A Western Heart links to an article in Popular Science that debunks a number of ridiculous 911 myths, some of which i hadn't even heard of. Like the one where someone claims one of the New York planes didn't have windows, which proves it was a military tanker and therefore Bush did it. There's some wacko people in this world, but we already knew that.

Another crazy theory is that the planes should have been intercepted almost immediately and since they weren't, therefore Bush did it.

CLAIM: 'It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers,' says the Web site oilempire.us. 'When the Air Force "scrambles" a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.'

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). 'Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ,' FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

Posted by: annika at 11:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Howard Dean, on Thursday:

Speaking to the Campaign for America's Future, Mr. Dean called for easier rules for voting, saying it is difficult for working parents to make it to the polls on time and wait to vote.

'Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives,' Mr. Dean said.

Two words: pot. kettle.

Posted by: annika at 04:26 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Would you please supply the missing word:

The American economy today is ________.

i've turned comments off so that one response won't influence the next. Please take a moment and click here to send me your answer.

Posted by: annika at 06:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

The deal is in. Via NRO:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the SenateÂ’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

i'm not overjoyed at the compromise, but i'll have to live with it. What choice do i have? Last time i checked, i am not a United States Senator.

So this is a deal that allows the Democrats to save face, while still giving the Republicans a vote on some of the nominees. Or, it's just as accurate to say that it allows the Republicans to save face while still allowing the Democrats the option to filibuster in the future.

In the world of civil litigation, lawyers say it's a good settlement when both sides are unhappy. But there's another rule in negotiating settlements: "Never negotiate away your leverage in exchange for "goodwill."*

If there's one thing plaintiffs attorneys and Democrats have in common (besides John Edwards) it's that you can't trust a single one of them to act in good faith. Like Sam Gompers, they want only one thing: "more." And they're absolutely shameless about getting it. We saw that in the way guys like Harry Reid completely flip-flopped on the issue of floor votes for judicial nominees.

That's why the most troublesome part of the deal for me is this clause:

Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

That's the biggest problem with the deal. It takes the issue of constitutionality off the table. The true-believers have a right to be angry on that point. By conceding to the minority a power to block majority will on judicial nominees, the Republicans have conceded the constitutionality of that procedural tactic. They caved in on the very principle that brought about this entire crisis. And for what? A bit of goodwill. A promise to be good from now on.

Ha! That's worth about two dead flies.

Why would Senate Republicans negotiate away all their leverage by giving up the nuclear option in exchange for a promise? Because they are suckers? Because they love Senate tradition more than they love the Constitution? Or because the Republican Senate leadership is just plain bad at their job?

As i mentioned before, my ideal solution would have been to do away with all filibusters on all issues. Why the hell should one half of the legislature have that stupid rule when the other house does very well without it? The filibuster is almost never used for a noble purpose.

i agree with the late Tip O'Neill, who was wrong about so many things. But he was on the right track when he wrote:

Thanks to television, the House of Representatives is now recognized as the dominant branch of Congress,. [sic] In 1986, the Senate brought in TV cameras as well. But the senators ramble on for hours, whereas our members can speak for only five minutes, apart from "special orders" at the end of the day, and a few other exceptions. Unlike the rules of the House, those of the Senate allow for unlimited debate and unrestricted amendments. Now that the Senate is on television, the prestige of the House should continue to increase."
[Thomas P. O'Neill, Man of the House, p. 290, Random House, 1987]

More outrage: see Professor H; Three Knockdown Rule; i can't disagree with Patterico's prediction; Spoons has a riddle; and Mark Nicodemo agrees that the Senate Republicans are inept; and Nikita Demosthenes calls them out by name.
_______________

* Okay, i don't know if that's really a negotiating rule, i just made it up. But it should be.

[Cross-posted at A Western Heart.]

Posted by: annika at 06:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1109 words, total size 8 kb.

Doug TenNapel made a provocative statement, which happens to be a pretty good summary of what i believe on the subject.

First of all, let me state that I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion. . . . But the only instance where I think abortion is moral would be when two human lives are likely to die and if one life is aborted so that only one will die, then abortion is a moral act.

And on a related theme, Michelle Malkin asks if abortion is funny. Some people think so.

Posted by: annika at 09:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Celebrity blogger and annika's journal visitor, Hugh Hewitt, spent the major portion of his radio show today talking about the Pepsico middle finger controversy. Here's the professor's summary:

The President and CFO of Pepsico gave a speech at Columbia Business School's commencement. In the speech, Indra Nooyi compared the fingers of the hand to different parts of the world. The United States got the middle finger. What a surprise! How courageous for Ms. Nooyi, how daring, and such soaring rhetoric.

As the longest of the fingers, [the United States] really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I.

However, if used inappropriately --just like the U.S. itself-- the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I'm talking about. In fact, I suspect you're hoping that I'll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I'm not looking for volunteers to model.

Discretion being the better part of valor...I think I'll pass.

What is most crucial to my analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents, is that each of us in the U.S. --the long middle finger-- must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand...not the finger. Sometimes this is very difficult. Because the U.S. --the middle finger-- sticks out so much, we can send the wrong message unintentionally.

Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as a part of the hand --giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers-- but, instead, scratching our nose and sending a far different signal.

Following my remarks to the graduating class of Columbia University's Business School in New York City, I have come to realize that my words and examples about America unintentionally depicted our country negatively and hurt people. I appreciate the honest comments that have been shared with me since then, and am deeply sorry for offending anyone. I love America unshakably - without hesitation - and am extremely grateful for the opportunities and support our great nation has always provided me.

Over the years I've witnessed and advised others how a thoughtless gesture or comment can hurt good, caring people. Regrettably, I've proven my own point. I made a mistake and, again, I'm very sorry.

i believe in American exceptionalism. i don't think America needs to be more humble. If my country has ever flipped anyone off in the past, that's something i want to see more of. Look at the scoreboard. Was America "scratching its nose" with the middle finger when we saved the world from tyranny three times in one century? Like the song says, fuck yeah! Was it arrogance when our fifth president declared "hands off this hemisphere" to the superpowers of his day? Or when T.R. said "let's build that fucking canal!" (paraphrasing). Or when Jack promised we'd walk on the moon within the decade? Sure it was. And so what?

Egypt of the Pharaohs. Imperial Rome. Spain in the siglo de oro. Napoleon's France. Victoria's Great Britain. Name a superpower in history that hasn't been arrogant. You can't. Name a superpower that's done as much good in the world as America has in the last two centuries? You can't do that either.

We are different. We are better. And i'm sick and tired of our own people getting on a public stage and telling us we should bow and beg and be meek in front of the rest of the world. When was that ever an American trait? i hope it never is.

So let the America-haters and the timid intellectuals whine. Call me a jingoist, i won't be offended. i'm proud to be a flag waving, middle finger sticking, American.

p.s. All real Americans drink Coke anyways.

Posted by: annika at 06:01 PM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Hell fucking yeah! Standing applause for Annika! Brilliant...simply brilliant. I think I'll post my own middle-finger salute tonight, and link to your brilliant rant.

Posted by: Robbie at May 19, 2005 08:03 PM (htx4h)

2 LOVED IT!!!

Posted by: d-rod at May 19, 2005 08:11 PM (BnwMH)

3 Ok, I've posted my own graphical response to Pepsi. I've dubbed my post: Annie's Meme: Giving Pepsi the Finger.

Posted by: Robbie at May 19, 2005 08:42 PM (htx4h)

4 i'm not sure what else you can do to earn the big fat smile i have on my face. i'm gonna go have a coke and keep on smilin...

Posted by: scof at May 19, 2005 10:04 PM (x8hF4)

5 Well of course you're right. I thought we all understood that. As for this culturally illiterate third world mutherfuckette whom we've taken to our breast, how else to remind people that Michael Jackson was once a Pepsi flack.

Posted by: Casca at May 19, 2005 11:10 PM (qBTBH)

6 If America is so bad, why is she here? This country isn't heaven. No place is. They aren't sneaking across the border to get to wherever she came from. That pretty much says it all.

Posted by: Mark at May 20, 2005 04:26 AM (oQofX)

7 For a bunch of toughguys you're a sensitive lot. My God, it was a speech asking international businesspeople to be respectful of other cultures- for the sake of their _businesses_ as well as their country. What's next- an analysis of the political meaning of the latest Star Wars? For the record, this was also part of the speech: “As the longest of fingers it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is really a good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I” “This land we call home is a most-loving, and ever-giving nation- a “promised land” that we love in return” I guess the next act in the 'sky is falling' culture wars has begun: cue tape on Fox News' round-the-clock coverage on this woman that none of us had ever heard of a week ago.

Posted by: Preston at May 20, 2005 06:41 AM (wkfsI)

8 FUCK YEAH!! Totally agree with you Annika. "i'm proud to be a flag waving, middle finger sticking, American." New tagline for my e-mail, if ya don't mind me borrowing it.

Posted by: Joe from jersey at May 20, 2005 07:32 AM (dO3Ek)

9 Annie: We just need to give the finger back to her, apology or no. I say, begin a boycott against Pepsi and pass the word around the web: When they dump Indra Nooyi, the boycott is off, otherwise we keep it in effect and cause it to spread. She has a right to speak her mind, and we have a right to spend our dollars. If she loses her job, well, I'll apologize, that ought to make her feel better. No one has mentioned this in the posts, so I will: She is one of the "Blame America First Crowd"; if they don't like living and working here, they can live and work somewhere else where the govenment is not so objectionable. I suggest she try Iran; she'd look better in a burhka anyway.

Posted by: shelly at May 20, 2005 07:57 AM (pO1tP)

10 this finger. http://www.francesucks.com/

Posted by: louielouie at May 20, 2005 09:21 AM (i7mWl)

11 You can tell liberals are ultra-tolerant because they only dominate 95% of the media, and with no sense of shame, attack the lone network that gives time to conservative views. That's "tolerance" alright.

Posted by: mark at May 20, 2005 10:49 AM (Hk4wN)

12 Love the finger! Preston - I'm sooo happy the Pepsi lady pointed out that it is ok for America to be exceptional. Thank God she cleared that up! This is a good time to whip out one of my favorite quotes of the last few years - from Mona Charen: "Is it really arrogance to believe that the system and the culture we've inherited is superior to others? Or is it ingratitude to deny it?" Also, here's the words to "America, Fuck Yeah!": http://theendzone.blogspot.com/2004/11/life-imitates-art-team-america-aids.html That song might be good for a Wed poetry day.

Posted by: gcotharn at May 20, 2005 10:55 AM (OxYc+)

13 I hope Mrs. Falcon doesn't read this because I was twitterpated by that post.

Posted by: goldfalcon at May 20, 2005 12:01 PM (LCCTJ)

14 Not that I am a fan of giving the middle finger, I wholeheartedly agree with you Annika! We'll kiss the world's butt when we are on our knees, but not before then!

Posted by: javaslinger at May 20, 2005 02:46 PM (BK2EC)

15 Annie, you're a goddess. And you're absolute right about Coke.

Posted by: Matt at May 20, 2005 06:18 PM (vQvTM)

16 Shit! Absolutely right. Explanation for my stumbly fingers, here.

Posted by: Matt at May 20, 2005 06:21 PM (vQvTM)

17 Fuck yeah! We should be proud, being all "we're so sorry for having a system that allows us to become rich and powerful" is a bunch of crap. We worked damn hard as a nation to get where we are and we shouldn't apologize. It would be like Lance Armstrong apologizing for kicking ass in the Tour De France. This is right up there with those shirts that apologize for being American in ten languages. If you want to do crap like that go to one of those ten countries and stay there. My family immigrated here legally in the 1930's from Norway and I'm damn proud of what we have acheived, and I'm damn proud of my country. So if they want to think of us as giving them the bird then so be it because in a way we are and I'm glad we are doing it.

Posted by: Andy at May 20, 2005 09:44 PM (l04c2)

18 you had me, then you lost me, then you had me, then you lost me. to answer your question, Jesus was a superpower who wasnt arrogant. or if thats too highbrow for your supporters, think about it this way, name a guy youve met with a huge... uh... advantage think about how much more you respect him when he doesnt shove it in the faces of others who werent so blessed. walk softly with your big - finger, ms annika. regards from your diet pepsi drinking, C2 swigging pal down here in intellectual yet untimid LA

Posted by: tony at May 21, 2005 12:03 AM (84E1F)

19 Tony, I don't think your Jesus analogy gets you very far. The rest of the world considers it arrogant that we do what we believe needs to be done, even when most of them consider it to be wrong, scandalous, shocking or what-have-you. Well, so did Jesus. From eating with the tax collectors and prostitutes to cleansing the temple, He always did what He knew to be right -- regardless of what anyone else thought. Even his own disciples rarely understood his actions and teachings at first. He didn't let that stop him. Nowhere in the Bible do you see Jesus bowing and scraping to his disciples, saying, "you're right; in the future I'll tone it down. It was wrong of me to shock your sensibilities." If the disciples failed to understand him, if they found his actions scandalous, it was up to them -- not Jesus -- to change. Of course Jesus had the advantage of being God, and therefore conclusively right in all He did. But the point is that there's nothing arrogant about doing what's right, even when it puts you in the minority. (If there were, we'd have to conclude that Jesus was indeed arrogant.) I believe this country is right about most of the things it does that so greatly upset so many people. That being the case, I cannot bring myself to care if the rest of the world is too foolish, craven or corrupt to see that we are right. Like the disciples, they're the ones who need to adjust. Of course, unlike Jesus, we don't have the luxury of knowing to a certainty that we're right. He didn't make mistakes; we have, and will. But we're right a lot more often than we're wrong, so I'm willing to live with that risk.

Posted by: Matt at May 21, 2005 06:53 AM (vQvTM)

20 I would humbly dispute the contention that Jesus never made mistakes. Mistakes can be of omission as well as commision and after all He was human too. He could have been clearer in denouncing say the death penalty against homosexuals as proscribed in the OT and made clarifications to many texts which could have saved millions of innocent lives later and avoided religious atrocities like the Inquisition. This place was pretty messed up when Popes ruled the world.

Posted by: d-rod at May 21, 2005 09:05 AM (/ga2e)

21 Jesus is not responsible for what the Popes did. As far as the Inquisition, I think he covered it by saying "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Judge not, let ye be judged." Do you need any more clarification than that?

Posted by: javaslinger at May 21, 2005 10:50 AM (BK2EC)

22 Yeah probably, since Jesus was not the first person to pronounce these ideals - Buddha and Lao-tse were saying these things 500 years earlier. But if popes are not followers of Jesus, who is?

Posted by: d-rod at May 21, 2005 12:51 PM (WnsbM)

23 Just because you profess to be a follower of Jesus and do things in his name does not mean you are a true follower. Because of free will, God cannot be responsible for man's actions. This is one thing I have had a problem with the Catholic church; that the Pope viewed as almost devine and infallible. They may profess to be followers, but one way to know what is in a man's heart is to see how he acts. "By their fruit ye shall know them." Christ warned of many that would come in his name and do things in his name, but he stated that they would be judged accordingly on judgement day. Like anything in life, you gotta walk the walk, not just talk the talk. To be more on topic, Christ was (and still is) a superpower, but his mission was not to dominate the world, but to save it. Being a Diety is a definite advantage in this area. Men on the other hand have limited options. As far as being arrogant, I think that it is justified, only if you can back it up. Christ could back it up, but he chose not to. He would have never connected with his disciples, or the poor, if he had projected such an attitude. And concerning the advantage, Tony; most guys big enough to push others around aren't exactly loaded for bear, if you get my drift. Whenever I hear a guy bragging about having a big winkie, I automatically think he is lying anyway. If you got it, you don't have to brag. If you are worried about this, I would suggest you have some inferiority issues to deal with. Ever hear of good things coming in small packages?

Posted by: javaslinger at May 21, 2005 01:38 PM (BK2EC)

24 You know I was informed by a rather smart lady that its not that Pope is divine/infallible in whatever he does, its just when he makes pronouncements on doctrine. ...as far as d-rod's comments, well its clear he doesn't have a grasp of christianity, which of course distorts one's view of humanity as well. Not to be mean about it, it's just he doesn't understand, and I don't know that a comment box is the place to remedy that...but what the hell, i'm bored and its too hot to go outside, so we'll see

Posted by: scof at May 21, 2005 04:46 PM (x8hF4)

25 java, You said, "This is one thing I have had a problem with the Catholic church; that the Pope viewed as almost devine and infallible." Let me clarify. Divine - no. Infallible - yes. But only (1) in his teachings; (2) on matters of faith and morals; and (3) under narrow circumstances. There is absolutely no question, in Catholic teaching or elsewhere, that the Pope is a man and thus fully capable of all sorts of terrible sins, just like any other man. However, we also believe that he is Christ's direct representative on Earth, and Catholics therefore believe (or at least many believe, and the Church teaches) that the Pope commands great obedience and respect even when he is badly flawed. By the way, I generally agree that "one way to know what is in a man's heart is to see how he acts." However, the fact that a man sins -- even badly -- does not mean he is not a Christian. It means he's human. Even devout Christians sin. Remember: Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed -- and this after following Him and witnessing his miracles first-hand. All I'm saying is that I think it's rather tricky to judge who is or isn't a follower of Christ based on outward appearances.

Posted by: Matt at May 21, 2005 04:49 PM (vQvTM)

26 What does Jesus have to do with Pepsico official trash talking the USA? He doesn't drink Pepsi or give anyone the finger, let alone the USA. He's not stupid enough to want to be nuked by Rummy. One crucifixion ought to be enough for anyone.

Posted by: shelly at May 22, 2005 01:56 AM (pO1tP)

27 With you on the Coke. On the historical side, America is indeed exceptional, but not entirely unique. Rome and Great Britain cared for their empires in a way other powers have not. On the other hand, they were empires, where America's empire is freedom itself. Um, on yet another hand, Britain left democracy behind in almost every place it once ruled.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at May 22, 2005 03:25 AM (+S1Ft)

28 As someone in the field of religious studies, I'm often amazed at how theological discussions spring up in the strangest places, like beautiful nipples suddenly hardening in a grocery checkout line. Yes... that's how this discussion makes me feel. Pardon me, now, while I fondle myself. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 22, 2005 05:38 AM (1PcL3)

29 You might try hanging out at the freezer aisle, if that kind of thing turns you on. ; -)

Posted by: annika at May 22, 2005 07:47 AM (YARSC)

30 I'll stand by my point that Jesus made mistakes. For Christsakes, He had to choose twelve disciples to spread the Gospel, and one of them not only turned out to be a dud, but an enemy. And consider what we know about Him as a teenager - NOTHING. He surely made a few mistakes then as well, but unfortunately none of us will ever know because there is no historical record of the most important teenage being ever to have visited this planet. I grieve about the untold numbers of innocent women who died in agony, which found justification in Biblical quotes on witches as well as the highest authorities on the moral teaching of Jesus at the time. That was Hell then. Was Jesus himself culpable in any way? Possible.

Posted by: d-rod at May 22, 2005 08:43 AM (JWdx+)

31 A, Yeah, I can imagine hanging in the frozen food aisle all day. Kevin Dynamite. With my luck, my own nipples would be blue and ready to fall off before I saw a chick with headlights. South Korea, of course, is the WORST country for nipple-age. Women here don't show much skin and are only beginning to discover body-hugging clothing. And you can forget about ever seeing a braless woman. Such a creature exists only in Korean folklore. Alas. On the bright side, it does mean that any little exposure of skin becomes something of a major event for starved senses calibrated to Western standards. I'm always happy to see a bare midriff, for example... and then there's Miss Panties, about whom I blogged. Kevin Dirty Old man

Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 22, 2005 10:06 AM (1PcL3)

32 whoa -- stumbled on this site by accident. what the hell is happening to people these days? annika - lighten up. i think even you would admit that anyone who thinks they're better than everyone else has, er, a problem. no?

Posted by: remotedevice at May 22, 2005 12:34 PM (ZME2x)

33 "...anyone who thinks they're better than everyone else has, er, a problem. no?" Only if they're wrong.

Posted by: Dave J at May 22, 2005 09:05 PM (CYpG7)

34 No. i would not admit that.

Posted by: annika at May 22, 2005 09:56 PM (VyMzn)

35 Remote, I think the point was that the Stranger From a Strange Land who went abroad and insulted the natives was her... Talk about putting your foot in it. Nobody needs that crap from a hypocrite, especially not at their college graduation.

Posted by: Mark at May 23, 2005 04:36 AM (oQofX)

36 Mark, She's an American. If certain Republicans are salivating at the idea of Ahnold being *President of the United States* after 30 or so years is it really out of bounds for an American citizen who has been here 35 years to as recent graduates not to be jackasses when they go to foreign countries?

Posted by: Preston at May 23, 2005 05:56 AM (wkfsI)

37 It's the anti-American assumptions that drive it all "preston". she's not asking us "gee be nice when you travel" (as if college grads are so stupid not to perhaps already grasp this) she's saying be humble because your country sucks and everyone else thinks so. but whatever, that has been made abundantly clear, you still disagree. So as these comments have ranged from middle fingers to Coke to Christ, I shall hopefully end this thread thusly: if you disagree with me, you're a nazi.

Posted by: scof at May 23, 2005 11:10 AM (7z8ua)

38 I don't see how the speech was inspirational at a commencement. Provocative? Fuck yeah! Inspirational? Highly suspect! My .02 cents Although this country's history is replete with arrogance on a multitude of issues, there *MUST* be a reason why people flock to our shores, ostensibly for a better life, for better opportunities, et al. And if we're going to spiral out of control about "Superpowers," anyone here jazzed about "The Fabulous Four," due out in theaters soon?

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 12:30 PM (DP5IG)

39 PS: oh G-d, someone just used the n-to the a-to the z-to the i word. Good use of hyperbole!

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 12:31 PM (DP5IG)

40 I think you have said something very important in this,"I believe in American exceptionalism." I really do think that is something that many do not want to forgive us. It offends many to see American Individualism celebrated. Yet, we know it makes us what we are, and has supported the ideals of freedom and progress.

Posted by: ilona at May 23, 2005 12:43 PM (hiW10)

41 Ok- if you want to argue that her warning against mocking the plumbing in Third World countries was a critique of US foreign policy: was the strategy implemented after WWII of maintaining strategic alliances to contain and defeat communism worth scrapping? Was it unsuccessful? Did it undermine 'who we are'? Nugget: "there *MUST* be a reason why people flock to our shores" Yeah, I'm surprised that so many people have difficulty distinguishing US foreign policy and domesestic freedom. Clearly the US has _sometimes_ been a force for democracy and freedom worldwide and _sometimes_ it has been a force for oppression: it depends what suits our national interest- or more typically economic interests. Like Athens and Great Britain before us we have democracy on our shores yet an agressive foreign policy that does not always adhere to our democratic ideals. For Ms. Nooyi to state the obvious does not mean she doesn't love her country, fer crying out loud.

Posted by: Preston at May 23, 2005 01:50 PM (wkfsI)

42 Speaking of oppression... I'm amused at our history. The Puritans came here for religious freedom, however, they only supported religious freedom as it related to the Puritans. The Native Americans, or the Anglicans, Huguenots, and all the other groups that followed immediately? Yer on yer own. Oppressive? Darn tootin'. The United States, much like a single human being, is made up of many different components. If we were to all dwell upon one or two aspects of it (either human or the US, take your pick), and dwell ONLY on those two aspects of it (say for argument's sake oppression/slavery and colonization/globalization), we would essentially be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to discount every other positive thing which makes up these United States.

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 03:15 PM (DP5IG)

43 Annika, Nice ring you got there. Hehe.

Posted by: Mark Nicodemo at May 23, 2005 05:51 PM (Vg0tt)

44 Like Athens and Great Britain before us we have democracy on our shores... C'mon, Preston! GB had a monarchy when we kicked their rear, and Athens was some freaky kinda precursor to democracy, using a lottery to determine who got to help make decisions.

Posted by: Victor at May 24, 2005 01:29 PM (Sx8zO)

45 It's not good enough for us to be democratic- we have to have invented it now?

Posted by: Preston at May 24, 2005 02:46 PM (wkfsI)

46 My name is annika 2 that is sooooooooooooo kool!!! when is ur b-day?

Posted by: Annika Schick at May 29, 2005 03:46 PM (ywZa8)

47 I think someone is confusing secularism for democracy. Believe it or not, this is a secularist country--despite what Dubya and his theocrat thugs want us (middle of the road-to-liberals) to believe.

Posted by: NuggetMaven at June 02, 2005 12:31 PM (DP5IG)

48 Wow, your a moron! You do know that song is a parody of bushies cronies? Dumb dumb

Posted by: chris mankey at September 23, 2005 09:38 AM (LvGqD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If i hear someone use the phrase "up-or-down-vote" one more time, i think i'm going to scream. Is there any other kind of vote?

[Well, i guess in England it's a left or right vote. But still...]

Posted by: annika at 10:25 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

i don't live in L.A. anymore (though i hope to return after i graduate), but i'm apparently still on the voter list down there. Which is why i've received an email from none other than the next mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa.

i've never received an email from a major politician before, it's kind of exciting. Here is what Tony (if i may call him that) wrote to me.

Dear Annika,

I love Los Angeles. It has already given me so much -- a strong education, a loving family, a lifelong career in public service.

That's why I have set out an ambitious new vision for LA, because I believe the Mayor must have a plan for the future. I want to build more schools for our children and reduce classroom sizes. I want to make Los Angeles safer and greener. I want to create better jobs for our workers, provide better health care and more affordable housing for our families, and develop a 21st Century transportation system for all of us.

I know this has been a tough and negative campaign, but I pledge on my first day in office to begin to bring our city together for real, positive change.

Los Angeles deserves a better Mayor. Someone with big dreams, bold ideas, and an ambitious vision for the future -- a strong leader with a proven record of accomplishment who will roll up his sleeves and work hard to fix our city's problems, large and small.

As Mayor, I pledge to work with you and all of our neighbors to build a better Los Angeles. But I need your help to do it.

I ask your vote on Tuesday, May 17th!

To make our city a better place, we must restore the people's trust in Los Angeles city government. After four long years of waste, fraud, and scandal, I am committed to cleaning house at City Hall and putting an end to the 'pay-to-play' system under Jim Hahn. Because let's be clear: Honesty and ethics at City Hall start at the top, with the Mayor.

I am proud to have received the endorsements of [blah blah blah...].

But today, I am asking you for the most important endorsement of all: your vote.

If you agree that we can and must do better in Los Angeles, I ask for your vote on Tuesday.

It's time to get Los Angeles back on the right track. And I am committed to doing just that. I pledge to you that I will work to bring all residents of our city together and solve the tough problems we face.

But I can't do it alone. I'm going to need your help, along with hundreds of thousands of our friends and neighbors, to get the job done. And it all starts on Election Day.

I look forward to working with you to build a better Los Angeles!

Sincerely,

Antonio Villaraigosa

i hope he'll be a good mayor. L.A. has big big problems challenges, but it is a great town. i notice that transportation is at the end of the list in paragraph three, almost like it was an afterthought. To my mind, light rail should be the priority for the next mayor. Incredibly, nowhere in the email was there any mention of illegal immigration, a subject that seems to be on everybody's lips these days. Progress on that issue would take care of half the other problems he mentioned in that second paragraph.

Anyways, i hope the coronation goes well.

Posted by: annika at 06:39 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 632 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Nice to hear support for public transportation from the right side of the aisle... It's clear that LA will grind to a halt one day if they don't get on the bandwagon. (I'm not advocating bandwagons as public transportation though...)

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (+jnzE)

2 Unfortunately, it's often the left that's holding up a sensible light rail solution in L.A. The "bus-rider's union??!" environmentalists, slow growth people, plaintiff's lawyers, and NIMBYs.

Posted by: annika at May 16, 2005 07:12 PM (Sq19q)

3 Hell if you got rid of the illegals, the trans problem would solve itself. I think this is priceless, in a couple months California's three biggest cities will all have fucktards as Mayors. V in LA, that simpering asshole in SF, and the old burnout hippy union whore Donnay Frye in SD. I'm comforted by the knowledge that the electorate of these cities did NOT vote for dubyah.

Posted by: Casca at May 16, 2005 09:51 PM (qBTBH)

4 I disagree - L.A.'s problems won't be solved by light rail or any oter mass transit program. The problem with L.A. (& to varying degrees the rest of the state & country) are ideaological not material. Look at any of those "problems" the mayoral candidate seeks to address & then think of a non govcernmental solution for them. Now not all are best served by the private sector, but that's the problem - everyone thinks government is a problem solver. In general government is a problem creator. We could debate the merits of any public transportation system or this specific one but that'd just be adressing a symptom, not the problem. Ditto with everythign else except the governmental corruption thing. & let's be honest - in the closest thing to a welfare state we have in this country there's not going to be an end to corruption. BTW, if he wants to make L.A. safer then I assume he's going to be rolling back some of the assinine gun control laws they have there & then push for cutting back the state level gun control? Anyway, the problem is th emindset of the people. Till that cna be adressed then anything else will only be a temporary fix. & no place has that problem completely under control, but L.A. & Cali seem to be worse off than the rest of the nation (well with certain exceptions, such as D.C., Chicago, NY, Mass. etc...)

Posted by: publicola at May 17, 2005 01:15 AM (DQj8i)

5 publicola: "We could debate the merits of any public transportation system or this specific one but that'd just be adressing a symptom, not the problem." What's the problem? annika: That's interesting. But I wouldn't classify NIMBY's as liberal. I don't know any thing about the Bus Rider's Union- why would they slow down mass transit?

Posted by: Preston at May 17, 2005 07:33 AM (wkfsI)

6 "fucktards"????? merriam-webster comes up empty.............. don't sugar coat it Casca....tell us what you really think.

Posted by: louielouie at May 17, 2005 09:59 AM (i7mWl)

7 Hell if you think he'll do anything that will in any way shape or form discourage illegal immigration you are nuts. If anything he will do everything he can to make LA the most illegal immigrant friendly town in the US!

Posted by: Skippy at May 17, 2005 11:04 AM (v3xUb)

8 that's what i'm afraid of

Posted by: annika at May 17, 2005 09:27 PM (oCGrt)

9 I haven't really followed the election in Los Angeles - heck, I've barely followed the mayoral election in Ontario. In fact, I'm writing this at 10:33 in the evening; polls presumably closed 2 1/2 hours ago, and I haven't made an effort to see who actually won. I'll do my homework in a moment. I would think that both candidates would try to avoid mentioning illegal immigration at all costs. Candidates try to be all things to all people, and any mention of illegal immigration, pro or con, is bound to anger somebody.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 17, 2005 10:34 PM (ukBYg)

10 OK, I did my homework. From the Daily Breeze: Updated, 10:28 p.m. Bruising runoff between two Democrats is a rematch of the 2001 election, in which Hahn rallied to win.... Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn and Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa were locked in a close race tonight as the incumbent struggled to hold onto his job and his opponent sought to become the city's first Hispanic mayor since the 19th century. With 228 of 1,599 precincts reporting, along with about 120,000 absentee ballots, Villaraigosa had a lead of 56 to 44 percent. Villaraigosa had 90,660 votes, compared to Hahn's 72,024. Here's a live link to city election results.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 17, 2005 10:38 PM (ukBYg)

11 Close race? Did that fool at the Breeze say "close race"? A "close race" is when it is 50.2 to 49.8%. The numbers I am seeing are like 58.6 to 41.4%. Where I come from, that's an "old fashioned whupping". So much for Jimmy Hahn and his sleazy, anti-hispanic buzzword campaign. Live by the sword, die by the sword. And so much for Bill Carrick and Kam Kuwata and Bill Wardlaw and their sleazy, down and dirty mudlinging campaigns. In this one, the best man won... As my grandson says "Antonio rules; Jummy drools".

Posted by: shelly at May 18, 2005 01:44 AM (pO1tP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

CNN has a new partner in the ranks of journalistic infamy. Both news organizations have blood on their hands.

When i heard about this story, the first thing i thought was "even if it's true, why on earth would they publish that story?"

i admit that's an untenable position to take. Freedom of the press and all that rot. But true or not, the story was going to cost lives. Newsweek had to know that. Did that fact present even a minor speed bump to their rush to embarrass the hated United States?

Apparently not, since Newsweek has now apologized for publishing a lie.

Newsweek magazine on Sunday said it may have erred in a May 9 report that said U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to victims of deadly violence sparked by the article.

The weekly news magazine said in its May 23 edition that the original source of the allegation was not sure where he saw the assertion that at least one copy of the Koran was flushed down a toilet in an attempt to get detainees to talk.

'We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst,' Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's latest issue, due to appear on U.S. newsstands on Monday.

The report has sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it handed over the interrogators in question.

Biased journalism is not just annoying, not just wrong, not just unethical, sometimes it gets people killed.

Update: i shouldn't have complimented Fox News. Even they're sloppy. Reporting on the story this afternoon, Chris Wallace said that Newsweek's source had said he saw the alleged flushing incident, but then backed away from his story. Not true. The source actually told Newsweek's Michael Isakoff that the incident would be mentioned in an upcoming written report by military investigators. The source never saw any incident. He only saw a reference to an allegation of an incident in a report investigating a bunch of alleged incidents. As it turned out, the incident didn't make it into the final report. No matter, Newsweek went ahead with the story. Somewhere, Mary Mapes is probably smiling.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 12:28 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

i'm perplexed.

How can Voinovich justify his opposition to Bolton by saying Bolton lacks "common decency" on the one hand -- then say he's met Bolton, likes Bolton, and that he believes Bolton is a "decent" man?

Just curious.

Posted by: annika at 12:00 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Doug TenNapel analogizes a recent VDH column about the War on Terror with the current Senate filibuster fight.

Check it out. i think it's pretty brilliant.

And was that Doug's voice i heard on Friday's Hugh Hewitt show? If so, Doug, why didn't you use that opportunity to plug my blog? i thought we were friends.

Note to anyone calling any talk radio show in the future: plug my blog!

More: Re: the filibuster fight, i think the best pithy argument i've heard to date came from Zell Miller last night on Hannity and Colmes. i can't remember his exact words, so i'll re-state the argument in my own.

Question: How many votes does it take to confirm a judicial nominee in the Senate? Answer fifty-one.

Question: How many votes does it take to defeat a judicial nominee in the Senate? Answer forty-one.

Does that make any sense at all?

If you ask me, the filibuster rule is stupid and should be done away with in toto.

Posted by: annika at 12:00 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Be careful of what you wish for- I think it's fair to say that the filibuster has historically more frequently been a tool of conservatives than of liberals.

Posted by: Preston at April 23, 2005 01:09 PM (pm/Ll)

2 ??? When? The R's don't have the stones to pull the trigger when they HAVE the votes. The last major use I can remember is Dixiecrat Senators, dat be u Head Kleagal Bird, blocking equal rights legislation in the 1960's. Before that, let's see, keeping the world safe for slave holders?

Posted by: Casca at April 23, 2005 05:07 PM (cdv3B)

3 Uh yeah, the Civil Rights bills and the nomination of Abe Fortas appointment to Supreme Court , opposition to Wilson' s war preparations and the ban on semi-automatic weapons at gun shows come to mind. You'd think if it were a matter of principle the two parties could agree to an end of the filibuster in say 2008 or later- when the beneficiaries of such a change would be unknown. But the everchanging 'blue slip' rules and the disintegrating ethics process in the House suggests that just maybe this isn't a matter of principle but simply a naked power grab.

Posted by: Preston at April 23, 2005 08:07 PM (pm/Ll)

4 I'm hoping that they haven't waited too long. This is about the Supreme Court, you know. Delay works in the favor of the Dem's. The longer they can put these CA votes off, the better it is for them.

Posted by: shelly at April 23, 2005 09:29 PM (pO1tP)

5 Shelly: What do you mean? Annika: What did Zell Miller say about the process of never allowing the nominees to leave the committee? Is it fair for 10 Senators to be able to vote down a nominee? Should we dismantle the Judiciary Committee?

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 05:47 AM (pm/Ll)

6 Get a grip Preston. It is all about power, and fair is where you buy cotton candy. Principle? Grow up. BTW, you make the argument that the F-bomb has disproportionately helped R's, then cling to examples that illustrate the opposite, or are you confused about who is a liberal/conservative?

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 07:22 AM (cdv3B)

7 My, my- calm, reasoned argument! Can we put that quote on the door of the RNC headquarters: "Principle? Grow up." It certainly makes the hypocrisies of the Republican Party make sense. Actually, I made the case that the filibuster has been used to support _conservative_ causes. You know as well as I that conservativism was well entrenched within the Democratic party before the ideological polarization after Nixon's 'Southern Strategy'. It is irrelevant to the current filibuster debate that Byrd was a segregationist- he has repeatedly renounced his earlier position as a mistake and now chooses to caucus with the party that 90% of African Americans vote for. To pretend that Strom Thurmond- by joining the 'Party of Lincoln' somehow was absolved of the same stain is to have an interesting view of the history of American political parties.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 07:44 AM (pm/Ll)

8 I have to return to this... If you think it is simply about power not principle- why on earth are you interested in politics? Unless you are writing from your K Street office that power is pretty unlikely to headed your way. In reality the power is used by Tom DeLay to help Jack Abramoff and then for Abramoff to help DeLay. This is satisfactory to you? If so, I have to assume you were not one of those so-called 'morals' voters. I also have to assume that you believe that the whole 'Contract with America' focus on Congressional ethics was just something concocted for the sheeple. You might also be comfortable with the notion that the Whitewater investigation was simply a pretext to engage in a permanent taxpayer funded campaign against the President. It's all about the power after all... Now, if we could just get Stalin to run for President in 2008... He know how to keep 'em in line.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 08:55 AM (pm/Ll)

9 the only time i ever saw anyone on capitol hill who was motivated by principle, i was watching a frank capra movie. Anyways, no. Zell Miller didn't mention the use of committee votes to block a nominee. That could be abused too. But there's no filibuster in the committee rules, and they use a simple majority vote. Sounds fair to me. If a nominee makes it through committee, the Senate should be given a chance to debate and vote. The filibuster rule as it's currently written, doesn't allow either.

Posted by: annie at April 24, 2005 09:15 AM (dRptT)

10 "Ma, ma, some Republican stole half my hog! How do you know it was a Republican? If it was a Democrat the whole thing'd be gone." Actually, the power quote is on Howard Dean's door. Have you ever seen anyone dance so hard for the booboisie? The roots of the Republican party are in abolition, and the roots of the Democrats in tyranny. That is why it took a bloody war, the greatest in our history, and a hundred years to pry the fingers of slavery from the throat of the South. Those fingers belonged to Democrats. The entire philosophy of the D's today is one of power and hanging on to it. It is the unholy alliance of union thugs, liberal theocrats, and government tit-suckers that keeps them alive. It is a flawed strategy. Decentralization of information creates a more powerful citizenry, and that is why the Republicans are ascendant. You sir are fucked. I recommend reconsidering your shiboleths should you desire any happiness and peace in life.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 10:59 AM (cdv3B)

11 Wow, you really presume to know what makes me happy? Maybe it's just listening to your potty mouth... Yeah, the Democrats are the party of tyranny- that was exactly what Jefferson was all about, if you squint your eyes really hard. There's no question that you can lay the blame of Jim Crow at the feet of the Democratic Party. However, it's obscenely intellectually dishonest to ignore that the _people_ responsible for Jim Crow eventually found their ways to the Republican Party. I don't know what booboisie means. I'm not one of the kool kids but I'm willing to listen if you're patient. In my understanding, the philosophy of the Democratic Party is to provide for the shared sacrifice and security of every member of society understanding that the market is the most efficient generator of wealth yet government is often required to fill in gaps. I guess we've got a lot to learn from Tom DeLay and his cronies about how the world really is.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 11:58 AM (pm/Ll)

12 Annie: The filibuster debate seems to ignore the blue slip rules which suddenly grew expansively when the Republicans took the Senate in 1994 and then suddenly grew less permissive when George Bush won in 2000. To pretend that the Democrats are pioneering legislative tactics to thwart extreme judicial nominees is hogwash. I suppose anyone is free to have an ultimately cynical view of politics- but what is the motivation of individuals to be involved if they understand that the 'party of fiscal responsibility' is liable to run up 2 trillion dollars in debt if it is suddenly politically advantageous? That's not a rhetorical question.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 12:05 PM (pm/Ll)

13 Well that's a little off the subject, but i'm not happy about the spending spree either.

Posted by: annie at April 24, 2005 12:13 PM (dRptT)

14 Ok- then how about the 'party of judicial restraint' and the 'party of state's rights' crafting late-night legislation in order to supercede the rulings of the Florida State Courts. Come to think of it... I guess you're right: it is about power, not principle.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 12:23 PM (pm/Ll)

15 Preston, your understanding of reality is perverted. It takes a certain lack of logic to reach a conclusion that is 180 out from reality. "it's obscenely intellectually dishonest to ignore that the _people_ responsible for Jim Crow eventually found their ways to the Republican Party." If so, perhaps after recanting. 100 years of institutionalized Southern racism supported by the foundation of the D's, and now they're all Replublicans eh? To the extent this is true, and I don't think it is, I'd say that the social order has acheived balance in the past fifty years, since that racist Eisenhower sent the 101st to Little Rock. Segregation was made illegal in the last half of the 20th century, so taken away from the D's as a populist issue in the South. Once that happened, they had to use other issues popular in the South like national defense, where they couldn't win. The further we move from institutionalized racism, the more diminished the role of Democrats in the South. Coinkydink? I don't think so.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 12:45 PM (cdv3B)

16 Do you really believe what you're saying? Of course Eisenhower wasn't a racist. Strom Thurmond leaving the Democratic Party in 1948 in protest of its pro-civil rights platform marked the first break of the segregationists and the Democratic Party. Lyndon Johnson's shepherding of the 1957 and 1964 Civil Rights act as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act marked the final straw for this relationship. Richard Nixon in 1968 capitalized on this with his 'Southern Strategy' that winked to the South and assured them he did not intend to push additional Civil Rights legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy If you're honestly claiming that the Democratic Party is the party of institutionalized racism then you're also saying that 90% of black voters and every single African American Congressman is a dupe unable to tell which party holds their best interests at heart. Who's to say if those Republicans 'recanted' their racist beliefs? I'm more inclined to think the 20 or so Southern Democratic Congressmen who switched since the 1960's found a home more suitable to their ideology than experiencing a mass conversion to the gospel of racial equality. But who knows- maybe it was the flouride in the water or something... Segregation was made illegal but appeals to race are clearly still possible. The party more lenient to this type of politics will have a greater appeal to the racists holdouts. I'm not saying that everyone in the South is racist or this is the only reason for Republican dominance in the South but it is foolish to discount the role of racial politics in the dismantling of the 'Solid South'.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 01:15 PM (pm/Ll)

17 Though, I don't really think you actually believe what you're proposing I'll leave with a final circumstantial evidence regarding the roots of the political shift of the South: a de-racialized Democratic Party or a de-racialized electorate. Voters began voting for alternatives to the Democratic Party at the national level far before they began at the local level. This was because the national Democratic Party was ending its collusion with segregationists while local Democrats were largely free to continue these appeals. By the 40's Truman allowed Civil Rights on his platform (and integrated the army: the result was the Dixiecrat rebellion in the 1948 Presidential election. However, Southern legislatures remained Democratic. In the 60's Democrats led the passage of more Civil Rights acts. In 1968 the South retailiated by voting for Nixon and Wallace. But Southern legislatures remained Democratic. In the 1980's Reagan made appeals to the South by beginning his campaign in Philadelphia Mississppi and pepper speeches with references to 'welfare queens'. He wins the South. But Southern legislatures remained Democratic. This was able to happen because local Democrats were able to continue with racist appeals while their national counterparts were not. Even so, Republican Governors and Senators and Congressmen began having more success because of their ideological affinity on these issues. I think it's clear that racial politics were important well into the latter half of the 20th century but national Democrats no longer won elections there.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 01:50 PM (pm/Ll)

18 Eh, I've lost interest in your long-winded self-delusion. Blacks vote with the D's for several reasons, one being that like you they're prisoners of leftist groupthink to the extent those who vote with the D's think at all. For the most part, they live in rotten buroughs where votes are routinely stolen. Computerized voter registration will be the end of a lot of this, and is the federal law that is going to take another chunk out of the D vote stealing machine in the next cycle. Hahahaha, you're in for a looooong painful stretch.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 02:51 PM (cdv3B)

19 My recollection of '68 was that Wallace picked up the red neck racist vote, and Nixon got the fuck-the-peacenik-liberal vote in the South. From reconstruction until '68 the racists were with the Democrats. In '72 they voted for Nixon because they weren't unpatriotic enough to vote for McGovern, few were. '76 they got to vote for a fellow cracker, and by '80 the entire nation was sick of limp wristed incompetence, ergo Reagan. From that point on, it's pretty clear that an anti-black racist vote pretty much evaporated in America.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 05:32 PM (cdv3B)

20 Wow- you must love the anonymity of the internet- though I'd love to be at a party where you attempted to talk to a liberal or an African American face to face with your rhetoric. Unless you're a trust fund baby and no longer at a draftable age I don't see any stretch of Republican rule being any easier for you than for me. -oh, I remember it's about power not principle. I'll see you at the Wal-Mart when we 'retire'...

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 08:06 PM (pm/Ll)

21 "From that point on, it's pretty clear that an anti-black racist vote pretty much evaporated in America." Someone forgot to tell Lee Atwater and Pere Bush.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 08:08 PM (pm/Ll)

22 Connect the dots dickhead... if you can.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 09:57 PM (cdv3B)

23 Congratulations on your luck. Don't forget to pull up the ladder after you.

Posted by: Preston at April 25, 2005 04:04 AM (pm/Ll)

24 from killrighty maybe they should do away with the congressional record. or grow up. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 9/11/00) Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/9 Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ … Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 9/16/99) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 10/4/99) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

Posted by: louielouie at April 25, 2005 03:09 PM (i7mWl)

25 And the Republicans have quotes saying the opposite from when they were using the filibuster. Like I mentioned earlier they need to agree to a policy and have it kick in several years so neither party can know for sure who it will benefit.

Posted by: Preston at April 25, 2005 03:19 PM (wkfsI)

26 The Democrats are conveniently forgetting the effort by 19 Democrats in 1995 to kill the filibuster. The resolution was introduced by Joe Lieberman and Tom Harkin. “…the filibuster rules are unconstitutional.” “…the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.” “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt.” ” …So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.” It was defeated 76-19 in 1995. All 19 that supported it were Democrats, some with very familiar names. Like these: Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, and Paul Sarbanes.

Posted by: louielouie at April 25, 2005 03:22 PM (i7mWl)

27 ...meaning that Republicans voted in _favor_ of the filibuster. Personally, I could imaging getting rid of it or maybe dropping the number for cloture down to, say, 55- but only at a specified time in the future. Isn't everybody a little of the shifting procedural rules engineered to favor the party in power?

Posted by: Preston at April 25, 2005 03:32 PM (wkfsI)

28 ...(though I understand that 'principle' is not a popular concept around here.)

Posted by: Preston at April 25, 2005 03:32 PM (wkfsI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

[T]hat's the critical error the insurgents made. They thought they could keep the Marines' heads down. But he gets back up.

Three important lessons for the would-be terrorist, from this story:

1. This is why we shoot when a vehicle doesn't stop.

2. Terrorist attacks are becoming fewer in number, but sometimes reflect more sophisticated planning.

3. Marines will still kill their ass dead.

Knocked down by that blast, with bricks and sandbags collapsing on top of him, [Lance Cpl. Joshua] Butler struggled to his feet only to hear a large diesel engine roar amid the clatter of gunfire. It was a red fire engine, carrying a second suicide bomber and passenger. Butler says both were wearing black turbans and robes, often worn by religious martyrs.

Amid the chaos of that first bomb blast, supported by gunfire from an estimated 30 dismounted insurgents, the fire engine passed largely undetected on a small road that leads from town directly past the camp wall, according a Marine report.

'I couldn't see him at first because of the smoke. It was extremely thick from the first explosion,' Butler says. When the fire engine cleared the smoke, it was much closer than the dump truck had been.

As the driver accelerated past the 'Welcome to Iraq' sign inside the camp's perimeter, Butler says he fired 100 rounds into the vehicle. The Marines later discovered the vehicle was equipped with 3-inch, blast-proof glass and the passengers were wearing Kevlar vests under their robes.

Pfc. Charles Young, 21, also of Altoona, Pa., hit the fire engine with a grenade launcher, slowing its progress and giving Butler time to recover. Without breaching the camp wall, the driver detonated the fire engine, sending debris flying up to 400 yards and knocking Marines from their bunks several hundred yards away. Butler, less than 50 yards away, again was knocked down by the blast, which partially destroyed the tower in which he was perched. After he crawled for cover, a third suicide bomber detonated outside the camp. That blast caused no damage or injuries. Sporadic fighting continued for several hours.

Meanwhile, Cpl. Anthony Fink of Columbus, Ohio, 21, fired a grenade launcher that the Marine unit says killed 11 insurgents. The Marines' 'React Squad' swiftly deployed against the remaining insurgents.

'We were able to get the momentum back,' Diorio says. He also says that Husaybah townspeople later reported 21 insurgents dead and 15 wounded. No Marines were seriously hurt.

Posted by: annika at 09:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

i caught some of the John Bolton hearing today on CSPAN. i couldn't get over that brain trust we elected as our junior senator, Barbara Boxer. Of course her speechifying was ridiculous, that goes without saying. But when she wasn't on, Boxer seemed to be chewing continuously, like a fucking cow. Did anyone else notice this? She absolutely was not paying attention, and she kept looking around the room and working that cud, whatever it was. What an embarrassment to the State of California.

Posted by: annika at 11:03 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Ted Koppel is leaving ABC.

Posted by: annika at 08:31 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

While i didn't agree with everything in this article by Andrew McCarthy of NRO, i did find the following passage persuasive:

In the PVS context, we are talking about a person’s own right to life. It doesn’t matter what we, individually or collectively, would want for ourselves. What matters is what, if anything, that person subjectively wanted — even if it doesn’t track our predilections. What matters is whether that person has considered and communicated those desires in an informed and reliable way. If she has, and PVS turns out both to be an appropriate basis to end life and actually to exist in the case at hand, we should not interfere in that choice if the state has made it available through surrogate action. If she hasn’t, we should be erring on the side of life, lest we inevitably venture further down this slope into even more ethically dubious takings of life.

As I have argued here, before the state may permit the termination of life in a PVS case, the guardian should be required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt* that the stricken person is in a PVS and that the stricken person evinced, in a knowing and intelligent way, a desire to be removed from sustenance if ever in a hopeless, incapacitated state. On the latter finding, we should encourage living wills to induce a person who considers and feels strongly about this choice to make her intentions clear. In the absence of such a living will, there should be a presumption that the person wants to live. It is life, not death, that our constitution protects.

There is a good argument that this should not merely be a presumption but a conclusion. On balance, however, I think we need to make reasonable allowances here, out of respect for the individual’s self-determination, out of the desire to minimize government intrusion into painful family matters, and out of the recognition that it would be unduly haughty to think ourselves capable of fashioning an unbending rule that will do justice in all conceivable situations — because we simply can’t conceive of all the situations that might arise in this area.
[emphasis added]

* The correct standard, in civil cases, would be "clear and convincing evidence." Which, i understand, was the standard used by Judge Greer in the Florida Court. Whether rightly or wrongly, well, that depends on whom you ask.

Posted by: annika at 04:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

A commenter asked whether i was going to write about the Terri Schiavo case. i haven't yet because i don't know enough about the facts, and it's such a sad story i didn't want to think about it.

But this weekend, it's been hard to ignore the story.

There are so many issues, i find my opinions whipsawing back and forth. i'd rather say i don't have an opinion, and go back to enjoying my spring break. But i do have an opinion. Several opinions, as a matter of fact, and they aren't necessarily consistent. Nor am i comfortable with them.

Firstly, as background, i am Catholic. i oppose abortion for secular as well as religious reasons. There's a huge difference between the Schiavo case and the abortion issue, despite what the idealogues on both sides say. But since i'm pro-life, it's probably not surprising that when i look at the Schiavo case, i feel a great degree of sympathy for her parents' side.

Dura lex sed lex...

But i'm also profoundly uncomfortable with the legislative branch of the Federal government stepping in to oversee the ruling of a state court. That's my libertarian sensibility talking. My belief in federalism, the separation of powers, Jeffersonian democracy, the vision of our Founders. All that rot.

In 1904, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said "Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."¹

This is both a "hard" case, and a "great" case. Great because the issues at stake are the most fundamental to which the law can be applied. Hard because no matter what happens, Terri Schiavo will die. So it must be for all of us. But in Terri's case, the law can influence the manner and timing of her death. And that's part of the problem.

Left to the judgment of the Florida Court, Terri Schiavo dies a lingering death of starvation sometime in the next week or so. Congress steps in (as they just did moments ago), and she may - repeat may - get to live out the rest of her life, bedridden, brain-damaged, and feeding from a tube through her stomach. Only to die from some other more "natural" cause.

Dura lex sed lex...

Who should decide how she dies, when Terri's own wishes were never recorded? Here the law is clear: her husband should. But what if her husband is an asshole, whose motivations are suspect? Should this "accident of immediate overwhelming interest" be allowed to distort the judgment that would normally keep the federal legislature from intervening in a state judicial matter just because it disagrees with the outcome of one particular high profile case?

Dura lex sed lex...

...which means: The law is hard, but it is the law. Watching the House debate tonight, i find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with many of the Democrats, as they take the floor to give impassioned speeches in support of the "rule of law." (Where were they when the issue was purjury, and no life was at stake?) Hard as the law may be, they say, should Congress change the law for the benefit of one single person? i ask myself the same question.

Dura lex sed lex...

But then i think, what law? What law indeed. Here's a law that inevitably must figure into this controversy:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law²

And then i think, there is another, even greater law, that may also apply here. One which helps guide me through my own conflicted thoughts:

Thou shalt not kill.³

The law is hard, but it is the law.

i am not saying that we should subordinate the civil law to the religious, like they do in Iran. i am not in favor of a theocracy. But this is a case about morality as much as it is about the rule of law. We have to be guided by moral principles as well as legal ones.

Talmudic and Christian scholars tell us that there are situations in which it may be moral to kill, or at least not immoral. This indeed may be one of those situations. All i'm saying is let's make sure. Ideally, i wish the court would order those diagnostic tests that her husband has refused to allow.

At the very minimum, i think the procedural rush to euthanize her should be slowed down. So, despite my public policy concerns about federal intervention, i do think that the uncertainty of the situation demands the same opportunity for federal review of her due process rights that a death penalty case would receive.

Update: There's an interesting discussion of the federalism issue by an expert on the subject, Ann Althouse. She quotes today's WSJ editorial, which reminds me that perhaps i should have cited the fourteenth, not the fifth amendment, supra. i have made the correction. Hey, at least my blue book cites were good.
_______________

¹ Northern Securities Company v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)(Holmes, J., dissenting).

² U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. Section 5 of this amendment states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Bingo.

³ Exodus 20:13 (King James).

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 08:18 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1021 words, total size 7 kb.

1 "...i don't know enough about the facts, and it's such a sad story i didn't want to think about it." I know too much about the facts, and I want to think about it even less. I've thought and written and watched and listened about it all far too much for my own good in the past few days: I've felt some kind of obligation to, given my own previous if peripheral involvement with it. There's too much to say, and I'll never feel I've said enough. I could respond to each of the points you've made in turn, but I no longer have any desire to: I think your words have put it more elegantly and clearly than I possibly could any more, since it all really is getting me pretty inarticulate at this point. Thanks.

Posted by: Dave J at March 20, 2005 11:13 PM (cZ/tT)

2 "Too bad we don't use the chair anymore. He deserves to fry in old sparky." Thou shalt not kill?

Posted by: d-rod at March 21, 2005 10:22 AM (CSRmO)

3 D-rod, the more literal Hebrew translation is actually "thou shalt not murder."

Posted by: Dave J at March 21, 2005 10:48 AM (cZ/tT)

4 Obviously, it has generally been interpreted in a way that opposes "unjust killing". Exodus 21, however, goes on to say that if a man kills a slave under his hand and the death is not immediate he is pretty much exempt from this commandment. Is that not a case in the Bible for letting a murderer walk away scot-free?

Posted by: d-rod at March 21, 2005 11:24 AM (CSRmO)

5 Not having kept up with the Shiavor case very much, this is my question: Isn't Congress' involvement really a kabuki dance - with their real concern being abortion v. right to life? Isn't this the elephant in the room? Or do I have the wrong impression?

Posted by: gcotharn at March 21, 2005 12:25 PM (OxYc+)

6 As i implied in that post, d-rod, my stand on the death penalty is in a state of flux. The Groenigen protocol and the Schiavo case have had a lot to do with that. Still, Scott Peterson is not innocent, as Terri Schiavo is. And most likely, he will never be executed, anyway.

Posted by: annika at March 21, 2005 01:06 PM (zAOEU)

7 for seven years or so terri has had nothing but due process, 20 judges (in both state and federal courts) over seven years. This is about 16 or 17 more judges than your typical death penalty case gets and ecrtainly no condemned prisoner has ever had a president awaken in the middle of the night to sign a special bill for him. this president in fact, when he was governor, mocked and laughed at karla faye tucker's appeals. I agree with most of your post, pretty much up until your ending. That man is her husband, even the bible says that no one should come between husband and wife. here her parents want to do exactly that -- and not that i blame them. it sucks that he now speaks for her. but he does. it's florida's law, u.s. law and even biblical law. if he is lying or has impure motives (although i don't think it's money, since by all accounts all the medical malpractice money has been spent on the case and he just recently turned down 1 million dollars to walk away from her) then he will have to answer for that before God (or the florida state police if charges are investigated).

Posted by: dawn summers at March 21, 2005 02:16 PM (HLOeu)

8 I know annie. I was more questioning invoking some ancient commandment to this issue. For example, should "honor thy father and thy mother" be obeyed if the father happened to be Scott Peterson or Charles Manson? Dave J. might argue that honor might be better translated as respect, but whatever. I have to agree with Dawn's conclusion to let her die.

Posted by: d-rod at March 21, 2005 02:56 PM (CSRmO)

9 Happily, Annie, I'm with you on this one. Actually, there isn't much about which to be happy, is there?

Posted by: Hugo at March 21, 2005 03:17 PM (Qst0d)

10 Annika, I agree with your entire post, except your ending about the "procedural rush." As far as I know, and as you said about yourself, I don't know enough about the case to be sure, the cases started over 7 years ago. If that is the case, it doesn't really seem to be a rush. Also, is the husband (I can't remember his name, not that I really care to) really an asshole? My wife suffers from a chronic illness - nowhere near Ms. Schiavo's, but I can, to some extremely limited extent, identify with his pain in watching his wife exist in her state. Would I react the way he has were my wife to be in that state? I hope not, but I cannot fairly say. However, over and above all of that, I am highly impressed by your ability to rationally analyze the case. I am a practicing laawyer and I know very few lawyeers who could set aside their personal feelings as well as you did to analyze what is, in the end, a highly emotional and agonizing affair no matter where you stand on it. I look forward to hearing about your life as a lawyer.

Posted by: JJR at March 21, 2005 04:25 PM (HxEi3)

11 BRAVO! Well done!! Let's have a death penalty convo sometime. I know the path.

Posted by: Casca at March 21, 2005 04:41 PM (cdv3B)

12 Terri is a disabled woman who is aware and responds to her environment. Physically and mentally sound people have presumed to know what she wants. That presumption is that she must want to die because she is disabled, because who would want to live like that? Is hers a life not worthy of life because of the fact that she is disabled? Disabled people everywhere must be very, very frightened. And non-disabled people who could become disabled at some future date should be very, very frightened. Terri is you and Terri is me, and I for one, want to live.

Posted by: Carol at March 21, 2005 06:04 PM (N5d+F)

13 I don't think she should die this way. Starvation is a cruel way to go. Not as cruel as some other wys but not something to be lightly dismissed. That being said it's disappointing that the feds have intervened. The due process argument falls short. If Terri was tried for a crime I could see where a due process claim might (mighty big word might is) be approporiate. But this is as best a civil, not a criminal matter. It's in accordance with Florida's laws (afaik). You can't say someone's been denied due process when they're beign affected by legal actions. & as someone pointed out it's not like there's been one or two court proceedings - there have been several. But the feds didn't like the outcome so they made a play for more power. See aside from the constitutional issues there's one that people often ignore. I bring it up whenever anyone advocates a smoking ban - if a government has the power to prohibit something they also have the power to mandate it. Ban smoking in public places? When that happens they also assume the power to mandate smoking in public places. Demand federal review of a life or death state case? That means they can also deny such review. Or putting it in simpler (if somewhat less accurate) terms - if the feds assume the power to save one life then they assume the power to take it. So I'm agin federal involvement. However there's a state angle which everyone seems to be overlooking. I'm sure Florida has some laws pertaining to adultery on the books. Possibly laws pertaining to appointing a guardian in such matters if for some reason a spouse is not competent to look after her interests. Now if both of those assumptions of mine are true about Florida law then since Terri's hubby has a common law wife & a couple of kids I'd think the best route would be to have someone sue him for divorce on her behalf. If said divorce is granted then the parents should (I assume) become her guardians. But that relies on a few assumptions that I have neither the time nor inclination to delve into. Regardless starvation is cruel as hell. The hubby would gain much more respect if he would abondon the plan of just jerking out her tube. If the situation is as he describes (which seems doubtful) then he'd stand a good chance of acquital if he slipped something into her tube to peacefully kill her. But it seems he wants her dead without getting his hands dirty. I disagree with the decision to end her life & his being a punk about it doesn't do a damn thing to change my mind. Oh, about the detah penalty - in principle I'm in favor of it. In practice I waiver from case to case - mainly because I don't trust our legal system to get it right & when we do pick the right guy we take way too damn long. Ideally the death penalty should be imposed at the time of the crime by the would be victim. But that's another topic entirely & perhaps one too foreign to Californians to discuss in a comments section.

Posted by: Publicola at March 22, 2005 05:06 AM (DQj8i)

14 OK, I'm probably going to be banned for saying this, but... I can't be the only one who saw "lurid sex with Durex" sprinkled throughout this post. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 22, 2005 07:25 AM (bbI6U)

15 Kevin, Durex didn't exist in ancient Rome. They used Trojans. okay now i have to ban myself.

Posted by: annie at March 22, 2005 07:37 AM (F5sOy)

16 I see law school has already warped Annika's mind. She's perfectly citing U.S. Supreme Court cases! Mark, J.D.

Posted by: Mark at March 22, 2005 05:29 PM (Vg0tt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A Kerry quote from his February 28, 2005 Distinguished American Award fête at the JFK Library:

A lot of the mainstream media were very responsible during the campaign. They tried to put out a balanced view, and they did show what they thought to be the truth in certain situations of attack. . . . But it never penetrated. And when you look at the statistics and understand that about 80 percent of America gets 100 percent of its news from television, and a great deal of that news comes from either MTV, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Jay Leno, David Letterman, you begin to see the size of the challenge. . . . And so I don't have the total answer. I just know it's something that we've really got to grapple with.

i guess what Kerry was trying to say was that he couldn't get his message out. Of course it couldn't have been the message itself. No way. Not that.

Hat tip to Roscoe.

Posted by: annika at 10:00 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

When Tony Pierce interviewed me last month, i criticized the president for "his maddening inarticulateness" and his administration for its "horrible job of articulating the argument for war."

So today, i was pleased to hear the President's remarks to the National Defense University at Fort McNair. The speech covered subjects that the President has emphasized often, and unfortunately it's not getting the attention it deserves. It was a historic speech, and deserves to be considered among this presidentÂ’s finest. i think the president explained our foreign policy today with more clarity and less defensiveness than he has ever done until now.

The theory here is straightforward: terrorists are less likely to endanger our security if they are worried about their own security. When terrorists spend their days struggling to avoid death or capture, they are less capable of arming and training to commit new attacks. We will keep the terrorists on the run, until they have nowhere left to hide.

During the presidential campaign season, i often tried to point out that Bush had the only long term strategy for keeping America safe. Kerry wanted to hunt down Osama, but it was clear to me that eliminating one man was not going to prevent future attacks. Only changing the Middle East could do that. Bush made that point beautifully today.

Our strategy to keep the peace in the longer term is to help change the conditions that give rise to extremism and terror, especially in the broader Middle East. Parts of that region have been caught for generations in a cycle of tyranny and despair and radicalism. When a dictatorship controls the political life of a country, responsible opposition cannot develop, and dissent is driven underground and toward the extreme. And to draw attention away from their social and economic failures, dictators place blame on other countries and other races, and stir the hatred that leads to violence. This status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off, because we have witnessed how the violence in that region can reach easily across borders and oceans. The entire world has an urgent interest in the progress, and hope, and freedom in the broader Middle East.

. . . By now it should be clear that authoritarian rule is not the wave of the future; it is the last gasp of a discredited past. It should be clear that free nations escape stagnation, and grow stronger with time, because they encourage the creativity and enterprise of their people. It should be clear that economic progress requires political modernization, including honest representative government and the rule of law.

. . .

Across the Middle East, a critical mass of events is taking that region in a hopeful new direction. Historic changes have many causes, yet these changes have one factor in common. A businessman in Beirut recently said, ‘We have removed the mask of fear. We're not afraid anymore.’ Pervasive fear is the foundation of every dictatorial regime -- the prop that holds up all power not based on consent. And when the regime of fear is broken, and the people find their courage and find their voice, democracy is their goal, and tyrants, themselves, have reason to fear.

HereÂ’s how President Bush acknowledged that very important, and welcome, shift in our foreign policy:

The advance of hope in the Middle East also requires new thinking in the capitals of great democracies -- including Washington, D.C. By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny, in the pursuit of stability, have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy. It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace, because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors. It should be clear that the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies. And our duty is now clear: For the sake of our long-term security, all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and justice that have begun to transform the Middle East.

Encouraging democracy in that region is a generational commitment. It's also a difficult commitment, demanding patience and resolve -- when the headlines are good and when the headlines aren't so good. Freedom has determined enemies, who show no mercy for the innocent, and no respect for the rules of warfare. Many societies in the region struggle with poverty and illiteracy, many rulers in the region have longstanding habits of control; many people in the region have deeply ingrained habits of fear.

We know that freedom, by definition, must be chosen, and that the democratic institutions of other nations will not look like our own. Yet we also know that our security increasingly depends on the hope and progress of other nations now simmering in despair and resentment. And that hope and progress is found only in the advance of freedom.

This advance is a consistent theme of American strategy -- from the Fourteen Points, to the Four Freedoms, to the Marshall Plan, to the Reagan Doctrine. Yet the success of this approach does not depend on grand strategy alone. We are confident that the desire for freedom, even when repressed for generations, is present in every human heart. And that desire can emerge with sudden power to change the course of history.

. . . Those who place their hope in freedom may be attacked and challenged, but they will not ultimately be disappointed, because freedom is the design of humanity and freedom is the direction of history.

Posted by: annika at 10:26 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1243 words, total size 8 kb.

Rolling Stone has a good article regarding the ineffectiveness of those arrogant jerks at MoveOn.org. Here are the highlights:

They signed up 500,000 supporters with an Internet petition -- but Bill Clinton still got impeached. They organized 6,000 candlelight vigils worldwide -- but the U.S. still invaded Iraq. They raised $60 million from 500,000 donors to air countless ads and get out the vote in the battle-ground states -- but George Bush still whupped John Kerry. A gambler with a string of bets this bad might call it a night. But MoveOn.org just keeps doubling down.

. . .

Moveon is guided by a tiny, tightknit group of leaders. There are only ten of them, still deeply committed to the Internet start-up ethos of working out of their homes and apartments in better-dead-than-red bastions such as Berkeley, California, Manhattan and Washington, D.C. For a political organization that likes to rail against 'the consulting class of professional election losers,' MoveOn seems remarkably unconcerned about its own win-loss record. Talk to the group's leadership and you won't hear much about the agony of defeat.

. . .

But some insiders worry that putting left-wing idealists in charge of speaking to the center seems about as likely to work as chewing gum with your feet. 'There's a built-in tension between the views of people who are part of MoveOn and contribute to it, and the people they're trying to reach,' says Ed Kilgore of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

. . .

If speaking to the center was MoveOn's goal, 'they failed miserably,' says Greg Strimple, a media consultant who advised the Senate campaigns of three GOP moderates. 'None of their ads had an impact on the center electorate that needed to be swung.' If the group's leadership saw anything broken with its advertising during the campaign, though, it shows no signs of fixing it. In a rush to get its new Social Security ad on the air, MoveOn didn't even test it.

The ad, which depicts senior citizens performing manual labor, was not only paid for by MoveOn members but was also created by them. This kind of closed feedback loop is indicative of a larger problem: the group's almost hermetic left-wing insularity. 'We don't get around much,' acknowledges Boyd. 'We tend to all stay in front of our keyboards and do the work.'

. . .

So who is MoveOn? Consider this: Howard Dean finished first in the MoveOn primary. Number Two wasn't John Kerry or John Edwards -- it was Dennis Kucinich. Listing the issues that resonate most with their membership, Boyd and Blades cite the environment, the Iraq War, campaign-finance reform, media reform, voting reform and corporate reform. Somewhere after freedom, opportunity and responsibility comes 'the overlay of security concerns that everybody shares.' Terrorism as a specific concern is notably absent. As are jobs. As is health care. As is education.

There's nothing inherently good or bad in any of this. It's just that MoveOn's values aren't middle-American values. They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated. That's fine, as long as the group sticks to mobilizing fellow travelers on the left. But the risks are greater when it presumes to speak for the entire party.
[emphasis added]

Or not.

Update: Brittany weighs in with her own opinion of Rolling Stone:

I think the same guy who does Rolling Stone does Us Weekly. He's this big old fat man.

Posted by: annika at 12:56 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.

The challenge: create a photoshop image that is even more freakin' disturbing than yesterday's Ward Churchil image.

Mission accomplished? i'll let you be the judge.

That's pretty ugly, but not as ugly as what he said on the floor of the Senate today, when he equated Senate Republicans with Hitler. Radio Blogger has the details.

Bird has completely lost his senses. How ironic for a Klansman to be lecturing on Nazism. At least he knows his subject.

By the way, i fully support this idea. If it's good enough for our stamps and money, it's good enough for West Virginia.

Posted by: annika at 09:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.