cut on the bias

Oh what a difference a pecan pie makes!

I’ve been hearing for years about Ginnie Prater, the wife half of a couple who are friends of my brother and his wife Traci. Ginnie is one of those women who makes up recipes, not as a trained chef or dietician, but a kitchen-piddler, and she’s had several printed in various women’s magazines. This year she entered the annual Southern Living magazine cooking contest, where you have to use products of the contest’s sponsors in a recipe. Ginnie made what has turned out to be a controversial move, using a Mrs. Smith’s frozen Southern pecan pie as a major part of her entry. And she won.

The whole thing

$100,000

$100,000

Can you believe? Totally amazing. Here’s the recipe. It actually looks great, but then I love pecans and I love pecan pie and I love cheesecake, so a cheesecake wrapped around a pecan pie is going to get my attention. If you go read the recipe, don’t miss the ratings comments – over 200 – which is where the controversy is. Some people are very hot about the fact that the Grand Prize Recipe included a pre-made pie. They’re very funny; I told my brother that they all needed to have blogs.

Obviously Ginnie is clever and a very good cook, but my brother and I had to analyze just what she did to win. He said she’s a very good student – was a National Merit Scholar when she graduated from high school – and what she’s done is, she studied the contest. My contribution to the analysis was that she used a prepared dish in a sort-of unprepared way – as a filling – which creativity won her the big bucks, and she also used a total of five ingredients from sponsors. Naturally inventiveness was key, but doing something difficult and spreading her net over several sponsors helped as well.

Now my brother and I are planning our own entries. After all, Ginnie won! Why can’t we? (We will totally ignore the possibility that Ginnie is just better at it than we are or ever will be.)

And no, Alan, I won’t cook when you’re here visiting – I don’t want you taking my great ideas.

The Civil War - Part #1,238,381

Sgt. Stryker poked at the ashes of the Civil War yesterday, saying the South was irrefutably wrong about everything in that war. Mike at Cold Fury answered him today, beautifully.

Don't miss the comments on both sites.

I agree with Mike, in case you didn't figure that out.

Torricelli is toast

UPDATE: Yes, I'm innovating here by putting my update at the top and changing the headline, but the situation warrants it. Torricelli is out! Yay! Woohoo! I need to get out and beat the streets for Forrester.

Naturally the Democrats are lining up replacements; Scott Ott has the scoop on an amazing sighting of one potential candidate in, of all places, Paramus.

Meanwhile, Dodd straightens me out in Comments regarding my wish to dump Kentucky's Paul Patton. Oops! Ok, I guess he can stay.

ORIGINAL POST: Life should be this good:

Sen. Robert Torricelli, a prolific fund-raiser whose re-election hopes were severely damaged by an ethics controversy, told colleagues Monday he will drop out of the race if a suitable replacement is found for the Nov. 5 ballot, two Democrats said. The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said Torricelli informed New Jersey Democratic leaders and Senate colleagues of his plan. The sources cautioned Torricelli had not finalized his decision as discussions about a replacement continued. The senator planned an afternoon news conference in New Jersey.

We shall see.

And if that happens, next we'll see if we can get KY Gov. Paul Patton to quit for the good of the party.

Free speech or hate speech?

A pro-Palestinian group that is also vehemently anti-Israel (and one does not presuppose the other) is setting up shop for a conference in Michigan:

Coming soon to a college campus near you: A student workshop that expresses tacit support for terrorism and has as its mission the destruction of Israel.

In one sense, the Second National Student Conference on the Palestine Solidarity Movement, to be held at the University of Michigan in mid-October, is an affirmation of free speech. Campuses should be a place where ideas -- even ignorant ideas -- are debated.

But should forums that espouse hate and push to the very edge of inciting violence find a warm spot at a public university to grow their detestable ideals?

The goal of the conference is to prod universities and corporations to pull their money out of Israel. The divestment strategy mirrors tactics used to end apartheid in South Africa, and the organizers liberally compare Israel to the Afrikaner regime...

You have to wonder two things: How would the university react had the Klan or some other extremist group spouting racist, sexist or homophopic hate speech asked for a platform on campus? And when did anti-Semitism lose its seat on the bus of political correctness?

A thoughtful column by Nolan Finley, editorial page editor of The Detroit News. Maybe I should check in there more often.

One clever phrase I found interesting: "outsourcing of morality" - a very modern term for "ignoring the sins on your own side". And I would also like to know how the university would react if all the behaviors stayed the same, but "Palestine" was switched with "Israel". Puts a different spin on things.

[Link via Grasshoppa]

Your country music update

I may make this a regular feature. I love music, especially country (both classic and some new), rockabilly, hard rock, 70s and 80s rock, Celtic, some New Age (Enya), bagpipes… you get the idea. But country music just seems to have the most real-people intrigue and fun. So I’ll see what I can dig up, periodically. Here’s today’s scoop:

Singer/songwriter Mickey Newbury died Saturday after a long illness; he was one of a group of songwriters including Kris Kristoferson that helped reshape Nashville music in the 1960s. This excerpt from his obituary in the Nashville Tennessean just about says it all about country music:

He told an interviewer almost 30 years ago that he spent his first real money, $8,000 from that song [Funny, Familiar, Forgotten Feelings, a hit as recorded by Don Gibson in 1966], on a new Cadillac.

''Since I knew I'd still be living in my car, I wanted something dependable,'' he said.

I love it. And it seems like trouble is following two current stars as well; first, Travis Tritt:

Marvin Droznek, of McGavock Pike, is accused of being a major drug distributor here, a loan shark and a man who arranges to have legs broken — or worse.

After Droznek, aka Marvin Drake, was arrested Friday, he led authorities to a man who he said told him that he wanted to arrange to have country music star Travis Tritt killed, court documents show.

Yesterday, Droznek and Perry Drew Hardman — the man accused of wanting Tritt dead — were ordered held without bail until trial at a detention hearing in federal court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sunny Koshy said…

''Hardman asked that Tritt be killed based on some type of disagreement with a woman,'' Koshy said.

Hmmm… isn’t Tritt married? Maybe it’s not a romantic disagreement. At least he’s not the one out there, well, punching out cops on his birthday:

Doug Supernaw found himself cooling his heels in a jail cell after police say he attacked five officers during a scuffle outside a Brenham, Texas bar.

Supernaw was arrested early Thursday and held on charges of assaulting a police officer, public intoxication and resisting arrest. His bond was set at $11,150.

"He was supposedly causing a disturbance inside and supposedly he caused a problem with the bouncer and some other patrons," Brenham police detective Sgt. Daniel Gaskamp told The Banner-Press of Brenham.

Gaskamp said Supernaw attacked five officers, who suffered minor cuts and scrapes.

By the way, Supernaw celebrated his 42nd birthday Thursday.

Happy birthday, Doug! (You’ll have to scroll down to find the brief, but OTOH most of it’s pasted in above. Here's another take on it.)

And ladies, if you want something just to make your day, go take a look at Toby Keith. If you haven’t listened to his music, try some clips (yes, I know these are old): His greatest hits album for Getcha Some and If A Man Answers (here for lyrics); go here to find one of my current favorite driving songs (lyrics here) – How Do You Like Me Now; You Shouldn’t Kiss Me just makes me…well, nevermind.

Mmmmmmm… Toby Keith.

The Mideast Conflict - the NPR version

I listened this morning to the first segment of a seven-part series on National Public Radio on the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Today's segment focused on the beginnings of the modern Zionist movement, and was pretty interesting; I don't know enough about the history to say whether it was a good representation. However, the summaries of the other segments show a great reluctance to lay any blame at the feet of the Palestinians, and a tendency to paint the Israelis as the ones to blame. Should be worth following, to see how NPR manages this delicate task; I hope it doesn't live up to its preview.

The series continues tomorrow; here is the link, which includes a summary of each segment as well as a link to listen to today's installment. There are maps and other links as well.

SFSU helps journalists assume full PC mode

I don't know if this is new, but it was highlighted today on FoxNews.com PC Patrol. It's certainly good for a few Monday morning laughs. It's (wait for it) the San Francisco State University The News Watch Diversity Style Guide, from the university that brought you unpunished anti-Israeli attacks (until the pressure to respond somehow became too great). Some excerpts:

victim, victim of (afflicted with, stricken with, suffers from)

Avoid. Use neutral language when describing a person who has a disability. Not every person with a disability suffers, is victim of, or is stricken. Instead use: "He has muscular dystrophy" or "she acquired a spinal cord injury."

That's right, she searched the market, checked her options, and then "acquired" a spinal cord injury when the price was right. Go, girl!

lifestyle

Avoid. An inaccurate term sometimes used to describe gays, lesbians and bisexuals. There is no gay lifestyle, just as there is no heterosexual lifestyle.

Not that there is, say, a pattern of behavior that accompanies homosexuality. And actually there is a heterosexual lifestyle.

Chinese fire drill

Avoid. Racist phrase referring to chaotic situations. Also refers to a game that often takes place at a stoplight in which people in a vehicle get out, run around the vehicle and re-enter in a haphazard way before the traffic light turns green.

You know, I've always assumed this term was expressive of how those of Chinese descent actually behave. I'm glad to see the truth is coming out.

jihad

Jihad should not be confused with Holy War; the latter does not exist in Islam nor will Islam allow its followers to be involved in a Holy War. The latter refers to the Holy War of the Crusaders. It should never be interpreted as a way to force belief on others since there is an explicit verse in the Quran that says "There is no compulsion in religion," Al-Quran: Al Baqarah (2:256). Jihad is a war against any unjust regime. If such a regime exists, a war is to be waged against the leaders, but not against the people of that country. Other meanings include endeavor, strain, exertion and diligence.

No moral equivalence there, nor any effort to put forward an specific interpretation of Islam. Nope. Completely neutral.

I'm so glad SFSU put this together for us. With their record of tolerance and openness behind it, this guide should enjoy wide usage and success.

The sad part is - it probably will.

Time becomes apologist for American Taliban

The latest issue of TIME magazine includes an article on John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, which traces his path to Afghanistan with great sympathy - including his purported sexual affair with an Afghani businessman whom he first met in the United States. Near the close of the article is this passage:

Lindh has access to newspapers and rues the way he feels the media has demonized Islam. Says Abdelwahab Hassan, spiritual leader for Muslim inmates at the Alexandria Detention Center: "He said the America he is reading about is not like the America that he knew when he left here."

Could it be that the America he knew before was one where thousands of his fellow citizens had not died at the hands of his new friends? The arrogance and nauseating piety of this is just breathtaking - that Lindh would set himself up in moral judgment on the US, critical of a situation brought about by the country's reaction to behavior he supported. But it's also not surprising, either that it is said here, or that it is presented so baldly and without comment by TIME writers.

Need convincing that the TIME article is sympathetic? Check out these passages, first about the environment he grew up in:

Years later, after Lindh's arrest in Afghanistan, quiet, affluent San Anselmo would be described sneeringly as a place for overindulgent hot-tubbers who let their kids do whatever they want. Locals prefer to call themselves tolerant.

I'm sure they do. I don't. I'm one of those sneering. And how about this interpretation of one mosque's intent:

John's infatuation blossomed into a deep commitment when he met followers of Tablighi Jama'at, a group that performs missionary work and preaches a strict interpretation of the Koran. While nonpolitical, it looks forward to the rejuvenation of an Islamic caliphate.

I'm sorry, but any group that "looks forward" to the establishment of an earthly caliphate - worldwide domination by Islam, essentially - is by nature political.

And here is the telling of his contact with CIA agent Mike Spann:

The video is riveting. "do you know ..." CIA agent Johnny (Mike) Spann begins, addressing the bedraggled prisoner in front of him. "Do you know the people you're here to ... Hey, look at me. Do you know that the people you're here working with are terrorists? They killed other Muslims. There were several hundred Muslims killed in the bombing in New York City. Is that what the Koran teaches? I don't think so. Are you going to talk to us?" Lindh remains silent. Almost immediately afterward, the CIA officer was slain by other prisoners in an uprising that riveted the world, as allied control of northern Afghanistan seemed to hang in the balance. While his fellow Taliban prisoners set upon the Americans and their Northern Alliance allies, Lindh took off running. He sought safety in the basement of a fort from which several Taliban soldiers would sporadically fire upon the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance would use burning oil and then freezing water to roust the holdouts. After seven days Lindh and his fellow fighters surrendered.

This is about as stripped down as the telling can be, making absolutely no judgments about Lindh's behavior even though, as an American, he could have helped Spann, he could have run toward the Americans instead of the ones attacking them. No, he ran to hide with his al Qaeda compatriots. And we're supposed to have sympathy that they were rousted by burning oil? I don't think so. It is telling that the article says "Lindh and his fellow fighters" - acknowledging (probably inadvertently) that Lindh indeed was a fighter, which means he fought against his own country. Remind me, please, what the definition of a traitor is?

The TIME piece is a classic example of media framing, presenting the available information in such a way as to create the impression they want. In this instance, they highlight all of what they see as positive and sympathetic, and seriously underplay or place in unembellished prose the instances of negative activity. Compare this passage with the one about the fight where Spann was killed:

Marilyn and Frank are allowed to visit their son twice a week, approximately one hour at a time. There is always an fbi agent present. Frank says the agents are pleasant but every word uttered during their visits is recorded. Even so, Marilyn tries to fly across the continent to Washington every two weeks to see her son. They talk through Plexiglas. Neither parent has been able to embrace him. The closest they have come to physical contact was through a mesh screen when they saw him after he was first brought back to the U.S., 55 days after the world saw him on television. Lindh held his palms to the mesh, and each parent took turns holding their hands against his, palm to palm, mother to son, father to son. Frank says he could feel the "warmth" of Lindh's hands through the mesh. That was the last touch that his mother and father had from Lindh.

Notice the detail here, and the lack thereof in the Spann passage. I would offer this alternative to the Spann passage, with the kind of detail in the passage immediately above:

(my version) Mike Spann, a young father and devoted husband whose own Christian faith was of longer duration than Lindh's Muslim attachments, sought information from Lindh in trying to find those who killed 3,000 Americans. He questioned Lindh intensely, not aware that Lindh was an American, his own countryman, and countryman of those who had died. Lindh remained silent, either from fear or from attachment to his al Qaeda compatriots. When fighting broke out, Spann - doing the work of his country - was killed quickly, while Lindh abandoned his country again to run to momentary safety with his killing friends.

I like that better, don't you? Of course I framed it somewhat differently, but the information is the same. Gives a little more insight into just what TIME is doing, doesn't it?

The article is a flagrant effort at painting Walker sympathetically, and I'm sure the homosexual angle will be used by his attorneys to claim his journey to Afghanistan was partially confusion, partially love, as he found himself involved in a homosexual relationship with a married man not long after his own father left the family in the wake of revealing his own homosexuality. You just saw John Walker Lindh's criminal defense.

It doesn't work. Try again, TIME.

Edited for clarity

I would hold his coat

Rudy Guiliani says in his new book that he wanted the best job for himself:

In the book, due in stores Tuesday, Giuliani wrote that he asked Bush three days after the terrorist attacks if he could personally execute Usama bin Laden if U.S. forces captured him.

"I am sure he thought I was just speaking rhetorically," Giuliani wrote. "But I was serious. Bin Laden had attacked my city, and as its mayor I had the strong feeling that I was the most appropriate person to do it."

Any of the family members from those lost on 9/11 would have been appropriate, but Rudy would have done in proxy. Fortunately it didn't come to that.

And even though many believe bin Laden dead, the search continues anyway.

UPDATE: Scrappleface has the latest on David Bonior's book, a bit different from Rudy's.

Welcome!

As you can see, cut on the bias has a new look! We're not all done yet, but this is it for now. Page of The Last Page spent many hours coding it for me - all I did is say "I want this!" and "Change it to that!". She's a patient and kind woman.

And as soon as I get some sleep, posting will resume.

UPDATE: Andrea and Emily have slipped into new dresses as well (as The Group Captain helpfully pointed out). It's a party!

UPDATE: And Media Minded has a new suit - very patriotic!

Yeah, baby!

Sometime yesterday evening while I was tooling about New Jersey in a 1994 Chevy van, the hit counter on cut on the bias slid past the 100,000 mark. Celebration time! Absolutely excellent - thank you, all ten of you! It's been an all-out effort, and a few of you went through more than a couple of ISPs in the process, but we did it! Yay! Free carpal-tunnel surgery for all!

Seriously, it's very exciting to top that in just seven months online. I know 100,000 is a bad week at Instapundit, but we in the shadow of The Big Guys luxuriate in our little victories when they hove on the horizon. We have a good time here, and I have the best commentors anywhere. Kevin, where are you? Stand up! Applause!

In honor of this occasion (well, actually it's a serendipitous juxtaposition, but we'll pretend) there will be A Big Change in the blog soon - if the HTML fairies cooperate, it will be tomorrow. So come back for The New, Improved cut on the bias - the same insight and inanity in a new blogskin!

The Visit - Part III

Some observations:

It’s always disconcerting when your mother starts singing about your eggs. Friday night after we ate at Tony da Caneca’s, my mom said, “I had so much garlic, I feel like singing!” No, I didn’t get it either.

This morning I was driving my mom over to the dump station where my dad had taken the camper. I handed her the carton of eggs (organic! free-range! because they came from the farm, not because Mom and Dad are tree-huggers) they’d given me, so they wouldn’t get smushed. She started singing:

Who’s going to hold your eggs? Who’s going to hold your eggs? Your momma’s going south, Your daddy’s going south, Who’s going to hold your eggs? Your brother’s in Kentucky…

Me: (interrupting) What are you doing?

Mom: I’m singing about your eggs!

Me: So who put garlic on your cereal this morning?!

I love my mom.

The more things change… I remember camping in the Smokies when I was about 11, when a group of Boy Scouts set up camp right across from us. I spent a lot of time sighing over them until we had to leave that night in the middle of a huge thunderstorm. This weekend, the day after a huge storm, a group of Boy Scouts set up right across the road. I did some scoping this time too – but of the Scout leaders.

Mmmmm… Scout leaders.

It’s never a good time to say goodbye to your parents. And it doesn’t get a lot easier either. You just learn how not to think about it.

Be safe and godspeed, Mom and Dad. I miss you already.

The Visit - Part II

Some observations:

It's fun to talk world affairs with old men while sitting on a bench at Wal-Mart, even when he thinks JFK had the definitive foreign policy (take care of our own back yard!) and that the reason we shouldn't fight in Iraq is because we lost so many good men in Korea. And they didn't have a chance - it was (too hot or cold, he said both and I got confused) for our boys, but the opposition didn't care because they were used to it and hopped up on drugs anyway. Whew.

It is very difficult to shower when the water goes off every five seconds, which I know because I counted them off. It's also very difficult to get clean while leaning on the water button with one hand.

Driving a full-size 1994 Chevy van around New Jersey is not my idea of the most fun thing ever. Not even in the top 20. Or 100. Or 1,000.

On the other hand, it's mighty nice to spend time with my parents, even when my dad puts his new camouflage suspenders from Wal-Mart on over his royal blue Kentucky Wildcat's t-shirt. I love my dad.

The Visit - Part I

I drove out to Clinton, NJ, last night, in the rain, to stay with my parents in their camper. It was great to see them, and I fell asleep listening to the rain drum on the metal roof of the camper. Wonderful.

This morning my dad and I walked around the campsite, a gentle mist falling, and counted about 25 deer grazing in the unoccupied parts. I asked myself then why I was living in an urban area. Later, I asked myself that at much greater volume.

We drove to Liberty State Park, saw the NYC skyline sans WTC, then drove through the Holland Tunnel into Manhattan. That's when things started going, well, not so good. I was driving my dad's old Chevy van - read "bus" - and doing quite well, thank you. We drove down the Westside Highway, past the WTC. (I saw Century 21 Dept. Store across the yawning pit that was the towers - it was a startling reminder because I've shopped there, several times. How close it seemed, for there once to have been such huge buildings between where I was and where it is.) Then... I managed to inadvertently get on FDR Drive. Ack. But never fear, after putting the fear into about 20 cars, I made it off at the Houston exit, cut across the island, pushed my way through traffic into the Holland Tunnel and emerged TRIUMPHANT! in Jersey City.

If, that is, arriving in Jersey City could ever be triumphant.

I decided to take my parents to Tony da Caneca's restaurant in the Ironbound section of Newark, which I found without directions after having been there only once about 8 months ago (go me!). Enroute, I was trying to get this mongo van down a narrow one way street with cars parked on both sides and a stupid construction van double parked. Grrr. I squeezed past, almost in the passenger seat of the car parked on the left, only to kiss the side mirror of the construction van with my side mirror. Of course he yelled (although I think he was opening the door). So I stopped, he came over and said, "You hit my mirror!" I said, "You were double parked! I'm sorry!" He said, "You're SORRY?!" I said, "Is it damaged?"

Well, he didn't know. Dolt. He hadn't checked in his rush to yell at me for kissing his mirror when HE was double parked. Jerk. As it turned out, it wasn't damaged.

We made it to Tony's, the food was excellent although each of us was served enough for a family of four. All in the fridge now. And here I am, typing to you while my mom is saying, for the third time, getting ominous, "Susanna, we need to leave."

So no more free cheese, missy! (Or cookies either, Martin!)

No more free cheese for you, missy!

My parents are visiting for a few days, so posts will be scarce until Sunday afternoon (and maybe then too, if I decide a nap is in order). I would have said, "there will be less free i** c**** c****", but someone put the kabosh on that saying. Hey, I don't want to come home to find my blog shivering out along the cyber highway, tossed from its warm cozy server. Instead, how about - no more free cheese for you, missy! Not even if you beg.

(I figure cheese is a good metaphor for my blog - sometimes sharp, sometimes bland, sometimes full of holes and often a bit soft around the edges. Easy to melt, and it's gouda for you.)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Anyway, please visit occasionally to see if I've surfaced to post, and don't miss Monday - big changes on the way for cut on the bias!

Surrealism, Babs and Democr*ps

You knew it was Mike at Cold Fury, didn't you? Take a walk through his aisle of beauty (nothin' sissy there), stop to snicker at Babs, then head on down to a Democr*p slapfest. Life is good.

Go read Tony

Any post that includes the phrase "European sissy-man poses" deserves your immediate attention.

So why do we blog?

The Last Page begins a thoughtful series of posts on bloggers and why they blog with this introduction. She follows it up with an interview with Dave Copeland and his self-named blog. Check it out.

Rumor has it that at some point I too will have an interview in the series. And I have the threats on my life to prove it.

Just so you know...

I was driving home from church last night, and noticed as I headed down I-280 into Newark that the World Trade Towers still aren't standing tall in the distance. As I walked from my parked car down the block to my apartment building, an airplane flew over low, heading in for a landing at Newark International Airport, and I thought - will it hit something else? Will it fall from the sky? Did I hear the planes carrying the doomed on 9/11, banking low, on a trajectory with a death they didn't yet realize would be theirs? I have those thoughts, fleeting but there, nearly every day. And yesterday morning, as I walked up and down the street next to mine, I noticed that many of the houses and cars still have the American flag displayed. The one on my landlord's house is about 4' x 6'. And a somewhat smaller one covers an entire window in my apartment.

As I've mentioned before, there are little reminders constantly to those of us who live here. To me, it's comforting to see the flag all around me - a reminder that we're in this together. I live in a community where a majority of the population are fairly recent immigrants from Portugal, South America, and Asia, and those flags remind me that we are fellow citizens, united with a common purpose of freedom, independence and community. The flags are not decoration, or an afterthought, but a statement of unity, of support for this country's principles.

That's why I was glad to see this article. While I don't think someone must display the flag to be patriotic, I do think it is an important symbolism especially as we move toward a war possibly more virulent and deadly than the one we've waged since 9/11. Feel your heart pick up, the next time you see the flag, and take a moment to be thankful for it.

A Daschle Diatribe (and I don't mean his)

Dodd unleashes a well-deserved tirade against Tom Daschle. Beautiful to see.

UPDATE: While you're over at Ipse Dixit, check out the Caption Contest - this week's photo is excellent.

Dershowitz on Israel

I've had kind of a love-hate attitude toward Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz since I first read his book The Best Defense almost 20 years ago. He's a very sharp lawyer who lands far to the left of me on virtually everything. But in his letter published Monday in Harvard's The Crimson student newspaper, he shines in his explanation of why Israel is the star in the firmament of Middle Eastern countries. The context is a challenge to one of the signers of the recent letter to Harvard President Larry Summers to divest Harvard assets from Israel:

In my 38 years of teaching at Harvard Law School, I don’t recall ever writing in praise of any action by a Harvard president, but this time I must congratulate President Lawrence H. Summers for his willingness to say out loud what many of us in the Harvard community have long believed: namely, that singling out Israel, among all the countries in the world, for divestment, is an action which is anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent. A recent open letter by one of the signatories made it clear that he regards Israel as the “pariah” state, a word historically used by anti-Semites to characterize the Jewish people. As an advocate and practitioner of human rights throughout the world, I can confidently assert that Israel’s record on human rights is among the best, especially among nations that have confronted comparable threats. Though far from perfect, Israel has shown extraordinary concern for avoiding civilian casualties in its half-century effort to protect its civilians from terrorism. Jordan killed more Palestinians in a single month than Israel has between 1948 and the present.

Israel has the only independent judiciary in the entire Middle East. Its Supreme Court, one of the most highly regarded in the world, is the only court in the Middle East from which an Arab or a Muslim can expect justice, as many have found in winning dozens of victories against the Israeli government, the Israeli military and individual Israeli citizens. There is no more important component in the protection of human rights and civil liberties than an independent judiciary willing to stand up to its own government. I challenge the proponents of divestment to name a court in any Arab or Muslim country that is comparable to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Israel is the only country in the region that has virtually unlimited freedom of speech. Any person in Israel whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian can criticize the Israeli government and its leaders. No citizen of any other Middle Eastern or Muslim state can do that without fear of imprisonment or death.

Israel is the only country that has openly confronted the difficult issue of protecting the civil liberties of the ticking bomb terrorist. The Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that despite the potential benefits of employing non-lethal torture to extract information, the tactic is illegal. Brutal torture, including lethal torture, is commonplace in nearly every other Middle Eastern and Muslim country. Indeed, American authorities sometimes send suspects to Egypt, Jordan and the Philippines precisely because they know that they will be tortured in those countries.

Nor is Israel the only country that is occupying lands claimed by others. China, Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Spain, France and numerous other countries control not only land, but people who seek independence. Indeed, among these countries Israel is the only one that has offered statehood, first in 1948 when the Palestinians rejected the UN partition which would have given them a large, independent state and chose instead to invade Israel. Again in the year 2000 Palestinians were offered a state, rejected it and employed terrorism.

There are, of course, difficult issues to be resolved in the Middle East. These include the future of the settlements, the establishment of Palestinian self-governance and the prevention of terrorism. These issues will require compromise on all sides. Members of the Harvard community must be free to criticize Israel when they disagree with its policies or actions, as they criticize any other country in the world whose record is not perfect. But to single out the Jewish state of Israel, as if it were the worst human rights offender, is bigotry pure and simple. It would be comparable to singling out a black nation for de-legitimation without mentioning worse abuses by white nations. Those who sign the divestment petition should be ashamed of themselves. If they are not, it is up to others to shame them...

Let me propose an alternative to singling out Israel for divestment: let Harvard choose nations for investment in the order of the human rights records. If that were done, investment in Israel would increase dramatically, while investments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Philippines, Indonesia, the Palestinian Authority and most other countries of the world would decrease markedly.

And that answers just about any questions that anyone may have about why supporting Israel is important.

Thirty-nine Harvard professors urged divestment in the original petition May 6; by May 15, 300 professors had signed. Summers clearly identified their attitude as anti-Semitic last week. Now Dershowitz is seeking a debate with one of the signatories, Master Paul D. Hanson, which Winthrop House is considering. I hope it happens; I doubt it will. It's one thing to sign a petition; it's something different to air your anti-Semitism in public where it can be identified and so challenged by fact that the prejudice becomes isolated and thus very clear.

I don't know precisely what the internal Harvard politics are of challenging Hanson. Should be interesting to see how it all falls out, though.

[Link from Josh Kraushaar at All About Josh.]

Why not vote for Cleland?

A few days ago I posted about the Senate races in the South that are possibly up for grabs by Republicans. One of those races is in Georgia, where Kevin McGehee lives. I said, what are you doing to get the job done, Kevin? Here is a letter he sent to his local newspaper making his case against the incumbent, Democrat Max Cleland:

As a lifelong Republican I can come up with reasons why Saxby Chambliss in the U.S. Senate would be better for Georgia than Max Cleland.

For instance, Cleland's voting record in the Senate more closely represents the views of Tom Daschle than of Cleland's own constituents. It's the Daschle connection, though, that argues for why Saxby Chambliss would be better not only for Georgia, but also for the Senate and for the country.

Did you see Daschle going ballistic last Wednesday, accusing President Bush of trying to politicize the war with Iraq? The man Max Cleland helped make Majority Leader in the United States Senate, the man Max Cleland would surely help keep in that position if the Democrats retain control of that body, has done more to politicize war and national security than anyone in Washington. In fact, Daschle's performance was part and parcel of his effort to keep his party in control of the Senate even as the news from the campaign trail gets bleaker and bleaker for the Democrats.

After Daschle's spittle-flecked tirade, Zell Miller took to the floor of the Senate and criticized Daschle and his fellow Democrats for playing politics with national security. Where was Max?

He was where he's always been -- in Tom Daschle's pocket.

Tom Daschle needs to be removed from his position of power over legislation, over the confirmation of judges and other federal officials, and over the terms of political debate in Washington. Although we voters have no direct say over who serves as Senate Majority Leader, we can help by reducing the number of Daschle supporters by one on November 5.

Go, Kevin! Keep it up!

Lock him in a room with the Naudet video

A former Wall Street broker convicted of securities fraud asked a judge in NYC today not to send him to jail because of the trauma he suffered on 9/11.

Cary Cimino, the broker in question, claims he saw people jumping before he left his WTC area apartment, but escaped before either tower fell. Poor guy, it really traumatized him:

In letters to the sentencing judge, Cimino said he saw people jumping out of the towers - and was so emotionally overwhelmed that he couldn't possibly handle a single night in jail...

(H)e whine(d) to Manhattan Federal Judge William Pauley that because of his "already critical emotional ill health, these events [of Sept. 11] have had an especially 'shattering effect.'"

...Psychoanalyst Alvin Kulick said that Cimino suffered a dysfunctional childhood, was "traumatized" by incarceration after his original arrest and was pushed over the top by Sept. 11. Kulick said he was particularly worried about Cimino's dreams, which "took on a more nightmarish quality."

Kulick said Cimino "identified with the people who jumped. He was one of the doomed people jumping. He felt he was trapped in a deadly place, helpless, and could only escape by hurling himself out, even if it meant death."

Dr. Robert Goldstein wrote that Cimino was experiencing Sept. 11 "flashbacks.... Incarceration would be extremely traumatic."

I hope they lock him in a tower cell with the Naudet video on continuous loop. What a pathetic excuse for a human being.

He faced a maximum of 10 years. I'll let you know tomorrow what sentence he got.

Awwwwww....!

A friend sent me an essay his young teenage daughter wrote about friendship, the Grand Canyon and meeting a challenge you set yourself. I've posted it on my writings site; I think you'll enjoy it.

The lefter I am, the better the media seem

R. Alex Whitlock at RAWbservations has a nice discussion of media bias based on his own political meanderings. Specifically, he's noticed that as some of his views have moved right, the media has seemed to get more biased in their coverage; in the areas where he's moved left, they seem to be performing quite well.

It is a good illustration of what I've talked about here before - that your perception of bias has a lot to do with your own biases, and if you hang out with people with your same worldview, you'll find it hard to see your bias. Journalists often function in a liberal vacuum, asking each other if they're biased and reassured when the answer is "no". Alex also skids past the issue of framing, the technique by which much bias is conveyed. Interesting read.

Alex is apparently submerged in a hellish work schedule, so he has two guest bloggers pinch-hitting at the top of his blog. Pretty funny.

Putting it all together

There was this journalist, see, and she was all objective, see, and she started working for this partisan think tank too, ya know? Anyway, she's a really good writer, see, and she just won this big award, see, and ya know what? The people who finance the think tank gave her the award for her journalism writing. And the best part? She felt bad about the award because her writing hadn't done the good she meant for it to.

I'm so thankful for media objectivity, aren't you?

[Media Minded has the real scoop, and is far less annoying about it.]

Republicans in the South have never liked Jews

This may come as a surprise to you - it sure did to me. But that's what comedian Dick Gregory said in this article (Edney, Hallway Buzz Focused on Recent Losses) about the recent House of Representative losses of Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard.

...Gregory says he’s not buying reports that Republicans joined with the Jewish community to defeat McKinney because of her support for Palestine over Israel in the Middle Eastern war.

“Republicans in the South have never liked Jews,” Gregory says.

Actually Republicans and some former McKinney supporters are believed to have voted against her in retaliation for her accusations that the Bush administration officials had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and failed to act so that their associates could benefit financially.

"Believed" by whom? By the people who also believe that southern Republicans don't like Jews? How about, everyone piled on to vote against Cynthia McKinney because she's a hate-filled leftie racist, whose own race was immaterial?

I know this is old news (the lost races, not the racist article), but I was intrigued to see this "strategy session" article posted on The Black World Today; there's no date, but it's been posted in the past couple of weeks. Look at how one of the passages sounds when the race is changed:

With dozens of issues forums and brain trusts during the Congressional White Caucus’ annual legislative conference—from reparations to missing children to mandatory minimum sentences—among the most discussed issues outside the meeting rooms was how White America can block outside interests from controlling primary elections in predominately White districts.

The political chatter centered on the Democratic losses of Reps. Earl Hilliard of Alabama and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia...

Many of the delegates noted the roles Black contributors played in the defeats.

“They [Blacks] know how to form these large coalitions with these small contributions. We just don’t do that too well,” says Clyde Bailey, president-elect of the National Bar Association.

Wow. How quickly do you think any publication would be busted if that actually ran? But replace "white" with "black" and "black" with "Jew", and you've got the actually published view on The Black World Today.

And, since Hilliard's opponent, Artur Davis, is black, he had to find some reason other than race to blame for his loss - something besides his policies, of course:

Jackson’s opinion is not far from what Hilliard has said since losing the June primary to Artur Davis, a lawyer nearly half his age.

“African-Americans don’t have a political infrastructure that we can bring to any election,” Hilliard says. “We’ve got to concentrate on fund-raising. And we’ve got to set up a political infrastructure, which we don’t have. We don’t have sufficient political action committees. We don’t have sufficient communications that deal with political problems. And that’s because historically we’ve been dealing with so many social problems in African-American communities… We’ve been dealing with everything except our political future."

So obviously Davis was a put-up candidate because he was so much younger than Hilliard; if the black communities had just had the proper infrastructure in place...!

What's interesting to me is that there is all this anxiety about getting black candidates in office - and both the candidates who won those mentioned races were black! So it's very clear that it's not about race, it's about ideology wrapped in race - if there's not the right kind of cream in the Oreo, forget it.

And the open hostility toward Jews - a traditionally liberal base for the Democrats - is appalling as well. I know it's been commented on before, but it's a renewed horror each time I see it. How can true efforts to stamp out racism be effective when the ones who historically suffered the most are the ones perpetuating it on a daily basis - and not only not getting generally vilified for it, but encouraged?

I think getting out the vote in any setting is important, but I think we need to teach critical thinking skills along with it. These activists clearly want blacks to vote as a unified block, and don't accept that a debate of ideas will legitimately lead to blacks voting for other races over black candidates, or blacks running against each other because they represent differing ideals and values. They also don't seem to get it that they should be happy when the choice is between two black candidates. Isn't that a triumph to them? Apparently not.

Race only matters to me when it's used as a cloak of virtue to prevent debate on what I consider to be ugly, divisive and harmful policies. I would vote for Condileezza Rice for president without hesitation, if once I understood all her views I felt she would represent me well. I wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman, or because she's black, and I wouldn't vote against her for either reason.

I think it's time we called the black racists on their racism just as we do all others. Only when we're all held to the same standard will we get to where we need to be.

Politics hit the Blogosphere! Will it be Laurence or Stephen?

As most of you likely know, FX is going to run a reality show – American Candidate – which will try to choose a candidate for the next presidential election the same way that the Survivor is chosen. They’re searching for nominees, and of course the Blogosphere must be represented.

Laurence Simon took an early lead (being the only bloggish candidate), even going so far as to propose his platform and promise an all-bloggish cabinet. While the biggest battle was over Secretary of Defense (with some movement toward calling it Secretary of War), Greg Hlatky nominated yours truly for White House Press Secretary (me as Ari Fleischer? Oy vey!) and Lynn Sislo suggested NZ Bear. So as not to annoy the bear (nice bear, nice bear!), I propose that should Mr. Simon win, NZ take the first four years and then leave to host a political show where he attempts to pass himself off as non-partisan. Then I will take over and begin each press conference by smacking Helen Thomas awake.

This bloggish presidential utopia had a rude awakening as another candidate entered the fray (or at least was nominated) this week – Stephen Green, the inestimable VodkaPundit. He has yet to accept the nomination, but efforts are afoot to bring him to the attention of American Candidate, and some cabinet posts have already been staked out.

While I hate to see strife develop amongst the peace-loving, low-key, have-you-hugged-your-AK-today warbloggers, I think this could be a good thing. We’ll all get the issues out in the open, and certainly Simon and Green (sounds like a law firm, doesn’t it?) would prove more entertaining than, well, any candidates ever. And we’ll surely have awesome debates – fresh bread and free-flowing alcohol for everyone! (Um, better make mine a nada-colada.)

(edited to correct spelling)

I've always called it "Fred"

Bigwig asks the question:

Is blogging Art?

He's giving you a chance to decide for yourself, kicking off his Carnival of the Vanities regular feature today - a listing of blog posts submitted by their authors as their best recent work.

Check them out. And tell Fred I said hi.

Pretty in Pink

Harper's and the 2000 redux

Eric Lindstrom at Smarter Harper's Index deftly skewers the October Harper's Index.

If you've not taken the time to check out Eric's monthly feature, you really should go on over. It's classic bias debunking. Beautiful to see.

Unabashed admiration

Our military doesn't always get it right. But you know, I'm so proud of them. My latest rush of admiration came when I read this:

U.S. troops were on their way to the Ivory Coast Tuesday to rescue 100 American schoolkids trapped amid violence in the isolated, rebel-held city of Bouake, a U.S. official said.

My first reaction was, Thank God our soldiers are going in. And my next thought was, we are so blessed to have our military. I know I'm gushing, but I don't care. Even those of us who support the military don't give them figurative standing-O's often enough. But I felt such a sense of safety for those children when I read our soldiers were going in; I knew that if it was possible to get them out, they'd get the job done. The security our military gives us forms the cradle of order our country needs to thrive. So, bravo. I'm so proud. And I don't mind saying so.

The Oblivious Menace

Tony Woodlief finds driving through Kentucky brings unpleasant contemplative thoughts.

Well, the objects of the thoughts are unpleasant. Tony's post is most excellent, as always.

I suspect that I myself am A Deliberate Menace; most likely he'll post on them next.

Press told to stay home

A private company that organizes conferences for various industries has told the press they're not welcome at an upcoming conference on stem cell research:

The two-day conference, organized by the Strategic Research Institute, will draw scientists, biotech executives, venture capitalists, patent attorneys, and a representative from the President's Council on Bioethics. Journalists, though, will have to wait outside.

"I instituted this years ago as some members of your profession have caused irreparable ... damage with speaker relationships and in some cases their companies over coverage," Strategic Research executive Mark Alexay wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "Hence no coverage. Over and out."

Conference organizers said some speakers also may be discussing sensitive research data they do not want publicized yet.

Of course, as the article says, Strategic Research Institute doesn't have to let them in. But if they don't, the media will make sure it seems it's because the industry has something to hide - not because SRI's complaints about the media's past coverage has any validity:

Religious conservatives and biotechnology foes oppose human embryonic stem cell research as immoral because days-old embryos must be destroyed in the process. "It's likely they are trying to keep a low profile until they can announce something positive," said Daniel McConchie of the Christian-based Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

Joel Martin, a conference panelist and partner with the San Diego venture capital firm Forward Ventures, disputed that: "Restricting the press raises the impression that something improper is being discussed, and that's not going to be case." Martin and others said they believe media coverage would do more good than harm for a field facing significant scientific, financial, and legal obstacles.

That last line likely came about by a journalist saying, to several people, "Do you think media coverage would do more good than harm for a field facing significant scientific, financial, and legal obstacles?" Those people all said a version of "yes" ("Well, possibly"; "That could be true"; "Yeah"; etc.), so the journalist's wording was approved. That's a fairly common journalistic tool, and not necessarily a bad one. But it does tend to get the information framed in the way the journalist sees it.

I really don't care one way or another whether journalists are allowed in the conference, and I also don't think keeping them out means the conference participants have anything to hide. But keep an eye on the news the week of October 8, and see what leaks out of the conference - because you can bet the journalists will be hanging on like Entertainment Tonight investigating J-Lo's latest love affair. They just can't help themselves.

Thanks - I needed a good laugh!

From Joanne of the anti-Israeli screed, in her most recent post:

My intention was to embarress and silence Susanna Cornett, and it was met. I have discredited Susanna Cornett. Her silence is deafening.

Yeehaw! Won't my family and friends be happy to hear that - they've been waiting for a deafening silence for decades! Awesome.

And here all this time I thought I was just, you know, giving her enough rope. I thought she did quite well with it, why should I give it any more yanks?

More on Gore

I've added a few additional links to my earlier post on Gore. These are to other analyses of his speech, definitely worth reading. Check them out at the bottom of my original post.

UPDATE: And Scott Ott at Scrappleface reports that the test run of... well, it's a Gore thing. Go see.

Blair says stop Saddam

Which is no surprise; we knew he would. But he made a good case. I have to get to work so can't really comment, but Mike at Cold Fury says what needs to be said anyway.

It's about time!

Bush Stumps for N.J.'s Forrester in Potential Upset Race.

Forrester is running against Robert "The Torch" Torricelli, who was lightly smacked for ethics violations by the Senate - although the man who supposedly gave him gifts to buy influence is in jail for it. Hmmm.

Torricelli is considered the most vulnerable of the nation's Senate candidates, and his defeat could tip the one-seat Democratic control of the Senate to Republicans...

Torricelli is on the defensive, apologizing after being "severely admonished" by the Senate for accepting improper gifts from contributor businessman David Chang. Chang is in prison serving an 18-month sentence for illegal campaign contributions.

While Torricelli advertises that he did nothing illegal, he emphasizes that his relationship with Chang could have been better handled.

"Although I broke no laws, it's clear to me I did exercise poor judgement," Torricelli says in the ad.

I've seen that ad. Pffft. Sleazy.

Polls show that while Torricelli's numbers have remained stagnant at 44 percent, Forrester has pulled ahead by four points.

I'm glad to see that NJ isn't the abandoned child of the GOP this year. If we can't beat Torricelli, we need to just pack it up.

Anyone see any similarities between Torricelli and KY Gov. Paul Patton?

"I did not have inappropriate relations with (that woman, that woman, that Chang)".

Whether it's sex, improper influence or accepting funds illicitly, the Clinton Lexicon lives, in the Senate, in the governors' mansions and, yes, in the Clinton Legacy:

The Federal Election Commission disclosed Friday that it has imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fund-raising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources.

The FEC documents describe Democratic fund-raisers who set specific prices for foreign nationals to make illegal campaign contributions in return for meetings with then-President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. A Democratic finance vice chair, for example, said organizers would have to contribute a total of $100,000 in return for Gore's appearance at a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles.

Incidentally, the LA Times article was buried on Page 23. Guess where it would have been if it'd been the RNC?

Gore's speech: denigration, not diplomacy

Former vice-president Al Gore spoke today in San Francisco, detailing his vision regarding the security of the United States. While he said some things with which I agree, those things were largely the truths needed to set up his skewed view – as the old saying goes, the most insidious lies are half-truths.

I don’t have the time or space to dissect his speech point by point; however, I want to highlight his main points, and then address some of them briefly. Here is a transcript of the speech, on his campaign site.

The overall points were:

1) We aren’t done with the war on terror; we don’t need to be distracted by another war.

2) After defeating the Taliban, we abandoned Afghanistan, with negative consequences. If the US removes Saddam, the Bush administration plans to follow the same trajectory in Iraq. Congress must make the President detail his plans for nation-building before giving its go-ahead.

3) We have a right to attack pre-emptively if the danger to the US is imminent; there is not sufficient evidence to prove that Iraq is an eminent threat, and thus we do not have the right to attack.

4) This right is conferred by the UN and international law.

5) The Bush administration is pushing Congress toward this war for political advantage; in fact “the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a "no" vote”, Gore said.

6) Moving unilaterally will feed anger against the US internationally.

7) The Bush administration’s policies have squandered both international good will and the domestic budget surplus; a war on Iraq will deepen both problems.

8) The United States is gaining a reputation for seeking dominance, rather than being a leader among friends. This attitude of “empire building” only feeds international anger.

9) The new Bush “doctrine of pre-emption” sets a dangerous precedent that other countries can feed on, and use as an excuse for attacking countries they perceive as a threat for whatever reason. Without narrowing the focus, and bolstering the argument, the danger is unallayed.

10) The current Bush policies in response to the need to heighten homeland security are an open and serious threat to our Constitutional rights.

There are other points, but those stand out to me as the most important. So are these things true? I don’t believe, on the whole, that they are – at the very least, in each instance the spin cloaks truth in lies. Here are my thoughts.

In my view, going into Iraq is fighting the war on terror, on several levels. Iraq actively and openly supports terrorism in a variety of ways, most recently and obviously in its payment to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but in other ways as well. Much of the terror has been visited on Saddam’s own people, but he has proven his willingness to attack by his aggression toward Kuwait, and he has proven his unwillingness to attend to international law and disapproval by his deep and continued contempt for UN resolutions. The evidence for his efforts to amass weapons of mass destruction is well-documented from people who have escaped from his country, as well as intelligence sources. While it is definitely a broadening of the war on terror, it is not a distraction from it.

Another basic accusation is that the United States is not behaving as a responsible member of the world community, and is setting a bad example. The problem there is, the standards for “bad example” are being set by that same world community which is itself rife with aggressive, terroristic and empire-building governments. Our continued appeasement of this world community brought us the 1993 WTC bombing, Somalia, the USS Cole and finally 9/11. The UN, and the world governments as a whole, are not interested in right vs wrong, or moral clarity of any sort, but rather some type of balance that keeps the US chained while allowing the evil in other parts of the world to operate relatively freely. It appears to me that the purpose of the UN is not to work for world peace and advancement of its peoples, but specifically to neutralize the US as much as possible while making the US pay for the privilege of being neutralized. When the US finally acts with moral clarity and directness, the “leaders” of the world’s nations become very anxious because it threatens their dirty not-so-secret behaviors. And in this abyss of immorality, moral equivalence is the order of the day. Gore feeds that monster when he compares the US attacking Iraq with China attacking Taiwan – they are not in any way equivalent, but since the difference is a moral one, not a strategic one, it is dismissed by Gore and his UN buddies as an irrelevant difference. It is a sad and pathetic thing to see a former vice president who would be president of the greatest country in the world selling his country’s soul for a few crumbs of international condescension.

As for violating international law – we are not subject to it except as a courtesy. It is unconstitutional for us to be subject to it. I am amazed – although perhaps I shouldn’t be – that Gore hammers on what he sees as the unconstitutionality of Bush’s policies in homeland security, then turns around and suggests that we abrogate our greatest constitutional right – that of self-determination.

One of the most disturbing of Gore’s claims is that we’ve left Afghanistan behind. As I noted earlier today, we have troops throughout Afghanistan working hard to stabilize the country, in dangerous conditions, and doing so with dedication and humor. Gore’s statement is a slap in the face to those soldiers and their work. But he can get by with this, he can say it in a public forum without much fear of renunciation, because the media and Congress have turned their eyes from Afghanistan – not the American military.

And this bitter disclaiming about a failure to engage in intense nation-building sits oddly with Gore’s stated fears – and repetition of the world’s fears – that the United States is moving into an empire building stage. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe an empire in the British model is to go into a country and essentially take it over, bringing in a lot of physical improvements as well as changes in how the governments are run. It seems the only difference between nation-building as Gore envisions and building an empire, is how long the nation doing the building – and it’s always the US in his vision – is planning to stay. It’s only an empire if you don’t leave – yet Gore is criticizing the US for “leaving” Afghanistan. Which is it? Are we engaging in hit-and-run, or empire building? Or is it something else altogether: the Bush doctrine of removing a damaging regime and helping the people learn effective self-rule and self-sufficiency with the clearly stated goal of leaving them to it as quickly as possible? That isn’t empire-building; that’s responsible nation-to-nation assistance. If anything, we take on too much and run the risk of having a host of countries hanging off the US public teat like so many international career welfare recipients.

As for pushing Congress in a run up to an election, it’s a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario. If Bush waited, there would be accusations that he was waiting for political reasons. There is no scenario where this accusation would not be leveled. We all know it. In the face of that, it seems to me most likely that Bush is doing what he thinks is right for the country, and the timing is what it is.

Overall, Gore’s speech is an effort to pander to the left while reaching for the center who believe a war is the right thing. His allusions and accusations are targeted at bolstering his statesmanship, but do so only at the cost of denigrating his own country. If anyone is behaving in a calculatedly political manner, it would be Al Gore.

Here is coverage from the mainstream media: CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle and FoxNews. I encourage you to read all of Gore's speech first, then go read the coverage of it. I think you'll have a nice idea then of how the media frames coverage, and how it has an impact on how news is perceived.

UPDATE: Vodkapundit nails Gore. [Link via Instapundit]

UPDATE: Well, John Cole does it again - the definitive analysis of Gore's speech.

UPDATE: More from Vodkapundit; this time he says Gore stakes outa deliberate stance predicting American failure for political advantage - the more we fail in Iraq, the stronger Gore's position is. If we win, he's toast. Stephen says, no one wanting to be president should wish us to fail. It's a good post.

UPDATE: Sen. John McCain says Gore "is out of step with a majority of Democrats in the Senate. McCain specifically mentioned Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, and John Kerry as among those who support taking action against Saddam Hussein." Funny, that McCain would be the one to say that. Isn't he a Republican?

UPDATE: John Cole has another analysis, a long and very interesting look at the bigger picture surrounding Gore's speech.

UPDATE: And the beat goes on - Bryan Preston at JunkYardBlog adds his analysis, saying that Gore is personalizing the war to distract from bigger issues.

You hate to see it, but...

This is very funny.

So people can control themselves

Yesterday, almost half a million Brits marched on London to protest efforts to outlaw fox hunting. That kind of showing for a conservative issue is heartening, and I hope a sign of things to come for Great Britain. Glenn Reynolds links some information, and Samizdata folk were there too.

As always, the discussion in comments at Samizdata adds another twist that's worth thinking about itself. Two things stood out to me:

(From Donna V.) In reading about your march, this Yank is reminded once again of the difference between the anti-globo left and the rest of us. Let's continue to prove that you can hold a demo without throwing rocks through Starbuck's windows, getting tear-gassed, or beating up people who disagree with you.

(From Julian Morrison) I was there. Interesting situation. Thing that struck me: zero litter. 400K people walk down the road *and don't so much as drop a candy wrapper*. Interesting what that says about these folks.

It says a lot. These people had a point to make, and while they were plenty angry - as a read through the post will attest - they were also law-abiding and conscious of other people's property. Could it be because they themselves have property, that they are directing their anger in the proper channels, and aren't being incited to destruction by leaders promising all but impunity for even egregious acts of violence, damaging and looting? That's what happens in our society, too often. And who is protesting in those situations? Usually either people who have no jobs and think it all a wonderful lark, or people who are children of priviledge or of the state, and don't worry about what damage they cause - because, after all, they're oppressed, they're mad about it, and it's not their ox getting gored. What you saw in Britain was a lack of self-centered wantonness. Would that we had more of that here.

A second note:

(From Steven Chapman of Daddy Warblogs) "I can't recall Americans ever marching to say "let us alone," wrote Harry Eagar.

That's because you have a constitution which says that for you.

And we need to count our blessings about that every day.

What to do about Moussaoui?

Seymour M. Hersh writes in The New Yorker today about Zacarias Moussaoui; the article is subtitled:

Has the Justice Department mishandled the case against Zacarias Moussaoui?

Take some time to read it. What do you think?

[Link via How Appealing]

What needs to happen for peace?

Mike at Cold Fury rolls through the White House rhetoric about Israel to provide some moral clarity that he says they are lacking:

The bloody-minded Palestinians, and the other terrorist states along with them, must be defeated utterly. Their vision of the shape of our world must be annihilated and thoroughly delegitimized. Then and only then can there be hope for a peace worthy of the name.

Sounds about right to me.

UPDATE: Brent at The Ville is of a similar mind.

UPDATE: Mike at Cold Fury takes us to school (or away from school, more likely) about what it means to be a liberal today. I would excerpt it, but it's just too good. Go read it now, I'll wait.

Some days I feel like I'm holding my own in this blogosphere, but other times I realize I sit at the feet of giants. (And that's perfectly okay with me, since most of them seem to use this.)

You didn't think I could say that "giants" line with a completely straight face, did you? But Mike and a bunch of others are way awesome. I'm just glad I got to come to the party.

Should professional journalists have weblogs?

Apparently, some companies think not. Certainly Steve Olafson, who lost his job at The Houston Chronicle when they discovered he was writing an anonymous weblog that included comments about people he covered and the newspaper itself, found that out the hard way. And the lawyers, well, see for yourself:

"You start getting into the question of, is this part of the paper or not?" said Jane E. Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. "If I'm a lawyer advising a news organization, the idea of a Web log like this would just make me break out in hives."

I'm all for media weblogs maintained on the side; I think what a journalist does on his own time is his own business. However, I know that while I comment on issues dealing with my day job, I don't specifically talk about inside things I know only because of my job. There does have to be a separation. Maybe Olafson crossed the line; I don't know.

In my personal opinion, the kind of blog I like to see from a professional journalist is like the one, well, maintained by a professional journalist - Media Minded, where, incidentally, I got the link for this post. MM (or MMmmmmmmm as I like to call him) gives important insights into media, and strongly opines on issues dealing with media, all with grace and a professional reticence about matters to do with his own workplace. And he does it pseudonymously, which is not a detriment - when you follow a blog over time you learn whether or not to trust the blogger, regardless of what name is on it. And Media Minded is top of the line.

As the article notes, media types like Mickey Kaus and Eric Alterman both maintain weblogs connected to mainstream publications. Those are, it seems to me, hybrids - not quite news articles, but not the untrammeled openness of an unedited, wholly uncensored private blog. That's not a bad thing, it's just a different thing. I suspect we'll see a lot more anguishing in journalistic circles before this all shakes out.

Successes in Afghanistan

As the nation focuses on Iraq, it's easy to be distracted from the important work still being done by our military in Afghanistan. For example, just last week a large cache of weapons was discovered:

U.S. special operations forces on Wednesday discovered Taliban documents that led the team to one of the largest weapons caches discovered to date in Afghanistan, U.S. military officials said...

Included in the cache were 51 107 mm rockets; 10,000 rounds of 14.5 mm ammunition; 8,000 rounds of 12.7 mm ammunition, 75 rocket-propelled grenades; 20 anti-tank rounds, 150 82 mm mortar rounds; and anti-aircraft weapons.

King called the discovery “a really significant haul.”

“It’s one of the larger [weapons caches] we’ve found,” he said. “Now they’re off the market.”

Some of the weapons recovered were WWII vintage, such as Panzerfaust anti-tank rounds, but others were much newer, King said.

King called the anti-aircraft weapons “particularly significant, because we move a lot by air.”

That highlights the danger our people over there are in daily. But they're doing great work - as the residents in the town where the cache was found are attesting:

ORGUN, Afghanistan - After pouring green tea and greeting their American guests as old friends, the Sarobi village council of elders got down to business. The community leaders despise their governor, an ex-Taliban holdover who has returned to power with the permission of the central government. Their solution: Elect one of the US Special Forces soldiers to replace him.

The Boston Globe article is from a correspondent who spent eight days with the 82nd Airborne Infantry in Orgun. Many of the soldiers aren't very happy to be there:

"The 82nd Airborne is not known for peacekeeping. We're known for jumping into Normandy and fighting battles," said Private Michael McIntyre, 21, a native of Millinocket, Maine. "All the missions we've been on have been searching for weapons caches, and no one ever fights us. People here tell us all the bad guys have gone to Pakistan, so I wish they'd let us go there."

But what they're doing is, in its own way, as important:

Their care in cultivating a "light footprint" in the Orgun-e-Kalan valley - abiding by local customs, eschewing obvious military uniforms, growing beards (until a recent Pentagon directive forced them to shave), and respecting the separation of women - has paid dividends in high levels of cooperation. The Special Forces-trained Orgun police have arrested dozens of suspected Taliban sympathizers whom they turned over to US forces. Locals visit the base nearly every day to report hidden weapons caches, leading to the seizure of more than seven truckloads of weapons and ammunition in the past two months.

Those are Taliban sympathizers who now can't work to reestablish the old regime; those are guns that can't be used to kill our soldiers. And the reason that they were found? Because our soldiers have built up trust with the locals.

Given the amount of weaponry recovered in Afghanistan - three truckloads - I looked for it in the NY Times and the Washington Post. Neither had anything about Orgun. The Washington Times had a brief blurb. It's unfortunate that the news media has mostly moved on to what they must see as more fertile pastures for drama and readership. The US military is still saving lives in Afghanistan, and laying the foundation for a more stable future in the country. They may not like their role right now, but they're doing it and doing it well. So I say, bravo. Good job. And God bless.

And your first clue was...

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) national convention was held weekend before last, and it sounds like it was a whine-fest. Among the things discussed:

Ed Offley, a former Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter and a military writer for two decades, argued journalists are woefully unprepared to deal with the military and conflicts. The theme was the same in "Following the Money: How Everyone Missed the Warning Signs about Enron." Laura Goldberg, a Houston Chronicle business reporter, admitted that when handed the energy beat just weeks before the story of corporate fraud broke in her hometown, she was simply lost in a barrage of acronyms and bizarre terminology.

Is it any wonder we question our media's knowledge, when they question it themselves? Of course, few who actually are on the job were there to hear it:

All comments on the mark or worth pondering -- if only more industry captains were there to hear such pleas. Nearly half the attendees were students. Many others were from academia.

There were a total of 600 attendees out of a membership of 9,500. What has happened to this once-mighty professional organization?

Organizers blame the general membership decline on the emergence of more than 40 specialty media organizations nationwide in the past few decades.

Ahhh. It's because our "objective" media has broken off into special interest groups. Not to worry, though, I'm sure the personal views that caused them to fragment do not in any way flow over into their coverage. Really.

The best story

CPO Sparkey on Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing tells the sweetest wartime story I've seen. The best part is... it still lives on, in him.

Start with the linked post and work your way down. You'll see what to do.

Schröder appears to have won

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder appears to have a narrow victory. However, the article in the Times isn't so lucky:

Buoyed by his refusal to support a war in Iraq, Mr. Schröder's Social Democrats were hurt in the last days of this bitter campaign by the reported remarks of his justice minister, comparing President George W. Bush's tactics on Iraq to those of Adolf Hitler.

This "buoyed" business appears from nowhere and disappears as quickly. The victory - if indeed it exists - is very narrow, which certainly rules out a mandate for him. And the article does not anywhere give evidence that his position on the war with Iraq helped push him past conservative opponent Edmund Stoiber - no exit polls, no surveys, no nothing. So whence the "buoyed"? Could it be NY Times editorializing, taking every opportunity to push forward the viewpoint that Schröder's anti-war stance is widely supported in Germany, is indeed the right position? Certainly they use the line in the caption of the photo of Schröder:

Mr. Schröder was buoyed in the election by his refusal to support a war in Iraq.

Really. A quote near the bottom of the article makes it seem not quite so good:

Josef Joffe, the editor of Die Zeit, said that Mr. Schröder has a lot of work to do to try to repair Germany's relationship with the United States. ``Schröder opened the sluice gates and realized how much hay he could make with careful anti-Americanism,'' Mr. Joffe said. ``He thought he could just slap George Bush on the shoulder afterwards like a local party honcho and say, `Let's forgive and forget.' But I think he's grievously miscalculated on that."

Ignore the mixed metaphor of "sluice gates" and "hay". Schröder's anti-Americanism will come back to, er, bite him in the butt. Did it push him past his opponent? We don't know; they don't make that case, they just say it. But it won't make any hay with Americans.

More on exercise and spinal cord injuries

A few days ago I posted a bit of a rant about Christopher Reeve and his attitude, in the context of some recovery of motion that he has obtained. This article in the New York Times is a good discussion of the phenomenon from a scientific standpoint. No ranting will ensue; it's just a good, encouraging read.

Why should we attack Iraq?

Martin Devon outdoes even his usual fine self in this comprehensive FAQ on why the war on Iraq is important. Read it, print it out, email it to your friends, carry around copies to distribute to naysayers.

[Link via Cold Fury]

Reagonomics - the right thing to do

John Gebauer of Post Politics discusses an article by Prof. George Viksnins of Georgetown University:

Despite the hand-wringing and moral injunctions of many leftists at the time ("thou shalt not cut taxes" chief among them), Reaganomics has led to prosperity in the current era, for all US citizens.

A good read.

Evil Israel?

Oh, my army, feast your eyes on this:

Is a death not a death? Rather than obfuscating the nature of war with rhetoric that dilineates "terrorists" or "soldiers," let facts be facts. Israel is a violent, hateful nation that is also the United States' dependent. Must we assume Palestines will submit to their ridiculous demands just because they cannot afford to fight "fairly"? Who wrote the rules on the book of war? Why must we expect Western style war-tactics from people who are not whoring themselves for billions of dollars from the US Government?

Palestine kills. Israel kills more. Let that not be forgotten.

Yes, Joanne my dear, please, let us not forget your facts. Which are... where? Nowhere? My goodness. Imagine. You may want to visit here or here for some help.

Oh, and just in case you missed that memo? One of the reasons the Palestinians haven't much money is because, well, (Arafat stole it). Oopsie!

Oh, there's more?

How can anyone with a brain trust the government? Believing that we really can't find Osama Bin Lauden, that Bush didn't know...when and where the attacks would happen months in advance, or that Israeli prostitutes are innocent victims of "terrorism."

Ah, yes. Thank you. So good of you to enlighten. And yes, actually, a lot of what's on my site is "indicating the kind of bias that Cornett and her army believe". Only at the base of our "bias" are a few little niggling things called "facts". You may want to check them out, sometime. Not familiar with the term? This may help. I realize you haven't been exposed to many before, to be able to recognize them.

And thank you for disabusing us of the thought that there are limits to your worldly wisdom:

I do not date libertarians. This isn't a matter of preference so much as it is a matter of principle. Of the qualities I find attractive, creativity and introspection rank highly. Almost as a rule, neither are exhibited by the average libertarian.

Hmmm... apparently you've not been around the average libertarians I know of. But then, your definitions of creativity and introspection might differ from mine. I would say "you should get out more, honey," but then you just did buy all those new books. Oh, well, enjoy. Maybe if we're lucky it'll take you longer than a week to finish them.

(Joanne's Don't be a Hero site doesn't have permalinks to individual posts. The one about COTB is from Saturday, 9/21; references are also made to other posts on her front page.)

UPDATE: Alina of Totalitarianism Today promises in comments to explain what Joanne meant. I'll link it when she posts. Meanwhile, your assignment is to read this article in CounterPunch, which Alina says was something like "what Joanne intended to point out" - How to Silence Pro-Palestinian Voices:

"This isn't Gaza." So quotes the Concordian, one of the weekly papers of my alma-mater, Montreal's great Concordia University. The quote comes from an irate suppoprter of Benjamin Netanyahu, angry that a glorious display of civil disobedience (with what some call a "diversity of tactics") prevented Bibi from demagoging at Concordia. To this person, I would say, you're damned right it isn't Gaza. It isn't Haifa either. Concordia is a fantastic progressive institution that--God Forbid--has a strong political milieu in which Jews and Arabs not only collaborate, but are friends, lovers and otherwise...

The official story is as follows, Netanyahu was invited by Hillel to give a speech, and the Arabs rioted, breaking windows, punching rabbis and, the kicker "intimidating Jewish students."

...It is indeed shameful that in the course of the day's events, despite calls from protest organizers from SPHR and Jewish Alliance Against the Occupation, that a few people--provacateurs perhaps, chose to engage in violence against people, as opposed to property. Any time a rabbi is violently attacked, it is something to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Chances are, however, that the person was not attackedb ecause he was a rabbi. Rather, in a situation in which police, goaded by JDL-influenced counterdemonstrators chanting anti-arab bigotry, attacked the thousands of peaceful Pro-Palestine demonstrators with tear gas and pepper spray, a few tempers flared and those who were identifying themselves as supporters of a legendary hate-speaker hated in his own country willingly allowed themselves to become targets, to make a point.

Emphasis mine.

There's just nothing I need to say. The article speaks, very clearly, for itself. I'll be interested to read what Alina has to say.

If you need more homework, go read the eyewitness account of the Concordia riot posted at Little Green Footballs. Compare and contrast.

UPDATE: Joanne has more to say, and is joined by her friend Alina.

UPDATE: Always nice to have a little humor injected, isn't it? In my post above, I noted that while Joanne finds libertarians uncreative and lacking in introspection, I haven't at all. I linked to Dodd Harris, a self-professed libertarian-Republican, as one of my examples. Just a quick stroll through his site is evidence enough - he's been maintaining it for years and has a lot of quite fascinating commentary and links. However, Alina, in her post, kind of... well... got a little hasty, and claims he is not just an anarchist but a confused one. Dodd, meticulous as he is, investigated her error and discovered the problem.

Think you don't get no respect?

Bigwig at Silflay Hraka has had a good idea (yeah, I was surprised too*). As Glenn Reynolds mentioned recently, there's just so many new blogs, so much good stuff out there, that it's difficult to find them all. Bigwig has the answer: the Carnival of the Vanities.

Basically, Bigwig is asking all us bloggers (I'm assuming he won't exclude me, despite the comment above) to send him links to posts we think are just stellar but sit there without the attention they deserve (in our estimation). Every Friday, he'll post an index of the links. And you know what you got then? Yep, reading for those weekends when Glenn incomprehensibly tries to have a life and cuts back on blogging.

So, check it out.

*^ Just kidding, Bigwig. Btw, I can take a hint.

^ Yes, I know these astericks are getting annoying. It's just a phase, I promise.

Beauty in the little things

I love photography, and as a former professional photographer* myself, I have some understanding of the skills involved.

Fred First is a first-rate photographer.

I meander over to his Fragments from Floyd every day or so to see what he's up to lately, reading his tales of life in the country. And almost every time, he has a new photograph up that just takes my breath. Here is one. And here is another, and here and here and here. His site is worth a daily visit if only to see what his camera eye has saved for us this time.

*When I was a journalist, I took photographs for the newspapers, often doing the darkroom work as well. I have a decent eye and a bit more than an average amateur's technical skill. Mostly what that gets me is the ability to appreciate work like Fred's.

Woman falls for Nigerian money scam, embezzles $2 m

I keep wondering why I'm still getting those Nigerian scam letters. Don't they realize we're onto their game? The answer is - No, because, well, not everybody is:

He introduced himself as Dr. Mbuso Nelson.

He said he was an official with the Ministry of Mining in Pretoria, South Africa.

And he offered to pay a $4.5-million fee to a 59-year-old Rochester Hills woman if she would help him transfer $18 million from South Africa to a bank account in the United States.

But what Ann Marie Poet did next gave new meaning to the so-called Nigerian scam letter fraud, the FBI said.

The FBI said Poet, a bookkeeper for a small Berkley law firm, embezzled $2.1 million from the firm's accounts between February and August, after scam organizers persuaded her to wire huge amounts of money to bank accounts in South Africa and Taiwan to expedite the transfer of money to the United States.

All kinds of people, including the bank that let her literally drain her employers' bank accounts, are in trouble over this. But at least they're not dead:

The Nigerian scam letter scheme has been around since the mid-1980s and originated there.

People usually are approached through letters, faxes and, more recently, e-mail. Every month, hundreds of Americans fall victim to versions of the scam, federal authorities say.

In some cases, victims lured abroad to complete the transaction are kidnapped for ransom. The U.S. State Department has attributed 15 kidnappings or killings to the fraud.

Hundreds fall for it?

Hundreds?

(hundreds?)

I'm stunned.

But then, a very smart friend of mine, a man who is a financial officer with a very large company, initially believed when someone from Africa contacted his church out of the blue wanting to donate almost a million dollars to their church building fund. I said, no. It won't happen. He said, well. We'll give them the benefit of a doubt. I didn't track it - I couldn't, without either laughing or yelling at him - but last I heard it had "fallen through".

Imagine that.

[Via Fark]

Hmmmm....

Apparently I'm whiny.

(You'll have to scroll to his Saturday entry, his links don't work right.)

La idea magnífica! ¿Por qué no pensé yo en eso? *

Bryan Preston says, forget Iraq - invade Mexico!

After all, it is just about oil.

* Great idea! Why didn't I think of that?

Child abuse as scare of the week

As most of you know, a young mother was recently caught on a security tape slapping her young daughter as she put her in a car. I've not seen the tape, and don't want to. I have seen, however, how much of a furor the situation has caused - it became the latest OJ car chase.

Al Barger, who has watched the coverage on Fox News, thinks the attention is more of a problem than the slapping:

A department store surveillance video caught about a ten second clip of a mom in a parking lot in Mishawaka, Indiana slapping her four year old girl around as she put her in the car. It looks bad. It was obviously an unpleasant moment for the child.

Not nearly as unpleasant, however, as it will be for the child now that the media has gotten involved. They've taken a small unpleasant incident, and made it a nearly inescapable central trauma for the rest of the girl's life. After they have played and replayed the tape in real time then slow motion, then still screen grabs, then started over- this stupid little nothing incident has been hung like an albatross around this child's neck. Millions of people saw this tape- again and again- saw the names.

This little girl will never live it down. A mark of shame has been placed on her. Twenty years from now, some office co-worker will recognize her, and she'll be having to go through the story again. Then it'll be someone at her church, or her neighbor.

For what? Nothing but a few days bump that a couple of jacklegs at Fox News expect to get from people tuning back in to follow the story. Maybe it will give them a few thousand more viewers for a couple of days.

Since I've not seen the tape, I can't make a judgment on the severity of the mom's behavior, but I have to disagree with Al about the potential for damage. Whether or not mom's slapping was caught on camera, it was more than "unpleasant" for the child. If indeed the slapping was hard and repeated, then it's unlikely that this is an isolated incident in the child's life. Parents who do that kind of behavior are often harsh or inconsistent parents, and the physical harshness is not limited to occasional slap-fests in a parking lot. This is a serious problem.

That said, Al is right in his estimation of the the reasons for the coverage, and the relative impact it could have on the child's life. Not will, but could - it depends on who else the child has in her life, and how it all plays out. Certainly if Fox News was covering it for the benefit of The Children, they wouldn't have beat the drum so incessantly. But that's the nature of modern media and, sadly, it does bring up their audience ratings. When we complain about the entertainment focus of broadcast media, we have to realize that they do it because it works, so we are to some degree complicit in their behavior.

Something that concerns me as much as the impact on this little girl is the broader impact of this type of coverage on parents in general. Personally, I think that spanking a child is not just an appropriate mode of discipline, but a necessary one. However, the current "received wisdom" on this is that you should never "hit" your child, and many people don't distinguish between a disciplinary spanking and an abusive hitting. What that means practically is that in some states (Florida, anyone?) a good parent who uses spanking as one of his or her parenting tools has to constantly be on the lookout for social services. I mentioned Florida because I have friends who were "investigated" for child abuse after their daughter fell from a swing and had to be taken to the hospital. They were basically harrassed for months. This, in a state that apparently cannot keep track of foster kids in their own system (where is Rilya Wilson?).

This kind of coverage plays into the hands of the social engineers of our society. You are all familiar with the way that any coverage of gun violence morphs into a general diatribe on the ownership of guns in general. In a similar way, this type of coverage of child abuse tends to morph into diatribes on ever hitting a child, even in a controlled, carefully measured disciplinary way.

Based on what Al has said, I agree with him that the coverage by Fox News is irresponsible and for the purpose