Final Score 78-22

I guess I was somewhat pleased with the voting results on Judge (now Chief Justice) Roberts’ nomination. I wanted it to be as close to unanimous as possible – a sign that Democrats would only stand in the way of a truly objectionable nominee. So 78-22, with 22 Democrats voting yes and 22 voting no, shows fairly strong support for Roberts. And in case a Democrat wins the White House, they haven’t set an impossible standard for future nominees.

What disappoints me though are the Democrats with presidential ambitions who voted no on Roberts (Clinton, Biden, Kerry...). I understand the reason – moderates believe they need to appeal to the base to actually have a chance at winning the nomination – but that doesn’t make it any easier for a moderate like me to feel any better about supporting them. I guess I’ll have to keep waiting for someone to show me that they make logical decisions even when the base is pressuring them to be overly passionate and irrational. But as long as they keep this up, they can expect to continue to be on the losing end of votes on Supreme Court nominees.

More Bussing

Wake County, NC is seeing dramatic increases in scores on standardized tests (Hat tip, Ambivablog) thanks to a program of economic integration where no school would have more than 40% of its students from low income families. Wake County was able to implement this program because the county has a long history of using bussing for racial integration.

What this shows is that improving educational achievement can be accomplished by changing the educational environment for low income students. It also shows though that merit based programs like No Child Left Behind, that financially punish schools for poor performance, are missing the point. Schools in urban areas are not failing because of poor management, they are failing because of the significant environmental problems the students face each day.

Hopefully the country will pay attention to this study. Economic integration may not be possible everywhere, but innovative solutions like this that truly understand the problems children face in receiving an adequate education will continue to move us in the right direction - so long as there is the political will to try grand policies.

Madame President

“Madame President”… Wow. There is such a nice ring to that phrase. I often wondered what the proper title would be. It is Mr. President, so perhaps Mrs. President? But see, that would not work, because Mrs. originates from the word mister’s, and obviously – this woman would belong to no man (not that any women do, or should).

But I digress.

I will admit: when I first heard that ABC was coming out with a show about the first female president, starring Gina Davis, I almost choked on my over-sweetened cup of coffee. I gagged when I heard that the first show about the first female president of the (so-called) biggest democracy in the world was going to be focused on “her family and the challenges of balancing a family with the presidency.” I mean – what the fuck?!!

C’mon, folks. Nobody advertised The West Wing in that manner. Nobody said, “Well, this is going to be a show not so much about the politics and struggles of the American presidency, but about what happens outside the Oval Office, in Bartlett’s family life.” Blah! Nobody would have turned on NBC to watch that show!

And so I was very disappointed and not excited at all about this new show that, once again, defined women’s roles as primarily familial. I could just picture Gina Davis baking cookies for her Cabinet meetings, and chasing a rambunctious toddler around the Oval Office: “Hold on, sweetheart! Mommy has to change that diaper before the 10 o’clock meeting with Kofi Anan!” Again – blah!

I must say, though, I was SO pleasantly surprised when I saw the last half-hour of Commander-In-Chief this past Tuesday night. Yes, there was talk about family. Yes, there were issues with her kids, and her husband who had to adjust to his “first man” status. But that was not the main focus.

When I heard the words “Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States” and saw Gina Davis walk into the room… I can’t even describe it. Chills went all through my body! Madame President…. A woman president… My eyes teared up, and I don’t really remember myself actually breathing during her entire speech to Congress.

So some may say it’s not the most fabulously written show. Some may dislike Gina Davis. Some may… whatever!

The thing that is most important to me is that there is a show taking the idea of a female president seriously. Women and girls all over the United States need to see it. They need to hear the words “Madame President” on a regular basis. They need to visualize, if only through the confines of their TV screens, a woman sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. They need to see it, and they need to believe it. They need to believe that it is possible.

I don’t think that most men will truly understand this sentiment. The words “Mister” and “President” seem almost naturally conjoined in our world. We never have to pause to appreciate or understand what they really mean. It is the status quo. It is the norm. Men didn’t have to fight for it to be so. It just fell in their lap. (White men, I should say.)

If nothing else, I hope that Commander-In-Chief starts putting “Madame” and “President” together more often in our everyday vocabulary. This needs to be more than a dream; it needs to be a reality.

We are still waging a war – political, social, cultural, economic - to put “Madame President’ into the White House. Let Commander-In-Chief help us spread our battle cry.

Burn Baby Burn

Were you ever curious as to how piss poor John Kerry's presidential campaign became in 2004? To the delight of Donks looking to win back the White House in 2008, now you can!

(Tip o' the hat, The Reaction)

I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going to Take it Anymore

Frank Cagle is on a tear. . .

In 2006, all Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for reelection. They ought to be turned out in droves. Their conduct for the past six years has betrayed every promise they ever made about smaller, less-intrusive government and fiscal responsibility. They passed tax cuts, which in the old days meant less revenue, thus less government. But then they have passed one pork-laden bill after another. They have created new entitlement programs, and they have spent the Treasury dry. There are a few Republican House members who have insisted that savings be found to pay for hurricane relief. They are being “Hammered” for being heretics.

[snip]

If you Republican House members move quickly, maybe some of the people who traditionally vote Republican will stay with you. Otherwise, there will be no reason to keep any of you around. You see, you weren’t elected just because people like Republicans. You were elected because you are supposed to believe in something. If you insist on spending down our Treasury like a drunken Powerball winner, they don’t care what you call yourselves. You are a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant hypocrites. If you keep this up, some of us are going to get mad.

Somehow, Evil Glenn's Porkbusters movement is starting to stir the real small-government types out of their dogmatic slumber. They expressed plenty of disappointment with Bush and with Congress, but it seems 200 billion for New Orleans (which was meant to be a PR coup) somehow passed their line in the sand. They've only become more enraged at the complete unwillingness of many R members, including DeLay, to actually do what common sense demands.

Sheehan Continues to Unimpress

For Cindy Sheehan, her extremist pedigree of rants about Zionist Wars and the amorality of waging war on the Taliban obviously wasn't enough. She had to go one better and declare John McCain, who was kind enough to meet with a woman with extremist and socialist ties, a "warmonger." Bull Moose has the details, and thinks Sheehan should apologize. I think this is going to prove to be the final event that seals Sheehan into irrelevance.

Indicted

The Hammer gets screwed.

Coalition for Darfur: Anarchy and the U.N.

As Darfur descends into anarchy, the United Nations appears unable to do any more than express concerns and continue to ask the parties involved to cease their violent attacks.

After rebels attacked and took control of the town of Sheiria last week, the Sudanese army said it was prepared to retake the town, to which the rebels replied that they would "repulse anything from the Sudanese government's army."

The upsurge in violence forced thousands more out of the villages, swelling the ranks of the internally displaced that already numbers nearly 2 million.

As the violence was raging, even the UN's own Special Representative Jan Pronk, a man who tends to see everything in Sudan through rose-colored glasses, was forced to admit that the violence was spiraling out of control. He was joined by the US government, which stated that the "uptick in violence ... is of concern to us" and the UN's genocide advisor, Juan Mendez, who acknowledged that Khartoum had done little to disarm militias or end the "culture of impunity" that exists in Darfur.

Pronk went on to state that the UN must give the Sudanese government and rebels an ultimatum to compel them to reach some sort of peace agreement and even made the startling admission that, thus far, the UN has utterly failed to deal with Darfur

Pronk said that when the Darfur conflict began U.N. humanitarian officials agitated for the Security Council to take up the conflict, which it refused to do.

A "massive force" was needed [in 2003] then to guarantee security but instead several thousand African Union troops and monitors had to carry the burden. And now the council needed to plan for how to keep the peace in case a peace deal was signed.

Pronk was quoted elsewhere as saying

He said the war situation in Sudan was "everybody's failure" and could have been avoided if the international community had acted quickly.

How could the present day situation have been avoided?

"I think there should have been intervention in 2003," Pronk said, adding that while the occurrence of genocide in the country was debatable, "There was mass slaughter of people. It needed humanitarian intervention."

Of course, the international community did not act quickly, nor are they acting quickly now.

In fact, while Darfur burned, the BBC reported that American and British intelligence officials, along with representatives of the UN, China and 12 African nations were in Khartoum discussing cooperation on counter-terrorism operations in the region.

Hosting the conference is part of a sustained diplomatic push by Sudan to shake off its pariah status ... When the opportunity for this second regional conference on counter-terrorism came up, Sudan competed for the right to host it ... The decision of the CIA to agree to come to Sudan shows the pragmatism of the intelligence community against the continuing political desire of America to punish Sudan for what has happened in Darfur.

Khartoum continues to work to "shake off its pariah status," with Sudanese Ambassador Khidir Haroun Ahmed publishing an op-ed in the Washington Times today claiming that "After two decades of brutal civil war, Sudan is emerging as a reminder that engagement, dialogue and intensive diplomacy can resolve seemingly intractable problems and permit a country to look to the future with optimism."

Meanwhile, the violence and anarchy Khartoum unleashed is now spilling over into neighboring Chad, a country that is already host to an estimated 200,000 refugees from Darfur.

A group of unidentified armed men in military uniform crossed into Chad from Sudan early on Monday, killing 36 herders and stealing livestock, the Chadian government said.

The violence, in addition to threatening the people of Darfur, is also threatening the relief work that sustains them, as U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland noted yesterday

"If it (the violence) continues to escalate, we may not be able to sustain our operations for 2.5 million people requiring life-saving assistance," he said, adding: "In Darfur, it (aid distribution) could all end tomorrow. It is as serious as that."

As Eric Reeves never fails to remind us, in December 2004, Egeland warned that 100,000 people could die a month if humanitarian organizations are forced to suspend operations in Darfur.

Despite all of this, Pronk still managed to recently declare that progress was being made on implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South and on efforts to reach peace in Darfur.

Such a statement is utterly feckless and shameful.

As Gerald Caplan, author of "Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide," wrote last week

But what we are learning from Darfur, which we never remotely imagined, is that even naming a genocide is an utterly inconsequential exercise in hot air ... despite the apparent concern of many western leaders, despite the pressure from elements of civil society, the catastrophe in Darfur is explicitly allowed to continue ... As always, everything takes precedence over the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of distant, exotic others. It won't be the last time."

After two years, 400,000 deaths, and an estimated 3.5 million now entirely dependent on humanitarian aid, it must be stated that the UN and every one of its member nations have failed the people of Darfur and, in all likelihood, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Judd Apatow Wisdom

It's like a few years ago, I heard ELO had a new album, and I was very excited to get it. It was truly awful. Such things make me scared for myself. Is there a moment after you have had some success, where you are no longer good at what you do, but you think you are still the shit? That is a truly terrifying thought for me. I can wake up in a cold sweat fearing one day I won't be funny at all, and everyone is afraid to tell me.

Refund Please

El Wapo goes medieval on the congressional delegation from Louisiana for proposing a bail out pacakage to the tune of $250 billion. Since the whole Porkbusters meme is gaining so much steam, I see no reason NOT to start a parallel movement. For everyone who donated money to the Katrina relief effort, it's well within our rights to request a return of our money. With billions of dollars potentially being sent to the pelican state's coffers, I shall claim that I contributed via a larger-than-necessary portion of my taxes in 2010, which undoubtedly went to some hurricane victim's flatscreen television.

Shooting First

Yesterday, Florida's "Shoot First" law went into effect. Before I comment on this, I want to make two things clear. First, I am a pretty broad supporter of second amendment rights. I am highly skeptical of gun control, but I acknowledge that in some purely pragmatic situations it should occur. For instance, I don't believe that military-grade weapons should be able to be sold to civilians, and that some weapons (of this type) can be banned. I believe the second amendment says people have the right to own guns, rifles, maybe even some assault rifles. I don't believe it says people can stroll down the street looking like this though. That is plain crazy.

Second, I believe in self-defense. I think the state of affairs in Britain where people are arrested for trying to fight off burglars in their own houses. People have a right to defend their persons if threatened. That being said, Florida's "Shoot First" law is likely to cause some real tragedies and goes too far. The notion that the law says if someone "feels" threatened, either themselves or their property, they are within their legal rights to use deadly force. Double-yoo-tee-eff were they thinking? Self-defense in the United States is a tricky thing, but usually the thought is that if you killed someone in self-defense you need to have some objective proof that you were in fact in danger. Not with "shoot first!" It makes it all subjective, which if courtrooms have shown one thing with insanity defenses, results in a circus. What if you "feel" threatened by the police? What if you "feel" threatened by the foreign tourist who doesn't understand english? What if you "feel" threatened by the color red? And then we introduce that the same thing applies to property too. . .The use of deadly force in any context needs to be taken more seriously than this. The number of homicides that will happen because people are confused and don't understand someone shouting at them in fear (not that you're even required to warn someone under this law before you shoot them dead) will be daunting. People will end up in a "It's coming right for us!" mentality like Uncle Jimbo. This is not the way to strengthen self-defense laws, this is a way to weaken them by reducing them to hyperbole and placing everyone in danger, and giving everyone the right to shoot their way out of that perceived danger.

40 Year Old Liberal?

I have been told that you get more conservative as you get older. In fact, a really funny joke that I heard (that I probably tell way too often) says that if you are a 20 year old Republican you have no heart, and if you are a 40 year old Democrat, you have no brain. Now I have always maintained that this would not happen to me; that I am a (moderate) liberal, through and through. But sure enough, after reading this article, I found myself another step closer to switching parties.

Truth be told, I don’t think my politics is changing. I am just reacting to the recent stupidity of the Democrats (which many of us on this blog have been commenting about for a while). I cannot comprehend why Democrats would boycott a chance to ask former head of FEMA Michael Brown tough questions about his role during the Hurricane Katrina disaster recovery. By having only a few Democrats at the hearing, Brown was able to direct most of the blame towards the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans – both Democrats. Not that I don’t think they deserve their fair share, but Brown shouldn’t be given a free pass to duck all responsibility. Wait a minute; he wasn’t really given a free pass. Nope, he was questioned by Republicans, who came off looking like the only ones who are truly interested in understanding the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Although it is unclear from the article if the Republicans actually grilled Brownie, at least they were there to posture and give the appearance that they are investigating this.

If I could only teach Democrats one thing it would be that voters don’t want to see this political nonsense. Instead they want to see that their elected representatives care more about understanding and correcting problems than in settling old scores.

Inconceivable!!

About 200,000 "lefty nutjobs" gathered in DC this past weekend for some good ole fashioned anti-Bush demonstrations. I was there, too. I had to go. My people were calling to me: What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now! And how about: This is what democracy looks like! (crowd repeats) This is what democracy sounds like! (crowd repeats) This is what democracy acts like! (crowd repeats) Yeah!

Ah, indeed, far too much time had passed since I exercised my right to peaceful assembly! Since July 2004! Rome, Italy. Bush was in town visiting, and a few thousand folks thought they'd take to the streets. Damn, those Italians sure know how to throw a protest! Drums, signs, flags… Huge trucks carrying DJs, turntables, blasting music down the crowded streets. Can you imagine? Local radio stations supporting an anti-Bush protest? Oh, those crazy Europeans! Always so fucking unconventional.

But, let us talk about here and now. The protest this past Saturday.

The highlight for me, by far, was spotting the actor who plays my favorite movie villain – Vizzini in The Princess Bride. Yup, folks, my friend the Saguaro Empress and I somehow ended up standing right next to Wallace Shawn!! I did not want to pester the man with Ohmigod, can you say ‘Inconceivable!’ for me? Just once? Pretty please? But others had no such reservations. We tried our best to appear absolutely nonchalant about our famous co-protester, but poor Vizzini ended up being accosted by several rabid fans nonetheless, and Inconceivable!! rang out from the crowd on a few occasions.

So as homage to the man who tried to take on the ever-so-handsome Westley a.k.a. Dread Pirate Roberts, I shall now proceed to list a few things that I perceived to be completely inconceivable to me as a participant in the protest, and more importantly, as a citizen.

1. George didn’t even have the guts to stick around DC this weekend. Our Commander-in-Chief, tail between his legs, ran scurrying down to Texas under the pretense of "monitoring Hurricane Rita efforts," while his wife kept the DC hearth warm. No wonder her approval ratings are higher than his.

2. For all the anti-war protesters at the march, I was surprised at the lack of pro-war protesters showing up. Yup, there was a Bible-thumping looney who told us through a megaphone that we were all sinful and going to hell for protesting the war, but other than that… I remember the March for Women's Lives in April 2004. Anti-choice protesters almost lined the entire route. Now that’s what I call interactive democracy.

3. Even though there were more anti-war protesters, the Monday morning front page cover of the Washington Post Express had a picture of parents of a fallen soldier at a pro-war demonstration. Okay. I see how it is, Mr. Mainstream Media. Bring it on!

4. Ninety-one percent of DC voters voted against Bush in the 2004 presidential election. When the protesters gathered to march AGAINST Bush in 2005, it was those same DC voters who footed the bill for anti-protest security. Man, does it suck to be a voter in DC! Not only do you get to have a president you didn’t vote for, but he moves in next door, and you get stuck paying his security bills, too!!

5. I read in the news that this was the largest anti-war protest since the U.S. invaded Iraq. Some say it is the biggest anti-war protest since Vietnam. How sad. Are we only getting gutsy now? How long did it take us – two and a half years of needless death and bloodshed? Gosh, talk about slow on the uptake, my fellow Americans.

Inconceivable!

Kinda Kinky, But No, It's Not Me

A friend of mine sent me a link to the item excerpted below and asked, somewhat seriously, I think, if it was I who posted the ad. No, for the record, it wasn't.

I prefer being spanked.

Reply to: anon-100252781@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-09-27, 8:59AM EDT


Ladies, if you're single and living in DC, you're almost certainly a liberal. At the very least, you hate Chimpy "Smirk-Smirk" McBushitlerburtonazi. After all, he and Cheney and their Halliburton cronies caused two huge hurricaines, lied about Iraq, want to tell you what you can do with your uterus, etc. Not only that, he defeated that windsurfing Frenchman in the last election.

I've got a great way to get out your frustrations: slap me around. I voted for the man twice, and I think he's awesome. Seriously, you can slap me in the face as much as you want. Let's meet for coffee in a safe, public place to talk it over.

• this is in or around Cap Hill & Downtown
  
• no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

Flawless Victory!

I'm kind of ashamed to link to a Christopher Hitchens piece, but oh well. When you're at a crunch at work, you got no other choices but to borrow from others. In effect, he summarizes all the problems I see with the antiwar movement and its weekend activities in one brutal slice. The characters running this are just so unscrupulous and so shady that they have no claim to moral legitimacy of any kind. And Hitch tells us why. Here we go.

I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper—to mention only two radical left journalists—who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.

The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party—Ramsey Clark's core outfit—is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump. If the "United for Peace and Justice" lot want to sink their differences with such riffraff and mount a joint demonstration, then they invite some principled political criticism on their own account. And those who just tag along … well, they just tag along.

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

This group and coalitions brings out everything bad about left-wing politics in the same way that Pat Robertson brings out everything bad about right-wing politics. It's the reason that the effort is fronted and run by such loony bin hysterics that the antiwar movement cannot really catch the fire it might have been able to from the beginning. Even though I don't agree with the objectives of the antiwar movement, I desperately believe that we need one. We need a legitimate movement to challenge, critique, and denounce the mistakes made in the Iraq War, to remind us of it, to push politicians and everyone else to try harder. Unfortunately, the current antiwar movement not only doesn't seem capable of such things, they don't have any such goals. They are just plain stuck on stupid.

Down With Interest Groups

I think the Roberts nomination should cause us to reflect on the current state of judicial nominees specifically and partisan politics generally. It has been noted, mostly by Republican Senators, that Justices Scalia and Ginsberg received nearly unanimous approval from the Senate, and both are on the far end of the spectrum in their respective beliefs. What has changed since then that someone like Roberts, far less extreme than Scalia, would not garner near unanimous support?

At first glance one could blame the Democrats, because they are the ones voting against Roberts. But I don’t think anyone honestly believes that Republicans would be giving unanimous support to a Supreme Court nominee if it was coming from a Democratic President. Republicans would feel pressure (similar to what the Democrats face) to block a nominee that might support gay rights, abortion, and separation of church and state.

The obvious cause then is the interest groups (and I don’t pretend that I am saying anything ground-breaking or original). Right now politics is so divisive because we have interest groups that are so self-righteous they are willing to severely punish any politician that actually votes against them. This creates strong party discipline at the expense of clear decision-making and strong character. And this is definitely the case on both sides of the isle.

I have heard people blame the McCain – Feingold Campaign Finance Act, which was well intentioned but appears to have strengthened the interest groups at the expense of the general public. When the interest groups have as much power as they do, good decision-making is lost. Most of us with a clear head can see this. We can see it in the Roberts nomination, but we can also see it in arguments about the Iraq War and many other debates facing the country.

I keep saying that I expect a major blow-up soon – that the middle will take back politics in one fell swoop. But in reality, I hardly believe that will happen. I hope for it more than anything – but deep down I just expect politics as usual to continue. And when this happens, we will see Democrats with no good ideas facing Republicans without good ideas. We will see the candidate that is the lesser of two evils win (like we did in 2004). And in that case, I am not really sure if I care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat.

Mike Brown LIVES

Via TMV

"Perhaps we should have known better than to believe it when Michael Brown was forced out at FEMA.

CBS News' Gloria Borger is reporting tonight that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has rehired Brown, the former head of the agency who resigned in ignominy this month for overstating his qualifications and underperforming in relief efforts.

Borger writes that Brown will serve as "a consultant to evaluate it's response following Hurricane Katrina." So does this mean that his salary will be less than or greater that it was before he resigned? And even more importantly, why is this guy getting another cent of taxpayers' money?

[Update 5:20 PM Pacific]: The AP's Lara Jakes Jordan adds more to the story.


Brown is continuing to work at the Federal Emergency Management Agency at full pay, with his Sept. 12 resignation not taking effect for two more weeks, said Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke.

During that time, Brown will advise the department on "some of his views on his experience with Katrina," as he transitions out of his job, Knocke said.
Not too bad of a deal for "Brownie," though it's not entirely clear how much the American public benefits from him continuing to receive a full paycheck."

Mike Brown, sullying the name of consultants everywhere. I don't know about the rest of my colleagues, but this consultant is beyond disgusted. Shame on you Mr. Brown for wasting taxpayer money with these 'consulting fees' of yours. For shame.

Oh Jesus God NO

It's official. The Donks are completely out of ideas. I quit.

Anyone?

Mr P. and I have discussed that we would vote for anyone other than Senator George Allen of VA if he ever ran for President. However, I think I found my limit ... Ben Affleck. It turns out there's a desperation move by VA Dems to get Affleck to run for Senator against Allen.

Hmm, actually, nah. I would rather have "Benator" than crazy ass George. Yeah, Affleck was in Gigli but he was also in Dogma.

ABC's Anchor Search

Okay, everyone, list your fantasy pick to succeed the late Peter Jennings. My fantasy pick would be Lunchbox, assuming he could adapt his unique JPB-style to newscasting.

But back to reality. ABC should seriously consider going out-of-network and snagging John Seigenthaler from NBC. Seigenthaler has the look, sound, and demeanor of an evening newscast anchor, and from what I've seen, plays most of the news pieces he's done on NBC Nightly News on the weekends pretty much straight down the middle.

And yes, I did offer similar advice to CBS a while back.

As a dog returns to his vomit...

... so George Soros returns to blowing wads of cash on a risky political scheme.

Billionaire financier George Soros hosted a fundraiser for Senate Democrats last week at his Manhattan home, making his first foray into politics after spending $25 million of his money in an effort to defeat President Bush last year.

Soros gathered about 60 of his friends and acquaintances in his Upper East Side home Thursday to hear a presentation from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to a knowledgeable source. The event raised an estimated $250,000 for Senate Democratic candidates.

Better than Sheehan

The antiwar movement and the left continue to select the shrillest and most inaccessible figures imaginable. I especially love the "Bush is the symptom, Capitalism is the disease Revolution is the answer" placards that were all over C-Span at this weekend's rally. And these people expect to convince the 51% who voted for Bush that they're right?

In any case, they ignore a family and a man DoD made a propaganda fest out of and who could provide a much more accessible rallying point. A family that if the antiwar movement could line up behind, they would score a panoply of points and tether and anchor their cause to an unmoveable and recognizable rock. Bonus points: in this case there is more than documented evidence DoD and the Administration lied. But the details are even better.

“There have been so many discrepancies so far that it’s hard to know what to believe,” Mary Tillman said. “There are too many murky details.” The files the family received from the Army in March are heavily censored, with nearly every page containing blacked-out sections; most names have been deleted. (Names for this story were provided by sources close to the investigation.) At least one volume was withheld altogether from the family, and even an Army press release given to the media has deletions. On her copies, Mary Tillman has added competing marks and scrawls — countless color-coded tabs and angry notes such as “Contradiction!” “Wrong!” and “????”

A Chronicle review of more than 2,000 pages of testimony, as well as interviews with Pat Tillman’s family members and soldiers who served with him, found contradictions, inaccuracies and what appears to be the military’s attempt at self-protection.

For example, the documents contain testimony of the first investigating officer alleging that Army officials allowed witnesses to change key details in their sworn statements so his finding that certain soldiers committed “gross negligence” could be softened.

Interviews also show a side of Pat Tillman not widely known — a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author.

Unlike Cindy Sheehan — who has protested against President Bush because of the death of her son Casey in combat in Baghdad — Mary Tillman, 49, who teaches in a San Jose public junior high school, and her ex-husband, Patrick Tillman, 50, a San Jose lawyer, have avoided association with the anti-war movement. Their main public allies are Sen. John McCain, RAriz., and Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, who have lobbied on their behalf. Yet the case has high stakes because of Pat Tillman’s status as an all-American hero.

Pat Tillman, the NFL star. Pat Tillman, the hero. Pat Tillman, a man who served his country even though he disagreed with the military on the war. And Pat Tillman, whose mother Mary Tillman was lied to. And Mary Tillman, who has support from some Republicans in her effort to find out the truth about her sons. It makes so much sense its startling. It's a real emotional tear-jerker, and captures so much about what is wrong with the incompetence of the DoD in waging the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. . .and yet, the Left will never latch on to this. Ever, ever, ever. Why? Because it makes too much sense. And I doubt Mary Tillman is willing to stand on stage and cry out that Bush should be tried as some sort of war criminal. And that's the extreme message they're going for.

Hat tip, Mr. Sullivan.

On the Subject of Crazy People and Protests

Smash has firsthand reporting, including pictures and sound recordings, of quite a nutty one in California. I weep for the antiwar movement's credibility when I see things like this.

Sacrifice for the Team

In Game 6 of the 2002 World Series, the San Francisco Giants were two innings away from winning the World Series. All that was left was for Rob Nen to do what he did all season - shut down the opposite team's best hitters. This article gives the background behind the double Nen gave up to Troy Glaus that gave the Anaheim Angels a one run lead, and eventually the win, in Game 6 (the Angels went on to win Game 7 the next day, stealing the World Series from the Giants). The article shows that this wasn't a Mitch Williams or Dennis Eckersley type story. It is a must read for any sports fan about ultimate sacrifice for the team, and playing on borrowed time.

Tragedy in the Ring

Although I certainly don’t advocate for an end to boxing, tragedies like this one remind us how dangerous the sport really is. Unfortunately there isn’t much that can be done to make it any safer. Each boxer knows the risk they face upon entering the ring – but that doesn’t make it any less depressing when one dies from their injuries.

Freedom in the Midst of Disasters

A surfer off the shore of Galveston, Texas, was arrested Friday for not adhering to evacuation orders and surfing the large waves created by an approaching Hurricane Rita, according to a Local 6 News report.The man, who was not identified, was taken into custody by police after coming out of the surf.

Look, is it really necessary to arrest people for being incredibly stupid? Am I wrong to think it's not only asinine but an affront to individual liberty that a surfer gets his ass tossed in jail because he decided to ride the waves rather than get out of Dodge (only to get stuck in never-ending traffic) during an evacuation order?

It seems pretty simple to me: warn the public to get out, because if they don't, they can't be guaranteed timely, if any, emergency, fire, or police response by the authorities. Then let the chips fall where they may for those who take that chance.

Choose Wisely

So there's the big antiwar protest this weekend. I've gotten numerous emails about it on all the (D) listservs I've been on. Everyone, even moderate D's (who are anti-war, of course), see it as a big tent coming together type deal of sensible people coming to try to end the war. What they don't understand, though, is that it is being run, organized, and put forth by these nutjobs (this piece is by David Corn, yes, David Corn, of the superliberal The Nation, and it is a thorough denouncing of this group). That's right: A.N.S.W.E.R. The protest will be attended by a lot of neophytes, and will likely be quite a large event. But make no mistake, this isn't some level-headed peace march. ANSWER is much more nutty and extreme than that. I don't have problems with antiwar protests. I don't think, especially in the Iraq situation, that's its particular extreme, or "treasonous" as so many would like to label it. Its dissent. But run by these people it's dissent of a particularly rabid, moonbat type.

Dems tethered themselves to Cindy Sheehan for awhile. And it worked, and most Dems didn't see a problem with it. Mostly because the MSM was extra kind to Sheehan and didn't choose to dwell on the moments when she called the killers of her son "freedom fighters" and that Casey died in a "Zionist War" and that she wanted immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and found that war just as immoral as Iraq. In other words: they got lucky that Sheehan wasn't really called out for the nutjob she was. As ANSWER gains strength and support amongst mainstream liberals, they're going to need a lot more luck to hide what ANSWER really believes in: views, stances, and demands that would not only terrify almost all of middle America, but should do the same even to lefties and liberals who understand their insanity. My message: one should be careful about one's company, and the causes one anchors oneself too. What seems like a perhaps sensible, mainstream war protest is unlikely to turn out so, and is going to support a lot of madness many people shouldn't want anything to do with.

Ol' Dirty Bastard or Baby Jesus?

You really have to respect a political scientist when he couches his political predictions in Wu-Tang Clan speak. It's even more impressive that Larry Sabato is the culpable party. Is Larry's newfound fondness of the RZA, GZA, Method Man and co. due to his addiction to Charlottesville's 91.9 Boom Box rap show every weeknight? Or is it because, deep down, he's always been a softy for Shaolin and all its inhabitants? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know the truth, but I surely regret never taking one of his politics courses back in college, what with all the Wu-wear he was probably hiding under those suits of his.

Up Against the Wall

A Bush nominee being criticized is nothing new. . .unless it's being done by The National Review. And this is no aw shucks criticism. They want her nomination removed. LET THE MUTINY BEGIN! Between this and the Porkbusters Movement (goading NANCY PELOSI into action as the greatest fiscal conservative in Congress no less), real conservatives are finally fighting back, and over stuff criminally neglected that actually matters to us all. Power to them.

Let the negative ads begin

So today was the first day I noticed negative ads in the Virginia Governor's race. Thank goodness. I was tired of those cheesy ads of Kaine with a classroom of kids.

Trainwreck. . .Thy Name Be X3

CHUD has the latest on the mess the next X-men movie is becoming. I don't think any Director on earth has the ability to do this kind of madness, and with Brett Ratner at the wheel we can be sure that none will ever attempt it again. I just want to know why the hell they've decided to bring in OMEGA RED, AVALANCHE, SCARLET WITCH, a bunch of madeup X-men no one's heard of, MULTIPLE MAN, and still try to squeeze Sentinels and Dark Phoenix into the story. This is sounding a lot like Batman and Robin.

Faith and Fear

This article highlights both my fears about the far left, and my faith in some of the more clear-thinking liberals. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he will support the nomination of Judge Roberts to fill Rehnquist’s vacancy on the Supreme Court. Here is what he said:

"I know this won't be popular with many of my constituents," the senior Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, said in an interview, after praising Judge Roberts as a "man of integrity" in a speech on the Senate floor. "But I really didn't come here to win a popularity contest."

I can’t tell you how much it relieves me to have at least one Democrat (with more to come hopefully) make the right decision both in general and for the long term health of the party. In order to court moderates, Democrats need to show that they will only vote nay on nominees that are truly objectionable. And even though I expressed caution at some of his earlier memos (Prince assures me they were lawyer jokes) he did a pretty good job of convincing me through his testimony that he will make a good chief justice. What I don’t understand is why more Democrats can’t show the same deference to Bush’s nominee that Republicans showed to Justice Ginsberg – her nomination was nearly unanimous. And let me also say that Senator Kerry continues to prove why he doesn’t deserve to be President as he plans to vote against Roberts.

But it is the rhetoric like the following that truly scares me:

Indeed, Mr. Leahy's decision brought a rebuke from Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, who has been among those leading the charge against Judge Roberts. Mr. Neas called the decision "inexplicable, and deeply disappointing," and warned that if Judge Roberts overturned or rolled back decisions on women's rights, abortion rights, environmental protections and other issues of importance to Democrats, "Senator Leahy's support for Roberts will make him complicit in those rulings."

If Judge Roberts rolls back decisions on women’s rights, Senator Leahy is not to blame, nor is he complicit. The American people are responsible for this because they elected President Bush with the full knowledge that there was bound to be some Supreme Court vacancies on his watch. It frustrates me to no end hearing statements from the far left or far right that say anyone who isn't on their side is complicit in ruining America.

Evil Incarnate

As per Mr.Sun's request, I link to his post bringing you the true face of evil.

Fun With Google Earth: Where Does My Local Terror Suspect Work?Go

The Muslim school at which a College Park terror suspect works. Just enter the following into the location search field and hit the button. I used this because the street address was a few hundred feet off. This also works with Google Maps.

"39.0148307092678 -76.91143569286906"

More Incompetence

This is an interesting graphic. In his order for a FEMA response prior to Katrina hitting, the President only included the land locked parishes. You know, the parishes not touching water.