and his point of view. His point is that the current law is "sensible" because it requires people to think before they shoot, and the new law will permit people to shoot anyone, anywhere and say it was because they felt threatened. It's a bit disingenuous to talk only about the "violent step in self defense", when the text of the bill clearly states that the force can only be used to protect against threat of death or bodily injury, or a "forcible felony". The text of the bill says the person using defensive force "is justified in using force that is likely to cause death or bodily injury against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force." (Emphasis mine). If he's only threatening to slap your face, you aren't justified in shooting him.

The bill, supported by the influential National Rifle Association, was approved by both houses of the Republican-run legislature on Tuesday.

By invoking "the influential National Rifle Association" and the "Republican-run legislature", he has, in his perspective, put the last nails in the coffin. By saying "Republican-run", he might as well have said "mafia-run" in some people's minds. He omits some details which would better allow the reader to evaluate the story for himself.

• What does it mean that the NRA supported the bill? Were they lobbying for this particular change, or do they simply support bills of this type as a matter of policy? The reader may tend to assume from this article that the NRA was the "silent hand" trying to get this bill passed.
• What was the vote in each house? Did the bill win by a landslide or a narrow margin? Was the bill opposed widely but pushed through, or was there a small but vocal "fringe" opposition?
• How many Democrats and Independents in each house voted for this bill? How many Republicans voted against it?
• For that matter, what does Republican-run mean? Are the houses split 51%/49% or 80%/20%? Do the parties work together well and get things done, or is the Florida legislature a logjam for anything except what the Republicans want? Are bi-partisan bills the exception or the rule?
• How many other states have passed a law like this? What effect has it had on crime, the murder rate, and victim survival?

It is important to remember that this is a newswire story, so space is limited. Not all the details above can be included in a 200-word story. It is dishonest, however, to include only the facts which paint the picture in an unfair light. For instance, by referring to the "Republican-run legislature", he makes it sound as if the vote was largely along party lines. In fact, the vote was almost 5:1 in favor in the Senate (94 Yea, 20 Nay, 6 not voting) where the bill originated, and all but unanimous in the House (39 Yea, 0 Nay, 1 not voting). According to another document on the same site, the Florida House contains 14 Democrats, 26 Republicans. To be sure, that's a 2:1 ratio, but it didn't look like there was much of a fight - after only a week on the floor, everyone present voted for the bill. I couldn't find a similar breakdown by party for the Senate, but I have to believe there are more than 26 Democrats (20 Nay, 6 not voting). Consider the story if it were instead written as below. Note that this story is still not without bias. The point of this exercise is to examine how the same facts can be used to paint a different picture.

Florida extends self-defense laws to include personal assaults MIAMI (AFP) - Florida's legislature has approved a bill that extends the current self-defense laws related to property to include personal assaults, permitting people to use appropriate force to defend against threats of death or bodily injury. Supporters say S436 will close a loophole in current state law which has permitted victims of violent crimes to be sued by their attackers for using force to defend themselves against violent crime. Opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to carry and use firearms indiscriminately. Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant," but does not include similar provisions for personal assaults. If passed, the bill will create a presumption of reasonable fear of death or bodily injury in certain circumstances, and allow the victim to meet force with force to protect against such attacks. The bill was approved by both houses of the legislature on Tuesday, with wide bipartisan support. Florida Governor Jeb Bush says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue", and has said he plans to sign the bill.

This alternative version is only 193 words. Apart from the "Supporters say" line, it's all based on facts from the Florida Senate website, or facts from the original article. (Sorry, I didn't invest the time to look up a supporter to get a real quote, but I think this one is pretty reasonable.) For your homework, please write your own 1500 word essay on bias in the news media, as I have done here.

More on Dean

As Spin Doctor Dean is hard at work gearing up for the 2006 elections, I picked up this tidbit from a comment at ScrappleFace, the site with fake press releases on current events. The author added his own editorial comments in [square brackets]. I've added italics to make reading easier. Hopefully. He highlights some common inconsistencies between what Democrats are saying and what is really happening. I got a good laugh from this, hope you do too.

Sometimes partisan politics gets overheated -- I know that as well as anyone [because I engage in partisan rhetoric all the time]. But when one party controls [forget the principles of democracy and the empowerment of election results] all three branches of government [well, with the possible exception of the liberal SCOTUS which is doing a fine job of legislatively advancing liberal causes in direct violation of the separation of power clause], and then seeks to change the fundamental principles and rules [that Democrats themselves first changed] of our democracy, we need to talk about it soberly and seriously [just like I'm serious and sober...yeeeeeaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhh!]. The Republican Senate leaders have decided [according to the wishes of the majority of Americans] to fundamentally alter the role of Congress [through the elective process] -- they want to give George Bush [Hitler] unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts [which, of course, is only reserved for Democratic presidents]. Today Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators asked us [well, actually he whined], the American people, to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate [by engaging in fillibusters which end reasoned debates]. We have to act [unilateraly since we can't win a significant number elections]. Sign this petition, which we will deliver to every U.S. Senator, asking them to protect the right to free speech in the Senate [by bottling up presidential judicial nominees]. If they don't, it is not only their voice that will be silenced [well, actually we won't be "silenced", we'll be engaging in a blathering fillibuster - see above] -- it will be ours [and the unborn's]: http://www.democrats.org/freespeech Here are the facts: George Bush has appointed judges to lifetime positions at a better rate than any president in nearly three decades. More than 95% [we think 99% is too much under the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution] of his nominees have been approved. Only ten nominees have been refused -- all because they are unqualified and out of the mainstream [from our perspective as out-of-the-mainstream kool-aid^TM imbibers ourselves] But that's not enough [it never is with us Democrats as you well know, hee hee]. And on this issue, as on Social Security, it is becoming more and more obvious to everyone [with half-a-brain like me] that the Republican leadership is out of touch with [partisan moonbat] reality. More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history [forget the fact that more vote for him than any other president]. And that same day, across the country, the Democratic candidates for Senate received over 4 million more [fraudulent] votes [from dead people, family pets, felons, and illegal aliens - plus more incumbent Democratic Senators were up for re-election] than Republicans. Americans did not endorse the fringe agenda [which we Democrats have personal experience with ourselves] to dismantle [actually it's to reform SS, but "dismantle" sounds better and describes our hysteria better] Social Security. And they did not endorse dismantling the system of checks and balances [that Democrats have attempted to do by having the judicial branch legislate from the bench] that have served our country for over 200 years. Please tell your Senator to stand up for free speech [like they did when they voted for McCain/Feingold's Bill to Limit Free Political Speech]: http://www.democrats.org/freespeech This is not a partisan issue [though we are trying our darnedest to make it partisan] -- it is an American issue [but don't expect us to put country before Democratic Party policies with regard to the war on terrorism]. And we all must act together in order to protect our democracy [a democracy which can never happen in Iraq]. Thank you [sendmoneysendmoneysendmoneysendmoney...] Governor Howard Dean, M.D. .......[YeeeeeaaaarrGGGGHHH!]

DNC chair Dean

Now that Howard Dean is the chair of the DNC, he's touring the U.S. to spread the message. On Wednesday, he spoke at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, along with Rev. Al Sharpton and Ann Coulter. Dean knows a few key Bible verses, and used them as he saw fit:

''We need to talk about values and not be afraid of them,'' he said, going on to make two biblical references. In the first he said Jesus' directive to ''love thy neighbor'' didn't mean one could choose which ones to love. He then remarked that Republicans never brought up the scriptural verse saying it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

This is rich (pardon the pun) coming from a man with Dean's financial situation. Remember those shirts/bumper stickers that said "Skating is not a crime"? Someone should tell Dean that being rich is not a sin, and the Bible doesn't say that it is. Unfortunately, this is a common misinterpretation. I was encouraged by his last statement:

''It's not about Republicans and Democrats, but about democracy that works,'' he said. ''I'd rather see someone go to work for a Republican campaign than sit on their butt.''

I hope he gets his wish.

Sweet victory and sour grapes

It's a huge load off my mind knowing that the election is over, and without major litigation. To be sure, there were some tense moments. In the end, Kerry behaved like a gentleman (apparently learning some lessons from Mr. "I used to be President-Elect" Gore). I found it amazing that Kerry still had the nerve to mention the 6-year-old child who gave money to his campaign in his concession speech. Doesn't Kerry realize it's illegal to accept money from a minor? The most liberal parts of the mainstream media seem to be scrambling to figure out where they went wrong. At least some parts of the blogosphere seem to be "getting it" about the reason one party wins and another doesn't. Hint: it has nothing to do with a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

I've sat through aproximately 8 zillion heated conversations about how the reason libertarians don't have more power is that the electoral system is stacked against us, when it's crystal clear to me that the reason we don't have more power is that a clear majority of Americans don't agree with us.

I heard second hand that some of the commentators on CNN and MSNBC were talking about what the Democrats will have to do to reconnect with moral values to win the next election. I think the same mental disconnect is happening here as with the VRWC nuts - that disconnect being the assumption that everyone thinks like them. I hate to tell them, but with +51% of the country voting one way, that puts the MSM right splat in the minority. (Republican employees of the big networks are regularly told "you should be working for Fox" according to Powerline). Some of the MSM seem concerned that with a clear mandate, President Bush will "push the Republican agenda". Apart from the question of whether a Republican agenda is a good thing or a bad thing, when you've got over 51% of the popular vote (the highest popular percentage in history), how exactly is that going against the will of the people? Of course the President should see it as a mandate, because that's exactly what it was! Part of the media scramble is to figure out what went wrong with their exit polling. Powerline posts one theory then dispells it with something more realistic. To my way of thinking, the most damning argument against exit polls is the way the actual vote is tabulated. If it was reasonably accurate to take a sampling of the voters by any of the methods used by thousands of pollsters, we would certainly be looking at this method for the next election. The fact is that a sample is only accurate to within a margin of error, and even then the error can be magnified by factors not considered before taking the poll. In short, if exit polls worked, we wouldn't need a full ballot. Between both the media's spin on things and the problems this year with removal of Bush/Cheney signs, it seems to me that the left has gone too far, supporting free speech only as much as it supports their candidate. Even here in red-state Indiana, someone had removed the Bush/Cheney sign on the curb by our polling place. I fail to see how that helps the Kerry/Edwards cause one iota - might someone forget their names and vote the other way? A posted comment on Michael Moore's site said something to the effect of "when I look at all the red states, I realize I'm trapped in a country of idiots". (I wish I could find the page now.) So much for Patrick Henry's "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Blaming the voters won't get you any closer, in any case. Logic Times has an in-depth analysis of double-standards in the reporting of red and blue states last night. Blaming this phenomenon on bias would require the ability to read minds, but that seems like a likely possibility. Profit may be another - would a news network intentionally delay announcing the ending just so they could hang onto their viewers as long as the other networks? Michelle Malkin seems to be getting a bit peeved with the new rhetoric taking the place of the pre-election rhetoric. My favorite line is the last:

Yes, the country is divided. Divided between gracious winners and mud-slinging, hypocritical whiners who have nothing else to do now but point to their emotional boo-boos and decry the dirtiness of politics.

It is also interesting how many of the so-called "campaign issues" advanced by the Democrats have now evaporated. If President Bush had really alienated so many countries, why would the leaders of these countries now be so quick to praise, not denounce, the election outcome? France and Germany jumped on this ship without much prompting:

French President Jacques Chirac, a strong opponent of the US-led war in Iraq, expressed hope that Bush's second term "will provide an opportunity to reinforce France-American friendship" and the transatlantic partnership.

"On behalf of France, and on my personal behalf, I would like to express to you my most sincere congratulations for your re-election to the presidency of the United States of America," Chirac wrote in a letter to Bush. "I hope that your second term will provide an opportunity to reinforce the Franco-American friendship."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who also clashed with Bush over Iraq, voiced hope that his country would continue its "good cooperation" with the United States.

As did Egypt, where we are seeing the population find their voices to speak out for a more democratic government. Russia's Putin even called Bush's reelection "a victory over terrorism". After all this, a few things are clearer to me now than at the start of this election:

• Most voters and news consumers are willing to be spoon-fed the facts as presented by the MSM without questioning it.
• The networks have learned this and, intentionally or not, are taking advantage of it to affect perceptions.
• Blogs have become an important part of a well-rounded news diet. Without a critical examination of the story as presented, it's too easy to believe lies.
• When selecting news sources, it's important to include some sources with which you don't agree. Listening only to people you agree with is one of the factors that gave us Dan Rather and most of the MSM movers and shakers.
• Always remember that you are one of the people who can be fooled some of the time. (Hopefully not all the time.) Actively searching for arguments against your own beliefs can be an intensely educational process, and just might save you from holding forth on something that sounds plausible but might turn out to be false. If nothing else, it will give you lots of information to blog about.

The count by county

Michelle Malkin discovered some maps at USA Today which show the red/blue map by county rather than state. You can view both the 2000 and 2004 maps. 2004 is still incomplete, but I expect it will be updated soon. On the one hand, this doesn't take into account population, so it can't be used to extrapolate the vote. On the other hand, notice where all the blue counties are, especially in states that went blue like California, Oregon, Washington. Maybe this isn't news to anyone else, but I find it striking how much of the Democrats vote comes from big cities, and how few rural areas vote Democrat. It appears the only states where more than half of counties voted Democrat are in the New England area: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and these three states are completely blue in 2000. I wonder if any Dems are nervous that the GOP seems to have picked up a county in Connecticut this year? Also interesting that the New York Times shows 100% of counties in Iowa counted, but still won't call it for Bush, and yet was able to call Maine for Kerry with 95% of precincts tallied and still enough open votes for Bush to win. Rumor has it that the outstanding precincts tend Republican. Perhaps there's a rational reason for this, but it looks to me as if they're trying to give Bush a win without showing any more votes in the Electoral College than they have to.

The politics of hate

It has been quite a week on the campaign trail, but not everything has made it to the evening news. The Bush/Cheney campaign headquarters in several states have been raided. The daylight raids have generally been AFL/CIO protests gone bad, resulting sometimes in injuries to the volunteers. After hours, several offices have been shot at or broken into. The national headquarters even had several key computers stolen. Attributing the breakins to the Democratic party is an easy assumption, but innocent-until-proven-guilty still applies. The Philadelphia Inquirer is running a series called "21 reasons to elect Kerry". One conservative author (so far) has been given the podium for a rebuttal - well worth the read. What amazes me is the disparity with which the candidates are treated - here and elsewhere. Bush has revealed all his records, yet he's still assumed to have enlisted to avoid going to Viet Nam, and blamed for not fulfilling his duty, despite all evidence to the contrary (and there is plenty).

• George W. Bush applied to enlist in a unit which was currently stationed in Viet Nam when he could have chosen others. At the time he applied, it was not clear when the unit might return to the states, which might have taken him overseas as well.
• When offered the opportunity to fly in Viet Nam, he applied to go. He was turned down because they were looking for more seasoned pilots.
• The unit he belonged to was not full when he enlisted, and at times during his tour, as many as half the available slots remained empty. Therefore, he did not have to pull strings to get into the unit.
• His chosen position, flying a plane known sometimes as "widow-maker", was a very unlikely position for someone trying to avoid the draft. By all reports, he not only fulfilled the position, but excelled.

On the other side, it is a matter of record that Kerry has not released over 100 pages of information about his enlistment. As reported today on Powerline, a bit of investigation has suggested that Kerry may not have received an honorable discharge after all. An update later today trims the sails a bit, but there still remain two important questions:

• If Kerry has nothing to hide, why won't he release his full records and dispell the speculation?
• Why aren't the mainstream media having a feeding frenzy over the intimations and possibilities suggested by the evidence we have?

It seems so obvious to me that the media is stumping for Kerry. I can't understand how this isn't visible to anyone who thinks about it - but maybe that's really the key. The Liberals (I won't say Democrats, because there remain conservatives in the party) succeed on the backs of the uninformed.

Just yesterday, I heard a radio program caller saying he wanted Bush out of office because he had taken us into an illegal war. That was the gentleman's entire argument, and he couldn't back the statement up with any kind of evidence, even when pressed by the hosts. Similarly, I have heard people who genuinely believe that Bush lied in order to go to war. Operating on the best information obtained by the intelligence agencies of at least four countries is not lying.

Lately, the actions of the radical Left seem to be more in concert with the terrorists than democracy. Apart from the campaign headquarters raids, some Bush/Cheney supporters have had their signs destroyed and swazticas burned into their lawns. These attacks are being investigated as hate-crimes, and rightfully so, but I wonder if the term hate-crime needs to be extended to those who use violence to disagree with your political perspective, not just those who use Nazi emblems in the commission of those attacks? Do we need another revolutionary war in order to make sure the conservatives are given equal rights?

Another example of MSM bias: a columnist for the London Telegraph had his column pulled because his article suggested that maybe, perhaps, Tony Blair had done the right thing by not sending in commandos to rescue Kenneth Bigley. Rather, it's likely that Bigley's last words will result in even more people being captured and used as leverage. Certainly, I can't begrudge a man who knows he's about to die from saying many desparate things, but I can hold a big grudge against the media who choose to amplify that message because it serves their political purpose.

On preparations for elections, the increased scrutiny has brought out evidence of fraud and inaccuracies on both sides. A Denver news station has uncovered major voter registration fraud which has resulted in some people registering multiple times. If done with the registrant's knowledge, each additional registration constitutes a felony, yet one person quoted in the story admits to having registered about 35 times this year! Other investigations (many from the same news source) have unearthed votor registration groups which ignore registrations for one party or the other. Some states are discovering that they have many convicted felons registered as well. And don't forget the thousands of people double-registered between New York and Florida.

Zell Miller, the Democrat senator who spoke at the Republican convention, has written an editorial on how the battle for Iwo Jima might have been covered if today's media had been around. A short excerpt:

Cutie: "There is no way the Marines could have expected this. Someone got it all wrong. No one predicted this. This has been a horrible 24 hours for our country. This is a slaughterhouse. After all this fighting, Marines control only about a mile and a half of beach and the casualties are now over 3,500 and rising rapidly. We'd like to know what you think. Call the number on the bottom of the screen. Give us your opinions on these three questions: 1. Were the Marines properly trained? 2. Is this nothing of an island worth all these lives? 3. Has the president once again misled the American people? "After the break, we'll ask our own Democratic and Republican analysts, both shouting at the same time, of course, what they have to yell about all this. It should make for a very shrill, provocative morning.

What exactly has happened to this country that has brought us from Patrick Henry's "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." to the point where freedom of speech only includes those who espouse a particular political viewpoint? It makes me want to put up a Bush/Cheney sign on my lawn just to make sure the attacks have the opposite effect. It's certainly more of a gesture than activism, but it's the very least I can do to help the campaign.

Second debate: as it happens

All times are Comcast standard time, right off our cable box. I'm watching on Fox News. 8:04 Kerry: The flip-flop question. Kerry picks three particular items as straw men and says he hasn't flip flopped. He didn't pick Iraq as one of them. Bush's reply covers a lot of familiar ground, but seems a bit more articulate than usual. 8:08 to Bush: Iraq and WMD vs. North Korea. Tied back to 9/11, which usually plays in his favor. "We all thought there were WMD, including my opponent." Kerry's response attacks Bush by saying he's attacking Kerry. North Korea was not threatening to give their nuclear weapons to terrorists, where Saddam was. Rebuttal: Bush plays the global test card. Kerry misquotes the report on Iraq and WMD. 8:14 to Kerry: How would you establish leadership in Iraq? Kerry says "Absolutely not" like Bush wants to. Pulls in a few hot quotes from Republicans. Claims the U.S. ignored external offers for training. Bush talks about the good words from the Iraqi Finance minister. I love that he turned on the U.S. news and got pessemistic. Rebuttal: Kerry mentions Tora Bora. Bush talks about the war being everywhere, not just UBL. 8:18 to Bush: How do you plan to repair diplomacy with other countries. Answer about doing the right thing even when it's unpopular. Kerry repeats the more-of-the-same argument. That only works if people aren't happy with what they have now. Rebuttal: Bush: "Do you have what it takes". Kerry: "Winning the peace is about more than war." "Our kids killed with ammo from that dump" 8:24 to Kerry: Iran has missiles to hit Israel. Kerry says "you can't rely on just U.N. Sanctions" - finally! Bush and his scowl line - gets a laugh. Gets a hit in on Kerry about multilateral vs. unilateral talks. 8:28 to Bush: How will you maintain the army without a draft. He starts by insisting no draft. Transforming the military is kind of a weak answer, but does explain how we're repositioning people. Kerry's answer: Lists support from people on Bush's staff. Says he's going to increase the size of the military, and make people feel good so they'll enlist. Bush got a bit rude on his rebuttal. 8:33 to Kerry: Why haven't we had another 9/11? (What a question!) Kerry say intelligence is the most important weapon in preventing attacks. Mentions the areas where we aren't yet secure. Bush's answer: Kerry voted to shrink intelligence. Stay on the offense. Says Kerry wants to weaken it, camera shows Kerry smirking. Rebuttal (Charlie repeats the mistake of if/when that Kerry made). Kerry says Bush chose a tax cut over security. Bush says he's worried, but the way to overcome a spirit of hatred is through freedom. 8:38 to Bush: "Why did you block drugs from Canada?" Bush says "I haven't yet, I'm just trying to make them safe." Drugs that look like they're from Canada could be from a third world. Alternatives: speed up generics in the market; senior drug discount program. 2006 medicare drug coverage. Kerry: President said it was a good idea four years ago, vetoed the bill, made it illegal to bulk purchase drugs. Rebuttal: Bush says Clinton also rejected Canadian drugs. Kerry corrects Bush that he did fix Medicare (ouch, if true), and Bush raised deficit. 8:43 to Kerry: Edwards made millions suing healthcare. Kerry says Edwards wrote the patient's bill of rights, malpractice suits cost <1% of healthcare, has plans to reduce healthcare. Bush replies Kerry will tax 2 trillion, missed a vote to help with Senate. Says 1% increase is not accurate. Says Kerry's healthcare plan is socialized medicine, tax-and-spend. Rebut: Kerry says Bush is trying to scare us. Bush says Kerry should have voted for the cap on malpractice on the senate floor. 8:48 to Bush: "Republican majority, how do you expect to pay for it without taxes". Bush recalls the recession and market bubble pop. I haven't vetoed bills because we've worked together to spend money on the right things. I'm not going to raises taxes to hurt our recovery. Kerry refers to the tax cuts and says it's not possible. 8:54 to Kerry: "will you promise to the camera that you will not raise taxes on those with income under $200000". Kerry says "Yes", but doesn't actually make the promise. Says he's going to restore pay-as-you-go. Promises a rollback of those over $200000. Bush: he's not credible. Voted to break spending caps over 200 times. Way to grow is to keep taxes low. Rebut: Gibson again tries to ask how they'll reduce the deficit. Kerry: Didn't really answer the question, in my opinion. Bush tackles Kerry's reply and also misses the answer. 8:59 to Bush: "How do you call yourself an environmentalist". He lists a variety of programs, reducing this by 90%, fund that by 30 million, reduce something else by 70%, healthy forest bill. Kerry answers again with "labels don't mean anything", says the Clean Air Act would be better than what we have now. "Doesn't believe in science, I do." Rebuttal: Bush says the Kyoto Treaty doesn't help. Common sense approach. Kerry: Kyoto treaty was flawed, but Bush didn't try to fix it. Says walking away was part of the reason other countries don't like us. 9:04 to Kerry: How can the US be competitive and maintain our standard of living? True cost to businesses is healthcare and the President has no plan. Bush: Outlines his healthcare plan, points to Kerry's top 2% as bad for small business. Rebut: Small business claim is false, says Bush owns a lumber company. Bush gets a good laugh off that one, offers Gibson to buy some wood. 9:10 to Bush: Patriot Act why are my rights being watered down. Bush: not eroding your rights, must have every tool necessary. Cannot do their duty without Patriot Act. Kerry: Many key people want Patriot Act changed. Terrorists must never change our constitution. 9:13 to Kerry: Embryonic stem cell research. Kerry: I respect the feeling behind that question. (Huh?) I think we can do ethically guided stem cell research. Bush: Embryonic research requires the destruction of life. I'm the first president to approve stem cell research. Have to be careful to balance ethics and science. Rebut: Kerry says Bush is waffling, and current supply is not adequate. Bush: embryo had already been destroyed, I decided not to allow destroying more. 9:18 to Bush: Vacancy in the Supreme Court. Bush: "I'm not telling". Good one. Says it would be someone who supports constitution, won't let his opinion control his decisions. Kerry: the Justice Potter Stewart standard. 9:22 to Kerry: Tax dollars to support abortion. He replies "I can't take an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't agree." Says he can take that position and not be pro-abortion. Still ends up saying he would spend money on abortions. Bush: plain and simple answer. Culture of life is important for a country. Rebut: It's not that simple. Bush: it is. 9:27 to Bush: Three mistakes and what you did to correct it. He dodges the question. Kerry jumps in with some examples for him. Kerry's rewound to the first question. No great suprises in the closing statements. A winner? Bush had more quoteable moments than Kerry, I think. Bush came off more forceful, which I think will play well except where he cut off Gibson. No great gaffes on either side. There's plenty of material here for each side to claim victory. Don't miss a look at the new ABC memo, which shows an ABC exec encouraging the news organization to play things in Kerry's favor. The fact that the last question of the evening was almost an invitation to poke holes in Bush doesn't fare well. (Charlie Gibson works for ABC.) It's striking how Kerry tries so hard to be different from Bush in every way, shape and form. It's almost as if Kerry can't find anything nice to say about the President, no sense of teamwork or giving credit where credit is due.

tinfoilhat

This article starts out talking about paranoia and insanity, but then moves into a discussion about why people continue to believe that the 2000 Presidential election was rigged. There is actually ample evidence that the Democrats were the ones trying to modify the results. An enjoyable read that should have you shaking your head if you read it with an open mind. A friend from work says that inside every Democrat is a Republican waiting to be educated. I'm inclined to believe him more each day. Read Bias to hear how and why the media has a liberal bias but doesn't realize it. Both of these points tie in nicely with the (somewhat obvious) concept that if you are unskilled at something, you lack the ability to accurately evaluate your own abilities, and will tend to think you are more competent than you are. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (by the American Psychological Association) published a detailed study on this topic. Worth skimming, at least.