The Yanks have now had back-to-back "firsts" in their most recent series. First sweep by the Mets, first series loss to the Tigers at the Stadium since 1996. Yuck.
The pitching is horrible, the hitting is spotty, and tonight they face Yankee-killer Victor Zambrano. The D-Rays are 3-5 against the Yanks this year, but 3-0 with Zambrano on the hill. Time for the Yanks to shake off the post-RedSawks fugue and start playing some decent ball again.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Repeat after me: no WMDs
The US Dept. of Energy removed nearly two tons of low-grade uranium (enough to make a nuke) and other radioactive materials from Iraq last month. Much of this seems to have been for innocuous usages, but could have been converted for nefarious purposes. See this report for details.
Economy go boom
The US economy is flying high -- an expected growth rate of 4.6% or more this year. That rate is higher than any rate during the Clinton years and would be the highest since the Reagan administration.
Iran-amok
The Iranians are getting brazen. The theocracy first captures 8 British sailors in disputed waters and impounds their vessels. Thereafter the Iranians faced down the Brits, effectively holding British sailors as prisoners with no repercussions. The lesson, as Mark Steyn noted, is that the Iranians got away with it:
That's what matters: getting away with it. Do you think [UK Foreign Minister Jack] Straw, fretting over the "complications" of Anglo-Iranian relations, will make the mullahs pay any price for what they did? And, if he doesn't, what conclusions do you think the Islamic Republic will draw from its artful test of Western - or, at any rate, European - resolve? Right now, the British, French and Germans are making a show of getting tough on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Is that "tough" as in "Go ahead, imam, make my day"? Or is it "tough" as in [an] official's "one-way conversation"? Just a bit of diplo-bluster. If you were the mullahs, you might well conclude that the Europeans don't mean it, that they've decided they can live with a nuclear Iran, and you might as well go full speed ahead.
And thus, the result of playing nice with the mullahs is this: Iranian intelligence agents going to Iraq to set car-bombs -- presumably targeting the Iraqi interim government and its allies. Why? Because, as this Fox News article reports:
Syrian President Bashar Assad, at the end of a two-day trip to Iran on Monday, said developments in Iraq are "the most important issue" for Syria and other neighbors of Iraq, including Iran.
Iran's powerful former President Hashemi Rafsanjani (search) said . . . The "conspiracies" being hatched by "Washington and Tel Aviv" against Iraq call for increased "strategic cooperation" between Iran and Syria . . .
Iran needs (1) to be called out by Pres. Bush, (2) its nuke reactor bombed by the Israelis.
But leave treating Iran to the experts: read this Ilan Berman article in the Middle East Quarterly on how to tame Iran.
That's what matters: getting away with it. Do you think [UK Foreign Minister Jack] Straw, fretting over the "complications" of Anglo-Iranian relations, will make the mullahs pay any price for what they did? And, if he doesn't, what conclusions do you think the Islamic Republic will draw from its artful test of Western - or, at any rate, European - resolve? Right now, the British, French and Germans are making a show of getting tough on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Is that "tough" as in "Go ahead, imam, make my day"? Or is it "tough" as in [an] official's "one-way conversation"? Just a bit of diplo-bluster. If you were the mullahs, you might well conclude that the Europeans don't mean it, that they've decided they can live with a nuclear Iran, and you might as well go full speed ahead.
And thus, the result of playing nice with the mullahs is this: Iranian intelligence agents going to Iraq to set car-bombs -- presumably targeting the Iraqi interim government and its allies. Why? Because, as this Fox News article reports:
Syrian President Bashar Assad, at the end of a two-day trip to Iran on Monday, said developments in Iraq are "the most important issue" for Syria and other neighbors of Iraq, including Iran.
Iran's powerful former President Hashemi Rafsanjani (search) said . . . The "conspiracies" being hatched by "Washington and Tel Aviv" against Iraq call for increased "strategic cooperation" between Iran and Syria . . .
Iran needs (1) to be called out by Pres. Bush, (2) its nuke reactor bombed by the Israelis.
But leave treating Iran to the experts: read this Ilan Berman article in the Middle East Quarterly on how to tame Iran.
Judicial battles
The Senate Democrats have undertaken the most dishonest and anti-constitutional campaign against the President's judicial nominees in the history of judicial nominations. A minority of 41 Democrat Senators have misused the filibuster power to prevent up-or-down votes on numerous Bush judicial appointments. The advice-and-consent of the Senate clause only requires majority votes, these filibusters require supermajorities.
What about Republican actions against Clinton nominees? No Clinton nominees in his first term were bottled up for ideological reasons. Similarly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had an immense track record as a liberal jurist, won Supreme Court confirmation by 97-3. Clinton had some nominees who were not appointed at the end of his second term, just as Pres. Bush the Elder had (more) nominees who did not receive their appointments as his term ended.
What about the filibuster against (Democratic nominee) Abe Fortas for Chief Justice in 1967? The Fortas filibuster could have been broken by a simple majority, not a 60-Senator supermajority, and was led by Democrats.
The Democrats have been shameful, the Republicans have been spineless. C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel, has details on one of the latest victims of the Democrat witch-hunt, Claude Allen, and the overall judicial blockade.
What about Republican actions against Clinton nominees? No Clinton nominees in his first term were bottled up for ideological reasons. Similarly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had an immense track record as a liberal jurist, won Supreme Court confirmation by 97-3. Clinton had some nominees who were not appointed at the end of his second term, just as Pres. Bush the Elder had (more) nominees who did not receive their appointments as his term ended.
What about the filibuster against (Democratic nominee) Abe Fortas for Chief Justice in 1967? The Fortas filibuster could have been broken by a simple majority, not a 60-Senator supermajority, and was led by Democrats.
The Democrats have been shameful, the Republicans have been spineless. C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel, has details on one of the latest victims of the Democrat witch-hunt, Claude Allen, and the overall judicial blockade.
Distressing Yanks
I'm not alone in this, but it's extremely distressing to see the Yanks pitch like the Rockies. Too many homers allowed, too many runs allowed, Mooooooooosina with a ridiculous ERA (5.20) that's nearly 2 runs too high, Contreras and Vazquez among the league leaders in homers allowed, and rumors that they want Jamie Moyer (who leads the league in dingers against)? Yeesh.
Here's hoping the anti-parasite drugs work on Kevin Brown and Mooooooooooose gets his head straight for the second half of the year.
Here's hoping the anti-parasite drugs work on Kevin Brown and Mooooooooooose gets his head straight for the second half of the year.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
France defending Europe, just like 1940.
Fresh from the grab-bag of apocalyptic portents comes this report on mighty France defending Europe. Somehow I think the Czechs, Slovaks, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Hungarians, and Poles know better than to trust France's promises of mutual defense.
Here are some of the comments from France's Defense Minister:
France could use its nuclear capability to defend its neighbours, French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview Monday . . .
She said that rogue states "could one day point their missiles toward France and its neighbours. We could say to those countries: 'Watch out, if you try to carry out your threats we will destroy you before you know what's hit you.'"
"Today in Europe there are only three countries who spend more than 2.0 percent of GDP on defence. They are France, Britain and Greece. The others are not doing enough," Alliot-Marie said.
She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world.
Stop laughing.
No, I mean it, stop laughing.
This is serious business.
Ok, keep laughing; I will too.
Here are some of the comments from France's Defense Minister:
France could use its nuclear capability to defend its neighbours, French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview Monday . . .
She said that rogue states "could one day point their missiles toward France and its neighbours. We could say to those countries: 'Watch out, if you try to carry out your threats we will destroy you before you know what's hit you.'"
"Today in Europe there are only three countries who spend more than 2.0 percent of GDP on defence. They are France, Britain and Greece. The others are not doing enough," Alliot-Marie said.
She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world.
Stop laughing.
No, I mean it, stop laughing.
This is serious business.
Ok, keep laughing; I will too.
YAWN, Kerry/Edwards
So rich man John Kerry picked rich man John Edwards as his running mate to make the Democratic presidential ticket in 2004 probably the richest pairing in history. Edwards has to be the most callow VP nominee since Dan Quayle. Edwards has no record of accomplishment, has been in the Senate for barely one term and did not run for reelection because his own ratings in his home state are so bad. All Kerry did was make the political and calculated choice, not a bold choice, not a wise choice and not a choice based on character or principle. Thus, for Kerry, his pick was consistent with the rest of his decision-making.
Signs signs signs, from Independence Day weekend
Three signs of the apocalypse from Independence Day weekend: (1) the Mets sweeping the Yanks -- was the stench from Queens caused by the Yankees' atrocious pitching (27 runs and 9 dingers in a pitchers' park against a weak-hitting team) or from Mets fans filling their pants in shock? (2) Greece beating Portugal to win Euro 2004 in a battle of the two worst economies of European countries that were not under the Communist boot for 40+ years and (3) the Monk going to Boise, Idaho of all f-ing places for his Fourth.
The Monk went to Boise to meet Monkette2B's momma. Nice town, bit small for the urban Monk. Boise has a river cutting through just south of downtown (the Boise River) and instead of erecting businesses and night spots like San Antonio's Riverwalk, Boise created an interlinked park system stretching about 7 miles on each side of the river -- The Greenbelt. Along each side of the river is a trail for bikes/skaters/walkers. Nice deal. Also the river is clean (and VERY COLD) and in nice weather folks jump in with their rafts or tubes and float downstream. The Monk did that last Saturday and is still regaining feeling in his bottom after soaking in the frigid flow for 2 hours. For college sports geeks, a walk on the south side of the Greenbelt will take you past Boise State U. and its stadium, which is famous for its cobalt blue Astroturf, aka the Smurf Turf.
Outside Boise is pretty mountain country with rolling hills, canyons and REALLY BIG SKY. Unfortunately, Idaho is getting locusts this year. We saw some driving up to Bogus Basin, the ski resort that is currently abandoned until October/November. Locusts all over the place, and the Monk trying to squish as many as possible with his rent car.
Ultimately, nice town, clean, clean air in the surrounds, quiet and very nice to visit. But a bit isolated and small for the ultra-urban Monk.
The Monk went to Boise to meet Monkette2B's momma. Nice town, bit small for the urban Monk. Boise has a river cutting through just south of downtown (the Boise River) and instead of erecting businesses and night spots like San Antonio's Riverwalk, Boise created an interlinked park system stretching about 7 miles on each side of the river -- The Greenbelt. Along each side of the river is a trail for bikes/skaters/walkers. Nice deal. Also the river is clean (and VERY COLD) and in nice weather folks jump in with their rafts or tubes and float downstream. The Monk did that last Saturday and is still regaining feeling in his bottom after soaking in the frigid flow for 2 hours. For college sports geeks, a walk on the south side of the Greenbelt will take you past Boise State U. and its stadium, which is famous for its cobalt blue Astroturf, aka the Smurf Turf.
Outside Boise is pretty mountain country with rolling hills, canyons and REALLY BIG SKY. Unfortunately, Idaho is getting locusts this year. We saw some driving up to Bogus Basin, the ski resort that is currently abandoned until October/November. Locusts all over the place, and the Monk trying to squish as many as possible with his rent car.
Ultimately, nice town, clean, clean air in the surrounds, quiet and very nice to visit. But a bit isolated and small for the ultra-urban Monk.
Friday, July 02, 2004
What the Koran really says is . . .
Lee Smith is writing a book on Arab culture. In this article, he raises the question of why the Western media continually says that beheading is not mentioned in the Koran even though it is clearly referred to as an acceptable practice against one's enemies.
Here are two key points:
If reporters bothered to open up a copy of the Quran, say, N.J. Dawood's Penguin Classics translation, they'd find at least two relevant passages:
* * *
Certainly the press, when reporting on the Middle East and Islam, should question its sources at least as rigorously as it interrogates athletes suspected of steroid use, be more inclined to doubt than belief, and report fact rather than serve agendas. That is to say, whether or not beheading actually appears in the Quran is a matter of verifiable fact and not subject to the opinion of imams and professors who are apparently interested in advancing a message.
Read it all.
Here are two key points:
If reporters bothered to open up a copy of the Quran, say, N.J. Dawood's Penguin Classics translation, they'd find at least two relevant passages:
God revealed His will to the angels, saying: "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers." (Sura 8, Verse 12)
"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads." (Sura 47, Verse 4)
* * *
Certainly the press, when reporting on the Middle East and Islam, should question its sources at least as rigorously as it interrogates athletes suspected of steroid use, be more inclined to doubt than belief, and report fact rather than serve agendas. That is to say, whether or not beheading actually appears in the Quran is a matter of verifiable fact and not subject to the opinion of imams and professors who are apparently interested in advancing a message.
Read it all.
Rachel Corrie and Nazi fellow travelers
Journalist Lee Kaplan attended International Solidarity Movement's training sessions last month. Read about the evil this group does to Israel.
hat-tip: Little Green Footballs.
hat-tip: Little Green Footballs.
Beautiful
I love the smell of distressed RedSawx fans in the morning. After a 13-inning game, two-out comeback and three-game sweep that expiates the failures of April, it smells like . . . victory.
Jumping to conclusion
The Senate Intelligence Committee has proven itself an oxymoron. Today, it issued a statement decreeing that a global intelligence failure led to the conclusion that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nice timing. This brilliant conclusion is issued one day after the Polish army detachment in Iraq found sarin-tipped warheads and just days after intelligence backed-up the claim that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger.
Charles Duefler, who now heads the Iraq Survey Group, testified three months ago that it was too early to reach a conclusion. One reason: Iraqi scientists wouldn't talk. Why not? Because they were mysteriously disappearing. In addition, only a small percentage of the millions of documents regarding Iraq's WMD program have been translated.
Thus, the Senate Committee's conclusion is purely political. The politicians, 9-11 Commission and commentators need to stop saying that the negative has been proven before all the evidence has been examined.
Charles Duefler, who now heads the Iraq Survey Group, testified three months ago that it was too early to reach a conclusion. One reason: Iraqi scientists wouldn't talk. Why not? Because they were mysteriously disappearing. In addition, only a small percentage of the millions of documents regarding Iraq's WMD program have been translated.
Thus, the Senate Committee's conclusion is purely political. The politicians, 9-11 Commission and commentators need to stop saying that the negative has been proven before all the evidence has been examined.
French colonialism
Want proof that Belgium is just a French colony with some Flemish speakers? Here it is: bicycling's biggest annual event, the Tour de France, begins tomorrow in . . . Liege, Belgium.
Sports shorts
Two quick notes regarding the locals.
First, Jim(m)y Williams has 13 games to turn his Astros around. I think if the Astros do not have 50 wins by the end of their first series after the All-Star break, Williams is gone, and considering that they're 40-38 now, that means they need to win 10 of the 13. He won't be fired before then because MinuteMaidEnronYourNameHere field is hosting the game and he's been named as an All-Star coach. Simply stated, the Astros are horrific -- 5th place, behind the pitching-deprived Reds and experience-deprived Brewers. Sure Pettitte has been hurt most of the season, but Clemens has been outstanding and Oswalt and Miller have carried their loads. The team is underperforming badly and to a large degree, that falls on the manager. Williams isn't a positive difference-maker as a skipper and he overuses his bullpen. With Clemens, Pettitte, Miller, Oswalt, Lidge, Berkman, Kent, Biggio and even an 80% Bagwell, this team should be much better.
And then there were none -- that's the Mavericks' story. The whole offseason has been a farce for the Mavs: (1) trading Antawn Jamison for two stiffs and a draft pick; (2) Mark Cuban talking trade for Shaq and denying that he would ever give up Nowitzki [that means no Shaq deal, period]; (3) getting burned by Steve Nash signing with the Suns. With the Spurs a possible destination for Kobe Bryant and the Rockets' acquisition of Tracy McGrady, the Mavs are the Ross Perot of this three-team race and sinking toward Ralph Nader level.
First, Jim(m)y Williams has 13 games to turn his Astros around. I think if the Astros do not have 50 wins by the end of their first series after the All-Star break, Williams is gone, and considering that they're 40-38 now, that means they need to win 10 of the 13. He won't be fired before then because MinuteMaidEnronYourNameHere field is hosting the game and he's been named as an All-Star coach. Simply stated, the Astros are horrific -- 5th place, behind the pitching-deprived Reds and experience-deprived Brewers. Sure Pettitte has been hurt most of the season, but Clemens has been outstanding and Oswalt and Miller have carried their loads. The team is underperforming badly and to a large degree, that falls on the manager. Williams isn't a positive difference-maker as a skipper and he overuses his bullpen. With Clemens, Pettitte, Miller, Oswalt, Lidge, Berkman, Kent, Biggio and even an 80% Bagwell, this team should be much better.
And then there were none -- that's the Mavericks' story. The whole offseason has been a farce for the Mavs: (1) trading Antawn Jamison for two stiffs and a draft pick; (2) Mark Cuban talking trade for Shaq and denying that he would ever give up Nowitzki [that means no Shaq deal, period]; (3) getting burned by Steve Nash signing with the Suns. With the Spurs a possible destination for Kobe Bryant and the Rockets' acquisition of Tracy McGrady, the Mavs are the Ross Perot of this three-team race and sinking toward Ralph Nader level.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Saddam, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd -- soulmates
See this AP story about Saddam's comments to the tribunal that will conduct his trial.
The gems included:
-- "The deposed dictator fixed the judge with a penetrating stare and declared: 'This is all a theater by Bush, the criminal.'"
-- "'The judicial system in Iraq always represents the will of the people,' he said. 'You should not work according to the law of the occupying forces; these are invading forces.'"
-- "'How could Saddam be tried over Kuwait, [which] said it will reduce Iraqi women to 10-dinar prostitutes?' Saddam asked, referring to himself in the third person. 'He defended Iraq's honor and revived its historical rights over those dogs.'"
Saddam sounds a lot like Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore and Baghdad Jim McDermott. Will publicizing Saddam's trial, and his repeated ramblings like those above, blowback against the Democrats? I hope so.
The gems included:
-- "The deposed dictator fixed the judge with a penetrating stare and declared: 'This is all a theater by Bush, the criminal.'"
-- "'The judicial system in Iraq always represents the will of the people,' he said. 'You should not work according to the law of the occupying forces; these are invading forces.'"
-- "'How could Saddam be tried over Kuwait, [which] said it will reduce Iraqi women to 10-dinar prostitutes?' Saddam asked, referring to himself in the third person. 'He defended Iraq's honor and revived its historical rights over those dogs.'"
Saddam sounds a lot like Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore and Baghdad Jim McDermott. Will publicizing Saddam's trial, and his repeated ramblings like those above, blowback against the Democrats? I hope so.
Oh yeah, THOSE WMDs
Reuters reports that the Polish army has found sarin-tipped warheads in Iraq. About a dozen. Enough to poison thousands of people.
hat-tip: PoliPundit.
hat-tip: PoliPundit.
Worth a WOW
Joe Torre still has friends with the St. Louis Cardinals organization and they spoke highly of the character and ability of Miguel Cairo. Cairo is now part of the Yanks' two-man second base team; can handle a bat and has had some clutch hits. None bigger than the one tonight. After tripling to lead off the bottom of the 12th, but with his team unable to score, Cairo came up with two out in the bottom of the 13th with the Yanks down 4-3 and Ruben Sierra having just bounced a single through the infield to keep the game alive. Two pitches later, Cairo was down 0-2 to Curtis Leskanic, two pitches after that, Cairo rapped the game-tying double into the right-centerfield gap. Then, on a 3-1 pitch, the Yanks' last man off the bench, John Flaherty, smacked a straight fastball onto the warning track in left and over the wall on a hop for the game-winning ground-rule double as the Yanks completed the sweep with a 5-4 win.
Game notes: this was the game the RedStiffs could not lose -- Pedro against the Yanks' fill-in rookie starter, Brad Halsey. But the kid went 5-1/3, baffled the Sawx not named Ramirez or Ortiz and left with a 3-2 lead. The Yanks coughed up a run in the 7th so it was 3-3. More drama = Yanks with a runner on third, one out in the 9th and honk; RedSux with bases loaded, none out in the 11th and ARod starts a brilliant double-play to help clean up the mess. The Yanks' announcers were saying it was one of the best games they'd ever seen at the Stadium.
BTW, kudos to Jorge Posada for banging one out against Pedro, but he MUST NEVER AGAIN call for an offspeed pitch to Manny Ramirez with two strikes -- he did it in April and Ramirez took Vazquez out for the only runs in a 2-0 game; he did it tonight and Ramirez took Tanyon Sturtze out for what would have been the game-winner if the Yanks hadn't rallied in the last of the 13th.
Game notes: this was the game the RedStiffs could not lose -- Pedro against the Yanks' fill-in rookie starter, Brad Halsey. But the kid went 5-1/3, baffled the Sawx not named Ramirez or Ortiz and left with a 3-2 lead. The Yanks coughed up a run in the 7th so it was 3-3. More drama = Yanks with a runner on third, one out in the 9th and honk; RedSux with bases loaded, none out in the 11th and ARod starts a brilliant double-play to help clean up the mess. The Yanks' announcers were saying it was one of the best games they'd ever seen at the Stadium.
BTW, kudos to Jorge Posada for banging one out against Pedro, but he MUST NEVER AGAIN call for an offspeed pitch to Manny Ramirez with two strikes -- he did it in April and Ramirez took Vazquez out for the only runs in a 2-0 game; he did it tonight and Ramirez took Tanyon Sturtze out for what would have been the game-winner if the Yanks hadn't rallied in the last of the 13th.
Weekend Reading = Mark Steyn on Iraq
From this week's Spectator magazine -- the unbeatable Mark Steyn on the US mindset and the post-Iraq handover.
Here's a highlight:
Al-Qa’eda thinks it’s got America pegged: the hyperpower is an effete, fleshy sultan sprawled languorously on overstuffed cushions and lost in sensual distractions. The British historian Niall Ferguson’s characterisation isn’t so very different: the hyperpower is a ‘strategic couch potato’ burdened with debt and suffering from attention deficit disorder.
Like many of us neo-imperialists, Prof. Ferguson is a bit disappointed at the total lack of interest America has in opening up a colonial office in Washington and training up the Gertrude Bells of the 21st century. The United States has zero interest in empire, for obvious reasons. For one thing, it’s already as big as an empire, and most countries that controlled such a large land mass would probably run it in imperial fashion. Instead, America took a federation designed for a baker’s dozen of ethnically homogeneous East Coast colonies and successively applied it across the continent and into the South Pacific. It’s not strictly true that the sun never sets on the American Republic, but it’s up an awful lot of the time.
One consequence is that imperialism has absolutely no constituency in America. The principal advantage the colonies offered to the average Englishman in 19th-century Britain was that it enabled him to get out of the country — to go to New Zealand or Malaya or Canada, where land was cheaper, economic opportunities greater and the restrictions of class much looser. But if you’re American, you can get all that at home. And if all you want is a change of climate, you can move from Maine to Hawaii or from Florida to Alaska.
Here's a highlight:
Al-Qa’eda thinks it’s got America pegged: the hyperpower is an effete, fleshy sultan sprawled languorously on overstuffed cushions and lost in sensual distractions. The British historian Niall Ferguson’s characterisation isn’t so very different: the hyperpower is a ‘strategic couch potato’ burdened with debt and suffering from attention deficit disorder.
Like many of us neo-imperialists, Prof. Ferguson is a bit disappointed at the total lack of interest America has in opening up a colonial office in Washington and training up the Gertrude Bells of the 21st century. The United States has zero interest in empire, for obvious reasons. For one thing, it’s already as big as an empire, and most countries that controlled such a large land mass would probably run it in imperial fashion. Instead, America took a federation designed for a baker’s dozen of ethnically homogeneous East Coast colonies and successively applied it across the continent and into the South Pacific. It’s not strictly true that the sun never sets on the American Republic, but it’s up an awful lot of the time.
One consequence is that imperialism has absolutely no constituency in America. The principal advantage the colonies offered to the average Englishman in 19th-century Britain was that it enabled him to get out of the country — to go to New Zealand or Malaya or Canada, where land was cheaper, economic opportunities greater and the restrictions of class much looser. But if you’re American, you can get all that at home. And if all you want is a change of climate, you can move from Maine to Hawaii or from Florida to Alaska.
Time to clean out the sewer
The IDF has commenced operations to clean the rocket-launching babykiller terrorists out of Gaza. It's about damn time.
Here are some details from the Jerusalem Post.
To protect the ISRAELI city of Sderot, the IDF has set up a security perimeter within Gaza to prevent terrorists from launching rockets at the city.
The IDF also whacked 5 terrorists trying to sneak into a settlement.
Stand strong, Israel.
Here are some details from the Jerusalem Post.
To protect the ISRAELI city of Sderot, the IDF has set up a security perimeter within Gaza to prevent terrorists from launching rockets at the city.
The IDF also whacked 5 terrorists trying to sneak into a settlement.
Stand strong, Israel.
Michael Moore's lies
And more on Moore, this time from Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball (neither is a right-winger in any way, shape, or form) of Newsweek. What did they learn?
Michael Moore claims Saudis "have given" $1.4B to business interests of George W. Bush's family and friends. Here's Isikoff/Hosenball's factual rejoinder:
Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.
Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.” The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.
And the PAYMENT for services is not exactly a gift, either.
But wait, there's more.
Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.
So Carlyle has Clintonites and Carterites thwarting the war on terror, according to Moore's "logic."
But there's more deception. Chris Lehane (former Gore campaign handler) wrote Newsweek that George W. Bush had been on the board of a Carlyle-owned company. That's true. But:
As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor -- a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded.
In addition, the only action Bush has taken during his presidency that directly affects the Carlyle Group was to CANCEL a weapons system that a Carlyle subsidiary had contracted with the Clinton Administration to build.
But wait, in addition to the lies detailed above, you also get lies about Pres. Bush's dealings with the Taliban (that's Taleban to the Brits). Moore claims that Unocal, an oil company, wanted to run a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan in 1997 and the Taliban sent a delegation of negotiators to Houston to meet with Unocal execs that year. Bush's connection? He was governor of Texas -- completely irrelevant fact.
Moveover, the deal FELL THROUGH IN 1998 -- a fact never mentioned in Moore's film. And
Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.
Added to this deception, Moore piles on by suggesting Bush went soft on the Taliban because a Taliban rep met with the State Department in March 2001. But the substance of the meeting (and the fact that the Unocal deal was dead for three years by this point) belies Moore's insinuations:
Nor is there any evidence anybody in the Bush administration raised it with him. The envoy brought a letter to Bush offering negotiations to resolve the issue of what should be done with bin Laden . . . The Taliban offer was promptly shot down. “We have not seen from the Taliban a proposal that would meet the requirements of the U.N. resolution to hand over Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at the time.
And these aren't all of the deceptions that Isikoff/Hosenball point out. Just read their whole piece.
Michael Moore claims Saudis "have given" $1.4B to business interests of George W. Bush's family and friends. Here's Isikoff/Hosenball's factual rejoinder:
Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.
Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.” The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.
And the PAYMENT for services is not exactly a gift, either.
But wait, there's more.
Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.
So Carlyle has Clintonites and Carterites thwarting the war on terror, according to Moore's "logic."
But there's more deception. Chris Lehane (former Gore campaign handler) wrote Newsweek that George W. Bush had been on the board of a Carlyle-owned company. That's true. But:
As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor -- a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded.
In addition, the only action Bush has taken during his presidency that directly affects the Carlyle Group was to CANCEL a weapons system that a Carlyle subsidiary had contracted with the Clinton Administration to build.
But wait, in addition to the lies detailed above, you also get lies about Pres. Bush's dealings with the Taliban (that's Taleban to the Brits). Moore claims that Unocal, an oil company, wanted to run a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan in 1997 and the Taliban sent a delegation of negotiators to Houston to meet with Unocal execs that year. Bush's connection? He was governor of Texas -- completely irrelevant fact.
Moveover, the deal FELL THROUGH IN 1998 -- a fact never mentioned in Moore's film. And
Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.
Added to this deception, Moore piles on by suggesting Bush went soft on the Taliban because a Taliban rep met with the State Department in March 2001. But the substance of the meeting (and the fact that the Unocal deal was dead for three years by this point) belies Moore's insinuations:
Nor is there any evidence anybody in the Bush administration raised it with him. The envoy brought a letter to Bush offering negotiations to resolve the issue of what should be done with bin Laden . . . The Taliban offer was promptly shot down. “We have not seen from the Taliban a proposal that would meet the requirements of the U.N. resolution to hand over Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at the time.
And these aren't all of the deceptions that Isikoff/Hosenball point out. Just read their whole piece.
Saddam on trial
Looks like Saddam has been well-versed in MoveOn.org's talking points. Here is the AP story on his perp walk. Here are Saddam's nuggets of wisdom:
1. "This is all theater, the real criminal is Bush."
2. Regarding his ability to afford a lawyer: "The Americans say I have millions hidden in Switzerland. How can I not have the money to pay for one?"
3. His new regard for the Rule of Law: "Is it possible to raise accusations against an official figure and this figure be treated apart from the official guarantees stipulated by the constitution and the law? Where is this law upon which you are conducting investigations?"
4. His response to the invasion of Kuwait: "I did that for the Iraqi people. How can you defend these dogs?"
Good to know that Saddam and Michael Moore are of one mind on the first point. Excellent company for the fat filmbutcher to keep.
1. "This is all theater, the real criminal is Bush."
2. Regarding his ability to afford a lawyer: "The Americans say I have millions hidden in Switzerland. How can I not have the money to pay for one?"
3. His new regard for the Rule of Law: "Is it possible to raise accusations against an official figure and this figure be treated apart from the official guarantees stipulated by the constitution and the law? Where is this law upon which you are conducting investigations?"
4. His response to the invasion of Kuwait: "I did that for the Iraqi people. How can you defend these dogs?"
Good to know that Saddam and Michael Moore are of one mind on the first point. Excellent company for the fat filmbutcher to keep.
Founder of a movement -- WFB jr
William F. Buckley, Jr., author of numerous non-fiction books (most notably God and Man at Yale) and novels, father of the modern conservative movement in the US and the founder of National Review has decided to quit (in a way) instead of dying onstage (to paraphrase him) -- he decided to sell his voting stock in National Review to five trustees and stepped down as CEO in favor of Ed Capuano. Details are here.
Buckley is 78; National Review is 49 and has influenced political thought in this country probably more than any other periodical during its existence.
Here is a nice essay by Jeff Jacoby regarding Buckley.
And here is the famous Publisher's Statement that ran in the first issue of National Review and set the tone for modern conservatism: "standing athwart history yelling STOP." Some highlights from the Statement:
NATIONAL REVIEW is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times . . . are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic.
"I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater," said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does." We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater — of anything to anything . . . The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.
* * *
We have nothing to offer but the best that is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn't enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D's in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.
Read the whole thing -- National Review's purpose is as relevant today as it was 49 years ago.
Buckley is 78; National Review is 49 and has influenced political thought in this country probably more than any other periodical during its existence.
Here is a nice essay by Jeff Jacoby regarding Buckley.
And here is the famous Publisher's Statement that ran in the first issue of National Review and set the tone for modern conservatism: "standing athwart history yelling STOP." Some highlights from the Statement:
NATIONAL REVIEW is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times . . . are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic.
"I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater," said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does." We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater — of anything to anything . . . The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.
* * *
We have nothing to offer but the best that is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn't enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D's in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.
Read the whole thing -- National Review's purpose is as relevant today as it was 49 years ago.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Curse of Grady Little
Grady Little is the former Boston RedSux manager who left Pedro Martinez in during the Yankees' game-tying rally in game 7 of the ALCS. His curse -- now managers will yank starters too EARLY.
That's what current RedStanx manager Terry Francona did tonight. You see, the Yanks flat-out cannot touch knuckleballer Tim Wakefield. He stymied the Yanks all last season, won both his ALCS starts against them and beat them in the first Yanks-Redstifs meeting this year. Tonight, he had a 2-0 lead and had coughed up all of three singles going into the bottom of the seventh. After a hit batter, strikeout, stolen base, passed ball and walk, the Yanks had first and third with one out and Wakefield still looking OK. But Francona yanked him. One out, one walk and one more pitching change later, Tony Clark ripped a grounder that literally tore through David Ortiz's glove for a two-run error and tie game. In the 8th, the Yanks tacked on two more thanks to a single-and-error, sacrifice and a great battle by Gary Sheffield against Mike Timlin that ended up with a Sheffield double and Yankee lead. Ultimately, the Yanks won 4-2 and Rivera torched the RedSawx by whiffing the side in the 9th.
Three notes: (1) I like the attitude Sheffield brings -- fiery, tough, he whipped that game-winning double down the line, slided into second base, popped up and pumped his fist. Sheffield is the fire in the locker room that this team has needed for the past couple of years -- he's the only Yank to publicly acknowledge what everyone knew going into yesterday's game -- the Yanks needed to reestablish some pride in this series.
(2) Nice to see John Lieber straighten out a bit -- after five shaky games, he got his usual DP grounders, righted himself after giving up five hits to the first seven batters he faced and pitched credibly. Kudos to Felix Heredia who came in with bases loaded and none out in the 7th with the Yanks down 2-0 and getting a force-out at home, a too-short-to-score flyout to left and a whiff of Ortiz. Nice for the Yanks to win against the Sax when they throw their #5a pitcher against the Stanx #3.
(3) Good call by Jim Kaat and I wonder if Tony Clark had the same thought. Bottom 7, Timlin came in to relieve an injured Scott Williamson and because it was an injury replacement, Timlin could take as many warm-ups as he wanted. Kaat noticed that Timlin threw a bunch of practice sliders that were off-target so he guessed Timlin would start Clark off with a fastball to get strike one. Clark ripped that first-ball fastball through Ortiz's glove and now the Yanks are up 7.5 games.
That's what current RedStanx manager Terry Francona did tonight. You see, the Yanks flat-out cannot touch knuckleballer Tim Wakefield. He stymied the Yanks all last season, won both his ALCS starts against them and beat them in the first Yanks-Redstifs meeting this year. Tonight, he had a 2-0 lead and had coughed up all of three singles going into the bottom of the seventh. After a hit batter, strikeout, stolen base, passed ball and walk, the Yanks had first and third with one out and Wakefield still looking OK. But Francona yanked him. One out, one walk and one more pitching change later, Tony Clark ripped a grounder that literally tore through David Ortiz's glove for a two-run error and tie game. In the 8th, the Yanks tacked on two more thanks to a single-and-error, sacrifice and a great battle by Gary Sheffield against Mike Timlin that ended up with a Sheffield double and Yankee lead. Ultimately, the Yanks won 4-2 and Rivera torched the RedSawx by whiffing the side in the 9th.
Three notes: (1) I like the attitude Sheffield brings -- fiery, tough, he whipped that game-winning double down the line, slided into second base, popped up and pumped his fist. Sheffield is the fire in the locker room that this team has needed for the past couple of years -- he's the only Yank to publicly acknowledge what everyone knew going into yesterday's game -- the Yanks needed to reestablish some pride in this series.
(2) Nice to see John Lieber straighten out a bit -- after five shaky games, he got his usual DP grounders, righted himself after giving up five hits to the first seven batters he faced and pitched credibly. Kudos to Felix Heredia who came in with bases loaded and none out in the 7th with the Yanks down 2-0 and getting a force-out at home, a too-short-to-score flyout to left and a whiff of Ortiz. Nice for the Yanks to win against the Sax when they throw their #5a pitcher against the Stanx #3.
(3) Good call by Jim Kaat and I wonder if Tony Clark had the same thought. Bottom 7, Timlin came in to relieve an injured Scott Williamson and because it was an injury replacement, Timlin could take as many warm-ups as he wanted. Kaat noticed that Timlin threw a bunch of practice sliders that were off-target so he guessed Timlin would start Clark off with a fastball to get strike one. Clark ripped that first-ball fastball through Ortiz's glove and now the Yanks are up 7.5 games.
Illegal Moore
I know Michael Moore is big and fat, but that does NOT entitle him to vote in both Michigan and New York. The Smoking Gun has details.
Nazi sympathizer
That is what Ralph Nader must be. At the least, he's a Jew-hater. Read this and see why.
Flak attack
Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston, is as much a dyed-in-the-wool drinkin'-the-Kool-Aid Democrat as Hillary Clinton or the late Tip O'Neill. So it means something when Mr. Menino slams John Kerry and the Kerry campaign for kowtowing to an illegal union strike and refusing to cross a picket line to deliver a speech he had been scheduled to give to the US Conference of Mayors. What's even better -- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (a Republican) stepped in and delivered a speech in Kerry's place.
JUNE 30, 1963
This is a big day in my life, even though it was more than 6.5 years before my birth.
Why?
On June 30, 1963, a moderately young PaMonk and a young MaMonk spoke their vows before a JP in New York. Unlike many couples where one or both persons travel for work or with friends or have had extended personal situations or have been apart for other reasons, MaMonk and PaMonk have actually been apart for fewer than 30 days in the 41 years since. That's love, devotion and (quite frequently) tolerance.
I love you Mom and Dad, Happy Anniversary.
Why?
On June 30, 1963, a moderately young PaMonk and a young MaMonk spoke their vows before a JP in New York. Unlike many couples where one or both persons travel for work or with friends or have had extended personal situations or have been apart for other reasons, MaMonk and PaMonk have actually been apart for fewer than 30 days in the 41 years since. That's love, devotion and (quite frequently) tolerance.
I love you Mom and Dad, Happy Anniversary.
Supreme Court Fallout
First, here's Andrew McCarthy on the mixed bag of results on the various detention cases the Supreme Court handed down Monday. Ultimately, however, the bag is not as mixed as perhaps the Wall Street Journal and even McCarthy himself would like to believe. Why? The Rasul decision on the Gitmo detainees -- it stood logic, precedent and statutory interpretation upon their respective heads. Here's McCarthy's view of the potential fallout:
Nevertheless, as manifested in Rasul, yesterday's case involving claims of foreign enemy combatants captured on faraway battlefields and held by the military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — an installation outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. court — the judiciary is no longer a neutral arbiter there to ensure that Americans get a fair shake from their government and its laws. Instead, it is evolving, or morphing, into a sort of United Nations with teeth. It has seized the mantle of international arbiter, ensuring that the world — including that part of it energetically trying to kill Americans — has a forum in which to press its case against the United States.
That last part is potentially disastrous. The notion that a foreign enemy combatant can have access to challenge US military decisions in US courts is both risible on its face and destructive of both the military's ability to carry out its operations and the Executive Branch's authority to conduct foreign affairs and protect the national security.
The Constitution enshrined civilian control over the military by establishing the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. It did not set the courts as controllers of the President or reviewers of the military's actions -- military actions instead are answerable to the President and Congress (power of the purse, control over the Uniform Code of Military Justice). The Supreme Court has more than blurred these lines, it has crossed them.
N.B. -- Professor John Yoo has a good op-ed in today's WSJ, but it's available on-line for subscribers only. Look for it on Opinion Journal this weekend.
Nevertheless, as manifested in Rasul, yesterday's case involving claims of foreign enemy combatants captured on faraway battlefields and held by the military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — an installation outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. court — the judiciary is no longer a neutral arbiter there to ensure that Americans get a fair shake from their government and its laws. Instead, it is evolving, or morphing, into a sort of United Nations with teeth. It has seized the mantle of international arbiter, ensuring that the world — including that part of it energetically trying to kill Americans — has a forum in which to press its case against the United States.
That last part is potentially disastrous. The notion that a foreign enemy combatant can have access to challenge US military decisions in US courts is both risible on its face and destructive of both the military's ability to carry out its operations and the Executive Branch's authority to conduct foreign affairs and protect the national security.
The Constitution enshrined civilian control over the military by establishing the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. It did not set the courts as controllers of the President or reviewers of the military's actions -- military actions instead are answerable to the President and Congress (power of the purse, control over the Uniform Code of Military Justice). The Supreme Court has more than blurred these lines, it has crossed them.
N.B. -- Professor John Yoo has a good op-ed in today's WSJ, but it's available on-line for subscribers only. Look for it on Opinion Journal this weekend.
The Empire Strikes . . .
Good to see the Yankees put a beating on the RedSux. Yesterday's game was the one the Yanks needed -- Yanks' best pitcher against the Sawx's struggling Derek Lowe, opportunity to negate some of the destruction the Sux created in their last trip to the Bronx, tonesetter, etc.
Best of all, the Yankee fan chant after Garciaparra booted Jeter's grounder in the fourth and Sheffield cracked a 3-run bomb to make it a 7-2 game = "Thank you, Nomar". Ha.
Next step for Yankees, repeating the process of last night and hanging a few more losses on the RedStanks.
Best of all, the Yankee fan chant after Garciaparra booted Jeter's grounder in the fourth and Sheffield cracked a 3-run bomb to make it a 7-2 game = "Thank you, Nomar". Ha.
Next step for Yankees, repeating the process of last night and hanging a few more losses on the RedStanks.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Hillary Clinton, socialist
Here's what she said at a Democratic fundraiser, according to this report.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Vote Republican.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Vote Republican.
Steynism of the day
From Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph, commenting on Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9-11:
I can understand the point of being Michael Moore: there's a lot of money in it. What's harder to figure out is the point of being a devoted follower of Michael Moore. Apparently, the sophisticated, cynical intellectual class is so naïve it'll fall for any old hooey peddled by a preening opportunist burlesque act. If the Saudis were smart, they'd have bought him up years ago, established his anti-Saudi credentials, and then used him to promote the defeat of their nemesis Bush.
I can understand the point of being Michael Moore: there's a lot of money in it. What's harder to figure out is the point of being a devoted follower of Michael Moore. Apparently, the sophisticated, cynical intellectual class is so naïve it'll fall for any old hooey peddled by a preening opportunist burlesque act. If the Saudis were smart, they'd have bought him up years ago, established his anti-Saudi credentials, and then used him to promote the defeat of their nemesis Bush.
Honesty in the Sudan
Good to know the Sudanese government has nothing to hide. Check this out in today's WaPo, courtesy Instapundit:
ABU SHOUK, Sudan, June 27 -- The Sudanese villagers in this western region of Darfur were bombed. They were raped. Their huts were burned and their grain pillaged. Now, those who fled the chaos say they are being silenced.
The Sudanese government dispatched 500 men last week to this sweltering camp of 40,000 near El Fashir, capital of North Darfur state, the refugees and aid workers said. The men, some dressed in civilian clothes, others in military uniforms, warned the refugees to keep quiet about their experiences when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan visit the region this week.
Darfur has been the scene of more than 16 months of conflict between residents of the region and Arab militiamen backed by the government. Aid workers say 30,000 people have been killed by the militia and more than 1.2 million forced to flee their homes.
ABU SHOUK, Sudan, June 27 -- The Sudanese villagers in this western region of Darfur were bombed. They were raped. Their huts were burned and their grain pillaged. Now, those who fled the chaos say they are being silenced.
The Sudanese government dispatched 500 men last week to this sweltering camp of 40,000 near El Fashir, capital of North Darfur state, the refugees and aid workers said. The men, some dressed in civilian clothes, others in military uniforms, warned the refugees to keep quiet about their experiences when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan visit the region this week.
Darfur has been the scene of more than 16 months of conflict between residents of the region and Arab militiamen backed by the government. Aid workers say 30,000 people have been killed by the militia and more than 1.2 million forced to flee their homes.
What the Supremes hath wrought
Two views to start off on what the Supreme Court's various rulings in yesterday's detention cases will mean.
First, here's Robert Alt decrying (six of) the Supremes' inability to read a statute in the Rasul case.
Next, the Wall Street Journal weighs in by noting that although the Supremes created some chaos, the effects of the rulings can be contained by legislation and the Supremes did not go all the way by nullifying the executive's right to detain the various prisoners in the ways that it did.
First, here's Robert Alt decrying (six of) the Supremes' inability to read a statute in the Rasul case.
Next, the Wall Street Journal weighs in by noting that although the Supremes created some chaos, the effects of the rulings can be contained by legislation and the Supremes did not go all the way by nullifying the executive's right to detain the various prisoners in the ways that it did.
Monday, June 28, 2004
The Supreme Court screws things up
The Court today handed down its decisions in three cases regarding the current war on terror: (1) the Padilla case where Jose Padilla claimed the government could not hold him indefinitely as an enemy combatant (he lost, but only technically); (2) the Hamdi case, where the petitioner (a US citizen) claimed he had a right to challenge his enemy combatant status after being captured fighting against US forces in Afghanistan (he won) and (3) the Rasul case, where the Guantanamo Bay detainees sought the right to flood the US courts with habeas corpus petitions for their release (they won).
The Rasul case is the worst loss for the Administration and is a colossal screw-up by the Supreme Court. Here is the Opinion and the dissent. The case turned on distinguishing a valid 50-year old precedent on weak grounds. Here is the key quote from the dissent that sums up both the effect of the holding and its problems:
The reality is this: Today’s opinion, and today’s opinion alone, overrules Eisentrager [the earlier precedent -- TKM]; today’s opinion, and today’s opinion alone, extends the habeas statute, for the first time, to aliens held beyond the sovereign territory of the United States and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of its courts. No reasons are given for this result; no acknowledgment of its consequences made. By spurious reliance on Braden the Court evades explaining why stare decisis can be disregarded, and why Eisentrager was wrong. Normally, we consider the interests of those who have relied on our decisions. Today, the Court springs a trap on the Executive, subjecting Guantanamo Bay to the over-sight of the federal courts even though it has never before been thought to be within their jurisdiction—and thus making it a foolish place to have housed alien wartime detainees.
UPDATE: No one can accuse James Taranto of burying the lede. Here's his formulation:
The U.S. Supreme Court handed Osama bin Laden a victory this morning, ruling that terrorists and Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to sue in U.S. courts. "Military officials and lawyers for detainees . . . are bracing for an explosion of litigation," says the New York Sun. Our ambulance-chasers might want to reflect on just how apt a metaphor that is, since Islamist terrorists are known to use ambulances as weapons.
The Rasul case is the worst loss for the Administration and is a colossal screw-up by the Supreme Court. Here is the Opinion and the dissent. The case turned on distinguishing a valid 50-year old precedent on weak grounds. Here is the key quote from the dissent that sums up both the effect of the holding and its problems:
The reality is this: Today’s opinion, and today’s opinion alone, overrules Eisentrager [the earlier precedent -- TKM]; today’s opinion, and today’s opinion alone, extends the habeas statute, for the first time, to aliens held beyond the sovereign territory of the United States and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of its courts. No reasons are given for this result; no acknowledgment of its consequences made. By spurious reliance on Braden the Court evades explaining why stare decisis can be disregarded, and why Eisentrager was wrong. Normally, we consider the interests of those who have relied on our decisions. Today, the Court springs a trap on the Executive, subjecting Guantanamo Bay to the over-sight of the federal courts even though it has never before been thought to be within their jurisdiction—and thus making it a foolish place to have housed alien wartime detainees.
UPDATE: No one can accuse James Taranto of burying the lede. Here's his formulation:
The U.S. Supreme Court handed Osama bin Laden a victory this morning, ruling that terrorists and Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to sue in U.S. courts. "Military officials and lawyers for detainees . . . are bracing for an explosion of litigation," says the New York Sun. Our ambulance-chasers might want to reflect on just how apt a metaphor that is, since Islamist terrorists are known to use ambulances as weapons.
NEW LINK
With election season fast approaching, I decided to link the Center for Politics Crystal Ball -- a politics-watching website that follows the various races (senator, governor, president) and opines on the likely outcome. The Center is run by University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who we knew as "dial-a-quote" when I was at the University because Sabato loves to put in his two cents on political events. The link is at the left under the News and Opinion section, and can also be clicked here.
WEBSITE OF THE DAY
Michael Moore is an unrepentant liar, he distorts facts, omits those that do not support his thesis and presents false conclusions. Anyone who has ever examined his work knows this.
For that reason, this site is immensely important. The site is called Fahrenheit Fact and its purpose is stated as:
This is not an opinion blog- it is a fact one. We make sure to source every post, and will either cite or link to the source of the provided fact. It is our desire to see a well-armed populous that is ready to evaluate the film from an informed perspective.
Obviously, if the Fahrenheit Fact blog were only a Greek chorus for Moore, it wouldn't be important because you could just read Moore's own site. But Fahrenheit Fact at least endeavors to present facts, not masqueraded opinions like Moore himself does.
For that reason, this site is immensely important. The site is called Fahrenheit Fact and its purpose is stated as:
This is not an opinion blog- it is a fact one. We make sure to source every post, and will either cite or link to the source of the provided fact. It is our desire to see a well-armed populous that is ready to evaluate the film from an informed perspective.
Obviously, if the Fahrenheit Fact blog were only a Greek chorus for Moore, it wouldn't be important because you could just read Moore's own site. But Fahrenheit Fact at least endeavors to present facts, not masqueraded opinions like Moore himself does.
Financial cavalry
The left has billionaire George Soros -- the morally vacuous Hungarian Jew who remembers the summer of 1944 (in Budapest) as one of the happiest times of his life (I've written about Soros's insanity here) -- and the right now has a billionaire contributor of its own, Sir John Templeton, who just contributed $1,000,000 to help get out the vote of religious conservatives.
Iraq -- two days early
Acting one step and two days ahead of the Islamicist nutters, whom the press expected would launch a new round of violence Wednesday, the US formally returned sovereignty to the Iraqi people earlier today. The handover ceremony was private, with only about 30 people in attendance, according to the NY Times report linked above.
This is fairly slick on the part of the US, and smart on a number of levels: (1) internationally, Iraq is now for the Iraqis -- therefore it's not some American imperialist effort or a manifestation of US unilateralism; (2) politically, Pres. Bush has made and kept his promises to the Iraqis and the UN, and has done so ahead of schedule; (3) geographically, the US has proven that a democracy (of sorts) can be erected in the sands of Arabia; (4) strategically on two levels -- the defusing of the potential coordinated attacks designed to foil the June 30 handover and the defusing of the domestic political whining that would accompany such attacks if they occurred.
Moreover, the Iraqi government is more likely to crack down on Islamist and Sunni/Baathist nutters because: (a) they don't have to worry about the same politically correct pieties that the non-Muslim coalition troops would concern themselves with; (b) the Shia majority that had been oppressed by the Sunnis and Baathists since before Saddam's accension will not put up with Sunni/Baathist agitation; (c) ownership theory -- the Iraqis are now in charge of their own homeland, therefore they will take care of it against enemies within and enemies outside (like the Iranian and Syrian backed al-Qaedans).
Good luck and congratulations to the Iraqi people.
This is fairly slick on the part of the US, and smart on a number of levels: (1) internationally, Iraq is now for the Iraqis -- therefore it's not some American imperialist effort or a manifestation of US unilateralism; (2) politically, Pres. Bush has made and kept his promises to the Iraqis and the UN, and has done so ahead of schedule; (3) geographically, the US has proven that a democracy (of sorts) can be erected in the sands of Arabia; (4) strategically on two levels -- the defusing of the potential coordinated attacks designed to foil the June 30 handover and the defusing of the domestic political whining that would accompany such attacks if they occurred.
Moreover, the Iraqi government is more likely to crack down on Islamist and Sunni/Baathist nutters because: (a) they don't have to worry about the same politically correct pieties that the non-Muslim coalition troops would concern themselves with; (b) the Shia majority that had been oppressed by the Sunnis and Baathists since before Saddam's accension will not put up with Sunni/Baathist agitation; (c) ownership theory -- the Iraqis are now in charge of their own homeland, therefore they will take care of it against enemies within and enemies outside (like the Iranian and Syrian backed al-Qaedans).
Good luck and congratulations to the Iraqi people.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
From the Monk's keyboard to media ears?
OK, it's not the Power of The Monk, but perhaps the press is feeling its proverbial oats. After getting a judicial nimrod in California to unseal the private divorce records of Jack and Jeri Ryan, Matt Drudge reports that the press is seeking to unearth the details of John Kerry's divorce, which is also rumored to have been acrimonious.
Sudan's ethnic cleansing
In the Sudan there is a group called the Janjaweed. It is a militia of Arab Muslims backed by the Sudanese government that attacks black villages, kills the males and sends females and children into slavery. Sudan has long been in a civil war between the Arab-Muslim government in the north and the Christian and animist blacks in the south as the Arab government has moved towards establishing shari'a.
I blogged about this earlier here.
This Website has tremendous detail and has followed the situation closely as the US seeks to put pressure on Sudan and acts more strongly than the usual mumbled pieties from the UN. And Nicholas Kristoff of the NY Times has chronicled this situation in his last four columns, the two most recent are free.
I blogged about this earlier here.
This Website has tremendous detail and has followed the situation closely as the US seeks to put pressure on Sudan and acts more strongly than the usual mumbled pieties from the UN. And Nicholas Kristoff of the NY Times has chronicled this situation in his last four columns, the two most recent are free.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Bill Clinton, printed bloviation
Mark Steyn rips Bill Clinton's memoir with his usual flair.
Here's the best part:
Mr. Clinton is certainly thinking of his legacy. The index lists more pages for "bin Laden, Osama" than "Jones, Paula," which isn't how it seemed at the time. You can't blame the poor fellow. As things stand, you'd be hard put to devise a more apt personal embodiment of the long holiday from history the U.S. took between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the World Trade Center. If geopolitics is the Super Bowl, Mr. Clinton is Janet Jackson, complete with wardrobe malfunctions.
Here's the best part:
Mr. Clinton is certainly thinking of his legacy. The index lists more pages for "bin Laden, Osama" than "Jones, Paula," which isn't how it seemed at the time. You can't blame the poor fellow. As things stand, you'd be hard put to devise a more apt personal embodiment of the long holiday from history the U.S. took between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the World Trade Center. If geopolitics is the Super Bowl, Mr. Clinton is Janet Jackson, complete with wardrobe malfunctions.
And another one gone, redux
Israel nailed 6 Palestinian terrorist leaders today, including the West Bank leader of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, four other al-Aqsa members and a Hamas terrorist. Details here.
Friday, June 25, 2004
McCarthy 1, Old Gray Lady 0
The New York Times, America's paper of record, the beknighted institution, All the News That's Fit to Print, etc. etc. etc. seems to have deceived its readers.
You see, last week the Times trumpeted a misleading summarization of the 9-11 Commission staff report on Al-Qaeda by posting a front-page headline "No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Along with the front-page story, the Times ran an editorial excoriating the Bush Administration and questioning the basis of its attack on Iraq.
Today the Times ran a story regarding a Defense Intelligence Agency document that shows Saddam reached out to al-Qaeda in the mid-90s. But the Times had this information when it ran the story claiming no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam. In other words, the Times knew of information completely contrary to, and which disproved, its editorial line and the 9-11 Commission report and refused to run it.
Andy McCarthy rips the Times over this and explains how pernicious the Times is:
Why is this important? Because it is the continuation of a pattern — another instance of an effective but misleading tactic repeatedly used by the Times, the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission staff, and all the Iraq/Qaeda connection naysayers. To wit: When they can't explain something, they never say they can't explain it; they say it didn't happen — even if saying so is against the weight of considerable counterevidence.
* * *
We know there were numerous contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after the collaborative proposals discussed in the newly reported document. How does the Times know that Saddam never responded to bin Laden's overtures? It doesn't. Neither do I. Neither do you. That's why it's called an investigation. The idea is to keep digging until you know. To the contrary, the Times's idea is: bury it, pretend you don't even know the things you do know, grudgingly admit the bare minimum, and use the enormous weight of your own inertia to make the whole thing go away.
Read the whole thing.
You see, last week the Times trumpeted a misleading summarization of the 9-11 Commission staff report on Al-Qaeda by posting a front-page headline "No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Along with the front-page story, the Times ran an editorial excoriating the Bush Administration and questioning the basis of its attack on Iraq.
Today the Times ran a story regarding a Defense Intelligence Agency document that shows Saddam reached out to al-Qaeda in the mid-90s. But the Times had this information when it ran the story claiming no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam. In other words, the Times knew of information completely contrary to, and which disproved, its editorial line and the 9-11 Commission report and refused to run it.
Andy McCarthy rips the Times over this and explains how pernicious the Times is:
Why is this important? Because it is the continuation of a pattern — another instance of an effective but misleading tactic repeatedly used by the Times, the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission staff, and all the Iraq/Qaeda connection naysayers. To wit: When they can't explain something, they never say they can't explain it; they say it didn't happen — even if saying so is against the weight of considerable counterevidence.
* * *
We know there were numerous contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after the collaborative proposals discussed in the newly reported document. How does the Times know that Saddam never responded to bin Laden's overtures? It doesn't. Neither do I. Neither do you. That's why it's called an investigation. The idea is to keep digging until you know. To the contrary, the Times's idea is: bury it, pretend you don't even know the things you do know, grudgingly admit the bare minimum, and use the enormous weight of your own inertia to make the whole thing go away.
Read the whole thing.
This week's sign of the apocalypse
America Coming Together -- a group founded by anti-American quintillionaire George Soros and "is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives" -- used felons to go door-to-door to sign up voters in a voter registration drive. Here's the main finding in this AP article on ABC News:
A review of federal campaign finance and state criminal records by The Associated Press revealed that the names and hometowns of dozens of ACT employees in Missouri, Florida and Ohio matched those of people convicted of crimes such as burglary, forgery, drug dealing, assault and sex offenses.
Essentially, ACT is sending burglars, violent criminals and sex offenders (read: ultra-high recidivism rate) to your house to discuss politics. Oh and the forgers are not your best option either because the workers are supposed to get personal information (name, age, SOCIAL SECURITY #, etc.) from you.
A review of federal campaign finance and state criminal records by The Associated Press revealed that the names and hometowns of dozens of ACT employees in Missouri, Florida and Ohio matched those of people convicted of crimes such as burglary, forgery, drug dealing, assault and sex offenses.
Essentially, ACT is sending burglars, violent criminals and sex offenders (read: ultra-high recidivism rate) to your house to discuss politics. Oh and the forgers are not your best option either because the workers are supposed to get personal information (name, age, SOCIAL SECURITY #, etc.) from you.
A memo is just a memo
Andy McCarthy lambastes the media for overhyping the memo -- you know, THAT memo from the Defense Dept.'s legal counsel office that examined what is, what is not and what could be "torture" under international law.
Here are a couple of his key points:
Without a violative action by the president and his top aides, this is a kerfuffle invented by people with too much space and air time to fill who know that scandal is what sells. You would think that with a war going on, Iraqi sovereignty about to revert, and a beheading by jihadists every week or so, someone might question the news judgment of turning into a story the thought processes of advisers to officials who haven't been shown to have misbehaved.
* * *
Just because a newspaper may freely slant its reporting to suit an agenda doesn't mean everybody has that luxury. The Times can afford to be wrong; a president conducting a war against an enemy whose primary tactic is to kill as many civilians as possible cannot.
Here are a couple of his key points:
Without a violative action by the president and his top aides, this is a kerfuffle invented by people with too much space and air time to fill who know that scandal is what sells. You would think that with a war going on, Iraqi sovereignty about to revert, and a beheading by jihadists every week or so, someone might question the news judgment of turning into a story the thought processes of advisers to officials who haven't been shown to have misbehaved.
* * *
Just because a newspaper may freely slant its reporting to suit an agenda doesn't mean everybody has that luxury. The Times can afford to be wrong; a president conducting a war against an enemy whose primary tactic is to kill as many civilians as possible cannot.
Go Big Orange
Home Depot will donate $1 million in tools and equipment to the military in Iraq. According to this story, Big Orange has 1,800 employees serving the US military.
Michael Moore is a liar
In honor of today's opening of the compendium of falsehoods that is Fahrenheit 9/11, read this from the neutral rhetoric-debunkers at Spinsanity.com regarding Bowling for Columbine.
Here's the key concept:
Satire is not an excuse for dissembling. Great satirists like Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain used hyperbole as a form of social criticism. Michael Moore, however, uses lies, distortions, and nonsensical arguments to mask cheap attacks and promote his own political agenda. Take him seriously at your own risk.
Here is Spinsanity's full coverage of Moore's lies. I think it's interesting that all three Spinsanity contributors have written articles slamming Moore.
Here's the key concept:
Satire is not an excuse for dissembling. Great satirists like Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain used hyperbole as a form of social criticism. Michael Moore, however, uses lies, distortions, and nonsensical arguments to mask cheap attacks and promote his own political agenda. Take him seriously at your own risk.
Here is Spinsanity's full coverage of Moore's lies. I think it's interesting that all three Spinsanity contributors have written articles slamming Moore.
Privacy rights and public office
This piece on the Weekly Standard's website is funny. It's about the Jack and Jeri Ryan divorce. Jack is running for the Senate as a Republican from Illinois -- which has a tattered Republican organization. Jeri is the buxom and leggy actress who played a teacher on Boston Public after her role as Seven of Nine on Star Trek: Voyager. They have a nine-year old son, for whose benefit they had their divorce papers sealed. The Chicago Trib and a Chicago TV station sued to unseal the divorce records; Jack and Jeri both opposed, but who cares about their privacy when there's some dirty laundry to air out? Thus, hishonor unsealed 26 of the 44 documents (or parts thereof) and the press dug in. It found that Jeri accused Jack of taking her to sex and swingers clubs and wanting her to perform sex acts in public, which she refused. Jack denied all those allegations.
Here's the reason this whole situation is horrendous from a legal standpoint: the press has no right to the documents. Even in the US, with our First Amendment's Free Press Clause, the press' interest in any given subject is determined by the "people's right to know." An ambiguous term that is routinely stretched beyond recognition by the press itself. But basically, the right to know is coextensive only with information that is public. Private information is not within the "right to know".
In determining that the records from the divorce should be sealed in the first instance, the judge signing that sealed-records order determined that the Ryans' interest in their privacy and the protection of their child outweighed the public's right to know the dirty details of their divorce. That was the right call then, it would have been the right call now.
And all this begs a question -- if Jack Ryan's divorce is fair game, is John Kerry's?
Here's the reason this whole situation is horrendous from a legal standpoint: the press has no right to the documents. Even in the US, with our First Amendment's Free Press Clause, the press' interest in any given subject is determined by the "people's right to know." An ambiguous term that is routinely stretched beyond recognition by the press itself. But basically, the right to know is coextensive only with information that is public. Private information is not within the "right to know".
In determining that the records from the divorce should be sealed in the first instance, the judge signing that sealed-records order determined that the Ryans' interest in their privacy and the protection of their child outweighed the public's right to know the dirty details of their divorce. That was the right call then, it would have been the right call now.
And all this begs a question -- if Jack Ryan's divorce is fair game, is John Kerry's?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)