Live 8 Philadelphia

Hmm, my Saturday is free.

Some of the artists I dig, others not so much. Good to see a few country artists in the mix, although I'm not a big Keith Urban fan. The yummy Natalie Portman and Jennifer Connolly will be presenting.

And at least Will Smith is only presenting and not performing. I think his hometown audience would beat him senseless for "Switch," if not for Hitch.

presenters:

• Will Smith
• Salma Hayek
• Natalie Portman
• Chris Tucker
• Jennifer Connolly
• Jimmy Smits
• Kami

artists:

• Alicia Keys
• Black Eyed Peas
• Bon Jovi
• Dave Matthews Band
• Def Leppard
• Destiny's Child
• Jay-Z
• Josh Groban
• Kaiser Chiefs
• Keith Urban
• Linkin Park
• Maroon 5
• P Diddy
• Rob Thomas
• Sarah McLachlan
• Stevie Wonder
• Toby Keith

BIGGEST surprise this year.

Finally, CNN's Inside Politics (IP) gets around to Kelo

but only because there is pending congressional action responding to it. Better late than never I guess. You will recall I blogged earlier about IP's silence on the story.

Here's the transcript of the Joe Johns piece, as recorded and checked against the video by yours truly, followed by my thoughts on Johns's slant:

CNN
Inside Politics
30 June 2005 (Thursday)



Suzanne Malveaux, host: “Last week's Supreme Court decision on the issue of eminent domain granted new powers to local governments that try to seize private property for economic development. The decision also angered some members of Congress in both political parties. CNN congressional correspondent Joe Johns is on Capitol Hill and he joins me now for more. Joe?”


John Johns, congressional correspondent: “Suzanne, the House is taking up a resolution condemning the Supreme Court decision, as well. There's legislation in both the House and the Senate now working its way through. We've heard this before, of course, the Supreme Court makes a decision, then the Congress of the United States gets up in arms about it, and that's happening in fact, as a matter of fact, a lot of conservative groups out in the country are getting up in arms, as well.

Johns: “Now, this is also happening, of course, over in the House of Representatives. Congressman Tom DeLay and House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Sensenbrenner attending a news conference with others today issuing essentially a challenge to the Supreme Court.”


Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX): “This Congress has, is not going to just sit by, idly sit by, and let an unaccountable judiciary make these kinds of decisions without taking our responsibility and our duty to, eh, given to us by the Constitution to be a check on the judiciary.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): “What all of us who wish to see this legislation enacted into law want to make sure happens is that the federal government's money will not be used to finance taking somebody's property from them to build a strip mall or a hotel.”

Johns: “On the Senate side, Senator John Cornyn of Texas also has a bill that he's working on, hoping to get some Democrats to sign on to that. The fact is though, a number of liberal Democrats are very concerned about the Kelo decision of the Supreme Court, including Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, also Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California. I talked to her a little while ago about that and she says she's particularly concerned about the effect on poor property owners.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): “This is an issue that crosses lines, political lines. I think most of us really are steeped in the American dream of ownership of our homes and land. And we hold that very dear. That's something that we think the government should protect. Not put at risk. This decision turns that all on its head.”

Johns: “There's clearly another side to this. Of course, this is yet another challenge to the power of the Supreme Court. The other thing is, the Kelo decision stressed that people who have their property taken ought to get just compensation. That seems to be getting lost in the argument. Back to you, Suzanne.”

Malveaux: “Joe Johns, thank you very much.”

Well, no, John, it isn't being lost. The Supreme Court didn't make up the just compensation portion of the ruling, that language is in the Bill of Rights to begin with. But the fact remains that the just compensation stipulation in the Fifth Amendment is not a grant of power to Congress or the states to seize property to hand over to private entities so long as the monetary compensation is just. It is a restriction on the power of government to seize property: it may only do so for PUBLIC use and only then with just compensation. That seizing private property by government fiat to hand over to another private entity so long as there is a "just" monetary compensation to the original owner is egregious convoluted logic which resulted in Kelo and which is fundamentally at issue with the hell-freezing-over moment of Tom DeLay and Maxine Waters being political bedfellows. [I know, not the prettiest image to have burned in your mind.]

True, DeLay and company can focus on this as yet another prime example of a runaway judiciary, and to my mind, they should, especially since the liberals on the court, plus Anthony Kennedy, gave us this monstrous ruling. But by the same token leftists can use Kelo as a springboard to rail against greedy corporations teaming up with government cronies to screw the little guy. That doesn't mean both arguments don't hold some merit nor that the political posturing towards the base voters totally negates the sound policy that Congress seeks to assert in working to lessen the blow of Kelo.

Wanted: New 'Right-Leaning' Blogger

A prime example of why I don't blog about anything personal. One day I visit PoP's blog, and I find this scintillating piece of news:

I asked a cute barista at my favorite coffeehouse out in a unique, gimmicky way. Well, maybe gimmicky is too negative a connotation. Basically, I dropped a note in the tip jar asking her to use a code word next time I'm there and she's working if she's interested. We'll see what happens. I'm popping by there tonight. Not sure if she's working tonight. Oh well. I'll keep you updated.

Oh please keep us updated.

Now no one needs Aaron Brown at all

Yesterday on Inside Politics, CNN producer Abbi Tatton, during the Inside the Blogs segment, pointed viewers to a feature on the website of newseum.org whereby website viewers can see the front pages of newspapers across the United States by scrolling over pinpoints on a US map and clicking to zoom in on the image of the paper.

TATTON: So the speech was a big topic of conversation in the blogosphere. It's also front-and-center on many newspapers across the country. Over at Daily Kos today, we found a link to this great side, newseum.org, that allows you to look at the front pages of local newspapers all across the country. It really is very cool here.

And we went across here to San Diego, the "San Diego Union Tribune." You see the Bush speech up there on the front page above the fold and also a story about Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham who we have, yes, mentioned here before. He is under scrutiny in the blogosphere currently over a controversial house sale to a defense contractor that has a federal grand jury interested. And also bloggers referring to the eight-term congressman as "Cunningscam."

[JACKI] SCHECHNER [CNN "blog reporter"]: I love those point-and-click news tools. They're great.

Of course, the Tomorrow's Papers Tonight feature is a regular on CNN's NewsNight, hosted by the decidedly less interesting and less attractive Aaron Brown. Brown's show is markedly boring and usually devoid of anything worth writing home about. That and it switches from a newsmagazine format to a serious news program depending on the evening, and sometimes depending on the minute, of a particular edition.

Way to cut the legs out from your fellow CNN colleague, Abbi and Jacki. Keep up the good work.

Gaza Pullout Reaction

As I have watched the latest attempt at peace between Israel and Palestine (which started with the death of Yasir Arafat), I have wondered how each of these groups would control the extremist elements in their country. Palestine has done it through coercion and some force. They have negotiated with the terrorist groups to maintain a cease fire, while also refusing to be intimidated by threats of violence from those groups. But it is Israel’s latest reaction that has been the most interesting. As they have been preparing to pull out of Gaza, the government has not been afraid to use force to deal with extremist protestors. Last night they used police to remove and arrest squatters who were protesting the pullout. The protestors decided not to fight apparently because their reinforcements were prevented from reaching them. The police are also looking for three Israeli youth who beat a Palestinian youth unconscious during clashes between the Israeli extremists, and the police and Palestinians. The only way peace between the two can possible succeed is if both groups stand up to the extremists – and for now, it appears that both groups are doing just that.

Down with Pessimists

I think I have finally put my finger on what has been bothering me so much about a lot of the liberal commentary on the war in Iraq. It boils down to a sense of abject pessimism and negativity. Some on the left are looking at the situation in Iraq and calling it a failure and using it to rail on President Bush. Now don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with criticizing our leaders when they make mistakes, but it should be in some way constructive. And more importantly, it should come from a perspective that shows the commentator really wants to see the situation be successful. I get the feeling that people like Bob Herbert of the New York Times are glad the Iraqi insurgency is so strong. In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I think they want Iraq to fail. I think they care more about Bush failing then they do Iraq succeeding. Am I overreacting? I don’t think so. Here is Herbert’s language:

“The latest fantasy out of Washington is that American-trained Iraqi forces will ultimately be able to do what the American forces have not: defeat the insurgency and pacify Iraq.”

If Herbert had any grip on reality, he would realize that in fact, the only people that can defeat the insurgency are the Iraqis themselves. It is the moderates of that country which will have to stop supporting the insurgency through their silence. The fact is I don’t know for sure if the Iraqis can do it. But I am full of hope and optimism. I certainly don’t think Herbert feels that way. I bet it sounds strange listening to me defend Bush. But that isn’t what I am trying to do. I just get tired of people like Herbert (and Maureen Dowd) who do nothing but attack and criticize and refuse to offer better policies. Their constant attacks paired with an overriding pessimism spreads to the reader. That is bad for the situation in Iraq, and also bad for Democrats.

I also strongly disagree with Richard Cohen’s column trying to link Vietnam and Iraq. Again, I get the feeling he (and many others) has been waiting in the wings ready to do this, and ready to use the word “quagmire”. Quagmire makes it sound like Iraq is hopeless – like Vietnam was. The difference is that we are now occupying Iraq, there is an elected government that is working on a constitution, and we are training security forces. We are much further along and have much more control over the country than we ever did in Vietnam. He spends most of his column making gigantic leaps in an effort to make Iraq sound like Vietnam, but in the end says he knows they are not the same. What was his point then? The point was to spread pessimism – to put the connection in the minds’ of the people, while trying to maintain credibility because he doesn’t actually believe what he just wrote. His exaggerations make him as guilty of misleading the public about the state of Iraq as the Bush administration is.

The bottom line is this: We have a real chance to succeed in Iraq and the public needs to know this. I agree that the situation could be managed better (including defending the Syrian border better and finding ways to improve and speed up the process of training Iraqi security forces). But it doesn’t help anyone to call the situation unsuccessful before it has had a chance to succeed. And it certainly doesn’t help to wish for Iraq to fail just because you hate Bush. I beg those people who cannot control their own pessimism and hatred for Bush to simply keep quiet.

House of Cards

So the GOP wants to put a Social Security bill up for a vote despite having no chance of passage in the Senate. This is pure bitch monkey politics. This is nothing more than an attempt by House Republicans to have something to harp on during the upcoming 2006 elections, much like the whole flag burning issue. It's the equivalent of a college student bringing home a drawing of a fire truck for mommy and daddy to showcase on the fridge like some 2nd grader. If House Republicans are serious about keeping Social Security solvent then they need to quit playing around with the ass hat idea of private accounts which have absolutely nothing to do with solvency and actually focus on solvency. It's simple - raise taxes, reduce benefits, cut spending in other areas or a combination of the three. Private accounts have nothing to do with solvency. And for those readers in the cheap seats, I'll repeat that, private accounts have nothing to do with solvency. And because things are better in threes, private accounts have nothing to do with solvency.

Situation: Critical

Tucker Carlson's latest attempt at Beltway glory, The Situation on MSNBC, quiet simply, sucks ass. I watched a little bit of it Monday night and had to turn it within three minutes because it fouled my head so much. Someone should claim eminent domain on his set and make into a Starbucks or something.

Canuck candy store closing, eh?

It was just a matter of time before our genteel neighbors to the north said, "awww, hell no!" to our penchant of reimporting their subsidized drugs. Of course, anyone with a rudimentary sense of economics could have told you this would happen, that Canada would not sit idly by while Americans purchase drugs subsidized for the benefit of Canadian taxpayers, who are paying after all for these drugs through their high taxes. After all, as the market for reimported drugs expands, the Canadians would either have to cut off the exports of these drugs or forever be readjusting upwards their drug importation and subsidization, to the increasing cost and decreasing benefit of the Canadian taxpayer. Not to mention US drug makers would probably ratchet up the price to prevent Canadian importation in large numbers because it would just end up being sold at lower prices to American drug buyers shopping on the Web.

Canada is to impose restrictions on the export of prescription drugs to US citizens, who pay less for them abroad than they do at home.

The US has the highest drug prices in the world, leading many citizens to order their supplies from Canada.

Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh said his country could no longer serve as a discount "drug-store" for the US.

US lawmakers are debating laws that could authorise the bulk purchase of medicines from Canada.

The import of prescription drugs - though technically illegal - is widely tolerated in the US.

US citizens have been able to get their supplies from Canada either by crossing the border or by ordering them on the internet.

A Shining Example for All of Iran

Wow. Iran's newly elected president is a tried and true terrorist. No words can explain how unbelievably aghast I am at this very moment.

Creative Writing and the Internet

It always interests me to think of how the internet is changing the world around us. I often marvel at the blogosphere – especially now that I am a part of it – and its effects on news, politics, and informed dialogue. But what has really got me thinking recently is the internet’s effect on creative writing. I know lots of people who have online journals, cataloguing everyday events or deep thoughts, usually in a humorous or otherwise interesting way. And these journals are turning many of the people into better writers, and also providing a source of therapy by allowing them to sound off about the world around them to anyone and everyone.

But what I have seen from The Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster and my new obsession Simon of Space – two science-fiction blognovels by Matthew Davis Frederick Hemming (a blogauthor that I have become an embarrassingly huge fan of) – is how the internet can polish growing authors. In the comments for his blognovels, readers can write in with questions about the plot, simple edits and corrections, or as is more often the case, simple praise. All three can help the writer hone his or her craft. When questions about the plot arise, the author can go back and make changes, as well as learn to be more conscious of how their style of writing may be confusing at times. Simple edits also help the author in a very obvious way – fixing grammatical errors and misspelled words. And praise can also help when it is directed at something specific. The author will know immediately what aspects of the story are particularly compelling, and what aspects might not be. A good author will of course learn to take all of the comments with a grain of salt, but their effect is still obvious. Hemming has also said in an online interview that this venue for writing is particularly challenging because readers will only follow you as long as you are interesting.

The reader has not spent a nickel up front to gain access to the content (unlike a magazine or a book), and thus will cast you away from their screen in a heartbeat if you lose their interest for even a second. They have nothing to lose. No aspect about the audience's attention can be assumed -- as a web writer you have to work hard for it, paragraph by paragraph.


Hopefully there will be much more of this type of publishing – and maybe there is already and I am just unaware of it. In the future, I would like to see this type of writing and critiquing grow. I came across a website a while ago called Shared Writing – which features creative writing contributions published on its site, free for all readers to view. That page also has comments. But so far, it is limited in that most of the comments are actually spam – and real critiques and opinions are scarce. But that type of forum, if managed correctly and with the right amount of interest from the internet community, could serve as a great place to help creative writers develop their craft. Imagine a creative writing club with a national (or international) scope; lots of writers and readers, working together for free to help develop another generation of great creative writers.

The REAL Speech Bush Should Have Given

(Note: this is not to be read as if it is a Bush speech, the point is more suggestive)

And I don't mean John Kerry's pathetic NYT op-ed. I've been thinking about Iraq a lot lately, and about how we're all flip-floppers now. Many who were pro-war are now questioning it. Many who were anti-war are now supporting it. I am the latter category. Strangely, with mounting violence and a dubious future I feel even more resolved that the U.S. must stay the course and win this war. Is it because of 9/11 I feel this way? Actually, not really. Is it because of Saddam Hussein's brutality do? Nope. Is it because of terrorism? Again, not really. The question to me is a moral one. And there is one simple reason that I support the war.

Whatever your political persuasion or belief was at the time, there were a lot of reasons to oppose the war beforehand, and then later in retrospect. The non-existant WMDs was one. Many were skeptical about them at first, and many more when the searches turned up inconclusive later. The Downing Street Memos have done their part and fueled this irrational hysteria, reconvening an obsolete debate. Also, there was the strange notion that the war was "illegal," although the questions of what war is okay and not okay according to international law is a tough one. If Iraq was illegal, so is Kosovo. So would be military intervention in Darfur. So would have been a hypothetical military intervention in Rwanda. International Law only authorizes war in self-defense, and stopping a genocide is, sadly, not a self-defense. Also, it could be argued Hussein was committing genocide even if war was allowed to stop genocide. There's also the "distraction" argument, that there were bigger fish to fry in Afghanistan, and perhaps in other countries (Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan) besides Iraq, and that Saddam was a low priority. That was the philosophy I described. All of this more or less hinged on one question, was the U.S. justified in going to war against Saddam Hussein? And all of these, to the letter, are irrelevant concerns now.

On January 30th, this war ceased to be about Saddam Hussein, or even about C-Plus Augustus himself. It ceased to be about WMDs, and I will say in large part it ceased to be about the U.S. vs. Al Qaida and 9/11 (however much of an extent it was ever really about that). On January 30th, the war took on a different purpose, and a purpose I cannot help but support without being an amoral, realist bastard. That purpose is the defense of a democratically-elected sovereign government against thugs that wish to plunge a country into violent anarchy or worse, a Sharia-based Islamic totalitarian state. When the people of Iraq elected a government, the game changed. It was no longer about what was before, about occupation, about Jerry Bremer's idiocy, about removing Saddam Hussein. There was now a fledgling government, elected by the people, that needed U.S. military support to insure it's survival. Puppet state like the Iraqi Governing Council, they aren't. Some of them have ties to Iran. Some of them aren't very pro-U.S. at all. But, they all have one thing in common. If we left this government as is, they would certainly all be murdered and beheaded by an insurgency happy to take their heads, and happy to plunge the rest of the country into violence and chaos.

On January 30th, this became about that. It became about whether or not the U.S. really cares enough to support a democratically-elected government against a bunch of bloody thugs. It's not about our interests, it's not even about Colin Powell's "you broke it, you own it" statement, and it's not about whether George W. Bush is fit to lead. It's about whether we as the most powerful country on Earth care about Iraq enough to make sure its democracy succeeds, or if we are willing to wash our hands of the matter and let them fail, as we have done so many other times in our history. Whatever history said before January 30th, a new chapter began that day. Do we want to help the heroes of this story succeed? Or are we content to be the spectator or the audience in a tragedy we can prevent? If you really believe in liberal Western values over selfish political partisanship, you know the answer.

Institute for Justice announces their campaign to fight Kelo's damaging precedent

The Institute for Justice, a conservative legal foundation which helped the losing parties in Kelo v. City of New London announced a new campaign today to promote legislative responses to prevent the power of eminent domain being abused by state and local governments to plunder property for the profit of private developers:

[link]

Washington, D.C.—The Institute for Justice and its grassroots group, the Castle Coalition, seeks to do what the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do last week when it issued its ruling in the Kelo case allowing eminent domain for private development: protect ordinary homeowners and small businesses from eminent domain abuse.

Through IJ’s Castle Coalition—a nationwide network of citizen activists determined to stop the abuse of eminent domain in their communities—the Institute for Justice today announced the “Hands Off My Home” campaign to give ordinary citizens the means to protect their homes from government-forced takings for private development. The Institute also made an initial commitment of $3 million to fund the national effort to combat eminent domain at the state and local level. IJ made the announcement less than one week after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Kelo decision allowing governments to take property from the rightful owner only to hand it over to another private party for his or her private gain.

“The floodgates to eminent domain abuse are already opening in the wake of the Supreme Court’s dreadful Kelo decision,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. “The Hands Off My Home campaign will empower ordinary Americans to fight back against eminent domain abuse and to stop this un-American alliance between tax-hungry politicians and land-hungry developers.”

“The American people are furious about this decision, but they can do something about it,” said Dana Berliner, an IJ senior attorney. “In this next year, the Castle Coalition will encourage and coordinate grassroots efforts to end eminent domain abuse in states and cities. At the same time, the Institute for Justice will ask state courts to enforce their state constitutional limits on the use of eminent domain for private development. And the next time we get to the Supreme Court, it will overturn the Kelo precedent.”

The "Hands of my Home" pledge is a pretty concise:

I pledge to the citizens of this
State that I will:
Oppose efforts by my state
government or municipalities
within my state to use the
government power of eminent
domain for private development
Support legislation and other
efforts to ensure that the
citizens of this State are safe
from eminent domain for
private development

The media should press Tim Kaine, Jerry Kilgore, Bob Ehrlich, Doug Duncan, and Martin O'Malley on this pledge specifically, or at least the Kelo issue in general, as the Virginia and Maryland gubernatorial races heat up.

More Advice from the Right

Asymmetrical Information (via Evil Glenn), someone with who I normally disagree pretty vehemently with, has undertaken the usually-common right-wing habit of giving the Democrats advice. While a lot of it is crap (like the ineffectiveness of reaching for the center because the center has no good ideas and that it is inherently prone to pork. . .The center are usually the ones that decry pork) some of it is pretty sage. It mostly evolves from a similar discussion at the lefty Crooked Timber on market making and market taking. The Crooked Timber business is also kinda sage and kinda crap, the sage part being the Democrats need some new ideas to carve out new political territory, and the crap part being that it should come from its populist roots. Of the moderate Democrats and the Progressive Democrats, she says the following:

Neither group is going to lead the Democrats to the kind of dominance that they once enjoyed--and that Republicans are now basking in. Neither is capable of building a winning coalition with a central set of values that pretty much everyone can endorse, as the Republicans have.

But even worse are the folks telling the progressives that the only problem is that they are misunderstood. Howard Dean, like a lot of my acquaintances, seems to believe that the only reason Republicans keep winning is that people somehow don't understand what they're up to. On fine regulatory questions, that is undoubtedly true--but I doubt that many voters know what Clinton's telecoms policy was, either. On big questions, such as taxes, the budget, the military, or what have you, the voters have a rough but workable idea of the differences between the two parties, and there is no evidence that there are systematic differences in their misperceptions of their politicians (which is to say, they believe some wrong things about Republicans, but about an equal number of wrong things about Democrats). The problem is not ignorance, or that they've been lied to. It is that they don't like what Democrats stand for.

The folks trying to tell Democrats that they've just got a branding problem are right, but the Lakoff solution--better slogans--is exactly the wrong idea. Democrats have a branding problem because, just like many companies with branding problems, they overpromised and underdelivered. Americans looked at the seventies, saw that it was the culmination of decades of progressive hegemony, and decided that they didn't need any more of that--just as decades earlier, they had punished Republicans for the Great Depression. Whether either, or neither, was fair, that is the political reality. Republicans eventually dealt with it, but the hardliners in the progressive movement are still resisting. Yet it's hard to see any hope of resurrecting the Great Society vision; the success of welfare reform has made that politically impossible. Other big issues, like abortion, are being slowly eroded by technological change that is making their stance both unnecessary, and unappealing. And the huge middle class entitlements that many are proposing in order to subvert bourgeois resistance to subsidizing the socioeconomically dysfunctional have a price tag that seems to be unacceptable to the American public.

I think this gets to what is the core problem of the Democrats: some of their platform has just become plain unappealing and unsellable. The moderate democrats do seem to be shortsighted because they get caught up too much in straddling, dissembling, and compromising that they don't have their own ideas at all. Tbey drone about reform so much there's never any thought as to whether abolition or creation would be appropriate. The progressives are worse, because they keep pushing ideas that aren't simply badly-packaged and sold wrong, they are just plain wrong and unconvincing at their core. Repackaging failed ideas isn't going to work, no matter how much you want to scream and how shrill you want to make the message. For all Howard Dean's "Health Care is a moral value", it just makes a lot of people too nervous to really sell. Raising taxes and big government is never going to be disguised by rhetoric, because Republicans and their flacks will expose whatever product as what it truly is in a flash, or even if it faintly resembles it they will be able to paint it that way.

For one thing, Democrats need to stop scaring Libertarians so much (which the progressive wing excels at doing) in the same way theocrats tend to, as well. They are far too effective as attack dogs. The Progressive wing of the Dems are way too unapologetic Socialists, and easily painted and branded as such by any libertarians with an axe to grind. I for one, with my centrist roots, believe the Democrats essentially need to look to Clinton's vision and Adam Smith's classical economics as a guide, focusing on education, science, and infrastructure (things which the Democrats excel at during state and local elections). That is a moderate path and could be root of a number of ideas that radical anti-taxers and rabid anti-government types have long strayed from, and economically is not so easily assaulted by Libertarians. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Fort Bragg

I like Wonkette's take super-best (and it's real Wonkette, not phony Greg Beato).

Primetime = Nap Time

Snooze.

That summarizes my reaction to C Plus Augustus and his teleprompter last night. Literally, I could barely stay awake throughout the speech. I'm not sure whether it was due to the speech repeating 9-11 in every other sentence, or because most of the rhetoric (as eloquent as it sounded) was merely the same, but rearranged Yoda style. Stay the course in Iraq we must.

Kudos to the Bushies for finally beginning to level with the American people. No more of this ridiculous stonewalling by Darth Cheney, Rummy and company. I'm with FDR on this one:

"Your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us."

Lastly, I would like to point out that Bush stated that he would supply the Iraq effort with more soldiers IF his generals on the ground requested them. I'm sitting here wondering where the disconnect is, because it seems everyone else knows this but the White House.

Shady Grover: King of Alienation

Between dodging criminal indictments and supporting terroristesque Islamist, Grover Norquist always has time to insult members of his own party. What a multitasker!

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) became a target in the latest round of political rhetoric when Republican strategist Grover Norquist referred to him last week as "the nut-job from Arizona."

At the College Republicans convention in Arlington on Friday, Norquist also referred to Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) as "the two girls from Maine," according to the Dallas Morning News.

Norquist backed away from his "girls" comment yesterday, telling The Post's Brian Faler that he did not mean to be derisive. "It was not meant that way. We were talking to a bunch of college kids," he said.

As for McCain, Norquist said he "misspoke" and added, "I meant to say gun-grabbing, tax-increasing Bolshevik."

Ouch! But wait, McCain's people have a better response:

Mark Salter, a senior adviser for McCain, issued a statement that said, "John McCain hasn't spent five seconds in his entire life thinking about Grover Norquist. He's not going to start now."

SLAM! That about sums it up. I think Grover Norquist is in his "last throes" everyone. (Which means we can expect to hear from him for up to 12 years, according to Donald Rumsfeld)

(Via Wonkette)

It's not just a left-wing fight against the Man, Sharon

The AP's Sharon Theimer has a piece today on bloggers standing up against potential FEC regulation in which only left-wing bloggers are cited. And the tone of the comments of the bloggers quoted lends to the reader that this is a struggle against rascally conservative GOPers.

But this is an issue of concern to bloggers of all political stripes fighting government regulation stemming not from the minds of Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney but of of moderate-to-liberal "maverick" John McCain's campaign finance reform legislation.

Does Thiemer not know about onlinecoalition.com or of redstate.org's heavy-lifting on the regulation issue?:

Bloggers Turn Mainstream To Fight Government Regulation
June 28, 2005

Some are joining the establishment in order to fight it, by working with lawyers, PR consultants, and a political action committee.

By Sharon Theimer, The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP)--Bloggers who built their Internet followings with anti-establishment prose are now lobbying the establishment to protect their livelihoods from federal regulations.

Some are even working with lawyers, public-relations consultants and a political action committee to do it.

"I like to think of myself as just a guy with a blog, but it's clear that 'just a guy with a blog' is different today than it was when I started three years ago," said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the Web log www.DailyKos.com. "One sign of having arrived is when government regulators start wanting to poke their fingers into what you do."

Moulitsas was to testify Tuesday at a hearing on a Federal Election Commission (FEC) proposal that would extend some campaign finance rules to the Internet, including bloggers.

Moulitsas also is working with a lawyer who volunteered to help bloggers fight new government regulations and whose efforts were promoted in a PR firm press release Monday. He is prepared to lobby Congress himself if necessary, and he is the treasurer of BlogPac, a political action committee formed last year by bloggers.

Duncan Black--who founded the www.atrios.blogspot.com blog--featured a headline Monday on his Web site, "Bite me, Congressman," that linked to a diatribe against a Republican House committee chairman over global warming.

Asked whether the use of hearing testimony and PACs is a sign that bloggers are succumbing to mainstream political techniques, Black said he and his colleagues have no choice.

"I think once you do achieve a certain degree of traffic, influence, notoriety--however you want to call it--eventually the outsider label is not perfectly applicable anymore," said Black, who describes himself as a "recovering economist." He too planned to testify before the FEC.

Federal election officials until now have steered clear of Internet oversight, siding with bloggers and other online activists who portray the Web as a laboratory of grass-roots political participation and an outlet for free speech that should develop unhampered by the government.

But online political activity has become increasingly more sophisticated since the FEC last examined it a few elections ago.

Since the 2000 presidential campaign, when Arizona Sen. John McCain made a splash by raising millions online, candidates have raised tens of millions of dollars, and online political ads, consultants, and organizing have become commonplace. Political parties and campaigns have added blogging to their Web sites.

A survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that just over one-third of U.S. adults went to the Internet during the 2004 elections to get political news, share their views on candidates or issues, volunteer for a campaign, or make a political donation.

Internet advertising is also big business, and it's becoming a standard feature of blogs. Black said a small number of bloggers make a living from advertising revenue, but he added that most, including himself, have other jobs.

Acknowledging the Internet's growth, a federal judge last year ordered the FEC to extend some of the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to political activity on the Web.

Bloggers fear that will mean new, unique limits on their activities, even though several of the commission's six members have indicated they have no desire to go beyond what the judge has ordered them to do.

The FEC plans this summer to decide how far to go. Bloggers view whatever happens at the commission as just the first step in their quest to remain free of government oversight.

"The FEC isn't the end of it," Moulitsas said. "We still have Congress, and beyond Congress we still have the courts."

Gay Marriage Night at RFK

George "Money bags" Soros, he of anti-Bush fame, is a mere MEMBER in one of eight groups bidding to purchase the Washington Nationals franchise from Major League Baseball. The Nats', as many Washingtonians know, are performing quite well with a true home at RFK. Their popularity can also be attributed to the fact that baseball hasn't had a team in DC in over 30 years.

Now it seems peculiar that some on the Right side of the aisle would BALK at the purchase of this team by an overtly Liberal financier. Why should anyone CARE if an owner wears his politics on his sleeve, let alone the chairperson of the Government Reform Committee in the House? If the Nats become a politicized team, WHO CARES? If attending a Nats' game becomes the equivalent of a Leftist propaganda show, who would be sorry enough to allow the Liberal splooge destroy the experience of watching a baseball game in the first place? Damn it Tommy, I thought you were above BS like this.

So Happy Together

Imagine me and you, I do

I think about you day and night

It's only right

To think about the ex-prez you love

And hold him tight

So happy together

KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (AP) -- Former President Bill Clinton joined his one-time political foe, former President George H.W. Bush, for a boat ride on the Atlantic Ocean after attending a book-signing Monday.

If I should call you up

Invest a dime

And you say you belong to me

That you are mine

Imagine how the world would be

So very fine

So happy together

Clinton was seen kneeling to pet a dog when he arrived at Walker's Point, the summer home of George and Barbara Bush on Maine's rocky coast.

Later, Clinton and Bush waved to onlookers as they boated up and down a river before roaring into the ocean for a short ride in Bush's three-engine boat.

The 1992 election rivals became good friends when they led fund-raising as part of the relief effort for victims of the tsunami that hit Asia in December.

Everyone together now:

I can't see me loving nobody but you

For all my life

When you're with me

Baby the skies will be blue

For all my life



Awwww.

Still nada on Kelo on Inside Politics; and Kelo-sanctioned property theft in Texas

At work, among the things I do is monitor and log into our database story summaries and transcripts from Inside Politics (IP) on CNN. IP has had nada on the Kelo ruling from last week, and no mention of it on the "Inside the Blogs" feature, despite an opportunity for mentions of blogger reax to this due to the Supreme Court term closure today, and their rulings on Grokster and 10 Commandment cases.

At any rate, I've given up on the idea of IP covering anything of substance and gravity from the Supreme Court unless it fits some stupid rubric of "red state vs. blue state."

I'm not holding my breath, but maybe that would change if they reported on the fact that the Kelo ruling is equally liable to cause politicians and developers in red states, as well as blue, to salivate over the greenbacks they can make off the deal. Take this Houston Chronicle article from Friday which I stumbled across linked from Fark.com:

Hours after the court's 5-4 ruling came down, Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, said he would seek "to defend the rights of property owners in Texas" by proposing a state constitutional amendment limiting local powers of eminent domain, or condemnation.

Houston Mayor Bill White and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels offered assurances that the city and county do not intend to condemn land for private development projects.

But officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, south of Houston, said they would move aggressively to condemn property owned by two seafood companies to clear the way for an $8 million private marina.

Thomas for Chief J revisited

Came across the following from a mention on the Bench Memos blog on NRO: the case for Bush to pick Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice from his dissent in Kelo.

Now, I used his dissent in the medical marijuana case to further my argument a few weeks ago, but I wholeheartedly concur with Wanniski that his Kelo dissent is a strong indicator that he is the man for the job.:

Memo To: President George W. Bush
Cc: Karl Rove
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: The “Taking Clause” Erased

To be honest, Mr. President, until the Supreme Court on Thursday announced its 5-to-4 decision limiting the property rights of all Americans, I assumed that upon the retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist you would not name Justice Clarence Thomas to fill that vacancy – and that you would probably be wise to avoid the controversy his nomination would bring.

But after reading Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion in the New London, Conn. case, I think his wisdom, his judgment and his perspective so clearly fits him to be Chief Justice that the American people would not permit the kind of political firestorm that accompanied his appointment to the Court by your father 15 years ago.

Make Room for Daddy

During my mini-vacation to the OBX, 5th and I caught a movie I've been excited about or a long, LOOOONG, time: Romero's new Land of the Dead. I am, of course, a ridiculously huge zombie movie fan, and this movie was the best I could've hoped for. This CHUD review hits a lot of the good points, but I'm going to go for more to explain why this is not just a good zombie movie, but a good movie overall.

Land is like the Aliens of the Dead franchise. In the previous three Dead films, we dealt with survivors held up in first a house, then a mall, then a military base. Usually the plots were fairly one-note, a group of survivors trying to eke out an existence and survive an onslaught. The characters in Romero's films were always pretty well crafted, but the plots were usually simple and the situation simple. Not so in Land. Land of the Dead shows Romero's thinking about zombies and as a writer and director evolved, much like the intelligence of the zombies themselves by the time Land begins (all the relevant backstory is told in an incredibly creepy and powerful credit sequence, in grainy black and white and through the original radio from Night of the Living Dead, so you don't need to have seen any of the other films to understand the apocalypse scenario.) The archplot is conceived from FOUR (count 'em) separate subplots, which is not only unheard of for a horror movie, but which most movies on their own can't support. There is true-blue, world-weary hero Reilly (Simon Baker), greedy Nietzschean upstart Cholo (surprisingly less annoying John Leguizamo), rich uberbastard and would-be villain Kaufman (vintage Dennis Hopper), and the real star of the movie, "Big Daddy" the Einstein zombie (Eugene Clark). The plots weave and converge at points, but are definitely distinct story-points and follow distinct paths. This cast of characters, however, all have very distinct personalities and prove to be the foundation for the film. The setting is also better. Instead of protaganists suddenly surprised by an onslaught of zombies, these are characters who all have lived for a long time and built a life in a land of zombies true to its title. They are neither scared, nor really phased by the appearance of them (they even have a cute nickname for them: "stenches"). The characters led by Reilly and Cholo are actually experienced raiders of the outlying city's lands, used to confronting and battling the undead on a daily basis in a monstrous truck/tank called "Dead Reckoning".

That said, this is not a very scary movie. There's lots of death, there's lots of gore, there are a few horrifying moments, but this is more interesting as a thriller/action movie than a horror movie. Its way more about the plight of the characters and the plot (Big Daddy's Journey) than it is about scaring the audience. Big Daddy, the Zombie-In-Chief, is a curious character in that during the entire movie you don't see him munch on a single person. He pulls other zombies off the carcasses they are mauling to get them focused on the task at hand (laying siege to the human city). Big Daddy even expresses genuine sorrow and outrage as the gang of human bandits lead by Cholo and Reilly mow down his fellow-zombies. He also displays pretty creative ways of killing people (none of which actually involve eating them).

A number of trite themes and symbolism also pop up, from Kaufman's rich-people-only paradise "Fiddler's Green" and the rundown slums of poor survivors around it, to the eventual scenes of the zombies assaulting "Fiddler's Green" that invoke the storming of the Bastille or 1968 riots. There are a ton of lefty/Marxist motifs in the movie, but that doesn't really render it any less enjoyable. Asia Argento does her job by acting decently and looking HOTT as ever, and Robert Joy has a nice turn as a less-than-bright, deformed guy with a good heart who Reilly rescued from a fire. Land entertains, that much is obvious, but it also has complexity almost never seen in this kind of fare, rising to the intelligent levels of 28 Days Later easily. Lots of other filmmakers have done incredible things with Romero's influence, but Romero reasserts himself in this one. He is their Daddy.

Worship 4 Justice (re: ending genocide in Darfur)

Seems like a cool idea, although might be a bit crunchy and happy clappy for my tastes. That said, I think this sort of religious activism which transcends left-right paradigms is a good thing. Have any of you guys heard of this?

We will do what Christians always do when they gather for worship--pray, read Scripture, preach, sing, and take an offering (all of which will go to aid people suffering in Darfur). But we will do these things outdoors, in public, with four goals:

1. To pray for God’s justice and mercy to come for those suffering in Darfur, and to be formed as people who share God’s courageous compassion.

2. To urge the media to increase coverage for those who suffer in Darfur and elsewhere, and to urge our government to exert its influence in the world community to end the genocide there and pursue peace.

3. To call the church in America not to forget the poor and oppressed, especially those in Africa--and to make those who suffer poverty and injustice a greater priority in our prayers, preaching, and action whenever we gather to worship the God of justice.

4. To urge the U.S. government to promote peace in the Darfur region by adequately funding the African Union Peacekeeping effort from the current 2,000 soldiers to at least 15,000 by early 2006.

These are the services which remain:

• Sunday, July 3, 2005: Sudanese Embassy
• Sunday, July 10, 2005: Lafayette Park, White House

But for those of you who aren't Christian or not even religious, well, the event is open to all who are willing to participate:

Our gatherings will be organized and led by Christians from many denominations--but members of other faiths (and those with no faith commitment) who share our concern for our neighbors in Africa are welcomed to join us in solidarity and shared concern. Other sponsoring organizations include Africa Action and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Speakers will include Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, Rabbi David Saperstein, and the Rev. Wallace Charles Smith, among others to be announced.

Lukewarm Court rulings get spit water treatment

"So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth." ---Revelation 3:16

Both Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Rev. C. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance are not overly joyed with today's split rulings on the 10 Commandments cases.

First, Dobson:

"Today's split ruling sends a mixed message to the American public. The court has failed to decide whether it will stand up for religious freedom of expression, or if it will allow liberal special interests to banish God from the public square. Those who care deeply about the religious heritage of this country have cause to be concerned by the apparent lack of commitment to the founders' intent shown by our nation's highest court.

"One point has been clearly made by these decisions: the infamous 'Lemon Test,' used by the court in deciding these cases, is too restrictive of freedom of speech, allows for inequitable rulings and should be replaced. Just as clear is the fact that there is a religious witch-hunt underway, one which has infected virtually every level of our government. It is nothing less than historical revisionism to try to use the First Amendment as an excuse to scrub away all governmental references to the Ten Commandments and our Judeo-Christian heritage."

and Gaddy:

Today's Supreme Court split decision will, for now, keep the wall of separation between religion and government intact but greatly weakened. The Court determined that the display in Kentucky is unconstitutional but their decision in the Texas case allows the government display of this religious document. The venerable wall remains seriously threatened as intense assaults on religious liberty continue from many different parts of the nation.

"First Amendment guarantees of a free exercise of religion without entanglement between the institutions of religion and government are no longer secure in the present environment," said Rev Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance. "We continue to be grateful to the founders for their incredibly wise formula for keeping religion and government separate while fostering the freedom for people to practice or to abstain from the practice of religion. However, our nation's founders would be stunned if they could see the relentless assaults on their vision of a nation blessed by religious freedom. We commend the High Court for its decision on the Kentucky case, but the Texas decision is extremely troubling. Unfortunately this mixed message continues the erosion of the legacy of freedom for and from religion in this nation.

In other words: sppppttttpllpt.

Weekly Dose of Rage

Carnival of the RINOs.

This Party is Lame

There are two interesting columns about the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Apparently Democrats are planning to block the agreement that includes El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Both Thomas Friedman and Charles Krauthammer make strong arguments why CAFTA is good policy, both for the countries in Central America and for the United States. What Friedman says is particularly compelling;

CAFTA is critical for enabling U.S. and Central American textile firms to compete with China. U.S. firms specialize in the more sophisticated work of making dyes, designing patterns and manufacturing specialized yarns, threads and fabrics, and the CAFTA countries specialize in the labor-intensive sewing. Because the CAFTA countries are right next door, U.S. retailers can respond quickly to changes in the marketplace, which far-off Chinese factories cannot do as easily. That's also why, explains Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, that a shirt that says "Made in Honduras" might contain 60 percent U.S. content, while a similar shirt that says "Made in China" most likely would have none.

Finally, there is geopolitics. In the 1980's, we were worried Central America was going to go communist. Now we are worried it is going to go capitalist? We spent billions fighting communism there. Now we have a chance to help consolidate these fragile democracies by locking in a trading relationship with the U.S. that is critical for their development. Shame on us if we balk.

Friedman also references a study that has shown that protectionism in Germany and France has hurt both countries.

Ever since Bush won reelection, I have gotten the feeling that Democrats were more concerned with blocking his agenda and less concerned with good policy. This type of behavior is bad for the party. But worse than that, if they are successful it will be bad for the country.

He Lost His Bags

So I ran into Donald Rumsfeld today. I was working my second job for a non-profit that brings students together from all across the country to learn about the American political system. As I was waiting for student 84 to arrive today at Dulles airport , one of my co-workers blurted out "Is that Donald Rumsfeld?"

Sure enough, with an AARP member's gait, it was ol' Rummy. He was sporting the faux-Brember look: Shirt, sports jacket, slacks and hiking shoes. Who knew the Bremer style would keep? I, being the only person in the group with cajones, waved to Rummy, and with an old politician's reflexes, he waved right back. The fact that I just saw our Secretary of Defense copying a former CPA manager's style wasn't shocking. The fact that he was travelling with no security detail was. He was trailed by what looked like a lowly aide, furiously typing away at his Blackberry.

Sadly, it seemed like United had lost ol' Rummy's bag, thus the reason he kept asking representatives from United for assistance, mentioning that he had to "get back to the office" in a timely fashion, and him missing some of his "paperwork" was not an ideal situation.

He walked within earshot of my group of students as he made his way to the exit, and as a parting gift I exclaimed "Keep up the good work sir!" With a big smile he replied "Thank you very much!", walking away into the sunset. My most significant brush with political fame thus far in my life.