3 PM EST, on Rightalk Radio.

Guests:

Author, pundit, law professor and celebrity blogger Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Blogger and author Jeff Percifield

Toll-free Call-in number: 1-866-884-8255 (866-884-TALK)

John Hawkins offers up a partial Terri Schiavo FAQ.

Football Fans for Truth has an FAQ with a slightly different angle here, with addendum here.

And Boyd offers up a typically thoughtful post:

Let me state right off the bat that I tend to think the best of people. I believe that people in general support what they believe to be "right," without a cynical veil or filter to support a particular end, and disregarding the means to achieve the desired result. My attitude applies generally to politicians, judges and the population at large.

On the other hand, I also believe that people tend to be lazy (and I'm one of the best examples of this). Most folks tend to take whatever they hear at face value after passing it through the filter of their own beliefs and biases. In contrast to the above paragraph, I believe this tends to be applicable to the public at large as well as politicians, but less so to judges.

The common theme between these two positions is a lack of maliciousness. Relatively few people base their beliefs and actions maliciously. If there's blame to be assigned for taking the "wrong" position on a topic, it's much more likely that they're too lazy to look into the matter than because they want to cause someone harm. Selfishness often comes into play as well, but I still put it into the "non-malicious" category.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Apparently, I'm headed for the "HundredPercenter Trash Can." The subtext of that post: "Hillary '08!"

*** Ever wonder how your car would fare in a crash at various speeds and angles? Check out these videos.

(Via Synthstuff)

*** I can't vouch for this deli in Rhode Island, but Braintree's "Mugabe's Package Store and Desert Minimarket" has excellent deals on Amarula liquor, and "Hitler's Hoagies" in Spokane makes a ham sandwich that's to die for.

Related:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!" --Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

"The Wall" meaning the wall that Che Guevara so happily put people up against to shoot them.

But Che didn't always bother with the wall. One of his favored methods of killing was to tie his victim to a chair, gag him, walk around the room a bit ranting at him, and then slowly walk up, pistol in hand — and splatter the victim's brains and skull across the room while his companions watched.

(Via Prieto)

*** The blogger "Gaypatriot" has been intimidated into retirement by serial Republican outing activist Michael Rogers. GQ ran a story on Rogers this month, and it's pretty clear that his mission statement has crossed the line from "legitimately exposing blatant hypocrisy" to "enthusiastic witch-hunt and campaign of intimidation."

CY notes some strange bedfellows.

*** TacJammer recounts a recent visit to the USS Carolina:

If I hadn't earlier received that 30-minute phone call, I'd never have met the man. Call it serendipity. I had actually met and spoken with a man who had stood on the decks of that very ship while under fire from the Japanese. The weightiness of the encounter didn't fully hit me for a few minutes. I had met a hero. No, I don't know his name, but as far as I am concerned, all those men were heroes.

I felt similarly awed when I spoke to Al Farris prior to the dedication ceremony for the WWII Memorial:

"I covered a lot of battles. We got hit (by kamikazes) amid-ship. Let's put it this way, they took our library out on us, and the post office - that pissed us all off. Never heard so much swearing in your life. It was bad, it was bad. Nobody would really realize, and you can't explain it unless you was there. All you could see was planes, the sky was black, and they was going in all directions. And of course the task force was real busy, they were knocking planes down, and the one that hit us, and I believe one of our gunners hit it, but it was coming in our direction and it hit us amid-ship. Didn't stop us."

"Most of it was air-to-ship. Earlier it was ship-to-ship, but they backed off, 'cause we had so many DD's and small cruisers coming up. We were more like a lead ship, with a wolfpack behind us. We'd bring 'em out and the wolfpack would go in there and raise Hell with 'em. Plain English. I don't plan on bein' too polite on words, I say it just the way it comes out; that's my nature. I come from Maine, you say it just how you think it. We're fighters, in Maine. When there ain't no war on, we get drunk and fight each other, just to stay sharp."

A proud moonbat:

Recently Right-Wing Conservatives writing on the 'Blogosphere' have taken to insulting anti-War and anti-Bush activists as "barking Moonbats." Sites have been dedicated to "Moonbat Alerts" exposing any outragious and controversal quotes (usually taken out of context) by anyone they have conveniently labeled as "Leftist." What the Right hasn't realized yet is the peace movement is quite adept at taking any insult thrown at 'em and turning it into a badge of honor. As such, I'm willing to take this opportunity to say on the record and in front of the world that I am an unrepentent, unashamed, and self-confessed Moonbat.

...and I can't wait to howl at the next full moon!

Own it, brother. Though I feel the need to counter that it's pretty hard to take signs that read "9-11? Cheney did it!!" out of "context."

PS - The Latin designation for the generic, common moonbat is Macroglossius lunarius commonus. Don't forget the commonus, though it can be replaced with other words in order to designate more specific species. For example, do you like to incessantly bang on plastic buckets? Macroglossius lunarius fligerius. And so on.

The featured guest on this Thurday's Citizen Journalist Report will be Glenn Reynolds. If you have a burning question that you've always wanted to ask the Instapundit, leave a comment and I just might use it.

Those of you that are too lazy or apathetic to register an ID for my commenting software can e-mail me.

Look, the most beautiful woman on the planet!

Read More »

Behold, as the Commissar gives Paul from Wizbang a lesson in sudden vertebrate devolution ...

Let me be clear. Paul is a Creationist stalking horse. He is intellectually dishonest. His constant attacks on "oozers" and "Evolutionary Zealots" are transparent. His claims to scientific impartiality are disingenuous.

... by ripping out his spine ...

When shown a list of hundreds of transitionary fossils, he mischaracterized the list as "30 or 40 'questionable' fossils. Which ones were questionable? Why call hundreds, '30 or 40?' Another one of his favorite lines is "life didn't start when lightning struck some ooze."

I detailed this earlier. If Paul continues to spout discredited lies, unchallenged, then the graph will look as I have modified it. On his own blog, when asked to answer these questions, he just deletes the questiongs. Any reference to his repeated use of discredited Creationist arguments, is met with "Stop calling me a bible thumper."

... and beating him with it:

Paul cries that "Evolutionary Zealots" are trying to stifle free debate. Oh? Then he should bring up a new problem for evolutionary theory. PZ Myers will worship him. But when he simply trots out old, inaccurate Creationist nonsense, he IS going to be called on it. Because letting him repeat such stuff unchallenged, hinders, not advances, the world's knowledge. And for someone who squawks about 'stifling free debate,' he's pretty quick on the Comment Delete function. Maybe Kevin can set him up with a hot key, the "tough question Comment Nuke button."

Paul is a coward. He is intellectually dishonest. He is a liar. He is a poorly researched propagandist.

In my experience, it takes quite a bit of effort to get Stephen that angry. I'd also point out that ignoring honest debate is a trend with Paul.

*** Is William Shatner mocking hayseed America?

Still, ''Invasion Iowa," Shatner's new prank reality show on Spike TV, made me more uncomfortable than not. The four-part series, which premieres tonight at 9, and airs each night this week, dupes the farm town of Riverside, Iowa, into believing it is the filming location of Shatner's new sci-fi movie. Riverside has long identified itself as the future birthplace of the fictional Captain Kirk, and so its citizens are thrilled to have Shatner and his crew filming on site. Dazzled, the locals work on the shoot and play key roles in the movie. What they don't know is that it's all a ruse for a reality TV show, that Shatner and his entourage are there simply to reveal just how pathetic and hungry for fame Riverside (pop. 928) truly is.

Is hayseed America mocking William Shatner?

At once a Hollywood sendup and a spoof of the unscripted genre itself, the four-night, five-hour show (concluding with a two-hour finale April 1) starts out like a sardonic jab at Smalltown America. But it quickly evolves into something of a lampoon of showbiz convention itself, one that revels in the stereotypes and excesses so prevalent on movie shoots while concurrently illustrating that hayseeds maybe aren't quite as dumb and sheltered as we expect them to be.

Set irony shields to maximum.

*** Senator Bill Frist, remote MD:

Dear Dr. Frist,

I have environmental illness. I feel horrible all the time, especially in the morning. My wife says she's sick of my endless self-pitying whining. Should I divorce her?

Suffering

Dear Suffering,

Marriage is sacred. You have sick building syndrome because your house has dry rot. I'm also picking up a disturbance in the force, indicating a crime was committed in the guest bath. Or possibly the gazebo. Your lucky numbers this week are 19, 43, 21, 17, & 23.

*** The perks of Canadian government service:

OTTAWA -- A group of MPs studying Canada's prostitution laws is seeking $200,000 in federal funds to visit European cities with red-light zones and legal brothels. The five-member justice subcommittee plans to visit Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden. Reno, Nevada, is also on the destination list.
...
John Carpay, Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, is skeptical MPs will see a measurable research benefit from visiting brothels and red-light districts.

"The onus would have to be on them to show why it's vital to visit those places in person," Carpay said. "There's a lot of research and a lot of literature available that the MPs' staff and the library of Parliament staff can make available."

Books and articles are no substitute for hands-on experience in the trenches, ya hosers.

Then again, it might not be as glamorous as a Canuck lawmaker would hope ...

(Via BA and small dead animals)

Watching this movie at an IMAX is one of the most amazing things that I've ever seen on a screen. The visuals and sound are so astounding (and the low-level flying so, well, low) that I consistently had to remind myself that it wasn't CGI. Absolutely spectacular. And worth far more than the $8 ticket.

The Washington Post agrees:

The true story of a cocky flyboy who competes in a combat-training program, it is Imax movie as world's largest video game. With unrivaled access to military procedure and camera angles that are both jaw- and stomach-dropping, the movie is a need-for-speed seduction that will delight both PlayStation jockeys and those Tom Cruise wannabes with "Top Gun" forever in their DVD players.
...
Five minutes into "Fighter Pilot" -- which costs $8 for adults, $6.50 for kids and seniors -- your stomach will be doing the rumba when an F-15 Eagle zooms straight up into the sky (the land beneath going, going, gone) and then . . . starts . . . spinning.

Full disclosure: I actually said, "Wheee!"

See this movie. And bring a barf bag.

... when 9 American MP's and a medic leap into the fray against 50 heavily-armed Iraqi insurgents ambushing a supply convoy? They win.

This may be my favorite Reynolds post ever. I wonder if Sullivan can even sit down after that spanking ...

*** Politburo Diktat and World Wide Rant torch Paul from Wizbang's latest science/ideology strawman:

Now that you've read the above, go read article in question and marvel at how it looks remarkably like nothing Paul said above.

For the record, I don't know many evolution "true believers" that don't admit that it's merely a partially proven working theory open to revision. And I thought that I'd warned Paul about basing scientific analysis around an agenda...

*** Immigration: the real divide in the GOP?

But if the ever-more-shaky coalition that is currently the Republican majority is to hold, it will have to survive far worse dangers than Schiavo. The immigration issue is a perfect example of what I mean. I favor legal immigration, and lots of it. I don't favor - in fact, staunchly oppose - the illegal variety we now suffer, which is essentially a method of permitting Mexico to export the results of its horrible socialism to the US, where those losers in the socialist race are treated as serf-labor and exploited accordingly.

*** Emiliana Torrini is your Friday musical break.

(Via who else but Flea)

*** And have you ever had deja-vu?

I have:

ABC first reported the memo as a bombshell that disclosed Republican strategy. Now it says that the memo "discussed a republican bill" and was "distributed to [some] repulbican [sic] senators." Whatever ABC may think of the "politics of the Shivo [sic] case," the network admits that it knows nothing about who authored and distributed the memo.

I have.

Tomorrow at 3 PM EST, on Rightalk Radio.

Guests:

Author, blogger and right-wing celebrity Michelle Malkin

Blogger, MSNBC/FOX contributor and bleeding-heart legal analyst Jeralyn Merritt

Toll-free Call-in number: 1-866-884-8255 (866-884-TALK)

To parrot Goldstein's disclaimer: "We have no idea what we’re doing. None. Just so you know." Either way, that should guarantee some form of entertainment.

UPDATE: Post-show reaction? Radio is difficult. Michelle and Jeralyn are great guests. Thanks for the well-wishes. It's replaying at 5 past the hour every hour for the next 23 hours, then again all weekend.

I've been notified that some (all?) of you can't comment; I have no idea what the problem is. Hopefully it's something that will work itself out with Typekey.

... in Iraq and Yemen.

Blackfive covers the renaming of a base in Afghanistan to honor the memory of Capt. Dan Eggers.

My previous post about Dan is here.

UPDATE: Dan's mother e-mailed me the text of this Army release:

Read More »

I've grown tired of putting up with the emotional rhetoric surrounding this case (thankfully, my commenters have been pretty calm). It's nearly impossible to discuss aspects of this issue without having individuals misrepresent any position that's not pell-mell for "saving Terri" ("you're on Michael Schiavo's side!") or throw around enjoyable hyperbole about "death cultists" and "Mengeles." And though I haven't been perusing the left-wing side of the 'sphere, I'm certain that some of the rhetoric about the "American Taliban of the Religious Right" is equally unpleasant.

So I'll just exit the topic with this masterful, sensible column by Charles Krauthammer. If you're following this case closely, I'd suggest reading the entire thing, as the argument is too good and interconnected to merely excerpt.

And for the record: if I'm ever in a PVS or similarly incapacitated, as determined by the diagnosis of a qualified specialist (not a heart surgeon senator via video tape analysis), please pull my feeding tube. And don't skimp on the morphine.

UPDATE: This is also a good post. Also this.

(Via Catherine)

Jim Pinkerton on the implications of the Schiavo case:

Second, we are reminded that the media, especially cable news, can turn a tragic news story into a soap opera. At which point, those who argue the merits of dry legal proceduralism - including such distinguished critics of the Republican legislation as Charles Fried, who was Ronald Reagan's solicitor general - are washed away by a tide of emotion.

Third, the Republicans have their victory, but now they must live with consequences of having made a state case into a federal case. Having intervened in this state issue in 2005, future Republicans will have a hard time urging federal restraint in the name of decentralization. Which is to say, whenever the Democrats retake power and resume their own ambitious national agenda, they will happily trample on "states' rights," citing the Schiavo legislation as their precedent. But maybe by then Republicans won't care as much, because the traditional conservative belief system, which grounded its politics in the original intent of the Founding Fathers, has been superseded - the Constitutional Right now being the Religious Right.

Fourth, the Republicans will now bear greater responsibility for the rising cost of health care. That is, if the elephantine federal government has become so energetic - some might say paternalistic - that it reaches into local courtroom dramas in the name of preserving life, then that same GOP Establishment will have to deal with the cost of keeping such people alive. To be sure, in the Schiavo case, the parents have volunteered to bear all of the woman's expenses, but what of similar instances in the future where families have the will, but not the means, to preserve a life? Will Republicans dare say that their "culture of life" extends only to those who can pay?

(Emphasis mine)

Pinkerton raises so many good points that I was tempted to post the entire column. Is an unequivocal "culture of life" prepared to embrace socialized medicine, specifically as new technology keeps more humans alive in varying vegetative or incapacitated states at increasing cost? This will be a recurring issue in the next generation, and we'll be confronted with medical-ethical dilemmas that won't be confined by black-and-white templates.

Ideals may be at odds with economic realities, especially in the private system distribution of limited resources favored by those of us on the right.

UPDATE: Dale Franks sums up bad feelings from every angle:

Read More »

*** Adventures in Canadian health care. At least it's better than Cuba ...

*** A writer for the Minneapolis Star Tribune takes a bizarre, dishonest swipe at blogger Charles Johnson:

Black’s article also didn’t mention ‘Little Green Footballs,’ a right-wing blog whose founder, Charles Johnson, claims that he and not John Hinderaker’s PowerLineBlog was the first to lead the charge against Dan Rather last fall.

Huh? I paid careful attention to how various blogs claimed credit for Rathergate (trust me, I'm only human), and Johnson never made any such claim.

*** The infamous Mary Mapes has cemented a book deal. My guess is fiction.

*** If you're interested in varying blogger reactions to the Terry Schiavo situation, Joe Gandelman has a good link round-up. James Joyner's compilation includes MSM news sources.

*** Yikes:

The wreckage of a large World War II-era Japanese submarine has been found by researchers in waters off Hawaii.
...
The [submarine's] mission, which was never completed, reportedly was to use the aircraft to drop rats and insects infected with bubonic plague, cholera, typhus and other diseases on U.S. cities.

(Via Malkin)

*** Stephen Green:

Senate Republicans - and Republicans in general - need to remember that no matter how rosy things have looked since 2002, things will change. Democrats will someday regain control of the Senate. When that day comes, Republicans will come to realize their mistake. And they'll realize it the hard way: Too late, when it comes back to bite them on the ass.

The filibuster is a frustrating rule, but it's a good one. Anything, almost anything at all, that slows down the never-ending flood of new legislation is, by my lights, a good thing. And do Republicans really want President Hillary Clinton being able to railroad judges past them?

*** And the Post delivers an approving editorial regarding Secretary Rice's recent tour of Asia:

IT'S NOT CLEAR how much Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice achieved on the six-nation tour of Asia she wrapped up yesterday. On issues such as North Korea and economic relations with Iran, her talks with government leaders yielded no substantial public results. But Ms. Rice did strengthen what has been a welcome development during her first months at the State Department: the emergence of the secretary of state as a forceful advocate of democratization and human rights. Wherever she went on her tour, Ms. Rice made the case for greater political and religious freedom -- to presidents and foreign ministers, journalists and students, in public as well as in private. Though she is only beginning, Ms. Rice has taken a step toward connecting President Bush's Wilsonian vision with the administration's day-to-day practice of diplomacy.

Right, wrong or somewhere in between, the federal government's recent actions regarding the life of one woman fit a template of constitute an attempt at extraordinary "judicial activism." By conservatives.

And regarding the moral issue, the chain of logic in the main body of this post mirrors my own:

Either Mrs. Schiavo is simply alive, or she is both alive and capable of "having a life." That should inform our decision of the most moral course of action.

My problem is that the issue of Terry Schiavo's real current mental state seems undetermined, depending on competing input from various information sources.

UPDATE: I also generally agree with Secure Liberty.

UPDATE: A very thoughtful post here. This is true:

Only the abortion issue raises this kind of hatefilled furious invective on both sides.

I think that I actually got through three rounds of abortion blogging without having anyone swear off my site though ...

(Thanks to JeffP)

I'm not quite sure of my position on the torture and grisly execution of an Iranian serial killer, but Goldstein makes a superb hard-assed argument at the end of this post.

*** Pictures from Iraq's history.

(Via BA)

*** The outrageous peril of failing to fill out forms:

Vernon Baker battled Nazis to win the Medal of Honor. Now, at 85, he's battling red tape.

Baker, purportedly the only living black Medal of Honor winner from World War II, needed emergency surgery in September to remove a malignant tumor from his brain.

Healthy for much of his life, the Idaho resident had overlooked the need to enroll for Veterans Affairs and Medicare benefits. When his medical bills arrived, Baker and his wife were suprised to learn the government did not intend to help pay them.

*** Is your company's internet security software playing political favorites?

Word is out that Websense blocks foxnews.com because it's categorized as an "Advocacy Group". Meanwhile, CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, ABC News, and other MSM sites are not blocked by the enterprise security filtering software (for the exception of some sports content).

UPDATE: Commenter dirtdart adds: "No, Websense does not block Fox News. We have it and I just checked to make sure."

*** First the new Star Wars was supposed to be dark and scary, now it's "Titanic in space?!" I suppose that the last movie's painfully wooden love scenes between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen were something to be feared ...

*** INDC's American Apocalypse Advice: Learn Mandarin Chinese (or at least "welcome to our friendly land, good and noble lord"), stock up on DVD's, canned goods, bullets and gold.

Accuracy in Media:

Well, it's official. The White House Correspondents' Association has weighed in on "Gannongate," saying "individual episodes" should not prompt a crackdown on credentialing. That was a reference to a conservative reporter, Jeff Gannon, heavily criticized for asking anti-Democrat questions. Matt Drudge reported on February 28 that in a resolution adopted at a meeting in Washington that morning, the association said it "stands for inclusiveness in the credentialing process so that the White House remains accessible to all journalists We hope that individual episodes do not obscure the broader principles of a fair and evenhanded credentialing process."

The resolution explained that since 1914, the White House Correspondents' Association has operated independently of the White House and the White House credentialing process. "We intend for the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) to remain independent of that process," they wrote, adding that the process serves the goal of a free and full exchange of information.

"We wanted to err on the side of inclusion," Steve Scully of C-SPAN told the L.A. Times. Scully serves on the executive board of the WHCA. "Once you start dictating who is a journalist, you go down a slippery slope."

This is not surprising. The WHCA did not launch this crusade against Gannon. (It was launched by the left-leaning Media Matters for America.). In fact, if you look at C-SPAN clips of White House press briefings, it seems that established and well-known reporters often chuckle and grin good-naturedly when Les Kinsolving, Jeff Gannon and others writing for online news services ask loaded questions. It seems this presence has always been part of the White House press room "culture" and that it has livened up the proceedings.

I expect that Goldstein will inevitably brief everyone about "THE HYPOCRISY!"

Can you guess who he's referring to?

This morning I was clicking around, following some links about Wolfowitz’ nomination to the World Bank (mrghmghfm) (surpressing mad laughter) (mrghmghfm) (Sorry, mwa HAHAHAHAHA) and encountered one of those brand-name sites I don’t visit much because the proprietor has nothing to say and no particular skill at saying it. He referred to that “filthy Wolfowitz.”

Do you often come across the word “filthy” applied to many politicians? No. Can you recall which group, in the last, oh, 60 years, got tarred with that word most frequently? Just curious. If the word rings no bells for you, then I’m overreacting. Obviously rung no bells for the author. I expect he will be equally unaffected if Trent Lott refers to “that uppity Rev. Jackson.”

Hint below the fold.

Read More »

*** In a post about the FMA, Dale Franks takes an eviscerative swipe at my belief in a "right to privacy" ...

Now, I know I'm a minority on this. After all, I'm one of those "strict constructionists" who believes that the whole concept of a "right to privacy" is utter hogwash. And I think that the increasing "rights talk" to which we're subjected is dangerous, and threatens our republic.

... yet veers back to (sort of) familiar territory by exposing the ideological underpinnings and fundamental flaw of any amendment that specifically tackles the controversial social issue:

It seems to me that what is really needed is not a marriage amendment, but an broader amendment that addresses the judicial power of review. Currently, that power lies completely outside the democratic process, and, therefore is immune from any form of public audit. It strikes me as completely legitimate to amend the Constitution to remove that affliction, and to provide a set of checks and balances on the judiciary, just as there are for the executive and judicial [legislative? -- Ed] branches.

If social conservatives are worried about federal judicial mandate via the Full Faith and Credit Clause, then why don't they address the structural problem, rather than narrowly tackling a specific social issue with an amendment to the Constitution?

*** Professor Randy Barnett asserts that the relevant rationale used in Lawrence v. Texas wasn't really a right to "privacy" at all:

If you reread his opinion, you will see that Justice Kennedy never mentions any presumption to be accorded the Texas legislature. More importantly, he never tries to justify the right to same-sex sexuality as fundamental. Instead, he puts all his energy into demonstrating that same-sex sexual freedom is a legitimate aspect of liberty -- unlike, for example, actions that violate the rights of others, which are not liberty but license.

With this as the baseline, the onus then falls on the government to justify the restriction of liberty. Once an action is deemed to be a proper exercise of liberty (as opposed to license), the burden shifts to the government. Though he never acknowledges it, Justice Kennedy here is employing what I have called a "presumption of liberty" that requires the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow "fundamental."

All that was offered by the government to justify this statute was the judgment of the legislature that the prohibited conduct is immoral -- which for the majority (including, in this regard, Justice O'Connor) is simply not enough, standing alone, to justify the restriction of liberty. Why not? Because this judgment of immorality means nothing more than that a majority of the legislature disapproves of this conduct, which would be true whenever a legislature decides to outlaw something. Such a doctrine would amount to granting an unlimited police power to state legislatures. The police power of states may be broad, but it was never thought to be unlimited -- although until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal government had no jurisdiction to protect the privileges or immunities of citizens from infringement by their own states.

(Emphasis mine)

(Thanks to Steven Horwitz)

*** Yikes:

What I saw on NBC tonight was more than moral relativism at it's pinnacle. It was a calculated and careless and complete slandering of a sector of Americans who have been nothing more and nothing less than the epitomy of the American soul. And who have strived for not only the betterment of their lives and the progress and enrichment of the country that adopted them, but for what is morally and ethically right.

*** And Captain Ed highlights why Paul Wolfowitz gets another bum rap from the press. I'd point out that the New York Times editorial is particularly notable for its hyperbolic distaste for the man: "scathing ... greeted with flowers ... a slap at the international community."

Is Kos writing editorials for the NY Times?

S M NS Blogger ISO commenters and readers; specifically those that believe that the Constitution affords us a penumbra of basic rights against highly intrusive government activity that is not specifically enumerated in the document. Likes: thai cooking, long walks, animals, judicial protection from the tyranny of the majority and waxing poetic over the rights of man. Pet peeves: snoring, CBS News, illegal searches and seizures, moonbats, Ted Kennedy, liberal nanny staters, conservative nanny staters and legislative fetishists. Dial code INDC.

This line written by Big Trunk at Powerline made me blink, blink again, rub my eyes and then reread the post in confusion ...

When the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, asserting the existence of a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we noted that it was unsurprising. Thirty years ago the liberal constitutional scholar John Hart Ely wrote a classic law review article ("The Wages of Crying Wolf") condemning the jurisprudence of Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence is in a sense only a few steps further down the jurisprudential arc that will end, as Justice Scalia noted in dissent, in the constitutional right to homosexual marriage, prostitution, bigamy, and adult incest.

(Emphasis mine)

I was under the impression that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a citizen's constitutional right to privacy and equal status and protection under the law, the application in this case being that the government can't make laws dictating the minute specifics of what people do in their bedroom as mentally able, consenting adults. And for those of you that don't agree that the 14th amendment (along with snippets of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments) infers a right to privacy, and think that the Constitution only stipulates protections for literally mentioned rights to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc., behold this snippet from the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And one of those negative rights "retained by the people" is "the right to be left alone." Are the Powerliners really that socially conservative that they think the judiciary should rubber stamp every law that isn't specifically outlined in Constitutional text? I'm fairly certain that the founders were a little hesitant to enumerate freaky-deaky sex acts in the sacred document.

Really, these contorted exhortations about liberal judicial activism are getting pretty interesting.

Reversing the fearful "slippery slope" examples from the original Powerline excerpt (half of which apply to public institutions, not private behavior), would Big Trunk describe the Supreme Court's effective abolition of a law prohibiting menage-a-trois as "asserting the existence of a constitutional right to crazy three-way sex," rather than a right to privacy? Probably.

Or how about if the Supremes struck down a theoretical law that dictated that heterosexual couples could only engage in the missionary position? Would the relevant socially conservative snark be that an activist Supreme Court is "asserting the existence of a constitutional right to reverse cowgirl?"

Inquiring minds demand Trunk's legal opinion about whether a strict interpretation of the Constitution would permit laws against deep tongue-kissing, heterosexual sodomy, "doggy," "spoons," "persuading of the debtor," "salad tossing" and "hoovering the floor." I'll admit that I couldn't find any specific references to these issues in the founding document, but at what point does the Constitution's penumbra of freedoms protect us from intrusive government?

I'd say that the particulars and mechanics of consensual adult sexual activity are a no-brainer.

UPDATE: And to preempt the inevitable rebuttal regarding the analogous "right to privacy" argument used in Roe v Wade: a question like abortion is not as automatically predisposed to this protection, as the legal and moral issues involve the determination of harm to another and the question of competing rights.

*** How to increase blog traffic. This trick also works ...

*** Florida Cracker:

"If I could Baker Act all the people I felt needed it, half of Broward County would be basket weaving."

Might as well hit Lee County while you're at it. (SW Florida, represent!)

*** Smaller blogs get more tail. Have tails? Somethin'.

*** Find yourself on this political map. I don't quite agree with their description, but my place on the map looks about right:

(Via QandO)

*** And the Harvard Arts & Sciences faculty votes "no confidence" in President Larry Summers. Consequences to follow.

Due to various commitments, I'm taking a break this week, posting will be intermittent.

FYI - Oliver Willis has finally given up and quietly taken down the "Resign Brit Hume: American Truth Under Siege" banner from the top of his site. I believe that reality leeched into his brainpan at about Day 32 or so. Revel in his silly hubris, faulty intellect and entertaining inefficacy.

The Hume banner has been replaced with a call for Tom Delay's resignation, btw. This is surely a fortuitous sign for Delay.

*** Val examines the common leftist myth about Cuba's "excellent universal health care."

Every single castro supporter clings to this healthcare thing like it is some kind of holy grail. In a debate, the fact that Cuba has the most political prisoners in the world is ignored. The fact that Cubans on the island lack even the most basic of necessities is ignored. Tourism apartheid is ignored. Everything is ignored save for the free healthcare and 100% literacy.

Of course, none of these Free healthcare! cheerleaders have ever been to a Cuban hospital. They've never been to a Cuban clinic. Hospitals and clinics serving the average Cuban, that is.

Take a look at this picture ...

Yes, there are pictures.

*** Beware the ninjas in black!

*** Beth from MVRWC weighs in with another "review" of the new Battlestar Galactica. Sort of.

*** I agree with this line:

With each day that passes I'm ever more thankful that the Party of Teddy opened a big package of shredded ass on Wednesday November 3rd.

Ask yourself: would we hear the rumblings of Democracy in the Middle East if John Kerry had been elected President? Would the Iraqi election have even taken place by now?

*** Tom Friedman: "New Signs on the Arab Street"

From Baghdad to Beirut, the Middle East has seen a series of unprecedented popular demonstrations for democracy. There were, however, two street protests in December that got virtually no coverage, but were just as important, if not more. One took place in the Egyptian Nile Delta town of Mahalla and the other in the Suez Canal city of Ismailiya. Both of these raucous Egyptian demonstrations, which involved marches, strikes, denunciations of the government and appeals to Parliament, were triggered by President Hosni Mubarak's decision to sign the first substantial trade agreement with Israel since Camp David. That decision brought Egyptian workers from both areas into the streets. They were furious. They were enraged. Why?

They were not included in the new trade deal with Israel.

(via Viking Pundit)

According to Blogpulse, there's very little cross-linkage (PDF file) between the right and left-wing blogosphere, and the right-wing blogosphere tends to move with greater unanimity.

Additional points of interest:

* Overall, right-wing blogs still have more popularity (in terms of their proportional representation in the top 40).

* Right wing blogs tend to post more.

* Right-wing blogs are downright dirty hippies when it comes to spreading link-love.

* For better or worse, Dick Cheney and Dan Rather are blogospheric stars!

* I barely, and I mean barely, link liberal blogs.

In an effort to boost right-left relations, I'll link Kevin Drum's quality analysis.

*** Moral of the story? Never trust someone that aggressively clings to a lie as big as Communism.

*** The new Star Wars unsuitable for children? "Sweet," I say.

*** Heh. In related news, I hear there's talk of reanimating Benny Hill's corpse for a new run of the series.

*** Yes:

Human nature being what it is, I like reading sharp, conclusion-heavy punditry as much as the next guy. Nothing beats being told you are right and your critics are wrong. Mark Steyn and Charles Krauthammer have made quite a career out of that sort of thing on the Right; John Pilger and Robert Scheer have made careers out of it from the Left; Thomas Friedman has made a career out of switch-hitting.

At some point, though, the frisson of reinforcement wears off, and I'm reminded that the world is not entirely predictable. In fact, it's quite unpredictable, and all of this punditry is merely educated guess-work, informed by what information gets through each journalists selection biases. That is to say, we hear what we want to hear, and we often reach the conclusions we want to reach.

It's arrogant and false to unequivocally state that all of those that came to an opposing view on something as multifactorial as the invasion of Iraq were stupid or naturally wrong. We're all just making informed plays on stocks here.

That being said, especially with regard to foreign policy, many on the left have been metaphorically backing pork bellies and haberdasheries, whereas many on the right have been pushing energy and biotechnology. I know which play I'd rather make.

UPDATE: Bellissima!

[Lights go down. The set is lit only by two spotlights that look like the headlights of the waiting car]

Hamid [Singing]: Into the night, into the dark she goes.

Mujhadeen Chorus: Into the danger, into only what Allah knows.

Hamid: Little Sgrena goes to face the Yanks.

Mujahdeen Chorus: To face their guns, to face their tanks.

[Car sound grows and then fades outs]

By Gary Varvel, Indianapolis Star.

Heh.

I'd choose option one in the penultimate paragraph, by the way.

Iraq the Model highlights televised terrorist interrogations:

This question which has been repeated over and over again in this program is now ringing in the ears and minds of the people. Why are these terrorists killing the people? Is it Jihad? NO because they're charging money for it.

UPDATE: A different take here.

Was freedom part of the plan?

"This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." -- George Bush, 11/7/2003

Its immediate result is by no means assured or easy, but of course it was ...

See you later, Dan. Did he miss anyone in his comprehensive list of the downtrodden?

"To Mary Mapes ..."

UPDATE: A guest poster at the Llamas' place shares one of my favorite Dan Rather moments. (Requires Realplayer)

Actually, I think that it's my favorite "George Bush" moment ...

Be sure to review Dan's vast legacy of overt, ridiculous bias. This one's a doozy:

“Tonight, savagery in the streets of Iraq. Ten Americans die in a single day, four of them civilians murdered, mutilated and dragged through the streets....What drives American civilians to risk death in Iraq? In this economy it may be, for some, the only job they can find.” — Leading off the March 31, 2004 CBS Evening News.

And my favorite:

“Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people, including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story. They allege that the documents are fake....The 60 Minutes report was based not solely on the recovered documents, but on a preponderance of the evidence, including documents that were provided by what we consider to be solid sources....If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none.” — CBS Evening News, September 10, 2004, two days after his 60 Minutes reporting alleging President George W. Bush failed to fulfill his National Guard service.

And ...

“Powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of the story." — Rather quoted in the New York Observer, Sept. 15, 2004.

(Emphasis mine)

In the end, he was half right.

UPDATE: At the risk of adding to the "triumphalist, scalp-hunting blogger" meme, I have to showcase the photoshoptastic talents of Bluemerle.

Aside from the requisite Nation exhortation that Bush is a liar, this article is an interesting addendum to the animated discussion about the separation of church and state and the intent of the framers that took place under my previous post:

The three accomplishments Jefferson was proudest of--those that he requested be put on his tombstone--were the founding of the University of Virginia and the authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The latter was a truly radical document that would eventually influence the separation of church and state in the US Constitution; when it was passed by the Virginia legislature in 1786, Jefferson rejoiced that there was finally "freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination"--note his respect, still unusual today, for the sensibilities of the "infidel." The University of Virginia was notable among early-American seats of higher education in that it had no religious affiliation whatever. Jefferson even banned the teaching of theology at the school.

If we were to speak of Jefferson in modern political categories, we would have to admit that he was a pure libertarian, in religious as in other matters. His real commitment (or lack thereof) to the teachings of Jesus Christ is plain from a famous throwaway comment he made: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." This raised plenty of hackles when it got about, and Jefferson had to go to some pains to restore his reputation as a good Christian. But one can only conclude, with Ellis, that he was no Christian at all.

And this is certainly a point of interest to my detractors ...

Of course all these men knew, as all modern presidential candidates know, that to admit to theological skepticism is political suicide. During Jefferson's presidency a friend observed him on his way to church, carrying a large prayer book. "You going to church, Mr. J," remarked the friend. "You do not believe a word in it." Jefferson didn't exactly deny the charge. "Sir," he replied, "no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir."

A "ringing endorsement" in one sense; in another, not so much.

And can man be moral without God? Interesting discussion here.

UPDATE: A heck of a rebuttal to the Nation article here.

... for the light posting; things are pretty hectic right now. In the meantime, be sure to entertain yourself by clicking on my ads and/or the fine folks on my blogroll. I hear that that Instapundit is something else.

UPDATE: Wow.

And an Ace two-fer, just because this post is so damn funny.

UPDATE: So is this one.

According to Rita Cosby and a Time Magazine correspondent, suspected BTK Serial Killer Dennis Rader is "suffering from depression" as he sits in jail awaiting trial for the murder of at least 10 people. Reportedly, he also "found a pebble in his mashed potatoes."

Related historical precedents:

1960 - Holocaust architect Adolf Eichmann reportedly "suffered from alarm" upon his sudden capture by Mossad agents on the streets of Argentina.

1989 - Serial murderer Ted Bundy reportedly "suffered from acute fear of electrical shock" just prior to his Florida execution.

2005 - Noted urban jaywalker and illegal MP-3 downloader (reformed) Bill Ardolino reportedly "suffered from severe angst over his inability to find the Goddamn remote control" as his chronic sloth forced him to continue watching the husky, emotionally off-kilter "hard-hitting news analysis" of Rita Cosby on FOX News.

A Marine shares an experience from the very edge of Castro's Cuba:

That explosion touched my world.

Then, I witnessed the worst thing I ever saw in my life.

As the dust cloud wafted away from those refugees, nobody ran. Nobody screamed. Nobody said anything.

They just laid down to die in the middle of a minefield that was the sun's anvil.

Think of how badly you would not want to die like that. Think about that real hard. Think about slowly dying of exposure in a minefield. Think about what would make you risk such an outcome. Think about it real hard, and then remember that as bad as that was, it was better than going back.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Val Prieto)

Really.

(Via Jonathan's Ink, BA)

*** Video of Rather on Letterman. His show, I mean. We always thought that you were built for comedy, Dan.

Captain Ed maligns Letterman's "suck-up."

*** Open mouth ...

"I'm not a big Greenspan fan. ... I voted against him two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington," Reid said on CNN's "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics."

... insert foot. Why? The conventional wisdom around Alan Greenspan seems quite different, like a benign, bipartisan, grandfatherly yoda vibe.

Harry Reid's turning out to be quite the plucky firebrand ...

*** And thus, Jeff Goldstein's bizarrely obsessive, daily comedic feature - chronicalling Martha Stewart's entire prison sentence - comes to an end. We laughed, we cried; we were creeped the Hell out by explicit sexual metaphors.

Huzzah!

*** I don't often get involved in geeky fanboy blogging, but please: vote Alba! Early and often.

UPDATE: Whoa.

*** Have a minute? Please take this BlogAds survey. And please enter "INDC Journal" for question #16. Much appreciated. If you all participate, I'll share the results of "who reads INDC Journal," and what a grand time that'll be ...

*** Heh.

*** Double-heh.

*** Color(!) photos from World War I.

(Via Kate)

*** Ace has a point:

You know what else could be used for torture? Fists. Ropes. Razor blades. Baseball bats. Water. The special director's cut of Prince of Tides.

*** Wuzzadem hits the Hardball parody well again: Hardball With Jed Clampett. A true meeting of the minds.

*** ACTL: Always Click the Link! Go for the cryptic lead-in, stay for the smackdown of Kevin Drum and TalkLeft.

Don't cross Jimmy Joyner - he's got crazy eyes.

A political dissident speaks from a Yemeni jail. I'd have to say that the willingness to talk smack about your government, while in prison for talking smack about your government, represents real conviction and courage.

And via Ace, behold unthinkable speculation from the Arab media:

[W]ith Arab satellite stations focusing so intensely on Lebanon, there is little chance that the symbolism of the opposition's victory has been lost on the wider Arab world, including Syria.

Arab newspapers are weighing up the possible knock-on effect of events in Lebanon on other Arab states, asking whether it is the precursor of the spread of genuine democracy across the region.

Why ... they're almost like ... like ... dominoes! The authoritarian regimes could successively fall like dominoes before a wave of freedom!

I must copyright this simile, I think it's got promise.

UPDATE: I LOVE this excerpt of a Daily Show interview and the subsequent conclusions:

Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.

Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.

Do read the whole thing.

(Via IP)

This continues my fisking of Amy Ridenour's post that poo-pooed ideological splits between the socially conservative and libertarian wings of the GOP. Part One is here.

Let's establish an important rule: "Don't assume a natural alliance between social cons and libertarians."

First, the social conservatives want smaller government.

Except when it comes to regulating indecency, medical ethics, abortion, marriage, illegal drugs, illegal drugs that become prescription drugs, prescription drugs that were never illegal but can be used in illegal ways, etc.

Small-government/libertarian conservatives love to threaten social conservatives with departure in part because many moderates are embarrassed about being aligned with the un-hip social conservatives. (By the way, are we still in high school?)

Actually, in addition, libertarians and moderate Republicans are alternately in agreement with, annoyed by, affectionately bemused by, embarrassed for or respectfully tolerant of socially conservative points of view. Often, some combination of the above. One reliable predictive formula relies on the proportion of cartoon characters and references to the "insidious homosexual agenda" that are considered central to a specific issue. For example, the recent flap over the retroactive removal of public funding for a Buster the Bunny episode that merely visited a family with two mothers stumps me:

1. These family units exist, and many children will be exposed to the phenomenon. Is the proper course of action for children to actively shun these individuals? Perhaps decorously pretend that they don't exist? Point and laugh?

2. I fail to see how the acknowledgment of the existence of these family paradigms or their positive depiction in a non-sexual context endorses homosexuality, or would in any way lead children to wake up with a hankering for same sex action.

As a moderate, this particular example of social conservatism strikes me as intolerance. Next ...

If the libertarians ever out-recruit the social conservatives the social conservatives will probably just ask them if they plain to support the appointment of activist judges. If they don't the social conservatives will be happy and if they do they actually are liberals.

While there's certainly a healthy basis for condemnation of "liberal judicial activism," this unambiguous conservative clarion call is still a selectively applied standard that unfailingly denounces ideologically hostile cases while supporting or ignoring ideologically friendly examples - the specific issue's strict constitutional viability or status as democratically-determined legislation be damned. For example:

* Where is the conservative outrage over the Bush Administration's recent judicial activism attempting to overturn the Death With Dignity Act, a piece of state legislation that was twice approved by Oregonian voters? The same culture of life that animates the core of opposition to Roe v Wade also seems to drive the bid to bring this case before the Supreme Court, regardless of its status as duly created law or relation to Constitutional rights.

* How does the conservative effort to contravene state legislation that assigns medical applications to controlled substances escape the label of ideologically motivated, Big Government judicial activism?

* Why do conservatives paint a decision that upholds despised yet duly passed legislation like McCain-Feingold as "judicial activism?" Anticipated answer: because while the legislation was legitimately created by elected representatives, the law is Unconstitutional by a strict interpretation of the First Amendment. Yet, on the flip side of those conditions...

* Regardless of the unpopularity of the issue or practical arguments about tempests and teapots, a very "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution would probably strike "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Yet for instinctive reasons, strident opponents (representing the overwhelming majority but led by religious conservative groups) fail to even acknowledge the possible validity of the Constitutional argument, asserting the framers' intent based on late-18th Century societal standards and the presence of religious references in other period documents, rather than utilizing a strict interpretation of the First Amendment with regard to a modern, aggrieved party. Furthermore, conservative activists marshall a loophole of "ceremonial deism" as a bulwark against the rather explicit separation outlined in the "Establishment Clause," apparently unaware of the irony involved in fighting vigorously to maintain such apparently vital words by declaring them essentially meaningless.

The move against the pledge may be unpopular, and there may be a very good practical and political argument for keeping it, but the federal legislation that belatedly added the phrase "under God" - as an explicit declaration of this country's theism in a daily, compelled pledge in compulsory education - overstepped the Constitution, strictly speaking. And conservatives are particularly unable to separate emotional defensiveness over the general assault on religion in public life from a very literal interpretation of the document.

To be clear, I have little emotional attachment to this particular decision; I just find that rationale tends to adapt when conservatives malign the "judicial activist" bogeyman and serenade "strict constructionism." To quote the noted Constitutional scholar, the Honorable Inigo Montoya:

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Thus, the general admonition against "judicial activism" has no inherent, automatically consistent ideological meaning to me. And if the litmus test for "rational" conservative judicial activism trumpets "a serious defense of individual rights against intrusive or overbearing governmental activity," then it's important to intellectually acknowledge that this is the exact same intent that governs the liberal Constitutional Law cases for Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v Wade, Ashcroft v. Raich and other court decisions that are by varying degrees popular or maligned in conservative circles.

It's unwise to assume that socially conservative judicial activism naturally aligns itself with libertarian or moderate Republican visions of secularism, free will, government overreach or personal responsibility.

My next installment will talk about shared goals.

UPDATE: Make sure that you read the first and second comments for clarification of my intent.

*** Down with American hegemony! Wait, that's not what they're protesting?

*** Even the New York Times is on board!

*** Explore the full context surrounding Chris Rock's Gap/Bannana Republic metaphor at the Oscars.

*** Savor the vapidity of Maureen Dowd. I'll take Kid Rock, thank you.

*** Beautiful, yet dumb; so very, very dumb.

*** And another geek weighs in on the new Battlestar Galactica series.

I've got jury duty - again. And since it's Federal court, I'll be called in intermittently for 2 weeks, until/if I'm selected for a trial. Thus, posting could be even lighter than usual.