The Surge Dirge

Slate has an interesting article on Ted *Hic* Kennedy's temper tantrum at the National Press Club the other day.

(I)n the U.S. Capitol, the new Senate Democratic leaders took their place before the microphones just off the Senate floor to put forward their plan: a bipartisan, nonbinding bill called the Pale Action and Timid Gesture Resolution. That wasn't the real name, of course, but it is exactly what Kennedy insisted Congress should not do. Afterward, I asked Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois what had happened to his own suggestion that Congress limit the number of troops that could fight in Iraq as a way to stop the surge. "That's Senator Kennedy's bill," said the second-highest-ranking Democrat. Yes, but didn't you suggest that troops be limited, I asked? "That's Senator Kennedy's bill." You're on your own, Ted.

Senate Democratic leaders say they are merely being sensible. They don't want an effort to stop funding for the new strategy to be misinterpreted as a lack of support for American troops. In two days of reporting on the House and Senate side, it is clear that Democratic leaders are more worried about being tagged as anti-G.I. than being penalized by liberals for not doing all they can to end the war. Their posture may change, but for now, what seems likely is that the Democrats will do no more than put together a nonbinding resolution that would show disapproval.

Democrats have a lot to lose if they push too hard against the President's new plan. If they cut off funding for the troops, it would be pretty difficult to argue that they support the troops but want to deny them body armor.

But as the article points out, the loony left doesn't care. They are sponsoring petitions and rallies to show how patriotic they are. Yeah, right.

UPDATE: BlackFive has more on Teddy's tantrum and points out that the additional 20,000 troops are only part of the President's plan.

Hot Air has Teddy's video.

Al Qaeda Militant Killed in Somalia

According to CNN, a senior al Qaeda suspect wanted for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa has been killed.

Also Wednesday, Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister said American troops were needed on the ground to root extremists from his troubled country, and he expected the troops soon.

The death of al Qaeda suspect Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was detailed in an American intelligence report passed on to the Somali authorities. Mohammed, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists who has evaded capture for eight years, was allegedly harbored by a Somali Islamic movement that had challenged this country's Ethiopian-backed government for power.

"I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage," Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president's chief of staff, said. "One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead."

In Washington, a U.S. intelligence official said Tuesday the U.S. killed five to 10 people believed to be associated with al Qaeda. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the operation's sensitivity, said a small number of others present, perhaps four or five, were wounded.

It sounds like good news to me and backs up the Bush Doctrine that we will fight terrorists anywhere.

But don't expect lefties to cheer the killing of our enemies. No, they're too busy telling us we are just like the terrorists.

No, we did it because our President claims we have the right to murder people in other countries if he decides he wants to do so. And we were in apparent violation of Security Council resolutions, which we helped pass, banning the introduction of weapons into Somalia from outside nations. We are an outside nation. In short, we attacked people in another country because we claim we don’t have to obey any laws anywhere — not ours, not theirs, not the UN’s. And that, my friends, is exactly the belief that terrorists everywhere hold.

But remember: don't question their patriotism.

Minimum Wage Sob Stories

I almost didn't give this post that title, knowing as I do that calling a spade a spade will get me called unsympathetic to the poor. But some things should be called by their rightful name, and sob stories about breadwinners making the minimum wage is one of those things.

This article by the Christian Science Monitor focuses on an Oklahoma man trying to raise a family of four on six bucks an hour.

It's a sad tale. In fact, it's the sort of sad tale that is trotted out frequently whenever raising the minimum wage goes up. Even though we know that half of all minimum wage earners are under 25 and most are not married and do not have children, it's not as compelling a story for raising the minimum wage as a devoted father and hard working adult.

The Christian Science Monitor story is chockfull of lines to tug at your heartstrings, including that according to this Economic Policy Institute calculator, a family of four in Muskogee, Oklahoma (the setting of the story) should make $33,000 for basic needs. You have to do a little digging to discover that, for the calculator, basic needs includes "housing, food, child care transportation, health care, other necessities, and taxes." While certainly shelter, food, and clothing are "basic necessities," child care doesn't have to be (if one family member stays home with children), and transportation, health care, and taxes are fungible.

On top of all this, the subject of the story, John Hosier, makes above the minimum wage anyway. He makes $6 an hour driving a truck for the Salvation Army. There's nothing in the article that explains how a hike in the minimum wage, which will take two years to go into full effect, will change his life much. Not to mention that prices will indeed go up and some jobs may go vacant.

I have said here and elsewhere that I don't mind them raising the minimum wage, largely because most places are paying more than $5.15 an hour as it is. It's a measure designed to make people feel like they are helping the poor without really doing anything and without having to get their hands dirty by really helping the poor (through charitable work, for example).

What I do mind is stories like this one which try to portray minimum wage workers as just hardworking folks who, but for a couple of breaks, could have been you or me. This is a false picture on several fronts.

* Of the 75.6 million American workers, only 479,000 make exactly $5.15.

* About 1.4 million make below minimum wage (usually food service jobs that include tips as wages or jobs that are seasonal)

* Half of all minimum wage earners are under 25.

* Part-time workers are more likely to make minimum wage than full-time workers.

* Fewer people make the minimum wage now than did in 1979, when data was first being collected.

These statistics aren't as compelling as the man from Muskogee, but at least they are an honest reflection of minimum wage workers.

Ted *Hic* Kennedy and the War

It's too bad somebody can't rein Ted Kennedy in, or at least stick some duct tape on his mouth before he completely embarrasses what passes for a Democrat these days. Today, Kennedy announced a resolution to force the president to get Congressional approval before sending any more troops to Iraq.

Putting aside for the minute whether or not such a resolution would be constitutional (it doesn't pass the smell test, but I'm not an expert), some oppose Kennedy's idea because it gives Congress too much power.

The idea of having Congress micromanage this war — or any war — is enough to make me shiver. Should the bill become law, it would instantaneously raise the issue of where to draw the line: what presidential actions would require approval? Would the president be able, on his own, to increase an American force level by x percent, but not by y percent? Would there be certain mitigating circumstances that would trump the requirement for Congressional approval? If so, what would they be?

Kennedy’s proposal is an extraordinarily bad idea.

According to the Moderate Voice, Talk Left agrees.

But even if such a veto could be overridden, the law would be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, impinging on the President's power as Commander in Chief in Wartime. In order to act in the manner Senator Kennedy wishes, the Congress must strip the President of the power the Congress granted him to wage war in Iraq.

Kennedy argues that Congress authorized President Bush to fight a war against Saddam Hussein, not to get involved in a civil war. This seems like a shaky argument, to me, since ousting Saddam (at least, according to war opponents) wasn't the end of the war. Remember the sneering about "Mission Accomplished"? How can you sneer at that, then say what has happened since Saddam's overthrow isn't part of the same war.

The Talk Left piece is an interesting bit of lawyerly argument about Kennedy's resolution and I recommend it highly.

College Courses That Will Ensure Your Career in Fast Food

Young America's Foundation has posted the 12 most bizarre and politically correct college courses. Here they are:

1. Occidental College’s The Phallus covers a broad study on the relation "between the phallus and the penis, the meaning of the phallus, phallologocentrism, the lesbian phallus, the Jewish phallus, the Latino phallus, and the relation of the phallus and fetishism."

2. Queer Musicology at the University of California-Los Angeles explores how "sexual difference and complex gender identities in music and among musicians have incited productive consternation" during the 1990s. Music under consideration includes works by Schubert and Holly Near, Britten and Cole Porter, and Pussy Tourette.

3. Amherst College in Massachusetts offers Taking Marx Seriously: "Should Marx be given another chance?" Students in this class are asked to question if Marxism still has "credibility," while also inquiring if societies can gain new insights by "returning to [Marx’s] texts." Coming to Marx’s rescue, this course also states that Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot misapplied the concepts of Marxism.

4. Students enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania’s Adultery Novel read a series of 19th and 20th century works about "adultery" and watch "several adultery films." Students apply "various critical approaches in order to place adultery into its aesthetic, social and cultural context, including: sociological descriptions of modernity, Marxist examinations of family as a social and economic institution" and "feminist work on the construction of gender."

5. Occidental College—making the list twice for the second year in a row—offers Blackness, which elaborates on a "new blackness," “critical blackness," "post-blackness," and an "unforgivable blackness," which all combine to create a "feminist New Black Man."

6. Border Crossings, Borderlands: Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Immigration is University of Washington’s way of exploring the immigration debate. The class allegedly unearths what is "highlighted and concealed in contemporary public debates about U.S. immigration” policy."

7. Whiteness: The Other Side of Racism is Mount Holyoke College’s attempt to analyze race. The class seeks to spark thought on: "What is whiteness?" "How is it related to racism?" "What are the legal frameworks of whiteness?" "How is whiteness enacted in everyday practice?" And how does whiteness impact the "lives of whites and people of color?"

8. Native American Feminisms at the University of Michigan looks at the development of "Native feminist thought" and its "relationship both to Native land-based struggles and non-Native feminist movements."

9. Johns Hopkins University offers Mail Order Brides: Understanding the Philippines in Southeast Asian Context, which is a supposedly deep look into Filipino kinship and gender.

10. Cornell University’s Cyberfeminism investigates "the emergence of cyberfeminism in theory and art in the context of feminism/post feminism and the accelerated technological developments of the last thirty years of the twentieth century."

11. Duke University’s American Dreams/American Realities course seeks to unearth "such myths as ‘rags to riches,’ ‘beacon to the world,’ and the ‘frontier,’ in defining the American character."

12. Swarthmore College’s Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism "deconstruct[s] terrorism" and "build[s] on promising nonviolent procedures to combat today’s terrorism." The "non-violent" struggle Blacks pursued in the 1960s is outlined as a mode for tackling today’s terrorism.

"We don't have to split the nation on this if we've got an alternative."

So says Representative Phil Gingrey. No, he isn't talking about the war in Iraq or President Bush's alleged proposal for a "surge." He's talking about stem cell research.

The embryonic stem cell research (paid for by taxpayers) crowd got a punch in the gut a couple of days ago when scientists at Wake Forest University discovered a new, readily available source of stem cells: amniotic fluid.

Scientists have discovered a new source of stems cells and have used them to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells in the laboratory. The first report showing the isolation of broad potential stem cells from the amniotic fluid that surrounds developing embryos was published today in Nature Biotechnology.

The announcement severely pissed off the pro-killing embryos crowd, because finding alternative sources for stem cells means there's less support for forcing taxpayers to pay for destroying embryos.

Just to make sure we all know that we should support killing embryos and ignore the findings of his research, scientist Anthony Atala tells us essentially to pay no attention to his ground-breaking findings.

"Some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion," wrote Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University, the author of a study published this week and widely seized upon by opponents of embryonic stem cell research as a more moral option.

I don't know who doesn't want scientists to pursue alternative forms of "regenerative medicine therapies." They just don't want taxpayers footing the bill for research they find morally reprehensible.

But here's the kicker:

(S)cientists aren't sure that stem cells shed by a fetus and extracted from the surrounding fluid carry the same possibility for treatments and cures of diseases as those culled from embryos.

Because "possibility" is more important than results, I suppose, considering that there are 72 successful applications for adult stem cells and zero for embryonic stem cells. But keep wishing and hoping for that ONE application for ESCs. And try to persuade some private businesses to fund the research, will ya?

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

UPDATE: A senior fellow for life sciences says don't expect the news of amniotic fluid stem cells to quench pro-ESCRs' thirst for stem cells.

Word of the Day: Warblogger

At least, that's the word of the day for Eric Boehlert, who uses the term no less than 18 times in the column. Evidently Eric learned a new word in school today and just has to use it everywhere.

The funny part is, as someone at Patterico's Pontifications points out, the term seems to only apply to conservatives who blog at all about the war (I guess it would include me, amusingly enough). Lefties who rant and rave about the war are spared the appellation, presumably because they say things Boehlert likes.

Patterico points out in his post that for all Boehlert's ranting about warbloggers not admitting they were wrong about Jamil-Jamail Hussein, Boehlert has an error in his column, as well.

Boehlert’s error, you may recall from an earlier post of mine, was made in a recent column, in which he reported that Hussein “was under arrest” Thursday. As evidence, that column cited a report that said only that Hussein “faces” arrest — and which also makes clear that any prosecution is unlikely.

My guess: Boehlert wanted Hussein to have actually been arrested, so that he could pin that on bloggers. So he wished and hoped, and voila! in his mind, it was so. And so that’s what he wrote.

Is he unaware of the error? Nah. Not only did I do a post about it, I left a comment on the column where it occurred.

Ahh, karma.

For what it's worth, the flap over Hussein wasn't simply about his existence. True, there were some that questioned whether he existed at all, but many others questioned why A.P. used a source that was persona non grata, particularly because of other faulty information. In this case, the problem is that the original A.P. story claimed that four mosques were also burned, but that part of the story was later dropped without explanation.

Frankly, A.P. and the liberal lovers at Media Matters are really concerned with whether Hussein exists. This is only their opportunity to claim that bloggers--oops, warbloggers--have no credibility. But that's a difficult claim to make when your own column has unacknowledged errors in it.

"Chavez is turning Venezuela into the wasteland of nothingness that is communist Cuba."

That according to Publius Pundit, discussing dictator Hugo Chavez's decision to steal all the phone lines and electricity in Venezuela.

It's not hard to find lefties who admire Chavez's use of oil revenues, particularly when they are barbed attacks on American capitalism. In the alternet article, one Democrat says:

"The truth of the matter is that the Bush Administration is unhappy that the people of Venezuela democratically elected a president who does not pledge full allegiance to American interests," said Congressman Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., in an August press statement. "Therefore they cannot resist attacking President Hugo Chávez every chance they get and blaming him for every development in the region that they dislike."

Yes, that's exactly what the Bush Administration doesn't like. I'm sure confiscating all electricity and phone service is what every democratically elected president does, right? From Publius Pundit:

Chavez intends to control all the media and information all through the country. CANTV’s stock has now plunged 16% on the NYSE until it was yanked from floor trading, due to its precipitous fall. Nobody thinks Chavez is going to compensate anyone fairly for his forced expropriation and the market is responding accordingly.

But more significantly, with the prospect of Chavez owning the entire phone line system — oh and what a shame this will be because Venezuela’s phone lines are the clearest in all South America, and they’ll go to hell under state ownership — Chavez will be able to listen in on any phone call he wants, especially with all the great electronic help he’s getting from Cuba’s communist electronic warfare experts who are now in Caracas. Worse yet, he’ll be able to cut off electricity to any dissident or group, effectively ending any possible power to dissemimate news via electronic media. The only way to get any serious news out of Venezuela now will be to fly into Venezuela. If you can get a visa.

Notwithstanding some of the nuttier claims on the left that the government controls all the media in this country (if so, how do they get their information?), it should concern all Americans that Chavez is tightening his grip on the country.

This isn’t all the thug is up to, by the way. He’s also stealing the entire central bank, by ending autonomy for it. He’s turning that into an instrument for money-printing, now that he’s badly mismanaged the entire oil bonanza, wrecked the oil fields, fired all of the talent who could clean up this situation, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars of oil earnings on stealing, corruption and socialist mismanagement.

In short, Chavez is turning Venezuela into the wasteland of nothingness that is communist Cuba.

The article has links to stories from individuals in Venezuela. Read them while you can.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Tony Snow: Democrats Can Cut Off Funds, But Can't Stop President's 'Surge'

Editor & Publisher has an article on the Tony Snow press conference yesterday.

Snow reasserted the presidential authority to deploy troops in a war, while Congress still has the power of the purse.

Snow held out hope that the Democrats would come to their senses about opposing this but admitted it could even be a battle royal. But what about calls for the Democrats to halt the build up by denying funding? Snow admitted congress had funding control but also pointed out that the president could ultimately do what he wants. "You know, Congress has the power of the purse," Snow said, then added: "The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way."

Frankly, I think it is a smart move for the president to challenge Congress on this. Americans dislike when Congress seems disrespectful to the President, even though it is a co-equal branch of government. This has been one of the most frustrating angles of domestic policy when the presidency and Congress aren't held by the same party.

Americans don't like Congress to bully the President, whether it was the Iran-Contra investigations of the 1980s or the government shutdown stand off of 1995.

Dallas Pizza Chain to Accept Pesos

According to an article in the Dallas Morning News,

Starting Monday, patrons of the Dallas-based Pizza Patrón chain, which caters heavily to Latinos, will be able to purchase American pizzas with Mexican pesos.

Restaurant experts and economists said they knew of no other food chain with locations so far from the Mexican border offering such a service.

"We're trying to reach out to our core customer," Antonio Swad, president of Pizza Patrón Inc., said Friday.

Militant Atheists

R.J. Eskow has an interesting column over at Huffington Post titled 15 Questions Militant Atheists Should Ask Before Trying to "Destroy Religion."

The piece centers on a questionnaire Eskow gives for what he calls "fundamentalist atheists" who advocate the eradication of religion. The argument is that religion causes far more harm than good and therefore should be banished. This is an idea advocated by people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Eskow's questions can be quite pointed ("Is all religious activity harmful, or just the fundamentalist variety (which one research project estimates involves roughly one-fifth of all religious populations)?") while at other times being rather esoteric ("Does the historical experience of nontheistic countries challenge the notion that religion is a major factor in causing internal oppression or external military conflict? (Note: I'm not suggesting that nontheistic countries went to war to defend nontheism," as one atheist writer characterized the argument. The question is: Does the absence of religion as a motivator reduce the likelihood of war, as the militants suggest - or not? Suggested countries of study: Cambodia, China/Tibet, USSR.)").

It's an interesting read, even for a Christian.

Dog Bites Man Story: Dems Already Breaking Political Promises

It's really a yawner, or maybe a "See? I told you so!" moment, but Democrats are already breaking their political promises. (Via Ann Althouse):

A Hoyer press release obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT boldly declares: "Monday, January 8, 2007: The House is not in session."

Hill sources claim The House is taking Monday 'off' this week, because of the championship football game between Ohio State and the University of Florida.

And, of course, the following Monday is the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

100 hours...starting...soon

It's good to see Dems have their priorities straight.

The Democrats Are Determined to Make Iraq Vietnam

ThinkProgress has video from House Speaker Grandma Pelosi's interview on CBS's Face the Nation.

This morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that Congress may refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of U.S. forces to Iraq if President Bush cannot justify the strategy.

Pelosi stated clearly that Congress will fully support all U.S. forces currently in Iraq. "But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it," Pelosi said. "This is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions, and we have gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected."

Those of us old enough to remember the Vietnam War, at least in the most cursory sense, can get a feeling of deja vu from this statement.

Yep, we've been in this defunding situation before and with Democrats. This is what they did in Vietnam. From Wikipedia:

In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon.

I was an 11-year-old kid in 1975 when Saigon fell, but I remember vividly the American helicopters loaded with people escaping the Viet Cong.

I rarely call the Democrats despicable, although I do find them corrupt and blind most of the time. But when Nancy Pelosi has stated repeatedly that Iraq is only a political situation to be solved, then she is obviously overstating what she thinks the American people want.

I would say, "Pass the popcorn, please," as I watch the Democrats make fools of themselves, but I think Iraq is more serious than the polical sniveling we will see from the Democrats.

UPDATE: Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice has a different view.

UPDATE x2: Jules Crittenden says we are at a crossroads.

Option One: Pull out. Achieve short-term gratification for those who believe our absence from Iraq will solve our problems. Watch Iraq descend into further violence. Watch a nuclear-armed Iran come to dominate Iraq and the world's richest oil fields.

No longer a world power, discredited by our own choice, we can watch the pile of bodies mount. Maybe we'll be restored to our national senses, as we were a decade after Vietnam, when we woke up and realized we never really had the luxury of disengaging from the fight.

This time, it will be harder. It won't be so neatly contained as it was then. The only good side to this is the army gets to rest. Don't count on the Democratic Congress to refit or build it up, or to do anything but dither when we need to use it again...

Option Two: Fight now. Fight harder. Expend our precious blood and money now, so we don't have to spend more blood and more money later. Fight now, while we can.

They're simple choices, not easy choices. But we are fortunate. The Democratic Congress, so eager to abandon Iraq, is fortunate. The world that seems to revile us no matter what we do is also fortunate. Because it will not be their decision.

We have a president who understands what is at stake. This week he will tell us what it is going to be. All signs indicate he recognizes the mistakes of the past, errors such as are often made in war, and he intends to do what is right. That would be the harder choice, to fight now, when we are tired and feel spent. But, as another American once said, we have not yet begun to fight.

It is his decision to make, and it will fall to a small number of our fellow Americans to execute.

Apparently, Crittenden hasn't seen the clip from Pelosi. I think she's chosen Option One.

UPDATE x3: Bryan at Hot Air has a different analysis of the situation.

The New Anger

Betsy has a link to a new book by Peter Wood, A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Today.

Wood compares the difference in anger on the right and the left.

When I discuss the Left’s embrace of New Anger with people across the political spectrum, two not very satisfactory explanations keep coming up. One is that the party that is out of power has more to gripe about. Yes, but that doesn’t explain why the Left gravitated to a form of anger that exacerbated its unpopularity. Nor, why the Right, in similar circumstances kept its New Anger aficionados on the margins.

The other explanation that comes up, almost always from people on the Left, is that the extreme anger has an extreme cause. It is President Bush’s fault, because he has provoked beyond measure everyone outside his own Right-wing extremist base. According to this view, those on the Left who have resorted to flamboyant expressions of anger have done so because they are dealing with a historically unprecedented destruction by President Bush of the governing norms of American political discourse.

I think this explanation is even more dubious, requiring as it does a broad caricature of how President Bush has governed. In my book, I argue that the Left’s embrace of New Anger arises from something deeper: a generations-long shift in American culture and family life that connects much more profoundly with the Left’s worldview than with the conservative outlook.

Personally, I think the New Anger is less about the reasons for the anger and more about just being openly emotional without consequence (there's that word again). Let's face it, there are entire industries built around dealing with obnoxious and out-of-line behavior. We have television with shows like Dr. Phil. We have therapists trying to help people get in touch with their feelings. We have radio talk shows which get their ratings from people calling in with their anger (Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhoades).

The truth is, the New Anger isn't new. It's just that these days it is perfectly acceptable to vent in public in a way that was condemned a generation ago. Especially in politics, there seems to be no end to the hyperbole. Comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler are commonplace. Democrats consider Republicans by turn evil or clueless. Liberals despise "the rich," even as many of their leaders are among the very wealthy.

Of course, the Right has its anger-mongers as well, most notably Rush Limbaugh, who, at times, becomes almost un-listenable (is that a word?) to. For example, last week, Rush went into a long (and seemingly bitter) diatribe against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

While Wood has a point that anger in politics has a long American tradition, it can't be said that much of the New Anger has an historical basis. In fact, it seems largely to appeal to the Jerry Springer in the American electorate.

Music Players Raise Kids' Deafness Risk

Lifescript.com has a brief about a British health study that concluded that regularly listening to MP3 players can substantially increase a person's risk of deafness going into adulthood.

Approximately one-third of those surveyed reported early signs of hearing damage, such as ringing in the ears. Perhaps even more troubling, 40% of study subjects reported that they were not aware of the risks of portable music player use.

There have been several articles over the last few months on the damage earbuds can do to one's hearing.

A recent survey commissioned by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association finds that more than half of high school students polled have lost some hearing because of how they use the music players.

The survey found that high school students are more likely than adults to say they have experienced three of the four symptoms of hearing loss: turning up the volume on their TV or radio; saying "what" or "huh" during normal conversation and having tinnitus or ringing in the ears.

Given the number of teenagers who listen to MP3 players almost nonstop, this is a warning that needs to be heeded.

American Passports Found on Bodies of Al Qaeda Fighters in Somalia

According to this story from ABC News,

A senior official in the Somali government's new Ministry of the Interior told ABC News government forces had recovered "dozens of foreign passports," including several American passports, on the bodies of al Qaeda fighters killed in combat between forces affiliated with the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) and Ethiopian forces in Somalia.

I'm not sure what this means, really. Are Americans fighting in Ethiopia? Or did Al Qaeda operatives steal U.S. passports?

Dear Pat, Please Shut Up

You look ridiculous and you make Christians look ridiculous, too. You feed into all the stereotypes lefties have of Christians.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Sharon


tmatt over at GetReligion says basically the same thing. I just provided a link for it. Terry Mattingly (tmatt) explains it this way:

In other words, we have reached the point where some journalists are happy to see Robertson's face on television screens, because every time he opens his mouth he reinforces their stereotype of a conservative Christian. And they may sincerely believe that he remains a powerful leader among American evangelicals, someone who provides an appropriate "conservative" voice during coverage of controversial events.

If this is true, then why is it so hard to find mainstream evangelicals and traditional Catholics who defend Robertson? Outside of a cable TV niche, where are his legions? In short, I'm convinced it is time for journalists to drop Robertson from their lists of "usual suspects." That he ceases to be someone they turn to for quotes from "evangelical leaders." He is a straw man.

There's some discussion in the comments at GetReligion on the fact that Robertson still runs a very large organization and there are many, many people who watch The 700 Club (I confess to seeing part of it whenever I watch Who's Line Is It Anyway?, but I digress).

Even though there are people who watch Robertson's show or listen to him, that's not really why journalists (and bloggers) pick up what he says.

As my GetReligion.org colleague Douglas LeBlanc put it, after the Hugo Chavez affair: "Reporters recognize a good coffee-spewing remark when they see one, and I will not fault them for jumping on this one." Amen.

But you really do have to wonder how much more journalists (and bloggers) are missing by focusing on Pat Robertson or a lone nut who attacks a soap star with a Bible.

I suppose (at least, in the bloggers case) the reason is that they aren't interested in real stories about real Christians, but are only interested in anecdotes that reinforce their preconceived notions. But what about journalists? Is it too much to expect them to look for real stories as opposed to this sort of stuff?

Unprotected

Mona Charen has a column about the book Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student.

As I read her column, it seemed like I had Amanda from Pandagon reading over my shoulder. Oh, the shrill and dismissive commentary I'm sure she could give to stories like this:

(Author Dr. Miriam Goodman) believes that casual, promiscuous sex is tough on many women. They are hard-wired to bond with those they have sex with (the hormone oxytocin is implicated), and she sees countless female students reporting stress, eating disorders and even depression for reasons they cannot understand. After all, the world sells them on the notion that sex is pure recreation, that the "hook-up" culture is natural and even empowering to women, and that love and sex are two completely different things.

She describes a 19-year-old, "Heather," who is depressed. She has a "friend with benefits," but only with the help of psychotherapy is she able to acknowledge that the relationship is causing her pain. She'd like to do things with him, like see movies or go out for dinner, but he is interested only in sex. Dr. Grossman helps Heather to see that her needs are being neglected.

Another student, "Olivia," is devastated after her first serious boyfriend breaks up with her. Her grades suffer, she weeps constantly and suffers a relapse of an eating disorder, making herself vomit up to six times a day. "'Why, doctor,' she asked, why do they tell you how to protect your body -- from herpes and pregnancy -- but they don't tell you what it does to your heart?'"

I'm sure the Pandagonistas would explain that the problem was that these young women weren't using their secondary power of being able to manipulate male power for small favors.

In fact, in the post I reference there, Amanda explains:

Women think every guy they have a one night stand with wants to marry them. Gary knows, because he saw it on the teevee. And the teevee will never lie to you about how people really act in order to reinforce stereotypes, now would it?

Well, maybe not every woman feels this way, but there's evidently a sizable subset of female humanity who don't like how they feel after the one-night stands. As Charen puts it:

American campuses are, for the most part, laboratories of liberalism. You want an abortion? No problem. But if you grieve afterward, your pain is ignored or delegitimized. Dr. Grossman does not contest that most women may be emotionally fine after undergoing an abortion, but notes that a significant minority, perhaps 20 percent, do suffer depression and other symptoms afterward. Yet the politically correct position is to deny this medical reality.

I guess for some, that 20% isn't large enough to worry about.

What Will the Democrats Do?

Rich Lowry asks that question in his column at townhall.com.

If Democrats want to be faster than Gingrich, they don't want to be as grandiose. This is shrewd. Gingrich mistakenly thought he could govern the country from the speaker's chair and disastrously overreached as a consequence. Nancy Pelosi's only early overreaching will be exhausting all of her party's popular, largely symbolic measures in a matter of days. What will Democrats do to fill the countless other hours before their term is done?

What indeed? Lowry points out that reforming lobbyist rules is an important and worthy goal, but we'll have to see if these are real reforms (which will bite Democrats as well as Republicans) or more of the sort of window-dressing we've seen in reform efforts of the past.

The problem for Democrats is that they ran on little ("we aren't Republicans" basically), and they were largely elected for what they aren't (Republicans). That's a hard platform on which to accomplish much.

The Democratic substance is vanishingly thin. They will raise the minimum wage, but 29 states already have a minimum wage that's higher than the federal rate. The effect of the hike mainly will be to give a small boost to the wage of teenagers working summers or after school. FDR would yawn.

On prescription drugs, Democrats promised to have the government negotiate for lower drug prices. But the case for major overhaul of the Medicare prescription-drug program has weakened, as the program has proven reasonably popular with seniors and cheaper than expected. Democrats simply might give the Bush administration the authority to negotiate lower prices, which would be meaningless because the administration opposes such negotiations as de facto price controls.

Democrats already have abandoned their promise to immediately implement all the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission because some would require solving nettlesome jurisdictional issues in Congress. They will pass federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but might not be able to override a presidential veto. They want to cut interest rates on student loans, but that can be expensive at a time when they also want to impose pay-as-you-go rules mandating that new spending has to be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts.

An important political consequence of the Democratic takeover is that it liberates Republicans from the compulsion they had felt to abandon their principles in order to try to protect their majority. As Nancy Pelosi took the speaker's gavel, President Bush sounded the sort of clarion calls on fiscal responsibility --endorsing a balanced budget in five years -- and earmark reform that he never did when free-spending, earmarking Republicans controlled the Hill. He hopes to box in Democrats with their own anti-deficit rhetoric and force them either to forgo major new spending or embrace politically perilous tax increases.

You can already hear the whining from the left about Republican smugness in the minority, but it's really easy to carp and complain when you don't have to do anything (other than obstruct, I mean). That's what the Democrats have done, more or less, for the last four years and it is what Republicans did prior to taking control of the House in 1994.

Once the dust settles and the gimmick of the first 100 hours is gone, it could be a long two years for Democrats.

Respectful Arguments

Patterico has laid down the first rule of respectful argumentation:

Rule Number One of respectful argument is to phrase your opponent’s argument — the argument you’re responding to — in such a way that your opponent would agree with it.

The rule, when followed, has at least two benefits. First, helps to ensure that the argument is about actual issues, rather than a spiraling series of accusations that the other guy is misrepresenting your position, and vice versa. Second, it forces you to think a little more about what the other guy believes, and why.

Seems like it would be a good idea if more people practiced it, even if only occasionally. But then you wouldn't have stuff like this or 95% of what is written on Pandagon.

It's a lot easier for some people to make their points if they can distort what their opponents say.

New York Times May Dump Ombudsman After Abortion Distortion Flap

According to this story, the New York Times may eliminate its ombudsman position after "current public editor Byron Calame's confirmation that LifeSiteNews.com was correct in asserting the Times made a major error in reporting on criminal penalties for abortion in El Salvador."

I discussed the NYT story in this post.

According to the LifeSiteNews story:

The first recorded mention of the intention to axe the position was raised at a December 15 New York Times meeting where Times' executive editor Bill Keller raised the idea. That meeting was held about a week after Calame began asking very uncomfortable questions of senior editors at the Times, and receiving in response terse replies rejecting his warnings that the NYT magazine had been caught in a serious error which deserved correction.

With information from contacts in El Salvador, LifeSiteNews.com pointed out that the cover article in the NYT magazine of April 6 claimed falsely that some women in El Salvador were imprisoned for thirty years for illegal abortions. LifeSiteNews published the full court ruling in the case which showed that rather than being jailed for a clandestine abortion - as the Times magazine asserted - the case study cited actually concerned infanticide of a full-term baby. (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07010208.html )

Calame requested an explanation from both NYT magazine editor Gerald Marzorati and standards editor (who makes up these titles?) Craig Whitney but both stonewalled him.

Certainly, the discovery that the story was, at best, an egregious factual error and, at worst, a deliberate lie does enormous harm to the New York Time's reputation as the newspaper of record. But it isn't like this is the first hit that ship has taken over the last few years.

Having an ombudsman, a person who is supposed to represent the readers' interests at the newspaper, is a valuable service. That the vaunted NYT might axe the position because the public editor stated that the emperor has no clothes is reprehensible.

Jamail-Jamil Hussein Found

I discussed somewhat briefly in two posts (here and here) the Jamail-Jamil Hussein controversy. Well, according to Patterico, Hussein has been found where the AP said he was: at the al-Khadra station.

I'm still suspicious about why it took so long to produce this source, given that the controversy started about six weeks ago. I understand that the man supposedly is afraid of arrest now, but evidently he wasn't afraid to talk to the A.P.

What I've always been more concerned about was the accuracy of the stories. As Patterico points out, the A.P. dropped its claim that four mosques had been burned, focusing solely on whether Hussein was a real guy or not.

I'm glad they finally found the guy and identified him as the source for more than 60 stories. But where's the information forthcoming about these burned mosques that nobody else verifies?

UPDATE: Kathleen Carroll basks in smugness over the finding of Hussein. But no discussion about the four mosques.

Democrat Civility on Display

I haven't said for a while how much I'm gonna love having Democrats in charge of Congress, so I'm saying it now. Digby can complain in typical, churlish, Democrat (yes, Democrat) mode about Republican glee at Democrats having to do something besides obstruct government, but I find nothing more amusing than watching Democrats deal with their moonbat base.

But I seem to recall that Democrats smugly announced there would be a return to civility when they took power. I guess Charles Rangel didn't get the memo.

Rep. Charles Rangel has evicted Vice President Dick Cheney from his office in the Capitol, and the Harlem heavyweight is moving into the prime digs today...

Gilded letters were freshly painted atop the office door yesterday proclaiming "Ways and Means Committee" - confirming that the office now belongs to Rangel, the House panel's new chairman...

Rangel was giddy at the prospect of giving Cheney the boot the day after Democrats delivered Republicans a crushing defeat on Election Day...

"I'm trying to find some way to be gentle as I restore the dignity of that office," Rangel chuckled at the time. "You gotta go, you gotta go."

Rangel was so eager to bounce Cheney from the office, he phoned new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) less than 12 hours after the polls closed to get her approval.

Cheney's office took the high road yesterday. Spokeswoman Mary McGinn told The Post, "It was always our understanding that that office was on loan."

Well, we knew that Democrat civility would last about as long as Bill Clinton's wedding vows.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

On the Minimum Wage Increase

Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress, a hike in the minimum wage can't be far behind.

George Will says, in this column, that the minimum wage should be zero. He knocks the legs out from under all those supporters of the minimum wage hike, looking at who actually gets the lowest salaries and why.

Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in families with earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part time, and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326, respectively.)

Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between ages 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and earn tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to wages. Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow people to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent.

I've spent some time over at Liberal Avenger says why I think raising the minimum wage is, at best, a feel-good measure that won't affect much of anybody. Locally, most of the traditionally minimum wage jobs are paying between $7 and $8 an hour.

It's understandable that Democrats are still in love with the minimum wage. They are stuck in the early 20th Century, when breadwinners made pennies per hour and babies starved because of it. But this is the 21st century and the people who tend to make the minimum wage are neither breadwinners nor supporting large families. But don't wake the Democrats from that fantasy.

The Trouble with Middle Schools

Ann Althouse links to this New York Times article discussing the trouble with reforming middle school.

Driven by newly documented slumps in learning, by crime rates and by high dropout rates in high school, educators across New York and the nation are struggling to rethink middle school and how best to teach adolescents at a transitional juncture of self-discovery and hormonal change.

The difficulty of educating this age group is felt even in many wealthy suburban school districts. But it is particularly intense in cities, where the problems that are compounded in middle school are more acute to begin with and where the search for solutions is most urgent.

It's interesting and dovetails nicely with this column by Maggie Gallagher advocating that we just get rid of middle schools all together. Hell, even Amanda at Pandagon agrees with Maggie (and without any of the normal anti-male attack snark).

Says the New York Times:

Middle school teachers point to the gulf between the smooth-skinned sixth grade “babies” and these eighth-graders on the verge of adulthood, and note how they must guide these students through the profound transformations of adolescence.

“These kids go through more change in their lives than at any other time except the first three years,” said Sue Swaim, executive director of the National Middle School Association.

This is so true. When my oldest daughter was in sixth grade (and stuck in the middle of a turbulent custody suit between her father and me), I used to have lunch with her every week. I was amazed at the difference in 12-year-olds. There were those who still looked (and probably acted) like they were 10, and those that looked (and probably acted) like they were 15. I liked interacting with her friends and finding out what these kids were like (we were in a new district, so these weren't the kiddoes I had known since my daughter was in kindergarten).

By the time she was in eighth grade, I still had lunch with her once in a while, but not with the regularity I had in sixth grade. The same kids were much different now than they had been then; they were more mature and articulate and seemed much more focused than they had been as sixth graders.

One thing I got from the article in the NYT and the column by Gallagher is that breaking off this subset of childhood leaves them much more vulnerable to peer pressure and the strong desire to belong. Now that my oldest daughter is in high school, she's more social and has found places she belongs (band, soccer). She's starting to enjoy freedom from her parents and to be regulating larger portions of her daily life.

It seems to me that only having to adjust to one new school (high school) rather than two (middle school and high school) would help students with the adjustments to adolescence. One student in the NYT article spoke of going from being a big fish in a small pond (elementary school) to being the small fish in a big pond (middle school). To be sure, there's the same feeling when one enters high school, but the person is more mature and able to handle the change. It just seems like common sense to me that students do better in a K through eighth situation because they can spend more time and energy focusing on their lessons and less on fitting in.

Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection

Frank Staheli has an interesting article about Clinton administration policies and beliefs about the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. (Via Common Sense Political Thought).

Through Staheli's post and the comments, one can make the argument that the Clinton administration (and the Bush one that followed) were mistaken in their assumptions about Al Qaeda and Iraq, but it's simply factual to accept that the Clinton administration was the first one to see a connection between the two. As Staheli says in the comments:

What I find most interesting through my interpretation of Richard Warnick's comments is that both the Clinton and Bush administrations had a tendency to assume the worst about terrorism and 'the link' (but I wonder if one can really blame either one for assuming the worst while trying to pro(t)ect the country?

Well, there are obviously people who do because these are the same people unwilling to admit that the idea that Al Qaeda and Iraq were connected didn't start with George W. Bush. It's more important to trash conservatives than stick to the facts.

I've always said that 9/11 should not be blamed on Bill Clinton anymore than I think it should be blamed on George Bush. It was an event that might have been foreseeable in some perfect world, but I'm willing to give all administrations (even ones I disagree with) the benefit of the doubt that they have the nation's best interests at heart. If only our buddies on the left felt the same.

Offended Observers

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, says that the Supreme Court should "just say no" to so-called "offended observers."

These are people who, on the mere sight of a monument of the Ten Commandments or a nativity scene in the town square, decide to file suits because they are taxpayers. In no other area of the law does the Court allow this kind of legal standing to bring challenges. For years, atheists and others who are antagonistic to religion and who want to remove every religious reference from American public life, have had a special privilege in federal court. Unlike everyone else, church-state separation advocates have not had to show that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way before they could bring a challenge in federal court. All they had to do was show that they were taxpayers. In essence, separationists have had a free reign to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits throughout the country just because they were "taxpayers." Simply put, that’s unfair. No other citizen can just sue because they pay taxes. It should be the same in the religion cases, and the Supreme Court has an opportunity to say "no" to these plaintiffs once and for all.

The case is Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, and it concerns FRF's challenge to the faith-based initiatives program.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is an aggressive anti-religious organization. From their own website, they claim religion basically stifles moral and social progress.

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.

Interestingly enough, they go on to claim that it was atheists and agnostics who were responsible for the end to slavery and the women's right to vote.

That would come as a big surprise to the Quakers, the first abolitionist group in England. It would also surprise Baptists and Methodists, as well.

In America, the Quakers formed The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, the first abolitionist group. The Second Great Awakening caused many, including small denominations such as the Free Methodist Church to support the abolitionist movement.

So, the idea that it was atheists and agnostics leading the charge for social improvements is both a lie and a mischaracterization. But that's not really anything new, is it?

But I digress.

Sekulow's main point is that merely being a taxpayer doesn't give one standing to bring a lawsuit in any other area of law. Only with the Establishment Clause, and only because of one case (Flast v. Cohen), does a citizen have standing to sue the government simply by paying taxes. You can't do this over defense spending or environmental abuses or foreign policy disputes or educational expenditures. In order to file suit for any of these causes (and more), a person must show how the government harmed him/her through some action.

Not so with Establishment Clause cases. Being a taxpayer is reason enough to attack any separation of church issue.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation case on February 28. Sekulow writes:

Subsequent decisions from the Court regarding Flast v. Cohen have rejected every argument the Court had previously made in support of its earlier decision. "In sum," the ACLJ brief concludes, "this Court has, in the years since Flast, knocked out every single rationale underpinning that decision...Like Wile E. Coyote in the old Roadrunner cartoons, Flast stands in midair, waiting only for that fact to be noticed before collapsing of its own weight."

The Flast precedent has caused a lot of mischief. It has empowered every disgruntled atheist to make a federal case out of any hint of religion in a government action. We are glad the Supreme Court is now taking another look at whether taxpayer suits under the Establishment Clause make sense under our constitutional framework. We are convinced that these taxpayer suits should no longer be permitted. Enough is enough, and it’s time for the Supreme Court to say so.

It's time for the court to put an end to this nonsensical attack on religious participation in public life.

"What if the health department had been around when Jesus was feeding the poor?"

"He might have been, you know, cited," said Gerry Connolly, a county government employee in Virginia.

John Stossel has a column about a church with a soup kitchen which was nearly shut down because it didn't meet the county health department regulations. The regulations, of course, are intended for businesses which are selling food to people, but are still regularly applied to charitable organizations like the First Christian Church of Falls Church, Virginia.

Stossel points out that if it weren't for the soup kitchen, the homeless would be eating from dumpsters and garbage cans.

"They've never stopped me from eating out of a dumpster or a trash can," says James, an astute homeless man who understands Henry Hazlitt's "economics in one lesson," namely, look for the secondary results of government policy.

After this story hit the news, the county health department decided to exempt churches from the regulations. That's fine in the immediate, but it doesn't really solve the problem.

In a year or so, a new health inspector could decide it was his duty to shut down the soup kitchens which don't have a three-compartment sink. Then the homeless will be eating out of the dumpsters. Again.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Moonbat Dictionary: Punishment and Consequence

Moonbat Dictionary is a semi-regular feature here at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.

There are lots of words in the English language that moonbats have embraced, twisted the arms off of, and crushed beyond recognition. This is because the usual, textbook definitions don't help their causes.

Back at this post, I discussed the difference between lie and mistake. I thought it would be the only time I had to discuss the meaning of words, since, to my knowledge, the people posting on English-speaking websites speak English. But evidently I was wrong.

If there's any word that drives the pro-abortion nuts crazy, it's the word consequence. To the moonbats, consequence is synonymous with punishment. This is because, for them, the idea that certain behaviors lead to certain foreseeable results is punishment.

But let's set the record straight.

A consequence is the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier. A punishment is a penalty inflicted for an offense or fault.

If you drive recklessly and smash your car, the smashed car is a consequence of your behavior. It isn't a punishment. Similarly, if you have sex and one of you becomes pregnant, that's a consequence of sex, not a punishment.

Of course, to the nuts on the left, pointing out that the typical way to become pregnant is by having sex and if one is really serious about avoiding pregnancy one can either abstain or get sterilized is tantamount not liking sex. I'm still trying to connect those dots, but they seem to have that all figured out. Of course, they still haven't got the sex-leads-to-babies thing figured out.

Be that as it may, the term consequence has deeply negative connotations for the pro-abortion people. Instead of admitting that sex has risks and that adults accept the risks when they decide to have sex, they argue that stopping them from aborting the babies is punishment. They also argue that making someone have a baby when they don't want one is punishment.

What they don't consider punishment is having sex without accepting the risks involved. This is a little like the drunk driver who kills a family of four and then proclaims that it must be the car's fault because killing the family wasn't what he/she intended.

Perhaps it would be a good after-New Year's present to give a moonbat a dictionary.

Pay Us More or We'll Quit!

That's essentially what Chief Justice John Roberts said in his year-end report to Congress, according to law.com.

Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools.

In the 1950s, 65 percent of U.S. District Court judges came from the practicing bar and 35 percent came from the public sector. Today the situation is reversed, Roberts said, with 60 percent from the public sector and less than 40 percent from private practice.

Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.

Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.

The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."

Roberts is correct that attorneys can make more than this in the field. The difference, of course, is that serving on the federal bench is also supposed to be a civic duty and have a certain level of prestige associated with it.

There are areas of the country where $200k is probably only worthy of a middle-class lifestyle, but given that the median household salary in 2004 was $43,389, Roberts probably won't find too much sympathy among the electorate.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

More on Dumb-but-Smart People

Richard Cohen has this piece in the Washington Post today on Monica Lewinsky and the way the press has done her wrong, including the columnI discussed at this post on Monica's master's thesis and the idea of dumb-but-smart people (smart people who do dumb things).

An approximation of this befalls us all, but before we got to become wise and prudent in all things we were probably irresponsible, outrageous and wild -- in other words, young.

Fortunately for me -- and probably this applies to you as well -- my outrageous deeds are known to only a few, and some of those people, after a lifetime of bad marriages and poor investments, have probably forgotten them. In Lewinsky's case, her youthful indiscretion has been forgotten by no one. On the contrary, it's recorded for the ages, in House and Senate proceedings, in the files of the creepy special prosecutor, in the databases of newspapers, in presidential histories and the musty joke files of second-rate comics.

She is a branded woman, not an adulterer but something even worse -- a girl toy, a trivial thing, a punch line. Yet she did what so many women at that age would do. She seduced (or so she thought) an older man. She fantasized that he would leave his wife for her. Here was her crime: She was a girl besotted.

Monica is the ultimate Girl with a Reputation, the one your mother warned you about. You would think, in this day and age, that such things wouldn't matter but they still do. Unfortunately for Lewinsky, no matter what else she manages to do with her life, her obit will always be about Bill Clinton and impeachment. That's her punishment, which is the appropriate word in her case, as opposed to the way moonbats use it in reference to pregnancy.

The weird part about Cohen's piece is his, at time, paternalistic attitude towards Lewinsky while decrying the sexism of the press. There's this:

Her clock ticks, her life ebbs. Where is the man for her? Where is the guy brave enough, strong enough, admirable enough to take her as his wife, to suffer the slings and arrows of her outrageous fortune -- to say to the world (for it would be the entire world) that he loves this woman who will always be an asterisk in American history. I hope there is such a guy out there. It would be nice. It would be fair.

followed by this:

It would be nice, too, and fair, also, if Lewinsky were treated by the media as it would treat a man. What's astounding is the level of sexism applied to her, as if the wave of the women's movement broke over a new generation of journalists and not a drop fell on any of them. Where, pray tell, is the man who is remembered just for sex? Where is the guy who is the constant joke for something he did in his sexually wanton youth? Maybe here and there some preacher, but in those cases the real subject matter is not sex but hypocrisy. Other than those, no names come to mind.

This is the year 2007, brand new and full of promise. It would be nice if my colleagues in the media would resolve to treat Monica Lewinsky as a lady(.)

As Ann Althouse notes,

Cohen's dreamy wish for a man to love Lewinsky isn't the least sexist thing I've ever read. I'm guessing Monica has all the boyfriends she wants. I'll bet they have lots of laughs sharing intimate gossip about the old man who transgressed to be with her. Why assume she wants to marry or marriage is some special solace that she needs? Why say her life is ebbing?

It is sexist and implies that Lewinsky is incomplete without a man to tell the world how much he loves this tainted woman. Why assume that is what she wants or what would wash away the stain of that little blue dress?

My suspicion is that Lewinsky has always tried to make the best of her circumstances, all things considered. She doesn't seem to be hiding in a tower waiting for Prince Charming to come rescue her.

Cohen's piece reminds me of all those people who don't "get it." They think that saying the press should "treat her like a lady" is what grown-up women want. What's missing in Cohen's piece is the idea of respect. What Lewinsky wants is respect.

Unfortunately, the indiscretions of her youth outweigh other factors in her favor because of the unusual quality of her circumstances, as well as residual sexism, even among so-called enlightened opinion writers.

Dog Trainer Year in Review 2006

Patterico has his annual Dog Trainer Year in Review up at his site. Always informative. Always entertaining.

Massachusetts Traditional Marriage Act Advances

It looks like Massachusetts is going to live up to its constitutional provision for initiative and referendum.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice to move forward.

Pam Spaulding is furious and compares, not for the first time, gay marriage with civil rights for black people.

As I said in the comments at my pad, with the character of people like Tucker, would it have been fine with her to let “the people” vote on whether I must sit at the back of the bus or drink from a separate fountain?

As I said in this post on the subject, comparing gay marriage with the civil rights movement is wrong on several counts, not the least of which being that the civil rights movement wasn't merely a movement of judicial decisions but of legislative enactments. This seems to be a point missed entirely by many gay marriage proponents.

It bears repeating that the same court system that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson could invalidate gay marriage just as easily as endorse it. If you want guaranteed rights, you have to legislate them.

The problem for gay marriage proponents is that a majority of Americans still do not favor it. It's much easier to persuade five justices than a majority of a legislator or the citizenry. This is the lesson that Pam and others chagrinned at the events in Massachusetts haven't learned: you have to persuade people of the rightness of your position because that's how democracy works.

I'm not entirely sure that a pro-traditional marriage amendment will pass in Massachusetts. There will certainly be enough time for gay marriage supporters to gin up their base before the election.

In any event, this is exactly the sort of thing the Massachusetts constitution requires popular support for. When you start redefining terms that have generally meant one thing for a couple of hundred years or so, it's most logical that those governed by the new definition get to decide if they want it.

But the New York Times Always Tells the Truth!

Well, no, they don't, especially if it's about abortion. Hot Air has a new Vent by Michelle Malkin discussing the NYT's deception concerning this story from last April.

The story claims that a woman in El Salvador was sent to prison for 30 years for having an abortion. But as See-Dubya pointed out Dec. 30, even the NYT ombudsman can't support the lies reported in the story.

About a month ago I noted an allegation that the New York Times Magazine had published an article that described a woman who was serving 30 years in a prison in El Salvador for getting an abortion. While abortion is illegal in El Salvador, the woman had actually been convicted of murder for strangling her newborn.
NYT Public Editor Byron Calame checked into it and found that, basically, the Times got it wrong–or, as he put it:

Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect.

See-Dubya gives a good analysis of both what went wrong and what the Times should have done. Read the rest of the post for more.

UPDATE: Here's a link to Malkin's column on this incident.

Maternal Profiling

Women's eNews has this interesting column on a practice I thought had gone out of style with the beehive hairdo: maternal profiling.

Evidently there are still states where it isn't illegal to ask a woman in a job interview about her marital status and whether or not she has children.

Only 22 states and Puerto Rico specifically prohibit employers from inquiring about applicants' marital status. That means "maternal profiling" is a real problem for many women.

Just ask Kiki Peppard.

For 12 years Peppard, a single mother, has campaigned to get Pennsylvania to make it illegal for employers to ask about an applicant's marital or familial status. Last week, on Nov. 30, the bill died its most recent death when committee chairmen refused to allow it to move to the floor of the state House and Senate for a vote.

This bill has not only failed with legislators, it's also been pretty much of a non-starter with the press.

I'm surprised the press hasn't been more interested in this, given their feminist leanings in most areas surrounding women and work. The idea that there are still employers asking women if they are married and/or have children is boorish and intrusive.

I've been in a few similar interviews where the interviewer was trying to find out if I had children without coming out and asking. It's perfectly legal in most states to do so.

Most people think such questions (aside from being intrusive) are illegal, but as Kiki Peppard has found out in Pennsylvania, there's not always much sympathy for women who say this is no one's business.

"I've sent numerous letters to female news anchors, the cast of 'The View,' Katie Couric, '60 Minutes,' '20/20,' 'Primetime,' you name it. No reply. I've sent letters to Paula Zahn. No reply," Peppard says. "I've written to Oprah twice a year for 12 years, asking if she would do a story about this on her show."

This is certainly one of those issues that should get women (and families) exercised. Ensuring that such inappropriate questions be barred from the job interview process should be a priority of feminists.

"What I can't stress enough is that this legislation impacts all women, not just mothers," Peppard says. "I can't tell you how many women have told me that they were asked during job interviews when they planned to become pregnant. Do you know of any male asked during a job interview when he planned to get someone pregnant or if he ever did?"

Maybe he should change his name to Smith

According to the Raw Story,

A Monday night broadcast of CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer confused America's "number one enemy" with one of America's most popular senators, RAW STORY has learned. CNN apologized for the error, which came after a series of incidents in recent months in which Illinois Democrat Senator Barack Obama was subtly or directly linked with militant Islamic personalities who have been hostile to the United States.

During a January 1st broadcast of Wolf Blitzer's nightly news program, a pre-commercial preview of the show's next segment included a story on the hunt for Al Qaeda's leadership. Over a photo of Osama Bin Laden and his second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Blitzer stated, according to the transcript, "Plus, a new year, but the same mission. Will 2007 bring any new changes in the hunt for Osama bin Laden?"

But instead of asking "Where's Osama?" the graphic over the two Islamists read "Where's Obama?" referencing the surname of popular Illinois Democratic Senator Barack Obama.

I feel sorry for the senator, not just because his last name is so similar to America's number one terrorist's first name, but having the middle name Hussein is a handicap, as well. I can't imagine four years of these sorts of mistakes. Maybe he should just start going by Barak.

Ann Coulter Is a Goddess

As I commented over at Common Sense Political Thought, I love telling liberals when they rant against Ann Coulter that I think she's a "goddess." It's usually good for a belly laugh when they come unglued about it and it's oh, so much fun that they can't recognize the tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheekishness of my comment.

Now Dana has a post showing Ann's popularity, stating that imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery.

I love the covers. What I love most is what they actually say about the writers, rather than the topic of their hatred. Judging from the review Dana references, they also miss her smartness, wittiness, and reparte, as well.

Now for the Disgusting Comparison of 2007

The new year is only a little over 30 hours old for me and already I have a nomination for Disgusting Comparison of the Year. It's Chris Kelly at Huffington Post.

One way to think about the last few days - the deaths of Gerry Ford, Saddam Hussein and James Brown - is to imagine them like the final half-hour of The Godfather, with the Bush Family settling all scores. Ford for some internecine slight at the convention in 76, Saddam for not taking orders, James Brown for making drunk driving look so much cooler than when a preppie does it.

It's all connected. How many guys worked with Gerry Ford and Saddam Hussein? Only Bush button man Donald Rumsfeld. Eerie. Plus Rumsfeld tortures prisoners and James Brown served time and recorded "Please, Please, Please."

All this to pan The Good Shepherd.

Yes, I'm waiting for the snarky comments about how certain rogue conservatives accused Bill Clinton of murdering a variety of inconvenient people, plus drug running, just to keep his presidential ambitions "viable."

The difference, of course, is that, with the notable exception of Rev. Jerry Falwell, most conservatives rejected the allegations made.

I'm just not sure how many conservative columnists (although Bill Clinton was probably the catalyst for the conservative publishing industry) spent much time comparing Clinton to the Godfather. Or, for that matter, how many of them essentially accused a sitting president of wiping out famous people who could only be connected in a six-degrees-of-separation kind of way.

What Kelly's comment mainly shows is the moonbat blindness of the left and why even the more logical arguments they make get lost in the noise machine.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Sunni Muslims Protest Saddam's Hanging

From the A.P.:

Sunnis Muslims, angered by the execution of Saddam Hussein and the way his hanging was carried out, took to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations in Sunni enclaves across the country.

A crowd of Sunni mourners in Samarra marched to a bomb-damaged Shiite shrine Monday and were allowed by guards and police to enter the holy place carrying a mock coffin and photos of the former dictator.

The protest took place at the Golden Dome, which was shattered in a bombing by Sunni extremists 10 months ago. That attack triggered the current cycle of retaliatory attacks between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, in the form of daily bombings, kidnappings and murders.

Nice to see them learning the art of peaceful protest despite the blood-thirsty predictions of the left. Then there was this:

Iraqi authorities, meanwhile, reported Monday that 16,273 Iraqis — including 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers — died violent deaths in 2006. The total exceeds the Associated Press count by more than 2,500.

How does one get from 16,000 to 600,000 and still be accurate?

Doctors Recommend Testing for Down Syndrome

The A.P. is reporting that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is now recommending that all pregnant women receive a new type of test to screen for Down Syndrome.

The newest method, topping ACOG's recommendation for everyone, is a first-trimester screening that combines blood tests with a simple ultrasound exam, called a "nuchal translucency test" to measure the thickness of the back of the fetal neck.

Studies from England, where the nuchal translucency combo has been used for about a decade, and the U.S. conclude that screening method is more than 80 percent accurate, with a very small risk of falsely indicating Down syndrome in a healthy fetus. It is performed between 11 and 13 weeks into pregnancy, and women are usually given numerical odds of carrying an affected fetus.

Back in this post, I discussed that geneticists have discovered that our DNA is more complicated than they originally thought. Because we can have multiple pairs of one gene and zero pairs of another and still be normal, the group was questioning the accuracy of tests such as those used for Down Syndrome. I had wondered how many perfectly normal babies were aborted because their mothers had mistakenly thought they were Down's babies.

The testing is not mandatory and women can still determine whether or not they want the tests at all.

Breaking 1,000

Sometime in the night, this blog broke 1,000 visits. Not bad for an obscure blog that's only three months old. And considering I didn't even install the site meter until December, long after the Pandagonistas had had their hysterical temper tantrum because I quoted them.

Sounds like a law school exam question

According to this article at law.com,

A franchisor cannot be held liable for the alleged negligence of a franchisee merely because they have a relationship, a Suffolk County, N.Y., judge has ruled in dismissing a claim against 7-Eleven lodged by a customer splashed with hot coffee.

Supreme Court Justice Robert W. Doyle granted summary judgment dismissing a suit against the company by Eugene Nickola, who alleges he was injured during an altercation between another customer and an employee of a Greenport 7-Eleven.

In Nickola v. 7-Eleven, 03-13494, Doyle explained that in determining whether a franchisor may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most important factor to consider is the degree of control the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee. Here, the judge found, 7-Eleven exercised no control over the activities that led to Nickola's injury.

Law school exams are filled with fact patterns like this one:

Nickola was present on May 22, 2002, when Mahmud began struggling with a customer for possession of a coffee pot. Nickola was standing shoulder to shoulder with the customer but was not involved in the dispute.

In his examination before trial, Nickola testified that Mahmud wrenched the pot away and threw the coffee at the customer, but the liquid missed its target and instead hit Nickola on his head, neck and shoulder.

Shahnawaz Baig, manager of the store, testified that the coffee was brewing when the customer picked up the pot. He said that Mahmud intervened and, in the ensuing struggle, both the employee and Nickola were splashed.

Nickola, and his wife are seeking compensation for his personal injuries.

...and are usually followed by the word "discuss."

It also reminded me of first year legal writing, where they will give you the above fact pattern and assign half the class to defend the plaintiff and the other half to defend the defendant. Ah, the memories!

Fortunately, those days are gone for me. These days, I can just look at a story like this one and reminisce about some professor grilling you for 20 minutes trying to trip up your logic.

Coffee spewer

From (where else?) Amanda at Pandagon:

Seriously, sharon, if you don’t like sex, just be out with it. That’s great. You don’t have to be angry with the rest of us who do like it. I know you doubt it, the way you carry on, but women do have sex because we want to.

It would come as quite a surprise to my husband that I don't like sex. In fact, it would be quite a surprise to me, too.

But this statement just shows how illogical they are: if you disapprove of abortion and think people should actually think about the consequences--er punishment (sorry, still getting used to the code language) of sex before they hop into bed, then you don't like sex. That's news to a lot of pro-lifers, even those with a small number of children.

How Republican (Democrat) Are You?

I just took the How Republican Are You? quiz, via Common Sense Political Thought. Not surprisingly, I'm Republican, but I'm not as Republican as I would have thought.

You Are 72% Republican

You have a good deal of elephant running through your blood, and you're proud to be conservative. You don't fit every Republican stereotype, but you definitely belong in the Republican party.

How Republican Are You?

There's a Democrat test, too. I didn't do very well with that one.

You Are 4% Democrat

If you have anything in common with the Democrat party, it's by sheer chance. You're a staunch conservative, and nothing is going to change that!

How Democrat Are You?

I'm trying to figure out what the other 24% of me is.

Happy New Year!

Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice has one plea for this new year: can we perhaps lower the tone a bit this year?

The piece goes on in this vein. It's a nice idea, that people could tone down the rhetoric and try to find consensus on a few issues. I think eventually that will happen as people become tired of the shrill, vulgarity-strewn nastiness, particularly from lefty sites. They'll just stop visiting them and then they will either be gone or insignificant.

But what interested me more was this section of Gandelman's piece:

Can this incredible opportunity, seldom witnessed in the history of mankind, where people sitting at home can write, publish, edit and distribute their ideas at little cost and in milliseconds, start to realize its potential — by weblogs running more original reporting? Can weblogs truly become home-base for citizen journalists versus what most of them (including this one) are now: home bases to citizen op-ed writers or citizen political activists?

I think what might happen if this became the standard for blogs would be more, smaller, community-based blogs than what you have now. The strange part about what is out on the web now is that you have literally millions of people trying to discuss national issues because that is the way they build readership. This is sort of the opposite of the way newspapers worked, where they started local and then would expand their readership as they gained subscribers in far-flung places.

I'm sure there will be people who start doing more real reporting about things happening in their neighborhood, at the city council meetings, school boards, community events. But right now, it's much easier to find stories on the web and comment on them (such as this one, for instance). And there's a certain fascination with pointing out weird takes on other journalists' work, such as Amanda's take yesterday on the Jesse Green piece in the New York Times on Patricia Heaton. I, for one, love reading some of the perverse takes someone can have on a simple feature profile of an actress starting a new endeavor. It helps explain to me why anyone would vote Democrat. :)