PS: Right Wing News still has two 468x60, 20 kb or less banner ad slots available for $60. A maximum of 4 ads are shown at a time. If you're interested, send me an email.
Q&A Friday #25: Should The Miers Nomination Be Withdrawn And/Or Voted Down?
Question: "Given how big a deal President Bush makes out of "staying the course" and "not looking at polls", do you honestly believe there is any realistic chance that the Miers nomination might be withdrawn, and if it is not withdrawn, do you want her to be rejected by the Senate, knowing that this may make Bush a lame-duck President and greatly hinder his ability to get anything else done?" -- maledicta
Answer: First of all, somebody in the White House needs to take a few moments to reflect on what they originally intended to accomplish by nominating Harriet Miers, how that has worked out for them, and how much sense it makes to continue pushing her nomination.
For example, if Bush's goal was to select a stealth nominee who could glide through confirmation hearings, well, that's not going to happen. The confirmation hearings are going to be a hell circus and given that Miers is already bombing out in relatively friendly, 1 on 1, meetings with Senators, there's no reason to think that she's going to hit a home run when the pressure's on, especially since she will be compared to John Roberts.
But what if Bush selected Miers because he thought he couldn't get a better nominee through? Well, that's not likely to be a problem either. After seeing the fury directed at Bush, DeWine, Chaffee, McCain, Graham, Specter and Company will vote for the nominee and the nuclear option if necessary, lest they be hit with the same sort of conservative barrage Bush has been pounded with over this nomination. Even if Bush believed that he couldn't get a credible nominee through before, he certainly can now.
On the other hand, if Bush's goal was to boost his approval rating and excite the base, Miers has still turned out to be a nightmare candidate. She was less popular than John Roberts right from the beginning and as of today, according to Rasmussen polling, her numbers have gone South. Only 30% of those polled say she should be confirmed vs. 34% who say she should not. Keep in mind that those numbers are only going to continue to sink throughout the process as conservatives lob rhetorical grenades at her.
Oh, and if there are any hopes that the clamor on the right is going to die down, that seems to be highly unlikely. Here's what the Wall Street Journal had to say about the Miers nomination today:
"Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear--even well before her Senate hearings--that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order."
"There is no good reason to keep going down this road other than the sheer stupid force of inertia, i.e. this is the nomination, so we're stuck with it. Indeed, if Senate Republicans and conservative lawyers were being candid about their views of this nomination, it probably would already have sunk. This moment calls for leadership from Republican senators, who should go to the White House and insist that this nomination will not work and should be withdrawn. The White House is too insulated and reflexively defensive (note President Bush's pique yesterday when asked about criticism of Miers) to figure this out on its own. Is this a difficult message for anyone to deliver? Yes, but that's why we have senators and not White House automatons occupying the upper chamber of Congress."
In fact, things have gotten so bad that even conservatives who have been supportive of the nomination, like Fred Barnes, are now admitting that this debacle is severely damaging Bush with conservatives:
"WHY have so many conservatives suddenly revolted against President Bush, nearly five years into his presidency? I think their split with Bush is ill advised, counterproductive, and in some ways childish. But there's no doubt it's happening and it's serious.
...Can the broken relationship between Bush and conservatives be repaired? Certainly. It's probably just a political phase anyway. And if Miers makes a strong case for herself as a judicial conservative during her confirmation hearings, the conservative anger will begin to fade. But there's bound to be a residue of ill will, which means the rapport between Bush and many conservatives will never be quite the same again."
Even though Barnes is not putting a happy face on things, he's being overly optimistic. The biggest knocks on Miers have been that she's a Bush crony, has no paper trail, is under qualified for the job, and isn't reliably conservative. Even if she were fantastic in her hearings, how would it address those concerns? If she answers a Constitutional law question right, does that make up for never having been a judge? If she says she's an originalist, are conservatives just going to accept that despite the fact that there's no proof? No way! There's just nothing that Miers can say at this point that will stop the storm other than, "I withdraw."
Also, let me add that if anyone is thinking that Miers will be able to get confirmed, rule the right way on a couple of cases, and all will be forgiven, they're delusional. Keep in mind that Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor go the right way sometimes, too, and Souter was more conservative in his early years on the court than he is today. That means even if Miers does make it to the Supreme Court, it'll take YEARS for her to prove herself on the bench.
So, if Miers is confirmed, the complaining may die down for a little while, but it'll be the start, not the end, of a feud between Bush and many of the people who used to be his biggest supporters. That's why it makes no sense at all to keep pushing Miers. Even if Bush "wins" and she's confirmed, he loses and the Party loses, by alienating so many conservatives.
This situation is so out of hand that it would be an incredible blunder NOT to pull this nomination. What's the point of going forward with a nominee who is so widely disliked when you're allowed to withdraw the nomination and select another choice? Politically, this should be the biggest no-brainer of Bush's presidency. That's why I still believe that the Miers nomination will be withdrawn. Either Bush will come to his senses, Miers will give up, or enough Republican Senators will promise to vote against her behind closed doors to force Bush's hand.
If the Miers nomination is not withdrawn, I want her voted down for 3 reasons:
1) In my opinion, an under qualified crony like Harriet Miers does not deserve a seat on the Supreme Court.
2) We do get a do-over and although it's possible Bush could make another bad pick, it's unlikely that he could do worse than Miers.
3) Politically, Bush and our GOP Senators would be better off if Miers isn't confirmed.
If Miers goes down in flames, Bush gets to make another selection and if he makes a wise choice this time, it would still help him a bit with the base (although not nearly as much as a withdrawl). Furthermore, Bush is being hurt politically because he made a terrible selection for the Supreme Court. I fail to see how having that terrible selection actually make it to the Supreme Court, where she'll sit for the next 20 years, would be less harmful to Bush than having her rejected.
As far as the GOP Senators go, if they vote down Miers it'll make them look principled and all the conservatives who are tearing into Bush today, will applaud them for taking a stand. But, what about the people who're behind Bush (Miers has few fans) on this pick? Won't they be mad? Yes, until Bush makes another choice and then -- guess what? That'll be Bush's pick and then when the Senators support that person, they'll be forgiven.
What it all comes down to is that this nomination has been, as Robert Bork called it, a "disaster on every level" and the best thing that could happen to George Bush, Republican Senators, and the GOP as a whole, would be for the Miers nomination to be withdrawn as soon as possible.
Question: "Why is the Valerie Plame affair hanging in so long? The root of the investigation is that she was covert at the time that Robert Novak published his article. Her own supervisor has stated that she was not, so what is the issue, besides trying to smear President Bush?" -- geoweeg
"Here is my question when this entire plamegate thing comes to nothing will we see liberal's heads explode all over the nation?" -- AlexinCT
"What do you think are the prospects of Karl Rove or anyone else being indicted in the Valerie Plame case, and do you think an indictment would cause any long-term damage to the GOP?" -- maledicta
Answer: Back in July, I wrote the following about the whole Valerie Plame investigation:
"At this point, the whole Rove/Plame ball of wax has degenerated into nothing but wild speculation and spin based on unverifiable leaks. All the liberal blogs talking about this story sound exactly the same and even the conservative blogs responding to all this pointless minutiae are so dull that I usually wake up from a sound sleep 15 minutes after trying to wade through a paragraph or two.
What it all comes down to is that most conservatives seem to think, based on the available evidence, that Rove did nothing illegal or unethical and liberals think the opposite. That was the case two weeks ago, it's the case today, and that's how things will likely stand until Patrick Fitzgerald finishes his investigation.
So until there's some actual news of substance to report, I've relegated the whole Rove/Plame story to the "Dullsville file" and don't plan on putting everyone to sleep by pontificating endlessly on the newest minor details released to the press via anonymous leak..."
Now, here we are in October, and nothing has really changed. The people who are writing about the case are just speculating based on other speculation based on questionable leaks, etc., etc., etc.
Here's the bottom line: I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there were no charges filed as a result of Fitzgerald's investigation. If there are any charges, my guess is that they'd be a result of someone forgetting that old maxim: "The cover-up is worse than the crime." In other words, there doesn't appear to have been any crime committed initially, but someone may have still panicked, done something dumb, and may be hit with a perjury or obstruction of justice charge as a result.
But again, that's just speculation, and nobody really knows what's going to happen but Patrick Fitzgerald. As to how much damage it'll cause, it's hard to say given how little we really know at this point.
PS: Right Wing News still has two 468x60, 20 kb or less banner ad slots available for $60. A maximum of 4 ads are shown at a time. If you're interested, send me an email.
Q&A Friday #25: What About An Energy Independence Program?
Question: Which of the following is the real reason President Bush refuses to go before the nation and commit us to a man-on-the-moon-style energy independence program, in which America vows to do what it takes to wean ourselves from fossil fuels in the next 10 years:
1. The thought hasn't occurred to him.
2. He's too deep in the pocket of the oil cartels.
3. He needs to keep the Saudis happy and rich.
4. He thinks the free market ought to determine such things.
5. He thinks if we drill in ANWR all will be well." -- Harry
Answer: The answer would be #4) "He thinks the free market ought to determine such things."
Here's the thing to keep in mind, especially when it comes to complex issues: The government is slow, stupid, and incredibly expensive while the market is fast, intelligent and relatively cheap. That's why we want the market, not the government, making the key decisions about energy.
If oil continues to be as expensive as it is today, the market will adjust to that in a myriad of different ways. People will start to buy more fuel efficient cars to save money. Car manufacturers will try to make more fuel efficient cars to meet demand. Scientists will work on ways to make engines more efficient. Companies will invest more money in alternate technologies. New drilling techniques will be developed. It'll go on and on and on in a hundred different ways, most of which, 99.99% of the population won't even notice, until the problem is alleviated or at least manageable.
If the government wants to help speed things along, let them hand out tax breaks and low interest loans to people or corporations they believe are doing important work. But, the Federal government needs to steer clear of a "man-on-the-moon-style energy independence program," not because the Federal government just isn't competent enough to rise to that sort of challenge, but because there could be enormous consequences to having the Feds monkey around too much with how we power the engine of our economy.
The market has proven itself over and over throughout history and it should be allowed to do so again in this case.
Q&A Friday #25: What About The UN Taking Over The Net?
Question: "I would like to know more about the UN wanting to take over the internet. To me, this is very disturbing. Can they actually do it? If so, how is this possible since it was invented by Al Gore?(I had to throw that in). Is there any way that we (bloggers, readers, the average Joe) can prevent this?" -- Jonybrepublican
Answer: There is no good reason for the UN to be given control of the root servers, but on the other hand, there are some excellent reasons not to give it to them.
First of all, if it isn't broken, why try to "fix it?" Heck, if it were broken, would the incompetent bureaucrats at the UN be the people you'd even want to try to fix it? Of course not. There are a thousand different ways the idiots at the UN could screw up the internet, and there's no way they could make things better. That, in and of itself, is good reason to keep the root servers out of their hands.
Secondly, there would be enormous potential for abuse of the root servers by autocratic governments. For example, let's say China was angry about a Chinese blogger agitating for Democracy for China. If the Chinese government had access to the root server via, they could literally wipe that blogger's domain name off the net. Hell, theoretically, they could wipe every domain registered to an American company off the map if they so desired. Because that sort of damage can be done, the US would be nuts to risk giving up control of the net.
As far as stopping the UN from getting their hands on the net goes, I don't think you have anything to worry about as long as there's a Republican in the White House. Now if another Democrat gets in, it's always possible that they might have another "Jimmy Carter moment" and give away the Panama Canal internet.
The best way to prevent that would be to make sure that the candidates for President in 2008 (and thereafter) are asked, and agree, not to allow the UN to take control of the net. If they won't make that pledge, don't give them your support.
But at least for the moment, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
*** Update #1 ***: RWN reader Dave made another excellent point about this topic via email:
"The real reason the UN wants the root servers is to tax the internet. They have broadly hinted that it is a ripe untapped resource for them to siphon off. The biggest problem the trans-natsies have is a lack of recurring revenue. The internet tax would solve that.
Currently domain name registration is ~10/yr. What if the UN decides that .com registrations are $1000/yr or $10000/yr. Or that .il is $1000/yr and deserving countries like cuba and china should only have to pay $10/yr?
It is about the money.
If stable control were the issue, the UN would "manage" an IPV6 segment of 4billion IP addresses. IPV6 will allow the management of 4billion current internets. They don't want to manage "an" Internet. They want to own "the" IPV4 internet to "tax" the rich countries."
Q&A Friday: What Happened To The "Missing" 9 Billion Dollars In Iraq
Question: "John - Have you got any good ideas what happened to the 9 Billion dollars that went missing in Iraq while Paul Bremer was in charge of the "Iraq Provisional Coalition"? -- Rduke
Answer: This is an old story, but, yes, I can tell you what happened. The money was spent on, "salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004."
"Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.
An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.
"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.
"The CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual controls to ensure that [Development Fund for Iraq] funds were used in a transparent manner," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded.
...Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll.
....The Defense Department, which was in charge of the reconstruction effort, and former Iraq civil administrator Paul Bremer have disputed the findings.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told CNN that the provisional authority was operating under "extraordinary conditions" and relied on Iraqi ministries to manage development money that was transferred to them.
"We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the CPA provided less-than-adequate controls over Iraqi funds that were provided to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process for hundreds of projects, essential services, Iraqi salaries and security forces," Whitman said.
The occupation government established "major reforms" in Iraq's budgeting system, setting up a transparent mechanism for decision-making and beginning efforts to fight corruption, Whitman said.
...Bremer, in a written response included in the report, said Bowen's report failed to recognize the difficulties of operating in wartime.
"The IG auditors presume that the coalition could achieve a standard of budgetary transparency and execution that even peaceful Western nations would have trouble meeting within a year, especially in the midst of a war," Bremer wrote."
As you can see, this is not really about "missing" money; it's a spat about accounting controls.
You have Bremer and Company saying: "X amount of dollars was given cabinet minister Y to spend on security" and the Office of the Inspector General saying: "Maybe the cabinet minister spent the money for that purpose, maybe he didn't. Prove it."
Was some of the money stolen by corrupt members of the Iraqi government? Undoubtedly. That isn't a good thing, but it's not unusual either. For example, you think there are no government officials skimming off the top of the foreign aid that we give to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians? Heck, do you think no one in the Iraqi government today is stealing money? Of course, they are.
Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign aid, a certain amount of graft just goes with the territory. Again, that's not a good thing, but if we're going to declare every dollar given to a foreign government "missing" just because we can't prove they spent it exactly where they were supposed to, then we might as well stop giving out foreign aid.
Q&A Friday #25: Would You Ever Be Interested In Running For Office?
Question: "Would you ever be interested in holding political office?" -- oneisnotprime
Answer: Like most people, I think I'd enjoy being a Governor, Congressman, Senator, or President. However, a guy like me, who's not rich or famous, could never get that high in politics without doing years and years worth of Republican Party grunt work and having done some of it in college, I can tell you that it doesn't particularly appeal to me.
It's like wanting to be a professional basketball player, but realizing that even if you have the talent to do it -- which is a big "if" -- you don't want to spend the next few years playing basketball 5 hours a day and running wind sprints.
In my case, I don't particularly enjoy traveling, pressing flesh, meetings, wearing suits, or suffering fools gladly, which means I'd probably never stick in there long enough to become a successful candidate anyway.
On the other hand, being immersed in politics and blogging about it is a blast. So, even though I'm still a small fry who's still paying his dues in the blogging game, I'm having fun doing it. Because of that, I'll probably end up being more of a success as a blogger than I ever would have as a politician anyway.
Q&A Friday #25: Are There Any Shows On TV Worth Watching?
Question: "Are there any shows on TV right now worth watching?" -- maledicta
Answer: Here are the TV shows I currently have TiVo set to record:
Drawn Together
Family Guy
Firefly
House
Reno 911!
Sealab 2021
The Simpsons
South Park
Surface
That's all the TV I watch these days, unless there is someone I particularly want to see interviewed on one of the network news shows or a fun looking "B" flick on the Sci-Fi network. Beyond that, I'm also just about to finish up Buffy the Vampire Slayer's 7th -- and last -- season via Netflix.
If you're not into Sci-Fi or humor, about the only one on there I could recommend would be "House." It's a medical drama and the lead character is really off the wall and entertaining.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
Lefty Mark Morford, whose columns always seem to read like he took one acid trip too many in high school, is more horrified, shocked, and outraged than a PETA member in a butcher shop.
You're probably thinking:
"Nothing unusual about that, Hawkins. You know how these liberals are. They're always shocked and outraged about something or another. What is it this time? Did they forget to feed some terrorist at Gitmo his Fruit Loops this morning? Did the government stick the "Caterwauling Dung Beetle" on the endangered species list? What is it?"
Granted, when I say, "a lot of children," I really mean, "a lot of children." They've had 16 so far. Of course, as long as they can take care of all the kids without having to ask the government to pitch in, who cares? In any case, as you read Morford's column, which is about the family, you'll find that he seems disturbed primarily because it's a Christian family that's having all those kids. Here's Morford:
"...But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to 17, worse than those nuked Smurfs in that UNICEF commercial and worse than all the horrific rubble in Pakistan and worse than the cluster-bomb nightmare that is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise having a child as they suck the skin from each other's Scientological faces and even worse than that huge 13-foot python which ate that six-foot alligator and then exploded.
It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or is it?
Is it wrong to notice how all the Duggar kids' names start with the letter J (Jeremiah and Josiah and Jedediah and Jesus, someone please stop them), and that if you study the above photo (or the even more disturbing family Web site) too closely you will become rashy and depressed and you will crave large quantities of alcohol and loud aggressive music to deflect the creeping feeling that this planet is devolving faster than you can suck the contents from a large bong? But I'm not judging.
...Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to offset the damage?
Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers? Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.
Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?"
I'm not sure if this is Morford's way of saying that he resents the fact that people he disagrees with are allowed to breed or if it's actually a wistful way of subscribing to the theory that pro-choice Democrats are, over time, aborting themselves out of power. Either way, Morford's all-too-typical -- for liberals anyway -- contempt for Christians comes shining through like a beacon. All I can say is, keeping writing, Morford. Every column like this one that comes out convinces just that many more Christians that the Democratic Party isn't for them...
Pity The RNC For Having To Defend The Miers Nomination Travesty
Pity -- and I mean that -- the poor people at the Republican National Committee that have been tasked with trying to find positive articles to send out about the increasingly ludicrous Miers nomination.
Today, they've sent out two Miers-related releases and both of them were noteworthy primarily because they were so lukewarm in their praise of Miers.
The first one was an article from Vincent Johnson at USA Today that lauds Miers not for excellence, not because she'd be the best person for the job, but because she loves the poor, favors diversity, promoted civility, and cared about her community.
This is the case that they've been reduced to making for why Harriet Miers should be on the Supreme Court.
The 2nd article the RNC sent out is a piece by Kenneth Star and Ronald A. Cass that was published in the WSJ.
Now the article the RNC sent out is, by my count, 776 words long. Out of the entire article, here's the only praise for Miers that's found therein:
"Business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which alone represents over three million business enterprises, have praised Harriet Miers's nomination. They -- and we -- value her significant experience in business law. Certainly, this is not the only consideration in her confirmation process, but the inevitable attention to other, politically charged issues should not obscure the importance of business expertise to the court and ultimately to the nation."
So now we can add to the fact that Harriet Miers has "experience in business law" to her other fine qualities, which include liking diversity, poor people, and civility.
Lovely.
On the other hand, here's a reaction from some people who aren't required to toe the White House line on the nomination:
"Barely concealing their irritation during a 35-minute news conference at the Capitol, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) called the lobbying on Miers's behalf "chaotic," and said the answers she provided Monday to a lengthy questionnaire were inadequate. "The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said. They sent Miers a three-page letter asking for more detailed responses in several areas, and Specter said he has asked the Bush administration for more documents concerning her work as White House counsel. Specter said Miers must provide "amplification on many, many of the items" included in the first questionnaire.
Miers quickly replied, writing that she would comply with the new request. She also wrote that "as a result of an administrative oversight," her Texas law license was suspended for 26 days in 1989 because of unpaid dues. On Monday, Miers disclosed that her D.C. law license was briefly suspended last year because of unpaid annual dues.
...Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.
"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.
...Senators and aides have been reluctant to provide details of their meetings with Miers because they do not want to antagonize the White House. But some described her as surprisingly reticent and, in a word used by more than one of them, "underwhelming."
Even those who were impressed said that she offered up little of herself in conversation. "In these meetings she has been very guarded," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
One senator found her much too quiet. The lawmaker had such a hard time hearing Miers that aides had to tell people outside the meeting room to quiet down.
"She doesn't have the gravitas in terms of the constitutional issues," said another senator who has been critical of Miers. The nominee, the senator said, would not answer questions about whether she would recuse herself if issues involving her work with Bush came before the high court.
"Generally when you hold these interviews, people want to show you what they know," the senator said. "She did not respond. Nothing came back."
It's fantastic that Harriet Miers loves civility and has experience with business law, but if she's "underwhelming" and doesn't even understand the Equal Protection Clause, does it really matter? This whole nomination has been a slow motion train wreck from start to finish and we still have at least a month to go. For the love of God, somebody in the White House, please, please, try to talk Bush or Harriet Miers into withdrawing this nomination for the President and the Party...
Laughably, George Bush has called Harriet Miers, the "best person I could find" for the job of Supreme Court justice. Of course, that suggests that he didn't look very far. If you don't believe that, let's compare Harriet Miers not to the average person, not to the average lawyer, but to another lawyer, with no experience on the bench, whose name had popped up as a Supreme Court candidate: Miguel Estrada.
Here is how Harriet Miers stacks up in a few key areas against Mr. Estrada, a man who would have been a legitimate and welcome nominee for the Supreme Court.
Number of cases argued in front of the Supreme Court:15
Other factors: Was an immigrant to the United States. Would be the first Latino ever to sit on the Supreme court.
Granted, there's a lot more detail that could be added, but however you slice it, comparing Miers to Estrada is like comparing a Yugo to a Lamborghini and keep in mind: because he has never been a judge, Estrada could fairly be said to be less qualified than many of the other candidates for the job.
Part of the reason conservatives have gotten so furious at Bush is because with more than a dozen candidates of Miguel Estrada's caliber or better, he chose a 4th rate crony with dubious conservative credentials as his nominee. If this is some sort of bad joke, Mr. President, now is the time to say, "just kidding."
On the season premiere of South Park last night, they poked a bit of fun at the slow response to Katrina, but they spent most of the show lampooning the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow," the media, and the hysteria over global warming.
Early on, there was a particularly funny bit of media mockery that you might enjoy. After the town of "Beaverton" was mysteriously flooded, here's how the "South Park Evening News" covered the situation (This was edited slightly for readability's sake):
Reporter: Tom, I'm currently 10 miles outside of Beaverton, unable to get inside the town proper. We do not have any reports of fatalities yet, but we believe the death toll may be in the hundreds of millions. Beaverton has a population of only about 8,000, Tom, so this would be quite devastating.
Anchor: Any word on how the survivors in the town are doing, Mitch?
Reporter: We're not sure what is going on inside the town of Beaverton, Tom, but we're reporting that there's looting, raping, and even acts of cannibalism.
Anchor: My God, you've actually seen people looting, raping, and eating each other?
Reporter: No, no, we haven't actually seen it, Tom, we're just reporting it.
Anchor: In the nearby town of South Park, the cause of the Beaverton flood is being investigated.
Man Being Interviewed #1: That's right, we know whose fault this is! It's George Bush's fault!
Man Being Interviewed #2: Yeah! George Bush doesn't care about Beavers!
"(G)uns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year." -- John Stossel
We Don't Hand Over American Soldiers To Spanish Judges
This Spanish Judge sounds more like he's trying to win plaudits on the cocktail circuit than get to the bottom of a "crime":
"A judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and a Ukrainian cameraman, a court official said Wednesday.
Judge Santiago Pedraz issued the warrant for Sgt. Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip de Camp, all from the U.S. 3rd Infantry, which is based in Fort Stewart, Ga.
Jose Couso, who worked for the Spanish television network Telecinco, died April 8, 2003, after a U.S. army tank crew fired a shell on Hotel Palestine in Baghdad where many journalists were staying to cover the war.
Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian, also was killed.
Pedraz had sent two requests to the United States — in April 2004 and June 2005 — to have statements taken from the suspects or to obtain permission for a Spanish delegation to quiz them. Both went unanswered.
He said he issued the arrest order because of a lack of judicial cooperation from the United States regarding the case.
The warrant "is the only effective measure to ensure the presence of the suspects in the case being handled by Spanish justice, given the lack of judicial cooperation by U.S. authorities," the judge said in the warrant.
The Pentagon had no immediate information and said it was looking into it.
U.S. officials have insisted that the soldiers believed they were being shot at when they opened fire.
Following the Palestine incident, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said a review of the incident found that the use of force was justified.
...De Camp, who is now an adjunct mathematics professor at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va., said three investigations into the incident — two military investigations and one by the Committee to Protect Journalists — had exonerated all three men."
What this judge in Spain wants or thinks about what happened is irrelevant. It's a settled matter as far as we're concerned and we don't recognize his right to even question those men. He has no more right to demand that our soldiers answer his questions than the manager of a Burger King in Germany does.
Furthermore, may I add that this is exactly the sort of thing we'd see all the time, despite assurances we've been given to the contrary, if we signed up for the International Criminal Court. An American soldier accidentally killed a journalist from Belgium in a war zone? Well, he'll have to be tried in Europe. Oh, this time an Air Force bomber killed some Iraqi insurgents, but their friends claim they were innocent, so let's put him in front of some ultra-left wing judge from France.
No thank-you to that. We investigate our own troops, in our own country, and if we decide that they've done something wrong, we'll punish them for it. That's how it is and how it should continue to be.
The reaction on the right to the Harriet Miers nomination has ranged from tepid support, to bitter disappointment, to outrage and calls for Miers to withdraw. Here's a sample of just some of the negative commentary on Miers from the right.
For whatever reason, the number of people becoming infuriated at purely fictional racial slights seems to be on the rise. We have people raving that Bush hated black people because he couldn't magically fix everything in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina.
Then we saw William Bennett being accused of promoting "genocide" after saying that aborting every "black baby in this country...would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do".
Now, we have Indiana Pacers Guard Stephen Jackson claiming the NBA's new dress code is racist. Here are the details:
"Indiana Pacers guard Stephen Jackson, contending that a league ban on chains worn over clothing is "a racist statement" from the league, wore every long, diamond-studded chain in his collection Tuesday night as a protest.
Jackson voiced no opposition to the bulk of the "business casual" demands in the NBA's new dress code, but he described the jewelry ban as "attacking young black males."
"I think it's a racist statement because a lot of the guys who are wearing chains are my age and are black," said Jackson, 27. "I wore all my jewelry today to let it be known that I'm upset with it.
"I'll wear a suit every day. I think we do need to look more professional because it is a business. A lot of guys have gotten sloppy with the way they dress. But it's one thing to [enforce a] dress code and it's another thing if you're attacking cultures, and that's what I think they're doing."
Look, I hate dress codes as much as the next guy, so much so that I actually tried to convince a manager at a place I once worked to drop our suits and ties for a M-F business casual policy. But, the rules are the rules, and let's call it like it is: it's not "business casual" if you're wearing a "long, diamond-studded chain."
To try to say that this is some kind of racist policy aimed at "young black males" is completely ludicrous, especially since Jackson himself admits that players "have gotten sloppy with the way they dress" and "need to look more professional". I hate to break this to Stephen Jackson, but if you're trying to look "professional" as opposed to "sloppy," you don't wear a long chain over your shirt.
Before people like Stephen Jackson start playing the race card, they should ask themselves whether there's any validity to the charges they're making before they make fools of themselves in public.
Are We Seeing A Turn-Around On Illegal Immigration By The Bush Administration?
As someone who has been a frequent critic of George Bush's illegal immigration and border security policies, I thought it was worth giving him credit for at least starting to talk tough on illegal immigration:
"President Bush said yesterday that his goal is eventually to expel "every single" illegal alien from the United States as his administration pressed Congress to pass a guest-worker program.
...As Mr. Bush signed the homeland security spending bill yesterday, he said Congress should couple a guest-worker plan with increased border security.
"We're going to get control of our borders," he said during the signing ceremony in the East Room. "Our goal is clear -- to return every single illegal entrant, with no exceptions."
"We want our Border Patrol agents chasing, you know, crooks and thieves and drug-runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work. And therefore, it makes sense to allow the good-hearted people who are coming here to do jobs that Americans won't do a legal way to do so. And providing that legal avenue, it takes the pressure off the border."
Unfortunately, while the rhetoric has improved, there doesn't seem to be much substance behind it. Bush is still pushing his same old, unpopular, ineffective policies:
"Although conceding that the administration cannot immediately deport the estimated 11 million illegal aliens who are here, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao told Congress that a temporary-worker program would give aliens an incentive to come out of hiding and let them work legally for six years before being forced to return home.
As Mr. Bush signed the homeland security spending bill yesterday, he said Congress should couple a guest-worker plan with increased border security."
You get what they're trying to do here? Basically, they'll get rid of all the illegal aliens by signing them up as guest workers. This is like proposing to put an end to "illegal robberies," by making robbery legal. Meanwhile, Michael Chertoff who was also talking tough on immigration yesterday, along with Elaine Chao, were setting up straw men on illegal immigration and knocking them down:
"I think it would be hugely, hugely difficult to do this," Mr. Chertoff said. "A lot of these people would not want to be deported. We would have to find them. That would be an enormous expenditure of effort and resources."
Instead, they said aliens will identify themselves by taking part in the temporary-worker program and that the government then would know who they are and where to find them when their work period ends.
"We would ask them to sign up with a temporary-worker program for three years. They can extend for another three years for a total of six years and at which point we would ask that they return to their home country," Mrs. Chao said. "They would not have a legal pathway to citizenship."
First of all, you don't have to chase down every single illegal alien. You simply crack down on the businesses that are giving them jobs. If illegals can't get work in the United States, the ones that aren't here already won't bother to come, and those that are already here will self-deport. Just doing that would probably cut the number of illegals coming here by 90%, if only because most illegals would have no way to make a living here long-term.
Number two, if two illegal aliens have a child here in the United States, then the child becomes an American citizen, they can collect welfare, and the family has a hook they can use to keep themselves in the United States. "Oh, but how can you deport us? Our child is an American citizen!"
So, kudos to the Bush administration for trying to sound tough on illegals. But, in the end what matters isn't saying the right things, it's proposing the right actions and following through on them. That's a road the Bush administration has yet to walk on illegal immigration.
Should that change anyone's mind? No, not one iota. Wondering why? Well, let me tell you a little story about a name that strikes terror into the heart of conservatives who care deeply about the Supreme Court: David Souter.
Souter was a stealth nominee, nominated by George Bush's father. There were some initial grumbles about his nomination, but Republicans came out of the woodwork to assure the base that David Souter would be fine and that they should trust the President. Sound familiar? It should, because in essence, conservatives were given the exact same snow job back then that they're being given today. Here's a little background on the man that many conservatives, myself included, fear that Harriet Miers will emulate when she gets on the bench:
"As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."
At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.
He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."
Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."
Wait, seriously – who is that guy on the Supreme Court and what has he done with the real David Souter?
Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.
As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.
In a private speech – not a brief on behalf of a client – Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."
Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution."
Note that Souter, who was also a stealth nominee, had a CONSIDERABLY more reassuring resume than Harriet Miers does. However, what Souter -- and for that matter Sandra Day O'Connor and Andrew Kennedy -- did not have, was a long track record on the bench that showed an originalist bent. Harriet Miers, who has never been a judge, also lacks that record.
You heard that old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" Well, conservatives know that they have already been fooled three times with the exact same pitch. So, how gullible do we have to be to fall for it a fourth time (and maybe a 5th if Roberts turns out to be less conservative than expected)?
Keep in mind, folks, even if you don't think having a track record as an originalist is important, Miers is pro-Affirmative Action, helped set up a feminist lecture series, was a Democrat less than 20 years ago, and gave money to her company's PAC in 1999, even though she knew that PAC gave money to Democrats like Hillary Clinton. Harriet Miers may be a lot of things, but she doesn't seem to be a conservative.
Furthermore, it's great that Miers is -- today -- a pro-life, Christian, Republican, but that shouldn't allay anyone's fears. Harry Reid is pro-life. Jesse Jackson is a Christian. Lincoln Chafee is a Republican. Would you want any of them on the Supreme Court?
Folks, this nomination may turn out to be the most important domestic decision of Bush's Presidency and because of the power of the Supreme Court, the lives of every American will be affected by the judge who fills Sandra Day O'Connor's slot on the SCOTUS. This is a nomination that may have an impact on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, Affirmative Action, Kelo, Roe v. Wade, privacy, the war on terror, and on and on and on. That's why this is not the time to just roll over and allow a squishy, 4th rate crony like Harriet Miers to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
We're playing for enormous stakes here and that's why conservatives should fight tooth and nail, with everything they have in the political arsenal, to stop Harriet Miers from being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
-- Is it inevitable that Harriet Miers will be confirmed if she makes it to the Senate? Not at all. In fact, with the furor over the Miers nomination still going strong and three weeks (or more) left until her confirmation hearings, Time says, "congressional Republicans are now sweating the Miers vote count and tell TIME that it could be as low as 52." If the count could be as low as 52 today, how bad will it look after 3 more weeks?
But, is 52 a reach? Going by this excerpt from John Fund's column in the WSJ yesterday, it doesn't sound like it:
"Should hearings begin on Nov. 7 as is now tentatively planned, they would likely turn into a spectacle. Mr. Specter has said he plans to press Ms. Miers "very hard" on whether Roe v. Wade is settled law. "She will have hearings like no nominee has ever had to sit through," Chuck Todd, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline, told radio host John Batchelor. "One slipup on camera and she is toast."
Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. "The nomination is in real trouble," one GOP senator told me. "Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her." Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it's possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright."
-- Speaking of John Fund's column, it might have some serious repercussions for the nomination. According to Fund, Nathan Hecht & Ed Kinkeade were introduced by Dobson like so: "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."
Here are the key, Roe v. Wade related, comments from Hecht and Kinkeade:
Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"
"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.
"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."
Given that neither Hecht or Kinkeade are publicly claiming Miers would overturn Roe v. Wade, there are some different possibilities here. Maybe Hecht and Kinkeade were just telling people like James Dobson what they wanted to hear. Another possibility is that Miers has told both of them that she would like to overturn Roe v. Wade and, therefore, they were both correct when they said they "absolutely" believe she'd vote to reverse Roe. If that's the case, then Judge Hecht, who has publicly said he doesn't know which way Miers will go on Roe v. Wade, is being deliberately misleading.
The only way to really get to the truth of the matter would be to subpoena Rove, Hecht, Kinkeade, and some of the people on the conference call including Dobson, to ask them questions under oath. Will the Judiciary Committee do that? Maybe. Roe v. Wade is a high priority issue for them and if they conclude backroom deals have been cut on the nomination, then the Senate Judiciary Committee may decide they want to get the details. Boy, that would be a circus, wouldn't it?
-- If Ronald Reagan had the courage to try to shove through Robert Bork with 55 Democrats in the Senate, why doesn't George Bush have the guts to try to shove through a more credible nominee? Heck, even if Bush had lost a fight for a McConnell or Brown -- and I don't believe that would have happened -- he could have come back with Miers then. Granted, conservatives still wouldn't have been happy with her, but at least he would have had an excuse for nominating her.
-- Back in July, David Frum predicted that Harriet Miers was a dark horse candidate for the Supreme Court. Today, there are some pro-Miers pundits pointing to that post as if it's an endorsement of her candidacy, when clearly it's not. There's nothing that David Frum has said since the Miers nomination was made public that's inconsistent in the least with his original post. As a matter of fact, there were plenty of bloggers, myself included, who knew Miers was a candidate and that she would cause a huge hubbub if she were nominated. That's why she was 2nd, only to Alberto Gonzales, as the least desired SCOTUS nominee in "A Special Blogger Poll On The Supreme Court" that I conducted shortly before her nomination was announced.
-- Just so I can say I had it in writing when this is all over:
A) I don't have a big problem with Bush selecting friends, as long as they're minimally qualified, for Cabinet positions. Those are people who need to be loyal to him personally and picking people he trusts for those positions is understandable.
B) Conservatives who are opposing Bush on this nomination are sending Bush a message. If he shows that he hears that message and the Miers nomination is withdrawn, then he deserves credit for that and a 2nd chance to prove his intentions were good.
C) There is nothing unprincipled or dishonorable about defending the Miers nomination from the right.
D) I don't think Harriet Miers is unaccomplished, a moron, or an awful person. What she is, is an almost indescribably bad choice for the Supreme Court in almost every way that really matters, which is why so many conservatives have spoken out against her.
E) I am against Roe v. Wade, think there is no such thing as a constitutional right to privacy or a constitutional right to an abortion, and do not think being publicly against Roe v. Wade should disqualify a candidate from sitting on the Supreme Court.
F) I unconditionally oppose judicial filibusters & support the "Ginsberg rule" in the case of Harriet Miers and for all future nominees.
-- How embarrassing is this comment from Charles Schumer about his meeting with Miers?
"I didn't learn answers to so many important questions," said Schumer, who described Miers as much less informative than Chief Justice John Roberts was during similar meetings after Roberts' nomination to the high court in July. "On many, she wouldn't give answers, and on many others, she deferred, saying, 'I need to sort of bone up on this a little more.'
...Schumer suggested that Miers, who has never been a judge, needs to brush up on constitutional law: "Clearly, she needs some time to learn about these cases and then give the American people her views."
We have a Senator asking a nominee to the Supreme Court, the SUPREME COURT, questions and she's telling him she needs to "bone up" on constitutional law so she can answer them. It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry after reading this sort of thing.
-- What if John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or both were to retire within the next year or so? It's more of a possibility than many people may think: Stevens is 85 and Ginsburg is a 72 year-old woman who was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999. It would hardly be a surprise at this point if either of them decided to retire.
Now here's the big question: who could we expect to see fill the next open seat on the Supreme Court given the precedent of the Miers nomination? Would it be Alberto Gonzales, whoever Bush's personal attorney is at the time, or some other candidate recommended by Harry Reid? After all, if the best Bush can do this time, with 55 GOP Senators and a fired up a GOP base, is a bottom of the barrel candidate like Harriet Miers, then why should we expect a much better candidate next time? Heck, if Bush did select an Edith Hollan Jones or Emilio Garza to fill the next available slot on the Supreme Court, wouldn't it in effect be an admission on Bush's part that he could have chosen a much better candidate this time, but instead decided to reward a crony?
That's why it seems to me that if you're saying, "OK," to Miers this time, you're giving the thumbs up to a nominee like Alberto Gonzales next time. Is that really what conservatives fought so long and hard for? To put dubiously conservative Bush cronies on the bench instead of deserving originalist nominees?
Rove's wife, Darby, raised the white garage door one morning last week to show journalists outside the million-dollar brick home that the deputy chief of staff, assistant to the president and senior adviser wasn't home.
...The inventory, seen from outside
_Some cardboard file boxes stacked one on top of the other, labeled "Box 6," "Box 4" and what appears to be "Box 7." No sign of boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5.
_What appear to be paint cans stacked alongside a folded, folding chair.
_A rather large wood crate marked "FRAGILE" and painted with arrows indicating which way is up. On top of the crate, two coolers.
_A tall aluminum ladder.
_A snow shovel leaned in front of another cardboard box.
_Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets on top of a shelf running the length of the rear wall. Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff. Another cardboard box.
_In one corner, the rear wheel of a bicycle sticks out, along with what appears to be a helmet.
_Another ladder, this one green, leaning sideways.
Is there a point to this article? What did they expect to see in Karl Rove's garage: A Diebold voting machine, a mind-control ray, and the heads of Democratic consultants shoved into pickle jars?
Maybe, the idea is that they'll just put this information out there and some clever lefty blogger will figure out why it's relevant. You know, maybe Kos or Atrios will see that there's a green ladder in Rove's garage and think:
"Wait a second, a green ladder? Rove could have used that to climb in the window on one of Kerry's mansions so he could pour mind altering substances in Theresa Heinz-Kerry's drinks! Of course, why didn't I see it sooner? That's why she was saying all of those nutty things last year!"
What can we expect to see next from AP? Perhaps, "Things we saw when we looked in Karl Rove's window?" How about, "The contents of Karl Rove's garbage cans?" Or even, "Karl Rove's car: a little messier than you might expect." Come on, AP, you can do better than this...
"A violent gang rapist should have been given a lesser sentence partly because he was a "cultural time bomb" whose attacks were inevitable, as he had emigrated from a country with traditional views of women, his barrister has argued.
MSK, who, with his three Pakistani brothers, raped several girls at their Ashfield family home over six months in 2002, was affected by "cultural conditioning … in the context of intoxification", Stephen Odgers, SC, told the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday.
...After a special hearing, a judge concluded earlier this year that MSK was not mentally ill - the same conclusion reached by pre-sentence psychology reports in 2003.
Mr Odgers said the new evidence showed that he had a disease, which, combined with alcohol and the cultural conditioning of "a society with very traditional views of women", was "clearly a factor in the commissioning of these offences".
"The applicant was a cultural time bomb," Mr Odgers said. "It was almost inevitable that something like this would happen. His culpability is lessened because of that combination."
I'm not sure if that's an argument for the defense, an offensive slur against Pakistanis, or a plea not to let anyone else from Pakistan into Australia.
Granted, Pakistan is a backwards country, especially in some of the tribal areas, but this guy is trying to make the ridiculous case that Pakistanis are such savages that they can't stop themselves from participating in gang rapes. People have probably been charged with hate crimes for less.
In any case, this is what happens when multi-culturalism gets out of control. Instead of expecting someone from a foreign country to come here and assimilate into our culture, you get people believing that we should adjust our culture, laws, and lifestyles to accommodate those who've come here from afar. You follow that line of thinking to it's natural endpoint and, yes, you end up defending Pakistani gang rapists on cultural grounds. That's not a path we should go down here in America.
"The American strategy of bringing democracy to Iraq is succeeding. So are the tactics that are being used to implement it. While the results are unknown, just the fact that the elections were held and were mostly violence-free is a victory in and of itself. The fact remains that the United States is achieving its objectives, while al Qaeda is not – al Qaeda is even failing to prevent the American objectives from being met. By any objective standard, al Qaeda is losing the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only places they seem to be winning are in a number of newsrooms in the United States, and in Spain, where a series of bombs (combined with a major public relations misstep by the Spanish government) led to a change in government and Spanish withdrawal from Iraq.
This is not surprising. A number of the major media outlets have been focusing on the IED attack du jour, while missing the bigger picture. Also, since the failure to locate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the media has taken a line that the liberation of Iraq was not worth the casualties (which are half of the total of fatalities suffered by the allies on D-Day). The media’s tendency to accentuate the negative has given al Qaeda a bit of a lifeline – their only hope for victory is that the anti-war movement, fuelled by the mainstream media, will wear down the political will of the United States." -- Harold C. Hutchison
Despite what your local newscasts - your ‘Freeway Chase Channel 7’s and ‘Warehouse Fire Fox 13s’ - might lead you to believe, seems living in relatively safe times:
The nation's murder rate declined last year for the first time in four years, dropping to the lowest level in 40 years. Experts said local rather than national trends were mostly responsible.
Just like I’ve always said, All murder is local. Glad the so called experts are catching up with me. But the good news ain’t just limited to murder:
The rates for all seven major crimes were down and the overall violent crime rate reached a 30-year low, according to the FBI's annual compilation of crimes reported to the police.
I’m not saying this means you can now sleep with the door unlocked, or that it’s now a good idea to tell the wife, “You ain’t got the guts to pull that trigger,” (never wanna play that scene that way, no matter what the rate is) but… it is kinda nice to see a societal trend headed in the right direction, that the world doesn’t necessarily have to spiral into anarchy.
