A PC seasonal greeting . . .

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms.

This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."

Via an email from my friend Richard Singletary.

The "doctrine" of Liberalism

I have always marveled at how the Left's perspective on Government is akin to my view of Christianity: they are devoted to it and have faith in its ability to solve our problems. Accordingly, someone like Algore could justify $353 in charitable gifts (not even to a church, necessarily) because his taxes were intended for a similar purpose. This op/ed nicely discusses the issue in the sphere of economics.

Unlikely compatriots . . . or not.

This is an excellent op/ed regarding the "coalitions" those on the Left are willing to abide in their spite for Dubya (and for their political betters, generally). It's an old saying that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but in this case the relationships are disturbing more than strange.

Intelligent Design and Evolution

David Klinghoffer exposes the fallacies in the recent Federal judge's decision that "Intelligent Design" is inherently religious and, therefore, prohibited from being presented to school children.

Here's another excellent op/ed on the issue from Pat Buchanan. Great quote from Buchanan:

If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don't they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith?

Update: I like this quote from David Klinghoffer that I read in another article,

So the debate must go on. If President Bush and others suggest that students may legitimately be made aware that the argument between Darwin and design has two sides, they are only saying it’s right to acquaint young people with reality. And who can argue with that?

In sum, it is wrong to equate Intelligent Design and Creationism (though the two dovetail nicely), and those who pooh-pooh ID are arguing against teaching facts to young people.

Media bias study (and a specimen of such)

Here's an interesting story concerning a UCLA study on media bias that is worth reading: newsflash, the media is overwhelmingly biased toward Liberalism.

One great example that I just read (via Drudgereport.com, which is mentioned flatteringly in the above article) shows a Lefty bias as a mistatement by the President (again, is this newsworthy?) is characterized as either sleight of hand or proof of a psychological disorder: Bush said "Saddam" instead of "Osama" at one point during today's press conference and immediately corrected himself. The last sentence of the article "objectively" notes:

The Bush administration sought to convince Americans before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government had links to bin Laden's al Qaeda. No such links have been proven.

A Liberal and the President's Iraq address

I am encouraged to see some semblance of even-handedness in Jonathan Chait's response to the President's Iraq address this evening, but I can hardly believe his several assertions about Bush not being magnanimous about the war (or about anything, for that matter). Chait wrote:

A SURPRISE IN BUSH'S IRAQ SPEECH:
I am not, to say the least, a fan of President Bush. But a portion of his speech tonight genuinely moved me and made me think more highly of him. It was the part where he addressed opponents of the Iraq war, said he understand their passion but asked that they think of the stakes of defeat now that the war had happened and asked that they not give in to despair. I cannot remember this president ever speaking to his political opponents except to mischaracterize their views and use them as a straw man. (His post-Florida speech did to some extent, but it was so vague and struck me as so patently disingenuous that it didn't produce any similar reaction in me.)This may be easy for me to say because I supported the war and oppose withdrawal. But even Bush's prior pro-war speeches mostly struck me as simplistic, ugly and demagogic, reminders that I supported the war despite the administration rather than because of it. But this moment in his speech tonight really struck me as some kind of symbolic or emotional break from the past for Bush--a genuine attempt to unify Americans rather than polarize them. Bush and his supporters (both inside and outside the administration) have made it so damn hard to support them on this war. It just got a little easier tonight.

To put it frankly, I find it absurd to state that Bush is ever "ugly" or "demagogic." Liberals are a bunch of wussies if they think that Bush is scrappy or a dirty player. There are not many people who would respond as mildly or temperately or slowly to a bunch of pansy, squishy-headed demagogues calling him an idiot and a liar for a solid six and three years, respectively.

"America's Earliest Terrorists"

This is a fascinating article about the Muslim roots of the Barbary Pirates--the world's first Islamo-fascists. A great quote from the article is that of the ambassador of the Barbary states when asked by then-Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams why they were hostile to the new American republic:

[The Barbary Ambassador] answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

I don't believe this . . .

This quote in an obituary for investigative journalist Jack Anderson really bothers me, because the accusation shouldn't be treated cavalierly--if true, nor loosely asserted.

Such scoops earned him a spot on President Nixon's "enemies list." Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy has described how he and other Nixon political operatives planned ways to silence Anderson permanently _ such as slipping him LSD or staging a fatal car crash _ but the White House nixed the idea.

Though I do believe that Liberals believe Republicans are willing to kill their political enemies (actually, I think psychologists call it "projection"), such seeming casual references are inappropriate--I'll look into the veracity of it.

Faux indignation (on cue for the Patriot Act vote)

It is interesting to watch as the Left attempts to characterize the Patriot Act, and by proxy, the Bush Administration, as a fascist hammer. For example, the NY Times conveniently "reported" a story that was more than a year old about executive-branch-approved eavesdropping on persons with terrorist links, just as reauthorization of the Patriot Act was moving through the Senate . (Incidentally, the Patriot Act is an example of a non-specific, "controversial," sticky "issue" that enemies of Bush believe they can use as a weapon to beat him with--even though the majority of them agree with the impetus behind it).

But it gets even more disingenuous regarding the NSA report: the Congress had received regular briefings on the subject over the entire course of its implementation, but is now acting as if it was all happening in secret (the former just doesn't fit into the Bushitler, Gestapo torture chamber, trampling our "civil rights" theme).

Re. GM . . .

Here's an interesting article about the GM situation, and from the looks of it, you can hardly blame them for moving operations to India.

Gee, I wonder what the reporter's opinion was?

This article concerning recent oral arguments in a Federal Appeals Court is interesting because the reporter so blatantly is slanting the story. He makes a big deal about appellate judges asking pointed questions and asking a lot of questions and cornering attorneys and wondering aloud about attorneys' legal arguments . . . uh, that's typical for an appellate court. But of course, it is important to characterize judges as being biased and to rebut their arguments (in the text of the "report") when the issue involves the Religious Right!!!!! (Oh, and I like the gratuitous swipe at the "controversial" but recently-seated appointee, Bill Pryor) In any event, the Left must put on a full-court press to defend its theory of origins--evolution. And the so-called mainstream media must do its part, even though Intelligent Design is merely a scientific observation/critique about macro-evolution.

General Motors cuts US production, invests in India

In November, General Motors announced plans to close 12 North American manufacturing facilities by 2008 and layoff 30,000 employees, a figure which represents 17 percent of GM's North American work force of 173,000.

But on Tuesday, GM unveiled a new plan to triple production and headcount in India.

If you're concerned about the loss of American jobs, take comfort in this: Lawrence Burns, GM Vice President for R&D and Strategic Planning, argued that jobs are not really being moved from the United States to India, because they plan to simply work their existing Indian employees harder before hiring new ones.

However, he added that India is the future and "the hiring momentum here will continue."

THIS is anarchy

Reading this article reminded me of the angst I felt in the month-or-so following the 2000 presidential election. In particular, it concerns me that a large segment of our population has no comprehension of the rule of law.

A group of students (primarily) stormed a meeting of the board of canvassers in Michigan to prevent a certification of ballot petitions. Amazingly, the board acceded to the intimidation in violation (for a second time) of a state appeals court's order requiring the board members to do their statutorily-defined job. These students (and others) may disagree with the policy that is behind the ballot initiative, but this is outrageous, and I am disappointed that only one person was arrested.

Don't let the facts get in the way of the demagoguery . . .

This article reports that blacks appear not to have been disproportionately victimized by Hurricane Katrina (now, of course, the Left will say this just demonstrates how much of an idiot and incompetent Bush is at executing his racist agenda).

Planned Parenthood helps cover up child rape

An interesting "testimonial" appeared yesterday on the Planned Parenthood of San Francisco web site, and it must have gotten some attention. The page is now blank, but I captured a screen shot while it was active:



The poster is a girl who describes herself as having been raped at 11 by her then-boyfriend, age 17. She's thankful for Planned Parenthood, which she says "helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape" without involving her parents or the police.

The 17-year-old who raped her is probably also thankful for Planned Parenthood's assistance in covering up the crime.

Elsewhere, under the "Just for Teens" section of the site, Planned Parenthood advises kids that "you are the only one who can decide what is right for you." Even setting aside the abortion issue, it's hard to believe any organization would help an 11-year old child cover up her own rape and hide the matter from her parents and the authorities.

Failing to report the rape of a child should not be a matter of "choice."

Justice Breyer and Judicial Mysticism

Great op/ed about SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer and judicial liberalism.

This is news?

This breathless headline is astonishing, "Bush: I am responsible." Followed by this foolish sentence:

President Bush today accepted responsibility for going to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence.

He's never denied that intelligence was faulty (though I think he should only acknowledge that in a qualified way), and he's never blamed anybody else for it, and he's never wavered on the legitimacy of the decision with or without stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. The war in Iraq was simply the next necessary step in the GWOT. It has already born fruit (see: Libya, Syria, Egypt) and may possibly result in only the third democratic republic in that part of the world. And I'd rather be fighting the Jihad in the deserts of Iraq than in the U.S.

What a Conservative jurist is NOT

This article reports a Federal judge's order that FEMA (read: taxpayers) MUST continue to pay for hotel rooms of persons displaced from Hurricane Katrina (read: New Orleans residents) through Feb. 7th--more than 6 months after the hurricane.

It's debatable whether taxpayers should still be footing these bills, but the judge's order is what bothered me:

The judge said he based his ruling on the federal law that authorized FEMA. It requires the government to ease suffering and damage caused by natural disasters. The arbitrary deadline violates that legislation, Judge Duval wrote, and discriminates against victims based on their economic status.

I'm sorry, but there is no violation of the law in this case, and it is a judge trying to act as an Executive (or perhaps a Legislator) by establishing that "eas[ing] suffering" requires 6 months rather than 4 months of free housing.

Thanks, MSM for connecting the dots

This article discusses the surprise move by the SCOTUS to take up cases concerning the Texas redistricting plan. I'll admit, it is surprising to me that they are going to hear these cases, but it is funny how the MSM does us the service of connecting the dots in all these Republican "scandals." The article states,

The Texas redistricting plan is also at the center of Mr. DeLay's September indictment for allegedly violating Texas campaign-finance laws. The campaign funds in question were being used to support Republican candidates for the newly drawn districts.

Certainly, the redistricting plan is at the center of the DeLay prosecution, but--laughably, not as portrayed by the reporter. Rather, the Dems in Texas (to include DeLay's persecutor) are spitting mad that they weren't able to hold onto their absurdly unrepresentative majority in the U.S. Congress. And, I would relish the opportunity to debate Dems on the issue of gerrymandering.

"The Year's Most-Baffling Word": Integrity

This article talks about MerriamWebster.com 's most-looked-up word of the year: "integrity." The author is pretty even-handed about drawing conclusions about why its meaning was baffling to so many, but I noticed that, whereas spikes in the searches for other words were linked to particular events, no such information was provided on "integrity." I would be interested to know that data, and I'll keep looking for it elsewhere.

What the Islamofascists don't like about elections

This article reminded me of what is at stake in Iraq and why Islamofascists are deadset against "successful" elections there or anywhere: devout Muslims do not believe that any law should govern but Sharia or religious law; thus, they reject the notion that a body of legislators (whether or not they're elected by citizens) can draft laws and govern a people. As a result, they reject democracy--as long as they're in the majority.

Good news from "the Courts" today

I was encouraged by this story of an Empire State's appeal court reversal of a lower court's ruling that restricting marriage to men and women violates the Constitution.

In addition, I was encouraged to read of a trial court's rejection of the no-jail plea agreement proffered in the most recent FL school teacher sex case.

The Left "Shoot[s] to kill" Judge Alito

This is an interesting article/anatomy of a smear by lefty mag, Slate. As the article's author states, honesty is the first casualty in a political fight with the Left.

Barbra Streisand dropping LA Times subscription

I just read that Barbra Streisand is dropping her subscription to the LA Times (hat tip, Drudge Report) because they have replaced (apparently) a favorite columnist of hers and replacing him with Jonah Goldberg.

First of all, Goldberg is both funny and insightful, and he is one of my favorite writers (from www.NationalReview.com).

Second, you can bet that including Goldberg will do more to reflect the "diversity" in southern California--a characteristic which Streisand purports to value.

Third, I love how she misspells "principles" in her letter . . . what an airhead.

Update: Here's an excellent op/ed in response by none other than Jonah Goldberg.

On the issue of fomenting distrust . . .

This op/ed by Newsweek's Howard Fineman laments the growing public distrust of the White House and frets that this political climate could divide our country along the lines of the division during the Vietnam War. Well, duh. And that explains the Dems' actions: they see everything through the prism of Vietnam (war is unnecessary/America is imperialistic/ the threat isn't that serious, etc.), and they are eager to split the country apart with the axe of a "controversial" war.

When politics intrude on the courtroom

This article about the DOJ's failed prosecution of a Florida professor (and anti-Israel fundraiser) is sprinkled with allusions to the defense's theory--that this was a "political prosecution," and I think they are sort of right. I couldn't help but wonder how the Left's virtually incessant accusations against the President's purported corruption and malevolence affected the trial. Certainly this administration--who would lie to take us to war for oil/revenge/fun, etc., is capable of prosecuting someone for exercising free speech, right?

The American Spirit

Earlier today, something from my childhood randomly sprang to mind. Google is great for curiosity-seekers, and this is how I waste a lot of time.

When I was about 9 or 10, an album of poems written and recorded by Tennessee humorist Richard M. "Pek" Gunn somehow came into my posession. Thanks to Google, I now recall that he was the first Poet Laureate of Tennessee. Beyond that, not much information exists about Pek Gunn.

But I did find a couple of poems which I remember from my childhood, and this is one of them:

THE OPTIMIST

I passed a sand lot yesterday,
Some kids were playing ball,
I strolled along the third base line
Within the fielder's call.

"Say, what's the score?" I asked the chap,
He yelled to beat the stuffin'
"There's no one out, the bases are full
and they're forty-two to nuthin!"

"You're getting beat, aren't you my lad?"
And then in no time flat,
He answered, "No sir, not as yet!
Our side ain't been to bat!"

Commenting on the poem, Mr. Gunn wrote, "We smile at these lines, but this is the spirit that caused John Paul Jones to say, 'I've just begun to fight.' It sustained Washington at Valley Forge. It built all our schools and churches, and it is this never give up spirit of the American people that says, 'I don't care how much is against me, I can still win! Just let me at bat."
Now I can't help but contrast that spirit against what we've gotten from Democrats in the last few days:

- Rep. John Murtha describing the military as "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House, stepping to the podium to say "I'm endorsing what Rep. Murtha is saying."

- Gov. Howard Dean declaring that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

- Sen. John Kerry calling American soldiers "terrorists" on CBS's Face the Nation:

KERRY: There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that.

So we aren't going ever going to be able to defeat these roadside bombers, and the US military is broken and worn out, presumably exhausted from breaking into homes throughout Iraq in the dead of night to terrorize women and children. Which bothers Kerry, because "Iraqis should be doing that."

Pek Gunn, we need you now more than ever.

Katrina Documents!!!!!!

The media's power to propagandize is glaring when you consider the headlines/reports concerning the recently publicized documents from before during and after Katrina. The funny thing about this article is how gubernatorial cluelessness of LA's Governor (and her staff) and their apparent paranoia about the Bush White House (particularly Rove).

Dems' Retreat and Defeat Plan

It is interesting to have the media's focus turning away from the accusations made by Dems to their own plans and to the substance of their criticism. I like the phrase I heard today from Ken Mehlman: "retreat and defeat." I think it nicely summarizes what leading Dems believe about this phase in the GWOT: we are losing, we can't help but lose and we need to withdraw troops.

It is interesting to read the comments of Howard Dean's spokesperson because he mocks the Administration for paying journalists to write positive stories about the advances being made in Iraq, and yet he is the first to quote (unspecified) polls which purportedly show that 80% of Iraqis want U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Well, does public opinion matter or not? How are impressions established among a citizenry?

Roe v. Wade and "Being Outside the Mainstream"

I received this excellent info today from Family Research Council concerning LIBERAL critics of the legal basis for the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. It clearly expresses how outrageous is the claim by Liberals that those of us who criticize that decision are "outside the mainstream":

Judge Sam Alito was hauled up the Hill again last week to explain the difference between the views he expressed as a member of the Reagan Administration and his judicial philosophy. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) pronounced himself "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" with Alito's answers. In a 1985 memo, Alito had said there is no constitutional right to abortion. The focus now is on Alito's personal views because he is a judicial conservative. He has fifteen years on the federal bench during which he did not impose his personal views on the law. But that's not good enough for some liberals, apparently. It's not that liberals haven't criticized Roe v. Wade. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School was an attorney for Al Gore in 2000. Tribe said of Roe: "The substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Edward Lazarus is a former clerk to Harry Blackmun. Blackmun wrote Roe. Lazarus said: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible." He further said: "[Roe] has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted." The late John Hart Ely was Dean of Yale Law School. He famously said: "Roe is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." So, why is it all these liberals can criticize Roe v. Wade and get away with it? Why, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the grounds for Roe! It's because liberals know that each of their fellow liberals is committed to abortion-on-demand. And they know that conservatives like Alito are committed to judicial restraint, to not legislating from the bench. Nowhere is liberal hypocrisy more obvious. For them, it's all about abortion, that is, getting the result, regardless of the rationale.

Let's be clear about what Murtha said

I'm intrigued by all the discussion about Rep. Jack Murtha's comments over the Iraq war . . . it is important to know precisely what Murtha said (transcript) and what he's being criticized for.

Murtha said our efforts in Iraq weren't succeeding, we couldn't succeed in Iraq and we needed to withdraw all of our troops out of Iraq. That, sir, is based on a hand-wringing view of war and this war, in particular. And your proposal, sir, amounts to cutting and running.

Of course, something that you notice if you read the transcript is that he was simply a different messenger for the Dem meme that Bush lied us into an extracurricular war. He deserves criticism for what he has said.

Disturbing aspects of French face transplant story

A couple aspects of this "face transplant" story are disturbing to me, in particular:

Brain-dead patients in France are presumed to be organ donors unless they have made explicit provisions to the contrary, and approval by next of kin is not normally required.

Likewise, this aspect of the story is disturbing (though it is much less surprising in light of the above French policy)

Harvesting of the face was complicated by the convergence of several teams to remove other organs from the donor, but the operation was complete by 5 a.m.