11/23/05

Rush to Judgment

I suspect that most in my target audience not only have never listened to Rush Limbaugh's show, but wouldn't even do so on a dare, for fear of contracting an STD (Stimulating Talk-show Disease). This is in large part why Limbaugh is undoubtedly one of the most misunderstood public figures of our generation.

Yes, he is bombastic, with a head as big as his gut (though he has slimmed down), and a mouth as big as his head. But I can tell you this: Rush comes from a family of esteemed attorneys and, though he chose another avenue, he inherited a brilliant analytical mind. And his upbringing was Norman Rockwellian (not Orwellian), which may explain why, as a rule, he treats his dissenting callers more politely (believe it or not) than one might expect.

Years ago, the liberal syndicated columnist William Raspberry, an African-American, wrote a typical hatchet-job op-ed piece about Limbaugh the "bigot." There have been countless such articles, but this one is historic not for its content, but for the content of his follow-up column. After receiving a torrent of corrective e-mails, Raspberry did the previously unthinkable. He decided to -- hold onto your hat -- actually listen to Limbaugh's show! As a result, less than two weeks later he wrote a follow-up column that began, "Rush, I'm sorry." He went on to say that Limbaugh might be "smart-alecky" and may love to "rattle liberal cages," but he's no bigot (see here).

I hope this news didn't give you a heart attack. If so, chew an aspirin immediately, call 911, and leaf through your well-worn copy of Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot while awaiting the paramedics.

11/24/05

A Perverse "Thanksgiving Day" Thought

Don't you dare quote me on this! I'll just deny I ever said it, or even that I posted it on my blog. But how's this for a perverse thought on this day of Thanksgiving?: Maybe we should be thankful that "9/11" happened.

Well, not that it happened, of course. But that it happened when it did, as opposed to years later. When al Qaeda first attacked New York in 1993, their intent was to bring down the World Trade Center by destroying the foundation of one Twin Tower and toppling it into the other. Fortunately, the damage inflicted was relatively minimal. And after a good laugh over how the bastards were captured after trying to get their $400 truck rental fee back, we pretty much put al Qaeda on the back burner -- until 9/11/01.

But what if bin Laden had been a bit more patient and nixed the 2001 attack on U.S. soil, opting instead to wait until they had succeeded in acquiring the weapons of mass destruction that they spend every waking hour seeking? In other words, what if "9/11" never happened? Would the world be better off, or worse?

Think about it for a moment. If not for "9/11," a pre-WMD al Qaeda would not be under constant military attack and on the run, nor would a democracy of sorts be attempting to evolve before our eyes in the cradle of uncivilization. For the sake of argument, a case can be made that we should be thankful "9/11" occurred. But you didn't hear that from me!

11/25/05

"Fair and Balanced"

One of my favorite characters on Saturday Night Live was Al Franken as a one-man, self-contained remote news unit, delivering his on-the-scene reportage sporting a microwave dish antenna on his head. Invariably, once or twice per bit, Franken would move his head just enough for his signal to momentarily fade to static. Of course the effect was simulated as part of the comedy, which I suspect was fully appreciated only by us news junkies. But now whenever I see it in reruns, it makes me think of how his more recent books also tend to drift off signal.

Two days ago I mentioned Franken's Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot. Today I'll give equal time (i.e., less than a sentence) to his newer tome, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. And that's because I want to say a few words about the much-maligned Fox News Channel.

There's a reason why FNC's ratings dwarf CNN's. Fox makes an effort at fairness and balance both in the content of its reporting and in the political leanings of its hosts and guests. Naturally, to left-leaning viewers who consider NPR and CNN as the benchmarks of fairness and balance, Fox News must seem like a bastion of lying liars. But most of the country does not lean left.

Franken has a special animus for FNC's Bill O'Reilly, whose nightly hour of analysis is the most-watched program on any cable news channel. O'Reilly's viewers are not relegated to fools and flunkies, and following FNC's mandate, his guests encompass the political spectrum. Even such liberals as Chuck Schumer, Al Sharpton and Rosie O'Donnell have gone out of their way on the program to proclaim how fairly and honestly he conducts his show.

If you have avoided O'Reilly and FNC because of what you've heard from people like Al Franken, I challenge you to watch for a week and not get hooked.

See Reader Feedback

See 12/19/05 Follow-up Entry

11/26/05

Iraq: "Mission Accomplished" or "Mission Impossible"?

Neither is the case. Clearly President Bush displayed naive optimism when prematurely declaring the former. But exclamations of the latter by disgruntled Democrats reveal far more than naiveté. The Dems would do well to recall President Kennedy's words from a 1962 address to Congress: "We choose to go to the moon [within the decade] . . . not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

Sure, the progress in Iraq is proving harder than we would like, which creates an issue that the Democrats can exploit in the coming elections. But does that end justify any means, no matter how preposterous? There's an old Steven Wright joke that goes something like this: "Yesterday I was going to the store and . . . Oh, never mind -- that wasn't me." The Dems are saying virtually the same thing now -- for real -- about their pre-war judgments regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD programs and the threat he posed.

Because the going is hard, the Democratic line now is, "Bush lied to us about Saddam having WMDs and being a threat. If not for that, we never would have voted for this war." Translated into a Steven Wrightism, they are essentially claiming this: "If, based on the unanimous intelligence reports of nations around the world, I declared Saddam a serious threat, especially because of his WMD programs, well, that wasn't me." Well, that was you (see here and here)!

I suspect that if the going in Iraq had turned out a little less hard, the Democrats would probably be basking in the glory, claiming that all Bush did was follow though with what President Clinton had been contemplating, and would have done himself -- had "9/11" occurred on his watch.

11/27/05

Those Evil Tax Cuts For the Rich

There's another lesson the Democrats should have learned from President Kennedy. Long before Ronald Reagan's conservative revolution and allegations of "Voodoo economics," Kennedy demonstrated the old adage about a rising tide raising all ships. And I'm not talking about his PT-109 adventures. I'm talking about his tax policy -- those evil tax cuts for the corporations and the rich, which resulted in far greater tax revenue increases to the U.S. Treasury.

You see, the problem isn't Voodoo, it's language. When an evil Republication calls for evil "tax cuts for the rich," what he really means is "tax revenue increases to the U.S. Treasury via tax rate cuts." Rather than radicalism, this concept is basic Economics 101. After all, what does the stodgy Federal Reserve Board do to stimulate economic growth? Of course, it lowers interest rates to make it less expensive for corporations and entrepreneurs to borrow the money required to grow the nation's businesses. The more money the evil corporations and entrepreneurs have on hand, the more they can expand in terms of producing goods, selling those goods, and in turn generating vastly more tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Booming businesses also employ more workers, at higher salaries, thus generating even more tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury.

So the next time those evil Republicans call for tax cuts for the rich, and the Democrats raise holy hell, you will be correct in blamimg the Republications for a serious transgression -- the imprecise use of language.

11/28/05

Saddam's Connections to al Qaeda

Robyn Blumner, former Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, has a column in every Sunday St. Petersburg Times. Ever eager to knock Fox News Channel, Blumner says in yesterday's column, "Fox News gives its audience what it wants," implying dishonest reporting. Specifically, "67 percent of its loyal viewers believed the fallacy that Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Qaida, whereas only 40 percent of those who relied on print media were confused on that point."

Methinks Ms. Blumner is confused on that point (along with about 100-million other Americans). The Senate Select Intelligence Committee's report found no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. But it did state that the CIA "described a network of more than a dozen al Qaeda or al Qaeda-associated operatives in Baghdad" before the war. U.S. News & World Report was first to report that Saddam gave Zawahiri $300,000 during or shortly after his 1998 trip to Baghdad. A 1999 e-mail to Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, from National Security Council staffer Bruce Riedel warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."

And if that isn't sufficient to give those looney Fox News cultists the idea that Saddam may have had connections to al Qaeda, there's lots more suggestive evidence.

12/2/05

"All the News That's Fit to Print"

Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate in 2000, is one of a rare breed of politician who tends to do what he believes is right regardless of his political party's position. His November 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about his recent trip to Iraq, titled "Our Troops Must Stay," itemized the many "remarkable changes" for the better that he observed, brought about thanks to "the coalition forces led by the U.S." He noted that "polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism" and warned that it would be "a colossal mistake . . . for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

I saw prominent coverage of Lieberman's endorsement of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, including an interview with Lieberman, on a berated (though highly rated) cable news channel, but I don't think the St. Petersburg Times published a word about it (I subscribe and I didn't see anything -- please let me know if I missed it).

Nor does there seem to have been anything about it in the next day's New York Times, which many consider America's "newspaper of record" and claims to carry "All the News That's Fit to Print." I guess, if a universally respected Democrat suggests that his party's position, on the nation's #1 issue of concern, is 180 degrees out of whack, maybe that news is just not fit to print.

12/8/05

The Loyal Opposition

I'll begin with a correction: In my last entry, I described Sen. Joe Lieberman as "universally respected." Of course I meant by all except for the current national leadership of the Democratic Party.

The last time I checked, the USA had a two-party political system as opposed to a parliamentary one. Countries with the latter can afford to have parties like the Greens, the Reds and the Fringe among the mix. They even serve a useful purpose by stirring the mix more vigorously.

In the USA, however, if one of the two major political parties morphs into the Fringe, our national interests suffer. Regardless of which party holds the reigns of power at the moment, our system doesn't work without a responsible Loyal Opposition.

Recent actions by Democratic leaders such as party chairman Howard Dean, including his declaration that "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," bear no resemblance to "loyal" opposition. During the waging of a war, with tens of thousands of American troops risking their lives helping to preserve our own liberty by helping liberty take root in the Middle East, such rhetoric -- be it motivated by malice or prescience -- inevitably serves to demoralize our troops and encourage the enemy, thus increasing the chances of the predicted defeat.

And what has the Democratic leadership's response been to the hornet's nest they've stirred? Who are they now endeavoring to marginalize? Dean? Nancy Pelosi? John Murtha? Or even Cindy Sheehan? No . . . Joe Lieberman!

I'll end with a wild thought: "Joe Lieberman for President." Here's what's so wild about it: To have a chance in hell of being a viable candidate, he'd have to bolt to the Republican Party! Were he to do so, I'd give him 50:50 odds of getting the 2008 nomination, and then 70:30 of winning the White House.

12/9/05

This Just In . . . Lieberman for Defense Secretary?

No sooner did I post my last entry than I saw this N.Y. Daily News item about President Bush considering Joe Lieberman to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense!

Should that happen, my wild scenario of yesterday suddenly becomes a lot less so. But Rummie says (at least for now) that he's not going anywhere.

12/10/05

'Reid' My Lips: "Nominate Harriet Miers"

If Samuel Alito squeaks in by straight party-line vote as the next Supreme Court justice, the Democrats can thank their Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, for the favor.

Given the incomprehensible degree of Democratic opposition to John Roberts -- widely acknowledged as the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in memory -- President Bush decided to throw the Dems a bone by nominating someone to their liking, preferring a potential fight with his own base to another, nastier one with the Dems.

So, when Reid "recommended Miers to the President" (if you don't believe me, that's a direct quote from this item on the NPR website), Bush took the bait. Even given his prior dalliances with cronyism, I can't believe he would have had the audacity to engage in such an over-the-top example had Reid not planted the bug in his ear.

But when the time came to roll out the red carpet for the moderate Ms. Miers, Reid et al. instead pulled the rug out from under her by questioning her qualifications (not that there is any requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be a judge, or even an attorney), thus leaving her devoid of any significant Congressional support.

The President couldn't complain publicly that he had been snookered by Reid. But having learned his lesson, he then proceeded to nominate someone conservative enough to mollify his base constituency, the Democrats be damned. Let's hope the Dems have learned their lesson as well.

12/11/05

It's a "MAD" World

Or at least it once was and needs to be again.

During the Cold War, the "MAD" concept of "Mutual Assured Destruction" helped deter the USSR's leaders from launching a WMD attack against the United States. Brutes they were, but they possessed at least enough humanity to wish for their country's civilians and cities not to be annihilated in a counter-attack.

Unfortunately, our current enemy is devoid of such humanity. And doubly unfortunate is the absence of an al Qaeda homeland with cities for us to retaliate against should these madmen succeed in carrying out a WMD attack -- which is probably just a matter of time.

I have heard rumors that the Bush Administration has warned the Muslim world that, should we suffer such an attack, we will retaliate by destroying their most cherished holy places, beginning in Mecca. As much as I hope they are true, I don't happen to believe those rumors. Nor do I believe that such a threat would be taken seriously enough by the enemy to deter them, given the signals the Democrats are sending them.

The only conceivable deterrence against a WMD attack by al Qaeda is just that sort of threat, but it must be credible. And only a united U.S. can convey that threat with sufficient credibility. But I'm afraid it would take a successful WMD attack on U.S. soil before we could muster sufficient unity to reinstitute a "MAD" strategy to help prevent another. And I'm mad as hell about that.

==========

Note to my many extremist Muslim friends: Please be assured that the above comments were coerced out of me through torture by evil American pigs. You know that I sympathize with your cause. Sorry I have to keep this short -- I have a beheading to attend at 11:00. Allah akbar!

12/12/05

A War Hero?

When he leaves CBS News, if Dan Rather were to join Geraldo at Fox News Channel, he could begin his "fair and balanced" career by trying to clear the air of the lingering claims and counter-claims surrounding Senator John Kerry's war record. Though Kerry had promised Tim Russert on Meet The Press in January of this year that he would finally allow full release of his military service records, he does not seem to have followed through on that commitment.

Now Kerry, who may rerun for President in 2008, is once again beating the anti-war drum that he played upon return from his service in Viet Nam. As the 2004 election approached, had Rather and friends decided to do a hatchet job on Kerry's, rather than President Bush's, military record, they needn't have relied upon forged documents. There were a number of available stockpiles of live ammunition, running the gamut from Kerry's Swift Boat detractors to a book by writers from his home-state's liberal Boston Globe.

Everyone knows that Kerry had idolized President Kennedy since adolescence and dreamed of following his career path, from Navyman to Senator to President. But although Kerry did enlist in the Navy Reserves, he hadn't banked on seeing battle, and upon being activated and shipped to the front, some detractors might even infer that Kerry's game plan may have been to secure three Purple Hearts as quickly as possible so that he could return stateside as quickly as possible as a war hero.

Kerry did achieve the hat trick, and the trip home, in near-record time -- more than six months ahead of schedule (his commander says he "bugged out"). His first wound, from an unintentionally self-inflicted shrapnel accident, was so superficial (another commander said, "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse") that his initial request for a Purple Heart was summarily denied, though his tenacity was ultimately rewarded after months of petitioning. [Both quotes are from the aforementioned book.]

I want to know the whole, unvarnished truth. What's the frequency, Kenneth? Release the records, Senator.

12/13/05

ABC News Surprised by Iraqi Optimism

Here's a new variation on the classic lawyer joke: How do you know when a reporter is characterizing Iraq as a disaster? When his lips are moving (if he's not on Fox News, that is).

Well, perhaps no more. ABC News yesterday posted the results of a poll revealing what it found to be "surprising" levels of optimism among the citizens of Iraq. The poll's "remarkable" (to ABC) findings included that "seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead."

The poll, conducted by Oxford Research International for ABC News (as well as for Time magazine and several international media outlets including the BBC) only confirmed what the loony Fox News Channel cultists have known for many months (subjected daily, as they are, to a horrific stream of the most virulently "fair and balanced" reporting imaginable).

Additional positive findings from the poll:

• More than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods
  
• 61 percent say local security is good
  
• Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months
  
• Consumer goods are sweeping the country
  
• Three-quarters express confidence in the national elections being held this week
  
• 70 percent approve of the new Constitution

12/14/05

Male Monkeys Are From Mars, Female Monkeys Are From Venus

Early this year, Harvard University president Lawrence Summers was pressured into apologizing for having dared speculate that perhaps genetic differences between the sexes might in part account for the relative paucity of women majoring in math and science. Radical feminists would have us believe that the only differences between the sexes are that men have penises and women have glass ceilings. But the body of scientific research seems to indicate otherwise.

I recall the cover stories in Time and Newsweek years ago revealing to the general public what researchers had already figured out: that the male and female brain work differently with regard to certain aptitudes and behaviors.

Further, according to this headline in the December 11 St. Petersburg Times, it turns out that "Girls like dolls, boys like cars -- even if they're monkeys." Subtitled "Gender differences exist even among other species, research shows," the Knight Ridder Newspapers article (here's the Seattle Times' posting of it) goes on to report the following about a study published this week in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior:

Just like human boys and girls, male monkeys like to play with toy cars while female monkeys prefer dolls, a research project has shown. The intriguing discovery is one of many signs of deep-rooted behavioral differences between the sexes that scientists are exploring with the latest tools of genetics and neuroscience. . . . The differences apparently date far back in evolutionary history to the time before humans and monkeys separated from their common ancestor about 25 million years ago. . . . Researchers put a variety of toys in front of 44 male and 44 female vervets, a breed of small African monkey, and measured the amount of time they spent with each object. . . . Like little boys, some male monkeys moved a toy car along the ground. Like little girls, female monkeys closely inspected a doll. Males also preferred balls while females fancied cooking pots. Both were equally interested in neutral objects such as a picture book and a stuffed dog. . . . [The researchers] speculated that females of both species prefer dolls because evolution programmed them to care for infants [and that] males may have evolved toy preferences that involve throwing and moving, skills useful for hunting and for finding a mate.

I don't understand why a "pot" wouldn't be as "neutral" an object, to a monkey, as a "picture book," but the study passed peer-review muster, so perhaps the press account is missing something. In any event, should future research prove the current state of knowledge to be erroneous, I'll immediately stop playing with my balls and start inspecting dolls (closely), and then write a handsome check to NOW.

12/16/05

Katrina's New Orleans Death Stats Belie Racism Charge

As everyone knows, President Bush just can't seem to do anything right. For example, despite his best efforts to derail the U.S. economy with skyrocketing gasoline prices, they are now back down to pre-Katrina levels.

But Bush's ineptness is epitomized by the fact that he couldn't even succeed in his efforts to save the whites and leave the black population of New Orleans to fend for itself, and die, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The conventional wisdom is that blacks died disproportionately in New Orleans due to the willful negligence of the federal government. Remember cultural icon Kanye West's charge during NBC's Katrina telethon that "George Bush doesn't care about black people"? And Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has gone so far as to claim that the Bush Administration blew up the levees!

Well, the "wisdom" is correct about this: Blacks did die disproportionately in New Orleans. But disproportionately less so than whites! As it turns out, although African-Americans comprised 67 percent of the population of New Orleans, only 59 percent of the deceased were black; 37 percent of the deaths were among whites, who comprised only 28 percent of the population.

[12/18 Update: Also see these 12/18 L. A. Times and N.Y. Times articles.]

12/19/05

"Fair and Balanced"* Confirmed

A study in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics has found that Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume was "fourth most centrist" of the 20 major media outlets that were ranked in terms of left vs. right political bias. In a statistical dead heat with Special Report for "most centrist" of the 20 were PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, ABC's Good Morning America, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown (since canceled), and the "Drudge Report" Internet site.

The research was led by UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose and co-authored by Jeffrey Milyo, a University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. Flying in the face of conventional wisdom, they found that neither Fox News (as represented by Special Report) nor the "Drudge Report" was a far-right outlet. Though Special Report was deemed slightly right of dead-center, it was no farther right than ABC's World News Tonight and NBC's Nightly News were to the left. And the "Drudge Report" was determined to actually be "slightly left of center"!

How, you ask, could "Drudge" possibly be left of center? Well, Matt Drudge may be a conservative, but his site is comprised mostly of links to articles on other sites, and therefore, "The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall [left] bias of the media." Indeed, of the 20 outlets studied, all but Special Report leaned left.

To no one's surprise (at least not mine), the 4th, 3rd and 2nd-most-left-leaning outlets were the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and the CBS Evening News (confirming "Ratherbiased.com"). But amazingly, despite its conservative editorial page, the most liberal of the bunch was the news content of the Wall Street Journal, which "scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat."

*See Original 11/25/05 Entry

12/23/05

King George W

During the Hurricane Katrina fiasco in New Orleans, in which the mayor failed to mobilize his city's evacuation plan and the governor was late to accept federal assistance, whom did the Democrats blame? Why, President Bush, of course -- for not having violated the sovereignty of the state of Louisiana by invoking imperial powers and overruling its elected leaders. Though America had had no use for King George III, it seems the Democrats were demanding, "Where is King George W"?

Now, with millions more lives at stake than was the case with Katrina, the Dems (mostly) are demanding, "Off with his head!" (or at least impeach him). Why? Because, they claim, President Bush has illegally assumed imperial powers by authorizing clandestine surveillance by the NSA, without a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court order, of telephone calls and e-mails initiated by suspected or known terrorists overseas to people in the U.S. This, they seem to believe, is tantamount to indiscriminately wiretapping Americans without cause.

But previous presidents, including Democrats Clinton and Carter, have exercised comparable powers. For example, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the U.S. Senate in 1994 that "the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," and Clinton authorized Janet Reno to "approve physical searches, without a court order, [in order] to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year." As Gorelick explained, "The rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." Jimmy Carter had issued a similar Executive Order in 1979.

And these previous instances occurred after the FISA court was established in 1978, and before the world changed on 9/11/2001.

[12/26 Update: Also see this 12/21 op-ed piece by judge Richard A. Posner (no relation).]

1/3/06

The Church of ACLUology?

The right wing is increasingly portraying the ACLU as a far-left fringe group that at best is frivolous and at worst treasonous. The following is my two cents' worth about the ACLU, and not a penny more (for that would require genuine research and actual facts).

The ACLU generally opposes, with vehemence, so-called "strict constructionist" judicial nominees. These are conservative jurists whose rulings tend to follow the strict letter of the law -- be it local, state, federal, or the U.S. Constitution -- regardless of whether or not injecting a bit of "common sense" would lead to a seemingly more judicious outcome.

Yet, what is the right's main beef against the ACLU? That it tends to come down hard against, for example, the Bush Administration, for not following the law to the letter, even when doing so might put the nation's security in jeopardy. Like the most strident strict-constructionist judge, the ACLU does not seem to allow for "common sense" to come into play.

Imagine a fantasy football game between the U.S. government and al Qaeda, played on the "honor" system. The government follows football rules to the letter, while the terrorists employ whatever tactics they can get away with (including concealed weapons). Who do you think would win? If the very survival of the United States were at stake in the game's outcome, might you not excuse the government from strict adherence to the rulebook?

I certainly don't subscribe to the notion that the ACLU's intent is "treasonous." But what is the explanation for its tunnel-vision tenacity? Rees Lloyd, a disgruntled former ACLU attorney, is offering a crass motivation -- that the organization has deteriorated to the point of being in it for the sport and the money, rather than a genuine desire to preserve our civil liberties. His gist is that the ACLU has attorneys who provide their services at no charge to sue municipalities (or whatever) for technical violations of the law, usually with regard to religion, yet when they prevail the ACLU is typically awarded enormous attorneys fees. And sometimes just the threat of such a suit, and the fear of being held personally liable for the huge fees, causes the municipalities to surrender. As I first contemplated Lloyd's version of the ACLU's methodology, for some reason the Church of Scientology (perhaps because of South Park's scathing episode a week or so earlier) popped into my mind.

Well, if that wasn't worth two cents, maybe at least a penny? It did take me more than an hour to write. And, as they say, time is money.

[Footnote: Though I am not, and have never been, a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I was a member of People For the American Way for a few years long ago, until it went its way and I went mine.]

1/4/06

Some News is Unfit to Print

As noted in my 12/2/05 entry, though the New York Times prides itself as the newspaper of record carrying "All the News That's Fit to Print," it couldn't seem to find space to report upon Sen. Joe Lieberman's endorsement of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq. But it sure found room more recently for some news that many consider unfit to print: leaked top-secret information about the NSA's clandestine efforts to thwart future al Qaeda attacks in the U.S. (see my related 12/23/05 entry).

As with the ACLU (see yesterday's entry), I am not among those crying "treason." But after sitting on the story for about a year at the Bush Administration's urging, the Times' timing in publishing James Risen's NSA article has aroused suspicions, coinciding as it did with the vote on renewing the Patriot Act and the publication of Risen's book on this theme. Even Times ombudsman Byron Calame has questioned his paper's conduct regarding this story, and management is stonewalling his list of 28 questions: "For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. . . . To what extent did the book cause top editors to shrug off the concerns that had kept them from publishing the [NSA] eavesdropping article for months?"

Times defenders are claiming rough equivalence between this leak and the Administration's revealing of Valerie Plame's name. However, Plame was no longer a secret CIA "spook" but rather an open employee at its Langley facility. And Plame came up for discussion in the context of the Administration's efforts to assist reporters in correcting their inaccurate stories about who had initially recommended her husband, Joe Wilson, for his fact-finding trip to Niger -- it was wife Valerie, not Vice President Cheney as Wilson had led them to believe.

Even before its publication of the leaked NSA story and its subsequent stonewalling, the New York Times had become increasingly perceived as irresponsibly biased in its coverage of the Bush Administration. If it continues in this vein, with disregard for the consequences to our national security, its "All the News That's Fit to Print" moniker might eventually have to be replaced with "Unfit to Print the News."

1/13/06

This Week's Supreme Court Hearings: Alito v. Larry, Moe, and Curley Joe

I knew next to nothing about Judge Samuel Alito when I wrote my 12/10/05 entry, other than that he was supposedly an out-of-touch arch-conservative. What I learned during this week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings was surprising and convinced me otherwise. But nothing I heard or saw did anything to enhance my opinions of the Committee's three media darlings: Senators Kennedy, Biden and Schumer.

Sen. Kennedy carries more baggage than an overbooked 747. My expectations for him were extremely low, yet he managed to outdo himself. Yesterday's outrageous concluding diatribe, during which he accused Alito of racial bigotry and a host of other sins, deserves endless replay on the Cartoon Channel.

Sen. Biden has a history of pretending to be someone he is not -- not figuratively, but literally. (Recall that he had to drop out of the 1988 Presidential race after delivering a plagiarized speech claiming that British politician Neil Kinnock's heritage was his own.) So it was not out of character when, during the course of his byplay with the Princeton-educated judge, Biden mentioned how he "didn't even like Princeton. I mean, I really didn't like Princeton. . . . I have two kids who went to Ivy League schools. I'm not sure my Grandfather Finnegan will ever forgive me for allowing that to happen." Perhaps it was a different Biden who, in a 2004 speech at Princeton, had said, "It's an honor to be here. It would have been an even greater honor to have [been a student] here."

I expected more out of Sen. Schumer, though. Sure, he's another camera ham, but generally an intellectually honest one. Yet his repeated histrionic efforts to badger Alito into acknowledging that, for instance, the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion just as it does the right to free speech, were as embarrassing as they were futile.

After the Committee's grilling was concluded yesterday, the ABA panel, followed by panels of Alito's fellow judges and past law clerks (including liberal blacks and females), testified to the virtual unanimity among all who know and have worked with him, that Alito possesses an impeccable personal and professional reputation, epitomized by open-mindedness and even-handedness in the way he goes about formulating his decisions. Though not as entertaining as the antics of the Committee's version of the Three Stooges, their sober observations were amazing to me, considering the invective hurled at Alito by some during the earlier proceedings, and served to reassure the open-minded and even-handed members of the Senate, and the nation, that Judge Alito's presence would bring honor to the Supreme Court.

See Reader Feedback

1/14/06

Abortion: "Settled Law" (maybe)

One question that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito failed this week to answer to many's satisfaction was: Is a woman's right to an abortion "settled law"? His answer -- that it depends upon precisely what one means by "settled" -- was precisely correct. But it failed to satisfy those who will accept no answer other than "Yes."

Despite Sen. Schumer's wild gesticulations with the U.S. Constitution in hand, he knows full well that there is nothing in that document guaranteeing women the right to abort their unborn [_____] (fetus, child, or whatever word you wish to use). No language even remotely resembling that can be found. The right to bear arms is specifically granted in the 2nd Amendment, but even that right is far from "settled law." And the abortion issue is infinitely more complex, as it involves not only the woman, but the [_____], and the [_____]'s other progenitor (often forgotten, but sometimes referred to as the "father").

Certainly the Constitution confers a broad, though nebulous, right of Americans to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into their personal affairs. In the 1965 Griswold case, the Supreme Court ruled that, therefore, it is none of the government's business if a married couple desires to have sex for purposes other than procreation, and if in that pursuit desires to avail itself of birth control counseling or contraception. But the Court's 1973 leap in Roe -- that if "privacy" protects contraception then it also protects abortion -- is considered by many constitutional scholars to be flawed logic and bad law. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has expressed disagreement with the reasoning in Roe. So, as Alito did his best to explain, although there have been more recent rulings affirming Roe, and that therefore Roe should stand unless an argument is presented that overwhelmingly compels otherwise, the matter has not necessarily, for all time, been settled.

Personally, I favor the right to abortion (within reasonable limits). And if I were a Supreme Court justice considering a related case, I would respect precedent and give strong weight to Roe. But I would also keep my mind open to the specific arguments before me, for failure to do so would be an abrogation of my judicial duties. Judge Alito made virtually the same pledge. But that wasn't good enough for those who demand that any Supreme Court nominee consider the right to abortion as "settled law."

1/29/06

A Million Little Tips of the Iceberg

This past week, one cable news show after another devoted inordinate time to Oprah's teary-eyed January 26 confrontation with James Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces. Published as a non-fictional memoir, the book was recently revealed to be a highly exaggerated account of Frey's life experiences with addiction and recovery. Its theme about human redemption had touched Oprah deeply, which is why she had endorsed the book on her program, guaranteeing millions in sales for the duplicitous author.

And as I channel-surfed, with each program focused on this same story, I kept wondering, "What's the big deal"? After all, this is just the tip of the iceberg. But this was apparently the first time Oprah, TV's biggest talk-show star of all time, had realized that she had been duped.

Lacking ESP, I can't divine the motives or sincerity of the other "non-fiction" authors whose books Oprah has promoted through the years. Suffice it to say that a number of them don't quite ring true to me, such as the works of "psychic medium" James Van Praagh, or the "near-death experience" accounts in Betty J. Eadie's mega-bestselling Embraced by the Light ("an inspirational map of the afterlife" according to Amazon.com's review) and in Saved by the Light by Dannion Brinkley (whose "own NDEs brought him before 13 angelic instructors in the 'cathedral of knowledge'" according to Library Journal's editorial review). And Oprah has endorsed many other "New Age" proponents, as detailed on this web page.

James Frey's fraud was first exposed on January 8 by The Smoking Gun, a website owned by Court TV. The irony astounds, though I have seen no one else comment upon it. After all, Court TV's signature prime-time franchise is the comparably exaggerated presentation of so-called "psychic detectives" in its weekly series of the same name, with such promotion spilling over into its website's "Crime Library" in articles such as this.

Is there hope that the publishing industry might be "Saved by the Light" currently being focused on this singular Oprah mea culpa, and cease promoting dubious tales as "non-fiction"? Given the magnitude of the money involved, I remain highly skeptical.

2/15/06

Press Unravels Cover-up of Grassy Knoll Shooter

Under grueling questioning from the White House press corps, the Bush Administration has finally confessed to a high-level cover-up regarding the shooter on the grassy knoll. Peppered like birdshot with questions about why this cover-up had been allowed to go on for so long, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan finally acknowledged Monday that yes, he had known, hours before the press was informed, that Vice President Cheney had accidentally shot and wounded a fellow quail hunter Saturday afternoon.

Watching the reporters' childish antics, one would have thought that Cheney had been shot. Now that would have been worthy of such coverage, as he is first in succession should tragedy befall the President. But Cheney's involvement in a not terribly uncommon type of hunting accident is more akin to having bopped someone in the head with an errant drive on the golf course.

Personally, as a physician, and given Cheney's medical history, I'd be more concerned if the Administration withheld the news that Cheney hadn't had a good bowel movement for three days. The ensuing strain would put him at increased risk for another heart attack. My advice to David Gregory and friends: go sniffing around the vice-presidential commode for clues.

4/3/06

People Who Live in Glass Houses . . .

Al Franken (see 11/25/05 entry) has followed his bestselling book Lies . . . with another called The Truth. Both dwell on alleged falsehoods of those with whom he disagrees politically. But people who live in glass houses . . .

Plugging his new book, Franken was the guest on Tim Russert's one-hour CNBC interview program this past weekend. Though Russert's approach was much more jovial than his typical grillings on Meet the Press, it was obvious that he was peeved by the following lie [though that word was not uttered] on page 48 of Franken's book (as read aloud by Russert): "So Bush and Cheney did explicitly link Iraq to 911 on several occasions, especially when speaking to the naive Russert."

As Russert then explained to Franken, "You will not find anywhere, George Bush linking Iraq to September 11 speaking to me. Guaranteed. . . . I interviewed him once -- never, never brought it up." Referring to interview transcripts, Russert continued: "On Cheney . . . I interviewed Cheney five days after September 11. [I asked him], 'Do you have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?' Cheney: 'No.' Straight-out no."

Russert then talked about the next time he interviewed Cheney, following news reports that Iraqi intelligence may have met with one of the 911 hijackers in Prague. He quoted Cheney: "What transpired there we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue we want to pursue. . . . With respect to the connections to al Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection." Russert then read a Cheney quote from their third post-911 interview: "I'm not here to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for September 11. I can't say that."

Though Franken attempted to spin his way out of the web, Russert did obtain a commitment to have the lie corrected in the paperback edition.