The formula for outrage

So as you've no doubt read by now, former Education Secretary William Bennett, is being pilloried in the press, by Democrats and now by the White House for a statement he made to a caller on his radio talk show.

Bennett, on his radio show, "Morning in America," was answering a caller's question when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," said Bennett, author of "The Book of Virtues."

He went on to call that "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

So basically he was criticizing the book's hypothesis. And for the meaning of his statement, one must look at what that criticism is based on. And that is that many studies link higher crime rates with black males than white males. In the crudest sense, removing a portion of the population would affect the result of the study. And as the author postulated the method of removal is already taking place, and that method is abortion. Bennett took issue with this. And for merely delving into the issue he is getting stomped on.

And why? Because the time for scandal is now. And all Republicans and conservatives are in the cross-hairs. It is part of the strategy. The full court press to impress upon the public that Republicans are up to no good, that they are not fit to lead, and they never should have. It is the only chance the Democrats have. And the media are assisting, as always.

And the only way conservatives and Republicans can fight this is to stand up and grow a damn spine. Quit cowing down to the media and screaming Democrats. Who the heck cares what they think? Bennett is not a racist, and anyone listening to his show would know that. He was talking candidly about studies and race and books and talking live on air with a caller on the radio. He was not penning a book, or writing an article, or stating that "these are my racist beliefs", and as such he deserves a little slack.

But the parasites of opportunity are attempting to exploit any perceived weakness or opening. And they scored a big hit today, getting the White House to condemn the remarks.

Why the White House is even responding to questions about this is beyond me. Bennett is not affiliated with government anymore. He may be conservative, but so are millions of other people in this country, talk radio hosts included. But every chance they get, the media strives to pin the unscripted and inane on the President, just as they did today. And the administration bit, feeling the need to end the questions and make some statement, and now once more tying the words of talk radio to the microphone in the White House press room. They did it with Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez, and now they've done it with Bennett. So now the White House has claimed ownership.

The game is on, and it's not about the message, or who was right, or what statement was taken out of context. It is about framing the issue. And creating a scandal and then tying it to the White House is the media's only play. Note the way the AP closes their article.

Bennett was education secretary under President Reagan and director of drug control policy when Bush's father was president.

Bush's father? Can the media not respect a former president and state his full name and time in office? Sure, but they didn't. Some might chalk it up to laziness, or an oversight. But I don't buy it. The only reason this is a scandal is because it might hurt the president. That's all the media cares about. And why Republicans have not learned this is beyond me.

Get your own Internet

They didn't originate the idea, create it, run it, or own it, yet the EU now wants shared control of the Internet.

The European Union insisted Friday that governments and the private sector must share the responsibility of overseeing the Internet, setting the stage for a showdown with the United States on the future of Internet governance.

A senior U.S. official reiterated Thursday that the country wants to remain the Internet's ultimate authority, rejecting calls in a United Nations meeting in Geneva for a U.N. body to take over.

EU spokesman Martin Selmayr said a new cooperation model was important "because the Internet is a global resource."

"The EU ... is very firm on this position," he added.

Well I'm very glad they're firm. I'd hate to think they were weak on it. But even so, the answer is no. Created by the Pentagon for national security purposes, the Internet has turned more towards business and recreation, but eventually it will reclaim a security role I think. And the U.S. must maintain dominance. If the EU wants to control something, they should go and build their own.

A stalemate over who should serve as the principal traffic cops for Internet routing and addressing could derail the summit, which aims to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world.

At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.

That role has historically gone to the United States, which created the Internet as a Pentagon project and funded much of its early development. The U.S. Commerce Department has delegated much of that responsibility to a U.S.-based private organization with international board members, but Commerce ultimately retains veto power.

Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.

They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.

To be clear, this is not about access, really, everyone has access. It's about control. The U.S. has it, and the rest of the world does not like that. My answer to all of them is one word: tough.

Ronnie Earle, Hollywood producer

What is it with Democrats and video documentaries? First you had John Kerry and his film footage of Vietnam, carefully created so that he could show himself as a war hero. Then we had Michael Moore and his selective tales of 9-11 and Iraq. And of course we had Sean Penn and the great row boat caper in "Escape from New Orleans." And now we have Ronnie Earle: Travis County D.A., partisan Democrat, who for years has spent taxpayer money investigating Congressman Tom DeLay...and apparently had a documentary crew filming the entire thing.

For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to make a motion picture about his work on the case.

The resulting film is called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. "Raymond Chandler meets Willie Nelson on the corner of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in The Big Buy, a Texas noir political detective story that chronicles what some are calling a 'bloodless coup with corporate cash,'" reads a description of the picture on Birnbaum's website, markbirnbaum.com. The film, according to the description, "follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle's investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC."

"We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff," Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. "We've been shooting for about two years."

Take that Ken Starr! Your blatant commitment to partisan desecration of the Constitution has nothing on this guy! Right? Right, Democrats? Right, mainstream media?

I mean you said all those nasty things about Ken Starr, and he was authorized by Congress, and he didn't even have a video camera. Probably not even a tape recorder. So how come you guys aren't ranting from the rooftops?

Must be that bias kicking in. Yeah, I know, it's tough kicking that addiction. It's probably worse than crack. Maybe the pharmaceutical companies can develop a patch for you. The bias cracker, or something.

Actually, this isn't really even all that funny. It's rather sad. Because it's the deeper motive that begins to shine through when you really start to sift through the insanity. Democrats are making their play for Congress and the White House. Right now.

Sagging poll numbers, thanks to an ever-pessimistic media. Hysterical hurricane coverage of rapes and murders and general chaos, all of which now the media has been hard pressed to corroborate. In fact most of the tales of rape and murder have now turned out to be false. A massive partisan effort to shift blame for the hurricane, and the rescue response onto the federal government, and thus President Bush. Continued coverage of bombings and deaths in Iraq, without the reasons why or the mission fully explained. A shameful circus put on by Democrats in the Senate, in order to tar and feather President Bush's Supreme Court nominee. And now scandal, trumped up accusations and charges affecting the Republican leadership of both houses of Congress. And the aim? It is to create the perception in the public that Republicans are corrupt, out of touch, mired in scandal, not paying attention to the war, short on compassion, long on racism and out of the mainstream, thus creating the climate for political change.

A very well coordinated, multi-pronged attack. And with it the Democrats hope to drive the Republicans from power and in the fight also derail President Bush's next judicial nominee.

However, sadly for the Democrats, I believe it will fail. President Bush has never governed by poll numbers, and he's not going to start now. He stayed the course in Iraq through the election, and it nearly cost him. He's not going to back down on a judge nomination when he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

Congress is a tougher fight, but in this also, the Democrats will fail. The first reason is because the charges being thrown about at Tom DeLay and Bill Frist are laughable. And the second, is that the Democrats, for all their years out of power, still haven't come up with a message other than whining and hate. Not very attractive qualities, in anyone, let alone leadership roles. The public's dissatisfaction with elected officials and President Bush's low poll numbers has nothing to do with some tide of revolution the Democrats think is right around the corner. It has to do with depression at the constant negativity of the news, and of politicians in general.

Anger...it does create anger. But the Democrats tried to channel anger in the last election, and they saw where that got them. No, optimism and deeds raise poll numbers, not hatred or hysteria. And people don't lose congressional seats because the other party sits around and whines all day. That only works in the movies.

So I guess that's why Democrats are so obsessed with making them.

Pataki stands up for the 9-11 families

In a move sure to make terrorists howl, New York Governor George Pataki has axed the International Freedom Center from the World Trade Center memorial. For those of you who have not been following this, the effort behind the IFC has been infiltrated by some of the most vile anti-Americans around today. I recommend this Opinion Journal article, "The Great Ground Zero Heist", written by Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles Burlingame III, pilot of Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9-11, for the background information. The who's who of the IFC, from Ms. Burlingame's article:

- Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the worldwide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."

- Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.

- Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.

- George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."

Visitors to the IFC would be treated with an indoctrination of anti-american garbage, on the very site where the enemy of the free world declared war on civilization. Ms. Burlingame has led a coalition of 9-11 families in protest, and bloggers have done their part, but it was Governor Pataki who finally stepped up and put an end to it.

In a story first reported by NY1, Governor George Pataki has cancelled plans to build the controversial International Freedom Center at the World Trade Center site - and representatives of the center say the location change has forced the entire project to be scrapped.

The center had drawn criticism from some 9/11 victims' family members because it would not focus exclusively on the terror attacks. Family members also said the IFC could potentially contain exhibits that were anti-American.

Pataki said Wednesday that he's given the center a chance to clarify its intentions, but there's just too much opposition.

In a statement, Pataki said: "The creation of an institution that would show the world our unity and our resolve to preserve freedom in the wake of the horrific attacks is a noble pursuit. But freedom should unify us. This center has not."

The governor asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to work with the IFC to explore other locations for the center, but representatives of the center have decided to scrap the idea completely.

The idea that the gravesite of so many dead Americans would be used as a bash-America front is unthinkable, and yet, it almost came to pass. As it is, the deplorable Crescent of Embrace mess in Pennsylvania will probably remain in some form or other, despite the outraged public winning some concessions. And that situation is an utter disgrace. Basically the designer created a monument to the people who died fighting terrorists on Flight 93 in Pennsylvania...that looks like an Islamic crescent. Don't believe me? Then take a look at this. Pretty sick if you ask me.

So way to go Governor, you did the right thing. You've finally done what Hillary Clinton called for a few weeks ago.

Plagued by a culture of corruption

So the DNC has played it's hand. In preparation for the elections in 2006, the Democratic leadership has signed off on the Summer of scandal, apparently to be followed by the Fall of Republicans. Yes, it's a play on words. Just live with it.

So today Republican majority leader Tom DeLay was indicted by a Texas Grand Jury on charges of conspiracy involving campaign donations. The investigation, led by the Travis County D.A. Ronnie Earle, a partisan Democratic hack, has absolutely no merit. In fact most lawyers who have now read the indictment describe it as utterly laughable. Via Powerline:

You can read the indictment here. It is pathetic. The only time it mentions DeLay's name is when it alleges that he agreed to toll the statute of limitations! The indictment contains no suggestion of what he supposedly did that was illegal.

Michelle Malkin has lots of coverage. Among other things, she watched Ronnie Earle's press coverage and reports that he was unable to articulate a case against Delay:

Someone asks about the vagueness of the DeLay indictment. Q: What role did DeLay actually play? Earle has no concrete answer. Q: What is the proof DeLay conspired? Again, no concrete answer.

The Democratic Party is committed to the view that there is no such thing as going too far. To date, they've done reasonably well with that approach. But they may be pushing their luck this time; God help them if the press ever stops covering for them.

If the D.A. finds somebody breaking the law, then by all means go after them. But this indictment is absolutely political. The Democrats have nothing, absolutely nothing, to offer this country but bitching and moaning and whining. They have fallen from whatever semblance of national leadership they might have once had and devolved into a breeding ground for the fever-swamp moonbats.

The "culture of corruption", that's apparently the new line. Dean launched it, calling Republicans plagued by it, and Pelosi parroted it. Never mind that every Democrat in office has followed the exact same rules as DeLay, and that they've spent the last two months covering their tracks in preparation for this attack, Republicans are corrupt. The attack is aimed at both DeLay and at Bill Frist, who the media is also circling because of a stock trade--yet another ridiculous charge. But however ridiculous, however unfounded, it does not matter. Nor does it matter that both of them, DeLay and Frist, are likely to be cleared of all wrongdoing. The media have their story.

From the headlines, to approved memes, to repeated claims that eventually yield to circular reporting (one paper claiming what another is reporting, thus solidifying a charge or quote or accusation that eventually, if reported enough, will become fact--a slanderous sentence cut and pasted into every article from then on) until the damage is done in the poll numbers. Mission accomplished.

So is my defense of Tom DeLay blind? Absolutely not. But my B.S. meter is off the scale right now. This stinks. All politicians have their hands in the money pot, Democrats most of all. I mean just look at the Union dues and their Soros money. It's ridiculous. But with the media backing them up, Democrats think they can make a run at this.

I second the remarks from the guys are Powerline--God help the Democrats if the media ever stops covering for them. They'll never win an election again.

The fakes read round the world

Just over a year has passed since the CBS News program 60 Minutes II imploded when an army of bloggers put the show under a microscope and revealed that the network was attempting to slander President Bush's military service with fake documents. It was the new media's biggest break, exposing the bias, ineptitude and subsequent cover-up that rocked one of America's premier TV networks. For a refresher course, I highly encourage everyone to re-read the Powerline post that started it all: The Sixty-First Minute.

In the aftermath of the blogger storm, CBS News managers lost their jobs, as did Mary Mapes, the segment's producer, 60 Minutes was tarnished and 60 Minutes II was finished, Dan Rather was eventually forced out of his anchor spot and into retirement, and the network received a big black eye where that little cyclops used to sit.

And yet...they're apparently back for round two... Or at least one of them is.

Disgraced producer, Mary Mapes, who did the groundwork for the now discredited story, has written a tell-all book, chronologing her side of the story. The operative word here is story. A day in the life of someone who got it wrong. Or, perhaps, a day in the life of someone so consumed by a story about George Bush that the idea that "it must be true" superseded the need to make all the necessary checks when questionable evidence came to light.

Or, perhaps...it's just a story, a work of fiction and nothing more. And why? Because Ms. Mapes is still getting it wrong. In her new book--in the first chapter, at least--she ascribes every bit of blame onto the bloggers, onto Republicans and onto a biased viewership that was just waiting for some reason to get CBS.

And yet she denies the facts before her very eyes. The most glaring of which, is this: there are no original documents to speak of. Those were "destroyed" by the document producee, Bill Burkett, a man with a well known hatred for George Bush. And the only corroborating witnesses to the story is a TANG pool secretary, who never typed the documents or overheard any such conversations about George Bush, and Ben Barnes, an aggrieved Democratic partisan, scandal-ridden, with deep ties into the old Texas Democratic party. The other witnesses, Gen. Staudt, and Killian's wife, those closest to the memos in question, where both disavowed by CBS. The documents themselves are laughable, written in the wrong military vernacular, essentially in Microsoft Word, as Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs showed. To superscript or not to superscript, that question led the way in the blogosphere, as did the roaring debate around the minutiae of the origins of the Times' New Roman font, the art of kerning and the technical marvel that is the IBM Selectric. All of these topics are plainly available online and sourced for all the world to see. Apparently Ms. Mapes did not have the time to read them.

So what is the truth? Perhaps just this: the media veil was lifted. For one bright and shining moment, we were able to see the pure unadulterated partisanship that seeps into every broadcast, every analysis and every word uttered in their daily presentation of the news. Is it premeditated? Does is matter that the DNC started their Fortunate Son campaign commercials the morning after the CBS broadcast ran? Perhaps. But either way, the newscasters and the media executives believed that what they were saying had the benefit of truth. And therein lies the real problem: paranoia, denial, the unwillingness to accept the truth. It has led the liberal media into this fantasy realm where the idea that something is "fake but accurate" is a defense for telling a lie.

Bloggers are not hateful people, nor are they operatives, nor are they yearning for blood. What they yearn for is the truth. Objective truth. And the reason they are online, the reason I am online, is because the media has driven us here. By the media's own hand, bloggers came to life, and by their failings, bloggers are slowly solidifying that life into a full blown medium.

The media (the networks, the New York Times, etc.) may look out onto the internet and see "the mob", but bloggers are not mob mentality. They are lawyers, doctors, business executives, engineers, builders, designers, analysts, homemakers, professors, small business owners, teachers...they are professionals. And their vigilance, their passion, if you will, comes from doing the job the media refuses to do.

So as Mary Mapes continues with her delusions about what must be true, and the networks and print media decline further as their ideas about how to get their stories to resonate with viewers falls flat, the bloggers will go on doing what they do best...shine a little light on the whole story, add some common sense, and take pride in the fact that the mainstream media no longer has the final word.

"I have some thanking to do."

A few years back I remember watching some spectacular and horrific footage that a documentary film crew had caught of a tornado. It was like something out of the movie Twister. Unable to outrun the tornado with their car, the crew pulled up to a highway overpass and they, along with several families, sought refuge up under the girders. As the tornado approached and then passed directly over them, the cameraman kept filming, and recorded the power of mother nature in all her fury.

But the camera crew and those up under the overpass were not the only ones who fell prey to that tornado. Down the road, a tractor trailer had also been caught by the twister. Spun and flipped across the entire highway, the semi ended up rolled over in the ditch next to the road. Amazingly, the driver lived, and appeared uninjured. When interviewed, the man appeared so shocked that he merely sat there, quietly, as he was tended to and the reporters questioned him. He said little, but what he did say I'll always remember. He said, "I have some thanking to do."

I can't help but think of that statement right now, as I, along with the entire city of Houston and Galveston, were spared from nature's fury. We have some thanking to do, for dodging Rita's bullet. For being alive and able to come home to my house, and for knowing that my family and friends are safe, I am grateful.

But we also have some helping we need to do. Because the people of east Texas and Louisiana did not dodge that bullet. It'll take a few days for Houston and Galveston to get back on our feet. There is no gasoline to speak of right now, nor many open stores. Until then we're practically trapped in place. But we were spared from the worst of it, and as soon as we're able we'll need to help those who were not.

In exile...awaiting Rita

So there she is, rolling in ahead of schedule, and luckily for me, off to the east of the Houston/Galveston area. Not so good for Port Arthur, Beaumont and Louisiana though. Those folks are doing what I did yesterday...kissed everything I owned goodbye, and headed out away from the storm surge. The Gulf Coast has a very shallow inland slope, and the storm surge of a CAT 5 (then) storm will send the entire ocean nearly 50 miles inland. That would have destroyed some 600,000 homes in the Houston/Galveston area and countless lives. As it is, in her weakened condition and heading towards the Texas/Louisiana border, Rita is still expected to pack the storm surge of a CAT 5 storm. I am praying for the people in the path of that water (and for the people who are losing everything--again--in New Orleans as the levees broke yet again). It is a horrific thought--that your entire home will be washed away in a torrent of water, and I thank God my home might be spared.

Everyone has probably seen the incredible traffic jams that occurred as people scrambled to escape the Houston/Galveston area. But what remained was rather eerie...a ghost town. My neighborhood underwent such an evacuation, and while no one moved you out, you really did not want to stay. Scenes like these confronted you everywhere. Businesses closed, streets were empty, gas stations either ran out of gas or closed up completely. Staying became a danger in itself. Yet, leaving also posed a problem, as the scenes on the highways became clear. Traffic jams, hours and hours long just to move a couple of miles. And you do NOT want to run out of gas on the highway with a hurricane bearing down on you. Also, note that these photos are from the relatively "safe" area that I have evacuated to, not from the mandatory evacuation areas. Just days apart though, the scenes are now nearly identical.




I am fortunate I had a place to evacuate to. Not so for the hundreds of thousands of people trapped on the highways. State and local government officials have been overwhelmed, mostly because nearly everyone did actually evacuate. And sending several million people down interstate highways, no matter how spread out the routes, has caused the mother of all traffic jams. From friends I have heard tales of 12-24 hour drives, only to go 250 miles. And all this with either no gas or very little, no water, no food and no open service stations, even for bathrooms. People pushed their cars rather than idle forward and waste gas. It is an absolute catastrophe.

Who's to blame for this? That's the media's question, but one that I'm not really interested in right now. Get them OFF the highway--is my statement to the government. Send in the fuel trucks, send food, send water and the national guard to pick up the people who are stranded. Because the hurricane is here.

Signing off for now. The wind is really picking up and once the power lines go, lights out for days. Hopefully it'll be milder where I am, but the only thing to do now is sit tight and ride it out. So say a couple prayers for Texas and Louisiana. We're going to need it.

Rita is on her way

This is turning out to be one monster hurricane. Strengthing from a Category 1 to a Category 4 in mere hours. If you're in a low-lying area and are called to evacuate, please do so. The storm surge from this storm is going to be massive, and could destroy a huge section of the Texas coastline.

See the National Hurricane Center for the latest tracking charts and advisories.

FEMA has some preparedness information.

And if you want to read up on hurricanes to better understand how they work and the threats, go here and here.

The anti-war movement spins out of control

Like some rendition of a Ridley Scott movie, where the evil corporation tries to use the alien as a bioweapon, only to have it turn on its keepers and wreak havoc and mayhem until they blow it out the airlock and survive with their lives, so now are the Democrats learning that this thing they have created in the anti-war movement has a life of it's own. And now it's turning on them.

War protester Cindy Sheehan came to New York last night with a blunt warning for Senator Clinton: End your support for the war in Iraq or else.

Oh yeah...Cindy Sheehan is attacking Hillary Clinton. And the hard left is eating it up.

Mrs. Clinton is "waiting for the best political moment to say" she opposes the war, Ms. Sheehan said during a 15-minute speech. "You say it or you're losing your job," she said, provoking a roar of approval from the audience. Mrs. Clinton, believed to be a possible presidential contender in 2008, has said she supports the war in Iraq and has pushed for a greater troop presence in the country.

In an interview after her speech, Ms. Sheehan said she has requested a meeting with Mrs. Clinton but has not gotten a reply. Mrs. Clinton's office was not immediately available for comment last night.

Not available? Well why not? Isn't this the same woman who the Democrats said George Bush should meet with?--again? I mean at this rate Bush has met with Cindy Sheehan more than Hillary has. Why not meet with her? Because just as the hapless people find out in that alien movie, their own weapon has turned against them.

Now is this enough to sink Hillary? Probably not. Cindy Sheehan will get zero press help in her quest to push Hillary out of office. In fact I'm actually shocked her comments were even reported. Although the media is notoriously anti-war, so perhaps they are hoping to nudge Hillary and turn her into the kind of candidate they want.

Either way, such moves by Sheehan, and her increasingly wild claims--

"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power," she wrote.

--are rapidly making her an untenable weapon for the Democrats. They've already all but cut her loose, as the hurricane provided them with better poll results than Iraq ever did, but she's not letting go. As with anyone who the Democrats have foisted as their sword and shield, they live to fight the battle against the establishment. And now that the media and the fringe left have fully embraced the falsehoods being peddled about Iraq and the war on terror, the Democrats may find it extremely difficult to push Sheehan out of the spotlight.

Hillary has been careful up to now, to lightly tip-toe around the issue. She is pro-war when she needs to be and anti-George Bush when she needs to be. I am careful not to say anti-war. And I think that might be one of the reasons the anti-war people have now set their sights on her. She never fully gave them the respect they wanted. And now they know--though why now I find ridiculously telling of their strategy--that Hillary could very likely get the nomination. And if she's not sufficiently anti-war, then what good were their efforts against Bush?

The hatred of the left is interesting, because what happens is they fixate upon their enemy, in this case George Bush, in an effort to drive him from power, but they think nothing of who will replace him and the reality that will confront them once he's gone. Bush will leave office in four years, and the fringe left has spent countless energy attacking him, laying groundwork for the public acceptance of defeat, but not once did they consider what their own politicians thought, and why. And this illustrates their ridiculously childish view of the world. They care not for the cause, only that people are fighting. And if they can stop people from fighting than no one will ever die...at least not for Halliburton anyway.

But yet, we will die. Not in an old age sense either. We'll die because we refuse to confront the pain that is required so that we may live.

But Hillary understands this. Whatever Republicans may think of her, she's not stupid, nor a lunatic like the fringe. She's a political pragmatist. And while she certainly engages in rhetoric (she coined the "vast right wing conspiracy" remember?), she's not about to roll over on real security issues. She doesn't want to be in Iraq. But she's not about to let America get attacked by terrorists. Her husband failed in that regard. His noncommittal policies when our troops were in the field caused the world to pay a bit more notice, and look for advantage. And now Bush is rectifying the situation. And what she knows, that the anti-war protestors refuse to learn, is that within a few years the Iraq war will be over. Iraq will be it's own country. And the real issue of the day will still be terrorism.

Hillary and the moderate Democrats may try to ride out this political storm, as Bush did. And while she may fare better in the press, within the Democratic party I think this is the beginning of a major fight for power. The Democrats have been two parties since WWII. But it was only with the death of Kennedy, and as the war turned sour in Vietnam, that the split became visible.

Successive Republican administrations and scandals, then Reagan and Bush, have united the Democrats, but as the Democrats lose more and more seats, as they become more and more desperate, and as the election in '08 draws closer...well, the infighting has already begun.

The united front works...North Korea backs down

The united front prevailed in the six-party talks with North Korea, as the nuke-fixated nation agreed to abandon it's nuclear program.

North Korea pledged to drop its nuclear weapons development and rejoin international arms treaties in a unanimous agreement Monday at six- party arms talks, the first ever after more than two years of negotiations.

The North "committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date" to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, according to the agreement by the six countries at the talks.

Negotiators agreed to hold more talks in November, where they were expected to move on to concrete discussions about implementing the broad principles outlined in Monday's agreement. The main U.S. envoy, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has warned that could still be a long process.

Long process, true, but this is the most positive development to come out of these talks yet. Assuming that North Korea is not pulling our leg again (much harder now with five nations siding with the U.S--including China), this should be the beginning of the end of the nuclear standoff. And if so, then that means the United States can soon concentrate it's full attention on Iran. Let's hope that Europe sees the success garnered from the six-party talks and decides to stand firm with the U.S. for the coming showdown.

They are "very, very happy"

According to Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe, the man who induced a nation-wide starvation in his quest to rid his country of white farmers, his people--

--including the homeless and others facing famine because of disastrous land reform are "very, very happy."

Taking advantage of the world media piling on the United States and President Bush for the response to hurricane Katrina, Mugabe is using the opportunity to try to push the U.N. housing agency out of his business.

Mugabe said the U.N. agency, the Nairobi-based Habitat, and Britain, a longtime critic of land reform policies in Zimbabwe, were hypocritical in their response to Katrina.

"They have remained silent about the shocking circumstances of obvious state neglect surrounding the tragic Gulf Coast disaster," he said, adding, "a whole community of mainly nonwhites was deliberately abandoned to the ravages of Hurricane Katrina as sacrificial lambs."

Mugabe has ruled the southern African nation since a guerrilla war brought independence from Britain 25 years ago.

In July, a report from Anna Tibaijuka, the Tanzanian head of Habitat, said Zimbabwe's destruction of urban slums was a "disastrous venture" that has left 700,000 people without homes or jobs.

And this is what our politcal fights in this country have wrought. The rhetoric and insanely irresponsible attacks on the president for hurricane Katrina, for no other reasons than to deflect blame at first but now to create a political windfall come elections next year and in '08, has produced an opening for one of the world's worst dictators. His policy of stealing land and redistributing it has been disastrous, with the entire country plagued by food shortages and famine. And now he is using the falsehoods spread about Katrina to get the U.N. to leave him alone.

But yet world attention is exactly what is needed, now more than ever.

And so it continues

Like the frail and withered Bilbo Baggins lashing out at poor Frodo, giving in to the anger and hatred over the loss of the power he once knew, Bill Clinton lashed out at President Bush today. His newfound media fame and global initiatives proved too powerful a drug, too delightful a memory, the idea of his wife in the White House in 2008 too tempting a prospect for him to sit idly by any longer.

And so, in his classic "of course I did it better than Bush" tone, Clinton bashed the President on everything from Iraq to Katrina.

Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticized George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush [Clinton] said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme.

Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.

The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.

Sounds like he was reading from a John Kerry stump speech. "We went into Iraq and took our eye off the ball" or some such nonsense. I guess we can't walk and chew gum at the same time either, or fight the war where the war needs to be fought. But of course, that always was the Democratic strategy, to make you think we weren't actually fighting a war, that it was some adventure by choice so we could send money to Halliburton. And I guess Clinton is a general now, since he is apparently an expert on troop levels and deployments. Maybe when he was in Europe protesting against America during Vietnam he got a commission? Ah well, regardless of that, at least he's knowledgeable about hurricanes and the federal and local responsibilities.

On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.

People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.

"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.

Gee, Bill...ever see this picture? The Democrats care not for the truth, only in getting their way. Not even a day after the refugees began arriving at the Houston Astrodome, Hillary Clinton and a whole host of Democratic minions flew in to assess the opportunity. But what they saw scared them to death. Thousands of people in the Astrodome, that were being tended to, resting, being fed, checked medically and welcomed by the people of Texas. Yes, those evil red staters. The city of Houston was enacting its emergency plan, the plan to house citizens of Galveston should the island have to be evacuated during a hurricane. Houston had a plan, and a good one. While New Orleans had...what was their plan again?--to blame George Bush?

And then Bush gave his speech from New Orleans. After creating a political storm that rivaled the hurricane, the media and the Democrats watched with glee as a beleaguered Bush spoke to the nation.

A man of action, of purpose and principle, Bush is at his best when things are down, when a crisis hits and when you need someone to get it done. And with his broad and sweeping proposals, with a conservative touch to rebuild an impoverished area, the Democrats to their horror realized what they had done. They gave George Bush something to do.

And when the speech ended, and the ABC viewer panel, comprised of people from the Superdome, praised George Bush and blamed the mayor of New Orleans for not using the buses that now sit underwater...the Democrats knew they had to act.

Enter Bill Clinton.

Long known, even among conservatives, as more moderate and politically pragmatic, Clinton has veered off the road of sanity into the land of the lunatic fringe. His aim is clear, to solidify the sunk poll numbers, to provide the moderate voice that reinforces the radical claims and creates an excuse for the moderate Democrats to hang on to. The poll numbers have sunk low enough that the Democrats feel they have it in the bag. All the Democrats are against Bush, and all the moderates. His only support is from the Republican base. Therefore, make the wild accusations "moderate", and thus solidify the opposition to the president. Democrats think they'll win elections next year and in '08 with 60% of the vote.

But what Democrats never remember is that President Bush is not running for re-election. And the public, while unhappy with gas prices, Iraq and the hurricane response, do not doubt the President's word. And that is because he delivers. On every promise made, he delivers. And the president is going to rebuild New Orleans, whether the Democrats want him to or not.

And...by the way, fully realize what is happening here. Democrats are taking advantage of the suffering of over a million citizens to score political points. And Bill Clinton, throwing away all the good-will from the Katrina relief effort, and President Bush protecting him from the pardon-gate scandal, from the 9-11 commission and from conservatives laying blame on him to protect President Bush in the 2004 campaign, decided that now was the time to strike.

This from the man who oversaw the response to the first Trade Center attack...and did nothing. He oversaw the response to the Oklahoma City bombing...and blamed talk radio. He oversaw the massacre of our soldiers in Mogadishu...and did nothing. He oversaw the response to the embassy bombings...and did nothing. He oversaw the response to the Cole bombing...and did nothing. He oversaw the pilfering of our nuclear secrets by China...and did nothing. And he oversaw the blind luck thwarting of the millennium plot...and he laughed about it when Sandy Berger got caught trying to steal classified documents regarding the affair.

President Clinton now joins the ranks of Jimmy Carter, as a former president who's only legacy is the one he strives to create outside his pathetic administrative record, and who has decided to add to that legacy (and hoping it pays off for his chances of joining his wife in the White House in a couple years) by openly criticizing the current administration with known falsehoods.

And so it continues...the slow death of all commonality, civility, patriotism before politics, the truth and any appearance of sanity as the Democrats once again show that all they care about is power and the quest to regain it.

Schroeder out? Let's hope so

The German election is underway, and exit polls are showing challenger Angela Merkel's conservatives leading. Preliminary analysis suggests that Schroeder is out, but that Merkel's party has not garnered enough votes for a parliamentary majority. As a result, Merkel's conservatives might be forced to share power with Schroeder's party. This development aside, the election is turning into an watershed event. As Reuters reports:

The election is being seen as a watershed with far-reaching implications for Europe, where many countries are struggling to reconcile their cherished social welfare systems with the cut-throat demands of global competition.

Merkel has made the case that Germany needs to accelerate the structural reforms that Schroeder introduced in his second term to get back on track.

German growth is now the slowest in the 25-nation European Union, unemployment went above the 5-million mark earlier this year for the first time in the post-war era, and the deficit is set to breach EU limits for the fourth straight year.

Also worth mentioning, is that Schroeder was one of the primary voices of anti-Americanism during the campaign, and a vocal dissenter regarding the war in Iraq. Recently, Schroeder has also made bewildering, if not irresponsible, statements concerning the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, ruling out all possible military intervention, no matter the situation that arises.

Regarding Iran, such talk as ruling out the use of force gives the mullahs all the excuse they need to drive forward as hard as they can. With the threat of force removed, what do they care about anything the IAEA or the U.N. might say? They'll continue to pour terrorists into Iraq to keep the U.S. bogged down, give a wink and a smirk to the weak-kneed political elites of Europe, and build themselves a bomb so they can reign with impunity forever more.

Gauging the ability of the worldwide news media to erode public support for any conflict, Iran need only play the waiting game with Europe. If there had been no sanctions and Security Council resolutions already against Iraq, the gambit might have even worked for Saddam as well. But the mullahs in Iran have strategized correctly that the fledging Iraq, coupled with the terror fight splayed out on TV, along with elitist and leftist vocal opposition to any attempt at Western self-defense has presented them with the perfect opportunity. It is the ultimate in political chess.

However, the election in Germany, while not a total victory for conservatives, does present an interesting opening for the U.S. Merkel is assumed to want to strengthen U.S. ties, and what better way to start than by talking tougher about Iran. No military action from Germany would ever be required, only the vocal support. Showing that Europe is not averse to continued military action by the United States, especially if Iran is recommended to the Security Council, could help give the West the opening it needs.

It is the united front, both Europe and the U.S., that will disarm Iran, not circular talks and pledges of non-violence. When the mullahs decide that the act of pursuing the bomb is the reason for their world isolation and endangers their survival, then they will begin looking for alternate options. And when they start looking at the options that still include keeping the bomb, the only thing they must see is the united front of Europe and the U.S., ready to use force if necessary. One of the greatest fallacies of modern times is that normalcy and world peace is the result of good diplomacy. Nothing could be further from the truth. For time immemorial the only guarantor of peace has been strength, and the willingness to use arms to secure that peace. Belligerents only understand one language, the threat of force larger than they can bear.

And hopefully now that Germany has voted in a fresh start, they can be an influence on the rest of Europe and a voice of strength in the world.

President Bush wins over the ABC viewer panel

I have to say, I was nearly shocked speechless. The panel of New Orleans evacuees, some who had been trapped in the Superdome, that ABC tried desperately to prompt to blame President Bush...had nothing but praise for him.

The first woman they pushed the microphone at, and then asked her if she believed President Bush, said "yes". And then they pressed her about blaming Bush for the slow federal response. And she said she did not blame him, but that she did blame the state and local officials. And then she went on to rant about the mayor not using the city buses to evacuate them. I was floored. Apparently ABC was too, because then they skirted around from person to person in the group, asking if they all believed President Bush. Everybody did. They all liked what he had to say. Only one person said the federal response to the hurricane was not quick enough, but even he said he liked the speech. And they all wanted to go back home.

Now I'm not a political expert, or a poll watcher, or even all that perceptive, but I have to say...politicians, pundits, and the media aside, I think the President's message got to the right people tonight.

Update: Here's the video. (via The Political Teen)

Update II: Here's the transcript. (via NewsBusters) Normally I wouldn't put the entire text, but you just have to read it.

Reynolds elicited reaction from the group sitting in chairs: “I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome. You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him?”

Connie London: “Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us. I mean-”

Reynolds: “Did you get a sense of hope that you could return to your home one day in New Orleans?”

London: “Yes, I did. I did.”

Reynolds: “Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?”

London: “No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.”

Reynolds: “And they weren't?”

London: “No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.”

Reynolds: “Now, Mary, you were rescued from your house which was basically submerged in your neighborhood. Did you hear something in the President's words that you could glean some hope from?”

Mary: “Yes. He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that.”

Reynolds: “You believe you'll be able to return to your home?”

Mary: “Yes, I do.”

Reynolds: “Why?”

Mary: “Because I really believe what he said. I believe. I got faith.”

Reynolds: “Back here in the corner, we've got Brenda Marshall, right?”

Brenda Marshall: “Yes.”

Reynolds: “Now, Brenda, you were, spent, what, several days at the Superdome, correct?”

Marshall: “Yes, I did.”

Reynolds: “What did you think of what the President told you tonight?”

Marshall: “Well, I think -- I think the speech was wonderful, you know, him specifying that we will return back and that we will have like mobile homes, you know, rent or whatever. I was listening to that pretty good. But I think it was a well fine speech.”

Reynolds: “Was there any particular part of it that stood out in your mind? I mean, I saw you all nod when he said the Crescent City is going to come back one day.”

Marshall: “Well, I think I was more excited about what he said. That's probably why I nodded.”

Reynolds: “Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?”

Marshall: “No, I didn't.”

Reynolds: “Good. Well, very little skepticism here. Frederick Gould, did you hear something that you could hang on to tonight from the President?”

Frederick Gould: “Well, I just know, you know, he said good things to me, you know, what he said, you know. I was just trying to listen to everything they were saying, you know.”

Reynolds: “And Cecilia, did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?”

Cecilia: “Yes, he was.”

Reynolds: “Do you think this is a little too late, or do you think he's got a handle on the situation?”

Cecilia: “To me it was a little too late. It was too late, but he should have did something more about it.”

Reynolds: “Now do you all believe that you will one day return to your homes?”
Voices: “Yes” and “I do.”

Reynolds: “I mean, do you all want to return to your homes? We're hearing some people don't even want to go back.”

Mary: “I want to go back.”

Reynolds: “You want to go back.”

Mary: “I want to go back. That's my home. That's all I know.”

Reynolds: “Is it your home for your whole life?”

Mary: “Right. That's my home.”

Reynolds: “And do you expect to go back to the house or a brand new dwelling or what?”

Mary: “I expect to go back to something. I know it ain't my house, because it's gone.”

Reynolds: “What is the one mistake that could have been prevented that would have made your lives much better? Is it simply getting all of you out much sooner or what was it?”

Mary: “I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late.”

Reynolds: “Did you all have the same feeling? I mean, did you all have the opportunity to get out, but you were skeptical that this was the really bad one?”

Unnamed woman: “No, I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it. But they should have brung the force of the army through to help these people and make them understand it really was coming.”

London: “And really it wasn't Hurricane Katrina that really tore up the city. It was when they opened the floodgates. It was not the hurricane itself. It was the floodgates, when they opened the floodgates, that's where all the water came.”

Reynolds: “Do you blame anybody for this?”

London: “Yes. I mean, they've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do.”

Reynolds: “All right. Well, thank you all very much. I wish you all the best of luck. I hope you don't have to spend too much more time here in the Reliant Center and you can get back to New Orleans as the President said. Ted, that is the word from the Houston Astrodome. And as I said, when the President said that the Crescent City will rise again, there were nods all around this parking lot.”

Nice try, ABC.

You stay classy, Reuters!

Not that potty humor mixed with news isn't funny every once in a while. But I just have to ask, who made the call to publish this photo?

Oh yeah, it's real. Taken today at the U.N. during a Security Council meeting. I love the caption:

U.S. President George W. Bush writes a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a Security Council meeting at the 2005 World Summit and 60th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York September 14, 2005. World leaders are exploring ways to revitalize the United Nations at a summit on Wednesday but their blueprint falls short of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's vision of freedom from want, persecution and war. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Is there really nothing else to report in the world? I mean really... And on top of the picture, this section "their blueprint falls short of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's vision of freedom from want, persecution and war" is utterly laughable. Kofi's vision huh?

And exactly why is the U.N. needing a revitalization? Could it be because the entire organization has been rocked by scandal after scandal, culminating in the massive fraud of the Oil-for-Food program? nah... Maybe they just wanted to freshen the place up a bit? Riiiiiight...

There they go again

Giddy with their discovery of what makes the young public tick, the AP has gone full bore...right back to their old ways. President Bush is at the United Nations today, taking his victory lap with John Bolton. His policy in Iraq is working, if not slowly, all of his allies save one were re-elected, he was re-elected last November by a clear majority, and despite his sagging poll numbers and the recent hurricane disaster, President Bush is positioned for improvement and eventual vindication whereas the U.N. seems to be on a predetermined slide into the East River.

Of course the AP, being that "fair and factual" "news" service leads into the report this way:

Before skeptical world leaders, President Bush is seeking to sell the global community on his blueprint for spreading democracy in Iraq and elsewhere, overhauling the United Nations and expanding free trade.

There is broad opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq among the more than 160 presidents, prime ministers and kings [That's U.N. code for dictators, despots and kings--ZP] gathered for three days of U.N. General Assembly meetings. Many leaders also would rather hear Bush finally relent and support an international treaty on global warming or promise to donate foreign aid at a level more proportionate to other rich nations.

But in his annual speech to the U.N. gathering Wednesday, Bush was hoping to impress upon his audience the urgency of addressing the world's problems as he sees them.

So from the start, it is an article of defeat, of weakness, of loss and embarrassment, of shame and derision. That's quite a feat, actually, to craft such despondency when reporting on a celebration, about a free Iraq, about the global initiative against terror and about reforming the U.N. Reforming, yes...as a matter of fixing that Oil-for-Food thing. The AP has avoided the story, mostly, but now must report on the aftermath--a bewildering and out of the blue idea to reform the U.N.

So exactly who is doing this fair and accurate reporting for the AP? Why Jennifer Loven of course. Her byline reads:

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

You may know that name. I know I do. She's also crafted such verbal hit pieces--excuse me, I mean hits--as...

"Bush twists Kerry's words on Iraq"

Bush attacked Kerry for calling "our alliance 'the alliance of the coerced and the bribed.'"

Kerry did use the phrase to describe the U.S.-led coalition of nations in Iraq, in a March 2003 speech in California. He was referring to the administration's willingness to offer aid to other nations to gain support for its Iraq policies.

But Bush mischaracterized Kerry's criticism, which has not been aimed at the countries that have contributed a relatively small number of troops and resources, but at the administration for not gaining more participation from other nations.

(via Powerline)

and...

"White House can't make the questions go away"

he White House defense of President Bush's now-disavowed claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa has evolved over the last two weeks: blame others, stonewall, bury questions in irrelevant information and, above all, hope it will go away.

So far, none has worked.

(via Powerline)

Interesting "news" stories, I must say. I wonder, does she have a history of reading DNC talking points? I don't know. Perhaps we should ask her husband.

In Georgetown's East Village, Roger Ballentine and his wife Jennifer Loven have sold their quaint two bedroom semi- detached Federal house at 1346 29th Street, N.W.

Roger Ballentine is president of Green Strategies, a consulting firm specializing in energy and environmental issues, and was previously deputy assistant to President Clinton for environmental initiatives and chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force. He also sits on the board of directors of Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF)along with actors Ed Begley, Jr. and Larry Hagman. Jennifer Loven is a reporter for the Associated Press.

hmm...well, he might not be all that biased... Guess again.

Here is a sample of Mr. Ballentine's writing, for New Democrats Online:

Given President Bush's persistent unwillingness to tackle the problem of global warming, it falls to Congress to find ways to address the looming threat.

Do you suppose Mr. Ballentine has a candidate in this year's Presidential contest? Why, he does indeed. In fact he is quoted as one of John Kerry's leading supporters on Kerry's own website!

Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that in private it's perfectly okay for them to have their favorites and be Democrats. And I agree. So long as Ms. Loven isn't editorializing in hard news stories, letting her DNC talking points screeds seep through...or copying from her husbands speeches. Yeah...she'd never do that. Oh wait....

The Associated Press...providing bias for young minds

The AP has announced that they have the answer to the faltering newspaper industry. They have come up with a way to attract the younger readers, those from 18-34 years old. The answer?--asap. No, that's it. Really. asap. Rename the news. asap. No look, really, here's the article!

On Monday, the 157-year-old wire service is to start its "younger audience service," offering articles and "experiences" in multimedia formats, with audio, video, blogs and wireless text aimed at reaching readers between 18 and 34 years old. The service, one of the most ambitious projects undertaken by The A.P., is called asap, pronounced letter by letter, meant to evoke the wire service's legendary speed.

The pilot project for asap was approved by The A.P.'s board of directors in April. Tom Curley, president of the wire service, said at the time, "As the audience turns to new platforms and adopts new habits, the news must follow."

More than 100 newspapers have signed up for asap and will decide on their own how to make it available to their readers. Many are expected to use the service for their online editions, while some will use it for print editions or both print and online editions. Ruth Gersh, director of online services at The A.P. and project development manager for asap, said that as far as she knew, none of the papers would be charging readers for asap's content.

So we have multimedia, web, audio, blogs... Basically we have Al Gore's TV channel. By the way, what the heck ever happened to that? It launched, and then... Did anybody see the crash? Should we start looking for survivors? Maybe someone should call a nearest relative? Has anyone even heard from Al Gore recently? Quick, someone get on that story asap...

I foresee great amounts of laughter at the AP's expense.

But...at least they got the price right. Free is good. Free works. At that price bloggers can afford to fisk it. And it looks like fisking is going to be a full time job for some poor bloggers out there. Even in the launch article they have fisk-worthy material.

A prototype also included a photo essay on vendors of street food in cities around the world, a piece that highlights The A.P.'s global reach. While bloggers often write about domestic events, rarely do they venture out to report firsthand on the outside world. The A.P.'s ability to do this could underscore for readers the strength of traditional news organizations that can afford to base reporters around the world.

I guess Iran, Iraq and Israel became U.S. states without my knowledge. I guess Michael Yon is just really good in Photoshop and not actually blogging about the firefights in Iraq.

I could go on, but the point is, bloggers--political and news bloggers--analyze the news and the reporting of that news. We are not all out there doing the reporting, but some are. And we're not all that adverse to the "competition" the AP has decided is necessary. What the media--on the whole--does not get, is that this is not about reporting, it's about the truth. People want to read the truth. The entire truth. And the AP and others are not providing it. They are providing biased coverage, editorializing from their news articles and employing journalists who's ties to Democrats are so ridiculous that if it were Republicans it would be a national scandal.

But that's fine. They are free to do that. But if the AP thinks they can just draw everybody back in with a new name and bad grammar, they should really think again. No, seriously...bad grammar.

But the service will not merely offer a youth-oriented version of articles and does not consider itself an alternative wire. Both Mr. Anthony and Ms. Gersh said they learned through focus groups and prototypes that young readers want a sophisticated view of the world and they want to be engaged. They said asap would use the word "you" more in its articles but would maintain A.P. standards.

"We want to bring people closer to the news and closer to their world, and we do that by recognizing that there are real people who are gathering the news; they aren't simply automatic fact-gatherers," said Mr. Anthony, who was a foreign and national correspondent for The A.P.

"We're pushing the envelope in terms of some of the things The A.P. has done, but we're maintaining A.P. values, not being biased, getting our facts right, being fair, giving people their say," he added. "But the fact is, some of what resonates the most with this audience is not necessarily traditional journalism, and so it will be a hybrid."

Being fair...excuse me while I laugh. This from the group that can--and does--skewer this Republican administration just with their headlines. Let's see, just reading the headlines off the wire:

Roberts Rebuffs Democrats' Questions
Sep 13 10:21 PM US/Eastern
Chief Justice-nominee John Roberts repeatedly refused to answer questions about abortion and other contentious issues at his confirmation hearing Tuesday, telling frustrated Democrats he...

Bush Takes Responsibility for Blunders
Sep 13 10:20 PM US/Eastern
President Bush for the first time took responsibility Tuesday for federal government mistakes in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and suggested the calamity raised broader questions about...

U.S. Raids Militant Stronghold in Iraq
Sep 13 10:10 PM US/Eastern
U.S. forces widened their operations against insurgents in northern Iraq on Tuesday, launching an attack on the Euphrates River stronghold of Haditha only days after evicting...

I wonder how the AP treated Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she "refused" to answer the Senate's questions? I wonder why the media never demanded that Bill Clinton take "responsibility" for all those deaths during the Chicago heatwave of 1995. Why not demand that Kofi Annan take "responsibility" for the Oil-for-Food mess? And why not call the militants what they really are?--a lost cause for death worshippers and war criminals who can either choose to die on the field of battle, or surrender to a life of Koran flushing at Guantanamo Bay. Okay, so maybe no Koran flushing. Maybe no Koran at all. It's prison after all.

Good luck to you AP, or asap, or the artist formerly known as AP. Sounds like you're going to redefine...I don't know what, but I'm sure you'll find a way to bash President Bush while you're doing it.

The U.N. turns 60

Apparently they're having a party at Turtle Bay tomorrow. Celebrating sixty years of theft, corruption, despot enabling, anti-Semitism, graft, the ICC and the quest for world domination. government.

Secretary General Kofi Annan, fresh on the heals of the revelation that the U.N., as overseer of the Oil-for-Food program, grafted billions for their coffers and millions more for diplomatic pockets, has stated that the only way the party won't be a smashing success is if the United States ruins it. In his own words:

he will blame the U.S. because "They are the host. You cannot be a host and destroy the party."

This snide remark is intended to deter any hint of realism that President Bush may bring to the party. For as John Bolton, newly appointed ambassador to the U.N., has shown in his very short while there, reality and the U.N. do not mix. As Claudia Rosett writes in her recent National Review article:

Having evidently learned nothing from Oil-for-Food, Annan's pet plan these days is that rich nations contribute an automatic 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product for official development aid to poor countries--much of that presumably to be channeled through the U.N. However lofty the intent, the design is perverse, not least in diverting yet more money from the private sector--which is the real source of development--toward some of the world's worst crooks. The U.N. is the leading global clubhouse legitimizing the dictators whose policies produce the world's worst poverty. (Watch for their motorcades on Fifth Avenue this week). And until the U.N. centers its reforms not around shaking down rich donors, but around true transparency and responsible, accountable leadership, sending another flood of money its way is not a recipe for development. It is an invitation for yet more scandal and corruption.

Last month, newly appointed U.S. Ambassador John Bolton introduced a long-overdue note of sobriety to this agenda--line-editing the U.N.'s draft reform program, and knocking out along with some of the atrocious syntax such stuff as Annan's proposed 0.7-percent levy.

Their penchant for power aside, the U.N. is a cess-pool of moral decay, failed initiatives and ridiculous pronouncements. At it's best, the U.N. exhibits a grotesque hilarity. At it's worst, serious accusations of criminal behavior, anti-Americanism and rampant anti-Semitism. It is world government at it's worst.

No accountability, no government checks and balances resembling anything that Western democracies pride themselves on. It was a recipe for disaster. And Oil-for-Food is the culmination of the culture and mindset at Turtle Bay.

Scandals at the U.N. have proliferated to where they need cross-indexing simply to keep track of, from incompetence to theft to bribery to money-laundering to rape--in (mix and match) New York, Geneva, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and West Africa, to name just the short list of recent examples. In an 847-page report last week, Paul Volcker's U.N.-authorized probe into Oil-for-Food disclosed findings of corruption, waste, and top-level incompetence, all bathed in a "pervasive culture of responsibility avoidance and resistance to accountability." Annan, as he has done with U.N.-observed genocide in Rwanda and Srebenica, promptly took "responsibility"--though what that means in practice, as he parties right on, is anyone's guess.

President Bush has the chance to shine a little light on this mess. And he needs to. The sickness that overcame the U.N. in the 90s with Oil-for-Food has not been cured. And we saw that sickness on display for the entire run up to the Iraq war of 2003. The hold Saddam had over the U.N., over France and Germany and Russia--he had them in a strangle hold. And the money kept pouring in, and would have continued to pour in had the U.S. and Britain not ended it. And now that its exposed, the lid blown off the 100 billion dollar scandal, the greatest financial scandal in the history of the world... No, let that one sink in for a second.

The greatest financial scandal in the history of the world.

Think of all the media time spent on Enron, on persecuting Wal-mart, on Cheney's ties to Halliburton, on Bush's baseball team deal, on Harkin Energy, on overcharges in Iraq, corporate donors for the 2000 and 2004 elections, and as I type this the new scandals the media are creating about Bush's so-called ties to the businesses getting the Katrina relief contracts (absolute BS, since the CEO of the so-called "Bush's lobbyist" company is also the head of the Louisiana Democratic party. Thank you CNN, for your wonderful fact-checking...heh). Add up ALL these figures in question, and you won't even reach probably a tenth of the Oil-for-Food mammoth. This. Is. Huge.

And yet you see who reports on it. Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, blogs...more blogs. For the MSM, it's not even there. And for the U.N. apparently it's not even there either. Kofi Annan has come out with some sweeping new proposals, bought a new suit (probably), who knows, after ignoring genocides and taking "responsibility" for Oil-for-Food he might even be going to Disneyland. It's a beautiful day at Turtle Bay.

Wouldn't it be great if President Bush brought along some rain?

Never Forget: 9-11-2001

On this day four years ago, Muslim terrorists under orders from Osama bin Laden conducted coordinated strikes against passenger airliners, took control of the planes, and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

The objective of the terrorists was to strike at the heart of American financial, political and military centers, and in the longer term to drive a lasting fear into the hearts of every American. The terrorists succeeded in two of their objectives that day.

The fourth plane, heading for either the White House or Congress, crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The captive passengers, learning what had happened to the other planes, and that America was under attack, decided to re-take the aircraft. In a courageous attempt, the passengers rose up and fought against the terrorists. But rather than lose control, the terrorists crashed the plane, killing all aboard.

The Pentagon, a huge hole in one side where the plane entered, the building aflame and collapsing, was evacuated. Emergency crews, and even employees, assisted in the search and rescue.

The World Trade Center towers, on fire, weakened by the heat and the initial strikes, began to collapse. New York city fire and police officers, who had rushed into the burning buildings, saved countless lives, though as the buildings collapsed many of them remained trapped inside.

Floor by floor, the structural supports gave way, and the weight soon became too much. The south tower, struck by the second plane, collapsed first, followed by the north tower less than an hour later.

The falling buildings, the burning Pentagon, the initial airplane strikes and the deadly battle aboard the fourth airplane killed nearly 3,000 Americans that Tuesday morning.

3,000 Americans. Remember them always. And pray for them, their families and for the safety of your own.

In the years that have passed, the pain has lessened and we have done much to combat this new threat. But we must continue on. For the enemy we face will never stop. And that is the quiet danger even above the specific threats. We face an enemy who will never give up. It is at the very core of their being to wish for death during this fight. And that enemy knows no pause, no reprieve, no call for peace. Their fight with America is their reason for being. And we must never forget that. But many have.

Many have forgotten why our enemy fights. For all that concerns them is that we are fighting. They have given up, but rather than admit their fear and their despair, they look for ways to show that we'll fail, to explain why we should fail and to admonish our efforts to survive.

Many have not forgotten why our enemy fights. But for them the enemy deserves to fight, for America to them is an evil place. It is an empire, a police state, a corporate wasteland. And for what we have sown we should reap the whirlwind, a fitting judgment for those they see as pious and arrogant.

Yet the majority of Americans do remember. They do understand the fight. And they know, and President Bush knows, that the fight is not over by a longshot. In his words:

On September the 11th, 2001, we saw the future that the terrorists intend for our country and the lengths they're willing to go to achieve their aims. We faced a clear choice. We could hunker down, retreating behind a false sense of security, or we could bring the war to the terrorists, striking them before they could kill more of our people.

I made a decision -- America will not wait to be attacked again. Our doctrine is clear: We will confront emerging threats before they full materialize. And if you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist.

We will stay on the offense. We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iraq. An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations. So long as I'm the President, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.

Many have questioned this fight, the quest to end terrorism. Is it even possible to fight such a nebulous foe?--they ask.

But when you look at the images of the Trade Center falling, hear the hatred spewing from the mouths of terrorists, see their brutality with your own eyes and realize the future they intend for us and the world...that question holds no meaning. For the people of the free world, to maintain our freedom and our way of life, there is no choice but to fight and achieve complete and utter victory.

May we never forget this day. God bless America.

The Fruits of Appeasement

So this is what happens when you play nice with dictators--especially rich ones. You get the utter breakdown of the premier international institution, the United Nations. Via the Washington Post:

The U.N. Security Council and Secretary General Kofi Annan failed to adequately manage and police the $64 billion U.N. oil-for-food program, creating a permissive environment that enabled Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq to take billions of dollars in illicit kickbacks, according to the findings of a U.N. investigation to be released Wednesday.

The report by Paul A. Volcker, the former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman who heads the U.N. Independent Inquiry Committee, will portray a largely dysfunctional, leaderless international effort to operate the humanitarian relief effort for Iraq from December 1996 until the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Volcker will urge world leaders attending a Sept. 14 summit on U.N. reform to support steps to strengthen the quality of independent oversight of the organization's spending.

"To settle for less, to permit delay and dilution, will invite failure, further erode public support, and dishonor the ideals upon which the United Nations is built," says the preface of Volcker's report.

Never one to let a little dishonor get in the way of anything, Kofi Annan has assured the world he will not resign. Besides, everybody was doing it, even the top Security Council members.

Among those conclusions, the report will say that Iraq's neighbors, including Jordan, Turkey and Syria, violated U.N. sanctions by smuggling billions of dollars of Iraqi oil from Hussein's government, U.N. sources said. The report will also fault key Security Council members, including France and Russia, for impeding efforts to reform the oil-for-food program. And it will criticize the United States for doing too little to discourage allies in the region from violating the sanctions and by abetting the smuggling of Iraqi oil by Jordan immediately before the invasion, the sources said.

"The committee report documents how differences among member states impeded decisions, tolerated large-scale smuggling, and aided and abetted grievous weaknesses in administrative practices within the [U.N.] Secretariat," says the preface, which was released Tuesday. "As the years passed, reports spread of waste, inefficiency, and corruption, even within the United Nations itself. Some was rumor and exaggeration, but much -- too much -- has turned out to be true."

And remember, this is the committee that the U.N. sanctioned, so that means this report has been spruced up and cleansed. The U.S. Senate committee is conducting it's own investigation, and has already uncovered enough corruption to warrant criminal indictments.

The oil-for-food scandal has triggered federal criminal investigations and several congressional probes of the United Nations' management of the program. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York has charged two Russian nationals with wire fraud and money laundering. One of them, a U.N. procurement officer who has pleaded guilty, was cited in a previous Volcker report for soliciting a bribe from a Swiss company seeking to do business in the oil-for-food program and for receiving more than $950,000 in bribes from contractors in other U.N. programs.

And there will be more to come. However the root of the problem is not really the corruption. Corruption can run rampant in any type of governing bureaucracy. No the real problem is the mindset, the reason we got into this mess in the first place. And that is, we let Saddam play his game. He used his guile and his money to sweet-talk his way out of removal, and kept himself just at the threshold of retribution from the weak-willed international community. And all the while he plotted and planned and pitted the great powers of the world against one another. And for want of money and want of peace, the great powers gave in. And if you don't buy that, and you think that the U.N. in it's current state is the answer, just read what Kofi says he has learned from all of this.

Volcker's new report will sharply criticize Annan's oversight of the oil program as lax, citing "serious instances of illicit, unethical, and corrupt behavior" by U.N. officials under his watch. The report will draw attention to administrative shortcomings by the nine U.N. humanitarian agencies, including the U.N. Development Program and Habitat, the main housing agency. It also will accuse the 15-nation Security Council of providing "uncertain, wavering direction" to U.N. officials running the program. "Neither the Security Council nor the Secretariat leadership was clearly in command," the preface states.

Annan conceded in an interview with the BBC on Monday that "mistakes were made" in managing the program, but he insisted that there were "concessions that had to be made to get Saddam Hussein to agree."

"I accept responsibility for inadequacies and failures," he told the BBC. But "when it comes to Iraq, on this issue, no one is entirely covered in glory. . . . Honestly, I wish we had never been given that program, and I wish the U.N. will never be asked to undertake that kind of program again."

The Volcker panel singled out Annan's son, Kojo, for abusing diplomatic privileges extended to his father. The report claims that Kojo Annan received a $3,000 loan in 1998 to buy a $39,000 Mercedes-Benz from an executive of a Swiss company, Cotecna, that was trying to do business with the United Nations through the oil-for-food program, according to a member of Volcker's staff.

The report will also assert that Kojo Annan obtained thousands of dollars in diplomatic benefits -- including breaks on taxes and customs fees -- from the transaction by falsely claiming that he was purchasing the car for his father, according to the staff member. The sale was first reported by Time magazine. Efforts to reach Kojo Annan's attorney last night were unsuccessful.

So what's he saying exactly? The U.N., that organization that the media and Democrats tells us is the basis for legitimacy, that administers the Global Test...doesn't want the responsibility, never wanted the responsibility and apparently never wants to have that type of responsibility again.

Kofi's "Saddam made me do it"* defense is both ridiculous and sad, and to be honest we're lucky that Saddam is gone, that Bush had the political will to get it done. Saddam had driven a stake through the heart of the world and has possibly forever changed the politics between Europe and the United States. The U.N. might never recover, and perhaps it should not. Vigilance in the face of tyranny is perhaps the most important foreign policy any democracy has. For it is only through vigilance and fortitude that peaceful people can set a clear policy for continued freedom in the world. And the sickness at the U.N., and in political segments in Western democracies and Russia disrupted that vigilance and very nearly destroyed it completely.

Perhaps the greatest example that this vigilance is required is WWII. The policies of Hitler were masterful, if not insane. But the free world let it go, for want of peace. As both Palmer and Colton succinctly put it, in their amazing book, A History of the Modern World:

While dictators stormed, the Western democracies were swayed by a profound pacifism, which may be defined as an insistence on peace regardless of consequences. Many people now believed, especially in England and the United States, that the First World War had been a mistake, that little or nothing had been gained by it, that they had been deluded by wartime propaganda, that wars were really started by armaments manufacturers, that Germany had not really caused the war of 1914, that the Treaty of Versailles was too hard on the German's, that vigorous peoples like the Germans and Italians needed room for expansion, that democracy was after all not suited to all nations, that it took two to make a quarrel, and that there need be no war if one side resolutely refused to be provoked--a whole system of pacific and tolerant ideas in which there was perhaps the usual mixture of truth and misunderstanding.

And even with history staring us in the face, the dangers of appeasement confront us still.

Well we had to expect this at some point

Apparently scientists have discovered that Global Warming is probably most caused by...Global Warming.

Global warming causes soil to release carbon -study
Sep 07 1:41 PM US/Eastern


By Peter Graff

LONDON (Reuters) - Global warming is causing soil to release huge amounts of carbon, making efforts to fight global warming tougher than previously thought, scientists said on Wednesday.

A study in the journal Nature looked at the carbon content of soil in England and Wales from 1978-2003 and found that it fell steadily, with some 13 million tonnes of carbon released from British soil each year.

The team from Britain's National Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield University said its results implied a similar process would be under way in other temperate areas across the globe.

"Our findings suggest the soil part of the equation is scarier than we had thought," Professor Guy Kirk, of Cranfield University, told journalists at a science conference in Dublin. "The consequence is that there is more urgency about doing something."

Since the carbon appeared to be released from soil regardless of how the soil was used, they concluded that the main cause must be climate change itself.

Though they could not say where all the missing carbon had gone, much of it may be entering the atmosphere as the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, which scientists say has caused global warming.

International efforts like the Kyoto protocol, which came into effect in February this year, have been aimed at stopping climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by industry.

But those efforts don't take into account carbon trapped in soil, about 300 times the amount released each year by burning fossil fuels.

In a separate article published alongside the paper in Nature, scientists from Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry said the carbon released from British soil wiped out the gains made by cutting its industrial emissions.

"These losses thus completely offset the past technological achievements in reducing CO2 emissions, putting the United Kingdom's success in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in a different light," Detlef Schulze and Annette Freibauer wrote.

"An effective climate policy will require a more comprehensive approach," they wrote. "The scientific and political implications of the new findings are considerable."

Expect the wailing from the left to reach a supersonic crescendo as they rant about the evils of industrial soil. I'm sure Halliburton is involved somehow.

But honestly, I think the wolf-crying of the left has made the public rather tired. And Kyoto, as if anybody didn't already know, is exposed as a ridiculous farce. Even the nations that have adopted it are not adopting the penalties, because they know they'll never stick to it. And why should any nation intent upon growth limit itself? Kyoto would have strangled the U.S. economy, doing nothing more than giving the rest of the world a leash to put around our neck.

I'm not saying the Earth is not warming. The Earth warms and the Earth cools, and the truth is we just don't know enough about our world yet to accept the proposal that we must strangle ourselves so the average temperature a hundred years from now hopefully will be .2 degrees lower than it is now. This is not science, it's an illness. It is a blind acceptance of selective studies that do not and cannot point to a smoking gun.

We need to put down the tinfoil hats, stop looking to The Day After Tomorrow like it was a Discovery Channel documentary, and get serious about understanding our world. Al Gore, bless his little heart, was right on one thing, this is the only planet we've got. And I for one want to see sound science, lengthy, non-partisan studies, and calm, deliberative, instructive and positive discussions about the way to both grow our society (yes...that means oil and ANWR) and cultivate Earth into the future.

Nice try, Iran

It seems the Iranian mullahs are in a giving mood. Word is they've decided to send the United States 20 million barrels of oil in an effort to assist with the oil shortages and high prices confronting the world. All they ask for in return is a smile and a handshake...oh, and of course that all sanctions be lifted.

Nice try.

Via the AP:

Iran Offers Oil to U.S. in Katrina Gesture
Sep 07 9:43 AM US/Eastern


By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer


TEHRAN, Iran


Iran will send the United States 20 million barrels of crude oil to help it overcome the devastation of Hurricane Katrina if Washington waives trade sanctions, a senior Iranian oil official said.

In a gesture that mirrors American aid offers after a devastating 2003 earthquake in Iran, Tehran's envoy to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said his government would ship up to 20 million barrels of oil to the United States, state radio reported late Tuesday.

"If U.S. sanctions are lifted, Iran is prepared to send that quantity of oil to America," the radio quoted Hossein Kazempour as saying.

When asked about that report in Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "No, we haven't received any direct contact from the Iranian government with an offer.

There were no signs that the U.S. policy toward Iran was about to change. Last week the Iranian Foreign Ministry offered to send relief supplies to the American Red Cross; Iranian newspapers reported that no response had been received.

Iran's offers reciprocates the goodwill that the United States displayed after an earthquake flattened the southeastern Iranian city of Bam in 2003, killing more than 26,000 people. The United States flew in emergency supplies, which were gratefully unloaded at an Iranian airport.

The Bam gesture did not, however, lead to an improvement in relations.

The United States and Iran have had no diplomatic relations since militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held its occupants hostage in 1979. Washington then imposed a range of sanctions on Iran.

The United States accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism and secretly trying to build nuclear bombs--charges that Iran denies.

Hurricane Katrina has severely disrupted U.S. oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and reduced the country's refining capacity by more than 10 percent.

McCormack said the United States has received offers of general assistance from more than 90 countries and organizations, including a Cuban offer of medical personnel.

Washington and Havana do not have diplomatic relations, and the United States has had trade sanctions on Cuba since 1963.

"In terms of Cuba, I understand that there has been an offer of medical personnel," McCormack said. "I think it is an offer, along with some other offers of medical personnel, that we will continue to take a look at."

Yes, I believe the operative word is "look." While offers of genuine good-will should be accepted graciously, countries bearing gifts designed to weaken our resolve and our security are nothing more than attacks by passive means. It is a war of niceties.

Now it is true that France and Germany, along with the other EU nations have released millions of barrels of oil and ready gasoline to the U.S., and these gestures are not free. But business deals, even in times of crisis, I can understand. Excusing abhorrent behavior in order to save ourselves a few cents at the pump, I don't think we can afford to do that.

Gas is expensive right now, I know. I spend almost seventy dollars a week on gas. But Iran cannot buy their way out of this mess. Or, to put it more accurately, we cannot allow them to buy their way into nuclear weapons.

His heart was in the right place, too bad the plug wasn't

Journalist/activist/part-time actor/and now apparently fire and rescue worker Sean Penn needed a bit of rescuing himself the other day, as the aforementioned all around man of many professions attempted to pilot a boat through New Orleans and help rescue stranded Katrina survivors. In a performance surely good enough to win him an Oscar, or perhaps an MTV movie award, residents reported seeing Mr. Penn attempting to pilot a boat without the plug installed. The incident left the boat sinking as soon as it left the ramp, and with his trusty red cup, the actor attempted to bail water as the boat lost engine function. I'd go on, but the AFP does it so much better:

EFFORTS by Hollywood actor Sean Penn to aid New Orleans victims stranded by Hurricane Katrina foundered badly overnight, when the boat he was piloting to launch a rescue attempt sprang a leak.

Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug a hole in the bottom of the vessel, which began taking water within seconds of its launch.

The actor, known for his political activism, was seen wearing what appeared to be a white flak jacket and frantically bailing water out of the sinking vessel with a red plastic cup.

When the boat's motor failed to start, those aboard were forced to use paddles to propel themselves down the flooded New Orleans street.

Asked what he had hoped to achieve in the waterlogged city, the actor replied: "Whatever I can do to help."

With the boat loaded with members of Penn's entourage, including a personal photographer, one bystander taunted the actor: "How are you going to get any people in that thing?"

Well, at least he's helping to provide comedy. Thankfully it appears no one was injured, and no real rescue workers were diverted to help save the stranded do-gooder. Though I do question the need for a personal photographer traveling with him on a boat up a river in the middle of a crisis in order to take flattering photographs. I mean who does he think he is, John Kerry?

Chief Justice William Rehnquist dies from cancer

I was shocked to learn that Chief Justice William Rehnquist died last night. He was on the Supreme Court for 33 years, and presided as Chief Justice since 1986. Via the AP:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who oversaw the high court's conservative shift and presided over the impeachment trial of President Clinton, died Saturday evening. He was 80 years old and had spent 33 years on the Supreme Court.

Rehnquist's death opens a rare second vacancy on the nation's highest court and gives President Bush, whose election Rehnquist helped decide, an opportunity shape the makeup of the court for years to come.

"The Chief Justice battled thyroid cancer since being diagnosed last October and continued to perform his duties on the court until a precipitous decline in his health the last couple of days," court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in announcing his death.

Rehnquist was surrounded by his three children when he died at his home in suburban Arlington, Va. His wife died in 1991.

Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court as an associate justice in 1971 by President Nixon and took his seat on Jan. 7, 1972. He was elevated to chief justice by President Reagan in 1986.

The death leaves Bush with his second court opening within four months and sets up what's expected to be an even more bruising Senate confirmation battle than that of John Roberts.

The "Hate Fix"

The disaster and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is shaping up to be the newly forged mace that the left has crafted to bash the president and his administration. Remember the stories of just last week? Who can? Cindy Sheehan--remember her? Does anybody know where she is? Nope. Does anybody care? Whatever happened to the masses at Crawford and that "movement of mothers" that was going to spell the doom of the president? Did they vanish? Apparently.

And what of the violence in Iraq? Does anybody remember what's going on over there? What was the top story last week? The Iraqi constitution, right? Did it pass? Does anybody know? Were they passing the actual constitution or a draft? Do you know? Is it the end of the world that it didn't pass before? Apparently not.

Remember the story of the roughly 1000 people in Iraq that died this past week? What happened exactly? Do you know? I admit, I don't, and I'm rather well read. Large crowds, hot daylight hours, the sketchy news reports that someone screamed warning of a suicide bomber, followed by mass panic and then death. Why has the media not fixated upon this. 1000 dead? Every roadside bomb that kills an Iraqi and a U.S. soldier is reported as though it were the turning point and signals our surrender in the war. Why has this not received attention? Is it not newsworthy?

The reason I dwell on such history is because the pattern is the same, or at least for this presidency it has been. The politicization of the news knows no bounds. And for those on the left and in the media it has become an art unto itself. Never before in my lifetime have I witnessed such a spectacle, the descent of a political party and their media sympathizers into utter lunatic paranoia and rampant hatred. It has become an epidemic, spreading like a plague from the depths of the fringe into the mainstream and now spilling out of your TV set, your computer screen, into the way government policy is conducted, the way investigations are conducted, the way the news is reported, the way wars are fought and the way our collective security is cared for. And it is killing us.

The origins of such events are always couched in hatred. For it is hatred that allows the mind to devolve into the paranoia of the diabolical, that allows the mind to dehuminize the "enemy" and to cling to the belief that only thine own will is righteous and good. It is a comfort in the face of pain, the pain of lost power, the pain of lost respect and the fear of further rejection. And that is the fix that hatred provides. It is the drug that helps them to forget the pain.

And while it is only human to want to avoid pain, to want comfort and understanding and be loved, it is the addictive personality that clings to such devices. They have become addicted to what I call the "hate fix". And it is slowly consuming their existence.

And why? Because hatred is not a means of sustenance. It is not food for the soul. It is a means for parasitic delight, for taking pleasure in the misery of others, in tearing down others, for as they are paralyzed by selfishness the expression of their hatred has become the only way for those sick individuals to elevate themselves as the purveyors of reason and as individuals deserving your trust. And the unhinged behavior of the left and the media is evidence of this.

The attacks upon President Bush in the wake of this disaster are some of the nastiest, most vile and utterly inimical I have ever witnessed. The media has framed the entire event as a testament to the failure of George Bush's policies, his response and his personal honor (yes, that's what it's called when they say you'd rather see black people die). And the sad thing is, they're just getting started.

A donation Katrina survivors don't need

And that is political snark and opportunism. Grumblings and ravings from the lunatic fringe, be it DU nutcases or Pat Buchanan, are expected and ignored. But I'm talking about things like this from the New York Times. Reproduced in full, so you can see just how much they hate.

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.

While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

This is what I'm talking about. Blame, blame, blame, blame...it's George Bush's fault, didn't you know? It's his fault that they built the levees in 1965, as one engineer put it, "with cost-benefit options" in mind. It's his fault the national guard (you know, that same group that the media pilloried when it was about Bush's guard service) is off fighting the war on terror--as opposed to the media's idea that they are just standing around waiting for natural disasters. It's his fault that the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana made the calls they did for the crowds to pilgrimage to the Superdome. It's his fault that our nation has been dependent upon oil for fuel for the past 170 years. It's his fault the state of Louisiana is home to a city that built itself below sea level. It's his fault for global warming...obviously.

Does the New York Times even realize, I wonder, exactly how nearly impossible it is to get supplies to people when they are shooting at helicopters? Do they realize that you cannot sail a medical ship into the city, that you have to go in by small boat, by foot or by helicopter? Do they realize that the people left in New Orleans, while many of them are good, desperate people, they are surrounded by surging mobs of looters, criminals, gangs (who did not leave and who are now shooting each other), who have armed themselves, taken over buildings, are pillaging, raping and stealing the aid supplies? What exactly is George Bush supposed to be doing that the New York Times could suggest? Should he personally strap some six-shooters on and saunter into the flood waters and restore order?

The situation along the Gulf Coast is horrendous. Interstate 10 is out in many places, the roads are gone, the cities in the area surrounding New Orleans are destroyed. Power in the region has been out. And New Orleans is a lake. Just to get people in there takes an enormous amount of effort. As everyone may recall, the leak through the levee into the city was a delayed reaction. And for a while the prevailing wisdom was that they had it under control. As the situation became untenable, the relief effort already underway began to ratchet up. But the strain on the region and resources is enormous.

Just for example, in Houston, the thousands of people showing up at the Astrodome are finding that even a huge city, with a full range of services, is stressed. The Astrodome could only take about half of the refugees, as the conditions of the 12,000 in the Dome are severe. More centers are being opened, Dallas and San Antonio are now opening their doors. The Governor of Texas has declared that the children of the afflicted may attend school in Texas. Families are opening their doors to the stranded. People are doing all that they can. And yet all the New York Times can do is blame George Bush.

It is a sickness that they have, the media. It is a sickness born of hatred, and contempt, and feelings of utter righteousness and impious infallibility. Blaming President Bush is their feel-good, their excuse, the means by which they elevate themselves. And yet they fool themselves. They are sick, pathetic, and small. And while they play, people are suffering. And that is the tragedy, because a disaster is just that, suffering coupled with people doing all that they can as the reality on the ground confronts them. It is not a time for blame or a time for hatred. Sadly though, that appears to be all the New York Times has left.

Katrina Relief

Well today is the day folks. The blogosphere has mobilized to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The roundup is being led by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com, Hugh Hewitt and N.Z. Bear. They will all have continuing updates and instructions throughout the day, so please check in with them often.

For those of you looking for a charity to donate to, I recommend Catholic Charities.

While local agencies along the Gulf Coast anticipate that they will be provide some type of emergency assistance in their communities, Catholic Charities' niche in disaster relief is to provide long-term recovery work. In fact, Catholic Charities agencies in Florida are still providing services to help people recover from last year's devastating hurricanes.

Based on past disasters, possible long-term services that Catholic Charities may provide include temporary and permanent housing, direct assistance beyond food and water to get people back into their homes, job placement counseling, and medical and prescription drug assistance.

You can either contribute online, or send a check to:

Mail Checks To:
Catholic Charities USA
2005 Hurricane Relief Fund
PO Box 25168
Alexandria, VA 22313-9788

Call:
(800) 919-9338

In addition to helping out that way, one other group who really needs your help are the refugees from the Superdome. Now traveling by bus to Houston, Texas, the thousands of citizens are going to be housed in the Astrodome until further notice. This could be weeks or even months. In order to help out, the Catholic archdiocese of Galveston-Houston has put out a call for clothing, pillows, children's crayons and coloring books, slippers, pajamas and sleeping bags. Dubbing it the largest Sleepover in Texas, they need your help to make everyone's stay as comfortable as possible. In addition to clothing items, the archdiocese is making appeal for food and personal items as well. Here is a list of the items most needed.

One other method of assistance, and possibly a way to get the most from your donation, is to inquire at the company where you work if they are making a corporate donation or matching donation to the relief effort. My company is one of the many that is offering this incentive to give. For every dollar I donate, they will match it. I highly encourage everyone to investigate this option at their own places of work, and take advantage of it if the company has decided to extend that generosity.

Hurricane Katrina has created a disaster of catastrophic proportions, and it will take relief workers months if not years to clear away and repair the damaged areas along the Gulf Coast, to rebuild the city of New Orleans and to assist everyone displaced by this monster storm. Let's keep everyone affected in our thoughts and prayers, and help out in any way we can. If you have donated or are thinking about it, God bless you. And if you haven't the money to donate, but would like to help, please see all the major blog links above. Thank you for taking the time to read these requests, and for helping out during this crisis.


Technorati tags: flood aid, hurricane katrina