Via The Headmistress.
Well, contrary to form, and like a good politician, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D. – GA) is speaking in measured and rational terms. However, her attorney is calling for a criminal investigation of the officer involved in this ID check kerfuffle. This is totally over the top, and another sideshow to distract the public from the dysfunctional Congress. A tempest in a teapot, which unfortunately won’t go away, just because of who is stirring the pot.
I mean, she didn’t have her lapel pin on. And, while the capitol police should ideally have been able to recognize her, the woman does have a lot of different “looks”. I mean, if you’ve seen a few pictures of Condi Rice, or Hillary Clinton, or Liddy Dole, you would be able to pick them out of a crowd without a problem – not so with McKinney. We have to give the officer some benefit of the doubt.
Further, she has a documented history as a hot-head, who has been in other altercations in the past. And this just proves it out. She didn’t get molested or beat with a club; this is, at worst, an incident that should have been taken care of quietly and administratively. McKinney’s people are blowing it way out of proportion.
I tell you what, Brits – you give us Red Ken, we’ll give you McKinney. That’s how bad she is.
Timmer’s “upside-down, and subject, American flag” pic, and more, can be found here. As I stated here, I understand what the protesters are trying to say; but I find the way they have framed their argument incredibly stupid.
Particular among their faux pas is the “stolen land” argument. And, although any Californian student of our history can’t help but be ashamed at the way our forebears wrested the land from the old grantholders, to use that argument, our Mexican-American cousins would have to also concede that the land was previously “stolen” from the Native Americans. (Admittedly, most Mexicans, and even moreso, Mexican-Americans, have a high percentage of “native blood.” But that almost exclusively is from other tribes, further to the south.)
In this comment, I made light of Timmer’s making the same case I am covering here, by mentioning the Israelis. But that’s only humorous because the idea of “their ancestral homeland” has currency with so many of the same people who would deny this land to those who have come before us. Indeed, the Israelites “stole” the land from the Canaanites, who moved northward, crossbred with the “Sea People” (most likely Minoans), became the Phoenicians, and became the most powerful empire of the transition from the Bronze to Iron Ages (not to mention great friends and trading partners with the Israelites). Now, many of their progeny are “Palestinians”, and living in far greater squalor than their “Israeli-Arab” cousins. Crying over lost land, like any embrace of victimhood, gets one nowhere.
And I grow weary of idiotarians, like Kathy McKee, saying that Mexico is the “5th richest” economy in the world [she’s wrong about that, it’s between the floundering France, and California (even without California, the US is still #1)], and they “should take care of their own.” Well, applying that standard, we would have excluded the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Ashkenazi Jews… . What those “student protestors” should be saying is that immigrants are the embodiment of the American Dream. They should chant loud and clear the words of Emma Lazarus:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
The “answer” to the illegal immigration problem is simple: Increase quotas to reasonable levels (or eliminate them entirely), and eliminate the obviously racist and xenophobically inspired red tape for Mexicans, and others from “those” nations, to come to the US (even as visitors).
Oh, and as for “amnesty”, once one admits that the law, as it stands, is an ass, it becomes much easier to swallow.
Looking back on Timmer’s post, Oh No They Didn’t: I see there are two issues at play here. The main issue is, of course, illegal immigration. And then there is the matter of the “student protests,” which, while they might make for great cable news footage, are little more than side shows.
To refresh your memory, Timmer’s post was centered upon an American flag being flown beneath a Mexican flag, and upside-down. By my own measure, while I find that incredibly stupid, I am not offended. However clumsily stated, I think I get their point.
And I think it was our Brit. reader, Al, that commented something like “it’s just a bloody piece of cloth.”
I’ve had this conversation with several Brit. friends in the past, I think I’ve got a handle on it. And here’s one key place where we Americans differ from our cousins across the pond. To the Brits, the Union Jack just represents the nation – it’s little more than a corporate logo. And this is true for the people of most nations of the world. But the Stars and Stripes is different for Americans Just as the United States is different from any other major nation of the world. That flag doesn’t represent a King on a throne, or 545 pompous egocentric blowhards in Washington D.C., a collective of the population, or even a really big chunk of real estate.
No, it represents something quite different: it’s an ideal, a set of principles, and a dream for a higher order of existence for all mankind. And many, many Americans believe (quite justifiably, IMO) that the ideal, and this nation, were divinely inspired. And, to them, the Stars and Stripes are as the Koran is to a Muslim.
But then, there are those (like these student protesters), who choose to denigrate or desecrate the Stars and Stripes. I will hazard a guess that few of them are saying they have lost faith in the ideal. What they are saying is that they think the actualization has fallen far short of the ideal. Pity we don’t have a flag for the government of the United States. POTUS has a flag, but Congress doesn’t – neither does the Supreme Court. We should have a flag for the federal government – wipe your ass with that one – you’ll likely get a cheering section.
But there are those in Congress, as well as various and sundry Statehouses, who are as fanatic about the Stars and Stripes as some Muslims are about the Koran. However, here is the paradox which certifies the Stars and Stripes’ divine nature: unlike the Koran, EVERYTHING that the Stars and Stripes represents is embodied in the individual’s right to do with it as they please – no matter how offensive it might be to some, or even all.
So, the day I burn the Stars and Stripes, will be the day a flag desecration amendment to the Constitution is ratified – hopefully, I will do it on the steps of Congress. Because that’s the day when the ideal will have been lost, and the Stars and Stripes becomes worthless.
This just in: White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has just tendered his resignation. He is to be replaced by be replaced by Budget Director, and former Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.
Expect further shuffling of the deck in the near future. A legion of GOP leaders and pundits have been calling for this for months. It has also been rumored that Card has been quite unhappy in his position, and bucking for the job as head of Treasury.
In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Federal Election Commission left unregulated almost all political activity on the Internet except for paid political advertisements. Campaigns buying such ads will have to use money raised under the limits of current federal campaign law.
Perhaps most important, the commission effectively granted media exemptions to bloggers and other activists using the Web to allow them to praise and criticize politicians, just as newspapers can, without fear of federal interference.
Philip Chaston at Samizdata blogs on a new IVF clinic in Britain, offering genetic screening for congenital diseases:
The £5 million centre will bring pioneering embryo screening techniques for the creation of “saviour siblings” to Britain.
In addition, it will offer testing for up to 100 inherited gene disorders such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis.
Embryos found to be carrying rogue genes will be discarded and only “healthy” embryos implanted into their mothers.
Controversially, doctors at the centre have already obtained the first British licence to treat a couple with an inherited form of bowel cancer in the hope that their baby will never develop the disease. The centre is to be opened by the private Care at the Park IVF Clinic in Nottingham within three months.
But campaigners last night said it represents a further step by the IVF industry on the slippery slope towards eugenics and parents being able to choose characteristics for their children such as blue eyes or blond hair.
Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: “Paying £5 million for a state-of-the-art centre in order to eliminate more embryos with disabilities sounds like aggressive eugenics. We need to develop real cures for genetic diseases, not kill the carriers.”
This may seem a bit odd to us here in the US, where such procedures have been relatively commonplace for years. For all the talk of the antediluvian nature of America’s “Religious Right”, the medical regulatory environment in Britain is far more restrictive.
Eugenics is a term with a lot of emotional impact, due to its association with Nazi Germany and genocide. But the key difference here is the absence of state coercion. Indeed, to the clear thinking and amoral individual, this liberal eugenics lacks the ethical pitfalls of the lamentable chapter in human history. As I see it, only the hardcore Life Begins at Conception crowd could have objection to this. But they have a Luddite objection to IVF procedures in the first place, so nothing new there.
As well, the article uses the term designer babies quite liberally. To me – and I believe I’m in the majority, at least here in the US – genetic selection doesn’t imply design. A real designer baby would be one which has had its genome actually altered to achieve the desired (normal, exceptional or even superhuman) traits. We have a little ways to go with our science before we are there.
(Those returning to this post might note that I changed the title, to better reflect the theme of the post.)
Representative John Murtha (D – PA), an honored ex-Marine, and “Cold War Hawk“, made headlines a few months ago, with his call for an “immediate” “redeployment” of our troops in Iraq. With all due respect for the service he has done for this country, it seems he’s doing a slow-burn Cindy Sheehan – with his mutterings growing steadily more outrageous each time he is in front of the camera.
Today, on NBC’s Meet the Press, I lost track of all his self-contradictions when discussing Iraq. But this really stuck out in my mind: “[The] President has no military option in Iran.” E-phucking-gad!!! The Executive Branch has exclusive purview over foreign policy. But, whatever military action we are capable to, or might wish to, take against Iran, Murtha takes it upon himself to remove it as a negotiating tool.
By the paradigm of the GWOT, we are “at war” with Iran; our mutual adversary status has been proclaimed by the leaders of both nations. Today, John Murtha has “given aid and comfort” to the enemy. He should be prosecuted, or at least committed.
Update: Mark Kleiman’s reaction (via email) reflects that of some of my commenters:
Have you lost your mind? Taking a foreign policy position you disagree with ought to be prosecuted as treason?
I assure you all, I am in full possession of my faculties, and merely reflecting the rather conventional wisdom that, “American politics ends at the water’s edge.” None the less, had Murtha stated something like, “I don’t feel President Bush should take military action against Iran,” that would be another matter. However, stating as matter-of-fact that we don’t have the capability for military action might further embolden the Iranians to thumb their noses at us.
Perhaps it might be useful if you went to Meet the Press’s website, and watched the whole Murtha interview in context. He really does seem to be going over the edge.
Do you recall the “rain forest” in Iowa from last year’s pork-laden transportation bill? Well, it seems as though all is not paradise with that project:
Yet despite the high profile of the project and Sen. Grassley’s generous boost, the Environmental Project has not raised a dime in private financial backing, at least none that has been announced publicly. Moreover, the management of the project has been widely criticized for missing numerous deadlines, switching architects in midstream and strong-arming the local government in Coralville over land-use and municipal-financing issues.
Meanwhile, the burn rate has been considerable. According to Department of Energy records, the Environmental Project has drawn down $3,735,558 in federal funds, as well as, according to Environmental Project Director David Oman (a former AT&T executive and one-time Republican gubernatorial candidate who earns a salary of $210,000), the entire $10 million donation by Mr. Townsend.
The growing perception in the state that the project was, if not a boondoggle, then a money pit, led Sen. Grassley to pull the plug on federal funds in November last year, passing legislation that froze further outlays until the Environmental Project raised $50 million in matching funds. If it fails to do so by December 2007, the grant will be withdrawn.
A very interesting article. But one caveat: author Michael Judge claims the funding for Alaska’s “Bridge[s] to Nowhere” has been terminated. It is my understanding that Stevens terminated the specific earmarks, but was able to get the same funding transfered to a general grant for Alaska’s transportation.
Top Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives say they are planning legislation that would block a Dubai company from taking over operations of several U.S. ports, setting up a showdown with the White House.
The chairman of a key House committee says he will attach a provision blocking the proposed deal to an emergency spending measure for the war in Iraq and for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.
I can’t think of any three major issues more unrelated than these. But lumping them together in the same bill, as a matter of political expediency, is business as usual in Washington.
I just awoke to the voice of Democratic Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (who will be on CBS’ 60 Minutes tonight) on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. He was from a flyover state, he was wearing a bolo tie, but he sounded for all the world like a San Francisco barking moonbat. I’ll have to catch the podcast, when it’s up on their website later, to get the details. But it included such gems a (to paraphrase): “and we will capture the carbon dioxide from burning coal-diesel, and pump it back into the ground.” Right,,, (assuming CO2 emissions are even a problem in the first place) we’re going to tie balloons to the tailpipes of all the cars. And: “back in the ’70s, when I was a kid, Saudi Arabia was dependent upon the US for wheat. And I thought, “ok – a bushel of wheat for a barrel of oil. But, since then, after a major program by the Saudi government, Saudi Arabia is self-sufficient in wheat. We should be able to do the same with fuel.” The truth is, Saudi is a net importer of food products (about 1,150 USD per capita annually vs. about 900 USD for US net oil imports). Further, they are only “self-sufficient” in wheat by virtue of massive government subsidies, and at the cost of critical aquifer depletion.
And, to a person, every caller was saying, “oh, this is sooo enlightening.” It’s a nation of sheeple.
And what’s really frightening is that this inveterate bullshiter might be running for President.
If you are at all concerned with global geopolitics, and you are not already watching Foreign Exchange, with Fareed Zakaria, now in its second season on PBS, you really should. Zakaria has long been one of my favorite MSM foreign affairs specialists (and one of the few redeeming qualities to Newsweek magazine and ABC News’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos). And his TV program, which I’ve watched from about the fourth or fifth show, has been consistently excellent.
On this week’s installment (check your local listings – not yet on their website):
- A discussion on what US policy should be, relative to nuclear technology in India.
- A report on Estonian high tech. Zakaria reports that they lead the world in WiFi coverage, and a “paperless” government.
- A discussion of the Muhammad cartoon controversy with columnist and author Christopher Hitchens.
It’s much more common that my local Representative, Dana Rohrabacher (R – Huntington Beach) and I are on the same track. But, in this case, we have something of a syzygy: it would be crazy to put C-17 production on ice.
This is called for in the new QDR, which I have already criticized. But it is a marked change from the previously held view of the Pentagon, which was that additional C-17s were critical to “transformation”. This stands to reason, as the C-17 carries far more than the C-130 (or the C-141) can, and will go places the C-5 (or the C-141) can’t. It’s a key player in rapid in-force deployment to the most remote parts of the globe.
Couple that to the limited savings to be had, due to the $5bn required just to maintain production capacity, should it be required in the future (verses about $9.2bn to continue production), as well as the cost of a planned C-5B engine refit (about $2bn for 50 planes), and logic dictates continuing with the additional 42 on order.
Hopefully, and in any case, Boeing will secure foreign orders for the C-17.
Many on “the right” seem to be considering former Harvard President Larry Summers as some sort of conservative martyr. This is a bit amazing, as he is hardly a “conservative” – more of a left-of-center sort of guy, really. They are lamenting that he is some sort of victim of a Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) “political machine.” The fact of the matter is, if there is a “machine” there, he enabled it.
Some think that Summers simply didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand-up to the FAS. I tend to subscribe to the opinion of Ruth R. Wisse1 (herself a Harvard professor):
In my opinion, the truly ghastly aspect of this whole affair is that the accused man actually believed he had committed an offense. Summers apologized not because, like Nikolai Bukharin, he was forced to, but because he was convinced he had done something wrong.
And what was that? “I deeply regret the impact of my comments and apologize for not having weighed them more carefully,” the president wrote in a letter to his faculty:
I have learned a great deal from all that I have heard in the last few days. The many compelling e-mails and calls that I have received have made vivid the very real barriers faced by women in pursuing scientific and other academic careers. They have also powerfully underscored the imperative of providing strong and unequivocal encouragement to girls and young women interested in science. . . . I was wrong to have spoken in a way that has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women.
I see no reason to doubt Summers’ sincerity; he usually says what he means and means what he says. Taking him at his word, then, I conclude that he was not sorry for having offended liberal orthodoxy; he was sorry, genuinely so, for having given some sort of offense to women, for sending them “an unintended signal of discouragement.” Having first done our sex the courtesy of treating us as peers, he was now determined to treat us as a victimized species. Henceforth, he would tailor his thoughts to the ability of women to bear the hearing of them.
If Prof. Wisse is to be believed, Larry Summers is hardly the champion of free inquiry that some might make him out to be. James D. Miller thinks Harvard should hire him as President2. I don’t know about Jim, but I think a good model would be John Bolton, who is kicking ass and taking names at the UN. (BTW, with Bush looking rather “soft” now on international affairs, it might be a good time to renominate Bolton as permanent UN ambassador.)
And, for more from Wisse on the Summers ousting, check Coup d’Ecole: Harvard professors oust Larry Summers. Now they must face their students, in Thursday’s Opinion Journal. She seems to think that the student body, who broadly support Summers, will have some sway over the FAS. I’m skeptical. After all, Harvard is so rich, it’s been called “a hedge fund with a medium-sized university attached.”
1. This excerpt from her article “Dear Ellen”; or, Sexual Correctness at Harvard in Commentary, April 2005 (subscribers only), via Steve Burton at Right Reason. If anyone can forward me a copy of the full article, it would be appreciated.)
2. Hat Tip: InstaPundit
Uber-socialist Joseph Stalin is famous for saying: “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions, merely a statistic.” Today, the Angry Left proves that any death is of meaning only in that it fulfills their political aspirations. This sad story from WSJ: Best of the Web Today:
Angry Left Death Wish
Posting on the Daily Kos, the Mos Eisley of the Angry Left, a reader called “redlief” wonders how to feel about Harry Whittington, the victim in Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting accident (quoting verbatim):
am I suppose to be praying?
That Whittington dies and Cheney goes to jail for manslaughter or that Mr. Whittington recovers and lives a full and peaceful life?
Oh, that’s right, were a progessive website.
”Hang in there, Whitti, ol man, we’re a prayin for ya!”
A reader of this site, whose name we won’t mention in the interest of avoiding unrest in the reader’s office, writes:
I just had to vent regarding an overheard conversation at my office. The liberals across the cubicle from me were discussing the man Dick Cheney accidentally shot, and were joking about the fact that he’s apparently had a mild heart attack as a result of a pellet that entered his heart area. Laughing about it, one of them said he wished the gentleman would die so it would harm Mr. Cheney politically, to which everyone else laughed.
Normally I roll my eyes and go on with my work when I hear most of their discussions, but this one made my jaw drop. What kind of human beings are these people, that they’d wish an elderly man would die so that it would somehow boost the Democrats politically (which is an extremely questionable presumption in the first place)?
Such morbid speculation has crept into the mainstream media as well. A writer for Time magazine offered this last night:
He’s 78. He got hit in the face and body by a spray of tiny pellets. He’s back in intensive care. It’s not inconceivable that the vice-president may have accidentally killed someone. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. I don’t know Texas law; and I’m not a lawyer. But wouldn’t this be a case of something like negligent homicide?
This morning’s New York Times picks up the theme:
In Texas, Carlos Valdez, the district attorney in Kleberg County, said a fatality would immediately spur a new report from the local sheriff and, most likely, a grand jury investigation.
Reports of Whittington’s death are greatly exaggerated. A physician who reads this column writes:
Calling the pellet-induced arrhythmia a “heart attack” is a little sensationalist. A “heart attack” is not an official medical term, and is generally taken as meaning a blockage of a significant cardiac artery and resultant damage to the heart. Calling the pellet-induced heart damage a “heart attack” is like calling a bruise a “tissue infarction.” The pellet presumably irritated a small area of heart tissue or obstructed a tiny blood vessel.
Caution is in order here: Our reader is not a cardiologist and has not examined Whittington. But the Corpus
Christi Caller-Times–the paper that scooped and humiliated the petulant layabouts of the Washington press corps—quotes Whittington’s doctors and outside experts as saying the prognosis is good:
Barring further complications, the 78-year-old attorney shot by Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to recover after suffering a minor heart attack after a piece of birdshot migrated to his heart, medical specialists said Tuesday.
”It’ll be left in there assuming everything goes well,” said Peter Banko, vice president and administrator of Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial. “He could probably live the rest of his life with that in there.” . .
.Dr. Pat Whitlow, director of interventional cardiology at The Cleveland Clinic Heart Center, said Whittington shouldn’t face any problems living with the small BB.
”I’ve seen patients before that come in for other reasons, and we see birdshot that is still lodged in the vicinity of their heart, and they’ve never had a problem with it,” Whitlow said.
Whitlow said birdshot in the pericardium, or the lining sack around the heart, would cause an irregular heartbeat.
”That has caused an inflammatory response that is associated with irregular heartbeats,” Whitlow said. “(Irregular heartbeats) are a nuisance but are not life-threatening.”
It sounds, then, as though Whittington has a good heart—which is more than one can say for many in the press and the Angry Left.
Update: Developments today lead me to believe that this might just be another Rovian Mousetrap.
By this time tomorrow, I suspect we might see public opinion taking what the chattering classes might consider an “ugly” turn. Time will tell.
This is from Roger Pielke, Jr., Director of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research:
In the 20 February 2006 issue of The New Republic, John B. Judis has an article about how the issue of hurricanes and global warming has been handled by NOAA. Judis is engaging in scientific McCarthyism by arguing that certain perspectives on science are invalid because they are viewed as politically incorrect by some.
The transformation of this part of climate science into pure politics is fully embraced by those on the political left and the right, and most troubling is that this transformation is being encouraged by some leading scientists who have taken to criticizing the views of other scientists because they happen to work for the federal government. These scientists know full well how such accusations will be received. What ever happened to sticking to the science? Read on for background and analysis.
[…]
TNR’s Judis appears to acknowledge a “scientific debate” but then writes as if the previous scientific paradigm has been overturned and anyone who says differently must be in cahoots with the Bush Administration’s spin machine or conservative commentators. Bizarrely, Judis criticizes NOAA scientists for making statements fully supportable by peer-reviewed science, and in some cases work that those scientists have published.
Read the whole thing, as well as Judis’ article (free link), which assumes a linkage between global warming (implicitly caused by human activity) and hurricanes as incontrovertible scientific fact, and offers little evidence of this administration’s “conspiracy” to muzzle dissenting opinion, beyond the suspicions of dissenters.
Jeff Harrell is organizing a group protest to Ann Coulter, over her language at the CPAC conference. Of specific offense is her use of the term raghead. Well, as for me, it raises an eyebrow. But I won’t object until I see the full transcript; I simply have to know in just what context she was using the term.
Like any popular mass-media commentator, she must be one part serious intellectual, and another part entertainer. And that is a very fine line to walk. I know this from my experience in stand-up comedy; any time you delve into topical humor, you run the risk of offense. As well, it is necessary to use inflammatory terms, at times, to capture people’s attention. For instance, I have used the far more derogatory term sand-nigger before, but only in the second, or third-person possessive – as in: “you people all seem to think, ‘the sand-niggers aren’t able to handle democracy,’ I disagree.”
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
So this is where we stand, with Voltaire’s noble words about intellectual freedom and the right to contemplate and openly discuss orthodoxies and heresies of any sort, with an eye towards seeing that they stand or fall, strengths and weaknesses dissected and revealed. A former President of these united States, whose grasp of the concept of intellectual freedom is as apparently as shaky as his grip on marriage vows, appears to interpret belief in it to mean that a certain favored class of adherents to a particular orthodoxy are free from ever having those beliefs challenged, criticized, mildly mocked, or even having their feelings hurt. Such is the state of their tender sensitivities, this class must be treated with special regard, their core beliefs never questioned – or as it turns out, illustrated.
One might, with a great deal of experience and cynicism, suspect that a large part of this exaggerated deference is mostly due to the very high probability that self-styled representatives of the offended orthodoxy will show up at the door of the affronting party, singly or in force, wielding sharp weapons, explosive items, fatwas, lawsuits, serious armaments, or merely shrill accusations of racism and prejudice, according to the inclination, location and experience of the offended parties. One might also suspect that not a few intellectual, political and cultural establishments might have already made a quick calculation of the risks and benefits and preemptively rolled over, and quietly began self-censoring themselves. Speaking truth to power might really have some risks, best be sure that the power spoken to is either defanged or merely rolls its’ eyes derisively at yet another dreary polemic by Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone or John LeCarre. Best not say anything at all about the “religion of peace” lest the gentlemen with sharp knives be forced to demonstrate their imperfect acceptance of the Western tradition of open debate and dissent.
There is an old saying, to the effect that the most binding chains are the ones we put on ourselves. And the most insidious and effective censorship is that kind that we also put on ourselves, the censorship that strangles the question before it can even be asked. And that might be one of the points raised by the editor of the Jyllands-Posten all these months ago; that thoughtful people, earnestly wishing to be polite, tolerant and sensitive of others, began moving down that path that eventually ends— if we are not aware— with our wrists humbly held up for the manacles of imposed censorship to be firmly snapped on. A drift that began with good manners ends with limits imposed by maladroit legislation or a baying mob, maybe even both, and all the important issues of the day, which ought to be discussed— vociferously, noisily and with all the thrown crockery at our disposal— are removed from the arena where they ought to be, to fester and simmer away in odd corners. What has been more insupportable in recent years, is that our courtesy in this respect is not even reciprocated: the vilest sort of caricatures and insult imaginable regarding Westerners, Christians, Jews, Americans and others too varied to mention have free and frequent circulation in Muslim and Arab-oriented and funded media.
One does wonder about a religion and culture so sensitive of insult, yet so free about dealing it out wholesale and by the bucket to others?
Is this Prophet and belief set so fragile that the merest whisper of non-adoration, of criticism and caricature will shatter it, irrevocably? Are its dutiful defenders secretly in such fear of that shattering, of the doubt that might be raised by any breath of irrelevance in a country which pays allegiance to another tradition, that the doors of dissent from orthodoxy must be slammed shut on parody, criticism, literary hyperbole, and scholarly analysis?
Umm, no. I think not. Not here. Not now. The strength of the West is in that very noisy disputation, our freedom to put everything on the table, to question, to non-conform, and by disputation and argument, make our beliefs even stronger for having all the idiocy knocked out of them. As such has been our custom, and in the reported words of Martin Luther, at the Diet of Worms: “Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason–I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other–my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen.”
Everything is on the table. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. These are the cartoons, here is a good link, curtesy of Samizdata. (Later: More discussion here…. oh, and buy Danish!!!!)
…it shortened a horrific American Idol by an hour.
And yes, I’m saying this BEFORE the speech.
Update: Okay, not a bad speech all in all. Beautiful Wife loved Laura looking at him mouthing, “Thanks Babe.”
Cheshire (pop. 3500) is a sleepy little town in the Berkshires, which doesn’t even have their own website. Now, by orders from on high, their elections are being rocketed into the information age:
Cheshire, Massachusetts is getting a new electronic voting machine much to the chagrin of local leaders. Last week, the Selectmen said that they would not buy a machine, which the state has mandated through the federal Help American Vote Act (HAVA).
The state has decided that it will provide the new machine, and the town will have to use it. The machine will come with programming for state and federal elections, but not local elections. Programming for local elections will cost the town $1,000 each election.
The town has not hesitated in expressing its anger over the action of the state. Selectman Paul F. Astorino said, “We don’t want it!”
The action is part of Secretary of State William F. Galvin’s plan to have the state comply with HAVA. This new machine, and others like it arriving in surrounding small towns, will replace paper ballots and provide better voting access to the handicap.
As Cindy Sheehan issues “filibuster Alito” ultimatum, threatening to run against her:
“I’m appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn’t recognize how dangerous Alito’s nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I’ve already paid the ultimate price,” Sheehan said in a statement.
I think the angry left has some sort of inside bet going to see who can get the most absurd. John Kerry is calling for impeachment from Davos Switzerland. Howard Dean is going to be on Fox News Sunday. I can’t wait to see what he says to top this.
This from Richard A. Epstein at the UChiLaw blog:
The battle between [free market and socialist] points of view, and the interest groups that they represent, took an odd turn recently n Bush (as in Governor Jeb) v. Holmes. There the Florida Supreme Court held that the state constitutional provision requiring the state to provide “by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education” knocked out the state’s Opportunity Scholarship Program that allowed students in failing schools to use state funds to pay for a private education. The case shows what bad interpretation can do for unwise constitutional provisions.
On the question of constitutional design, Florida’s uniformity clause teaches many unhappy lessons. The first of these illustrates the danger of adopting hortatory constitutional provisions that promise particular level of state services as opposed to the allocation of powers and responsibilities that are the traditional fare of most constitutions. These Soviet-style provisions of positive rights are always honored more in the breach than in the observance, for there is no way that any constitutional document can guarantee the supply of the need level of resources or expertise, let alone the desired level of services.
[…]
Second, the Constitution provides no hint of what should be done in the event that this guarantee is not kept, so that in most cases it operates solely on a precatory basis.
[…]
The last feature of Bush v. Holmes that is so distressing is its ready embrace of the story that the use of voucher programs necessary diverts needed resources from the public school system.
Read the whole thing. It is popular fallacy among liberal commentators to claim that conservatives are, by definition, rigidly doctrinaire, while they “have the flexibility” to change course, and choose the best path. Their fealty to the public school plantation gives lie to this. Across the nation, voucher programs have proven to provide better education for more children.
Hat Tip: David Bernstein at Volokh
Things are not right in the great country that we grew up in: Right on the heels of a Vermont case where a man was convicted of child rape and received only 60 days in jail, comes a case in Massachussetts where a man was convicted, and plead guilty of raping a 15 year-old boy, receiving no jail time at all, only probation. Details of the latest case are sketchy, however, in the earlier Vermont case, a former high school math and science teacher was convicted in January 2004 of child rape by Judge Delvecchio of the Vermont District Court.
The significance of these cases points out the desperate condition of the court system in this country and the quite valid reason for the President to appoint as many conservative judges (who apply, not make, law) as possible during his term in office. Before I start getting piles of howling protest comments from the moonbat left screaming about imperial US power and civil rights, let’s take a deep breath and demand that the government use some common sense. This kind of madness from our courts must stop or we are doomed as a nation. Or is it too late?
This from Paul Marks at Samizdata:
However, I was surprised as the editor started a pro Bush story of how he had met the President some time ago and…
Then the BBC suddenly went off the air. The broadcast of the show started again when the story was over. At the end of the programme the BBC blamed “technical difficulties” for the break in transmission.
So I listened to the repeat of the show (today Saturday the 14th of January) in order to hear the editor’s story of his meeting with President Bush. It was cut out of the programme – even the start of the story that had been broadcast on Friday night. It seems that the BBC will not tolerate any pro-Bush comment.
As the BBC is agency of the British government, I think we have a diplomatic issue here.
This from the AP:
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and U.S. Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter will be accompanied by more than 40 government, business and education leaders from across the state in a trip to the Netherlands to study the flood control systems protecting a nation much farther below sea-level than New Orleans.
[…]
Holland recently completed a 50-year program to build dams, sea walls and surge barriers designed to protect the south of the country against almost any storm. It includes the twin rotating gates that can seal the mouth of Rotterdam’s harbor against a storm surge, and the set of 62 big gates that can close off an estuary in Zeeland.
I seem to recall someone saying this would be a good idea. 🙂
Abramoff works out plea deal:
Abramoff’s cooperation would be a boon to an ongoing Justice Department investigation of congressional corruption, possibly helping prosecutors build criminal cases against up to two-dozen lawmakers of both parties and their staff members.
The continuing saga of Abramoff’s legal problems has caused anxiety at high levels in Washington, in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Not since 1860 has the nation been more primed for the rise of a viable third party.
Hat Tip: Orin Kerr at Volokh
This from NPR’s All Things Considered:
A new poll by the Army Times Publishing Company, to be released Monday, shows a drop in support for President Bush and his conduct of the war in Iraq. The poll was sent to thousands of active duty military subscribers of the publisher’s newsweeklies, including the Army Times.
They link to a podcast of the interview with Army Times’ senior managing editor Robert Hodierne. But I’m going to wait for the print story, which doesn’t seem to have been released yet. I want to see the particular questions asked, and the responses. Because, as we all know, support for mister Bush among the military, or any other group, hinges on far more things than the administration’s handling of the GWOT.