The Dark Liberation of the Left

Columnist Nick Cohen has two excellent pieces (here and here) describing the disintegration of the principled left.

Cohen is no neoconservative. He was raised by liberal-left parents who saw each purchase as a political statement (no oranges from Spain because of Franco, no Disney because it was a "Hollywood corporation"). Indeed, Cohen states emphatically that growing up he believed that to be good meant being Left. This included opposing fascism while embracing communism, even when its warts were so obvious.

Consistent anti-fascism added enormously to the left's prestige in the second half of the 20th century. A halo of moral superiority hovered over it because if there was a campaign against racism, religious fanaticism or neo-Nazism, the odds were that its leaders would be men and women of the left. For all the atrocities and follies committed in its name, the left possessed this virtue: it would stand firm against fascism. After the Iraq war, I don't believe that a fair-minded outsider could say it does that any more.

That is Cohen's condemnation of the Left: while there has been plenty a good lefty could oppose about the American and British approach to the Iraq War, it is patently hypocritical for the Left to villify Saddam in the 1980s yet oppose his ouster in 2003. Cohen is dead-on in this description of the unprincipled Left.

The protests against the overthrow of a fascist regime weren't just a European phenomenon. From Calgary to Buenos Aires, the left of the Americas marched. In Cape Town and Durban, politicians from the African National Congress, who had once appealed for international solidarity against South Africa's apartheid regime, led the opposition to the overthrow of a fascist regime. On a memorable day, American scientists at the McMurdo Station in Antarctica produced another entry for the record books. Historians will tell how the continent's first political demonstration was a protest against the overthrow of a fascist regime.

For those of us on the Right, who have to deal with our own excesses and histories, this is not a shocking statement. I do wonder, however, how this blunt revelation sounds to those on the Left (read through the comments of this thread at CSPT, for example) more concerned with American hegemony than with the persecution faced by Iraqis.

According to Cohen, there were people who saw the disgusting irony on display of Lefties who had fully supported interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan but couldn't agree with intervention in Iraq.

The South American playwright Ariel Dorfman, who had experienced state terror in General Pinochet's Chile, published a letter to an 'unknown Iraqi' and asked, 'What right does anyone have to deny you and your fellow Iraqis that liberation from tyranny? What right do we have to oppose the war the United States is preparing to wage on your country, if it could indeed result in the ousting of Saddam Hussein?'

His reply summed up the fears of tens of millions of people. War would destabilise the Middle East and recruit more fanatics to terrorist groups. It would lead to more despots 'pre-emptively arming themselves with all manner of apocalyptic weapons and, perhaps, to Armageddon'. Dorfman also worried about the casualties - which, I guess, were far higher than he imagined - and convinced himself that the right course was to demand that Bush and Blair pull back. Nevertheless, he retained the breadth of mind and generosity of spirit to sign off with 'heaven help me, I am saying that I care more about the future of this sad world than about the future of your unprotected children'.

Cohen doesn't pull any punches in his criticism of American and British policy in Iraq, either. He describes the ineptitude, corruption, and skullduggery associated with the worst parts of the post-invasion season and states that those things should be condemned. But that's not the same as opposing Iraq's liberation.

When a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein came, the liberals had two choices. The first was to oppose the war, remain hypercritical of aspects of the Bush administration's policy, but support Iraqis as they struggled to establish a democracy.

The policy of not leaving Iraqis stranded was so clearly the only moral option, it never occurred to me that there could be another choice. I did have an eminent liberal specialist on foreign policy tell me that 'we're just going to have to forget about Saddam's victims', but I thought he was shooting his mouth off in the heat of the moment. From the point of view of the liberals, the only grounds they would have had to concede if they had stuck by their principles in Iraq would have been an acknowledgement that the war had a degree of legitimacy. They would still have been able to say it was catastrophically mismanaged, a provocation to al-Qaeda and all the rest of it....All they would have had to accept was that the attempt to build a better Iraq was worthwhile and one to which they could and should make a positive commitment.

A small price to pay; a price all their liberal principles insisted they had a duty to pay. Or so it seemed.

The second choice for the liberals was to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. To look at the Iraqi civilians and the British and American troops who were dying in a war whose central premise had proved to be false, and to go berserk; to allow justifiable anger to propel them into 'binges of posturing and ultra-radicalism' as the Sixties liberals had done when they went off the rails. As one critic characterised the position, they would have to pretend that 'the United States was the problem and Iraq was its problem'. They would have to maintain that the war was not an attempt to break the power of tyranny in a benighted region, but the bloody result of a 'financially driven mania to control Middle Eastern oil, and the faith-driven crusade to batter the crescent with the cross'.

They chose to go berserk.

This analysis of the Left is chilling in its accuracy. I look forward to reading Cohen's book.

What To Do About Middle School

I've posted on this topic before, but the New York Times has another interesting piece on what New York schools are doing about "the middle school problem."

For years, it's been well documented that early adolescence--about 12- to 14-years-old--is when a scary number of children drop off the academic train and never recover. The pendulum of educational philosophy has swung from separate this age group from elementary schoolers and high schoolers (the middle school model) back to the "grammar school" model (kindergarten through eighth grade in one school).

The article discusses the grammar school model and a different one which places sixth- to twelfth-graders in one school. The difference in philosophies is fascinating.

On the one hand, K-through-8 schools can provide stability and comfort to help young adolescents navigate through a difficult time. On the other hand, 6-through-12 schools help younger students focus on academic achievement and what they want to do with themselves.

From this article, I'm not sure which model works best. It could be a situation where some children thrive in one model whereas other children do well in the other. In any event, finding the right fit for all students should be the priority.

Chavez to U.S.: 'Go to hell, gringos!'

But don't forget to buy our oil.

The National Assembly, which is controlled by the president's political allies, is expected to give final approval this week to what it calls the "enabling law," which would give Chavez the authority to pass a series of laws by decree during an 18-month period.

On Friday, U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Chavez's plans under the law "have caused us some concern."

Chavez rejected Casey's statement in his broadcast, saying: "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"

It's the mature dialogue libs are always talking about working.

What Happens If We Lose? Part 2

Betsy has a link to this article by Reuel Marc Gerecht on the consequences of failure in Iraq.

It's no wonder that those wanting us to redeploy--NOW--are unwilling to look at the consequences of losing in Iraq, not just for that country but for the region and the rest of the world. If Gerecht's take is correct, the U.S. will continue to bear responsibility for the bloodshed to follow, regardless of our presence, or lack thereof, in the region. It's amazing to me how our friends on the left continue to ignore the consequences of leaving.

I Guess God Told Them to Keep the Property

Bible Belt Blogger has this post about the fracas in the Episcopal Church over keeping--or not keeping--the church property once one leaves the diocese.

Here's the letter from Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori:

The Episcopal Church, in consultation with the Diocese of Virginia, regrets the recent votes by members of some congregations in Virginia to leave this Church. We wish to be clear, however, that while individuals have the right and privilege to depart or return at any time, congregations do not. Congregations exist because they are in communion with the bishop of a diocese, through recognition by diocesan governing bodies (diocesan synods, councils, or conventions). Congregations cannot unilaterally disestablish themselves or remove themselves from a diocese. In addition, by canon law, property of all sorts held by parishes is held and must be used for the mission of the Episcopal Church through diocesan bishops and governing bodies. As a Church, we cannot abrogate our interest in such property, as it is a fiduciary and moral duty to preserve such property for generations to come and the ministries to be served both now and in the future.

The recent decisions by some members of congregations in Virginia to leave the Episcopal Church and ally with the Anglican Church of Nigeria have no cognizance in our polity. Ancient precedent (from as early as the fourth century) in the Church requires bishops to respect diocesan boundaries, and to refrain from crossing into or acting officially in dioceses other than their own. As a Church we cannot and will not work to subvert that ancient precedent by facilitating the establishment of congregations which are purportedly responsible to bishops in other parts of the Anglican Communion within the diocesan boundaries of the Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal Church continues to seek reconciliation with those who have decided to leave this Church, and reminds all parties that our doors are open to any who wish to return. Together with the Diocese of Virginia we seek to be clear about who we are as Episcopalians, and to continue to reach out in healing to this broken world. The overwhelming majority of the more than 7,600 congregations of the Episcopal Church are engaged in doing exactly that.

If this is an example of the Episcopal Church "reaching out in healing to this broken world," I'd hate to see antipathy.

About Those Four Destroyed Mosques...

Evidently, they haven't been destroyed. According to Patterico, this part of the Jamil Hussein story just sort of disappeared and was never corrected. And this is surprising because...?

The Omnivore's Dilemma

What you eat and how it gets from the field to your plate is the subject of The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan.

I picked up Pollan's hefty tome after reading this review by Amanda on Pandagon.

Maybe it's growing up a city kid or maybe it's just living in Texas, but I've always been fascinated with the whole self-sustaining farmer/rancher thing. The Omnivore's Dilemma makes it plain that such romanticized views of the food industry are both naive and passe. With six billion people to feed, our methods are far less transparent or charitable.

The book is divided into three (or four, depending on your viewpoint) sections, ending with a meal derived from each farming method.

The first section discusses your typical industrial ("Big Agra") farm, complete with feedlots and pesticides. For me, this was the most distressing, depressing, and eye-opening part of the book. I've always rather pooh-poohed the organic movement as just another fad, but after reading what fertilizers do to food and what cows are fed to "beef 'em up" so quickly, I can't eat that way anymore (at least, I choose to eat that way as little as possible).

The problem for me was two-fold: concerns about what pesticides, anti-biotics, and hormones will do to me and my family, but also concerns about raising cattle, chickens, and pigs in such horrific conditions. I love a good steak, but I don't want the animal to live in hell for me to get that steak. Pollan does a good job explaining the chemical and biological processes involved in a big industrial farm and why they would do things the way they do.

Much of the industrial farm model is based on cheap corn. Anyone who was over the age of about five in the 1970s will remember how expensive food used to be. My 80-year-old father tells stories of hunting possums and squirrels with his dad because it was the only meat they would have (how much meat do you get from a squirrel to feed a family of 8???). The theory behind the "cheap corn" policy of the 1970s came from Earl Butz, who realized that making food cheaper would probably irradicate malnutrition in this country. In a way, I can see why this policy seemed like a good idea at the time. Food was expensive and so were other household items (like gas for cars). Making food less expensive seemed like a good idea.

The problem is that food doesn't work the same way that other goods in a capitalist system do. We made the food cheaper, so farmers had to make more food just to keep up, which made prices drop even more. The result is that most farmers grow corn and the corn gets stuffed into every corner of the system, from food to varnish to even my shampoo. And while corn may be good for some things, animals like cows aren't designed to eat it. This is why industrial feedlots, which cram as many cows-per-square-inch as they can into every pen, have to use so many antibiotics.; when you feed an animal what it isn't designed to eat, there are problems.

As I said, this was the most disturbing part of the book for me and has forever changed the way I will look at a rump roast or bunch of chicken breasts. The section ends with a meal of ubiquitous chicken nuggets and fries.

The second section could be called "Big Organic," for many of the same methods are used. These farms have grown from the original organic movement of the 1960s. Just as the people who said they couldn't trust anyone over 30 traded in their Birkenstocks for three-piece suits, they traded in the small organic farms for large, sprawling organice monstrosities. In fact, there are farms that have regular ol' lettuce raised with fertilizers and pesticides next to a field of organic lettuce. Pollan has a problem with the big organic, largely because the methods they must go through to produce, package, and ship the goods all over the U.S. can use every bit as much fossil fuel as the industrial farm. And the animals in these conglomerations aren't treated any better. They just don't use the antibiotics or hormones on them. So, you get meat without the chemicals, but the animals themselves don't seem to be any better off.

The third system (and the one Pollan seems to advocate) is exemplified by Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm. It is, in many ways, the kind of farm most of us learned about in first grade while singing Old MacDonald Had a Farm. Salatin's farm has livestock and vegetables and is as close to self-sustaining as one is likely to get these days. The intriguing part about Polyface Farm is its philosophy of allowing each animal to behave in the way it is supposed to, then using those traits in some way or other to produce better crops or animals. I won't go into the details of that statement (and believe me, Pollan does...in great detail), but Salatin uses a rotational system where he moves the animals from spot to spot following each other so the grass and soil don't get worn out by overgrazing.

Salatin is an old-fashioned Christian libertarian and has produced many books and does a lot of speaking about his farming philosophy. I will say I agreed whole-heartedly with his outlook on farming (that we are to be stewards of God's land and use it in ways that don't harm it) as well as slaughtering livestock. Salatin believes in transparency and has as much of that as is possible (he does slaughter chickens on the property, but is prevented from killing cows or pigs because of USDA regulations).

The end result of Salatin's work is food which, according to Pollan, tastes better and fresher than most anything we can buy in the store. Indeed, Pollan seemed to have more respect for the chicken that was the centerpiece of this dinner because he had helped kill and prepare it.

The final meal revolved around our hunter/gatherer past and consisted of hunting and killing a pig, gathering mushrooms, and growing vegetables for the meal. Mainly what this section showed is how impossible it would be to return to our hunter/gatherer roots simply because there aren't enough wild things left for us to hunt and/or gather.

All-in-all, The Omnivore's Dilemma was an intriguing read that has changed my view of what I put on my (and my family's plate). I'm now trying to buy more organic food and I am much more concerned how the meat was treated while still on the hoof. But my adventures in gathering organic food is best left for another post.

Prepare for that $3 per gallon gas again

According to this article in the Daily Telegraph, Democrats are preparing to hit us all where it hurts: at the pump.

Well, that's not technically what they're proposing, but it will be the effect.

The oil industry faces a $14bn (£7.1bn) bill over the next 10 years after the US House of Representatives agreed on measures that would strip the industry of tax breaks and force it to make larger royalty payments.

The bill marks the end of an often vitriolic campaign against "big oil" by Democrat politicians, who have threatened the industry for years but only now have the power to do anything about it after their electoral victory last year.

The proposals rescind $7.6bn in tax breaks for oil drillers that the Congress passed in 2004 and will raise another $6.3bn in increased royalties from companies that pump oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

The second provision attempts to correct mistakes made in drilling leases when they were first granted in the late 1990s. They entitled companies drilling in deep water to avoid royalties on much of their initial production, but omitted a standard clause that eliminated the incentive if oil prices climbed above $34 a barrel.

Although the oil companies cannot be forced to renegotiate their leases, those that refuse will be asked instead to pay a "conservation fee" on each barrel produced. If they refuse to do that, their leases will not be renewed.

The bill won overwhelming support despite opposition from the White House, which said it wrongly singled out oil companies for higher taxes, undermined "the sanctity of contracts", and increased the country's dependence on foreign oil.

However, the Democrats made targeting companies like BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron one of their key pledges last year, accusing them of "gouging" consumers through high petrol prices.

Anyone who thinks increased taxes isn't going to affect gas prices for consumers is a fool. But, well, they are Democrats, after all.

Stupid Employee Tricks

There are stories that defy logic, and then there's this one:

An administrative judge has denied unemployment benefits to a woman who was fired from her job for keeping a journal detailing her efforts to avoid work.

Emmalee Bauer, 25, of Elkhart, was employed by the Sheraton hotel company as a sales coordinator in Des Moines. While on the job, she kept a handwritten journal. A supervisor told her to stop writing on company time, but instead, Bauer wrote her journal, all 300 single-spaced pages, on her work computer.

In the journal, portions of which were introduced during a recent hearing regarding Bauer's request for unemployment, Bauer describes her efforts to avoid work.

"This typing thing seems to be doing the trick," she wrote. "It just looks like I am hard at work on something very important."

Bauer also wrote: "I am only here for the money and, lately, for the printer access. I haven't really accomplished anything in a long while ... and I am still getting paid more than I ever have at a job before, with less to do than I have ever had before. It's actually quite nice when I think of it that way. I can shop online, play games and read message boards and still get paid for it."

Companies are starting to block employee access to certain sites because of this sort of behavior. I knew a guy who blogged at work and wondered why the company didn't block access to MySpace and such. It seems like it might have increased productivity. But maybe the bigwigs were on MySpace, too.

Spanking Ban

According to the Associated Press:

California parents could face jail and a fine for spanking their young children under legislation a state lawmaker has promised to introduce next week.

Democratic Assemblywoman Sally Lieber said such a law is needed because spanking victimizes helpless children and breeds violence in society.

"I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child," Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?"

Lieber said her proposal would make spanking, hitting and slapping a child under 4 years old a misdemeanor. Adults could face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Aides to the assemblywoman said they are still working on a definition for spanking.

The imagery the assemblywoman uses is interesting. I would guess that "beating a child" would be illegal under California law as it is. And "whipping" a toddler wouldn't be effective.

How far does this law go? Smacking a diapered butt? How many swats constitutes a spanking? Five? Three? One? And who constitutes a "young child"? An infant? Toddler? Pre-schooler? Kindergartener?

The governor said he and his wife, Maria Shriver, did not spank their four children and used alternative methods for discipline. For example, Schwarzenegger said they found it more effective to threaten to take away their children's play time if they didn't do school work.

I would say that by the time a child has school work, that child is probably big enough to reason with, hence the waning need for spanking. My understanding is that spanking is typically reserved for situations where the child doesn't have the capacity to understand his/her actions, and so needs a deterrent.

Compare banning spanking with this story stating that one in three parents think their discipline methods is ineffective. (H/T to Rush Limbaugh.

About one in three parents in the United States and Canada do not think their methods of disciplining their children work well, according to a U.S. study.

Dr. Shari Barkin, chief of general pediatrics at Tennessee's Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt found 31 percent of about 5,000 parents surveyed said they "never" or "sometimes" perceived their methods to be effective.

What were those methods?

It found 41.5 percent of parents removed privileges, while 13 percent reported yelling at their children, and 8.5 percent reported the use of spanking "often or always."

"We strongly suspect that both yelling and spanking might be underreported," said Barkin, whose study is published in the January issue of the journal Clinical Pediatrics.

She said by the time children reach the 6-to-11 year old age range, parents are about 25 percent less likely to report using time-outs and spanking as they were with younger children.

When children reached school age, parents report a more frequent use of taking away privileges and yelling.

I have no doubt the number of yellers and spankers is underreported. Even so, it sounds like the privilege-banners aren't winning the discipline war, either.

Basically, discipline is an art. By the time children get to school, a parent should have a pretty good idea what will make a child behave as they are supposed to. I will be the first to admit that sometimes this is harder to figure out with one child than another. My oldest needed only the threat of a spanking to tow the line. It took a long time, however, to find something my son cared enough about to behave. No amount of spanking, time-outs, taking away privleges, etc. worked for him, until he fell in love with computer games. Now a day or two without the computer will cause the required behavior change.

As for the youngest, well, you know that youngest children are perfect, right? ;)

UPDATE: Patterico has this on his site and includes the information that the child must be four years old or younger.

"I would love to hear why losing in Iraq would be in the national interest."

That's the question Hugh Hewitt asks in his blog post at Townhall.com.

The question stems from results of this poll by Fox News.

Question: Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

Results:

Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know

Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know

Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know

Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know

Those results are stunning. As Hewitt says:

Even though we have some 150,000 troops in harm’s way and we universally profess to "support the troops," over 1/3 of our society either wants them to fail or doesn’t know if they want them to succeed. Even more chilling are the results regarding our currently dominant political party. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or "don’t know" if they want us to succeed.

I would love to hear why losing in Iraq would be in the national interest. And I would love to hear the humanitarian justification for leaving Baghdad’s civilians to the tender mercies of the murderous militias and terrorists that stalk that city.

I've never taken the "don't know" answer as honest on its face. Usually people who answer a poll with "don't know" don't really want to answer the question (or answer it honestly). What it tells me is that 15% of people saying "don't know" really mean that no, they don't want the plan to succeed. And keep in mind that virtually half of all Democrats in the poll admitted they want the policy to fail.

Can we question their patriotism yet?

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

"Singe," Don't Burn

That's the policy of the Gridiron Dinner, and, evidently, it is what the organizers of the White House Correspondents Dinner want.

Earlier this week word emerged that impersonator Rich Little would be the star performer at this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington in April. Organizers admitted they wanted a somewhat more "safe" choice after last year's subversive routine by Stephen Colbert, which took direct satiric aim at the Iraq war and President Bush (who sat nearby).

But how safe? The Las Vegas Review-Journal now reports that Little claimed he did not plan to even mention Iraq or to attack the president, implying that these were the wishes of the inviters. But Steve Scully, president of the White House Correspondents Association, told E&P Friday that the organization never asked Little to avoid subjects like Iraq or back off criticism of President Bush.

Ah, yes. Stephen Colbert, who might not be as big a fan of Democrats if they do pass the un-Fairness Doctrine, since it's hard to see how his brand of "humor" would escape regulation.

But more from the article:

"They got a lot of letters," Little said. "I won't even mention the word Iraq....They don't want anyone knocking the president. He's really over the coals right now, and he's worried about his legacy."

Well, gosh, I guess it would be nice if they didn't try to imitate the sort of gross and vulgar roast so prominent on Comedy Central.

Scully said they picked Little because of his fame for imitating presidents. It seems like an easy choice to me. But despite protests to the contrary, I suspect that the White House Correspondents Association is also trying to step back from that "edgy" comedy.

The Plan to Silence Conservatives

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has this piece on the Democrat plan to bring back the un-Fairness Doctrine.

Media reform sounds like a good cause. But the gathering here of more than 2,000 activists turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more "progressive" voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives.

In short, triumphant liberals now want to consolidate and expand their power.

Several speakers, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, declared that they think Congress should use a new federal "fairness doctrine" to target conservative speech on television and radio.

It's normal for the party in power to try to consolidate its power and push its agenda. The problem is that the Democrat agenda is so bad for American values, particularly freedom of speech.

I've stated before that liberals love to talk about free speech but they never back up the words with actions. Whenever there's a chance to muzzle speech, they do (unless it's something pushing one of their own talking points). But while I've talked about it, Kincaid was there, at the National Conference on Media Reform.

Sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based organization that is generously subsidized by pro-Democratic Party billionaire George Soros, the "National Conference on Media Reform" featured Bill Moyers and Jesse Jackson and Hollywood celebrities such as Danny Glover, Geena Davis and Jane Fonda.

Wow, now that's an evenly divided panel: the left and the far-left.

Soros, of course, is the multimillion-dollar blowhard who made his money through international monetary manipulations and offshore hedge funds. As Kincaid notes, "(h)e was convicted of insider trading in France, one of many countries to have borne the brunt of his global financial schemes."

And in the U.S., we know Soros as the guy who tried to buy the election for the Democrats in 2004.

Now Soros is interested in "reforming" the media. Hell, I'm interested in reforming the media. I want them to stop lying about conservatives. I don't think that's the type of reform Soros wants, though.

Interestingly, Soros was not mentioned as a major sponsor of the forum, but many other lefty organizations were, such as the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Overbrook Foundation, the Quixote Foundation, the Glaser Progress Foundation, and the Haas Trusts. According to Kincaid, promoters of the event include American Prospect magazine, Washington Monthly, The Nation, and MoveOn.org. In other words, it sounds like the same sponsors of every hour of All Things Considered and every primetime show on your local PBS station.

But wait! There's more!

The Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which opposes the Chinese communist government as too capitalist, was one of the official exhibitors. Also on hand, displaying banners calling for the impeachment of President Bush, was the so-called 9/11 truth movement, which holds that Muslims were blamed for the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon when U.S. officials actually carried them out.

Basically, every moonbat organization on the left supports "reforming" the media. Any guesses what they think talk radio should look like? I'm sure it doesn't include Rush Limbaugh.

Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the "illegal" war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush's repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the "right-wing oriented media" were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.

His answer, a bill titled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.

Hinchey, chairman of the "Future of American Media Caucus" in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the "corporate media."

With passage of his bill, Hinchey said that "progressives" would be able to demand and get "equal access" to programs hosted by conservatives and rebut the "baloney" of people like Limbaugh. "All of that stuff will end," Hinchey said about the influence of conservative media. By name, he also denounced Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting.

Hinchey praised Democratic FCC commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who appeared at the conference, and indicated that with the election of a Democratic President in 2008, the FCC could be openly used to frustrate the growing popularity of conservative ideas, perhaps under the cover of resisting "media consolidation."

Later, Hinchey was seen preparing for an appearance on Air America, which had a make-shift studio set up on the premises of the conference.

Liberals already get their ideas spread on television, both on the news and in the entertainment programs. As I noted in this post, liberals make up the largest number of political bloggers as well. In short, the only outlet that conservatives dominate is talk radio. But having their ideas touted on every other medium around isn't enough, I suppose.

Every time a conservative family group complains about television programming, liberals will spout the line that they should just "change the channel." Why is it that liberals can't just "change the channel" when it comes to talk radio?

A Woman's Right to Choose, Part 6

From the Daily Telegraph:

An invasion of pregnant women from mainland China flooding into Hong Kong to give birth has forced the territory's authorities to take action to turn them back at the border.

Tens of thousands of women in the past three years have crossed into Hong Kong, checked into hospitals to give birth, and returned home again, often without paying their bills.

By doing so, they can evade China's one-child policy, and gain automatic residency rights for their child in Hong Kong.

I'm sure the argument pro-abortionists would have is that if Hong Kong were really pro-life, they wouldn't limit the number of women coming from mainland China. Of course, this misses the real point, which is that China's one-child policy forces women to have abortions they don't want because it's better for the country. The Chinese government isn't quite so openly contemptuous of babies as the pro-choice movement in this country.

Pew: 14 Million Online Political Activists in U.S. Today

According to this article, more Americans are getting their political information from the Internet than ever before.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project found that more than 60 million Americans were online during the 2006 election season to get information about candidates and exchange ideas via e-mail.

There are several interesting conclusions from the data, not all of which I'm sure I agree with. What's most interesting about it is that lefties have an edge on the internet (like that isn't obvious), and it could be part of the reason for the Democrat win. The article plays down the significance the internet may have had in the 2006 elections, but still, if 31% of Americans used the internet to search for info on candidates and then disseminate what they found (or believed they found), that's a lot of people. More to come, I'm sure.

See? I told you so!

Dana at Common Sense Political Thought has an excellent post on the reviving of the Fairness Doctrine.

According to this article, Democrat Dennis Kucinich has announced his interest in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Like a vampire that just won't stay dead, the Fairness Doctrine gets new life every time Democrats get some power. That's because, even though they obviously got their message out before the fall elections, Democrats just don't think opposing viewpoints can be heard without government mandate. If this were true, how on earth did Democrats manage to capture Congress since, according to moonbats, all media are owned by conservatives?

Yes, it certainly is perplexing. I mean, you would think that if liberal viewpoints couldn't be heard, there never would have been an Air America to go bankrupt. But sure enough, Virginia, there has been an Air America and it did go bankrupt, not because there wasn't a Fairness Doctrine to protect it but because nobody wants to listen to them (besides the fact they already have NPR and PBS).

I wrote about the return of the Fairness Doctrine way back in the first week of my blog when one person probably saw it. It bears repeating: we don't need the Fairness Doctrine.

There was a time when there were a handful of television and radio stations from which all Americans got their news. It made sense that they were required to give all sides of issues and strive for impartiality. But with the advent of digital broadcasting (which allowed more stations on the dial), plus the internet, there's simply no voice or opinion without an outlet these days.

Why is it those free speech-lovin' liberals always want to limit speech?

"Something tells me rich people already know how tough it is and they just don’t care."

A well-meaning friend of mine sends me lots of inspirational e-mails daily. Some of them are keepers and others are throw-aways. This one was somewhere in between. What struck me was the sentence I used for a headline.

The mailing discusses ways poor people can get out of being poor, mainly by starting small part-time businesses on the side. That was the good part of the article.

The bad part was all about how rich people don't care about poor people and that they only care about "rich people stuff." This struck me as strange and insulting, considering all the rich people who give away lots of money to help the poor.

Just a few examples:

* Bill Gates, who, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provide free immunizations and supports research to find affordable, safe health solutions.

* Ted Turner, who, through the Turner Foundation, supports a variety of environmentalist goals including sustainable living.

* Oprah Winfrey, who, through her Oprah's Angels Network, the Oprah Winfrey Foundations, and other contributions like the Oprah Winfrey Academy for Girls, contributes greatly to the needs of poor and underprivileged families and children.

* George Soros, who gave $50 million to help fight poverty in Africa.

* Warren Buffett, who is giving away more than $40 billion to five philanthropic organizations that help the poor and needy.

This is just a handful of individuals who give out of the wealth they personally created. This list is not exhaustive, neither does it include the countless religious and charitable groups, organizations, and foundations which constantly try to help the poor.

There's a great deal of contempt for the wealthy in this country and while some of it may seem deserved, most of it is not. The main point of the e-mail was an example of American Exceptionalism: that it is possible for even a poor person to become wealthy through hard work and ingenuity. A lot of liberals hate this fact of American life; it goes against their natural desire to confiscate as much wealth as possible to redistribute as they see fit. But it is still the surest way to become wealthy. I've yet to hear of a person on the dole who became rich from it.

Assessment of Iraq

Bryan of Hot Air has just gotten back from Iraq with Michelle Malkin. He offers up his views of the situation. Worth the read.

Is Jack Bauer a Right-Wing Propagandist?

This is the sort of silly theory that gets bounced around when, like MSNBC, you don't have any viewers.

"Is FOX using fear of terror attacks in U.S. to get ratings?" asks MSNBC in a segment about popular TV series 24.

"Jack Bauer might be trying to save the world," remarks the host about the show's main character, played by Kiefer Sutherland, "but is Jack also a right-wing propagandist?"

It's a silly topic, really. I've watched every season of 24 and it is quite riveting. Of course, 24 appeals more to right-leaning folks than lefty ones because the bad guys are bad guys without excuse. The writers don't spend a lot of time trying to discover why it's really the U.S. government's fault a terrorist wants to kill a school full of children. They just let the action roll.

Kiefer Sutherland's character, particularly this season, is a tortured individual who does his job for the U.S. government even when it endangers himself and those he cares for. I suppose in an age where it's all about "me," such devotion to duty would look like right-wing propaganda. That's a sad statement about American culture, really.

UPDATE: Interesting interview with Kiefer Sutherland here.

A Fair and Impartial Jury of One's Peers

Poor Irving "Scooter" Libby. There will come a day when Libby trial will be held up as one of those prosecutorial misapplications of justice.

According to firedoglake, Libby's defense team is having a hard time finding impartial jurors for his trial. In a city that routinely votes for Democrats regardless of their criminality or corruption, it will, indeed, be an uphill climb for Libby to find impartial jurors.

"I am completely without objectivity. There is nothing you can say that would make me feel positively about President Bush."*

Thus spake the eighth of nine prospective jurors reviewed by Judge Reggie Walton, Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and defense attorneys Ted Wells and William Jeffress today. She had indicated on her juror form she had some strong opinions about the Bush administration, and, queried in her turn by Judge Walton, she cast her eye over all assembled in the courtroom and declared herself.

"So, you are saying you do not believe you could render a fair and impartial verdict in this case, based on the evidence and according to my instructions to the jury prior to deliberations?," Judge Walton followed.

"That's right," she responded, whereupon she was immediately excused from jury duty.

I can't understand why the case couldn't be moved elsewhere. Actually, I don't understand why the case is being brought at all, except that Patrick Fitzgerald has to find someone to prosecute and he isn't about to go after Richard Armitage, the guy who actually leaked Valerie Plame's name (well, aside from her husband lyin' Joe Wilson).

Libby's defense team is obviously going for a hung jury, knowing that in an overwhelmingly Democrat town, he has about as much of a chance of acquittal as O.J. Simpson had if he'd actually been tried in Brentwood.

Libby could be convicted, not because of his own malfeasance, but because of public sentiment against the Bush administration in general and Vice President Cheney in particular. Back to the firedoglake article:

In the end, there will be a jury empaneled, and though the pace of juror review slogged along slowly today, the people at the courthouse seem to think we'll be done by Thursday. If today is any indication, the best Team Libby can hope for would be jurors who can give them a fair shake, enough of whom may have enough trust and faith in the president and the vice president to trust that their ex-employee, Irving "Scooter" Libby, is telling the truth. Today's jurors don't seem to show signs of being among those true believers in the administration's aggressive war policies, but then again, you never know with a jury, and people can and do surprise you.

The writer, of course, doesn't point out that the case shouldn't be about the war in Iraq or presidential policies but whether Libby lied under oath. I'm waiting for Dems to explain that it was an "irrelevant question," as they have about Bill Clinton's perjury.

Praise for Newt

Paul Silver of The Moderate Voice has an interesting piece about Newt Gingrich, who will make a presentation at the National Review Institute's Conservative Summit.

Newt Gingrich is one of my favorite conservatives because he is relatively open minded to pragmatic ideas regardless of the source. As you read his list, could not most of his proposals come from moderates and even progressives? It would be wise for the Democrats to find a way to include Newt as part of the process of crafting policy able to draw bi-partisan support. It would be wiser still for the GOP to shift to his pragmatic rather than ideological approach to policy.

Silver quotes an entire list of proposals from Gingrich and Silver is correct: many of them would sound like lefty or centrist (I hate that term) ideas were they coming from anyone else.

Back in the 1990s, I thought Gingrich was an idealogue. After all, he was the architect of the Contract with America, but was also the architect of the government shutdown and standoff with Bill Clinton. Perhaps Gingrich learned something from both of those situations: you can't always stand on principles to get things done.

I'm an idealogue through and through. I am the person who would rather gain the Pyrrhic victory that concede a point. But it's easy enough for me to do that, since I'm responsible for and answer to no one but myself (and perhaps my husband!).

When the practical, lawyerly part comes out, I can look at a list like the one Gingrich presents and admit that much of it is an agenda Americans of all political stripes would embrace. Is there really anyone left in the U.S. who doesn't think energy independence is a good thing? Or doesn't think the cost of higher education should be lowered?

It seems to me that Gingrich has become more pragmatic since his fall from grace, but that seems to have made him more creative in his approach to policy. Someone should be listening to him. I just hope it is the Republicans.

About that Great Healthcare System in Cuba...

When I'm verbally duking it out with liberals, they frequently bring up Cuba's free education and healthcare systems. This is usually brought up to show how terrible the American education system is and what evil, greedy people we are not to have national healthcare.

I know a little about national healthcare systems, having relatives overseas and hearing their horror stories of long waits and rejections for treatment (my grandfather was told he had "lived long enough" when he was diagnosed with cancer at 72). I always find it curious that those shrieking loudest about "choice" don't usually bring up the fact that nationalized healthcare necessitates limitations in treatment.

I haven't heard any gushing lately about that wonderful Cuban healthcare system, but maybe that's because doctors there botched Fidel Castro's treatment.

Hot Air quotes this Reuters article which says:

Cuban leader Fidel Castro has long prided himself on Cuba's doctors and free public health care system, but that system seems to have let him down after he fell ill in July , U.S.-based doctors said on Tuesday.

Based on a report in Tuesday's edition of Spain's El Pais newspaper, the doctors -- who have no first-hand knowledge of Castro's condition -- said Castro had received questionable or even botched care at the hands of health experts on his communist-ruled island.

"It's not a good story. Too bad they didn't send him to Miami for surgery," said Dr. Charles Gerson, a clinical professor of medicine in the gastroenterology division of New York's Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

Indeed.

Nothing but Nets

Found this interesting short on Bible Belt Blogger.

The United Methodist Church, the National Basketball Association, Sports Illustrated and several others are teaming up to provide mosquito nets for African children. The nets, which cost about $10 each, help shield young ones from malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

About 3,000 children die each day from malaria, and the nets prevent mosquitoes from biting kids while they sleep. For more information, go to www.NothingButNets.net.

The Joys of Youth

I had lunch today with some friends in Dallas. They are young; one woman is nearly 30 and the other is in her mid-twenties. They are friends I met at my old job, and it was nice to catch up with them.

I like talking with these women because they are smart, educated, and completely different from me. One is married and the other has a steady boyfriend of three years. They are interesting and seem to enjoy me. :)

Today, though, I couldn't get out of my head the silliness at Pandagon the last couple of days with shrewish posts on "marriage not being the default for women."

While talking with my friends, it was interesting to note the differences in their lives versus mine. Married people with kids spend a lot of their time caring for said family members and, in my case, I also care for my elderly father. My friends have no children and their parents are probably not much older than I am now.

One confessed she has no desire to have children and joked that it was because of her siblings. I told her that she was smart not to have them if she didn't want them. What I found sad was that she wouldn't want them.

Children aren't always easy to deal with, I will admit. Family, in general, can be stressful and demanding. But I never envisioned life without them, and that there are people walking around who have no desire whatsoever to have a spouse, children, and other relatives around is really quite foreign to me.

On the drive back, I was thinking about my friends and how different their lives and expectations are when I heard Rush Limbaugh discussing this story from the New York Times which states that 51% of women are now living without a spouse. What struck me most was how many of the women had been in long term (30 or more years) marriages that ended after the children were gone.

They say there's a transition period (we can't call it an "empty nest" anymore) in marriage after the children leave and the couple must refocus their time and energy on each other instead of the kids. Evidently, the strain from that helped propel so many of the women in the story to seek divorce.

I couldn't imagine saying things like this:

Carol Crenshaw, 57, of Roswell, Ga., was divorced in 2005 after 33 years and says she is in no hurry to marry again.

"I’m in a place in my life where I’m comfortable," said Ms. Crenshaw, who has two grown sons. "I can do what I want, when I want, with whom I want. I was a wife and a mother. I don’t feel like I need to do that again."

I thought that sharing one's life with another person was the most beautiful thing there is. But the stories of why women were remaining single continued.

Elissa B. Terris, 59, of Marietta, Ga., divorced in 2005 after being married for 34 years and raising a daughter, who is now an adult.

"A gentleman asked me to marry him and I said no," she recalled. "I told him, ‘I’m just beginning to fly again, I’m just beginning to be me. Don’t take that away.’"

"Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options," Ms. Terris said. "There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side."

I guess she never could have asked her spouse to switch sides.

UPDATE: For a different take on the NYT article, check out PajamasMedia.

Can "Terri Schiavo" Be a Verb?

According to this article,

The Observer in the UK reported Sunday that Catholics in the UK have taken to carrying special ID cards informing doctors that they do not wish to be deprived of food and fluids in the case of admission to hospital.

In a growing worldwide trend, doctors in the UK consider what used to be routine care--administration of nutrition and hydration, by artificial means if necessary--to be "treatment" which can be refused or denied.

The cards state that the holder would like a Roman Catholic priest to be notified and for nursing care to "include fluids - however administered."

Once upon a time, food and water were considered basic care. But as we know from the Terri Schiavo case, food and water can be removed if the patient just won't do the polite thing and die quickly enough.

Carrying a card requesting food and water in the event of hospitalization may not guarantee protection from the changing policies, as a 46 year-old British man suffering from a degenerative disease found last year.

Leslie Burke, who has a neurological disorder that will eventually leave him paralyzed and unable to speak, was concerned that he would be denied food and water once his disease progressed to the point that he could no longer speak for himself.

The General Medical Council opposed Burke’s request for a guarantee that he would receive food and fluids until natural death occurred, saying it must reserve the right to withhold food and water from patients at a doctor’s discretion.

Burke took his battle to the European Court of Human Rights after the British court system refused to grant him legal protection. The EU Court ruled against Burke’s request, saying there were adequate protections in place in British law that would prevent the premature removal of food and water.

Alex Schadenberg, head of Canada’s Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.com at the time that the European court "erred significantly" in the decision, putting patients all over Europe at risk.

Although doctors have always had the authority to determine if further treatment would be burdensome and futile, Schadenberg said, doctors are now being given the freedom to make such decisions based on cost effectiveness and patient "quality of life", instead of purely medical considerations.

"Modern bioethics philosophy has rejected the concept of purely medical futility. The treatment is not considered futile; the patient is considered futile," Schadenberg said.

Laugh of the Day

I realize I spend way too much time laughing at Pandagon, but this line just cracked me up. The story was about a high school cheerleading squad that has been forced to cheer at girls' sports events as well as the boys' events because of a Title XI ruling:

If you’re only cheering for the boys, that’s a fairly good indicator that you view your role as being a sex object and, more importantly, upholding the sexist notion that men are the doers and women are just the support staff.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It?

That's the question Ronald Cass asks at Real Clear Politics.

It's also the question intrepid reporters should be asking but, of course, are not.

Some things cry out for explanation. Like finding $90,000 in marked bills in a Congressman's freezer. Or finding out that a blue-chip lawyer who held one of the most important jobs in the nation was willing to risk his career, his livelihood, and his liberty to steal, hide, and destroy classified documents.

Why indeed? Berger and his attorney insist that all the information contained in the shredded documents is readily available elsewhere. But if that were true, why would Berger have taken and destroyed the documents in the first place?

Clearly, the cut up copies contained information Berger was loathe to allow to become public, especially after the temper tantrum the Clintonistas made about the docudrama The Path to 9/11.

Where are Woodward and Bernstein now? Oh, yeah. Releasing tape that former President Gerald Ford disagreed with President Bush about the war. Nice.

More on Liberals and Free Speech

Liberals love free speech. At least, that's what they always say. But when it comes to practicing it, they tend to like more regulation. Whether you are talking about campus speech codes, workplace harassment laws, or the Fairness Doctrine, those speech-lovin' liberals love to limit speech that they find offensive.

Notice, they don't mind speech that might be offensive to Republicans or conservatives. So, for example, when Don Imus discusses hanging Dick Cheney, there's nary a peep from those speech monitors.

But what if a conservative radio talk show channel in San Francisco calls for the torturing and killing of a black man? Oh, wait. That didn't happen.

That doesn't matter to Spocko, who started a campaign against San Francisco's KSFO for having the audacity to air conservative shows. Spocko says his beef is against "violent" talk, but the talk he cherry-picks could only be considered "violent" in the most restrictive, prudish sense of that word. Keep in mind that the same people who call George Bush Hitler and laugh at the prospect of the vice president wetting his pants at execution are upset about conservative hosts using milder metaphors.

I had read about the Spocko campaign a couple of weeks ago but wrote it off as the usual moonbat screeching about how important free speech is unless it's something they don't like. But then I found this story at the New York Times.

Originally, I shrugged it off as more involved citizens doing what one should do when one dislikes business practices (and no, it isn't asking the federal government to crack down on the business): petition the business. After all, I'm not Media Matters, who thinks advertisers shouldn't be allowed to state which shows they want their ads to run on.

But then I found Noel Sheppard's blog about the incident with KSFO and discovered that, once again, liberals just can't tell the truth about anything. Sheppard's blog is quite lengthy, but he puts the quotes Spocko pulled to send to advertisers in context. Suddenly, they sound outlandish but not the type of racist, violent crap that Spocko painted them to be.

Indeed, Media Matters is positively giddy about the attack on KSFO. But search as I might, I couldn't find any corresponding condemnation for the Don Imus discussion.

But then, after watching the moonbats at this post on CSPT excuse Democrat churlishness, I'm not the least bit surprised.

More Tolerance from the Religion of Peace

According to this piece in the New York Sun:

The letter "X" soon may be banned in Saudi Arabia because it resembles the mother of all banned religious symbols in the oil kingdom: the cross.

The new development came with the issuing of another mind-bending fatwa, or religious edict, by the infamous Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice — the group of senior Islamic clergy that reigns supreme on all legal, civil, and governance matters in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The problem arose when a Saudi businessman applied for trademark protection for a new service called "Explorer." The commission, none of whom speak or read English, were struck by how much the "X" looks like a cross. Of course, they went ballistic.

While this latest possible ban sounds silly to Westerners, it is just a small example of the sort of power the commission has over the everyday life of Saudis.

The Saudi commission has shaped life and death: declared jihad against Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan, banished women from public life, and forced piety at the tip of the whip and the sword. Its edicts have hindered business, education, travel, women's rights, and life itself, creating a fertile ground for terrorism and producing the 15 Saudis who participated in the September 11, 2001, attacks — and many others like them.

Among the commission's deeds is the famed 1974 fatwa — issued by its blind leader at the time, Sheik Abdul Aziz Ben Baz — which declared that the Earth was flat and immobile. In a book issued by the Islamic University of Medina, the sheik argued: "If the earth is rotating, as they claim, the countries, the mountains, the trees, the rivers, and the oceans will have no bottom." Another bright light of the commission, Sheik Abdel-Aziz al-Sheikh, recently stopped a government reform proposal aimed at creating work for women by allowing them to replace male sales clerks in women's clothing stores. Sheik al-Sheikh damned the idea, saying it was a step "towards immorality and hellfire." The underlying logic is breathtaking: Women are more protected by buying their knickers from men! Over the years, the commission has rendered Saudi Arabia a true kingdom of darkness. Movie theaters are banned, as are sculptures, paintings, and music, and the mixing of sexes in public.

Truly disgusting.

Dems Mull Over How to Cut and Run

According to the New York Times:

While Congressional Democrats have been fairly unified in their opposition to the president’s plan, the splits that have emerged center on how to proceed against it. Some say that Democrats won control of Congress with promises to force change and have a responsibility to do so; others warn that the party could incite accusations of undercutting the troops by limiting funds for them.

It is quite the conundrum for them. They are cowards if they cut the funding, especially after railing for the last two years about lack of body armor, etc., and they are cowards if they fund the troops because they are willing to send more soldiers to die for a "lie."

Didn't see anything in there about Dems discussing what happens if we lose...

More on Dumb Arguments for Illegitimate Births

Lots of comments at Pandagon about the slavery of patriarchal marriage and why, basically, there's absolutely no reason any woman would want to get married (I mean, Amanda stated that marriage is just a gigantic barrier to ditching one's partner when one is tired of him).

But I found this article which gives any number of reasons why marriage is better for raising children.

* Children living with their own married parents are more likely to be involved in literacy activities (such as being read to or learning to recognize letters) than are children from single-parent homes.

*Fourth grade students with married parents score higher on reading comprehension, compared to students living in stepfamilies, with single mothers, and in other types of families. Living in a single-parent family is linked with decreases in children’s math scores. Lack of income or other resources explains some, but not all, of the worse outcomes experienced by children from non-married parent families.

* Children growing up with non-intact families engage in more adolescent misbehavior, which harms grades and test scores. Family structure substantially influences outcomes such as high school dropout rates, high school graduation rates, and age at first pregnancy. For example, young people from non-intact families are significantly more likely to drop out of school, compared to students living in intact families.

* For young people, growing up without their own married parents is linked with lower college attendance rates and acceptance at less selective institutions.

* Young people, especially women, who grow up with their own married parents tend to marry later. Research has shown a link between delayed marriage and higher educational attainment among young women.

* Marital breakup is associated with a higher incidence of antisocial behavior in the classroom for boys. Children from homes headed by their own married parents have the fewest incidences of misbehavior at school.

& Family structure affects teenagers’ school attendance and tardiness. Students from non-intact families miss school, are tardy, and cut class about 30 percent more often than do students from intact homes.

* Teenagers from non-intact families are more likely to smoke, use drugs, and consume alcohol, even when controlling for important factors such as age, sex, race, and parent education.

* Teenagers from non-intact families are more likely to be sexually active.

* Teenagers from divorced single-mother homes are significantly more likely than teens in never-married single-mother homes to become pregnant.

It seems to me that studies like this one show that, far from simply being another lifestyle choice (and one which Amanda thinks is obviously an inferior one), marriage provides a healthier atmosphere in which to have and raise children.

"What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose?"

So says Pam Hess of United Press International on CNN's Reliable Sources.

What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight.

What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

Nowhere in the show did anyone refute this or agree they should be asking this question.

Hot Air has the video.

Jules Crittenden discusses Hess's throwaway remark, plus what would have been happening in Iraq if we hadn't invaded (and there wouldn't have been kite-flying).

Dumb Arguments About Out-of-Wedlock Births

I frequently comment on the silliness perpetually on display at Pandagon, but this has to be one of the dumbest.

Amanda has a post about the non-relationship (in her opinion) between morality and illegitimacy. She is criticizing Heather McDonald for stating that 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

I won't bother arguing about the morality or lack thereof of having children outside of marriage, but there was this eyebrow raiser that I thought was interesting:

There are many assumptions you have to hold and carefully refrain from questioning in order to fall for this line, not the least of which being that there’s a causal relationship between having a baby while not being married and poverty, when it could be correlative or, since she references race and not class, it might not even be as correlative as she implies. But more insidious implication behind this standard issue rant is that there’s something wrong with a woman who doesn’t get married.

It is incredible to me that anyone would write something like this and say they are an advocate for women.

First, there's the skepticism that there is a causal relationship between illegitimacy and poverty. There are many studies linking teenage motherhood with poverty.

"People love to argue about how to prevent teen pregnancy, but sometimes we fail to shine enough light on the basic problem," Sarah S. Brown, director of the campaign, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization, said. "Teen pregnancy is a major contributor to poverty, single parenthood, and limited futures for adolescents and their children."

And it isn't just teenagers having babies that face more poverty. Certainly, there are other factors involved in poverty rates for unwed mothers besides just their non-marital status. But it's hard to ignore giving birth to children outside of marriage as a source of poverty when there are stories like this one.

Half of unmarried women who gave birth in the United States in the past year lived below the poverty level, compared with 12 percent of married mothers, U.S. Census Bureau data show...

The analysis found that 29.1 percent of women who had a birth in the past year were not married and that 50 percent of such unmarried mothers were living below the poverty level. That means they had an income of less than $19,900 for a family of four. In contrast, only 12 percent of married mothers with new babies had incomes below the poverty line.

Amanda was using the 70% of black babies born out of wedlock statistic to make a different point: that women shouldn't be expected to be married before giving birth (and that, in fact, they aren't waiting until marriage to have kids). I guess that's where the morality question would come into play and Amanda doesn't really like to discuss morality unless it is to bash anyone who thinks some choices are better in life (personally and for society) than others.

It was astonishing to me to see any woman make this sort of argument when there is a world full of low-paid single mothers to prove the opposite point. If all single moms were Murphy Brown, in a higher-paying profession which seemed flexible enough to work with a single woman's childcare situations.

But the real world doesn't present such a pretty picture for single mothers, who are most frequently working at low-skill, low-pay jobs. This isn't a problem that could be solved simply with government-mandated universal preschool or required family-friendly policies for businesses. While those theories might help with the work side of the working mom, it doesn't deal with the multitude of issues that go with raising any child: nurturing, feeding, clothing, etc.

There are several snarky comments on the Pandagon thread that go like this: "Marriage sucks. I know people who are in terrible marriages and their children would be better off with one parent. I also know unmarried couples together who have a great relationship. Marriage is just a legal contract between adults."

That might be true to gay marriage supporters, for instance, but for most folks, marriage and children goes together because marriage still provides the most stable situation in which to raise children. Is it possible for single mothers to raise good kids? Absolutely. But it seems silly to condemn marriage as patriarchal slavery until one has had to deal with all the problems of parenthood without a spouse.

No Blood for Votes!

Ace of Spades has a post on Jonah Goldberg's and William Kristol's columns (the link is broken and I can't find Kristol's link) discussing the Democrat plans for Iraq. Their characterizations leave Dems looking even less impressive than before.

Says Ace:

I'm not calling them cowards because they won't support the war. They're liberals -- they don't believe in war. They believe in "aggressive, take-no-prisoners diplomacy."

I'm calling them moral cowards, consigning hundreds of men to die for a "lie," because they believe (they say) the war is unwinnable and yet will not actually act to spare any of these men.

They'd like Bush to do their cutting and running for them -- so they don't get blamed for a loss. But if Bush won't oblige them, well then, those several hundred new US casualties will just have to die for nothing at all in order to vindicate the greater cause of electing a Democratic president in '08.

At least President Bush wants to send additional troops to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. But what the Dems are doing could be worse.

Golly Excitement

They are called gollies, or golliwogs, and they date back to a series of children's books in the early 20th century, resembling the black-faced minstrels of American vaudeville shows.

Gollies were well-loved in Europe and in the 1910 became associated with a British jam manufacturer who used one named Golly as a mascot to sell his products. Golly was such a successful mascot that the manufacturer produced Golliwogg badges which became exceedingly popular by the 1950s.

Alas, as with many cultural icons of yesteryear, the Golliwogg is now considered racist and not for public consumption.

The private collection on display in Westbury Manor Museum in Fareham has been criticised for its perceived racist connotations.

Dr John Molyneux, from the University of Portsmouth, said the items should not be regarded simply as a childhood pastime or hobby.

But Nick Martin who owns the collection said the exhibition had been very popular and no-one had complained.

I think it's important for people to see all sorts of cultural icons for what they actually were, without any updating (for instance, Tom and Jerry cartoons have been revamped so the black housekeeper doesn't have the same voice). To me, it's a teachable moment both for adults and children. I'm fascinated by the darky iconography, partly because it is so shockingly and offensively stereotyping. But I also find it interesting because it is so painfully different from other stereotypes faced by other groups of the same time period.

For example, Wikipedia points out that minstrel shows contained a variety of stereotypes including the drunken Irishman, the cheap Scotsman, the venal Jew, etc. But it's the blackface stereotype that stuck and, in fact, was carried around the world. It seems to me that exposure to these objects, posters, and other images can be very enlightening if in the right context.

Why the Christian Left Isn't Christian

Kevin McCullough uses that as his thesis in a column at townhall.com.

Unity, forgiveness, mercy, and constant appeasement are to be more highly favored than righteousness, holiness, faithfulness, and obedience.

I call this more of the "feel good" Christianity that is prevalent in a lot of megachurches. There's an emphasis on personal fulfillment over holiness, obedience, or righteousness. The difference I see is that lefty churches emphasize more recycling and righty churches emphasize more family nights.

Of course, that's oversimplifying the differences, I realize. The new star of the Christian Left is Rick Warren, whose The Purpose Driven Life books fit nicely with my characterization of righty churches who are more about personal fulfillment.

McCullough states more clearly the difference between the Christian Left and the Religious Right:

The American political left believe that only Americans should have the right to live in freedom, thus their hesitation and belligerence in advancing freedom in other corners of the globe. But is not freedom a gift from God, for his creation? The American political left is not concerned with the freedom and liberation of the unborn child - but they will speak at length about the evil of slavery that ended in the 1800's. It was not leftists that marched for full civil rights in the 1960's and it was not democrats who granted full civil rights in the 1870's.

(Jim) Wallis and company will argue for the relief of poverty but give political support to liberals in America who seek to keep the poor impoverished, and dependent upon government for the well being of their family, and future. Conservatives are the ones who wish to see taxes reduced, so that government revenues increase, safety net programs insured - and fewer people needing them in the first place.

McCullough also points out that tsunami aid and aid for the Katrina victims came not from the left but from the religious right, who take seriously Jesus's admonition to care for the poor and those in need.

Jesus said that by their works you shall know them. Examining their works makes that pretty easy.

More Democrat Civility on Display: "My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass"

Democrat Civility on Display is a regular feature of Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.

The quote in the headline is from this post at the Raw Story:

According to conservative columnist Robert Novak, a freshman Democratic Congressman confronted the top GOP election strategist nicknamed "Bush's Brain" in a White House bathroom, and taunted him for failing to beat him in November.

But in a statement released on Friday, the White House dismissed the report as "ridiculous."

"Newly elected Rep. Steven Kagen, a rich allergist who self-financed his campaign in Wisconsin, by his own account taunted President and Mrs. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and presidential adviser Karl Rove during a White House function for new members of Congress in December," Novak writes...

"You're in the White House and you think you're safe," Kagen allegedly said. "My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass."

And these are the same people complaining at a well-placed epithet from the Vice President to Patrick Leahy.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

UPDATE: Dana questions the validity of the story based on the fact that the White House denies it. But Betsy has an interesting point about the story:

So we're left with two choices. The guy is a churl and proud of it. Or the guy is a liar who enjoys making up stories about his own imagined rude grandiosity and bragging about how he was deliberately rude to the Mrs. Bush. Charming either way.

Yes, indeed.

Rearranging Chairs on the Titanic

That's pretty much what Michael Nifong is doing with the Duke lacrosse rape--er, sexual offense and kidnapping case.

The district attorney has asked the state attorney general to take over prosecution of the sexual offense and kidnapping case against three Duke University lacrosse players, an official involved in the case said today.

As Patterico points out,

It’s the weasel’s way out. He can’t go forward, but he doesn’t want to step up and dismiss the charges himself.

Contemptible.

Democrat Rules of Civility Lesson No. 1

One may only shape policy which will affect one directly.

This is, naturally, the implication of Barbara Boxer's inappropriate remarks to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

I guess Ms. Boxer will excuse herself from anymore gum-flapping about the war since she just admitted she has no family there.

I, on the other hand, have just been elevated to honorary opinion giver, since my niece's husband is a Marine stationed in Iraq. Or is niece's husband not close enough?

This line of reasoning could become quite fun. It could disqualify all sorts of people from voting on legislation or expressing opinions. For example, only women could discuss abortion limitations since only women have abortions.

Those without business experience could not be involved in that legislation.

Only gay people could discuss homosexual rights.

Only those with children could write education legislation.

Only those with experience in oil and gas could be involved in CAFE standards legislation.

Only lawyers...oh, we see where this could lead.

UPDATE: Allahpundit at Hot Air has more on Boxer's blabbering.

"There are Klingons in the White House."

So says Democrat David Wu of Oregon. Hot Air has the video.

I heard this on the radio this morning as I drove my oldest daughter to school. My first thought was, "OMG, he just lost any credibility he had." But then I reminded myself that he's a Democrat. This might actually boost his credibility.

Al Qaeda Re-building in Pakistan

According to this story from the BBC:

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said al-Qaeda was strengthening its ties across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

Pakistan rejected the comments, which are the most specific on the issue yet...

The BBC's James Westhead in Washington says that until now the US has not been so specific about where it believes al-Qaeda's leaders are hiding.

Such a claim will be embarrassing for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who Mr Negroponte described as a key partner in America's war on terror, our correspondent says.

Now the question is, what are we going to do about it.

Majority Power in Action

Remember the arguments for raising the minimum wage? They ran along the lines of "It's unfair for some people to be paid so little and others so much," or "These multi-billion dollar corporations aren't even paying a living wage to their employees," and so on.

Fortunately for that tiny fraction of the American workforce, Congress has passed an increase in the minimum wage. So, workers will enjoy an almost $2 per hour increase in pay real soon, right?

Well, unless you work for the major tuna producer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district.

"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."

...The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.

Pelosi says she was never lobbied to exclude American Samoa from the bill, but I have to admit it smells a little fishy.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Did the President Declare a Secret War against Iran and Syria?

Steven C. Clemons writes about this possibility in his column today.

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

The argument is that the President did this during his speech Wednesday night, and that speculation grew after U.S. forces raided the Iranian Consulate in Iraq.

The Moderate Voice says that if this is true, it would be a rejection of both the Baker-Hamilton Group recommendations and the concept of consulting Congress.

It's hard to believe that the POTUS would do such a blatant in-your-face thing to Congress. It would completely ruin any possibility of cooperation with Congress now that it is in Democrat hands. But as Joe Gandelman says, you can see the seeds of major conflict in this confrontation at Senate hearings yesterday:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he did not think Bush had the authority to launch attacks to stamp out militant networks in Iran and Syria.

"If the president concluded he had to invade Iran ... or Syria in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that and he does need congressional authority to do that," said Biden.

"I just want to set that marker," added the Delaware Democrat, who later wrote Bush a letter asking for an "authoritative answer" on whether he believed U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria without congressional authorization.

In a testy hearing about Bush's new plan for Iraq, Rice said she did not want to speculate on the president's constitutional authority for such action.

"Obviously, the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq," she said.

Congress will want specifics, not more tap-dancing.

English Speakers to the Back of the Bus

This is a weird story, I'll admit, but interesting if you read it to the end.

Imagine sending your kids off to school, but when they get to the bus they are told they can't get on because they speak English.

That's right, English.

It happened to a few children in St. Paul and now the school district is apologizing.

It turns out that the bus route serves one of three language academies in the St. Paul school district. Each academy has a separate bus route to keep the kids from the schools together, but the district never enforced the rule.

Until now.

On this particular day, Rachel Armstrong's kids took the bus they usually took to school, but weren't allowed to take that bus home because the district was enforcing the rules. Armstrong had to leave work to get her kids and that's where the fracas started.

The district apologized for the inconvenience, but pointed out, in a bit of irony, that Armstrong no longer lives in the school boundary and therefore her children aren't eligible for the bus service anyway. The district says her kids can still attend the school if they find their own transportation.

The President's Speech

Just some of the reactions:

Pejman Yousefzadeh at Red State: "The good news is that in this endeavor, the President will not succeed or fail based on the content or delivery of a single speech. Rather, his success depends on whether he will commit to repeated and sustained explanations regarding what is at stake in Iraq, along with the calls for public support that would naturally accompany such explanations."

BarbinMD at Daily KOS: "In the end, last night's speech was the same thing that George Bush has been saying for nearly four years."

From the Associated Press: "Winning support among Middle Eastern countries is part of President Bush's revised strategy for Iraq. But he pitched the new plan by leaving out a pertinent fact: Anti-U.S. rhetoric in those nations has grown increasingly hostile since the execution of a man Bush never mentioned — Saddam Hussein."

Hugh Hewitt said: "It was a good speech, and it sounds like a good strategy. The sacrifice it requires of the men and women in uniform will be high."

The Third Rail of Marital Politics

Amanda at Pandagon touches the third rail of marital politics: name-changing.

This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem these days as I've seen it in the past. Today, a woman changes her name or not and there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with it. I do remember, however, about 20 years ago when the Name War was huge. I almost didn't get married because of it (the first time). And he used some of the same reasons Amanda lists:

1. It’s better for everyone in the family to have the same last name.

2. What about the kids?

3. Hyphenation is stupid.

The best line used on me was that if we didn't have the same last name, the kids wouldn't know we loved each other. I pointed out that if the name was the only way our kids knew we loved each other, then there were bigger problems than the name.

Amanda's post concerns this lawsuit filed by the ACLU on sex discrimination claims because a man has a harder time changing his last name than a woman does in California.

I don't completely agree with her analysis of the situation. The law is skeptical of men changing their names because it hasn't been the norm, whereas a woman changing her name upon marriage has been typical. If a man wanted to change his name, it was assumed there was more to it. I'll admit this is sexist reasoning and the law should be changed to treat both sexes the same way.

The funniest part about the name-change argument is that I could never get anyone to explain to me why it was so important and exactly where this tradition came from. The fact is that the changing-one's-name tradition comes from a time in legal history when a man and woman married, forming one legal entity, or, as the legendary William Blackstone put it:

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything;...Upon this principle, of an union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities that either of them acquire by the marriage...A man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her, for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence...

Legally, of course, none of this still exists in a practical sense. It's only when one touches this third rail of marital politics that one sees the sparks fly.

More on Jefferson's Koran

Interesting media critique at GetReligion on the opening of the 110th Congress.

Detroit Free Press staff writer Niraj Warikoo summarized the event, focusing on Ellison’s belief that the Koran influenced the Founding Fathers:

The Quran is "definitely an important historical document in our national history and demonstrates that Jefferson was a broad visionary thinker who not only possessed a Quran, but read it," Ellison said in an interview with the Free Press. "It would have been something that contributed to his own thinking."

Ellison was criticized by some commentators for using the Quran during his oath off office. Ellison said he decided to use Jefferson’s Quran after receiving a letter from someone who told him about the copy, which is with the Library of Congress. U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, a Virginia Republican, slammed Ellison for using a Quran.

But Ellison said Friday that Jefferson’s Quran "shows that from the earliest times of this republic, the Koran was in the consciousness of people who brought about democracy."

Daniel Pulliam points out that the fact Jefferson had a Koran means no such thing.

It is one of those stories that begs for some additional research. Is there any real historical evidence that the Koran was even read by Jefferson? The man was known for buying books by the boatload.

And how’s this for a follow-up question to Ellison: In what ways did the Koran affect Jefferson’s thinking and his writing of the Declaration of Independence? Reporters are not stenographers. They ask questions. They do research. They check facts.

I would be interested to know how much the Koran influenced the Founding Fathers, as well, given that certain lefty blogs went into absolute bliss at Ellison's use of Jefferson's Koran. Don't hold your breath waiting for reporters to track down that story.

Leak Probes Stymied, FBI Memos Show

Rush Limbaugh talked about this article in the New York Sun on his program today.

A lack of cooperation from one or more intelligence agencies led the FBI to abandon several recent criminal investigations into leaks of classified information to the press, records obtained by The New York Sun indicate.

In January 2005, a top FBI official asked the Justice Department to close three pending leak inquiries because the "victim agency" repeatedly refused to assist the probes. The FBI's contact at the agency "has been uncooperative with the investigating field office and on numerous occasions failed to return phone calls or provide the case agent with requested documents pertinent to the investigation," the memo said, adding that the agency "cancelled personnel interviews, security briefings and meetings at the last minute and failed to reschedule for another time."

"None of the cases can proceed without the cooperation of the substantive unit at the victim agency, therefore the FBI considers all logical leads covered," the FBI official wrote. Within days or weeks, the cases were closed.

That witnesses were uncooperative shouldn't have stopped the probes. It's important to know who decided to undermine the administration so blatantly.