Untimely NY Times Corrections Plus New Egg-On-Face Update

As everyone knows, the New York Times doesn't print a comics page. Why? Because the Times' corrections are vastly more amusing.

For the uninitiated, the most priceless gems include:

correcting the mis-attributed name of Professor Glenn Reynolds (i.e., Instapundit), eight years after the original article;

erroneously doubting actor Charles Bronson's WWII heroism--in Bronson's obituary (an article the Times had 30 years to fact-check); and

acknowledging error from an editorial ridiculing rocket pioneer Robert Goddard and the feasibility of space travel--49 years later and only three days before Americans landed on the moon!

But even after the Jayson Blair fiasco, the Times never learned its lesson, as evidenced by last week's retraction of a year-old Maureen Dowd column. MoDo outrageously mis-quoted the President to suggest that he asserted the war against Al Qaeda already was won. The President actually only claimed victory over those terrorists already captured or killed. The column created a huge kurfuffle on the Internet, detailed here. But despite voluminous calls for retraction, and cancellations of Dowd's syndicated column, the Grey Lady said nothing.

Until last week, when the Times conceded the point:

A Maureen Dowd column from May 14th, 2003 quoted President Bush out of context regarding the threat posed by al-Qaeda terrorists. The quotation was taken from the president's May 5 remarks in Little Rock. The full text of his remarks follows: "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al-Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore." The use of the partial quotation created the false impression that the president was dismissing the threat posed by al-Qaeda as a whole rather than its members who had been killed or apprehended.

Just under a year is, of course, better than just under a half-century. But Dowd's error was well publicized, and retraction was in the Times' economic interest. I can imagine no clearer demonstration of the mass-media's loyality to lies in service of the left.

Isn't it time you quit reading the Times?

Update:

I've been scammed--and should have known better. Of course neither MoDo nor the Times was gonna take it back. I, and several others in the blogosphere, saw the brilliant parody site linked above, and believed. Yes, it's a tremendous parody; yes I should have known. The letter-perfect article's the product of Robert Cox, editor of The National Debate. Oops--I goofed.

Shame on me for hoping. Everyone knows that being a liberal is never having to say you're sorry.

Can America Survive Kerry?

I've been rethinking the Presidential election lately. In the past, I've always been dispassionate; my analysis was based on logic and reason rather than emotion. And employing logic, there's plenty of Bush Administration policies I loathe--budget increases, funding the National Endowment for the Arts, not challenging Democrat judicial filibusters, etc. But I began focusing on the war on terror--which shifted from my "most important issue" to the "only issue." Now I'm really scared--about the consequences of Kerry.

Victor Davis Hanson, on National Review Online, agrees. And he's much better cataloging the President's achievements:

[The] Bush Doctrine. . .is now emerging to face the threat of Islamic radicalism. Despite the current shrill claims that the United States is hated, hopelessly naive, bogged down worldwide, and back in another Vietnam, since September 11 we have witnessed a historic emergence of a comprehensive foreign policy to confront Islamic fundamentalism and its parasitic relationship with Middle East autocracy -- without which it cannot survive.

Liberals ridicule the Bush doctrine because they claim to be idealistic, and resent that force, rather than reason alone, is sometimes needed. Islamicists hate it, because if Afghanistan and Iraq work, they are largely through. Moderate dictatorships in the region slur it because they can no longer triangulate with us to garner aid and a pass on their own repression. Arab faux-intellectuals and their fellow travelers in the West caricature it, because reform will make untenable their hothouse cynical anti-Americanism -- as they soon become as irrelevant as Panamanian or Serbian leftists damning the United States for removing Noriega and Milosevic to give democracy a chance.

To the credit of the Bush administration, all American troops will soon be out of Saudi Arabia. Its "charities" are being systematically shut down to end their subsidies to terrorists. For the first time in a half-century, the royal family is more worried about American support for democratic change in the Middle East than we are of an oil embargo.

Yes, exactly! But VDH deploys his best rhetoric in considering the Democrat alternatives:

Just as a presidency of earlier ossified liberals like Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale probably would have led to support of a utopian nuclear freeze and subsequent Russian intimidation of Europe, unilateral cuts in military preparedness, and acquiescence to the Soviet Union, so too the election of John Kerry may well undo much of what has been achieved these last three years as we return to the old, normal way of doing business. . .

[Now that he's won the nomination] Mr. Kerry abruptly will have to talk grandly of what he would have done to make us more secure. Yet a better guide is his own record in opposing defense programs, in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force, and his own contradictory past votes about deployments to the Middle East.

More likely, if President Bush loses, the war against terror will return, as promised, to the status of a police matter -- subpoenas and court trials the more appropriate response to the mass murder of 3,000 at the "crime scene" of the crater in New York. Europe will be assured that our troops will stay while we apologize for the usual litany of purported unilateral sins. North Korea will get more blackmail cash, while pampered South Korean leftists resume their "sunshine" mirage. Iraq will be turned over to the U.N. as we abruptly leave, and could dissolve into something like the Balkans between 1991 and 1998. Iran and Syria will let out a big sigh of relief -- as American diplomats once more sit out on the tarmac in vain hopes of an "audience" with despots. The Saudis will smile that smile. Arafat will be assured that he is now once again a legitimate interlocutor. And strangest of all, the American Left will feel that the United States has just barely begun to return to its "moral" bearings -- even as its laxity and relativism encourage some pretty immoral things to come.

If White House politicos figured that many who were angered about out-of-control federal spending and immigration proposals would grumble, but not abandon Mr. Bush -- given the global stakes involved after September 11, and the specter of a new alternative foreign policy far to the left of that of a Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright -- then they were absolutely right.

(Emphasis in original.)

I concur with every word. Particular the last four. And will redouble efforts to ensure 271 electoral votes agree as well.

New Math--Again

I know you'll be shocked, shocked--but the media again reaffirmed (tpfp post 3/1 2:16) press bias against Republicans. When Clinton was President, CNN reported economic statistics like this: "Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent." But today's WaPo's page 1 story on February job data won't let you forget a Republican's in the White House: "the unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent because hundreds of thousands of people stopped looking for work, the Labor Department reported yesterday. The weak jobs report provided fresh fuel for partisan combat in this presidential election year." And the story helpfully blames "rising health care and insurance costs" and outsourcing.

Eight years ago, 5.6 percent was "already-low." Today, 5.6 percent is "weak." It could be that press-types aren't particularly good at math, right?

Nah--I don't think so either.

Our Boys

Pictures of a day in the life of a Marine company in Iraq.

Chicago Paper Tops Shock Jock

Think Howard Stern the most indecent offering on mass media? Not anymore. Last Friday's Sun Times published the headline of the year:

"Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams Bush."

That's way more information than I needed. In case the Sun Times purges its Internet archives, Wonkette preserved a screen shot. (Via Instapundit.)

Why Can't George be More Like Tony?

Via Instapundit, another tremendous speech by Tony Blair. The British Prime Minister skillfully defends the Iraq invasion, first describing the threat:

I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live. . .

The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.

It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed.

But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it. . . .September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together.

Blair has no illusions about the danger of radical Islam:

The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people.

But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000.

But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.

The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it.

Blair next defends the timing of the war--because the UN bungled the job:

if the UN had come together and delivered a tough ultimatum to Saddam, listing clearly what he had to do, benchmarking it, he may have folded and events set in train that might just and eventually have led to his departure from power.

But the Security Council didn't agree.

Suppose at that point we had backed away. Inspectors would have stayed but only the utterly naive would believe that following such a public climbdown by the US and its partners, Saddam would have cooperated more.

He would have strung the inspectors out and returned emboldened to his plans.

The will to act on the issue of rogue states and WMD would have been shown to be hollow. The terrorists, watching and analysing every move in our psychology as they do, would have taken heart.

All this without counting the fact that the appalling brutalisation of the Iraqi people would have continued unabated and reinforced.

Finally, Blair defends the attack on Iraq despite failure to find weapons of mass destruction:

It is possible that even with all of this, nothing would have happened. Possible that Saddam would change his ambitions; possible he would develop the WMD but never use it; possible that the terrorists would never get their hands on WMD, whether from Iraq or elsewhere.

We cannot be certain. Perhaps we would have found different ways of reducing it. Perhaps this Islamic terrorism would ebb of its own accord.

But do we want to take the risk? That is the judgement. And my judgement then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its interaction with states or organisations or individuals proliferating WMD, is one I simply am not prepared to run.

This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long.

Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction.

I wish the President could defend his Administration so fluently. But Bush's approach and achievements are identical to Blair's--and in many cases were first articulated on this side of the Atlantic. Come November, whatever you think of the President's eloquence (or lack thereof), isn't it enough that the Administration's analysis and actions were right? Put differently, even if you don't believe Bush, why not bank on Blair?

When Geezers Go Bad

Reported in the Lakeland Ledger, via alert reader Ken, chaos erupts at a Spring Haven Florida retirement home:

Three Spring Haven residents were taken to the emergency room of Winter Haven Hospital for stitches in the head from being knocked to the ground, a cut arm and a bleeding bite mark. All were released the same day as the fight. . .. The fight started when one resident accused another of digging into the Spring Haven salad bar without using tongs. . .. The argument escalated when the accusing man, 62, punched the other resident, who is in his 70s, in the mouth, according to the police report. Others, including the 62-year-old's 80-year-old mother, jumped in to break up the fight.

I'll bet someone just told them Social Security's broke.

Elementary

Computer savvy chemists who revere Tom Lehrer: film at 11 (requires Flash).

Tell-Tale Signs of a Win

According to the Democrats, the Administration's Iraq policy is a failure. Many on the left oppose "nation building" because they believe it doomed. Liberals claim Iraq is a quagmire with no solution. Journalist and John Kerry supporter Josh Marshall's convinced Iraq is "teetering on the edge of anarchy." And Senator Kerry insists Iraq would be different--and better--we he President.

When liberals whine, America's usually winning. And we are. Here's the evidence. First, U.S. combat casualties have fallen dramatically--the lowest rate (on a per day basis) in a year. Second, Iraqi oil production and electricity supply are back to pre-invasion levels. Third, Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq admit they're losing (see tpfp post 2/9 9:23pm).

Former WSJ editor and Max Boot--now with Council on Foreign Relations--doesn't understand the pessimism. Writing in the LA Times (via Instapundit), Boot observes:

[The Iraqi] interim constitution . . . is a marvel of liberalism. It guarantees free speech, free religion, free assembly and numerous other rights that are taken for granted in the West but are conspicuously absent in the Arab world. Despite an attempt by some clerics to impose Islamic dictates, the constitution says only that Sharia will be one source among many for Iraqi law. . .

[A]lthough the terrorists can kill and maim, they cannot win public support. In the Sunni Triangle, where most of the violence is occurring, 21 imams issued a fatwa condemning "any act of violence against Iraqi state government workers, police and soldiers."

More bombs, both real and metaphorical, are certain to go off in the days ahead, but Iraq already has confounded many Western "progressives" who doubted that the Arab world could ever make progress. The bus may be rickety and it may have lost some passengers, but -- guess what? -- it's on schedule toward its final destination: democracy.

If this is a loss, what would be a win? Was WWII considered a success eight months after the fall of Berlin? As Jessica's Well demonstrated, not according to Life Magazine in January 1946. But post-War Europe turned out pretty well, didn't it?

Liberals, motivated by Bush hatred, think up is down. Democrats are wedded to the notion of "Two Americas," one of which is on life support. Such dystopian populism--pushed also by the far right Pat Buchanan--just isn't true. Never mind what Democrats say, America is winning in Iraq. And the economy's doing fine, in large part because of Bush's tax cut. Thus, despite the grumbles, "21st century life is good, comfortable and long, and getting better all the time"--as Greg Easterbrook's new book details. The left's hysteria about Bush actually is an acknowledgement of his accomplishments.

Democrat fear and loathing causes errors and misperceptions. Which raises two questions: what else do Dems get wrong? And: can America endure a President, and a party, whose reality is blinded by rage?

Update:

As usual, James Lileks's critique of Democratic Party pessimism is spot on:

It fits with the worldview of the intended audience, I guess – the people who think that once upon a time the United States strictly adhered to the Kyoto protocols, had legal gay marriage, and allowed overtime pay, and the President has undone these pillars of society one by one. Because he hates people, you know. He really wants to screw people over. That’s how you get reelected: wage unrelenting war against the electorate so they’ll vote for you in hopes that the beatings will slacken somewhat in the lame-duck term.

Moreover, like Steven Den Beste (see tpfp post 2/18 3:28am), Lileks thinks November's election should turn on a single issue:

[I]t’s the war. That’s what counts. If I had a choice between an isolationist Republican who would withdraw all American troops from everywhere and cast Israel adrift, OR a Joe Lieberman Democrat who understood the threat and wanted to take the fight to them - and nevermind what our valiant allies thought, like Russia - I’d pull the lever for the D. As I've said before: we can argue about the future of Western Civilization after we've ensured Western Civilization will survive.

Read the whole thing.

Gay Marriage Debate--The Real Issue

The country's convulsed about expanding civil marriage to homosexuals. I offered my opinion a month ago. I take no position on marriage, gays or the proper position for state legislators. In short, I concur with Charles Krauthammer's well reasoned article in the February 27th WaPo.

Krauthammer's (and my) qualms concern democracy and Federalism. America is a republic--meaning the people choose representatives who write and pass laws. Federal and state Constitutions contain (mainly in the "Bill of Rights") specific minority views that cannot be eradicated by popular or legislative majorities. So, for example, Congress can neither legalize slavery (13th Amendment) nor disregard the votes of women (19th Amendment). The Constitution enumerates specific powers and duties lawfully exercised by Washington--and allocates the rest elsewhere: "any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " (Amendment 10).

In short, most controversies in America are resolved through debate, vote and legislation. The Constitution does not contemplate "punting" the controversial to courts. Not even where the legislature or the people are deadlocked--whoever earns 50.1 percent of the vote wins.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention marriage. Thus, under the 10th Amendment, the definition of, and authority over, marriage is a state law issue. [The oft-cited exception--Loving v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court voided state laws prohibiting interracial marriage--was founded on the 14th Amendment's prohibition of racial discrimination; the 14th Amendment neither mentions, nor previously was thought to address, sexual preference.] So federal courts shouldn't be able to "find" a new Constitutional right for same-sex marriage. And although not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, I oppose state judicial imposition of same-sex marriage--including the one-vote majority of Massachusetts lawyers on that state's high court. My reasoning's similar--like the Federal government, states should adhere to the democratic process via the vote. I don't reject gay marriage--if authorized through state law originated and passed by the legislature and signed by the executive.

The Federalism fears are more complicated but fully set forth in my earlier essay. In brief, there is a substantial risk that gay marriages, valid in the state in which they are performed, must be honored by every state, including states where gay marriage is unlawful. Given the modern ease of travel, it is possible--even likely--that a single state authorizing gay marriage would decide the issue for the entire nation.

[Legal analysis--for the brave. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This normally is thought to ensure that "a marriage which is good in the [jurisdiction] where performed. . . is good elsewhere." Older cases suggested that states might not be required to recognize marriages repugnant to morality, see Lanham v. Lanham, 117 NW 787 (Wi. 1908). However, recent cases narrowed any exception, see In re May's Estate, 114 N.E.2d 4 (NY 1953) (recognizing Rhode Island marriage between uncle and niece residing in New York even though New York law prohibited such marriages). Many scholars believe "public policy" exceptions to full faith and credit are unconstitutional. Even if Constitutional in the past, it is impossible to imagine that a state today could disallow out of state gay marriages for reasons of morality--only last year, the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision forbade a state from enforcing "views on the whole society" based on its "own moral code." It's hypocritical in the extreme for gay marriage advocates--who embraced the Supremes' decision--to maintain that states today lawfully could reject out-of-state gay marriages. And the Clinton-signed Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)--which purports to "interpret" Full Faith and Credit to permit non-recognition of out-of-state gay marriages--is probably unconstitutional: Congress cannot authoritatively interpret the Constitution, it can only amend it. The unconstitutionality of DOMA is one of the few precepts in the gay marriage debate supported by both the political left and right.]

Still with me? So far, I've only said that gay marriage debate and decision is a duty of each states' voters and legislatures--which will require a change to "full faith and credit." Consistent with Krauthammer, any Constitutional Amendment should not address national policy on gay marriage--either for or against. As suggested by Senator Hatch and the WSJ's James Taranto, the best outcome would be: Let the people and the states decide. (Although I admit this solution has practical flaws--most of which are raised in David Frum's excellent list of gay marriage "hypotheticals." Frum's article also undermines claims that Massachusetts single-sex marriage would have no extra-territorial effect.)

Which is why I loved Jonah Goldberg's NRO article today. Like me, Jonah is silent on the merits of same-sex coupling. Instead, he attacks the logic of many gay marriage proponents. He's steamed by the hypocrisy invoked to oppose any Constitutional amendment. Goldberg quotes Demo party chair Terry McAuliffe:

Our Constitution, a sacred document -- you know, our forefathers knew what they were doing. This wasn't a rough draft. And let's not try to continually do amendments to it as we move forward. I would like the states to make the decisions on what they think is right in their individual state. It shouldn't be up to the federal government.

Exactly!--Terry's neatly summarized conservative "judicial restraint" and "strict construction." Yet liberals like Terry rhapsodize regarding Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court literally invented doctrines unsupported by Constitutional language. Activist courts thus "federalized" dozens of very personal issues, removing them from "their individual state." Even liberal (but fair) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg conceded that abortion rights discussions would be less polarized had citizens and legislatures been permitted to debate and vote. Thus was freedom stillborn by Judicial fiat.

Why do liberals flip sides and oppose an Amendment? Because Democrats distrust democracy. Jonah explains:

Most of the liberals invoking the inviolability of the Constitution in the debate against the FMA are the same liberals who generally invoke the doctrine of a "living Constitution," which demands that we constantly "reinterpret" the document.

For example, in 2000 when asked what kind of judges he'd appoint, Al Gore replied, "I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."

Are you cottoning on to my confusion yet? Liberals believe that the Constitution shouldn't be literally changed but they advocate a constantly changing meaning for what's already in the document.

Put differently, liberals think stupidity should be unconstitutional. But that's neither practical nor part of the Constitution--as Justice Thomas eloquently expressed in his two paragraph Lawrence dissent.

Today's left ignores the intent and purpose of our Constitution. It simply wasn't designed to answer every question. Instead, the Constitution establishes a process so citizens may discuss and decide. But proposals from conservatives are different, as Jonah notes:

Why is it O.K. for unaccountable, unelected judges to willy-nilly say the Constitution says 2 plus 2 equals 5, but it's somehow tyrannical for the House, the Senate and 50 states to debate an amendment with wall-to-wall media coverage? Why are big-D Democrats so terrified of small-d democracy?

Answer: because they're content with inconsistency and comfortable with lawlessness. That's essentially the reasoning of the Massachusetts court: "Why bother to vote? It takes too long!"

Massachusetts attorneys used to be more scrupulous. Back in 1776, the most accomplished of them observed that "the very definition of a Republic, is 'an Empire of Laws, and not of men.'" That phrase was authored by founding father John Adams, America's second President--and an excellent lawyer. But liberals have forgotten that the rule of law is both a process and a goal. If you abandon the process, you eliminate any constraint on arbitrary government--especially important when your political opponents hold power. And by ignoring the goal, the left has made America less, well, civilized.

The purely procedural Constitutional Amendment supported by Krauthammer, Taranto, Orrin Hatch and me, is neither pro- nor anti-gay. It neither discriminates nor endorses. Instead, such an amendment would promote the privilege to vote, retain representative democracy and adhere to the rule of law.

Opponents of this narrow Amendment deploy hypocritical arguments in service of careless jurisprudence in order to make America's founding document optional. They're no friend of the Constitution. Nor are they either "liberals" or "Democrats." Only one word fits this lawless bunch: radicals.

Court to Regulators: Drop Dead

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit reversed an FCC decision that had favored new local phone service competitors. The Baby Bells are popping champagne. But it's a huge loss for Commission--a thrashing that hints that government oversight may be increasingly ineffective in regulating rapidly changing, high-tech industries.

The ruling in U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC is lengthy and convoluted. The issues are fiendishly complex. Diane Katz posted a partial summary of the ruling on National Review Online. In brief, the court sided with incumbent local phone providers rather than new competitors. This may be a victory for consumers. (Reason: bigger local phone companies may be more efficient than new entrants, implying that a regulated monopoly will be cheaper than uneconomic competition--i.e., local phone service remains a "natural monopoly.") I'm working on a summary of my own that will address the substance and ramifications of the decision for the telecom industry.

But the case is noteworthy even for those uninterested in telecom policy. That's because the D.C. Circuit's decision is astonishingly angry at the FCC. In almost 25 years in telecom, I have never seen a court so contemptuous of an agency's competence or neutrality. The decision--written by Senior Judge Williams (appointed by Reagan in 1986)--accepted nearly every Baby Bell assertion while rejecting virtually every FCC response. Moreover, the opinion is packed with pithy, unforgettable phrases--including disallowing one government defense in two words: "Not exactly" (Slip Op. at 23). Indeed, the court crafted a memorable metaphor deriding the agency's zeal to force incumbent phone companies, called ILECs, to subsidize their competitors:

In competitive markets, an ILEC cannot be used as a pinata.

And that's not all. The opinion saves its cruelest blow for the final paragraph--the court ordered the FCC to fix its rules within 60 days. Typically, FCC action on "remand" from courts can take 12 to 18 months. Not this time:

This deadline is appropriate in light of the Commission's failure, after eight years, to develop lawful unbundling rules, and its apparent unwillingness to adhere to prior judicial rulings.

Normally, when reviewing decisions of the FCC or other agencies, Judges aren't required to agree with the outcome. Rather, the Federal Courts must defer to the expertise of a regulatory commission--and affirm all but the irrational or unexplained. Those principles clearly cannot account for yesterday's decision.

The D.C. Circuit Court clearly doesn't like the FCC. They accuse the agency of being "captured" by of one sort of company--new entrants--and unfairly prejudiced against another type--existing providers. I happen to agree. But whether accurate or not, the court plainly distrusts regulators. So do I--competition, where feasible, is better than bureaucracy.

But this case concerned monopoly telecom services and companies--or, as a minimum, areas not yet competitive. And the court concluded expert regulators were either biased or incompetent. I often agree. But regulation by Judges is worse--as Judge Greene proved during his 12 year rein as "Czar" of the AT&T breakup. So where competition is infeasible and neither agencies nor courts will suffice, what's the alternative?

I have no idea.

Update:

The March 4th WSJ contains two articles on the case, each available to subscribers only. The WSJ editorial translates the 60-days-to-fix provision: "That's legalese for, 'What part of 'back off' don't you understand, pal?'" For fans of Washington "inside baseball," the Journal also declares the decision a victory for current FCC Chairman Michael Powell and a loss for Republican Commissioner Kevin Martin--and for the Bush Administration, for whom Martin normally speaks.

Futurist George Guilder also praises the opinion:

This severe attack on the Bush administration by a liberal court might seem par for the course. But by throwing out the FCC's rump majority votes a year ago to continue micro-mismanagement of Internet connections and to delegate telecom control to 50 different state public-utilities commissions, the Court has performed a vital service.

The Bush administration now has a chance to release U.S. technology companies and communications markets from a multi-state schlerosis that is driving Internet leadership, wealth and jobs massively to Asia. New broadband networks cannot spring up across America's local loops overnight. But a bold White House policy to free the Internet from last century's rules -- designed for long-gone monopolies -- would spur the entire telecom and technology sectors to gear up for a new era of optical and wireless networks.

Connecting the dots to the recently-launched VoIP rulemaking (tpfp post 2/12 7:10pm), Guilder is optimistic: "The key to a new regime is a ruling that broadband-real multimegabit links to homes and offices -- not the dribbleware widely available in the U.S. -- is not a telecommunications service to be regulated but a new domain of innovation to be liberated." If Guilder's right, everyone's a winner--except the Bush Administration.

Child Abuse

If you're interested in the Mid-East you must read Little Green Footballs. Charles Johnson's weblog (linked to on the right side of tpfp's page) is the single best source.

LGF has long focused on Palestinian child abuse--that is, pictures of Arabs using their children in ways that would be unlawful in any civilized country, not to mention a violation of international treaty. LGF's got some more evidence today: Arabs cutting their children faces with knives or swords as part of some ritual. The pictures are graphic--but are important evidence for anyone still unconvinced of the barbarousness of radical Islam.

If it occurred in America, the parents would be in jail. So how can the left cozy up to Muslim extremists abroad?

Kerry Complaints--Humorous Version

In case yesterday's Kerry-bashing articles were too serious, try Mark Steyn's far funnier approach in today's Telegraph (U.K.). Steyn--a Canadian who lives in New Hampshire--trailed Kerry in the primaries :

He used the word "courage" a lot. He said that he had "the courage to take the tough decisions", and America needed "the courage to stand up". His campaign was billing itself back then as the "American Courage Tour". I think it was after his "Fresh Air Forum" (sadly misnamed) that I looked at my notes and found the following: "Sometimes real leadership means having the courage not to have any courage."

That can't be right, I thought. It must be two separate answers, or there's some missing words about a Senate Appropriations Bill in the middle that I left out. But funnily enough, I find if you stick it on the end of almost any Kerry response - the explanation as to why his vote in favour of the Iraq war was actually a vote against the Iraq war and the one about why his vote to refuse funding to the troops was actually evidence of his strong support for the troops - it makes things much clearer.

So the notion that Kerry is more verbally felicitous than Bush depends on one's appetite for sonorous senatorial blather.

Read the whole thing.

Bizzaro Religion

You may have heard of "Bizzaro World," where everything is reversed from our (and Superman's) reality. Fashioned by super-villain Lex Luthor, Bizzaro World is "a planet where alarm clocks dictate when to go to sleep [and] ugliness is beautiful." So far, Bizzaro World's been confined to comic books.

Not anymore. Two decades of state and federal decisions on religious liberties cannot be reconciled, much less rationalized. The cases confirm America's become more "Bizzaro" than any cartoon.

Consider the California Supreme court decision today. The Court held that a Catholic charity must offer employees a health plan that includes birth control despite the fact that Catholics consider it immoral. Yet a decade ago, the United States Supreme Court voided a Florida law prohibiting animal sacrifice. So preventing cruelty to animals inhibited the "exercise" of religion, but forcing a religious organization into mortal sin is constitutional.

It gets worse. Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court permitted a Rhode Island town to sponsor and erect a creche in a park at the heart of the shopping district. Somehow, a nativity scene including the Christian savior was sufficiently secular not to "establish" religion. Yet four years ago, the Court forbade students from reading a non-denominational prayer over the public address system before high school football games--that, the Supremes held, threatened to establish a religion. So the birth of Christ isn't religious but a prayer to an un-specified god is.

As I've noted before (tpfp post 2/27 8:07pm), America appears affirmatively hostile to religion. But not even antagonism can square these decisions.

It would take a "superman" to understand the law. Unfortunately, us mortals are condemned to a religious Bizzaro World. It's just not comic anymore.

Momma Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Vote Kerry

Elections are a beautiful thing. Even if you don't favor someone, there's always a candidate to oppose. So for you undecideds out there, via Instapundit, here's two intelligent and extensive lists of reasons to vote against the Haughty Hairdo.

First from his regular column in web-zine Slate, Democrat pundit Mickey Kaus:

Kerry has been a conspicuous non-performer in the legislation department. Time magazine found exactly "three substantive bills passed with Kerry's name on them" Two of these "had to do with marine research and protecting fisheries." (The other was "designed to provide grants for women starting small businesses.") . . .

The great question for Kerry biographers is how a man who showed bravery on the battlefield could demonstrate so little of it in his political life. . . This is why the oft-told story of Kerry protesting the Vietnam war by throwing someone else's medals away resonates uncomfortably. Kerry wasn't willing to take the risk of parting with his own medals. They might come in handy some day! Even in his moment of maximum political bravado he was cautious. . .

Kerry has a tendency to play the voters for fools--letting them think he's Irish (when he's not) or letting them think he's cleaner, in the campaign contribution department, than he really is.(e.g., saying he takes no PAC money but accepting unlimited "soft money" contributions to his Citizen Soldier Fund.) Or letting them think he gave up his own medals. ....

All this means is that when President Kerry gets into trouble--when his first big proposals stall in Congress, when malaise or scandal arrives--he won't necessarily have the ability to go to the public and dig himself out. He'll be through, over.

The second list comes from the reporter most familiar with Kerry's record--Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe:

No one doubts Kerry's physical courage. He is a Vietnam veteran, with a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts that attest to his battlefield bravery. But courage in combat doesn't necessarily translate into courage on the Senate floor or the campaign trail. That kind of courage -- the courage of a leader who knows his own mind and speaks it fearlessly, who doesn't trim with every shifting breeze, who doesn't court unpopularity but isn't afraid of it, either -- has never been a hallmark of Kerry's career.

Every few days, we seem to get a fresh example (or a resurrected old one) of Kerry brazenly revising his history, or declaring "flip" from one side of his mouth while asserting "flop" out of the other. . .

In 1992, Kerry insisted that Bill Clinton's draft avoidance during the Vietnam War must not be made a political issue. "We do not need to divide America over who served and how," he said. In 2004, not only doesn't he silence Democrats who disparage George W. Bush's military record, he goes out of his way to play the Vietnam card. "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," Kerry said last week. Profile in courage?

As he campaigns for president, Kerry says he has "a message for the influence peddlers . . . and all the special interests who now call the White House home: We're coming. You're going. And don't let the door hit you on the way out." Yet over the past 15 years, reports The Washington Post, this enemy of "influence peddlers" has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other member of the US Senate. Profile in courage?

Under fire in Vietnam, Kerry was fearless. But rarely if ever has he shown comparable bravery on the political battlefields at home. It is difficult to think of any instance in which he has taken a tough stand and stuck with it despite the clear political risk in doing so. Instead, time and time again, he has tried to have it both ways -- from the medals he threw away/didn't throw away to the wars in Iraq he supported/didn't support. At the age of 25, John Kerry's courage was indisputable. Now, at age 60, it is more or less undetectable.

Showing similar courage now that the primaries are essentially over, Thursday's New York Times endorsed Senator Kerry for the Democratic nomination. But I get the feeling their heart wasn't in it:

[S]o far in this campaign Mr. Kerry has shown little interest in being daring, expressing a thought that is unexpected or quirky on even minor issues. We wish we could see a little of the political courage of the Vietnam hero who came back to lead the fight against the war.

When the most partisan liberal organization in America is this tepid, Democrats should be very afraid. This November, even if you don't support Bush, vote against Kerry.

Part of the WaPo Plays Fair

Stop the presses! WaPo media critic Howie Kurtz plays fair and confesses to left-wing bias: "When Left Is Right and Right Is Wrong." As argued in this space (tpfp post 2/22 2:12pm), Kurtz contrasts coverage of marrying gays, contrary to state law, in San Francisco with installing the Ten Commandments, contrary to the Constitution, in Alabama:

Hundreds of news accounts have provided an upbeat portrayal of Newsom as a pioneer and the San Francisco weddings as a happy occasion, even as partisan rhetoric hardened last week over President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban such marriages. While those opposed to gay marriage and Newsom's maneuver are certainly quoted, the media spotlight has shone most brightly on the mayor and those (including Rosie O'Donnell) tying the legally disputed knot.

Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham says Newsom "is being treated as a modern-day Rosa Parks. He's a nice guy and a very eloquent public speaker, but he's also not following the law. When Judge Roy Moore wasn't following the law, people were trashing him. He was just ridiculed in the press. . . . If you have a politically correct view and violate the law, you're a hero."

The mayor has not been universally portrayed as a hero. But it's hard to avoid noticing that Moore's defiance (for which he was ultimately removed from office) appealed mainly to Christian conservatives, while Newsom's flouting of California law has been welcomed mainly by liberals and gays.

Halleluljah! Too bad Kurtz's admission won't moderate slanted coverage in every article and broadcast. And it's unlikely to boost support for a Constitutional amendment permitting states individually to authorize (or not to authorize) gay or polygamous marriage (see tpfp post 2/4 3:56pm).

Still, a rhetorical victory is better than nothing.

When is 5.6 Percent > 5.6 Percent?

Answer: When 5.6 percent measures un-employment in a Republican Administration. Tim Blair helpfully parses CNN stories over the years:

In 1996, when Clinton was President--"Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990."

In 2002, during the Bush Administration--"The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent in February and businesses added jobs for the first time since last summer, the government said Friday, as the labor market began to recover from a downturn that led to more than a million job cuts in 2001.

The jobless rate fell from 5.6 percent in January as employers added 66,000 jobs to payrolls ..."

Notice the missing phrase: 5.6 is "already-low" only when Democrats are President.

Not convinced? Try this recent CNN story about December's 5.7 percent unemployment data--"A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches." Got that? An unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is "low" for a Democrat, but 5.7 percent counts as a "weak" market for a Republican.

I guess it depends what "is" is.

All Hail Lileks

Ok, do yourself a favor: go directly to today's Bleat by James Lileks. You'll thank me for it.

SPOILER COMING: If you must know, Lileks examines the Republican and Democrat candidates for President by comparing these two quotes:

Quote 1: “The liberty we prize is not American's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.”

Quote 2: “We pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence.”

I bet you can guess who said which.

War Criminal In Chief

Bulletin from the front: Candidate Kerry served in Vietnam. The Senator's proud of his military record. So proud that when critiqued on defense and security issues, Kerry claimed President Bush and other Republicans were impugning his patriotism--and the patriotism of all Vietnam Vets.

Democrats have a history of deliberately misconstruing legitimate inquiries about national defense. As Fred Barns writes in the current Weekly Standard (subscription only):

Accusing Republicans of raising doubts about their patriotism has become standard fare for Democrats, especially Kerry. The tactic is designed to tar criticism as extreme and ill-motivated. Kerry prefaced his remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations last November with this comment: "I know what the Bush apologists will say to this--that it is unpatriotic to question, to criticize, and to call for change." Neither before nor afterwards has anyone accused him of being unpatriotic.

But this year, I doubt Kerry will convince anyone. Hugh Hewett is right that "Kerry's rather desperate posturing on his past radicalism tells us a lot. He wants to turn every question into an attack on his patriotism, a transparent and ineffective dodge."

More serious is Kerry's ever-changing view of the war. When campaigning, he reiterates--again and again--his Vietnam heroism, with a Silver Star (America's third-highest award for valor) and three Purple Hearts as proof. Yet in 1971, he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee American soldiers in Vietnam "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." Kerry first ran for Congress as a war hero. Yet he soon repudiated his Navy service, throwing his medals onto the Capitol lawn claiming the Nixon Administration "forced us to return our medals ... These leaders denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives." Except it turns out the medals weren't his--Kerry's medals hang proudly on the wall of his Senate office. And recently, Kerry spokesmen insist he always "praised the noble service of his fellow servicemen and -women."

So which is real Kerry? Both perhaps--but unquestionably an opportunist. (Leftist cartoonist Gerry Trudeau's been mocking his fellow-Yalie's shameless self-promotion for more 30 years.) Accordingly, as Naval War College Professor Mac Owen writes, the Senator must explain:

[T]he issue goes far beyond theatrics. If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a "good issue." If the latter is true, he should apologize to every veteran of that war for slandering them to advance his political fortunes.

Friday's New York Sun provides a partial answer. According to Thomas Lipscomb, Kerry's heroism was real enough--but so was his insincerity. Despite opposing the war in college, Naval officer Kerry was a medal-hound: "Mr. Kerry was assigned to Swiftboat 44 on December 1, 1968. Within 24 hours, he had his first Purple Heart. Mr. Kerry accumulated three Purple Hearts in four months with not even a day of duty lost from wounds, according to his training officer." Worse, says Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor W. Scott Thompson, while Kerry slandered fellow veterans without any proof, his 1971 war crime claim may accurately describe Kerry himself:

"[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me -- 30 years ago when he was still CNO -- that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam,just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. 'We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,' the admiral said. 'Bud' Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions -- but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage." And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.

Senator Kerry is all things to all people. Depending on the circumstances, he's appeared anti-war and a brave officer; a whistle-blower but maybe a war criminal; uninterested in national defense but patriotic. These positions are impossible to reconcile. So, with a nod to Watergate, I ask: "Senator, are you lying now or were you lying then?"

When Opposition Isn't Enough

Starting in mid-2002 until almost exactly one year ago, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair sought public support for invading Iraq. The coalition made multiple and overlapping arguments justifying regime change. Even MoDo said so! Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's formulation was typical, quoted here from an extensive interview with journalist Sam Tannenhaus:

[T]here have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.

Thus, the coalition premised its determination to invade Iraq, in part, on Saddam's long-standing and brutal abuse of human rights. Events since the fall of Baghdad fully confirmed the magnitude of the horror--estimated at 300,000 Iraqi dead (many in mass graves) and perhaps an equal number raped or mutilated.

Before the war, Iraq was sealed from the West. So iron-clad proof of Saddam's crimes was impossible. Instead, Bush and Blair relied on the best evidence available--reports of human rights violations published by Amnesty International, an NGO "focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of. . . all human rights." But that was too much for the organization's secretary general, Irene Kahn: she "condemned" Britain and America for "manipulating" Amnesty International's documentation for "political" purposes. This was kinda amusing, in a tragic way--I always thought political influence was Amnesty International's raison d'etre.

It's easy to dispute, cluck and tsk-tsk from a well-worn easy chair. But real world problems, like radical Islam, require real world actions--including force. A decade of UN talk-talk, diplomatic isolation and trade sanctions failed to dislodge Saddam. Yet the anti-war left insisted inaction was preferable to, well, anything--or anything supported by the United States. That's when liberals transformed from merely silly to hallucinatory and amoral hypocrites.

I was reminded of last year's "peace at any price" folly by Martha Burk's letter to the editor in today's WaPo. Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, is best known for failing to pressure the wealthy, all-male golf club in Augusta--site of the PGA's "Masters"--to admit a rich women. Burk responded to a week-old WaPo opinion column by conservative professors Phyllis Chesler and Donna Hughes. Chesler and Hughes argued that feminists who opposed U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq were stuck in the 1960s:

Islamic fundamentalism threatens women all over the world. Wherever they have gained power, Islamists have denied women their essential humanity and dignity. Islamic fundamentalism is not conservative religion but a fascist political movement that aims for world domination. Many feminists are out of touch with the realities of the war that has been declared against the secular, Judeo-Christian, modern West. They are still romanticizing and cheering for Third World anti-colonialist movements, without a realistic view of what will happen to the global status of women if the Islamists win. Many feminists continue to condemn the United States, a country in which, for the most part, their ideas have triumphed.

Burk denied feminists were soft on radical Muslims:

Feminists sounded the alarm on the Taliban years before Sept. 11, 2001, making them a household word. National Council of Women's Organizations groups are working with women in Iraq to craft equal rights language for their constitution.

I don't doubt Burk--many liberals condemned and still oppose Islamic oppression of women. Still such dissent is purely nominal: the vast majority on the left proposed nothing constructive. Rather, they protested or stripped naked within easy driving distance. Rallies were confined to countries free from torture or extra-judicial murder--places where freedom of speech and assembly already are guaranteed. Admonishment of Iraqi atrocities was brief, invariably punctuated by "but," which in turn summoned endless scolding of America.

Radical Islam remains an enemy of freedom, especially for women. Simply put, Shari'a law is uncivilized. The State Department's annual report on human rights, released this week, is replete with examples:

Saudi Arabia: "[A]rrested men and women found together who were not married or closely related."

Kuwait: "Married women require their husbands' permission to obtain a passport."

Tunisia: "[A]pproximately 20 cases of young women who were slashed with razorblades by one or more male assailants riding mopeds, reportedly because the women were dressed in a style Islamists viewed as immodest."

Nigeria: "Khadi judges subjected women to harsh sentences for fornication or adultery based solely upon the fact of pregnancy, while men were not convicted without eyewitnesses unless they confessed."

Horrible. But the State Department report probably understates the calamity. Just scan the popular "Ask the Iman" website. An anonymous Muslim sought guidance on the "status of women taken as prisoners during jihad." Lucky for our letter writer, Mufti Ebrahim Desai (of the "FATWA DEPT") could help:

In the "Jihads" (Islamic wars) that took place, women were also, at times, taken as prisoners of war by the Muslim warriors. These women captives used to be distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers, after their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over whom he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, it became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.

It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not.

I'll bet Susan Brownmuller's glad to learn Islamic rape is "distasteful." Too bad it's Allah's will. At least for female slaves. While Araby burns, feminists focus on work-place speech codes, twenty-year old pats on the thigh and pornography's wound to all women--whether or not anyone sees the pictures, whether or not the models volunteered and were well compensated.

Neither marches nor nudity freed Afghani and Iraqi women. Law review articles and international bureaucracies contributed nothing. Liberation was won when soldiers, guns and tanks battled evil. Words and intentions do matter. But when words fail, power prevails. Sometimes justice requires force.

In the second week of April, 2003, Martha Burk and about 50 supporters fought for a women's right to be a snob. That same week, halfway across the world, US and British forces toppled Hussein's dictatorship, freeing Iraq--and millions of Iraqi women. Liberals "opposed;" Bush acted. Which prompts a question: Comparing the chatter of liberals like Burk with the achievements of the United States Marines, which did more for women?

Update:

California Blogger Catherine Seipp suggests another link between liberalism and inaction:

What's remarkable about Wolf's screeds is their constant "Eek, a mouse!" tone of girlish fright - a tone that has seeped from feminist rhetoric into the general rhetoric of the left. This became particularly evident after Sept. 11, when various commentators immediately began fretting that Bush's America/John Ashcroft/Red State Crushing of Dissent etc. filled them with more terror than actual terrorists. There used to be something unseemly about constantly quaking in your boots, but no longer, and to read Wolf is to be reminded where this attitude comes from.

(Via Instapundit.)

No Right Turn

The non-partisan National Journal ranks Senator John F. Kerry the most liberal member of the Senate in 2003. Kerry scored 96.5 percent out of 100.

Got that? The Haughty Hairdo's more liberal than Ted Kennedy. More "progressive" than Barbara Boxer. More extreme than Joe Biden. More nutty than Jim Jeffords. More leftist than Hillary Clinton. Even more radical than--wait for it--Arlen Specter (R-Moon).

Oh, Senator John Edwards was fourth, with a 94.5. Clearly "a choice, not an echo."

McGovern, McGovern, McGovern, McGovern.

Think America's Too Religious?

Many people do. Skeptics are cool--even intellectual. I remember thinking so in college anyway.

College was a long time ago. Now I'm revolted by the hostility to faith and belief so common in the "smart crowd." Remember Howard Dean's "guns, God and gays" line? That was a political pitch, not a confession of faith. Dean--like many lefties--was patronizing the religious. They're bemused at the naivete of believers.

Which brings me to Mel Gibson. Left-wing reviewers hate his new movie with a "Passion"--because it treats Christ's crucifixion as fact. They're entitled to such ironic distance. But incredulous disbelief isn't enough: liberals prefer to mock.

Which brings me to Andy Rooney, the CBS News "correspondent." Last Sunday, Rooney preached from his "60 Minutes" perch about his recent chat with God:

"Andrew, you have the eyes and ears of a lot of people. I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos. I believe that's one of your current words. They're crazy as bedbugs, another earthly expression. I created bedbugs. I'll tell you, they're no crazier than people," said God. . . "Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? Listen, we all make mistakes."

Put differently, God told Rooney conservatives are crazy. Yet Rooney and other liberals despise political "interference" (i.e., positions on contemporary issues) from evangelical Christian leaders like Rev. Jerry Falwell or Rev. Franklin Graham. Yes, Rooney's piece was satire. But try satirizing something precious to the left--that's unlawful hate speech (scroll to item on "Satan worshippers").

Which brings me to the much-praised virtue of tolerance. I oppose intolerance personally and politically. But tolerance requires both give and take. And as Oliver North noted, "America's "elite" class has no tolerance for wholesome fare demanded by the public." The media's obvious contempt for moderation troubles me--even though I interpret the First Amendment to prohibit fines for scandalous Superbowls and juvenile jocks. (Note: the Supremes disagree. They're wrong.)

Which brings me to San Francisco. SanFran's a city "that has long prided itself on tolerance." But was it "tolerance" of Christianity that so unhinged Chronicle writer Don Lattin:

At the time, the Jewish world was in turmoil. There was a Jewish king, Herod, who collaborated with the Romans, as did some of the Jewish religious authorities. There were prophets, rebels, mystics, fundamentalists and more than one guy claiming to be the messiah. They all were trying to survive under the forces of an imperial occupation -- not unlike the Sunnis and the Shiites amid the chaos of today's Iraq.

Funny, I didn't know U.S. forces in Iraq were conducting summary trials, followed by torture and crucifixion. And the punchline is that Lattin's not even a movie critic: he's the SF Chronicle's "Religion Writer!"

Which brings me to the point. The liberal view of religion is stuck in century-and-a-half old Marxist hostility. Thus, despite their professed "tolerance," the left never plays fair. It's outrageous. Even to me--a secular skeptic of no denomination who rarely visits church or temple.

What, Exactly, Is Anti-Semitism?

[weak partial first draft, mistakenly posted, deleted. Follow-on to come]

Open Season on Senator Kerry--for Liberals!

It's not just the Washington Post--now, ultra-leftist Village Voice is gunning for candidate Kerry. Today's edition says the Haughty Hairdo "covered-up" ample evidence North Vietnam still held American MIAs--in order to claim credit for normalizing relations with Hanoi! Right-wing muckraking? I think not--the article, titled "When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A.," is authored by liberal lion Sydney Schanberg. Yep, that's right, Sam Waterston himself, the former NY Times war correspondent who exposed Cambodia's genocide in "The Killing Fields." Waterston. . .ur, a. . .Schanberg says Kerry, then Chairman of the purportedly neutral Senate select committee on POWs/MIAs, bent double to bury the issue:

When Defense Department officials were coming to testify, Kerry would have his staff director, Frances Zwenig, meet with them to "script" the hearings--as detailed in an internal Zwenig memo leaked by others. Zwenig also advised North Vietnamese officials on how to state their case. Further, Kerry never pushed or put up a fight to get key government documents unclassified; he just rolled over, no matter how obvious it was that the documents contained confirming data about prisoners. Moreover, after promising to turn over all committee records to the National Archives when the panel concluded its work, the senator destroyed crucial intelligence information the staff had gathered--to keep the documents from becoming public.

Remember, this is Sid Schanberg--talk about "street cred!!"

So, let's review the bidding: A candidate for President, involved in a cover-up, conspiring with his staff and shredding documents. It somehow seems so familiar. . .

With Sam Waterston staring as John Kerry in the movie.

Kerry Tales, Part XXIX

Perhaps the WaPo thought classifying Kerry as a "Dove" was positive. But with friends like that, the Haughty Hairdo doesn't need enemies:

[T]he record he has compiled in the three decades since he left Vietnam is more dovish than that of any Democratic nominee since McGovern.

The story also confirms recent flip-flops: "Candidate Kerry, in short, sounds different from Senator Kerry." This echoes the President at last night's gathering of Republican governors:

We meet during the presidential primary season. We're witnessing a clear trend -- it looks like we have a winner in the Republican primaries. The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.

It's only February but already Kerry's taunted as an opportunist and acknowledged as a liberal. Two more reasons for optimism. Kerry = McGovern = Flip-Flop. Fickle Massachusetts Liberal.

McGovern, McGovern, McGovern, McGovern, McGovern. Did I already mention McGovern?

VoIP, for the Eager

The FCC still hasn't released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on voice over the internet (see tpfp post 2/12 7:10pm), but Duane Freese has a good analysis over at TechCentralStation.

Order Returns to Jasperwood

Be sure to congratulate James Lileks, and his wife, on the impending house-husband reunion tour.

Questioning a Candidate's Military Service

No, I'm not talking about the phony Bush-AWOL stories. Over at FrontPageMag.com, some Vets are challenging Senator Kerry's heroism in Vietnam:

Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. . . I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander-in-Chief.

The article claims that Kerry's exploits were both implausible and at odds with Swift boat SOP.

The same email came to me a few days ago, and I've been unable to confirm any details or its source. But the Dems produced no evidence before slandering Bush. And the President released his service records to settle the issue. Senator Kerry, by contrast, won't publish his records. At minimum, this makes Kerry a typical liberal hypocrite. But Mickey Kaus wonders whether the Haughty Hairdo has something to hide.

Turn-about is hell, isn't it?

Update:

Via Instapundit, a plausable defense of Kerry's Vietnam record.

Education in Palestine

This photo, by the Associated Press, has two captions. This first is the caption supplied by AP itself--it describes Palestinian students learning English. The second caption is the lesson on the classroom blackboard. It's a bit faint, but it clearly says:

Resist the wall.
The wall must fall.
The wall is a Canser. Stop it.

Repeat after me: supporters of Palestine encourage brainwashing and propaganda. It couldn't be simpler than that. (via LGF).

Logic and Liberalism

I cherish consistency. Laws applicable to some people should extend to similar people. Policies governing certain activities should cover "like" activities. When debating politics, consistency--though purely voluntary--enhances persuasiveness. In my professional life, inconsistency simply is forbidden. See 47 U.S.C. Section 202(a) (outlawing "unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service."); Greater Boston Tel. Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C. Cir.) (government must explain departure from precedent), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971); Melody Music v. F.C.C., 345 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (similarly situated entities must be treated similarly).

Which explains my frustration with liberals. Yes, some conservatives are inconsistent. But I'm not. And conservative inconsistencies seem small-fry compared with the whoppers leftists generate every day.

Consider the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Liberals lawyers focus on the language of the provision (well, one reading of that language) to reject any individual's "right" to own guns. Conservative scholars read the amendment's initial phrase as explanatory, not mandatory. Moreover, conservatives note that the word "militia" is archaic and has no present-day analog. So the meaning of militia, and its historical role, can clarify the Amendment. Except to the left, who insist the Amendment is clear without context--and limits guns to today's National Guard.

Outside the Second Amendment, liberals flip sides. Everywhere else, the left disdains text-centered analysis and reads every constitutional right as broadly as possible. For example, the Fifth Amendment prohibition on "self incrimination" gives defendants the right not to speak. But liberals wanted more. Hence, the Miranda warnings--a constitutional requirement unsupported by constitutional language. More notoriously, frustrated by the Constitution's silence about "privacy," the left wing convened a judicial seance to summon mysterious legal spirits. These specters promptly prophesied a new right arising out of eerie emanations from textual "shadows." And even mild-mannered lefties become hysterics about conservative judges--despite their "strict construction" of the Second Amendment.

Recent months reflect a bull market in inconsistency. Consider the current orgy of marriages among gays sanctioned by local mayors and magistrates in defiance of state law. Liberals and the media support gay marriage--and so treat lawbreakers as civil rights heroes. Yet, as Rob Dreher observed, these same liberals were outraged when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore added a monument of the Ten Commandments to the courthouse. Further, as David Codrea notes, liberals would rebuke any official authorizing concealed weapons in the face of a strict state gun control law. Apparently, the more "progressive" the cause, the less demand for consistency.

So liberals are careless concerning coherence. This infected leftist reaction to President Bush's recess appointment of William H. Pryor Jr. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The WaPo page 1 headline "reported" the Administration "again bypasses Senate;" the Post's editorial was titled "More Provocation"; the NY Times called the appointment "Judicial Activism." So, the left hates recess appointments, right? Not so fast: liberals loved it when Clinton put Roger Gregory on the 4th Circuit via a recess appointment. And remember the left-wing huzzahs when Clinton appointed Bill Lann Lee to head DoJ's Civil Rights Division and James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg? But when President Bush does the same, the reaction is utterly inconsistent.

The Times didn't even acknowledge the contradiction. The WaPo bravely tried to square the circle by distinguishing between "controversial" and "uncontroversial" nominees. Such reasoning is itself inconsistent, because it begs the question "controversial to whom?" The (unvoiced) liberal view of recess appointments: an abomination for Republicans, appropriate for Democrats. Some consistency.

The fury about Pryor suggests the left-wing approach to consistency is shifting from indifference to heresy. Let me explain. Liberal Democrats claimed Pryor, a devout Catholic, held extreme and un-Judicial views. Liberals were particularly concerned that Pryor was hostile to the "separation of church and state," citing Pryor's brief supporting Judge Moore's Ten Commandment monument. Pryor did indeed support Judge Moore--because Pryor was Alabama's Deputy Attorney General and Moore was, in effect, his client. Once the courts found the monument unlawful, Pryor personally directed its removal--drawing fire from some Christians.

Put differently, leftists are punishing Pryor for being consistent. Pryor zealously defended his client. The court ruled against Moore and Pryor. Justice Moore kept the Ten Commandments in defiance of law, undermining the legitimacy of his cause. In contrast, Pryor enforced the court's decision--even though he disagreed:

I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the building of the Supreme Court of the United States... (But) the rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders. The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders.

Justice Moore, properly, was stripped of his robes. By challenging, then enforcing, the law, Pryor was both legally consistent and exhibited the unbiased Judicial temperament liberals claim to seek. Yet Democrats treated Pryor as if he were a scofflaw like Moore--and stalled his nomination. The message: unless it advances the liberal agenda, consistency has been converted from virtue to vice.

I'm glad consistency remains obligatory in telecommunications. Especially because it's vanishing from politics. Liberals and the press routinely ignore syllogism in favor of conflicting arguments and incoherent outcomes. Regardless of logic or law, liberal ends justify any means. This isn't just inconsistent--it's hypocritical.

Remember that this November.

Ha Ha Ha --Ay?

In today's WSJ, Mark Steyn sniggers about the squabble between late nite TV host Conan O'Brien (who called Canadians obnoxious, dull and mostly homosexual) and Canada's politicians (who, being dull, called Conan "utterly vile" "racist filth" and "vicious"). Steyn defends Canada to the last Labatts: "Just for the record, Canadians are not humorless. We're humourless, OK?"

But Steyn worries humor is a casualty of modern multi-culti government that discourages assimilation:

There's a lesson here, both for the European Union and an increasingly Hispanicized U.S.: Gags are one of the great pillars of a common culture, but they're one of the first things to get lost in translation--and if you can't share a joke, it's hard to have a shared culture. That's why multilingual societies tend toward the humorless: see Switzerland and Belgium.

Canada is worse--the various concessions that deflated Quebec secession allowed Francophones to dominate Anglophones and thus rule Canada:

Today modern Trudeaupian Canada, being semi-French, is a semi-detached member of the Anglosphere. A year ago public opinion in English Canada was more or less as pro-war as Britain and Australia. Over 60% of Canadians outside Quebec supported American action against Saddam. But French Canada was overwhelmingly antiwar. . .. The "Francization" of the political culture has ensured that the entire country has been relocated to the rue des Pussies.

Like the man said, there's a lesson here.

The Islamic Republic of--Australia?

Other than England, Australia is America's closest ally in the battle against global terrorism. In part, this reflects the determination and ideals of long-standing Prime Minister John Howard (from Australia's Liberal--meaning conservative--Party). Also, Australia wields an unusually (for its size) competent, professional army with proud traditions. And Australians themselves are targets of Islamo-fascism--more than 100 were killed when terrorists bombed a Bali disco in October 2002.

Which must explain two recent communiques from "Jihad International," translated by MEMRI. First, Taj Al-Din Hamed Abdallah Al-Hilali, the Mufti of Australia and New Zealand, insists Australia originally was Muslim--because its aborigines allegedly came from Arab lands:

[T]hey have customs such as circumcision, marriage ceremonies, respect for tribal elders, and burial of the dead--all customs that show that they were connected to ancient Islamic culture before the Europeans set foot in Australia. That is, Islam had roots deep in the Australian soil and read the Qur'an and called to prayer before the bells of the churches rang in Australia.

Emboldened by this new-found historical injustice, Sheikh Al-Hilali wants to dump democracy and install Islam--because Australia is too free:

The dangers threatening the Muslim community emanate from the law that prohibits the family's guardianship over its sons from the moment they reach the age of 16. The father has no authority over his son or his daughter, and if you try to intervene in your son's private life, he brings in the police. The moment your son reaches 16, he takes his freedom and becomes independent.

The sheik also opposes public school sex education and gay marriage (under consideration in Australia).

Sex education and gay rights also are controversial in Western societies. But democracies routinely discuss and debate such questions without risking revolution. Freedom of speech and freedom from unnecessary government are prized by liberals and conservatives alike. Not to mention freedom of religion--try that in Saudi Arabia.

Yet many if not most liberals oppose the global campaign against Islamic terrorism. That is, they insist the U.S., Britain and Australia are governed by fascists, in contrast to their pet dictatorships such as Saddam's torture state, Cuba's threadbare but repressive Marxism and North Korea's deadly work camps. Citizens of those countries have no rights. This is, to say the least, a warped moral inversion.

Two years ago, Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated days before he might have become Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Fortuyn's politics were complex, but he was socially liberal, openly gay--and convinced Islam threatened Dutch tolerance. Rob Dreher, now editorial writer and columnist for the Dallas Morning News, summarized Fortuyn's arguments shortly after the murder:

[I]mmigrants--particularly Muslims, whose views on women and gays he considered barbaric--should be pressed harder to assimilate into Dutch life. . .

Fortuyn challenged one of the fundamental principles of liberal Dutch culture: Thou shalt not be seen as intolerant. Immigration and immigration-related crime are not new problems in the Netherlands, but the ability to speak openly about it is. For years, the ruling elite, which includes the media, has made discussion of the growing immigration problem taboo, on pain of being branded a crypto-Nazi.

As recently as last week, Fortuyn denounced this paralyzing political correctness, telling an interviewer that "everywhere in Europe, socialists and the extreme left have forbidden the discussion of the problems of multicultural society."

Fortuyn understood that radical Islam is inconsistent with the freedoms treasured by the left. Obviously, core liberal values--such as abortion or gay rights--would be the first casualty of Muslim Shari`ah law. George Bush understands that radical Islam is inconsistent with the freedoms cherished by the right. Core conservative values--limited government and preservation of contracts--wouldn't survive an Islamic revolution either.

So why do lefties rally 'round dictators who spurn any progressive rights? Because they reflexively oppose America and loathe George Bush. It's practically automatic; no thinking required.

Which brings me--finally--to the point. Next time you chat with an American anti-war liberal, ask whether he'd consider moving to Saudi Arabia, North Korea or Cuba. Ask any Australian lefty whether turning Canberra into Shari`ah, as the good Sheikh suggests, would bolster his liberties. And then ask yourself: Can someone so casual about freedom purely for personal pique really be considered "liberal?"