Stock Market

I'm surprised that I haven't heard more commentators make this simple point -- a lot of cash is sitting on the sidelines waiting for the Fed to stop raising short term rates. There is an axiom to which a lot of investors and money managers subscribe: Don't Fight the Fed.

When you look at the performance of the markets over the first half of the year in the face of rapidly rising oil prices and the Fed's interest rate policy, the fact that stock prices are about where the year started should be viewed as a sign of underlying strength.

I expect the Fed to bump another quarter point today. But some time soon, they will stop. Greenspan doesn't want an inverted yeild curve. When they stop, I wouldn't be surprised to see the market take off. The economy is strong, productivity has been phenomenal and profits remain solid. When the money comes off the sidelines, the markets will rise.

MSM incompetence (or worse)

Mark Levin posted this at the Corner at NRO:

WHAT THEY VOTED FOR [Mark R. Levin]
How soon some of our liberal friends forget. Among others, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Jay Rockefeller voted for the October 11, 2002 congressional joint resolution authorizing the president, on his discretion, to go to war. Here, in part, is what the resolution said:

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq:

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terroist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations ...

And not a single news person bothered to ask any critics of the president's speech last night how they can square their offense at the president's linking terrorism to the war against Iraq when they did the same exact thing.

Not a single journalist managed to do the job right.

Incompetent or Corrupt?

Where have liberals hidden their brains?

Alexander McClure wants to know.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

In the '50s and '60s, liberals conducted an extensive litigation and lobbying attack on society's ability to commit the insane to mental hospitals. As a result, many people who lacked the ability to think clearly enough to care for themselves were turned loose on the streets where they swelled the ranks of the homeless. (Somehow liberals tried to blame this on Ronald Reagan.)

We can now see another unintended consequence of this policy. It has resulted in the complete crack-up of the leadership of the Democratic Party. Liberals face a tough choice, if they don't find a way to loosen the grip the whackos have on their party, they will never be an effective organization again. But if they commit the whackos, they will lose a large portion of their leadership.

Purpose of Operation Iraqi Freedom

Liberals continue to argue that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not originally intended to help Iraqis secure freedom.

Patterico takes apart the LA Times and Ron Brownstein and points us in the direction of an Instapundit roundup from April 14 this year which catalogs how bad liberal memories are on the issue.

How freaking stupid do you have to be to argue that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not intended to free Iraqis?

What govt CAN fund (if not religion)

Ann Coulter offers a long list of things which taxpayers have been forced to pay for.

Democrats Convicted of Vote Fraud

Gateway Pundit has the details (via Michell Malkin). One of the guilty Democrats has an attempted murder trial to follow. Seems the Democratic politician was running a prostitution ring from City Hall and he wanted to murder a witness who threatened to expose him.

What was Howard Dean saying about some people never having made an honest living?

Incompetent or Corrupt

As regular readers know, this question comes up regularly about liberals in politics and the media. Hugh Hewitt uses a similar formulation to describe the stupid/ignorant/dishonest reactions from liberals after the president's speech. In this post he has a long quote from an excellent summary of the reasons for war which was written by Nicholas Lemann in the New Yorker in February, 2003. After which Hewitt writes:

That Brownstein, Canellos, et al refuse to acknowledge the set of arguments that --combined-- led Bush to order the invasion is an admission either of their ignorance or their duplicity.

This is the only way to describe those, like David Gergen, who say they are offended by the use of 9/11 to justify war against Saddam or those, like Ron Brownstein, who say that the president is somehow using arguments that weren't used before. Are they incompetent (stupid/ignorant) or corrupt (knowingly dishonest)?

Either way, reasonable people need not bother paying attention to them for they have long since forfeited their credibility.

Mexican Racism

Michelle Malkin has a post on a blatantly racist postage stamp issued by Mexico. Of course, the anti-American left isn't interested in addressing real racism, so we haven't heard any condemnations.

By the way, what is the politically correct term for the race of blacks in Mexico? Are they African-Mexicans?

That reminds me of seeing a TV news report which had a black college student gushing about how excited he was to see Nelson Mandela. He said it was an honor to see a noted international figure of his own race -- an African-A .... At that point, he stopped. It was obvious he had just realized how silly it was to describe his own race with a term that had no application to Nelson Mandela. If he and Nelson were of the same race, and Nelson Mandela was clearly not an African-Anerican, what race was he?

Hewitt nails the Democrats and MSM

Hugh:

The cut-and-run caucus led by Ted and MoveOn and Howard et al simply refuses to look the evil in its face and deal with it. Their dodge is to claim that our troops' presence is the cause of the evil. This laughable argument is at its heart a suicide note. When Howard Dean declares that the president's speech is about "the darkness of divisiveness, attempting to garner support for his failed policies by pandering to fear," it signals the fundamental irresponsibility of the party he leads. Quite simply, the Democratic Party cannot be trusted with the national security because it absolutely refuses to recognize the peril of Islamist fanaticism.

And this:

The reason the media's reputation has in fact fallen off of the floor to even lower depths is because of the refusal to treat the war as a war rather than a political battle.

That deserves repeating -- the media refuses to treat the war as a war rather than political battle.

Tapscott to the Wash Post ...

Mark Tapscott poses a question which would seem obvious to normal folks, but appears to have eluded the liberals running the Post: If flag-burning is free speech, why aren't political campaign ads on TV also free speech?

If the Post were honest, we would get the following answer -- they like what flag-burners are saying with their speech and they don't like the common people reducing their influence over election outcomes.

How the Left supports our troops

Michelle Malkin posts about the posters liberals use to discourage military recruitment. Here's one. Note the caption at the bottom.

Six factors that decide elections

Jayson at Polipundit highlights the six factors that determine the winner in elections without an incumbent running: Money, money, money, turnout, turnout and turnout.

He also had an interesting post speculating on the importance of the Wisconsin governor's race here. He wrote:

For the very instant a Republican takes over the WI governor’s mansion is the very instant that twice-vetoed bill to require photo ID’s to cast ballots will become the law of that land.

And the very instant that corpses, family pets, union thugs, and liberal college students are not able to vote for Democrats there, multiple times, and in multiple precincts, is the very instant that Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes will shift to the GOP column in future presidential elections.

MSM can't be bothered with facts

Propaganda is too important to let facts get in the way. The MSM was busy spinning last night.

The first step toward wisdom

Someone once said that we cannot begin to acquire wisdom until we first recognize our own failings and the inherent limitations that come from our human frailties. Peggy Noonan catalogs how far from wisdom are those inside the beltway.

Mario Cuomo -- Liar and Fool

This op-ed by Mario Cuomo may be the most dishonest piece I have ever read.

Howard Dean Projects

I've had the pleasure of exchanging e-mails with Paul Mirengoff of Power Line and Pat Santy of Dr. Sanity on the startling tendency of liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean to engage in what psychologists call projection -- attributing one's own unacknowledged feelings to others (see here).

The Buzz at NRO has this from a recent fundraiser e-mail from Howard Dean:

The other side has its game plan to win. They will divide America by race, religion, class, sexual orientation and any other way they can if it means a political advantage — they will even exploit the sacred memory of September 11th. They will shamelessly appeal to the worst in us — exploiting our fears and scapegoating the most vulnerable. And while they stoke resentment among the people, special interests and ideologues will bankroll their party and set the agenda.

If that's not projection, I don't know what is.

Judicial Hubris -- who will judge the judges?

Richard Nadler at NRO has a very sobering article on the horror perpetrated by the Kansas Supreme Court. He includes a quote from the Kansas court which relies on this reasoning from the Kentucky Supreme Court to justify its decision that it has the power and duty to set the level of taxation and spending appropriate for the school system:

…[In this case] we are asked — based solely on the evidence in the record before us — if the present system of common schools in Kentucky is ‘efficient’ in the constitutional sense.… To avoid deciding the case because of ‘legislative discretion,’ ‘legislative function,’ etc., would be a denigration of our own constitutional duty. To allow the General Assembly (or, in point of fact, the Executive) to decide whether its actions are constitutional is literally unthinkable.

Apparently, having judges decide how the executive and legislative branches do their jobs is not unthinkable.

So who judges the judges?

NY Times' Credibility Committee

Via Glenn, we see that Tim Blair is surprised to see that the Times has a credibility committee. If I had to guess, I would suppose that the committee was probably formed when all those journalists at the Times who strive for accuracy and balance finally demanded that their concerns be addressed. And the Times likely formed the committee to keep both of them happy until they retire next year.

With eyes clutched tight and mind closed even tighter ...

Dana Milbank confirms once again that there are none so blind as those who will not see. In his story about the administration's response to slipping poll numbers on the war, he writes:

That's why Bush has scheduled his prime-time speech for tonight from Fort Bragg, and why Rumsfeld and his generals have given a flurry of interviews and public appearances over the past week. They've got a tough challenge: Because the administration has said there will be no change in the Iraq policy, the only rhetoric at its disposal is repetition of old arguments.

Actually Dana, the President has a very potent weapon at his disposal -- the truth. You ought to try to get better acquainted with it. In his speech tonight, I expect that W will lay out a great deal of information on the current events in Iraq which Dana's paper and the other propaganda organs of the Democratic Party have chosen to withhold from the American people.

The opinions of the American people are important. But their opinions are far more important once they are fully and accurately informed.

Saddam's Terror Links

Deroy Murdock lays it out for those to whom facts matter.

For more, see Jayna Davis and her book which has been praised by former CIA director James Woolsley and former House impeachment counsel, David Schippers.

Ann Coulter asks the obvious question

Ann Coulter has a great column making fun of liberal hysterics over Gitmo. At the end she asks:

Why do Democrats take such relish in slandering their country? If someone was constantly telling vicious lies about you, would you believe they supported and loved you?

She also formulates the foolproof foreign policy test for success in keeping America safe -- Always do the exact 180-degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says as quickly as possible.

Tax Receipts are up over 15% this year

Blame the Bush tax cuts! Michael Darda has the details at NRO. Tax cuts boost economic growth which creates more income and thus, more tax revenue.

How slanted is the MSM coverage in Iraq?

This post on NRO's media blog has an interesting analysis of Iraq coverage in the Times and Post. For example, of 72 stories in the Post since January only two report positive developments and one of those was an op-ed by Kofi Annan.

This isn't about media bias. This is all about media partisanship. The terrorists fighting us have a very clear strategy. The only way the enemy can win is for the news media in the US to destroy the American people's will to fight. The MSM is working hard on a daily basis to accomplish the terrorists' goal.

The critical first step in winning any war: Know thy enemy.

NY Times vs. Truth

Most of us are familiar with Jack Nicholson, playing the tough Marine officer, declaring "you can't handle the truth!" The NY Times appears to have adopted that as their motto.

Andrew McCarthy at NRO carefully dissects the hyperventilating Times and provides a strong dose of reality.

Tim Russert -- Democratic Shill

Before Tim Russert worked for NBC, he worked for liberal Democratic politicians Mario Cuomo and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He has partisan attitudes about politics and his bias and partisanship often come through in his work. He showed his true colors with Secretary Rumsfeld. Lori Byrd at Polipundit says what she

was completely unimpressed and extremely disappointed by was Tim Russert’s questions. Hard questions for the Secretary of Defense are completely in order, what is not is what Russert asked. Read the transcript for yourself if you missed the show.

Russert asked an incredibly large number of questions based on moonbat conventional wisdom, rather than actual facts. I could list at least half a dozen examples of this from the transcript, but right off the top of my head I think first of the reference to the Downing Street Memo that there was no post war planning for Iraq. The question was asked as if the memo was proof that there was no plan – as if the person who wrote that line in the memo had complete access to every detail of the war plan from the White House to the Pentagon to Centcom. That is just one very small example. Rumsfeld did a great job, as always, but he had to spend half the interview either questioning the basis for the assumptions made in Russert’s questions or correcting incorrect statements presented by Russert as fact.

I used to have a good deal of respect for Tim Russert, but lately I am having trouble reminding myself just why I ever did.

I think Russert is just a less extreme version of Bill Moyers and George Stephanopoulos -- Democratic Party political activists continuing their work on the payroll of a media organization.

Barone on Dems' dirty littly secret

Michael Barone points out that Karl Rove is right and notes:

One reason that the Democrats are squawking so much about Rove's attack on "liberals" is that he has put the focus on a fundamental split in the Democratic Party -- a split among its politicians and its voters.

On the one hand, there are those who believe that this is a fundamentally good country and want to see success in Iraq. On the other hand, there are those who believe this is a fundamentally bad country and want more than anything else to see George W. Bush fail.

He cites polling last year which showed that Bush supporters were united in their belief that America is good. Kerry voters split down the middle on this fundamental question.

I wrote earlier this year in Mr. Bush -- Please Divide Us, the GOP would be wise to exploit this division. Karl Rove's speech is a good first step. Voters need to be given the choice between supporting the Michael Moore view of America or the George Bush view.

Real simple -- if you hate America, think we are evil and stupid -- vote for Michael Moore's party. If you love America and think we are a force for good in the world, vote Republican. The more liberals scream about the unfairness of the rhetoric, the more clearly defined the choice will be.

Respect for the "Law"

Glenn highlights this column by Lee Harris decrying the way we meekly accept the way judges have chosen to insert themselves into areas of life that they have no business ruling upon. Harris is right. As I have written in the past, the time has come for strong leaders in the executive and legislative branches (federal and state) to stand firm when judges raise taxes, overhaul school systems and other examples of judicial overreach. They simply need to refuse to enforce the judgments.

The Skeptical Journalists of the MSM

A number of bloggers have pointed out how the NY Times chose to run an op-ed by Fatina Abdrabboh which reached a new low, even for the Times. Michelle Malkin called it the Stupidest. Op-ed. Ever. Over at Ankle Biting Pundits, however, they show us why the internet and search engines are so great.

Curious how a complete unknown can get an op-ed in the Times of such worthless quality, they looked for other news articles involving Miss Abdrabboh. Wow, so many! It almost seems like journalists looking for a story that criticizes the US need only call an activist lawyer with terror contacts who provides his sister to provide the quotes they want. Surely this can't be how MSM journalism really works?!

Read the whole thing and remember how often journalists try to claim that they are skeptical.

Ruffini on Liberal protests of Rove

Patrick Ruffini has some fun at liberals' expense in this piece where he outlines all the evidence supporting Karl Rove's speech. It is helpful to be reminded of just how wacked out Michael Moore's friends have been.

Can I have your house if I promise to pay more in taxes?

If collecting more in taxes is a sufficient "public use" to justify eminent domain proceedings, can we start auctioning off houses we like? If I have friends in the local government, can't I just promise to pay a few more dollars in taxes and have them condemn that house I've always admired. After all, they've never been willing to sell it before. And now we won't have to worry about whether they want to sell.

How convenient!!! A few small campaign contributions and a few more dollars for taxes and I can start picking out my new house. No more of those bothersome negotiations with the seller.

Lack of judgment

Hugh Hewitt makes a point that cannot be stressed too much or too often -- the Democrats lack the judgment to understand the disastrous future consequences of their policies and they refuse to learn from or take responsibility for their disasters in the past.

Unfortunately, it really is true of the party as a whole: poor judgment, inability to learn from the past, and a refusal to take resposnibility.

Hewitt compares the disaster that befell Southeast Asia because liberals forced the US to abandon our allies to what might happen in the Mideast if liberals succeed again in forcing the US to abandon allies. He specifically recalls the prediction by John Kerry in his famous testimony before the Senate that only 2 to 3 thousand refugees would result from a communist victory in Vietnam. Instead, the number of victims grew into the millions.

Last fall during the election, I thought this was one of the strongest points that could have been made against voting for Kerry. He has a perfect record of misjudging our enemies. The last thing we need is a president who has proven himself to be a complete failure in the areas of judgment, understanding and responsibility.

Hell hath no fury like a PBS liberal scorned

What a great line. George Neumayr at American Spectator relates the tolerance demonstrated by liberals after he appeared on PBS to discuss his position that public funding should end.

He does a great job of capturing the essence of today's liberals. Or perhaps that should be described as nonsense.

I guess when their essence is nonsense it doesn't matter.

Blogs for DC journalists

Glenn noted this item on blogs read by DC journalists. Based on the discussion, can you guess which side of the political spectrum the author favors?

Paul Mirengoff interview

Deacon at Power Line has consistently provided quality commentary on the issues of the day. And he's one of my favorites on the web. Normblog has a profile here.

It just makes you laugh

Via Glenn, Postwatch has the details of the marked difference between coverage of Durbin's comments and those of Karl Rove. Since Durbin's comments were as reprehensible as any ever uttered on the floor of the Senate and Rove's extremely mild by comparison, the stark difference in coverage makes the Post look even worse -- if that is possible.

Do you suppose that these fools were ever wake up to the fact that they have become a sad joke?

Dems pull an OJ

The DNC report on voting problems seems to have underwhelmed. NRO's media blog cites a study from Captain Ed that points out something the MSM seems to have missed:

In March, a group of Ohio election law attorneys conducted a review of the state's election for the House Committee on Administration. It found, among other things, that "thousands of false and fraudulent voter-registration cards had been discovered and became the subject of numerous investigations by boards of elections, actions by local law enforcement and many media reports."

"Overwhelmingly," this report said, "these problems were reportedly traced primarily" to four Democratic political allies who supported Mr. Kerry: ACORN, America Coming Together, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP National Voter Fund.

Sprueill writes: "Whoops. The DNC reminds me of OJ trying to find the real killers."

When did we lose the war?

Hugh Hewitthas a post with the transcript of an exchange on Inside Politics. Robert Novak's comments are bad enough, but I've never thought he was the sharpest pencil. Read Paul Begala:

Begala: This whole thing has been a disaster for the country, for our country, and the president seems to be disengaged from reality. The debate in Washington, I think, among those who are observing this, with respect, is the president and his team, are they purposefully misleading us, do they understand what a debacle it is but they are lying, or are they so delusional that they think that we are winning this thing. I have no idea which it is. But I'd like to know, but maybe there are two camps, the reality-based people who understand that we are loosing but they are lying to u and then there's the delusional wing.

Paul Begala and James Carville are considered part of the best and the brightest of the Democratic consultants. Which just serves as another reminder why the Democrats find themselves shipwrecked on an uncharted island listening to Howard Dean, Michael Moore and Dick Durbin explain how the flying monkeys are going to use magic dust to transport them to the promised land.

How pathetic.

Conservatives for civil rights

Stuart Buck makes a great point about Kelo v. London:

Watch carefully to see whether groups such as People for the American Way correctly portray this decision as one in which conservatives favored civil rights while liberals were effectively opposed. The Takings Clause protects a "civil right" as much as anything else in the Constitution. And it should particularly protect the "civil right" to keep your family home when someone else wants to give it to the Pfizer Corporation.

I agree with that -- the takings clause protects a civil right as much as anything else in the Constitution.

He also has a great quote from Justice Thomas' dissent. About the Court's effectively rejecting the precedents on the takings clause, Thomas wrote:

Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a “'[P]ublic [P]urpose’” Clause, ante, at 9—10 (or perhaps the “Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society” Clause

The Lie that will not die

Via Cori Dauber at Ranting Profs, a fisking of the stupidity of a journalist who has no clue about the military and can't be bothered to do the job right. Fisked by Jason at Iraqnow.

By the way, Cori does a good job of keeping up with the poor coverage of the war by the NY Times and Wash Post. Check her out.

More on the "Moneychangers" slam of WTC victims

Media Slander has more on the use of the term "moneychangers" by the Newspaper Guild to describe the WTC victims.

Remember, a lot of the journalists who belong to this union feel the same way. They are part of the enemy .

Koran is a venerated object, American flag is not

I don't support a flag-burning amendment (although I don't mind legislative pronouncements which recognize that anyone punching out a flagburner is presumed to be justifiably provoked). This story out of Nashville, however, shows just how stupid hate crimes laws are. From Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping.

How things change

Jayson at Polipundit has this on the changing perceptions of social security as a political issue. I liked this part:

But things change.
People change.
Circumstances change.
You know, Democrats keep getting their asses kicked in major elections, despite the media, academia, and dead felons voting for them six times a piece.

And now the GOP is going to start fixing the ponzi mess.

Fat, Drunk and Stupid

The American Film Institute released their list of the top 100 quotes from movies. I cannot believe that Dean Wormer's priceless advice to Flounder in Animal House didn't make the final cut (it was in the top 400)" "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life."

Ted Kennedy is proof of that.

The liberal WSJ

Early this year I wrote a post on the liberal bias of the news coverage in the Wall Street Journal (as opposed to the editorial/opinion page which has a completely separate staff of editors and writers). Some of my readers disagreed. Apparently, Howard Kurtz, who was a reporter for the paper, pointed out that the reporters he worked with were liberal. Jim Miller has it at Oh, that Liberal Media.

Newspaper Guild calls WTC victims "moneychangers"

In response to the outrage over the disgusting lies Guild president Linda Foley told about our military, the Newspaper Guild defended Foley in a long column which is fisked here. Note that the Guild cites with approval Ward Churchill and calls the WTC victims "moneychangers".

Remember this is the union for journalists in the US.

Who is in Gitmo?

The baddest of the bad.

Celebrating American Casualties

Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse has this on the despicable attitudes of liberals. The whole thing is worth reading, but I want to point out the e-mail to the editor of the left-wing Nation which notes how happy the liberal activist is over the news about casualties in Iraq.

Joining the Enemy

American Thinker has a long column about how horribly the "insurgents" treated a French journalist who was kidnapped for ransom. The last paragraph nails the way journalists have joined the enemy in the way they regard the terrorists:

Why no outcry from the ICRC, Amnesty International, and all the rest? Precisely because they have adopted the logic of the insurgency. El Hadji subjecting a woman to cruel and inhuman punishment is not their problem. However…if, instead of paying him tens of millions for his trouble, someone grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and locked him up in Guantanomo, he would magically become an innocent victim, sanitized, sanctified, and endowed with new powers to take us hostage…en masse!

That is worth repeating -- if he were captured and sent to Gitmo he would magically become an innocent victim.

Democrats simply are not serious

Glenn Reynolds has two posts on Iraq which need to be read.

Feminist blather

John Stossel exposes the truth on wage equality. Hat tip to Betsy Newmark.

Ben Wattenberg showed that the wage gap was bull over 2o years ago in The Good News Is, The Bad News is Wrong.

Democrats do Gilligan's Island

Lately I have been thinking of all the really stupid things that liberals have said and done over the last decade and it occurred to me that they had become much like the old TV show, Gilligan's Island (with 2 differences). They are a collection of incompetent oddballs. They drifted far off course and are now shipwrecked. And they have no idea how to get back. Their crazy, misguided efforts to return keep collapsing as a result of their foolish mistakes.

The major differences being: 1) the TV show did laughs on purpose, and 2) on TV, the professor was the only one on the island who had a clue. In today's liberal political version, the professor is insane.

My suggestions for the cast:

Gilligan -- Howard Dean
The captain -- pick one from Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or even Michael Moore
The Professor -- Paul Krugman
Thurston Howell -- George Soros
Mrs. Howell -- Barbara Streisand
Ginger -- Cameron Diaz, perhaps Gloria Steinem (wasn't she a Playboy bunny?)
Mary Ann -- Hillary (although that is really unkind to Mary Ann)

If you want to weigh in with your own choices for cast members, leave a comment or send an e-mail.

Krugman Screws Up Even Worse Than Normal

Don Luskin at NRO points out that the wild-eyed Paul Krugman blasted The evil Republicans for a huge scandal brewing in Ohio. Of course, the politicians involved in the scandal are Democrats.

And those great fact checkers at the NY Times somehow managed to miss it.

For a delightful look at how ridiculous the Times and Krugman have become, go read it all.

Friend or Foe? Stan's Law of International Relations

One of the CNBC anchors just said that they are running a poll on whether we consider China to be an enemy or an ally. Now I don't advocate starting a trade war because Smoot-Hawley showed us how trade protectionism (effectively a large tax increase) can unleash a huge depression. But I do have a real simple way to figure out when another nation is unfriendly. Call it Stan's Law of International Relations:

When the other country has lots of nuclear warheads on missiles targeted at your country -- they ain't your friend.

Think how different our State Dept would be if we taught our diplomats this.

Watching Catherine grow

Catherine's vocabulary has just exploded. She sings all the time. As all toddlers do, she seems to grow up more every day. We celebrated each step with the two boys. With her, however, the celebration is tinged with a touch of sadness. Knowing she is our last child, we realize that each stage she passes out of is the last such stage for our family.

Tribe is getting better

I got to watch bits and pieces of the Red Sox win over Cleveland last night. Even though my Indians lost and ended a nine game winning streak, I was impressed with the way these young guys play. Sizemore is going to be a very good player. So is Peralta. The bull pen kept them in the game against that great Boston offense after we got down 9-4 and it looked like a blowout.

Battling back only to lose 10-9 may end up being a positive in the long run.

On the Senate's Silly Apology

Via Lorie Byrd at Polipundit, this rant from La Shawn Barber (I can't get the link to work, so here is what Lorie quoted):

In light of the serious problems we face in the world and our own country, I think this apology is one of the dumbest, emptiest, most politically correct pile of rubbish I’ve heard in a long time.

We’ve got fanatics trying to kill us all in the name of their god and hiding among us. We’re being taxed to death taking care of deadbeats and criminals, while President Bush is sending even more of our money to brutal dictators in Africa. And the Senate apologizes for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago?…

…Perhaps Congress should apologize for decades of bloated socialist programs that caused the black family to disintegrate. Paying unmarried women to have babies is obscene, immoral, and the reason so many (too many) black children have no fathers to speak of. Treating blacks like dummies who require separate (LOWER) standards than every other race is offensive. I’m offended. Where is my apology?

Generations of blacks have been lulled into feeding from the government trough, and the damage it caused will reverberate for generations. And those numbskulls down the street are apologizing for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago. Lord, give me strength.

I’m sick of politicians wasting time and money pandering to blacks, treating us like empty-headed children, spoon-feeding us putrid pabulum, and prostrating themselves for every perceived slight. Don’t apologize to “Black People.” Apologize to individual blacks who actually care about this mess.

Apologize for failing to protect Americans against foreign invaders. Apologize for taking our hard-earned money and giving it to people who don’t want to earn it themselves. Apologize for constantly referring to me as “African American,” implying that I’m a lesser American than everyone else. Apologize to all Americans for pushing racially divisive entitlements and preferences and insane “hate crime” laws. Thanks to your misguided paternalism, racial tension will always be front and center.

Blogging for Freedom

The American Spectator has a good summary of the impact new media is having on totalitarian nations around the globe. Tom Elliot of the NY Sun wrote it.

Intellectual Bankruptcy of Moral Equivalence

Those who used to say that America was as bad as the Soviet Union are the same folks who now compare believing Christians and Jews with Islamic terrorists. Brandon Crocker notes the absurdity that is par for the left.

A survey to note

Via The Buzz at NRO, a link to this survey at Investor's Business Daily. A majority of Americans (70%) believe we should maintain our military in Iraq:

Conducted June 6-10 among 913 adults, the poll found nearly two of every three (60%) think America's foray into Iraq has helped sow the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. Among Republicans, that number jumps up to 87%. Even large numbers of Democrats (44%) and independents (53%) agree with that sentiment.

"Most Americans see a democratic Middle East as one positive outcome of the Iraq War," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, IBD's polling partner.

What's more, a large majority (70%) also believe it's important for the U.S. and coalition countries to maintain a military presence in Iraq.

Kondracke joins Krauthammer

I wrote about Charles Krauthammer's axiom my first day blogging. Morton Kondracke appears to agree. In a column about Dean, he writes:

by and large, it's Democrats who lose their rhetorical composure. Why? At some level, I think it's because they reflect what Democratic activists believe - that Republicans, Bush in the lead, really are evil, ill-motivated and dishonest. Republicans, in the main, just think Democratic policies are wrong.

NY Times and journalistic standards

At NRO's new media blog, you can see a great example of how the NY Times treats facts in an editorial. Read the whole thing and remember it the next time someone cites the Times for a "fact."

Watergate Question

With all the hype about Deep Throat, a reader e-mailed me a great question about Watergate --

Less than a month after Butterfield revealed the existence of the taping system, the prosecutors subpoenaed the tapes. But knowing that the court would never sanction a fishing expedition into thousands of hours of tapes, the prosecutors requested an incredibly detailed list of very specific dates and times (e.g. on such and such a date and time a conversation with so and so, 10 minutes, 15 seconds into the conversation a segment lasting 6 minutes and 31 seconds).

How did the prosecutors know the exact dates, times and segment lengths of the specific tapes to subpoena?

Journalism priorities

Yesterday, CNBC made a big deal all day about the fact that one of its journalists, Maria Bartiromo, was the first with the story that Phillip Purcell was stepping down at Morgan Stanley. What this means is that someone at Morgan Stanley leaked the info to her before they officially released it. This is another example of news media focusing on something that the consumer cares little to nothing about.

Now I understand that some active stock traders may feel like they can get a momentary edge if they get info before someone else gets it. Of course, since CNBC is the major financial cable channel, when they get a story first it means the whole market has it.

In the larger scheme of news, 99% of us are far more concerned that the news we get is accurate and complete. I really don't care which reporter got the tip at 7:58 instead on 8:03. Especially if I don't check out the news until the next day.
What would affect my choice of news sources would be a claim that a particular source had stories that other sources didn't cover and/or had documented that they made fewer errors in the stories they covered.

Beating the competition by a few minutes is nothing compared to beating them on accuracy and completeness.

E. J. gets an F

Has there ever been a pundit with a track record for being wrong as consistently as E. J. Dionne? He has been wrong so often for so long, that I gave up reading him years ago. This morning, looking through the selections at Real Clear Politics, I saw the title "McCain May Be Bush's Ticket." Naturally, I had to see what the latest fantasy was about. Not surprisingly, it sprang from the brow of a "shrewd and loyally Democratic party operative." E; J. didn't really have to tell us that. It seems that just about everything he writes is a regurgitation of talking points he got from one Democratic source or another.



His column is based on the kind of skewed thinking one typically gets from Democratic talking points. In Dionne's fantasy world, the president may have to help get McCain elected because the economy is bad, Iraq is a mess, and the GOP has big ethics problems.

Yeah, right. Voters concerned about ethics are going to look at the trumped up Democratic charges against Tom DeLay and rush out to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. He writes:

If the Republicans' ethics problems worsen, McCain's Mr. Clean image will look ever more attractive to Republican members of Congress desperate to hold power. If things get really bad, many Republicans will be happy to dump House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and embrace McCain.

McCain is "Mr. Clean"? Since when? Hillary is the choice of voters for whom ethics is a top priority?

Even without the silliness about Iraq and the economy, this one gets an F on the ethics analysis.

United Airline pensions show why Social Security should be private

Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics has a personal attachment to the way the United Airlines bankruptcy is destroying retirements. I had been meaning to write to make this point -- the crash of defined benefit plans like this is exactly why we need to have social security privatized. If we cannot depend on a pension provided by big business which must operate in accordance with all manner of laws and regs requiring investment for the future, how can we depend on the political whims of corrupt politicians?

Here's how Tom puts it:

United is a textbook example of why Social Security should be at least partially privatized. For decades employees like my father faithfully paid into a pension system in return for assurances that a certain amount of money would be there for them when they retired. When push came to shove, however, and the company ran out money, those promises were broken.

If United's employees had instead put that money into a 401K account, it would still be sitting there. They would own it, be able to see it, control it, and spend it or invest it as they liked.

Social Security is nothing more than a big defined-benefit pension plan. Now that we're getting a glimpse of what the future Social Security tragedy is going to look like, it seems immoral for Democrats to resist the idea of allowing people the option to control a portion of their own Social Security contribution.

Basic Logic

My first day of Economics 101, Professor Ratliff (a really great teacher) defined economics as the study of how we allocate scarce resources among unlimited wants. Betsy Newmark, who has the benefit of being wife of an econ prof and mother to an econ major, has a post on Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist keeps trying to get the left to use rationality and logic to make decisions. No such luck.

Economic News You Won't Get from MSM

Larry Kudlow notes how US total net worth is up dramatically since the tax cuts.

Failure of Perspective at Wash Post

Cori Dauber at Ranting Profs has a good post explaining how unfair the Post is in a story on federal prosecutions of illegal immigrants:

The Post writes about the use of immigration violations to get at people suspected of terrorism links when other routes are unavailable or are too difficult, but such a story is almost by definition going to be skewed. It's almost impossible to find government representatives who will discuss either specific cases or approaches freely, while it's easy to find sympathetic, hardworking immigrants who claim they've been unfairly caught up in a dragnet. (Well, that and the fact that I've yet to see an article in the Post or the Times in which the immigrants weren't worthy, hardworking, model citizens.)

She gets in a little dig at the Post:

when it comes to practical value, this struck me as missing the forest for the trees:

"Authorities are often reluctant to disclose why an immigrant's name emerged in a national security investigation, because the information is classified or is part of a continuing probe. Homeland Security officials turned down a request by The Washington Post for the names of all those charged in the past two years, making it difficult to assess how effective their strategy has been at thwarting terrorism."

Yeah, not so difficult really, and here's a little tip on that: we haven't been attacked at home since 9/11. Remember right after the attacks most people thought more attacks were virtually inevitable. So whatever they're doing seems to be working pretty well, yes?

Ben Stein on Military Recruiting

At American Spectator, he writes:

I read that the Army and the Marines are not meeting their enlistment quotas and I have two thoughts about this problem:

One, pay them a lot more. Not just a little more, but a lot more. Much, much more. They are indispensable. Let's treat them that way. If we have to raise taxes to do it, let's do it. These guys deserve a great life style if they offer up their lives for us.

Second, why would anyone join the Army if he reads the newspapers and watches TV? The mainstream media show the military doing three things: being criminals, abusing captives, killing civilians, torturing the innocent -- that's one way. Then they show the Army being stupid, making mistakes that get people killed. That's the second way. Then they show the military getting killed.

Who would want to join a military that's criminal, stupid, and a deathtrap?

But what if the media showed the military building schools, saving little children's lives, feeding families, getting sick people medical care? What if the media showed smiling, grateful Iraqis thanking the Army and the Marines? What if the media showed the military winning battles and capturing and killing terrorists?

But this is the more true picture of the military and it rarely gets showed.

Again, why wouldn't the Army and Marines have trouble attracting recruits if the media is endlessly saying you have to be a fool to enlist?

Well, I guess it never ends, does it?

The Bush record

Jayson at Polipundit points out the incredible disconnect between Bush's performance and the news media's portrayal of it. As he sums it up:

The media *is* the Democratic Party.

And vice-versa.

They’re separated from reality.

And there’s little to no hope for reconciliation.

Peggy Noonan on Hillary and Howard

She points out how a Republican would never say the stupid things that Howie and Hillary spew so often. If Bush did:

One assumes all the media, especially the MSM, would treat the speech as if it were an epochal event in the Bush presidency, and the beginning of the end. They would say he was unleashing the dark forces of division; they would label his statement as manipulative, malevolent, immature.

And they'd be right.

But, of course, the MSM doesn't hold Democrats to the same high standards. Not just because the MSM is biased, but because no Democrat can meet those high standards. Which explains their electoral performance.

Ms. Noonan predicts that America will reject the Democrats spewing all this venom:

The comportment of Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean is actually not worthy of America. Their statements suggest they are in no way equal to the country they seek to lead. And something tells me that sooner or later America is going to tell them. But in a generous, mature and fair-minded way.

Lileks on Dean

Lileks:

The gift that keeps on giving, this Dr. Dean.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough on his political opposition, said in San Francisco this week that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

This will be met with two reactions: dismay from those who do not believe he speaks for Democrats – which is why he’s the head of the party, I guess – and elation from those who say Hell Yeah! Nail those pale christers, already! The former group has my sympathy, because it surely hurts to see the head of the party jam his foot so far in his mouth that the tassels of his loafers dangle from this buttocks. It must rankle the moderates to hear him fling this nonsense on a daily basis, after all; it's like having Pat Buchnan run the GOP and make constant fulminating speeches against Commie-Lezbo Vegans. The latter group might consider that Dr. Dean's reliable skill for vomiting undigested red meat on cue doesn’t endear them to moderates, but moderation isn’t what they want anyway. Unless you count “crucifying Bush but letting him climb down after half a day” as moderation.

“White Christian Party” has the advantage of Kluxer overtones, which plays into another hard-left paranoia: all them Jaysus people are a step away from whipping up a batch o' pointy hats with pillow cases and a can of spray starch, and marching into a field to hold hands around a cross and listen to someone demand that the entire book of Leviticus be made an amendment to the Constitution. The only one, for that matter. The ongoing freak-out of Deaniacs over religion is becoming a source of great amusement, really; it’s as if they just discovered that those big old buildings with purty glasss windows and pointy spires on top are actually used by people for something other than voting and annual pancake breakfasts. They can’t distance themselves from the groups that spend all their time using electronic microscopes to find crosses embedded in the currency or trying to keep the Boy Scouts from holding knot-tying classes in schools after class; they can’t reach out to the devout without having to explain why “white Christian” sounds like it’s meant as a criticism. Not an enviable position.

“They all behave the same.”

Oh, Howard. If you only knew.

Dean's Outrages are Right Wing's Fault

So says Democratic Senator Dick Durbin.

Dishonest Boston Globe

This editorial is disgusting. The same question which comes up so often with the media is present here -- are the folks at the Globe corrupt or incompetent? Are they stupid or do they think we are?

The factual and logical errors mount with every sentence. No time to adequately fisk it all. Back later,

This is what passes for a liberal argument

Here.

None of the Above

I managed to get in a quick workout last night. One of the TVs on the wall was tuned to CNN and Lou Dobbs was on. He had a question for viewers asking why Bush's approval ratings were down with 3 options: Iraq War, Illegal immigration, Social Security reform. The correct answer would be none of the above. The unrelenting propaganda assault by the MSM noted by Michael Barone and Evan Thomas last year has not abated. It apparently never occurred to Lou that slanting the news affects viewers perceptions. Lou, go to E-bay and buy a clue.

Today's briefs

I have a law seminar all day today and appointments at lunch and afterward. Blogging will have to wait until tonight. I do want to point out the following:

Power Line has three great posts this morning and last night on the Kerry records, income inequality and the accelerating deterioration of Democratic credibility and judgment (this time from Nancy Pelosi). When you look compile a list of all the really stupid things they have said and done over the last 10 years, you wonder how any rational person could ever risk a vote on them. They simply lack gravitas.

And, as always, check out Real Clear Politics, Ben Stein at The American Spectator, and this editorial at the New York Sun.

More later -- including how proud I am of Madison and William.

Kudlow on Economics and NYTimes foolishness

Larry Kudlow has a great column over at NRO. There's a lot packed into it. He notes that the Times uses 2002 IRS data to blame Bush for the effects of 2003 tax cuts.

And he goes on to show that the "rich" pay the taxes that make government work and the countries that punish the successful in an attempt to insure equality simply make everyone worse off.

Only at the Times (and places like it) can a policy which has consistently led to economic decay and impoverishment every time it has been tried still retain appeal. After all facts and logic have never been in abundant supply there.

More on Kerry's records dodge

Power Line had a reader explain how the records are handled and how Kerry is likely dodging the release of all his records.

UPDATE
More here.

Boston Globe -- Corrupt or Incompetent

I am e-mailing this to Jay Rosen, an NYU journalism professor and the proprietor of Pressthink to ask him about the Globe's treatment of Kerry's navy records.

As I noted previously, John O'Neill has raised serious questions about the form Kerry signed. Wouldn't basic Journalism 101 require that the paper contact the most prominent representative of those who have been calling for these records to be released and get a comment? Wouldn't we expect that the Globe would want to make sure that they had, indeed, gotten ALL the records? And, if they had checked it out, told us so that all these questions wouldn't remain?

Jay assures us that the MSM is not biased. Should we assume incompetence instead?

Kerry and the Boston Globe prove untrustworthy

The Boston Globe's handling of John Kerry's Form 180 is another good example of the MSM working in collusion with a Democrat to mislead the public. Neither is worthy of our trust or respect.

John O'Neill of the Swift Vets explains how Kerry is being duplicitous:

We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center. Instead he executed a form permitting his hometown paper to obtain the records currently at the Navy Department. The Navy Department previously indicated its records did not include various materials. This is hardly what we called for. If he did execute a complete release of all records we could then answer questions such as (1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry's Dec. 1968 Purple Heart (when the officer in charge of the boat Admiral Schacte, the treating Surgeon Louis Letson, and Kerry's Division Commander deny there was hostile fire causing a scratch) awarded three months later under unknown circumstances.

Hugh Hewitt nails the Globe:

As for the Globe, why in the world doesn't the paper post the documents on the web site for all to see and read? Answer: A bastion of MSM is playing guardian of the news again, interpreting the docs for the public too limited to understand. Even the article on Kerry's Yale grades is spun round. Rather than just providing the transcript, this article launches into a comparison of the Yale records of Bush and Kerry, concluding "that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago." Did they take the same courses? Did they have wild fluctuations? Who knows, and the Globe isn't telling you.

Finally, Kerry's answer on why he didn't release his records during the campaign tells you all you'll ever need to know about how pathetic he is:

''The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out.'"

Checking Out the Cheerleaders

NRO is starting a new media blog. They are having a contest to name the new blog. My entry, after careful consideration lasting all of 15 seconds, is "Checking out the Cheerleaders." On the entry form asking for an explanation, I wrote:

It has always been my contention that the MSM serve as cheerleaders for the Democrats. Some are particularly egregious in their steadfast desire to earn that D monogram with megaphone each year.

And of course, checking out the cheerleaders to determine what is false and what is real is a tradition of long standing.

Not that great, I know, but I haven't given it any thought. If you come up with a good one, tell them and let me know. If I come up with something better, I'll post it.

The Disaster that is Howard Dean (for Dems)

Patrick Ruffini has a good round up of how and why Dean is such a disaster. One fact I had not seen elsewhere is that the RNC more than doubled the DNC in fundraising in the first Q of 2005.

Moynihan Despised Hillary

Newsmax has a story about a new book which lays out the details of much Senator Moynihan and his wife despised Hillary. When Hillary went to see him for an endorsement when she decided to run for his seat:

"Both the Senator and his wife, Liz, went 'after' Hillary for her years of lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Clearly there was no love lost between the Moynihans and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"As Liz Moynihan questioned Hillary about her repeated dishonesty, and as Hillary dodged and weaved and lied even more, Pat Moynihan could take it no longer. He stood up and said, 'I have to go up to the Senate.' He left – but actually just went next door to another apartment to get away from Hillary."


Now the New York Post is running a preview of the book, based on the Vanity Fair excerpt, that echoes the Insider Report.

"Sen. Moynihan's wife, Liz, griped to a friend that Hillary Clinton is 'duplicitous. She would say or do anything that would forward her ambitions,'" the Post reports.

Hillary Clinton -- slander machine

This is the best the Democrats can come up with for 2008?!

Medved: Hollywood is Anti-American

My copy of Imprimis arrived in the mail while we were on vacation. This month features a speech by film critic, author and talk show host Michael Medved. Medved, a Yale Law School contemporary of the Clintons, was a left-wing political aide in the 70s. His speech lays out how extremely hostile Hollywood has become toward the US military and America. The details are stunning. For example, each of the movies which mention the Gulf War (and there have been only four) is extremely negative toward the military. And he can't recall a single movie celebrating America's victory in WWIII, the Cold War.

An interesting fact that I didn't know from his speech:

in truth, the typical Vietnam veteran is not homeless or disillusioned or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The statistics are readily available from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and this is what they reveal: Vietnam vets—people who actually served in combat in Vietnam—are less likely to have psychiatric problems, less likely to have drug problems, less likely to have committed suicide, and have a higher median income than people of comparable socio-economic backgrounds who did not serve in Vietnam.

You'd never know it from Hollywood.

More:

And of course it is not simply antipathy to the military that permeates Hollywood today. There is a broader anti-Americanism—an alienation from everything American—that runs very, very deep there. Listen to Sean Penn, speaking to a press conference at the Cannes Film Festival in 1991, when asked a question about his film Indian Runner:


I don’t think it scratches the surface of the rage that is felt, if not acted upon, by most of the people in the country where I live. I was brought up in a country that relished fear-based religion, corrupt government, and an entire white population living on stolen property that they murdered for and that is passed on from generation to generation.


And here is Oliver Stone in 1987, upon receiving the Torch of Liberty Award from the American Civil Liberties Union:


Our own country has become a military industrial monolith, dedicated to the Cold War—in many ways, as rigid and corrupt at the top as our rivals, the Soviets. We have become the enemy with a security state now second to none. Today we have come to live in total hatred, fear, and the desire to destroy. Bravo. Fear and conformity have triumphed. This Darth-Vadian Empire of the United States must pay for its many sins in the future. I think America has to bleed. I think the corpses have to pile up. I think American boys have to die again. Let the mothers weep and mourn.


..... Is it any wonder that people who deliver statements like that also feel the need to trash the U.S. in film after film after film?

The Left Has Stolen Ground Zero

Michelle Malkin on the WSJ piece by the sister of one of the pilots who died on 9/11. The Left has taken over the planning of the 9/11 memorial and intends to turn it into a left-wing propaganda house.

Credibilty down the drain

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line comments on one more addition to the very long list of reasons the left is losing all credibility.

It Didn't Start with Watergate

NRO has a piece by Lee Edwards outlining LBJ's criminal use of the CIA and FBI in the 1964 election campaign. It reminds me of a book by Victor Lasky, It Didn't Start with Watergate which I read in college (1977?). Lasky documented how FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ were involved in illegal break-ins, illegal buggings, abuse of power in using the IRS, FBI and CIA to harass opponents, etc., on a level far worse than anything Nixon did.

John Leo on Media failure

John Leo points out more stories that the press hasn't covered. Is it bias, partisanship, or incompetence that causes the news media to be so bad? Whichever explanation they offer, no one with any sense would trust their coverage.

Washington Vote Fraud Upheld

Power Line has a link to Michelle Malkin's coverage of the judge's decision to uphold the Democrats' left of the governorship of the state of Washington. Rocket Man has a good point about the curious standard of proof employed by the judge:

Apparently the main thrust of the judges's ruling was that, while there was evidence of 1,678 illegal votes cast--which I think is around ten times Gregoire's margin of victory--there was no evidence as to who got the illegal votes, so the Republicans failed in their burden of proof.

Of course, if that's the standard, election challenges are futile, since I can't see how there would ever be a record of which candidate a particular voter (real or nonexistent) voted for.

I haven't researched the law, but I have to think the judge has used an erroneous standard here. If that standard is the law in Washington, why would the GOP pay a lawyer to file a case that is impossible to win? And what idiots would consider that an appropriate standard? There is a big difference between a legislature trying to craft a remedy for vote fraud in the future (they don't know who might need the relief) and a judge looking for reasons to protect his friends after the fact.

WWII Memories

Betsy Newmark notes several tributes to those who fought at Midway and D-Day. She says that Maryland is producing a video of D-Day vets from the state recounting their experiences.

I know that my father, who fought at the Bulge, has written of his experiences for a compilation put together by his regiment. I think that some units even publish these on a regular basis in conjunction with reunions. There is a lot of good stuff out there for a high school teacher or college student interested in such personal accounts.

Enemies of the Poor

Todd Zywicki points out:

People Who Don't Shop at Wal-Mart Oppose New Cleveland Wal-Mart: From today's Cleveland Plain-Dealer:

This is why so many job-starved Clevelanders have voiced concerns. Consider the coalition that is building: civil rights groups, elected officials, labor unionists, ministers, small business owners, and, most recently, Cleveland bloggers. We raise our voices in opposition because of the negative effects of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on our town.

In other words, Cleveland's elites who don't shop at Wal-Mart are opposed to allowing other people to shop at Wal-Mart.

Why the Chicken Crossed the Road

For the same reason that the NY Times published the story exposing American agents to possible death -- it wanted to be on the other side. Details here. Thanks to Glenn for pointing it out.

This is even worse than the constant propaganda the Times provides to help our enemies. Obviously, the Times is the enemy.

Tell the Judges Where to GO!

As a lawyer, I have seen far too many examples of judicial overreach. This post at Power Line is as bad as it gets. The Kansas Supreme Court has decided to impose its own determination of what the proper level of taxation must be:

the judges decide the elected legislature did not increase spending enough for education (only $142 million increase) and so it orders them to increase spending twice as much ($285 million). They then warn the legislature that if they don't increase spending enough next year they will order the rest of the increase recommended by some unelected consultant (another $568 million). The activist judges have gotten totally out of hand.

The Kansas governor and legislators must tell the judges to go to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

They are obligated to protect and defend the constitution of the state. I would imagine that their oath of office requires it. If they fail to stop this egregious power grab by the judges, they should be impeached.

Sounds like a heart attack waiting to happen

This article outlines a study which argues that really intense exercise of four 30 second bursts is as effective as hours of exercise. I once saw an overweight man die at a fitness center when he tried to get back in shape in one evening.

Read Ben Stein

Ben's tribute to military families is special.

Housing Bubble?

Irwin M. Stelzer has a reasoned take on the issue.

Tom Bevan asks a great question

Tom Bevan asks John Edwards:

Assuming the Brookings study is true and that the poor really do pay more for goods and services including groceries, insurance, appliances, etc., then one would have to conclude Edwards is fully in favor of organizations that provide consumers (but especially the poor) with low-priced products that allow them to stretch their dollars further. So again we have to ask: why is the left so vehemently opposed to a company like Wal-Mart?

This applies in a lot of other contexts as well, such as school reform in the inner city.

Lifson nails liberal hypocrisy on Deep Throat

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker nails it. If an FBI official or Secret Service official had spilled secrets about Clinton during impeachment, how would liberals have reacted to such "heroism?"

Dyslexia caused by Interstate driving

Every year it seems that an ever growing percentage of the drivers on the interstate are driving in the left lane. It has finally reached the point of absurdity. I-75 in Ga from Chattanooga to Atlanta and beyond Macon is all 3 lanes or more. Most of the drive down, it seemed like 60-70% of the vehicles were in the left lane. In fact, it was not at all uncommon for the right lane (since it was almost empty) to have a few cars traveling the fastest, and the middle lane moving faster than the left.

It is bad enough that so many slower drivers insist on hanging out in the left lane most of the time, but some of them act as though they are required by law to remain there forever (they won't move over no matter what!).

I've given a great deal of thought to this. I suppose that some are just plain mean. Perhaps a few cannot read the signs that say "Slower Traffic Keep Right" and a few may not be smart enough to figure out that they are slower than the cars stacked up behind them. But I don't think that all these drivers are jerks, illiterates or fools. Most folks are nice, smart (enough) and can read. Something else must be at work.

The answer is temporary dyslexia. Traveling faster than 70 induces it. These drivers read the signs about slower drivers keeping right. They know that the cars stacked up behind them means that they are the slower traffic. They are just temporarily dyslexic. They think that they are in the right lane. This must be it. Because a lot of them absolutely refuse to move over under any circumstances.

And I just don't want to believe that all of them are complete a-------!

A vacation from our vacation

We are here at the beach on St. George Island across from Apalachicola, Florida. We rented a big house right on the beach. In addition to my wife and 3 kids, we have my mother, my brother and his 2 kids, and my sister, her husband and their 2 girls.

Wow.

All of us have internet via cable. None of us have a dial-up provider and the house can only access the internet via dial-up. So I have driven over the bridge and down US 98 to an internet cafe, Cafe con Leche, in Apalachicola to blog this. Linda and the other people here are very helpful.

The weather has been bad for the last two days, but cabin fever hasn't set in. Yet.

Of course, as anyone with a two year-old knows, you are never really on vacation. And that pretty much holds for William who just turned five. Not to mention keeping up with the 2 teens and 3 pre-teens. I have done a lot of digging and waded out into the waves quite a bit. If Angie and I were here by ourselves, we would be in complete veg-out mode -- reading and catching rays. Knowing how little time I would have to read, I didn't even bring a book (once upon a time, I would average a book a day on vacation).

I have to mention one thing about William. He may have just turned five, but he is absolutely intent on keeping up with his brother (11) and his cousins (10 and almost 12). With the storms, the waves each of the last two mornings have been pretty rough. He's out there with the rest of them until the waves just beat him up. He won't quit until his little body can't take anymore. Of course, that same competitiveness was the reason I looked in the rear view mirror driving down here and saw him beating furiously on big brother, Madison. All because Madison had beaten him in the video game they were playing on their Game Cube. Thank goodness Madison didn't hit him back. We're not always so lucky.

Family vacations always have the potential for stress. My wife, Angie, has been a champ. She really does a great job of keeping things smooth and easy. She deserves her own vacation. Of course, she deserves that just for being married to me.