« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
August 31, 2005
Pay for Play
WKIT-FM 100.3 here in Bangor is having a "Pay for Play" day to benefit the American Red Cross. If you're in WKIT listening area, call the radio station at 1-800-287-1003 or 990-3100 and request a song with a minimum pledge of $10.
Station owners Stephen and Tabitha King are matching, dollar for dollar, every donation. It's a rock station, so I'm tempted to call in with a request for Barry Manilow.
UPDATE - Just called in with a request and a pledge. I wimped out on the Manilow thing. Requested "C'mon, C'mon" by the Von Bondies instead.
They really are playing anything, by the way. "Shower the People" by James Taylor is on right now.
Posted by slublog at 11:24 AM | Comments (144) | TrackBack
Hurricane Relief Blog Day
The images, video and stories coming out of the states devasted by Hurricane Katrina are heartbreaking. The Truth Laid Bear is organizing a blog relief day to raise money for the victims of the storm. The fundraiser will take place this Thursday, and more information can be found on the linked page.
Instapundit has a list of organizations helping with relief efforts. I recommend World Vision, which doesn't have a specific hurricane donation page up yet, but has indicated they are mobilizing supplies for the relief effort. I'll post a link when one becomes available.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Compassion for Me, But Not for Thee
Cindy Sheehan has vaulted over the carnivorous fish.
I have continually asked George Bush to quit using Casey's name the name of the other Gold Star Families for Peace loved ones to justify his continued killing. He continues to say this: 'We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission.' So the mission is now this: WE MUST CONTINUE KILLING AMERICANS BECAUSE AMERICANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN KILLED!!!So Gold Star mothers who oppose the war are acting on principle, but those who support the war are 'brainwashed?'How can anyone, anyone in their right minds support this line of reasoning' I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves. Iraq DID NOT have WMD's; Iraq WAS NOT linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11; Iraq WAS NOT a threat or danger to America. How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed' I don't understand it. I don't understand how any mother could want another mother to feel the pain we feel. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these 'continue the murder and mayhem' moms to see the light.
I guess the 'moral authority' of those who have lost children in Iraq isn't completely absolute, then. Such authority is only granted, it seems, to those who don't agree with the president.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
An Impressive Newspaper
The staff of the New Orleans Times-Picayune was able to publish a newspaper today. It was in .pdf format, and only available online, but it's still an amazing piece of work. They have been forced to abandon their offices due to the flooding, but have continued updating the website.
Their site, and that of blogger Brendan Loy, are among the best sources for information about Katrina and its aftermath.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
Sorry for the Down Time
Hosting Matters, the fine folks who keep this site on their servers, was the victim of a DoS attack today. I'd like to do something violent to those who orchestrate such attacks, to be honest. What's the point?
Honestly, don't geeks have better things to do?
Posted by slublog at 10:03 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Where's Amazon?
After the tsunami devastated countries in south Asia, Amazon.com put a donation button on its front page, with all funds earmarked for the American Red Cross.
The damage from Hurricane Katrina is worse than anyone could have imagined, and the Red Cross has its work cut out for it. I don't think this disaster, in terms of human loss, is anywhere near what happened after the tsunami. It would be nice, though, to see companies like Amazon give the same attention to victims of a natural disaster in the United States as it did to those in foreign countries.
We're a rich, and generous, country. Amazon should once again be a conduit for that generosity. (h/t: Indeed)
UPDATE - Don't get me wrong. I love Amazon as a company. The ability to buy books and movies cheap without having to come in contact with other human beings is my perfect shopping experience. I just think what they did during the tsunami was fantastic, and it would be great to have a central spot for donations like that again.
Posted by slublog at 05:32 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Buchanan: Impeach Bush
Pat Buchanan's descent into madness continues.
Well, we are being invaded, and the president of the United States is not doing his duty to protect the states against that invasion. Some courageous Republican, to get the attention of this White House, should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment, charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against "invasion."Actually, such a move would discredit the 'close the borders and deport 'em all' wing of the conservative movement pretty quickly. It wouldn't surprise me if Tom Tancredo were already drafting up such a bill.It may be the only way left to get his attention, before the border vanishes and our beloved country dissolves into MexAmerica, what T.R. called a "polyglot boarding house for the world."
Posted by slublog at 02:36 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What are you paying for gas?
I'm curious, what are gas prices around the country after Katrina? I paid 2.63 yesterday (up from 2.55 earlier in the day) and it's 2.78 today, but I heard that yesterday it was 3.10 in Marion, IN and 3.50 in Muncie, that's probably price gouging.
Posted by at 08:06 AM | Comments (28) | TrackBack
Helping Katrina's Victims
Samaritan's Purse is providing relief to those affected by Hurricane Katrina. This storm did incredible damage to the Gulf Coast and took everything from some people living in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. If you can help, please donate.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Another Blemish on the 9/11 Commission?
And here I thought the purpose of the September 11 Commission was to find out the truth about what happened leading up to the attacks.
AHMED HIKMAT SHAKIR IS A shadowy figure who provided logistical assistance to one, maybe two, of the 9/11 hijackers. Years before, he had received a phone call from the Jersey City, New Jersey, safehouse of the plotters who would soon, in February 1993, park a truck bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. The safehouse was the apartment of Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, who scorched his own leg while mixing the chemicals for the 1993 bomb.Between this story and the growing Able Danger revelations, we're going to have to re-evaluate the efficacy of the September 11 Commission and perhaps have Congress examine why the commission wasted so much time and money on an investigation that didn't seem interested in any facts that didn't fit a predetermined narrative. (h/t: Ace)When Shakir was arrested shortly after the 9/11 attacks, his "pocket litter," in the parlance of the investigators, included contact information for Musab Yasin and another 1993 plotter, a Kuwaiti native named Ibrahim Suleiman.
These facts alone, linking the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, would seem to cry out for additional scrutiny, no?
The Yasin brothers and Shakir have more in common. They are all Iraqis. And two of them--Abdul Rahman Yasin and Shakir--went free, despite their participation in attacks on the World Trade Center, at least partly because of efforts made on their behalf by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Both men returned to Iraq--Yasin fled there in 1993 with the active assistance of the Iraqi government. For ten years in Iraq, Abdul Rahman Yasin was provided safe haven and financing by the regime, support that ended only with the coalition intervention in March 2003.
Readers of The Weekly Standard may be familiar with the stories of Abdul Rahman Yasin, Musab Yasin, and Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Readers of the 9/11 Commission's final report are not. Those three individuals are nowhere mentioned in the 428 pages that comprise the body of the 9/11 Commission report.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack
August 29, 2005
And Now For Something Completely Different
Man vs. Squirrel. Guess who wins. Not of Dave Barry caliber but still funny.
Posted by at 09:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
This Would Make Winter Driving Easier
A new vehicle the Army could use:
Does it come in silver? More here.
Posted by slublog at 04:01 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
"A Catastropic Blow"
Jeff Masters at Weather Underground says the damage from Hurricane Katrina will be substantial, especially if it hits the city of New Orleans. As Instapundit says, the National Weather Service is not mincing words on this one. This storm is dangerous, and I pray for the safety of those who are in its path.
Instapundit, as usual, has the best link roundups here, here and here. Via Vodkapundit, the New Orleans Times-Picayune had a series on what would happen if a Category 5 hurricane hit that city.
One would hope, in the face of such a potentially tragic event, those on either side of the political spectrum would refrain from politicizing this storm. So much for hope.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Name that President
Mister Snitch looks at bad press for the president.
Accused of changing the rationale for 'his' war, and hounded for mismanaging it. Derided as an uninspiring public speaker. Belittled as an idiot. Blamed for dividing the nation. Charged with incompetence in his administration. Accused of trampling on the Constitution. Engaged in censorship and manipulation of the press. Mockingly compared with lower primates. Pressured for a key Cabinet Advisor's resignation.So who are we talking about?
Of course, we're referring to Lincoln.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Visit "The Penguins"
My wife and I went to see "March of the Penguins" this evening. The movie moves slowly, but is worth watching. It was a very good film, nad made you realize the extent to which animals will go to preserve the future of their species. The film is engaging, funny in parts and boasts some great filmwork. Worth your time.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Remembering September 11
This Sunday, the Discovery channel will premiere a new documentary, "93: The Flight that Fought Back." From what I've seen in the previews, this looks as though it was done with a focus on accuracy and respect for the victims of that day.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 28, 2005
Welcome to New England, Here's Your Bill
Drove to Boston's Logan Airport yesterday to pick up a group from our church that was arriving from a trip to Zambia. The trip went well. It was a nice quiet drive, which gave me some time to collect thoughts on traveling the roads of this little part of America.
-Tolls: Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts are all guilty of squeezing every cent they can out of travelers. I think New Hampshire is the most guilty party on this front. Let's be honest. They know that most people who travel I-95 in their state want to actually be in Massachusetts or Maine. The Hampton Toll booth is just a way to make some money off people who are passing through. Live free or die? More like pay up or find another route.
-Wi-Fi: Logan Airport boasts wi-fi coverage in all of its terminals. Since we were there early, I decided to try it out. The idea would be great, if it worked. To give Logan its due, though, the directions to the airport given on the website were perfect. Didn't take one wrong turn, and was able to park very close to the terminal.
-Food: Let's just say Burger King has to do a much better job monitoring the quality control of its interstate franchises. Before 12:00 last night, I didn't know it was possible to so thoroughly ruin something as simple as a cheeseburger. Still, I'm glad they're open so late.
I love driving at night. There's nothing like having the whole road to yourself and being able to have time to think. Gotta watch out for the deer, though. Those things are sneaky and darn near invisible at night.
Posted by slublog at 01:37 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
August 26, 2005
Fun with Guns
My friend Dan's latest column, about his adventures in shooting.
Posted by slublog at 01:05 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Terrorists and the Red Cross
This story really doesn't reflect well on the nonprofit organization.
ROME — Italy's Red Cross treated four Iraq insurgents — with the knowledge of the Italian government — last year and hid them from U.S. forces in exchange for the freedom of two kidnapped aid workers, a top Italian Red Cross official said in an interview published Thursday.I hope Italy doesn't learn the hard way that negotiating and aiding terrorists only results in more terrorism. I mean, now the terrorists know they can get free medical care if they just grab a couple of Italians.Maurizio Scelli, chief of the Italian Red Cross, told the Turin newspaper La Stampa that he had kept the deal secret from U.S. officials, complying with "a nonnegotiable condition" imposed by Iraqi mediators who helped him secure the release of Simona Pari and Simona Torretta. The women were abducted in Baghdad on Sept. 7 and freed Sept. 28.
"The mediators asked us to save the lives of four alleged terrorists wanted by the Americans who were wounded in combat," Scelli was quoted as saying. "We hid them and brought them to Red Cross doctors, who operated on them."
Posted by slublog at 10:13 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack
Limestone Survives
The Base Realignment and Closing Commission voted to keep the defense accounting center in Limestone open. This is good news. The argument for keeping this place open was the same as that of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard - they did good work.
Politically, this is good news for Governor John Baldacci and Senator Olympia Snowe. As I said before, though, it doesn't mean they (especially Baldacci) can sit on their laurels and coast on this success to win re-election. There are a lot of months between now and then, and if the Maine Republican party is smart, it will spend much of that time asking how the governor intends to create or keep jobs in the state that are not dependent upon government largesse.
Posted by slublog at 09:12 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
"Gates of Fire"
Michael Yon's latest is outstanding.
Posted by slublog at 12:46 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Figures
Posted by slublog at 12:23 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
Mars Hoax
By now you may have heard that on Saturday Mars will be as big as the full moon. Well, don't believe it. What the typical e-mail says is that "At a modest 75-power magnification Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye." So technically that's correct (although other things in the e-mail are wrong) but misleading—it is 75 times smaller than the Full moon in diameter, 5625 times smaller in area. If Mars were to get so close that its naked-eye size was the same as the Moon's, then its gravity would alter our orbit and that would be a Bad Thing.
Posted by at 11:23 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack
The Harm of Foolish Words
Pat Robertson may have done more than simply embarrass himself when he advocated the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Kenneth D. MacHarg, a missionary serving in South America, says Robertson's ill-considered words may have actually made it harder for South American missionaries to do their jobs.
There is already enough tension between Roman Catholic and Protestant (evangelical) leaders in Latin America. In some parts of the continent, particularly the Andean region of South America and isolated parts of Mexico, violence still erupts against evangelical churches, pastors and congregations.Robertson has apologized for his words, and rightly so. His comments were beyond foolish. I will not question his relationship with God, as one commenter has done, but I think it's time for evangelicals who support Robertson financially or by watching his television program to reconsider their endorsement.There is also a concern for Protestant Christian workers in the region. "We could see a backlash in Venezuela against U.S. missionaries," one missionary with a number of years experience in Venezuela expressed following the news of Robertson's statement.
Uninformed non-evangelicals and skeptical non-believers often see prominent spokespersons such as Robertson as broadly representative of evangelicalism and the evangelical church that has moved into their formerly all-Catholic neighborhood.
Christianity Today's blog has a series of reactions, positive and negative, from Christian leaders about Robertson's words and points out that Robertson has not always been so critical of world leaders with a taste for oppression.:
But it's a mistake to see CBN as Pat Robertson's only source of income. CBN was not, for example, part of Freedom Gold Limited, Robertson's mining operation in Liberia (incorporated in the Cayman Islands with Robertson as president and sole director). Nor was it part of his Creative Energy Co., an oil refinery company. Nor of Robertson's horse-racing interests.I think that Robertson, through his business dealings and his habit of making offensive comments, has lost the moral authority necessary to effectively serve as a Christian leader.Robertson is willing to fight for these interests. He may call for the assassination of Chavez, but he'll brook no criticism of his business partners, even former Liberian president Charles Taylor. "How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,'" Robertson said after Taylor was indicted for war crimes.
In I Timothy 3, the apostle Paul lays out the qualifications for church leadership. If we are to follow these guidelines, then Robertson would seem to be in violation of a few:
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.Now, Robertson is not a church leader in the sense that he is a pastor or overseer of a particular church body. He's in charge of a parachurch organization, but his prominence gives him greater responsibility. Christians and non-Christians look to his example. Robertson has a definite lack of self-control and is not well-thought of by outsiders.
I don't doubt the sincerity of Robertson's faith. Only God knows his heart. I do, however, think he is no longer effective at what he does, and is likely doing more harm than good to the average Christian's ability to share the gospel. For that reason, I hope other prominent Christians approach Robertson with a request to either calm his rhetoric or step down from his position of leadership for a season.
Posted by slublog at 12:03 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Michael Yon - MSM Dropping the Ball
Independent journalist Michael Yon reports on just how bad mainstream media coverage of the war in Iraq has gotten, and says sometimes, the military's bad media relations are to blame:
I kept silent for days on the Zarqawi-letter dispatch, ready to post what was probably the single most important piece of insider information to drop into our hands in quite some time. I requested clearance several times per day, each time being asked to hold back. I complied.If you aren't reading Yon's site, I can't recommend it highly enough.But then, without even giving the leaders at Deuce Four a head's up, a typically entralling military press release went out to major, mainstream, media outlets. We all learned of it on CNN. The Zarqawi-letter story was almost unrecognizable. Because, in the hands of a network that hasn't had a body in the field in Mosul long enough to get their bearings, the best the media could do is paraphrase the military press release. So what should have been a front page banner headline story ended up buried on page 6.
Even CNN couldn't grasp the importance of the letter. They ended up giving more coverage to the impending E-Bay auction of Jennifer Aniston's old love letters than to the missive in which the top Al Queda leader in Mosul writes to the second most wanted man in the world, and describes in amazing detail the weaknesses and impending collapse of the terrorist network in Mosul and surrounds. Only then, did the military ask if I wanted to write about the letter.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 24, 2005
Hear that Sound?
It's a sigh of relief coming from Augusta and Washington, D.C. Governor John Baldacci and Senator Olympia Snowe, both up for re-election next year, are breathing a bit easier right now. The Brunswick Naval Air Station decision will sting, but it won't have the same political effect that a closing of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard would have had.
Baldacci will get an immediate political boost out of this decision. Look for his approval rating to rise above the 50 percent mark. He's been out front on this fight, and he deserves the political rewards of winning it. But will this help him win re-election? It's far too soon to say for sure, but losing both bases would have helped cement a loss.
In the end, this may be bad for Baldacci if the Republicans use it as an opportunity to point out just how dependent the state of Maine has become on federal largesse. They can say that Baldacci spent more time and energy trying to save a base than he's spent on economic development during his time in office and that the state needs to diversify its job base. This was a close call and many will wonder why Maine's economic strength should rely so heavily on the fate of a few bases and the BRAC decision.
Snowe will also be helped by this decision. She has campaigned for years on her ability to keep bases open with her influence, and it worked again, so she will likely keep enough independents and Democrats in her camp to win re-election. Snowe still has a major problem with the Republican base, though, many of whom are upset with her near-constant criticism of the current administration, her opposition to tax cuts and her pretending at deficit hawkishness while bragging about the money she pulls into Maine. If she's smart, she'll time between now and the election mending fences with Republicans.
In the end, though, the decision came down to one thing - Portsmouth had the better argument for survival. It is a shipyard that does good work, often under budget. There was much less rationale for keeping Brunswick. I know our state's political leaders tried to make a case based on homeland security, but that argument was weak at best, near-disingenuous at worst.
Brunswick's squadrons are mainly P-3 Orions, which were submarine-hunter/killer aircraft. As far as I know, Al Qaeda has not yet developed a navy. Since Russia barely has a navy anymore, the greatest threat from submarines comes from China, and the bases to keep an eye on them should be located on the west coast.
In some ways, the fact that this fight is almost over (the fate of Limestone has yet to be decided) is a negative for the governor. With over a year to go until the election, voters can now take their minds off the major fight to save bases and focus on how things are going in Maine's economy and government. When that happens, expect Baldacci's approval numbers to slip back down, becuase in terms of job creation, government spending and taxation, there's a lot of work to do.
Posted by slublog at 12:05 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Base Closings Blog
The Portland Press Herald is covering the base closing commission's meeting with a blog by one of its reporters. It's frequently updated and faster than the AP wire.
UPDATE (11:17 a.m.) - Brunswick closed.
UPDATE II (11:31 a.m.) - The fate of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is under discussion. This is the big one.
UPDATE III (11:40 a.m.) - Portsmouth survives.
Posted by slublog at 10:52 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Hollywood's Summer of Blah
The New York Times looks again at Hollywood's box office slump and comes to the obvious conclusion - people aren't going to see the movies released this summer because, for the most part, they haven't been any good.
With the last of the summer blockbusters fading from the multiplex, Hollywood's box office slump has hardened into a reality that is setting the movie industry on edge. The drop in ticket sales from last summer to this summer, the most important moviegoing season, is projected to be 9 percent by Labor Day, and the drop in attendance is expected to be even deeper, 11.5 percent, according to Exhibitor Relations, which tracks the box office.Maybe this will force Hollywood out of its terrible creative slump. Moviegoers are tired of unoriginal sequels, formulaic movies and most of all, the harvesting of old television shows.Multiples theories for the decline abound: a failure of studio marketing, the rising price of gas, the lure of alternate entertainment, even the prevalence of commercials and pesky cellphones inside once-sacrosanct theaters. But many movie executives and industry experts are beginning to conclude that something more fundamental is at work: Too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough.
Although it's partially dismissed in this article, I really think the unpleasantness of going to the movies does factor into the falling profits. Quite simply, we're a much more rude society than we once were, and nowhere is this more evident than at most movie theaters. The average person's moviegoing experience will likely be one in which he or she has to put up with ringing cellphones and morons who don't know their voices carry quite well, despite the movie noise.
If theaters want to keep customers, they have to start enforcing the rules - no talking, no cellphones. I pay to see a movie, not listen to some halfwit in the seat behind me babble. Ushers should be more willing to ask people to be respectful of others, or ask the offenders to leave. Theaters have been far too tolerant of rudeness in their establishments.
And one last thing - if you're going to play commercials, lower the prices of tickets and concessions. Making customers put up with both is just too much.
So what can movie companies do to change the growing culture of rudeness in theaters? It's easy. Already, some studios insist that theaters that show their movies be equipped with particular sound or projection systems. Extend that to theater culture. Studios should press theaters to start setting and enforcing standards to combat rudeness. The cost of non-compliance? No movies are given for screening at that particular theater.
I love movies, and I hope Hollywood comes out of its slump. But I also hope they start noticing the effect bad customers are having on its bottom line and take steps to ensure that those who go to a theater to see a movie actually get a chance to enjoy it.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack
The Most Ungrateful Author on Earth
You know, if I'd written a book about the history of salt, I'd be pretty happy if anyone read it. If I found out that the president of the United States was reading my book, it would be great, no matter who the president was or whether I agreed with him. You can't buy that kind of publicity.
I guess not everyone would be as thrilled, though. Mark Kurlansky, author of "Salt: A World History," seems really irritated that President Bush is actually reading his book.
What does it mean that George W Bush, a man who has demonstrated little ability for reflection, who is known to read no newspapers and whose headlong charge into disaster after cataclysm has shown a complete ignorance of history, who wants to throw out centuries of scientific learning and replace it with mythical mumbo-jumbo that he mistakenly calls religion, who preaches Christianity but seems to have never read the teachings of the great anti-war activist, Jesus Christ, is now spending his vacation reading my book, Salt: A World History?This guy is almost a caricature of an elitist jerk. Reading this, I wondered whether the eeeevil Karl Rove really wrote this to discredit Kurlansky, because no author would want to present such an ugly face to the public, right?Reading the White House propaganda about what a serious reader he is, choosing books of depth rather than beach reads, it occurred to me that this may be an entirely staff-manufactured hoax, designed to give the president the appearance of having an intellectual depth he clearly lacks. But Warren Vieth, a White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, who, bored to the brink of madness in Crawford, Texas where the president was vacationing while the world exploded, interviewed me last week. He assured me that Bush reads books and discusses them in a way that makes clear he has truly read them.
Kurlansky has every right to disagree with the president's policies. One would think, though, that a published author, a man who makes his living with the written word, would have a better argument than "Bush is stoopid."
I've seen this book at Borders, and thought it looked pretty interesting. It's on my informal 'reading list,' which is actually more just a collection of books I hope to get around to someday. I think, though, I'll get this one from the library instead of purchasing it. Two reasons for that decision. One, I just have this thing about enriching unpleasant people. I don't like to encourage rudeness Two, I've got to be honest. How many times am I going to read a book about the history of salt? It sounds like a good book, but not one that I can read again and again.
Of course, I have to finish Olympos first.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
And People Want This Job?
Karol at Alarming News shows the effect the presidency has had on George W. Bush. To think, some people work their entire lives to achieve that office.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (53) | TrackBack
August 23, 2005
Soundbite Speeches
President Bush has never been a great speaker. Once in awhile, he can deliver a good heartfelt speech, but overall his speeches are usually rather dull.
With support for the war falling and perceptions about the war getting more negative, Bush needs to get out of his "we're hunting down the terrorists/our cause is just/etc" slump and talk to the American people about Iraq. Remind them why we're there, talk about what's going right and talk about what our soldiers face as they do their jobs bravely.
Basically, I agree with David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. The latest speech the president gave was another lost opportunity.
Supporters of the war can argue that the public is mistaken, overly influenced by biased news reporting. Yes, yes. But mistaken public opinion is just as powerful as sound public opinion.If what Byron York says about the White House attitude is true, then they are in trouble. They cannot afford to be seen as insular or disconnected from reality. Right now, they could easily be accused of both.Again, supporters of the war can do our bit to try to change minds. But the biggest megaphone in the country belongs to President Bush - and much depends on whether he uses it well or badly.
He is using it very badly indeed.
Let me mention just one single but maybe decisive problem. Again and again during the Bush presidency - and yesterday most recently - the president will agree to give what is advertised in advance as a major speech. An important venue will be chosen. A crowd of thousands will be gathered. The networks will all be invited. And after these elaborate preparations, the president says ... nothing that he has not said a hundred times before.
Posted by slublog at 10:29 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBack
Robertson: Ignore the Sixth, Kill Chavez
After reading this post at Media Matters, my first thought was an unprintable word. So was my second, actually. Pat Robertson is an embarrassment and he makes it harder for those of us who call ourselves Christians to tell people what we believe. Here's what's Robertson said that is simply unbelievable:
ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.As Captain Ed points out, we're not actually at war with Venezuela. Assassinating their leader would be, um, wrong. One would think a Christian leader would realize that and watch his words.You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
I'm not sure how many Christians still consider Robertson a leader or role model, but I hope those who do read this story and reconsider. I never thought it would be necessary to say this, but Christian leaders shouldn't advocate murder. That Robertson has made such a rebuke necessary shows how unqualified he is to hold such a position of leadership.
UPDATE - As much as I disagree with what Robertson said, his comments hardly warrant the coverage they've received from the mainstream press. He's the top story at CNN.com and one of the top stories at MSNBC. Maybe these editors are still laboring under the mistaken belief that Robertson actually speaks for Christians. Memo to news directors: he doesn't, and most of us would say he hasn't for a long time.
Posted by slublog at 12:25 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Conservative Confessions
Doug at Bogus Gold has some funny confessions to make. Without asking permission and completely stealing his great idea, I'd like to add a few:
11. I'm also not that fond of country music, or NASCAR.
12. When possible, I purchase cage-free eggs, free-range beef and fair-trade coffee.
13. I've driven both European cars and American. I prefer European.
14. I don't really like Sean Hannity all that much.
Whew. I feel much better now.
Posted by slublog at 12:18 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
On Immigration
Yeah, what he said.
While this kind of hospitality doesn’t require that Christians advocate open borders, it does require us to be salt and light in the debate over immigration reform. At the very least, we should work to elevate the level of discourse and prevent the demonizing of the “other” in our midst.I completely agree. As I said below, this debate is worth having, but it should be civil and respectful.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 22, 2005
"Death By Caffeine"
This is very funny. How much of your favorite soda would it take to kill you? For the record, it would take 305 cans of Pepsi to do me in.
And sorry, Joe. In a stunning, but all-too-common, example of anti-Moxie prejudice, the Elixir of Life is not mentioned on the list. Likely because Moxie consumption could never have ill effects on a person.
Posted by slublog at 10:44 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
The Coming Split on the Right?
Captain's Quarters has a good post today on the split in the Democratic party between those on the far left of the ideological spectrum and the centrists of the party. The fault lines are seen most clearly, he says, in the Roberts nomination and in the anti-war movement.
The essential Catch-22 of the Democrats consists of the central question set up by the successes of the Clintons in expanding the Democrats' voter base in the 1990s combined with the debacle of national security issues during their tenure, which has become even more apparent in the past few weeks. No one trusts national security to the cut-and-run Democrats, which limit the party's options in Iraq. Centrists cannot understand the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth objections to Roberts and find themselves appalled and exasperated at the smear tactics of NARAL and others in their efforts to defeat him. Yet the few from the party with common sense to address these issues get swamped out by the radical wing, assisted by a media sympathetic to their cause, making any middle ground an impossibility.Captain Ed says the Democrats will likely lose elections in 2006 and 2008 due to this inability of both wings to communicate or form a coherent message.
This post got me thinking about the Republican party. At present, unity on the war is creating a unsteady truce between the normally battling wings of the party. The steady litany of bad news coming out of that country, though, has raised doubts in some about how the war is being waged and exposed the Republican party's own fault lines for the media and the Democrats to see.
There are three issues that threaten to tear the Republican party into warring factions - immigration, gay and lesbian issues and government spending.
The first, immigration, is the issue where I think the sharpest disagreements arise. Conservative bloggers such as La Shawn Barber and Polipundit have been highly critical of the president's immigration plan. Polipundit even threatened to pull his support from the president's re-election campaign. If this movement has a leader, it's Congressman Tom Tancredo, who I've blogged about here.
Tancredo and his followers want to do two things - end illegal immigration; and deport all illegal immigrants. Sounds good, until you begin to see who they're defining as illegals. Tancredo does not believe the children of illegals born in this country are citizens. How far back does Tancredo think this should be taken? My great-grandparents came to this country illegally. Again, am I a citizen?
I don't have an issue with those who want to take a firmer stance on immigration. But it should be done in a way that respects our country's history of mass immigration. In the past few centuries, waves of immigrants came from different countries at different times. The Germans, the Irish, the Italians. Now it's the Hispanics, and it's driving some people into what feels like xenophobia. La Shawn Barber singled out Hispanic immigrants in a post on immigration:
Over the next few months my posts will probably seem very angry to you. In fact, you may become angry yourselves over my increasingly anti-Iraq war, anti-Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants, and anti-Bush stances...Ad campains to discourage Mexicans from jumping the border are a “colossal waste of money.” I agree. We don’t need bloody ads; we need enforcement!So I guess Canadian, African, European and Asian illegal immigration are perfectly acceptable. La Shawn's passion on the subject is admirable, but I think her, and the overall immigration movement's, rhetoric on this needs to change if they want to do more than preach to the choir.
Democrats already see where this debate is heading, and are taking steps to exploit the splits in the Republican party. The debate is a needed one, but some on the right are beginning to sound like modern-day Know Nothings. Given the political power that Hispanics will hold over the next few decades, it seems better to work with them to develop sound immigration policies instead of using them as a boogeyman in one's arguments.
I tend to read conservative blogs, listen to conservative radio programs when I can and discuss politics with conservatives. On immigration, I'm angered by the attitude toward Hispanics I hear communicated - the growing perception of Latin Americans among conservatives are a lazy bunch of do-nothing immigrants that wants to come here to take welfare checks or steal our jobs. (Those who make such arguments rarely see the illogic in them). I've also heard complaints that Hispanics want to form racial ghettoes and don't assimilate, or that they have 'litters' of kids or that they aren't interested in becoming Americans, and even if they did, their refusal to speak English would make their citizenship questionable. Maybe being part Hispanic has made me more sensitive to such arguments, but that doesn't change the fact that such rhetoric is not debate, it's demonization. And it doesn't help.
Not all conservatives believe these things, but I've seen enough of the arguments to make me angry, and I'm a Republican. Imagine what seeing and hearing such words does to someone who hasn't yet made up their mind politically. There are a lot of American citizens who are of Hispanic descent being turned off by the rhetoric coming from the extremists. By all means, let's have this debate. But let's be civil and respectful.
The other side of this debate can be found here, in the words of Rupert Murdoch. I'm (heaven help me) in the mushy middle on this issue. I think we should preserve immigration while securing our borders and allowing those already in the country to undergo a process that will help them become citizens.
The other two issues are minor compared to the potential for immigration to split the party.
The second issue that could threaten to split the Republicans are gay and lesbian issues. Not the issue of gay marriage, which I believe will have a hard time passing in either party, but the Federal Marriage Amendment and the amount of political capital that social conservatives believe Republicans should spend trying to pass it.
Groups such as the Family Research Council and the Christian Civic League of Maine believe the Republicans should do all in their power to pass what I believe is an anti-federalist amendment that will ultimately achieve about as much as did prohibition.
Again, this issue deserves debate, but some extremists on this issue aren't interested. Dobson and others have repeatedly made threats to stay home on election day if their demands are not met on gay and lesbian issues. Given the depth of their emotion on this, I wouldn't be surprised to watch them splinter off and follow a Gary Bauer-like social conservative candidate in 2008.
Finally, there's spending. This is where I'm most annoyed with the Bush administration's policies. I think the Republicans are spending far too much of my money. I want them to stop. I will tend to support a candidate who wants to cut spending instead of one who wants to keep the status quo. I put this issue last because I do not believe it will be a factor in the next few election cycles. The more emotionally-charged issues above will likely play a stronger role there.
Both political parties are at a crossroads right now between the extremists and the pragmatists. I think the better arguments are with the pragmatists, so they will likely come out ahead in the end. In the meantime, though, there will be a lot of sound and fury from those who think their party should be defined by the one or two issues they care most deeply about.
Posted by slublog at 09:12 AM | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Box 11 - Roberts and the Civil Rights Commission
As part of the "Adopt a Box" campaign started by Hugh Hewitt, I agreed to take a look at documents in Box 11-JGR/Civil Rights Commission. My initial response?
Someone needs to learn how to keep documents straight when they're scanned. It's hard to read this stuff at a 30 degree angle. Anyway...
This packet of information has to do with President Ronald Reagan's appointment of John Bunzel and Morris Abram to the Civil Rights Commission in 1983. The first significant section with Roberts' input is on page five, where he edits a letter intended for someone concerned about the president's picks for the Commission.
On page eight, we find out who the concerned party is - Jesse Jackson. In a memo to Fred Fielding, counsel to the president, associate counsel Peter Rusthoven discusses who should sign the letter - the president or someone from the counsel's office. Roberts' views are here:
So Roberts considered a presidential response in this instance appropriate for two reasons. One, because he felt the issue was important enough to warrant such a response. Two, to prevent Jesse Jackson from getting publicity for saying the president 'ignored' his concerns.
The next few documents are letters that Roberts was cc'd by others in the counsel office, until the end when there is a response to a petition for intervention. The response is signed by Heidi Solomon and Gregg Meyers. The case involves a violation of the civil rights act of 1964 and the U.S. government's attempts to end de facto segregation in the Charleston, SC school district. The briefing asks for the court to deny intervention of right to other petitioners, since their goals and that of the United States are similar enough so the U.S. can adequately represent their interests (to end that segregation) in court. The briefing does say that permissive intervention may be appropriate in this case, however.
This is relatively boring stuff, to be honest, and I don't see anything in this packet of information that will make headlines. If a reporter is desperate, they might try to make something of the fact that Roberts suggested Jesse Jackson looks for headlines. The media is going to have to look elsewhere for evidence that Roberts is anti-civil rights.
UPDATE - Bump. For the record, John Bunzel is now a senior research fellow at the Hoover institution. Morris Abram passed away in 2000.
Posted by slublog at 12:20 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Column
For the record, this isn't my best effort. But the new Republican Journal column is up.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 19, 2005
Perusing Old Documents
I couldn't resist.
When I read this post at Bogus Gold, I knew I had to join up. Hugh Hewitt is asking bloggers to "Adopt a Box" of John Roberts documents for review.
I adopted Box 11-JGR/Civil Rights Commission. Nice, huh?
I'll read through it this weekend and post excerpts and thoughts.
Posted by slublog at 08:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Off the Cuff Prediction
The November 8 ballot in Maine will include this question, the result of a petition drive by social conservatives in Maine:
Question 1. People’s Veto “An Act to Extend Civil Rights Protections to all People Regardless of Sexual Orientation”Based on absolutely nothing but my own gut feeling, I think this law will remain on the books November 9. A recent poll in Maine shows nearly 60 percent of people want to keep the law. Personally, I think that figure is far too high.“Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?"
The Portland Press Herald reminds us of the numbers the last two times this issue was put before Maine voters:
THE NEW POLL came up with a far different result than what happened in February 1998 and November 2000, when Maine voters repealed so-called gay rights laws. Voters repealed the law in 1998 by a ratio of 51.3 percent to 48.7 percent, and in 2000 by a ratio of 50.4 percent to 49.6 percent.Those percentages of victory are small and shrank between 1998 and 2000.
I think this law will be upheld, by a narrow margin, but upheld. The numbers will probably be 48 percent want to veto the bill, 52 percent want to keep it on the books. Maine has been getting progressively more liberal, and I think the left will really push the turnout on this vote. The right will as well, but their turnout will be hurt by the fact that it's Mike Heath and the Christian Civic League leading the charge. The group almost missed the deadline to get enough signatures to put the veto on the ballot, which indicates to me that they will have similar problems turning people out to vote.
Posted by slublog at 11:24 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Server Issues
Sorry about the lack of updates. The server seems to be having some problems. Hopefully, the issues will be resolved soon.
Posted by slublog at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Resign, Bob
Ohio Governor Robert Taft has pleaded no contest to charges that he accepted favors from supporters. Despite his plea, and the fact that he has to pay for his crimes, he refuses to resign.
I hope the national Republican party and the president speak out against Gov. Taft's actions and urge him to step down for the good of Ohio. The state is not well-served by allowing a felon to govern it. Taft has apologized, but that apology now needs to be coupled with a resignation from office. Taft is seriously damaged goods and is unable to effectively lead his state. He should resign from office immediately.
So far, no one from the Republican party has called for Taft to step down. If no one does, the integrity of the party could be harmed. Republicans cannot be seen as the party that protects its own just to maintain power. I hope Ohio Republicans realize this, and vote accordingly next time Taft is up for re-election.
Assuming, of course, that he'll dare to run again.
Posted by slublog at 12:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Annoying the Cable Guy
You know, I don't like my cable company. Until I read this story, it never occurred to me that they might not be fond of me, either:
CHICAGO - Like most everybody, LaChania Govan got bounced around when she called her cable company to complain. She made dozens of calls and was even transferred to a person who spoke Spanish _ a language she doesn't understand.Makes me wonder what they'd call me if I got such a letter. Probably "Grouch Voice" or something boring like that.But when she got her August bill from Comcast she had no trouble understanding she'd made somebody mad. It was addressed to "Bitch Dog."
Posted by slublog at 12:12 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
August 18, 2005
Everything is Watergate
Reading this column by reporter Marvin Kalb, which compares the Plame leak scandal to Watergate, I was reminded of a Springsteen song.
I wonder why?
Posted by slublog at 02:45 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Lott: It's All Frists's Fault!
Senator and former majority leader Trent Lott has found someone to blame for his fall from power. And, surprise! It's not himself.
Frist, R-Tenn., “didn’t even have the courtesy to call and tell me personally that he was going to run,” the Mississippi Republican wrote of a tumultuous period in which he lost his position as Senate leader after making racially tinged remarks.Still clueless, after all these years.“If Frist had not announced exactly when he did, as the fire was about to burn out, I would still be majority leader of the Senate today,” Lott said in “Herding Cats, A Life in Politics.”
Why is he writing a book guaranteed to annoy his Senate colleagues, when he's still in the Senate? No one could ever accuse Lott of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, but writing a tell-all book about your own co-workers seems an especially boneheaded move. I have a feeling Lott may not get a lot of cooperation the next time he's looking to pad a spending bill with Mississippi-bound pork.
I was never a fan of Trent Lott. His 'good old boy' political style always grated on me and was a large factor, I think, in the inability of the GOP to form a lasting majority in the late 1990s. He simply didn't have the leadership skills to lead Republicans to electoral victory.
And, for the record, praising segregationists is never a good thing.
Of course, his replacement isn't much better in the leadership department.
I hope Lott is planning to retire soon. If not, voters in Mississippi may 'retire' him for ending his own political effectiveness with the release of this book.
Posted by slublog at 12:10 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Getting to the Important Issues
Who should be the next James Bond? Pierce Brosnan is out, so who should replace him? The consensus on Ace's site seems to be Clive Owen, who would actually be a pretty good pick.
There honestly hasn't been a great James Bond movie for years. I think the best 'spy' movies lately have been the Bourne series with Matt Damon. The fight scenes in the Bourne Supremacy were awful, but the overall movie was pretty good.
Colin Firth wouldn't make a terrible Bond, either. It would at least break him out of the romantic comedy mold the poor guy seems unable to escape.
Anyway, I'm out of ideas. I just want to see a good Bond movie again, and I hope the change of actors will help that happen.
Posted by slublog at 12:01 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack
Desperation-Based Reporting
Captain Ed shows us just how desperate the media is to find something, anything, on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. The latest story?
Like many towns across America, the exclusive lakefront community where Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. grew up during the racially turbulent 1960s and '70s once banned the sale of homes to nonwhites and Jews.The neighborhood, yes. But what about Roberts' home?
The family purchased land a few blocks from the beach in 1966 and built an unassuming tri-level house. The Roberts property did not include a racially restrictive covenant, according to LaPorte County deed records, and the restrictions had begun fading away by then.So what's the story? Guilt by sorta-association is not journalism. It's...well, I'm not sure what it is. But it sure as heck isn't reporting.
I know how badly it hurts when a great story doesn't quite work out. When I was in college, I once had a lead on a story about sports figures doing very bad things. Only problem? The source was, to put it charitably, unreliable. As good as the allegations were, not being able to prove them killed the story.
These reporters were obviously hoping for a big scoop - they wanted to find out that Roberts lived in a house with an exclusionary clause in the deed. That would have made for an interesting, if not particularly relevant, story. Unfortunately, the facts didn't fit their lead, but they wrote the story anyway.
Let me say it again - that is not journalism. In journalism, the story should center on the facts. It shouldn't attempt to make the facts fit into a predetermined template.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Bloggers as Journalists
Michelle Malkin and Brian Maloney have done an outstanding job reporting on the Air America scandal. Reading their story, I was struck again by how something as simple as the hyperlink can make a huge difference in giving background information.
Read it for a good introduction to what Air America did and why it matters.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
August 17, 2005
A Constitutional Delay
The drafters of the Iraqi constitution say it may take another week to finish drafting the country's constitution. At issue is the willingness of the minority Sunni population to agree with certain provisions in the new document. The AP story linked above makes it sound as though this delay makes the entire U.S. war with Iraq a failure. The story contains the following paragraph:
The Bush administration has invested an enormous treasure of capital and young American lives to push Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein to a hoped-for democratic future.Interesting aside. And the AP wonders why editors are starting to complain about their coverage of the war.
Although I understand the importance from a public relations perspective of having the Sunnis onboard with the new Constitution, I don't think unanimity is essential in the formation of a country's founding document. We certainly did not have complete agreement on our own constitution.
The state of Rhode Island didn't send delegates to the Constitutional convention and the state of North Carolina rejected ratification of the document at first. They eventually passed it, after it had already been ratified. The Sunnis, likely out of resentment at their lost ruling status, has dragged its feet during this entire process and obviously they haven't learned from their mistake of boycotting the election - this is a new country, with new rules.
If the Sunnis still have not joined the process after this week's delay, the Iraqi interim government should pass the constitution with the majority they have and let the Sunnis know once and for all that the democratic process will proceed with or without them.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Able Danger, Again
The story might not be dead, after all.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
August 16, 2005
How Boring is Crawford?
Confederate Yankee has the answer.
Posted by slublog at 10:42 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Desperate for iBooks
I know a lot of people love Apple computers, but this is just nuts.
Posted by slublog at 03:10 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack
The Moral Authority of Grief
Chernkoff notes that only some grieving parents are afforded celebrity status by the media. He notes a recent column by Maureen Dowd, where she states "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."
I have a simple question.
Why?
I'm not asking to be coldhearted or mean, I've just never understood the idea that suffering a loss gives greater moral weight to the words of the grieving. I understand that loss and pain can lead to personal growth. The concept is a Biblical one. (See I Peter 1:6-8)
Apart from the mentions of her son, Cindy Sheehan's arguments against the war in Iraq are no different than the comments at numerous anti-war blogs and discussion boards. The only thing that makes her unique is her willingness to use her dead son as a way to bolster her arguments. Alone, her words are those of any anti-war protestor. But when she assumes the mantle of grieving mother, the cameras are there to record every tear and her rather banal anti-Bush rhetoric is elevated to the same level one would accord a papal bull.
What bothers me the most about the elevation of grief in general, and specifically in the case of Cindy Sheehan, is the idea that a person who has suffered a loss and uses that loss to advocate for a particular position is immune to criticism of the ideas they communicate from behind the shield of their departed relative.
I understand that grieving people sometimes say harsh or angry things (just read C.S. Lewis' "A Grief Observed" for many examples) but most of us, when grieving, keep the darkest thoughts to ourselves, or only express them to an empty room, or a close friend. Cindy Sheehan has chosen to vent her frustrations to the world, and aimed her anger at the president.
This is an understandable reaction, given that it was President Bush who made the ultimate decision to go to war. But Sheehan and her supporters should realize that if she wants to participate in the marketplace of ideas, her words and the message they communicate can and will be countered by those who disagree with her. There is a major difference between yelling at authority in an empty room or to friends, and going on the Today show. Both may be by-products of the same grief, but one requires a conscious decision to become a public figure.
Most who step into "the arena" understand that the freedom to communicate one's ideas comes with the certainty that others will disagree with you. Learning to deal with that disagreement without complaint or rancor can determine one's success in politics, activism, column writing or even blogging. Those who enter the public arena of ideas and take criticism badly or claim their special status makes them immune from disagreement are usually the ones whose ideas grow stale or flaccid from the lack of challenge. This makes them boring.
Ultimately, that's what I find Cindy Sheehan. Her ideas are tired. Their only novelty is in the messenger, not the message. What Sheehan needs to realize is that eventually, people look past the person communicating ideas and start really listening to what is being said. If those words aren't worth listening to, the novelty aspect such people depend upon to gain attention wears off rather quickly.
It's obvious that Sheehan's grief is real. She obviously loved her son and misses him terribly. However, the depth of that grief should not be the only measure we use to determine the truth or weight we give Sheehan's words. They should be judged on their merit, not their ability to tug at the heartstrings.
Hat tip: Ace
Posted by slublog at 12:20 AM | Comments (37) | TrackBack
Just Plain Stupid
"No-fly list keeps infants off planes."
Yeah, you just don't know what could be in those bottles. Although from my limited experience with changing diapers, I suppose some could be considered weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 15, 2005
More From Dean
Howard Dean: the gift that keeps on giving. From a transcript of his appearance on "Face the Nation," available on RealClear Politics.
Mr. HARRIS: You're familiar, Governor, with that NARAL ad that ran last week and even many Democrats said it went over the line, went too far, and they took it down. Do you think it went too far?Translation: I'm not going to go on record criticizing NARAL and it's all the fault of the Republicans anyway, who started it.Dr. DEAN: You know, I'm not even going to get into that, and I'll tell you why. There's been a lot of stuff that's gone too far. And the Republicans really are great authors of that kind of stuff. This is a diversion. The issue is: Will the White House release the documents so that we can find out who Judge Roberts really is? Judge Roberts is likely to be on the bench for perhaps as many as three decades. That is very important to the American people. We need to know who this man is and what he believes before he's confirmed.
When the chairman of the DNC can't bring himself to criticize an ad that NARAL has already pulled, it lets you know just how much influence special interest groups have on the party. Here's more:
Mr. HARRIS: Were you troubled by President Bush's endorsement that intelligent design should be taught alongside the evolution to schoolchildren?Read that again: "This is the most antiscientific regime that I've seen in America in my lifetime." Emphasis mine.Dr. DEAN: The president has been anti-science for a long time. This is the most antiscientific regime that I've seen in America in my lifetime. I'm a trained physician, as you're aware. I'm insulted by that. It's going to harm America. What serious business is going to invest in America if a scientific education is influenced by politics? Science ought to be taught as science. If you want to teach religion, that's a separate debate. But science should be taught as science.
Regime?!?
Looks like Howie's been spending a little too much time in the DU discussion boards. Normally, here in the United States, we refer to the government in power as "the administration." While regime can mean any system of government, its common use is to refer to an oppressive or undemocratic one. It's little statements like this that make me wonder whether the Democrats really do respect the legitimacy of the Bush administration, or whether their view of elections will always be viewed through the lens of Florida 2000.
Finally, a reminder of the great deal on judges:
Mr. HARRIS: Right. What about the filibuster? Should that stay on the table for Senate Democrats?The terms of the deal said the filibuster could only be used in "extraordinary circumstances." It seems Dean is trying to define that term to mean any "concerns" he and the DNC might have about the beliefs of Judge Roberts. How long will it be before we hear someone in the Senate "Gang of 14" exclaim that Roberts' views on women's rights is an extraordinary circumstance?Dr. DEAN: I think they made an agreement. I would expect the agreement to be kept. And that is that if the president is not able to explain some of these concerns that we have about Judge Roberts, then I think the filibuster could be used, but again, I'd be careful what I say. I don't have a vote. I'm not in the Senate. You asked me for my view on Judge Roberts. My view on Judge Roberts is that he has a winsome personality which is good but that there are four or five areas which are of deep concern to the American people such as enforcing women's rights, Title IX--excuse me, civil rights, the Voting Rights Act and I think we need an explanation of what's going on in the Federalist Society.
Posted by slublog at 03:40 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
"Justice Sunday II"
Yesterday, the Family Research Council sponsored and produced Justice Sunday II, a broadcast advertised as a way "to educate values voters across the nation about how the courts affect Americans' every day lives."
As I've stated before, I'm extremely uncomfortable with this sort of church-based activism. The event was held at the Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee. There wasn't another place in Nashville they could have held it?
Obviously, I believe Christians should have a right to express political views. I think, though, that churches themselves should remain as free of politics as possible. Our charge is to bring people to a place where they want to have a personal relationship with Christ. All too often, we let our political activism become a barrier to someone's understanding of the gospel.
Would someone with liberal political views who honestly wants to know more about Christianity feel welcome in many of today's politically active evangelical churches?
I'm not arguing for a withdrawal from politics on the part of Christians, who should be a part of the process. All I'm asking is that church buildings themselves and Sunday mornings be a politics-free zone. No slogans, no placards, no petitions.
Posted by slublog at 12:20 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Open Mouth, Insert Foot. Again.
Captain Ed points out another really embarrassing quote from DNC Chair Howard Dean.
Somewhere, James Carville is crying.
Posted by slublog at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ow
Police shoot same man twice, in same shoulder, in one night.
Posted by slublog at 09:13 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Able Danger
Is it still a big story?
Posted by slublog at 12:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Not a Good Endorsement
You know, this probably isn't the support Cindy Sheehan wanted. For its sake, I hope the anti-war left begins to realize soon just what a liability this woman really is.
Sheehan said she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch, the lawyer who defended an innocent Black man accused of rape in the book and film “To Kill A Mockingbird.” “They’re not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror,” she said. “The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush.”Press coverage of the war has been relatively negative, but I think the canonizing of this woman is a major misstep by the mainstream media. "We are waging nuclear war in Iraq?" Does that even have a basis in reality?"We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!"
The more that we learn about Cindy Sheehan, the worse she looks. The media made a mistake by publicizing her story and her crusade against the president before looking into her past statements. I think reporters and bloggers should refrain from looking into Sheehan's personal life, but think pointing out the rhetoric she's used in the past is a legitimate line of inquiry.
Over the next few days, as we learn more about Sheehan's past statements and associations, the media and liberal blogs will slowly start to separate themselves from her. Sheehan suffered a terrible loss, but her grief does not entitle her to say outrageous things in public without being criticized for them.
UPDATE - Howard Dean ties the DNC to Sheehan and says the president should meet with her. Which he's already done, by the way.
Posted by slublog at 12:24 AM | Comments (14)
Oops
The bomb scare in Washington yesterday?
A Secret Service contractor accidentally left some training materials at the hotel.
Yeah, this guy's going to have a bad day at work tomorrow.
Posted by slublog at 12:18 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
The Column I Wanted to Write
Bill Nemitz of the Portland Press Herald has been reading Mike Heath's blog. On that blog, Heath devotes most of his posts to his favorite subject - homosexuality.
In his latest post, Heath complains that he's just not getting the same level of support from pastors that he once did. Nemitz, I think, hits the nail on the head in his column - Christians have better things to worry about right now. Churches are working to combat AIDS and poverty in Africa, human rights abuses in the Sudan and religious persecution in North Korea.
A lot of churches are also spending time, you know, doing what God commanded them to do.
Politically, Heath knows this latest referendum is his last chance to make an impact on Maine's politics. Personally, I think question one is going to fail. It will be close (probably 52% no, 48% yes) but on November 9, the law will still be on the books. Heath has staked a lot on this people's veto attempt. If it fails, the Christian Civic League of Maine fails with it. This is, quite simply, a fight Heath cannot afford to lose.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 14, 2005
Simple Joys
Sometimes, there's nothing more fun to read than a review that tears a movie apart. As Vodkapundit predicted, "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" is a really bad movie:
"Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" makes a living cleaning fish tanks and occasionally prostituting himself. How much he charges I'm not sure, but the price is worth it if it keeps him off the streets and out of another movie. "Deuce Bigalow" is aggressively bad, as if it wants to cause suffering to the audience. The best thing about it is that it runs for only 75 minutes.That's just beautiful. The smartest, and most infuriating, part of Ebert's review is this:
Columbia financed "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" while passing on the opportunity to participate in "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray," "The Aviator," "Sideways" and "Finding Neverland."Again, Hollywood wonders why it's in a slump?
Posted by slublog at 11:23 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Wait, I Thought This Was About the War
Cindy Sheehan's crusade against the president seems to be losing focus:
Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!Varifrank has more on Sheehan's increasingly odd rhetoric. (h/t: Ace) I think this is called 'getting off message' and it will hurt Sheehan's effectiveness. People can sympathize with a grieving mother. They have a little more trouble relating to an angry protestor spouting off leftist talking points, which Sheehan is becoming."You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.
UPDATE - This is not an isolated incident. Sheehan has some strange friends.
Posted by slublog at 04:04 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
August 12, 2005
Goin' to China
Well, China Lake anyway, to visit some friends. Blogging, from me, will return on Saturday if anything interesting happens.
Posted by slublog at 01:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
WSJ: Snowe Was Wrong
From today's Political Diary:
Don't expect too many apologies from Capitol Hill, but the investment returns on the Bush tax cuts are now rolling into the Treasury and, boy, were the doom and gloom "budget hawks" wrong. The prognosticators predicted that the Bush tax cuts would push the federal government deeper into the red, drive interest rates up and crash the economy. Luckily President Bush didn't pay much heed to Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, who did all she could to derail the first round of tax cuts in 2001 and also opposed later cuts in the cap-gains and dividend tax rates. The Treasury is now reporting record high $142.09 billion in tax receipts, the most ever for the month of July.In reality, Snowe only plays a deficit hawk on television. Check out her press release archives for some serious pork-bragging. A few tidbits:
SNOWE ANNOUNCES MORE THAN $130,000 IN E-RATE FUNDING TO IMPROVE MODERN TECHNOLOGY FOR MAINE SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTSNope, can't have any of that sweet, sweet tax money going back to the people who earned it. Unless, of course, you can write a press release taking credit for distributing it.SNOWE, COLLINS ANNOUNCE MORE THAN $13 MILLION IN FUNDING FOR ESSENTIAL MAINE PROJECTS IN INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL (Great, more construction delays)
SENATORS SNOWE AND COLLINS SECURE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR HIGHWAY, TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN MAINE
Posted by slublog at 12:27 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Nanny Bloomberg: "Put down those french fries!"
Yes, I know a lot of people call New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg "Nurse Bloomberg." But my wife is a nurse, and using her profession to describe an overbearing health nut would get me in trouble.
No matter what you call him, the guy is trying his darndest to take all of the fun out of eating:
New York City wants its restaurants to trim the fat, trans fat that is.Look, I like olive oil as much as anyone, but it's not a really good oil to use when searing or frying food, which you sometimes need to do in certain recipes.The city's health department urged all restaurants in the city Wednesday to stop serving food containing trans fats, according to a report in The New York Times.
Trans fats, which are prominent in foods like cookies and French fries, are chemically modified ingredients that can be found in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, the report said. The Times, citing health officials, said the fats increase the risk of heart disease and should not be part of any healthy diet.
"To help combat heart disease, the No. 1 killer in New York City, we are asking restaurants to voluntarily make an oil change and remove artificial trans fat from their kitchens," Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city's health commissioner, told the newspaper.
I understand Bloomberg's motivation here - all of us should avoid eating too much fatty food. But the best defense against food-related health problems is moderation, not government interference.
Posted by slublog at 09:35 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
August 11, 2005
Gorelick's Chutzpah
Jamie Gorelick was the deputy attorney general of the U.S. under Attorney General Janet Reno. While in that office, she drafted a memo that prevented the FBI and CIA from communicating with one another.
After serving on the September 11 Commission, Gorelick had the audacity to criticize the FBI and the CIA for obeying the policy she helped set in place:
What the Commissioners found was “a high level of dysfunctionality, almost across government,” said Gorelick, who fired off a list of failures. “We found that the FBI did not know what it itself had, the CIA and FBI did not communicate with each other as well as they should have, the CIA did not communicate with itself as well as it should have, neither one communicated with the State Department, that our military was still looking out, rather than thinking about the mission to protect us internally, that the Federal Aviation Administration—the FAA—which is supposed to protect civil aviation from attack was almost entirely clueless as to what the intelligence community knew, that it’s policy prescriptions and procedures did not match up therefore against the threat.”This lady is unbelievable. No mention of her role in creating that policy - just blame the guys on the ground and call it good.
Given what we now know, the entire September 11 Commission, and Gorelick in particular, need to answer some questions about how they operated, why they chose to ignore the Able Danger intelligence and why they chose to keep Gorelick on the commission even after her conflict of interest was exposed.
Posted by slublog at 10:33 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
End of the 9/11 Commission?
The work began by the Jersey Girls ended at 7:10 p.m. this evening, when the Associated Press confirmed, according to John Podhoretz, that the "9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta -- in 1999 -- and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts. And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta."
This is bad for the Commission, and especially for Commission member Jamie Gorelick:
This is clearly becoming the biggest story of the summer -- the fact that, as Andy McCarthy alluded to, the "intelligence wall" set up by 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick when she was in the Justice Department did, in fact, cause the linchpin of the 9/11 attacks to evade capture by American law enforcement.If the September 11 Commission wants to maintain its credibility, it will demote Gorelick from commission member to commission witness. I'm not blaming her for September 11 - only those who carried out the attack are responsible for the atrocities. It's clear, though, that Gorelick had a very large role to play in the formulation of policies that helped Mohammed Atta and his co-conspirators go unnoticed by law enforcement and for that reason, she should not be part of the group studying what went wrong.
If this is reported fairly (which, in this media climate, is never a guarantee) it will be a big story. If not, I think it will still be a big story - the MSM has competition these days, after all.
Phinn, a poster to Ace's site, breaks the story down in a way that makes it understandable:
A. A SOCOM unit, run by Gen. Shelton himself, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, identifies Atta and the Brooklyn cell as a threat as early as 1999. (It doesn't hurt that the unit has a cool sounding name, too.)Thanks to Ace, who doesn't know I steal stuff like this from his site.B. A year before 9/11, they recommend that that the FBI close down the cell. (Who was president a year before 9/11 again?)
C. DOD lawyers (lawyers!) overrule this recommendation, and refuse to allow the Able Danger guys to pass this information on to the FBI, because Atta has a legal immigration status, and they are worried about political fallout after Waco. They put Post-It notes over Atta's face so that all reference to him is kept secret (a nice touch, dont' you think?).
D. The 9/11 Commission chose to omit any reference to it or investigate. This is inexcusible, regardless of how accurate the story is. It clearly deserves to be addressed and the facts explored, to be proved or disproved.
The left is going to go batcrap crazy over this, and claim Republicans are just trying to 'shift blame' for September 11 from Chimpy McBushitler and the eeeeeevil Karl Rove President Bush to President Clinton. But if the facts of the story are correct, then it calls the Clinton administration's policies and the September 11 Commission's judgment into question.
Did the commission play partisan games to protect the Clintons, or were they just so tied to their narrative of September 11 that they were unwilling to look at other facts? Neither question reflects well on the Commission and its members.
Posted by slublog at 09:41 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Perseid Meteors
Between midnight and dawn Friday the 12th is the best time this year to see the Perseids. The closer to dawn and the farther away from light pollution you are the more you will see, up to as many as 100 an hour.
Posted by at 05:55 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Got a Spare $100M?
You could go on a trip to the Moon. I think these guys are serious.
Posted by at 12:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Pity
Michael Barone says the native Hawaiian bill (discussed here) is likely to pass. One interesting bit from his post:
But that claim is pretty thin gruel. In 1995, in an interview with the head of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, I observed that Native Hawaiians (however defined) are better off in every material way than any other people of Polynesian descent. But he insisted on their victim status. "Native Hawaiians"—I'm quoting from memory, perhaps inexactly—"have lower incomes and education levels than any other ethnic group in Hawaii, except of course the Filipinos." I love the "of course."I attended high school in Hawaii from 1987 to 1990 and it's no surprise that Native Hawaiians have lower education levels. Anyone who attends public school in that state is going to have a lower education level, because the schools there are the worst I've ever attended.
How exactly will giving Native Hawaiians a new level of sovereignty make the schools better? This interview doesn't make that clear. But what is clear is that some Hawaiians are determined to use victim status as a way to get what they ulimately desire - total sovereignty.
Posted by slublog at 10:19 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Sheehan's Activism
Cindy Sheehan, a woman who lost a son in Iraq and has now become an anti-war activist, has created quite a bit of buzz on the internet.
I'm sorry for Sheehan's loss, and I think she has every right to protest the war in Iraq and use the name of her son to do so, if she wishes. Although some are calling it a smear campaign against her, the fact that questions have been raised regarding her account of meeting the president does not bother me. Sheehan has made the president's "refusal" to meet with her and his demeanor at their first meeting a centerpiece of her campaign against the war. If evidence exists that she is changing her story about how the president acted in their first meeting, it should be pointed out.
Ace said it well on his site. "She has a right to have strongly-felt opinions. She doesn't have the right to lie. Even if she lost her son in Iraq-- she does not have the right to lie."
Posted by slublog at 10:00 AM | Comments (49) | TrackBack
August 10, 2005
Click This Ad
Chris Muir, author of Day by Day, wants you to take a few seconds to click an ad for a good cause.
Posted by slublog at 11:12 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Continuing the Slump
A conservative filmmaker points out what Hollywood has planned for upcoming movies. Here are some examples:
"Syriana." Starring George Clooney and Matt Damon, this Warner Brothers film - set during the first Bush administration - features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering. The film even depicts a handsome, 'tragic' suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company! The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on.No movies about Iraq war heroes, the firefighters that showed such bravery on September 11 or any sort of positive statement about the war on terror."The Scorpion's Gate." Sony has optioned former terrorism-czar Richard Clarke's novel about oil companies and Washington politicians colluding to reshape the map of the Middle East for greater oil profiteering - this time by launching a global nuclear war.
"No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah." Universal has attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis - in this story blaming the White House for the deaths of fifty Marines in one of the Iraq war's deadliest battles. Based on the book of the same name by Bing West.
"American Dreamz." This 'satire' from Universal Pictures deals with Pakistani suicide bombers out to kill the US president. The film stars Hugh Grant, Richard Dreyfuss, Willem Dafoe and Mandy Moore. According to writer-director Paul Weitz ("American Pie"), "The film is a comic examination of ... cultural obsessions" like the War on Terror "and how they can anaesthetise us to the actual issues of our day."
A lot of stories have been written about the recent slump in box office receipts for the film industry. If Hollywood keeps pandering to its own base instead of making films people want to watch, expect that slump to continue. (h/t: Power Line)
Posted by slublog at 10:34 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Power Line News
This is a very cool site. Especially the link to Newspaper Atlas, where you can find a link to any newspaper in the United States or the world.
Posted by slublog at 10:10 PM | Comments (26) | TrackBack
Anti-Lobster Protest Leads to Lobster Deaths
Bar Harbor is a little town near Acadia National Park. It's a touristy place, but one where you can go to get a really good seafood dinner. Some folks from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals thought Bar Harbor would be the perfect spot for an anti-lobster protest. Only problem? I don't think some seafood-seeking people got the point.
In a town where you can eat your lobsters boiled, steamed, on a roll, baked and stuffed and even fried up Chinese style, two protesters spent early Tuesday afternoon urging passers-by to just say "no" to the state's favorite crustacean - with mixed results.So the protest drew at least a few people to the restaurant, where they consumed lobster.A restaurant across the street may have benefited unexpectedly from the protest, as some tourists thought that the team from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, one dressed in a plush, red lobster costume, was actually promoting its lobster specials.
"It's a little over the top," Jeff Brent of Concord, N.H., said. "I thought it was an advertisement for the lobster house across the street."
Brent, vacationing with his family, said that they would eat lobster that night and that the protesters' point might have been made more clear if the "lobster" was standing in a pot.
Nice.
I'm not a big fan of boiled or steamed lobster. The thing is a huge sea insect, after all. Take away the claws, eyes and antennae and I'll maybe have a lobster roll or salad. But do I think it's cruel to cook lobster? I don't know. Animal activists say yes, some scientists say no. I say if you're concerned, put the things in a freezer for a few minutes before boiling. Puts them to sleep.
Posted by slublog at 09:06 AM | Comments (283) | TrackBack
Bono on Faith
Christianity Today has a great interview with Bono available on its website. The U2 frontman has some very interesting things to say about faith, God and religion.
I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.Now if we could just get the guy to stop saying the f-word on national television...
Seriously, though, I think Bono is a good example of a guy who has faith, but struggles with the way faith is played out in today's church. Sometimes, I wonder the same thing. But those are subjects for another day.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (49) | TrackBack
Stealing Wi-Fi
CNN Money has an interesting article on Wi-Fi theft.
I think people have to take an active role in protecting their own signals. I've had wireless internet for quite a few months now, and one of the first things I did was encrypt the signal so others would not be able to steal it.
I think taking wi-fi from others is a bad idea, but there has got to be some responsibility on the part of the network owner. Adding security is painless - much more painless than having someone steal the signal you're spending good money to get.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 09, 2005
CNN to Run False Ad
How much is credibility worth?
NARAL has created an anti-John Roberts advertisement that contains false statements, and CNN has agreed to run it.
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama.Information from Factcheck.org. I don't know how much NARAL is paying for the advertisement, but CNN needs to reconsider running it. I know the advertising and editorial departments are separate, but CNN has a responsibility to maintain high standards in all aspects of its broadcast.The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.
Could John Roberts have a libel case on its hands? Probably not, as he's a public figure. But the standard set under New York Times v. Sullivan is actual malice:
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.There is definitely malice in this case - NARAL wants to stop the Roberts nomination. It's been made clear that the statements in the advertisement are false, and NARAL and CNN are running the ad regardless.
This is not CNN's finest hour.
Posted by slublog at 10:42 PM | Comments (51) | TrackBack
"Sweet Neo Con"
Well, it's not "Gimme Shelter," that's for sure.
"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/ You call yourself a patriot. Well, I think your are full of sh*t!... How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con."I'll never understand why so many artists feel such a strong desire to alienate their fans lately. Plus, the Rolling Stones? I mean, it's one thing when Green Day releases an anti-war, anti-Bush song. They're a punk band trying to establish their rebel creds. But the Stones?Ready to drop in the coming weeks, a new Bush-bashing tune from the ROLLING STONES: "Sweet Neo Con."
"It is direct," Mick Jagger says with a laugh to fresh editions of NEWSWEEK.
The Stones are already pretty pathetic. There's nothing more painful than watching a bunch of old guys jump around on stage trying to relive their bad boy youths. This attempt at making a political statement seems more like the guys are trying to tap into a market, and less like an honest expression of their feelings. I can't verify that, but it just doesn't seem that sincere.
And this will get me in trouble with some, but 98 percent of the Stones' music?
Crap.
UPDATE - What would a politically active Stones concert look like? WuzzaDem has the answer.
Posted by slublog at 04:37 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack
HTML Stinks
Sorry for the lack of blogging. I intended to blog on my lunch break, but spent the entire time putting our workplace's redesigned website onto the new server. The new site works, but now it's going to be fun to fix all of the broken links, 404s, etc...
More to come.
Posted by slublog at 03:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Fringe Times?
Ace points out a rather odd non sequitur in the New York Times - pointing out the anniversary of when CHIMPY MCBUSHITLER WAS TOLD ABOUT THE SEPT. 11 PLOT IN DETAIL President Bush was told by the CIA that Al Qaeda wanted to strike the United States.
The author of the article, Elizabeth Bumiller, is adept at dropping little bits of anti-Bushism into even the most innocuous articles. The New York Times: All The News That's Fit to Print, and Some Little Goodies for the Fever Swamp Brigade.
But remember, they're objective. It's those darn blogs that are hyperpartisan rant sheets.
Posted by slublog at 11:04 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Why Not Bangor?
The Bangor Daily News takes the opportunity of the shuttle's homecoming to point out that Bangor International Airport is an alternate landing site for the shuttle. It's never actually been done, but our runway is long enough.
Posted by slublog at 09:38 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
ID and Evolution, Again
A good article in today's National Review Online says they can peacefully co-exist.
Posted by slublog at 09:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 08, 2005
Peter Jennings Dies
Peter Jennings died of lung cancer last night. He was 67.
I never watched ABC News, mostly choosing to stick with NBC during the pre-cable news years. Still, Jennings seemed competent at his job.
Megan McArdle, writing at Instapundit, points out that Jennings death marks the end of an era. Brokaw retired, Rather resigned and now Jennings has died. Now that cable news and the internet are starting to grow bigger, the power of the big three networks will never be as great as it once was. I can't say the past era is one I'll miss at all, but its passing is still important enough to note.
Posted by slublog at 09:51 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack
Sevan Quits
The former head of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program has quit and in his resignation letter, blames Kofi Annan for allowing him to become a target of the investigation.
"As I predicted, a high-profile investigative body invested with absolute power would feel compelled to target someone and that someone turned out to be me," Sevan wrote in the letter. "The charges are false, and you, who have known me for all these years, should know that they are false."Now that Sevan no longer has diplomatic immunity and is both subject to prosecution and angry at Annan, now would be the perfect time to see if he'll turn on his former UN bosses.The resignation is largely symbolic because the U.N. was paying Sevan just $1 a year to keep him on payroll so he would cooperate with the committee. But it removes his diplomatic immunity and could leave him open to prosecution; Sevan, a Cypriot citizen believed to be in Nicosia, is also being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney's office.
Or have I just been watching too much "Law and Order" lately?
Maybe. Still, it would be great to see Jerry Orbach slap the cuffs on Sevan while quipping, "Well, Sevan, not much of a savant, are you?" Hey, a guy can dream.
Posted by slublog at 09:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Arguing Over Beer Money
Shouldn't arguments of this type have ended in college?
Posted by slublog at 09:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 05, 2005
"A Car Wreck with Boobs"
Reviews of Dukes of Hazzard are not kind:
Heck, suck the exhaust fumes from a 1969 orange Dodge Charger. But whatever you do, no matter how big a fan you were of the show, do yourself a favor by skipping the movie.
Stupid enough to make Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 and Cannonball Run 2 suddenly seem like paragons of wit and high comedy.
It's a negation of cinema. You would actually become a better, more complete person by not watching it.
Looks like I'm going to be a better, more complete person.
Posted by at 12:59 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Tancredo?
From today's Political Diary from the Wall Street Journal (subscription only):
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman recently said the party would back Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo for re-election next year, assuming he wins the GOP nomination. The announcement arises from the political reality that the party wants to hold onto as many seats in Congress as possible to be sure of retaining a majority, not to mention a well-founded fear of Colorado slipping out of the red column in future presidential elections. That makes the move no less disappointing, however.I think immigration is an important issue, but do not like Congressman Tancredo's extremism on the subject. I know a lot of people in the conservative blogosphere think immigration is the issue that will decide future elections. Such a belief is founded in the all-too-human tendency to see a groundswell where only an echo chamber exists.Rep. Tancredo has been steadily building a national reputation as an anti-illegal immigrant crusader. His antics and positions make it harder for the Republican Party to appeal to Hispanic voters if he rallies a Pitch Fork Army that also opposes the culture that Hispanic immigrants have brought here with them. He also angered Muslims in recent weeks by calling for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on Mecca, the Saudi Arabian holy city, if Islamic terrorists detonate a nuclear device inside the United States. Both Hispanic and Islamic groups have led protests in Denver calling for Rep. Tancredo's resignation.
The GOP certainly needs a "big tent" to stay in power, but that may also require making the tent a little smaller by pushing the Tancredos out. President Bush has made a substantial effort to reach out to Muslim Americans, particularly since the Sept.11 attacks. He's also spent his presidency reaching out to Hispanic Americans -- a voting bloc that will be essential to retaining a majority in the future. Continuing to embrace Mr. Tancredo only undermines the president's efforts. Mr. Mehlman is clearly concerned about losing Mr. Tancredo's seat. However he should also be concerned about what the party will lose if it keeps Mr. Tancredo.
When it comes to immigration, many on the right are making the same mistake as movie critic Pauline Kael when she expressed surprise at President Nixon's victory - "No one I know voted for Nixon!" I think securing our borders is an important goal, but the tactics and proposals made by Tancredo and his followers sometimes border on the xenophobic.
Something needs to be done about illegal immigration. It is a national security threat and a drain on the economies of quite a few states. But simply saying we should close the borders, round up all the illegals while doing nothing to help strengthen the economies of the countries where immigrants originate suggests that Tancredo is simply gaining popularity by playing on people's fears.
The North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement were passed to promote trade with the countries that are parties to the agreements. Increasing trade can help the economies of struggling countries grow by increasing production of tradable goods in those countries. Increased production leads to more jobs and more jobs leads to less immigration.
Congressman Tancredo voted against against CAFTA. I don't think Tancredo should be booted out of the party, as there should be room for a variety of opinions among Republicans. I do think, however, his ideas should be more heavily criticized by other Republicans who don't want to see the party's chances among minority groups hurt by the mouthing off of one Congressman.
Full disclosure: I am partially of Hispanic descent. What offends me most about Tancredo's rhetoric are statements such as this:
Many of them are coming simply for the purpose of getting a better job. The whole concept of integration and assimilation goes out the window when it clashes with or comes in contact with, because it is really not a clash, but comes in contact with this cult of multi-culturalism, and that is why it matters. That is why immigration policy fits into this discussion.Who is Tom Tancredo to suggest that those who happen to be Hispanics do not assimilate well or want to become Americans? He bases this statement on the words of one guy in Denver he debated with once.
I think these guys would disagree with that statement.
My own experiences with family suggest differently. All of my relatives have assimilated into the United States. They vote, pay taxes and work hard at their jobs. It's too bad Tancredo believes that members of my family, because their ancestors were illegals, are not U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Some pundits argue that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands that the children of illegal aliens and of nonimmigrants legally present in the United States be granted automatic citizenship; these pundits are simply wrong. Neither the Constitution nor any subsequent Supreme Court decision compels birthright citizenship to be conferred upon children of illegal aliens or of nonimmigrants born in the United States.How many generations down do you take that, Congressman? Am I a citizen?
So yes, this is partially personal for me.
UPDATE - See?
Posted by slublog at 12:51 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Was "The Bomb" Necessary?
Tomorrow marks the 60th anniversary of the first use of an atomic weapon in wartime - the bombing of Hiroshima. Victor Davis Hanson looks at the still-ongoing debate.
Posted by slublog at 11:34 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Bush Is No Idiot
Roberts is the perfect nominee: he pleases no one. If he were the neo-con poster boy, then the Democrats would have just cause to bork him. This shows his moderation on gay activism, and I'll be amazed if he turns out to be staunchly pro-life in his confirmation hearings--there've been hints already that he's willing to let Roe V. Wade stand. This puts the left in a bind that is its own fault. By maneuvering themselves into the position of having abortion as a litmus test (and gay rights to a lesser degree I would think) they were vulnerable to a nominee that is adequately pro-choice and then brings a raft of conservative principles to SCOTUS under the radar, and Bush jumped on it. Attacking Roberts' Catholicism is the only hope the Democrats have now, and that could backfire: I wonder how many Democratic Senators are Catholics themselves or in primarily Catholic districts?
Posted by at 11:20 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
He's Guilty, But We're Greedy
I'm with Jen on this one - I hate these people.
LOS ANGELES - Two jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson of child molestation charges now say they think the pop star was guilty - and they are penning tell-all books about the jury's deliberations, the Daily News has learned.Mistrials are so messy, and they take so long and people are all upset at you for not coming to a verdict and stuff. So it's better just to go with the flow in the jury room, let the guy off and write a tell-all later."Guilty As Sin, Free as a Bird" is the title of 79-year-old Eleanor Cook's tome, according to Larry Garrison, president of Silver Creek Entertainment.
We already have laws that prevent convicted criminals from benefitting financially by writing books about their crimes. Perhaps it's time to extend the prohibition to juries.
Posted by slublog at 11:07 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Beautiful Understatement
Apparently hurricanes can cause really big waves. But I thought this line from the linked article was priceless:
Because shipping tends to try to avoid hurricanes, many large waves are unseen by humans, let alone measured.
Who woulda thunk it?
Posted by at 09:14 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
What Is News?
Is millions of dollars in taxpayer money meant for children and Alzheimer's victims being misappropriated for a partisan radio station news?
Depends on whose sacred cows are in danger of being gored.
If it were say, Sinclair or Clear Channel, this would likely be big. Fortunately for the radio station involved, though, the ideas broadcast over the air are liberal ones. This may not be the biggest story on the radar screen, but it's worthy of more coverage from the MSM than it's getting. Right now, only one major newspaper has bothered to cover the story - The Arizona Republic.
Again, the media is dropping the ball for apparently ideological reasons.
Posted by slublog at 08:18 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 04, 2005
Leave the Kids Alone. Is That too Much to Ask?
The New York Times, according to Drudge, has started an investigation of how Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and his wife adopted their kids. This is abhorrent behavior on the part of the Times, the 'paper of record.' Professor Bainbridge is less than impressed.
Look, there have just got to be limits in how far reporters go into the private lives of those it covers. Articles about Roberts and his past beliefs, writings, etc. - fine. The guy is a public figure. But the kids are not. They were not nominated by the president and they are not public figures and have a very reasonable expectation of privacy, and that privacy should extend to how they became part of the Roberts family.
I know the Times has basically declared open war on the Bush administration, but this is really just beyond the pale. Seriously. They should be ashamed of themselves. I don't have words strong enough to convey how disgusted I am by this. Well, I do have words, but they're not appropriate for this blog.
UPDATE - More here.
Posted by slublog at 08:15 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Craziness on the Right
Man, I hope Florida Republicans aren't stupid enough to pick Katherine Harris as their nominee for the Senate. The woman is going slightly mad.
TAMPA, Florida (AP) -- Congresswoman Katherine Harris, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat next year, has again accused some newspapers of doctoring photos to distort her makeup as a way to poke fun at her.I know "blame the media" is a popular phrase on the right (hey, I use it now and again) but this time, the media is probably completely innocent of all charges.In an interview on a conservative radio talk show Monday, Harris said some newspapers -- she didn't say which -- altered photos during the 2000 presidential election recount when she was Florida secretary of state.
The problem is that newspaper color, as good as it can be, doesn't always look great. Sometimes you get an affect where colors look brighter or darker, depending on how well the printer was being calibrated that day. I've seen pictures of people wearing completely normal makeup turned into clown faces by a bad printing process.
I don't like it when people on the right or the left focus on physical appearance as an avenue for political attack. It's petty. But Harris should have thought twice before opening this avenue of 'beat on the press.' As the old saying goes, don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.
Posted by slublog at 10:31 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
"Barone Blog"
Enough said.
Posted by slublog at 09:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 03, 2005
Fight Terror, Not Islam
My new Republican Journal column is online.
Posted by slublog at 10:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
On Arresting Potential Terrorists
Confederate Yankee has a very funny post on the new British rules for raiding the homes of potential terrorists.
Posted by slublog at 10:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Is "Not One Dime" Working?
Back in April of this year, Captain Ed first floated the idea of "Not. One. Dime," withholding funds from the Republicans in the Senate who just can't seem to do anything but dither and find new ways to spend taxpayer money.
I just looked over at Open Secrets and found some interesting evidence that Republican donors may be getting tired of Senate Republicans. Overall, Republicans are beating Democrats in fundraising totals in all areas but one: The National Republican Senatorial Committee.
TOTAL RECEIPTSInteresting. Now look at the cash on hand, just for the NRSC versus the DSCC:
Democratic Party - $94,434,455
Republican Party - $151,394,447
Main Party Committees
Democratic National Cmte - $31,304,498
Republican National Cmte - $62,048,097
House Party Committees
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte - $24,070,749
National Republican Congressional Cmte - $39,984,491
Senate Party Committees
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte - $22,734,375
National Republican Senatorial Cmte - $20,925,917
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte - $15,218,394Compare that to the 2004 cycle, when the push to elect Bush-friendly Senators was at its peak:
National Republican Senatorial Cmte - $8,021,130
TOTAL RECEIPTSThe behavior of Senate Republicans hasn't gotten any more encouraging since April, so I think these numbers will hold into next year. This is the first evidence we've seen that the Senate Republicans are starting to irritate the grassroots and pull down the fundraising totals for the party.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte - $26,797,907
National Republican Senatorial Cmte - $33,785,727CASH ON HAND
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte - $2,487,211
National Republican Senatorial Cmte - $12,931,868
UPDATE - One thing - the fundraising isn't done yet. But I think the point still holds. Right now, Republicans have less cash on hand than the Democrats, and thus less to spend on the races necessary to hold or increase their majority in the Senate.
Posted by slublog at 01:06 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
What do I want for my birthday?
My family is bugging me and I don't know what to ask for. Any ideas?
Posted by at 12:14 PM | Comments (34) | TrackBack
My Thoughts on Intelligent Design
The problem with teaching ID in the classroom is that then you have to teach all the other creation stories, too. No one would think of teaching these other stories in a science class, and ID doesn't belong there, either.
"But ID isn't religion, it's science!" Well, actually, it isn't. It is only saying, "Because of certain problems with evolution, it can't be true, therefore we can talk about this alternative." The alternative, though, is not a testable prediction, indeed ID is not falsifiable either so there's two strikes against its status as science. It is merely the clever repackaging of the long-standing doubt that the blind mechanism of natural selection could produce the complexity we see in nature. The Argument from Personal Incredulity, though, is just a fancy from of the appeal to ignorance, or as it is more caustically named, "God of the Gaps."
Irreducible complexity is the problem cited with evolution, the reason given why we should consider intelligent design. Michael Behe published this in '97, but it was quickly shown to be lacking as a credible objection. Here is another, more detailed response to one of Behe's specific examples written by an outspokenly Christian biologist. In sum, steps have been described whereby several "irreducibly complex" systems such as the Venus fly trap can be developed purely through natural selection. With these explanations in hand, the yet unexplained systems such as the flagellum become arguments from ignorance. Just as Darwin is oft-quoted as saying that if one system could be shown to be impossible to result from natural selection then the whole idea falls apart, if one irreducibly complex system can be shown to result from natural selection then ID falls apart. Alas, this news hasn't made it to the apologetics section of your local Christian bookstore, the only place in America (besides the Kansas school board) where evolution is on the ropes. They know how to make money just like any other retailer: give the clientele what they want, in this case evolution-bashing.
My personal opinion is that God is the creator, that he created the universe with physical laws and constants that made the evolution of intelligent life possible if not inevitable, that in general science is credible and that its discoveries are genuine (not that they are infallible, but that we are able to explore an honest universe that appears as it actually is), and that the Bible is not intended to tell us about the function of the natural world. I furthermore believe, based on Hebrews 11:3, that we will never know when or whether God has intervened in the process between the Big Bang and us. If it could ever be scientifically proven that God had intervened, then we wouldn't need faith to know he is the Creator (much less that he exists). Indeed my appreciation for God as Creator has grown exponentially since I ditched young-earth creationism, not the other way around.
Posted by at 09:42 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Strike Two
Last year, John Kerry ran as a (sorta-kinda) anti-war combat veteran who criticized President Bush.
He lost.
In Ohio's recent special election, the Democrats decided their candidate would be a (sorta-kinda) anti-war combat veteran who criticized President Bush.
Memo to future candidates, right or left: calling the president a "son of a bitch" will not make you look like a straight-talking independent. It makes you look like a fool, and an angry one at that.
Next time, just say something like "I disagree with the president," or even "I don't like the president." Gets the same point across without making you look like a spittle-flecked discussion-board troll.
UPDATE - And right on schedule, from the DU boards: "21. Let's see....Ohio...Diebold...GOP candidate wins. Business as usual."
*Sigh* Thanks, Al.
Posted by slublog at 09:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I Miss Moxie
Co-worker today is talking about root beer floats. Says to me, "I bet I'm just making you want one, huh?" I said, "No, it makes me want a Moxie." "Huh?"
Now I'm not really a Moxie float fan, if you're going to get as rare a treat as Moxie (for Indiana anyway) you aren't going to mask the flavor with ice cream you can get anyday. But Moxie floats have sentimental value to me, since Alethea likes them a lot, and Alethea is the ONLY person I have ever introduced Moxie to that liked it. Everyone else makes The Face. I've quit introducing Moxie to Hoosiers, it's just a waste of it.
Posted by at 09:01 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 02, 2005
Whedon Interview
In Focus magazine has a great interview with Joss Whedon, creator of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel" and my personal favorite, "Firefly." In it, he talks about the upcoming "Firefly" movie, "Serenity," as well as his career as a script doctor, what he would have done differently with the Star Wars franchise and comic books. Worth a read, if you're a Whedon fan.
Posted by slublog at 08:05 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
CSI: Miami and New York Update
News is finally starting to trickle in about next season for two members of the CSI franchise.
This week's TV Guide is reporting some spoilers for Miami this fall. If you don't want to know, stop reading now.
After a short stint in toxicology and a screwup by her replacement in ballistics that sets a killer free, Calleigh will overcome her fears and reluctance to work with weapons and steps back into her position in ballistics.
Delko, who we saw doing a bit of a behavioral spiral last season, hasn't changed a bit. He tests positive for marijuana. Delko also gets stuck in a situation where Ryan gets a nail in the eye and he has to decide whether to pull it out or not. Ouch. Apparently, Ryan gets to keep his sight.
Some crazy thing about Horatio kiling a guy in New York protecting his prosecutor ex-wife before he came to Miami is mentioned, but I'm not really interested in it. The producers hit the mark last season when they brought H's supposed dead crooked-cop brother back to end the season. Nice touch.
Now on to CSI: NY. Michael Ausiello writes that there are some big character changes ahead for the NY crime drama, namely one of the six main characters will get the ax. We know it won't be Dr. Hawkes (Hill Harper). He's moving from the morgue into the field. Chances are it won't be the Gary Sinise or Melina Karakaredes characters either.
My money is on Danny Messer leaving the precinct. He is too stupid and ill-tempered to survive the second season. I bet he gets gunned down. The primary character will leave the show within the first two episodes.
Remember, a bullet with Messer's name on it.
Posted by at 07:29 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
ID and Schools
A lot of controversy in the blogosphere over President Bush's statements regarding intelligent design. Personally, I tend to agree with Jeff Goldstein on this one. Teach it, but as part of a philosphy/religion curriculum.
Overall, though, I think the federal government (and that includes the president) should create standards for education instead of trying to influence curriculum.
UPDATE - Aha. Maybe this influenced the president's words. (H/t: Simon Says)
Posted by slublog at 07:23 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
No First Win for Patrick
Overall, the Rahal Letterman team had a rotten weekend. All three of their drivers, including rookie phenom Danica Patrick, ended up in the pits with busted rides on Sunday. Patrick's car was sketchy from the very beginning. She started in eight place, but quickly slid back to 20th and finally blew and engine on lap 163.
C'mon guys. If you want Danica, or your entire team for that fact, to win, give 'em something they can compete in.
Maybe next time, Ms. Patrick.
Posted by at 07:17 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Movie Recommendation
Just watched "Hotel Rwanda" and I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. It's the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager in Rwanda who protected over a thousand Tutsis refugees during the civil war/genocide that occurred in that country in 1994. Over a million people died in three months and the West did nothing.
Before the movie, Don Cheadle, who plays Rusesabagina, urges us to get involved and educated about a similar genocide going on in Darfur region of Sudan right now. I've blogged about the human rights abuses there before. So far, the West hasn't done much to help. Individually, though, you can help.
And see the movie. The performances of Cheadle and co-star Sophie Okonedo, who plays his wife, are reason enough to rent this one.
Posted by slublog at 06:46 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
You Know...
I really do want to take these guys seriously again, but they have just got to get some leadership and ideas instead of doing stuff like this.
Posted by slublog at 06:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
God Bless The Rest of the World, Too
America is blessed enough.
Just had to say that after reading the ubiquitous sop to ritual patriotism at the end of an article that had nothing to do with God or America. It's beginning to really get on my nerves.
Posted by at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What's your favorite cereal?
Peter and I were e-mailing about what to eat when the wife is away. We settled on cereal. Let us know what your favorite is!
For me, if money is no object I get Raisin Nut Bran, but usually I'm getting Sam's Choice Multi-Grain Flakes. Sugar's cheap and so are they.
Posted by at 12:56 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack
"It's Time to Play the Music"
The Muppet Show is coming out on DVD.
Posted by slublog at 09:13 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Double Ouch
This guy really didn't like FX's "Over There."
I just watched F/X’s new show “Over There,” and it may have been one of the most wasted and unpleasant hours of my life. Well- there was that one time in undergrad when I drank a bottle of cheap tequila and vomited through my nose for 2 hours. But at least I was drunk enough to dull the pain.The show was hyped ad nauseum by FX, to the point where I just hit mute during commercial breaks in shows I actually wanted to watch. One of the marketing selling points was to highlight the fact that it was a "Steven Bochco" production. Because, as we all know, "Steven Bochco" always means quality television.I couldn’t even finish the show, and as I write this it is playing in the background, and I hear someone screaming in agony. I wasn’t aware the show was filmed in front of a live studio audience.
Posted by slublog at 09:07 AM | Comments (27) | TrackBack
Why are there so few female astronauts?
Because every day is a bad hair day.
The shuttle repair mission is not a big deal. The calculated extra heat from the protruding insulation is 200 degrees, well within tolerances especially since they haven't done anything about it before. If this mission wasn't specifically about repair techiques, I don't think they'd be bothering.
Posted by at 08:38 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack
Ouch
Dixie bashing comes back to bite Paul Krugman. Luskin notes this isn't the first time Krugman has practiced creative column writing. Between this and Dowdification, when is the Times going to admit it has a problem and get someone to check its columnists? (Hat tip: Vodkapundit)
Posted by slublog at 07:55 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Maine in Summer
Yes, Maine has high taxes, some annoying regulations and an increasingly liberal state government. But it also has places that look like this:
Yup, this state certainly has its advantages. Sometimes it's almost enough to make you forget the winters. These pictures were taken at Acadia National Park, from the top of Mansell Mtn.
Posted by slublog at 12:00 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack
August 01, 2005
"Walk the Line"
This trailer makes me think Joaquin Phoenix is one of the more underrated actors working today. This isn't a movie I'm going to see the first weekend it's out, but this preview makes it seem worth watching. Plus, despite my somewhat anti-country music tendencies, I just like Johnny Cash's style.
Posted by slublog at 10:18 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack
A Coastal Gomorrah?
Spent the weekend in beautiful Bar Harbor, a town that has started to develop something of a bad name in certain Christian circles. It seems that a street preacher was threatened with arrest while preaching in a public park one weekend. First, I think the police were wrong on this one. While I'm not a big fan of street preaching in general, I tend to think people should be allowed to speak in public places, a view that even the ACLU holds. Michael Heath, in writing about this issue, can't let a single argument go by without mentioning his favorite issue:
Bar Harbor is one of very few towns in Maine to have a local "anti discrimination" ordinance that includes "sexual orientation." According to local leaders this gives Bar Harbor bragging rights. They can legitimately claim that they are "tolerant" and "diverse." Former Governor Angus King is not at all bashful about claiming that Maine's tourist economy would be hurt by Maine's failure to embrace "sexual orientation" theory. Bar Harbor bought into King's worldview. Bar Harbor's economic development plan includes a vigorous appeal to sodomites (gays), and jail for serious Christians.Huh? I think he's trying to say that it's hypocritical for them to be tolerant of sexual orientation issues while being intolerant of street preaching, but the transition is so terrible it's hard to tell exactly what his point is here.Something to remember when you are doing your vacation planning. All other coastal communities are free from "sexual orientation" laws, except for Portland.
If Heath had stuck to the issue of free speech, I would have agreed with the point he was trying to make. But it's as though he can't help himself. His entire political worldview seems shaped by his antipathy toward gays and lesbians.
I think Mike Heath misunderstands the purpose of the church. We're not here to win political battles or end the scourge of rainbow flags hanging over businesses (only saw one, by the way). The church is here to tell people about Christ and lead them into a relationship with Him. If Heath and his organization want to make a difference, they should fight for the ability of people to preach in public instead of against those of a particular sexual orientation.
In his book, "Searching for God Knows What," Donald Miller makes the point that some Christians forget the message of Ephesians 6:12. Our fight is against a spiritual enemy.
Posted by slublog at 01:26 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Raffy's Juiced
Rafael Parmeiro has tested positive for steroids.
Palmeiro, who recently got his 3,000th career hit [and] was noted for his emotional denial of steroid use before a Congressional panel in March, would be the latest player suspended under the league's new drug policy.
If Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose can be banned for gambling, how can steroids, which ruin the game as much as betting on the outcome, be only a measly 10 day suspension? Raffy's got Hall numbers, but statistics are the easiest thing to lie with. If the steroids don't kill his Hall chances, the hypocrisy should.
Posted by at 12:39 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Heh
I think Jonah Goldberg has got the wrong idea about this northern state:
Jack better be careful. According to Steven King, every other guy in Maine is either an apocalyptic disease-carrier, a demon in disguise or the owner of a rabid dog -- or car.Sorry, Jonah. It's only every third person. And only in western Maine.
Posted by slublog at 09:48 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Bangor Fair In Town
My first reaction to this story - 'The fair's in town already?'
I didn't grow up in Maine, so my experiences with the fair are limited. I was once charged by a beefalo (a cross between a cow and a buffalo) after stupidly getting into the large pen to take a picture when I was a reporter for a local paper. The flash scared the animal, and I vaulted over the wall of the pen to avoid being knocked down.
The fair is a great event that brings old and new Maine together in one place for a week. The new Maine, though, may pose a problem in the future.
The fair's open exhibit categories of needlework, crafts, flowers and foods have been replaced by craft demonstrations, and the OTB beneath the grandstand has displaced other open exhibits.While I'm not a big fan of the fair, I don't want to see it displaced by a racino or off-track betting facility. I hope those running the city have fully thought out the plans they made when they allowed those gambling companies to set up shop in Bangor. I'm beginning to get the feeling, though, that they have not, and that we have quite a fight ahead of us in the near future.Besides the OTB, Penn National Gaming Inc. also has plans for a racino in Bangor, possibly at Bass Park. The company must provide the city two years' notice and $1 million to use the area, but has not yet made a request, according to city officials.
Posted by slublog at 09:33 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack