Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Life is so much better

This post uses a comparison of a Sears catalog from 1975 with today's Sears.com "catalog" to demonstrate how much better off we are economically.

Racist or Rational?

This post points out how badly flawed is a study which purportedly proves racism in certain people.

Harry Reid's slimy conflicts

Over at Vodkapundit, Will Collier points to this interesting look at Howie Dean's willingness to use Harry Reid's conflicts/corruption in Dem party infighting.

Failure is Not an Option

I was watching the documentary about NASA's mission control on the History Channel. This was TV at its best. The Apollo 8 mission was the first time we left earth's orbit and went around the moon. It was Christmas Eve 1968. When Apollo 8 went behind the moon, they needed a perfect burn from the engine or the spacecraft would either skip off into space forever or crash into the moon. Because the burn took place behind the moon, everyone had to wait for the space craft to emerge before knowing if it worked properly.

As TV viewers, we can readily feel the emotion they felt in mission control when they emerge from behind the moon. And as the craft beams back the most incredible pictures of Earth coming over the horizon (an Earthrise?), the astronauts surprise everyone by beginning to read the account of the creation of earth from Genesis.


I have to say, it really got to me.

And of course, I realized that if our astronauts did something like that today, the MSM and the liberal Dems would have a cow. How sad.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Bush demonstrates common sense

DDrudge says that the president "snubbed" Helen Thomas by not calling on her in his press conference. Unfortunately for Helen, the article quotes her explaining the loony questions she wanted to ask. Clearly Bush was acting out of chivalry and concern for her.

Signing a blank check

Most of us are aware that signing a blank check and giving it to someone else is a very stupid thing to do. Very, very stupid. I found this gem in a column by Patrick Hynes:
But what happens when the bill comes due? Ask the city fathers in Duluth, Minnesota. Since 1983, that city has promised lifetime health care for all retired municipal workers, their spouses and their children up to age 26. The result? Well, according to the New York Times:

No one really knew how much it would cost. Three years ago, the city decided to find out....The total came to about $178 million, or more than double the city's operating budget. And the bill was growing....For years, governments have been promising generous medical benefits to millions of schoolteachers, firefighters and other employees when they retire, yet experts say that virtually none of these governments have kept track of the mounting price tag.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Hillary's support is BDS on steroids

In the last few days, a number of folks have discussed the fact that Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions face some serious obstacles.

Have you ever wondered how she could be the favorite in the race for the Democratic nomination? There really is no logical reason that anyone would support her for political office. She has no charisma. She absolutely butchered her health care takeover attempt. She can't get along with people. And she has a record of corruption and criminality that boggles the mind. In a just world, she would be contemplating the next decade in the slammer, not dreaming of returning to Pennsylvania Avenue.

So why is she the Democratic frontrunner? Because Democrats hate Republicans. As Charles Krauthammer has noted, they think Republicans are evil. In fact, they are obsessed with Republicans. The greatest single determinant in the behavior of Democrats is opposition to the GOP.

Hillary Clinton is the favorite among the Democratic rank and file precisely because Republicans really don't like her. During the Clinton adminstration, when the GOP criticized Hillary for her corruption and dishonesty, Democrats rallied around her. The worse she behaved and the more appalled the GOP was with her, the higher her standing among Democrats.

Perhaps the best way for her to insure she wins the Democratic nomination is to do something really revolting -- so over the top that Republicans will feel compelled to denounce her.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Rubin marries false history with bad economics

Don Luskin tells why.

Ed Koch calls out his fellow Dems

Koch has a sane view of the war with Islamic terrorists. He agrees that those who oppose the war are "fifth columnists" (pretty strong stuff!) and advises his party not to follow "leaders such as Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Richard Durbin and other pied pipers".

Unfortunately for Koch, that is pretty much the whole party leadership.

A little fear is a good thing

Tom Bevan has a good column (as usual).

Progress against terrorists

Hugh talks with Rumsfeld.

My question -- has any liberal ever offered a coherent long term strategy for dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism?

The Union War Against Workers

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo explains how unions are trying to force low wage workers into unemployment.

McCain -- not fit to be president

D. J. Drummond explains. I probably agree with the other 184 parts as well.

Applause for Joel Stein's retread of Bill Clinton

A bunch of folks have blogged about Joel Stein's admission that he doesn't support the troops. He doesn't support them because he considers them willing tools of American imperialism. I think it is great that Stein wrote what he did. After all, half of the Democratic party feels the same way. It is about time they gave voice to their true feelings.

Polls have regularly shown that about 20% of Americans believe that the US is a negative, malevolent force in the world. I have no doubt that those in that 20% are ably represented by Joel Stein. Does anyone doubt that these people vote for Democrats?

Although expressed party preference percentages are usually in the 30s for both parties, the reality is that each party has a loyal voting bloc of between 40 and 45% and elections are decided by the 10-15% of the voters who don't usually pay attention to what is going on. If the 20% of the population which hates the US and sees it as a malevolent force in the world is composed almost entirely of Democrats, it means they constitute roughly half of the party's supporters. Based on what we saw in the Clinton White House, they probably represent a far higher percentage of the Democrat's hard core party activists.

Remember Bill Clinton's letter explaining how he despised the military? Why should we expect Joel Stein to be different?

Want to save on taxes?

Read this from Don Luskin about the illegal tax that the IRS insists on enforcing despite losing a bunch of lawsuits.

2006 Gameplan

E. J. Dionne thinks that Karl Rove has given Democrats a potential advantage by revealing the GOP game plan for the 2006 elections. The big hint? Republicans will focus on national security. Dionne doesn't understand why Democrats keep letting this strategy succeed, especially " since Sept. 11, 2001, the plan has focused on one variation or another of the same theme: Republicans are tough on our enemies, Democrats are not. If you don't want to get blown up, vote Republican."

E.J., let me give you a clue. Ronald Reagan started campaigning on the theme of national security in 1976. The GOP has used national security, and the Dems weakness thereon, to win every presidential election since 1980 except for the two which took place after the fall of the Soviet Union and before 9/11.

Rove isn't tipping a game plan. He is describing a fact of American political life for over a quarter century. If the nation has enemies who threaten it, the voters don't trust Democrats to defend them.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Times' journalists heading for jail?

Richard Baehr looks at the 12 year sentence handed down Friday for disseminating classified data and draws parallels to the NSA story.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Glory Road

My wife and I went to see the movie this weekend and loved it. I was really shocked and amazed at some of the things in the movie, but assumed they were true because of the way the movie has been portrayed. Unfortunately, it turns out that quite a few things were changed in the movie. For reality, see this . (HT Betsy). I don't think the changes made the movie better.

In addition to the many, many inaccuracies in the movie which are discussed in the piece, I wondered how the recruits were able to play their first year. Freshmen were ineligible for varsity play in 1965. The movie has Coach Haskins coaching girls HS hoops in the spring of 1965, taking the Texas Western job, recruiting 7 black players over the summer and winning the national championship in 1966. Total BS.

I was also amazed during the movie that a reserve up power forward was able to shut down Kansas' quick, All-American guard, Jo Jo White in the regional final. Turns out he didn't. In real life, it was Utah's star forward in the national semi-final.

And finally, my jaw dropped when the movie has Haskins tell his players he has decided to only play the black players in the final game. No possible way that any coach (especially one in Haskins' shoes) makes that kind of decision. Turns out, he didn't.

The story is so good, it doesn't need the fake racial turmoil on the team, the faked racist incidents in the restaurant and motel, and the fake coaching chronology. It was a great feel good story of the little guy upsetting the powerhouse for a championship. Why screw it up to make false points in favor of politically correct attitudes?

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Regression Analysis won't stop the Regression

Hugh Hewitt writes about the effort at Columbia J. School to improve the analytical tools of journalists. The new dean wants the students to learn how social scientists use regression analysis in their work.

Hugh is of the opinion that the demise of the dinosaur media is unstoppable. The internet affords real experts the chance to weigh in and no reporter can possibly be an expert in all areas.

Mark Tapscott thinks that teaching analytical tools is a good start, but points out that the problems of journalism today are bias and a reporting model based on "he said/she said" which fails to examine the accuracy of competing claims. Specifically, journalists "aren't even aware of their inability to pose the most basic questions and to then think through the possible answers in a logical and systematic manner."

This hits the nail on the head. The problem is basic competence in logical thought. And here is where I differ slightly from Hugh's take. Good trial lawyers who handle a variety of different types of cases are able to master the subject matter well enough to cross-examine experts. Often they learn how by conferring with their own experts. My point is that one doesn't have to be an expert to learn enough about a topic to be able to effectively present facts and opinion relating to it. The key is to be able to think clearly, ask good questions, work hard to understand both sides of the argument and develop a sense of what is missing. These skills are crucial for a good trial lawyer. Once he understands the subject, the facts and the law, he can use his legal communication skills to persuade a judge or jury.

These are the same skills needed by good journalists, including the ability to tell the story. And these skills will always be needed within whatever medium is used by news consumers. The ability to get the facts, understand the arguments, evaluate the relative merits of competing claimants and communicate the information to consumers will command an even greater premium in the coming years -- precisely because of the explosion of information on the web.

In the midst of all the information noise, consumers will gravitate to the news provider who has demonstrated an ability to provide accuracy and completeness in its coverage. Experts aren't usually adept at communicating complex ideas in a simple, understandable way (in court or in the news). Getting the expertise into understandable form is part of the role of good journalism. The best journalists of the future, regardless of the media, will be those who approach their craft with the skills of a good trial lawyer.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

History won't be kind

Can you imagine how horrifying it will be for the editors of the NY Times when that day comes in the future where they have to confront their culpability in turning the paper into a laughingstock? Thomas Lifson documents one more footstep down the path toward irrelevance.

Studiously Avoiding the Truth

Charlie Cook is upset that the tenor of political discourse has sunk so low. Of course, he blames both sides. As a good liberal, he carefully avoids actually comparing the statements of Democrat and Republican leaders. If he did, it would be obvious that one side is far more blameworthy than the other.

Al Gore -- in need of adult supervision

Don Luskin relays an account of the Al Gore we have all come to know and loathe. On the question of whether Gore will reach maturity before he dies, none of the smart money is on maturity.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Hillary Clinton -- without her opportunism, she'd be incoherent

Anyone who tried to discern some consistency or coherence in the pronouncements of Hillary Clinton would certainly go mad. The Anchoress and Dr. Sanity provide insight into what drives her.

Hearts filled with doom and gloom

Dr. Sanity discusses the disturbed psyche that animates the NY Times and Hollywood. The recent Golden Globes awards provide a good example.

Saddam's WMDs


Reap what you sow

Glenn points to this article showing that boys' performance in school began suffering substantially over the last 10 to 15 years. No one professes to know why.

Here's a hint -- over the last generation, feminists got the education establishment to buy into their theory (provably untrue) that girls were shortchanged in school. We shouldn't be surprised that all the emphasis on helping girls resulted in boys getting the short end.

Thoughts on Bin Laden tape

-- The release of the tape seems to support the argument that we are experiencing a lot of success against the terrorists.

-- Sooner or later, the terrorists will succeed in striking on US soil again.

-- No one wins until one side gives up. As long as there are radical Muslims in the world who are willing to engage in terrorism, we will have to fight.

-- Terrorism will always be with us. Because evil and insane people will always be with us and the possible injustices, real and imagined, about which people can fight are never-ending.

Selective journalism

RCP has Jack Kelly's summary of stories the MSM doesn't want you to know about.

Enjoyment is not the question

Paul Mirengoff asks a good question -- do the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee enjoy viciously smearing people like Judge Alito. I think he is probably correct in rendering a split decision. Some clearly seem to enjoy it and some do not.

But of course, as ugly as it is for someone to take delight in the smears, the ethical and moral impropriety is just as appalling for those who take no delight in it. In one way, it may even be more troubling to consider the moral shortcomings of the latter group. If they don't seem to enjoy the smears, perhaps we can take their discomfort as a sign that they really understand the immorality of their behavior. Yet, despite this recognition, they make the decision to do it anyway.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

A major drag on our economy

Econopundit provides a good reminder of the damage done by our tort system. Bottom line: "a society which continually spends more on redistribution has continually less to offer those engaged in actual production."

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Liar, hypocrite, traitor

Al Gore's speech shows him to be:

1. a liar,

2. a slanderer,

3. a hypocrite,

4. a traitor.

Note, that last one is not tossed off lightly. Al Gore, the former vice-president of the nation, has deliberately sought to weaken our nation's ability to defend itself. He has provided aid to the enemy. He has weakened our nation's standing among other nations and impeded our ability to obtain cooperation from them. Finally, this speech provides encouragement to others to break the law and reveal more classified secrets.

He is beyond reprehensible.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Hurting the cause

Michelle notes some of the blatantly partisan activities planned for today's holiday. I'm still trying to figure out how this helps the cause of racial equality. If celebrating MLK means working to defeat the GOP, the conclusion seems obvious -- the civil rights leaders want to convince anyone who supports the GOP or the president that they should oppose the civil rights agenda. I mean, if "civil rights" has been reduced to meaning nothing more than trying to elect liberals, why would those who oppose liberals have any interest in providing support.

Cronkite's crackpot theories

Austin Bay has a post on Walter's defeatist claims on Iraq. What I learned in the comments was even more interesting:
“Sometimes Cronkite’s aerospace history judgment has gotten even more questionable, as exemplified by his endorsement of the loony-tune book “Incident at Sakhalin - The True Mission of KAL Flight 007″, by Michel Brun, a retired French pilot. Brun argues that the 1983 Korean airliner shootdown was a hoax perpetuated by the CIA, during which American jets destroyed the civilian airliner and later engaged in a bloody dogfight with Soviet interceptors, an air battle both sides agreed to cover up.

“Despite the egregiously crackpot nature of the theory and the sloppy and cooked-up ‘facts’, Cronkite allowed (I verified this with his staff) his words to be published on the book jacket: “This book has importance far beyond its sensational and dramatic revelations of a Cold war intelligence ploy that turned into a military engagement - an aerial battle that could easily have escalated into World War III.” The book portrays US government officials as cold-blooded murderers as well as secret plotters and liars - but without any evidence that any serious aerospace historian considers valid. But that indictment was endorsed by Cronkite.”

I can't verify this, but if Walter did endorse this book and the thesis of the book is as represented, the man is a kook. We already know he's a delusional liberal. Didn't know he lived on planet kook, though.

David Broder -- nasty and ugly

Broder has a column on Judge Alito which manages to impugn the character, compassion and integrity of both the Judge and the President Bush.

It also serves, however, to demonstrate, once again, that David Broder is a man of limited intellect who simply fails to see the big picture. Broder endorses a judicial philosophy which rejects the rule of law. He embraces the idea that judges should determine outcomes on the basis of who the litigants are rather than through application of law to the facts.

Supporters of identity politics have extended their efforts to demand an identity-based judicial system. How easily he would discard the rule of law which has served as the bulwark of our nation for so many years.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Add me to the list

of bloggers asking the GOP leadership to heed this message.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Stifling free speech

This is getting a heads up around the blog community. Just a reminder.

OK stadium bombing -- a test by terrorists?

Mark Tapscott raises an interesting question. Given that the dead bomber in Oklahoma had an Algerian staying with him, and the Algerian terror ring arrested by the Italians had plans to bomb targets including stadiums, could there be a connection?

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Classless assholes

Via Power Line, I see that Drudge is reporting that Mrs. Alito finally had more of the slander and smears than she could take. She left in tears.

Ted Kennedy is really disgusting filth. That the voters in Massachusetts keep sending him to the senate says a lot about their own lack of judgment.

Dick Morris just doesn't get it

Morris looks at polling data and discerns a marked liberal shift in the voting public. The fact that the GOP has been hammered relentlessy by the MSM without responding is ignored.

Morris reminds me of many of the fools who pontificate on football without a clue what is really happening. For example, some pundits have said that the Indianapolis Colts have a quality running game. This is based on the fact that the Colts' running back, Edgerrin James is one of the leaders in NFL rushing stats.

In reality, the Colts have a great passing attack led by Peyton Manning. Unfortunately, their offensive line is really weak at run blocking. Defenses have begun using some unusual tactics in an effort to slow down the pass. The Colts only manage to run when defenses focus on the pass. In fact, the Steelers actually tried something in their game earlier this year which I have never seen before. Demonstrating a complete lack of respect for the Colts' offensive line, they chose to defend with only 2 defensive linemen, 3 linebackers and 6 defensive backs. While teams will sometimes go to a "dime" package with 6 DBs in obvious passing situations (3d and long), they still use 3 linemen. The Steelers aligned with this 2 linemen personnel package even on first down! And the Colts still struggled to run the ball very well.

Numbers are only educational when you understand why.

[note -- defenses ordinarily have 4 DBs. Putting in a 5th DB was labeled a "nickel" package. Thus, a sixth became known as a "dime".]

Success and our English heritage

Michael Barone earlier discussed the predominance of the "Anglosphere" in the Index of Economic Freedom (which rates nations for feedom based on a variety of factors). He quotes a response from James Bennett on the possible reasons why nations with an English tradition do so well:
What is it about the Anglosphere that permits its people to form large federations of states with strong civil societies, absorb large numbers of immigrants, and prosper? The short answer is probably something like 'A fifteen-hundred-year history of flexible institutions that are particularly good at capturing the "wisdom of crowds," a tradition of individualism, enterprise, and risk-taking, a high radius of social trust, the ability to spin these characteristics into strong civil societies, and a long history of people expanding and forming institutions of self-government wherever they go.' Many other people have had some or most of these characteristics; it is just that they have never elsewhere all been put together in exactly this package. As we can see once again by the Heritage report, its effectiveness stands out starkly over a wide range of metrics.

Reporting on the tax system

Econopundit points out the misplaced hysteria in a NY Times story on IRS investigations. What I found more interesting is the note in Update II provided by John Henke who writes at the Q and O blog:
Notice [the NYT article] was written by David Cay Johnston, who seems to make a living writing about the many ways that our progressive tax system isn't really progressive and is out to get poor folks. Do a search for his old articles and you'll find a significant percentage dealing with that topic.

Plus, he wrote a book called "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else". So, of course, the NYTimes has him covering the tax system. Funny, isn't it, how left wing pundits -- I could name a few -- routinely get jobs as reporters at major media outlets, but you never see reporters coming from, say, National Review or Weekly Standard.

No surprise. The "reporter" the Times thinks is best to cover the tax system is an extreme left-winger with a blatant agenda.

Of course, we need to remember that there's no liberal bias here. Just journalists doing their jobs.

Another lie, another slander -- just par for the course

Jonah Goldberg points out that the most vicious of slurs and smears no longer even cause us to pause:
We have become so accustomed to distortions and outright lies, you'd think it's patriotic to insinuate decent nominees are racists, sexists or liars. "Oh, that's just par for the course" is no longer an observation; it's a rationalization.

Of course, this is not limited to the arena of confirmation hearings. Lies and slander are the essence of the Democratic playbook. Dishonesty is the liberal staple and it leads to the vote fraud, election violence, and bogus prosecutions that the Democrats seem so fond of.

It permeates every Democratic special interest group. Civil rights groups, feminists, homeless advocates, environmentalists, anti-war agitators, unions, gay rights groups, et al -- they all use the big lie and the vicious slander to promote their causes. When they all come together to support Democratic election campaigns, the tactics don't change.

We're not surprised at the dishonesty of Congressional Democrats in sliming judicial nominees because dishonesty and slander have become a daily assault. Is it any wonder that the Clinton administration was so corrupt? The only shock would have happened if thousands of Democrats had come to work for an administration and hadn't produced dozens of scandals and hundreds or thousands of crimes.

Barone makes mincemeat of Times reporter

James Risen is a fool. Michael Barone has much fun at his expense.

Perhaps that will end up being the best contribution that the MSM has for our lives this decade -- unintended comedy.

MSM Waterloo

Lawrence Henry at The American Spectator examines the death spiral of the American news media.

Media Lies on Bush and Mine Safety

Check out the graph in this story and compare to MSM coverage. The only possible conclusion? The news media is lying to us.

Update -- RCP Blog has more on the dishonesty, especially Joe Conason.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Interrogation technique -- use Senators' statements

Dr. Sanity has a solution for those Democrats who are upset with the questioning techniques used by the US. We should play the opening statements of Senators on the Justice Committee from yesterday's confirmation hearing.

Guaranteed to make any terrorist cry and beg for mercy.

I think the first senator with the sense to pass on his time should be nominated for president.

Ted Kennedy -- mainstream?

Ted Kennedy -- mainstream?

I was thinking this morning that any group who thinks that Ted Kennedy is the appropriate person to judge whether another person is "mainstream", shouldn't be trusted with responsibility.

At Power Line, John had this:
the Democrats are just making it up as they go along. They recognize no duty of consistency. Their logic can't withstand the most elementary scrutiny, and their leader is a dimwit who, after being thrown out of Harvard for cheating, graduated last in his law school class. While a law student, he endured the humiliation of being arrested by a highway patrolman while cowering in the back seat of his car, pretending not to be the driver. He subsequently drove off a bridge, thereby drowning a young woman whose only crime was assuming that he was a competent escort. She probably could have been saved if he had gone for help, but instead of trying to rescue her, he spent the night looking for someone who would pretend to have been the driver of the car, discussing legal strategies with his family's advisers, and trying to establish an alibi. And now Ted Kennedy purports to sit in moral judgment over a brilliant, self-effacing public servant like Sam Alito. The American public isn't paying much attention, but I think they're smart enough to figure this one out.

I would add that his only distinction is being born into a wealthy family (with the wealth ill-gotten) and he has never held a real job in his life. Alcohol, drugs, incoherence, infidelity on a scale to rival Bill Clinton ... what a loser.

And they think he is the best they have to render judgment on who is mainstream?

Monday, January 09, 2006

How the Media bungled Mine story

Jay Rosen passes along a little detail that makes a huge impact. A local reporter covering the rescue stayed in the briefing room of the mining company trying to get confirmation of the rumor that the men were alive. She couldn't get the confirmation. She stayed in the room, because that is where the news was. All the national news media rushed to the church where the families were emoting, because that is where the "story" was.

The only responsible journalist in the room followed the news. The MSM fools all followed the story.

Lileks on the clueless and the deranged


Intel, Lies and Treason

Read Ralph Peters.

Burying the good news and lying with polls

Big Lizards takes apart the MSM technique of burying good news from Iraq in the middle of unrelated bad news.

Turns out that there is great news on the formation of the Iraqi government.

He also points out how the AP has lied to us on several fronts with the latest poll stories in this post.

Is Sen. Rockefeller the leaker?

A J Strata has a post on the possibility that Rockefeller is being investigated in the leak probe. As AJ points out, a powerful senator has no excuse for going to the press when he has so many ways to address his concerns legally:
This is incredibly bad for a Senator who is the Senate Leadership. It is not like Rockie has no other avenues to air his concerns and effect policy! A US Senator is very powerful, but a ranking member on key committees has tons of clout to effect policy. So there is no excuse for running to the press - especially when there is a memo circulating from said Senator about a plan to take down the President using misinformation and the press.

Can you say OOPS!, senator?

A different explanation

At Marginal Revolution, they pass on this study which shows that we overestimate the volume of a tall, thin glass and underestimate the volume of a short, wide glass. The explanation -- we tend to think of size in terms of vertical rather than horizontal measurement.

That may be, but I have a different hypothesis. We tend to be confused by greater surface area. I don't think it is a vertical/horizontal issue. A sphere or a cube will appear smaller than objects which are compressed in one of the dimensions. Take a ball of clay and roll it out. The flatter shape will appear larger than the ball (although it obviously has the same volume) because the surface area will be far greater.

NY Times "depth charges" will cost lives

Many years ago, I read somewhere that journalists were responsible for a lot of WWII casualties in the Pacific. It seems that the Japanese set their depth charges to explode at a depth much shallower than our submariness were capable of running. When our subs were detected by enemy destroyers, they were able to escape being sunk by dropping to 300' and silenting slipping away.

Some despicable fool talked about it to the media. And of course, their interest in printing a story exceeded their loyalty to the men fighting for their country, so they printed it. The enemy read the story and dozens of our subs were sunk that would have survived had the story not been printed.

The casualties caused by the story far exceed the dead on those subs. Had the subs not been sunk, they would have been able to torpedo far more enemy troop transports, supply ships and fighting vessels. How many Marines, soldiers, and sailors were killed or wounded fighting against an enemy that shouldn't have been there or would have lacked adequate food and ammunition? The unnecessary losses stagger the mind.

The NY Times' recent revelations of our ability to listen to terrorists' calls will obviously make it harder for the US to stop them. Wackos on the left are asking how. Their deliberate ignorance is breathtaking.

We should be able to assume that the terrorists would not make calls to allies in the US if they knew that we used the calls to capture those allies. By running the story, the Times informed the terrorists that their calls were monitored. Officials have said that the enemy has already changed behavior in response to the story. By making it harder for us to stop the enemy, the Times has made it more likely that terrorists will succeed in killing people here in the US.

Let's be perfectly clear. Some day people will die because of the NY Times. And the reporters and editors had to know that when they ran the story.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Wash Post pulls a Dowd -- alters quote

John at Power Line notes that the Washington Post dishonestly edited a quote in a Congressional research report in order to bash the president.

Post: "The administration's legal justification 'does not seem to be ... well grounded"

Research Report: "Given such uncertainty, the Administration's legal justification, as presented in the summary analysis from the Office of Legislative Affairs, does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests."

Three little dots. One huge lie.

Journalists have slipped well below used car salesmen on the credibility scale.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

What drives them nuts

The Anchoress passes on an interesting theory from her son of why the liberals are so deranged in their hatred of Bush. In essence, he is doing great things and he was supposed to be a joke. One commenter adds that the frustration is exacerbated by the way that Bush's support remains so strong no matter how much their friends in the MSM slander and ridicule him.

I do think that part of the extreme frustration is due to an increasingly desperate fear that they have lost control. Not that they have lost elections and thus don't control government so much (although that is certainly frustrating), but rather their ally, the MSM, has lost the ability to control the news. Their team is on a long losing streak and their most valuable player is no longer able to deliver victory. The MVP still uses all the same moves. The moves just don't seem to work anymore.

The extreme wacked-out slanders and smears are the result of a process of escalation. The way the game used to be played, Democrats would cook up a scandal or bad news, the MSM played it to the hilt, and the Republican lost support from his base. Reagan was the only exception, but his success was simply due to being the "Great Communicator". Bush is no communicator. Destroying him should be child's play.

The smears started, the media hammered away, but the GOP base didn't waver. The smears ramped up, the bad news was broadcast, the base didn't waver. This had to drive Dems nuts. This wasn't the way it was supposed to be! Pour on more and surely it will finally work. Because it must work. If it doesn't, the world will definitely be turned upside down.

The increasingly deranged level of vitriol is the liberals' last gasp effort to make the old system work. And trying to contemplate a life in the minority with a news media incapable of delivering victory is just too horrible.

Iraq News -- Think Outside the Blog

The key to getting the good news in Iraq to a wider audience of Americans requires us to think outside the blog.

The power of the internet to convey news that the MSM won't broadcast has been recognized by most bloggers. It was a critical component of George Bush's victory in 2004. Unfortunately, no one seems to have appreciated the most important of all the internet tools when it comes to getting the message out to most Americans -- e-mail. Bloggers are simply too blog-centric.

Glenn Reynolds has a post on the topic of getting the news out of Iraq. He posts on the shabby treatment of bloggers by the MSM, Michael Yon's call for volunteers to read his e-mail, and a colonel back from Iraq who laments the unwillingness of the Pentagon to use blogs to get the message out.

The best way to get the message out about the good news in Iraq would be to simply employ the best tools of the GOP election campaign of 2004. The "story" of that campaign has focused on the blogosphere and spending by section 527 organizations. The most effective tool for blunting and rebutting the liberal message of the MSM, however, was the e-mail message. E-mail was used effectively as Republicans built and maintained the organization of contributors and volunteers. Perhaps even more important, though, was the way people used e-mail to send along news stories, blog posts, cartoons and jokes (or Swift Vet ads on the internet).

When a conservative at the water cooler wants to rebut the conventional wisdom, "I heard it on talk radio" has little power to persuade. A blog post with links to cites or a story from a recognized publication packs a lot more wallop. E-mail was the way that most Americans became familiar with the Swift Vet ads. Remember, while the number of regular blog readers is small, everyone reads their e-mails from friends and family.

While I agree with the colonel that it would help if the Pentagon made an effort to reach out to bloggers to get the news out, the reality is that most blog readers are already fully aware that the MSM isn't telling the real story. The problem is getting the message out to the vast number of Americans who don't read blogs. Forming a 527 and raising money for TV and radio ads would help, but building e-mail networks would be quicker and cheaper.

First, the Pentagon should let people sign up for a daily or weekly summary of the news. The military must learn to take the story straight to the people without interference from the MSM.

Second, military bloggers should prepare their own weekly summaries (with links) and post them so that interested bloggers can link to them.

Finally, and most importantly, blog readers and those on the Pentagon distribution list should e-mail important stories and summaries to everyone in their informal network and remind them to pass it on.

If everyone simply uses e-mail to pass it on, the good news will reach more people in a week than have heard or seen it since the war started.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Wiretaps foil terror attacks on USA

Newspapers all over the world are reporting that wiretaps helped Italy stop terrorists who were planning a series of attacks on the US intended to surpass 9/11 in destructiveness. A J Strata has the details. US News media have been silent despite world wide attention to the story.

If there was a single honest journalist covering the media, this would be the story of the year.

Indian Tribes and Campaign Finance

I have a question. Apparently, the Abramoff guilty plea involves criminal fraud in the area of lobbying and campaign contributions from Indian tribes. Some have mentioned that the Indian gaming situation is out of control. Tribes (membership in which is often suspect) are raking in huge bucks without being subject to much, if any, regulation. The absence of meaningful oversight by states or the feds is due to the tribes' sovereignty.

My question -- foreign persons or businesses are barred from contributing to our elections. If the tribes are raking in big bucks because of their sovereignty, why are they allowed to make political contributions?

I don't see how this makes any sense. They can spend a lot of money to influence elections and lobby the government, but the government has no authority over what they are doing.

Left -- "Terrorist Threat is Not Real"

According to the left, "fear of terrorism" has been inflamed and exploited by Dubya to justify extreme and illegal tactics. Dr. Sanity diagnoses the malady and administers a takedown.

My question -- If terrorism isn't a real threat, how do they explain 9/11 and all the other attacks around the world for the last dozen years?

These people are beyond sick.

Does CNN talk with Al Qaeda?

Just One Minute has a post on NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell asking James Risen about whether CNN reporters were caught in NSA surveillance.

Clinton's racist labor policies?

Jayson has the numbers. Go to the bottom of the post for a comparison of unemployment numbers by race under Clinton and Bush.

Criminality at the NY Times?

Power Line has an analysis of the criminal behavior of the Times and the question of whether the First Amendment provides cover. I normally assume that most of you reading my blog are also reading Power Line, but this is important enough to call it to your attention just in case.

Liberals blame Bush for mine tragedy

Real Clear Politics uses facts to rebut the deranged conclusions of liberals who claim he is to blame for the mine tragedy.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Liars attack character of man with integrity

The Captain notes this about the Left's attacks on Judge Alito:
MoveOn and its allies want to fight Alito's nomination, for which the ABA notes he is eminently qualified, with half-truths and outright lies. And yet these people want us to question Alito's character?

Media Bias Awards

In the future, historians, journalism professors and other scholars will have a great resource in compiling footnotes to document the most important political story of the last quarter century -- the partisan efforts of the news media to support one of the political parties. That resource, the Media Research Center has the media awards for 2005. If you haven't checked them out, do.

How a journalist "thinks"

Steve Chapman gives us a text book example of what passes for "thought" in the MSM. Note, that he simply assumes, without a shred of evidence, that the president has broken the law. After all, he's a journalist -- he don't need no stinkin' facts!

Vince Young drives another nail into the Heisman

The Heisman Trophy is awarded by a vote of about 900 idiots every year. Vince Young just made it obvious that they were even more stupid this year than most.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

NY Times -- not just biased, just plain stupid

Just One Minute has a wonderful fisking of the ludicrous logic offered by the Times in its effort to convince us that it stands as a higher authority than the laws of the land.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Dr. Sanity took all she could. The time has come to diagnose the America-hating, enemy-helpers on the left. Read it all. Diagnosis:
I cannot escape making a diagnosis any longer. I have tried to give the Democratic Party and most of the Left the benefit of the doubt. But you see, the entire world revolves around their feelings; their outrage; their agenda. This is a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with both antisocial and suicidal elements.

As far as they are concerned, America can go to hell if they are not in control. In fact they desperately desire that it do so.

... what we have exposed in its most naked and essential form in the Democrats and the Left in this country, is an unparalleled nihilism and mindless destructiveness that cares only for political power.

...the animosity and rage just continues to pile up in these very very mentally disturbed people.

Then she really gets angry with them.

Blogger trumps reporter

This blogger's post was cited at Power Line. I want to highlight it for a different purpose than its content, although that is powerful stuff. In essence, reporter James Risen is trying to assure everyone that those guilty of the illegal leaks he used in his story are honest and noble people. This blogger, Thomas Jocelyn, recalls previous Risen stories using similar leaks which proved to be erroneous.

The liars and frauds in the MSM should be getting more nervous every day. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were just the tip of the iceberg.