A disturbing trend in treatment of reporters and their sources...

Abe Aamidor has a great article in the Indianapolis Star, discussing how and why English skills seem to be declining in today's society.

Two of the reasons given, less reading and new communications technology, are particularly compelling, and particularly scary. Abe quotes a National Endowment of the Arts study which says that less than half of all adults read any literature... at all.

Further, e-mail, txt messaging, and IM encourage brevity, at the expense of proofreading or elegance. Gone are the days of the poetic and lengthy letter between cousins, spouses, or other friends.

Does blogging hurt or help this trend? I think interesting arguments go both ways.

Romanian Prime Minister offers to sleep with journalists' wives to prove that he's not gay...

Baseball player's wife threatens to have sex with every one of his teammates, if he cheats on her...

A senator from Oklahoma wants to legalize cock fighting in that state-- albeit in a safer form. How does he plan on doing that? You gotta read it to believe it.

Today marked history for Iraq, indeed for the world. For it is not every day that a democracy emerges from the ruins of a ruthless dictatorship. It is not every day that a people get the opportunity to learn that 'government' is not an omnipotent and elevated structure ruling over them, but rather the embodiment of their will-- that government is and always should be of the people, for the people, and by the people.

And in nearly all regards this election should be considered a success. Turnout was well over 50%, with the highest estimate placing it at a significant 72%; this is a fact made particularly remarkable considering that voters had to walk often miles to the polls and had to fear for their lives on the way.

The day certainly was not flawless, nor completely peaceful. Over 40 Iraqis lost their lives in scattered terrorist incidents around the nation, and some Sunnis boycotted the election, mostly within the 'Sunni triangle.' Nevertheless, with the high voter turnout, and promises by the majority Shia to include Sunnis in the government, the terrorists are losing the war.

As the Iraqis vote to make history and to change the course of their destiny, let their bravery remind us to not take democracy for granted.

I pray for their safety.

Recently, I finished a fascinating book called The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett, a U.S. Naval War College professor. Barnett proposes a new U.S. grand strategy that is similar in some respects to the ideals espoused during President Bush's inauguration speech. Barnett argues that the world is split into two groups: the Core and the Gap. The Core contains states that have strong rule-sets that govern political, economic and national security activities. Most importantly, these Core states are connected into the global world (e.g., they freely trade with other countries, they freely travel, they have strong telecommunications infrastructure, etc.). The Gap states have the opposite characteristics. The Gap consists of the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, the Caribbean and parts of Southeast Asia and South America, according to Barnett.

Barnett believes the Pentagon should not be focusing its attention on the next Great Power war (e.g., China). Barnett also believes that the U.S. should not limit itself to the war on terror, which can be interpreted as a war on Islam, but rather, the U.S. should attempt to bring these Gap states into the Core.

So how does the U.S. bring more Gap states into the Core. Barnett argues that the Pentagon needs a massive transformation. It needs to move its focus from spending its money on developing expensive weapon platforms (e.g., billion dollar fighter jets) that the Pentagon can only afford a few of to spending its money on acquiring lots of inexpensive weapon platforms that rely on the technology of today (e.g., armored Humvees). In addition, the Pentagon needs to split its military into two forces: a "Leviathan" force (i.e., the conquering force) and a "System Administrator" force (i.e., the peacekeeping/police force). Along with transforming the Pentagon, Barnett proposes the U.S. needs to expand its historical alliances such as NATO. The U.S. must work multilaterally with other Core states to fend off forces that could send Core states into the Gap such as terrorism, drugs and disease. The U.S. also needs to "export" its security to the Gap's most troubled spots. The last and most important step the U.S. must take is to integrate the Gap states' economies through bilateral, regional and global free-trade agreements.

Barnett lays out the a coherent and persuasive post 9/11 U.S. grand strategy that U.S. policy makers should pay attention to. I especially enjoyed the optimism of his grand strategy. Unlike many reports from governmental and non-governmental sources that are filled with doom and gloom of all these different threats the U.S. will face in the future, Barnett sees a happy ending; a world in the future without borders and without war. A bit over idealistic, but the U.S. must sell a vision of hope if it wants to attract additional allies in its overseas activities.

For those of you who want to read the Cliff's Notes version of his book, he wrote a magazine article in Esquire that served as the basis for his book.

There are three things that I hate about living in Washington, D.C.: the high taxes, the rampant liberalism and the traffic cameras. Ever since I've moved to the Nation's Capitol, I have feared getting that ticket in the mail. I'm troubled when cities like DC begin to rely on computers and automated technologly to enforce the law. I'm not alone in these fears. InstaPundit has two great posts on the issue here and here.

What I did not realize until I read some of the links to InstaPundit's posts is how the cameras actually decrease safety rather than increase it. For example, Virginia's Department of Transportation recently completed a study on its 7 red light cameras. They found that the cameras correlated with an increase in total accidents and an increase in total injury crashes.

The Weekly Standard did a damning five-part series on traffic cameras in 2002 and it has some particularly troubling findings about the DC traffic camera program:

At the time of my outing, Lockheed [Martin] is responsible for maintaining the equipment, processing the data, and sending out the citations--which entitles them to $32.50 out of every $75 red-light-camera ticket and $29 of every photo-radar ticket. (Since then, Lockheed sold their national automated enforcement business to Affiliated Computer Services in Dallas, with the same profit arrangement applying.) Proponents of the system like to point out that the whole operation doesn't cost taxpayers a dime. Cynics could contend that it's cost taxpayers and commuters quite a few dimes. As of February 2002, D.C.'s red-light camera not only collected over $15 million since August of 1999, but its photo radar program, which has only been in operation for seven months, has already netted the District a cool $9,041,295

Now this arrangement may no longer be in place today, but I doubt it considering Marion Barry keeps winning elections here. But even if this arrangement no longer exists, it does not change the fact that these cameras serve as a cash cow for the city and little else.

Last week I wrote a post questioning the journalistic ethics of Seymour Hersh for publishing specific details of U.S. covert operations in Iran (even though I think his report is inaccurate). Apparently Hersh is a lot more partisan than I realized. Max Boot of the Los Angeles Times fills us in:

Hersh doesn't make any bones about his bias. "Bush scares the hell out of me," he said. He told a group in Washington, "I'm a better American than 99% of the guys in the White House," who are "nuts" and "ideologues." In another speech he called Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft "demented." Hersh has also compared what happened at Abu Ghraib with Nazi Germany. (Were American MPs gassing inmates?) He has claimed that since 2001 a "secret unit" of the U.S. government "has been disappearing people just like the Brazilians and Argentinians did." And in his lectures he has spread the legend of how a U.S. Army platoon was supposedly ordered to execute 30 Iraqis guarding a granary.

I find it interesting that Hersh has the perception of being one of the most respected journalists around, yet he's probably as partisan as Rush Limbaugh.

James Taranto also has some thoughts on Seymour Hersh.

On Wednesday, James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced the REAL ID Act of 2005 which would do many many things but most importantly, establish minimum standards for state driver's licesnse and identity cards in order to be eligible for use as federal identification. People applying for, or seeking renewal of driver's licenses and official identity cards would need to prove their legal presence in the United States by showing official documentation such as proof of citizenship, a valid visa, or a pending application for asylum or protected status. Bottom line: the bill would refuse driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Sensenbrenner argues that this is a national security issue because the 19 terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks had a total of 13 driver's licenses and 21 state issued ID cards. Unfortunately, restricting illegal immigrants will do more to harm than help national security and will be a step backwards in immigration reform (which is another post for another day).

It is important to note that a lawful presence requirement would not have prevented the September 11, 2001 attacks. Chairman Sensenbrenner has claimed that if his proposed provisions had been in place in September 2001, the terrorists would not have been issued driver's licenses and the terrorist attacks would not have occurred. The fact is that the terrorists were issued visas and permitted legal entry into the U.S. Their lawful presence would have qualified them for driver's licenses. Additionally, none of the terrorists obtained a driver's license in a state that issued driver's licenses regardless of immigration status. Furthermore, the terrorists did not need U.S.-issued driver's licenses to board the planes on September 11; they had foreign passports that allowed them to do so.

Denying driver's licenses to illegal aliens will hurt our national security by depriving law enforcement officials of critical information on substantial numbers of adults who are physically present in the United States. Law enforcement officials will be less able to find persons who may be security threats, and will have less information with which to prevent and solve crimes. When a terrorist incident happens, it will be harder afterward to determine what happened, and when. National security is enhanced when people have access to lawful documents and are able to identify themselves. DMV databases are the largest information and law enforcement databases in the United States. Since there is never an accurate number of illegal immigrants in the United States, this is the best way to track the movements of undocumented persons in our borders and is the only database that uses regularly updated biometric information. The Department of Homeland security does not have an internal tracking system for all immigrants and cannot keep track of illegal immigrants.

Immigration status-based restrictions will create a larger "haystack" in which terrorists can hide. Effective counterterrorism strategy is based on sorting potential terrorists out from the general population so that security resources can be focued on this smaller pol of suspects. The fewer the people who are identified through the licensing process, the larger the population of unidentified people that law enforcement must sort through. Furthermore, immigration status-based restrictions will increase the incentive for noncitizens to buy fraudulent documents on the black market. The best way to help terrorists is to stigmatize and marginalize ordinary immigrants, making law enforcement less available to them.

Sensenbrenner's requirement that driver's licenses expire with immigration visas is also ineffective. Visas and immigration statuses do not have uniform documentation, nor do they have simple expiration dates. Over 100 different documents are used to prove immigration status, and documents may have expiration dates even though the status does not. Linking driver's licenses to visa expiration dates presume order, consistency and logic that simply do not exist in the immigration system. Furthermore, many non-citizens are still lawfully in the country even though their immigration document may have expired. For example, non-immigrants who have applied for extention of visas are lawfully present while awaiting a decision on their applications. But for driver's license purposes, they will appear to be out of status. Immigration law is extremely complicated, and immigration status is moving target. Finally, the Department of Homeland security is hopelessly behind on processing immigration applications and changes in or extention of status. DHS backlogs will prevent many non-citiznes from obtaining or proving their status in order to get a driver's license. DHS backlogs will only increase if the agency's resources must be consumed in verifying the immigration status of driver's license applicants.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 also brings up several other questions in regards to public safety, states rights and immigration reform. Like I said before, these are topics for another post on another day. In the end, Sensenbrenner is poorly hiding his anti-immigration, closed border policies behind an air of national security when that is not the case. You are a bad bad man James F. Sensenbrenner Jr. And you will be defeated!!!

There has been much discussion on this site about the prospects of Alberto Gonzales leading the Justice Department for the next four years. I think the time has come for me to admit that, indeed, AG will have a very tough example to follow. In fact, I'm afraid he'll be unable to live up to it at all.

No, my friends, he'll never get the chance to summarily order the deaths of dozens of innocent men, women, and children. Never get to watch them burned alive on national television.

Nor will he have the opportunity to command that a death squad seize a young boy and send him back to a maximum-security island prison, with a murderer for a warden; a hell-hole that, even today, people risk their very lives to escape.

Nope. There will never be another Janet Reno.





Thank you, God!

...

No, I'm not joking this time. He really is a fool.

I mean, you'd have to be to use logic like this:

"There is nothing that the Europeans want to hear from George Bush, there is nothing that they will listen to from George Bush that will change their minds about him or the Iraq war or U.S. foreign policy. "

His advice? Just listen to them. Go to Europe, and just "listen".

You admit that these people are filled with irrational hatred and that there's nothing that would get them to help in Iraq, and then you tell President Bush to hear what they have to say, and that will make it all better.

Ridiculous. If they categorically refuse to open their minds, why should we bother to pay attention to anything they have to say? Should we pay them, um..., ear-service? Because I think we've done that and more.

Judging from Friedman's interviews in the article, if anyone needs to sit down and listen, it's the Europeans.

... for Christ.

Haha! Gotcha!

Everyone's favorite Supreme Court Justice addressed a meeting of the Knights of Columbus in Baton Rouge, LA. Recently, Scalia has been seen making increasing frequent appearances at public events, possibly in an attempt to boost his popularity in time for inevitable replacement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

His advice, though directed at Roman Catholics, rings true for people of all faiths.

"If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."

Scalia's point was that, all too often, certain self-proclaimed intellectuals regard anyone who subscribes to religious belief as a rube, incapable of rationality. The fact is, faith and reason are of course not mutally exclusive, no matter what some university professor may tell you.

If I could trade minds with anyone else in the world...

Perhaps there are some out there, like me, whoever think that the best programming on television, apart from [adult swim], takes place on the History and Discovery channels. I can't explain how many hours of my life I've lost to Shark Week and History's Mysteries. (Maybe not entirely lost, I do extract tons of material for Trivial Pursuit games)

A while ago, on one of those networks, I saw a program about the Shroud of Turin, the Christian relic that is believed to be the cloth Christ's body was wrapped in before the Resurrection. After tracing back through history, scientists wanted to perform a carbon-dating test on the Shroud to authenticate that it truly was from the time when Jesus lived.

The Vatican assented to the test, and submitted a small portion of the cloth for carbon dating. The result did not inspire much faith; scientists concluded that the Shroud could be no more than 1000 years old, too new to be the burial cloth of Christ.

Now, it appears scientists may have been mistaken, as the portion that was tested was actually part of some patchwork that had been done to mend the relic after it was singed by a fire several centuries ago.

Maybe it's real after all?

***Taken from The New Republic because I am too lazy to write a post of my own, and this pretty much sums up my thoughts about the issue***

by David Cowles

It is always amusing to watch conservatives, who frequently accuse liberals of using bogus charges of racism to silence their critics, attempt to use bogus charges of racism to silence their critics. By the time you read this, Condoleeza Rice will have been confirmed secretary of state. But the inevitability of her confirmation didn't stop conservatives from crying racism over her treatment at the hands of Senate Democrats, who raised impolite questions about whether Rice had misled the American public and who dared to delay the vote on her confirmation until after President bush's inauguration so they could actually debate it. Niger Innis, the spokesman for the right-leaning Congress of Racial Equality, attacked Senator Robert Byrd, who helped delay the Rice vote, calling him a "racist" and "a nonreformed Dixiecrat." Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin rote, "There's nothing the Left hates more than 'a person of color' who is a person of substance and stature and intellect and independence first." "It's racism any way you cut it," concluded MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.

Now let's review: As national security adviser, Rice has been accused of downplaying the threat of terrorism before September 11. She claimed that Iraq was in imminent danger of acquiring nuclear weapons, citing, among other evidence, a shipment of aluminum tubes whose purpose she knew to be in dispute. She has since refused to acknowlege that her remarks about Iraqi WMD were misleading, claiming instead that those who suggest she has been evasive are only out to "impugn" her integrity. She has refused to answer questions about U.S. policy on torturing terrorism suspects. In addition, critics have described her management style at the National Security Council as "dysfunctional." So yes, as you can see, if Democrats are being mean to condi, it must be because she is black.

Telecom giant SBC is in talks to buy-out former giant AT&T. I think it's a very likely done-deal. Just a couple months ago, Cingular bought-out AT&T Wireless, and Cingular happens to be half-owned by... you guessed it, SBC.

Is this a former monopoly being overwhelmed by an emerging one?

This just sounds too good to be true. According to this AP article, the PA just enacted a ban on all civilians from carrying weapons.

Do I think this ban could realistically be enforced completely? No. But wow, if they really intend this to have an impact... Just wow.

The Sacramento Fire Department has gotten a good deal of negative publicity recently, with allegations that some of its firefighters were involved in sex orgies... while on duty. Apparently, there has been previous issues with the department:

In recent months, the Fire Department has been rocked by disclosures of firefighter misconduct, including drinking on duty, cruising bars, giving joy rides to women in fire vehicles and attending a Porn Star Costume Ball. In all, 24 firefighters received some level of discipline.

I'm sorry folks, I just can't stop laughing at the image of Sacramento's finest wearing their fire gear at a porn costume ball. Too much. Just too much.

ACLU board member Michael Meyers seems to think so:

This is about the free speech of what members to dissent. This is about the ACLU betraying their values, their core values with respect to protection of people to be whistleblowers, the protection of people to speak freely, the protection of our of our privacy of our members and our donors. This is about the ACLU executive director betraying those values by actually signing a certification that says that he would check our employees against a governmental blacklist, something that we've been litigating against, by the way.

Read the rest of his interview with Bill O'Reilly. He goes more into specifics.

While Bush's pick for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, looks to pass through committee today, the New York Times has called for the Senate to turn him down.

And in a rarity, I agree with them. The Attorney General of the United States is not just the chief law enforcement agent in the nation, but he also represents and shapes what "justice" means in this nation.

Any lawyer that would, in an ethically dubious move, bring up a disingenuous legal argument to get his client out of jury duty, to protect that client's political future, is immediately suspect. But Gonzales' defense of torture, in the form of his extreme narrowing of the term, takes the cake.

I hate drivers who drive badly when they are on their cell phones... But I'm not sure we should make cellular use while driving illegal, as is being suggested in Indy. In fact, I think I oppose such laws.

First, such laws are overinclusive-- that is, they would be imposed against drivers who are perfectly capable of driving competently while using their phones. Second, and most importantly, the laws are underinclusive in that they target only cell use which creates bad driving, while leaving out eating of food, drinking of coffee, farting around with your iPod, etc. etc. Third, the people most likely to be caught breaking the no-cell phone laws, are those people using them while parked at a stoplight, sitting in traffic, or moving very slowly, all situations where cell use is the safest. Laws that do not have adequate enforcement mechanisms are bad laws.

As the President gained a bit of ground in the black community in this past election, and as he continues his outreach to them, the Democrats must be worried that they might have to start exerting a small amount of effort to retain such a stranglehold on the black vote.

Any surprise then that the Senate Dems (lead in part by "moderate" Evan Bayh from Indiana) made such a stink to condemn Condi Rice in the nomination hearings? Having a black female Republican rising in the political ranks could not be a good thing for them, and it could not be a good thing for Evan Bayh, who is going to run for for President in 2008. Mark my words. Oh and Hillary is definitely running too. Just an FYI

Well, just to show you that Glenn is not the only political blogger that dabbles in photography, here are a couple photos of the moon.

I purposely chose two very different photos to show how the camera's settings dramatically can alter the image of reality. There was a cool halo around the moon, caused by some clouds rolling through, but I was unable to setup my tripod in time to capture that, so the second photo is overexposed to get the clouds, and the first is with a tripod with more appropriate speed and exposure settings.






Not too bad for a poseur photographer who just learned what "f-stop" meant like a few weeks ago.

Indications are that they will. And if they do, I think this would be a positive development in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

While both Hamas and factions inside the PLO, namely within the foundational Fatah party, have been responsible for attacks against Israel, Hamas has been to blame for a majority of the terrorist incidents. So, one could worry that a merger between Hamas and the PLO could signal a shift in the nation's political establishment to a more militant stance.

However, the chairman of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas, is also the President of the Palestinian Authority, essentially the recognized government of the Palestinians. Therefore, if Hamas and PLO merge, accountability for any militant actions against Israel will fall on one person, on one authority. This will make it easier for the U.S. and other nations to pressure the Palestinians to persue peaceful steps with the Israelis rather than violent attacks. For if militant actions do occur, the buck will stop with Mr. Abbas.

I've seen similar sites, but never one as comprehensive as NewsMeat, which lets you search by last name, state, and city for individuals' records on their political contributions. The site includes records that go back a couple decades and even tells you the person's occupation.

According to this WiredNews article, some sites like freeipods.com might be legit. I have seen sites like these, which ask you to sign up for a bunch of promotions, and been wary to follow along out of fear of being stuck with a bunch of subscription fees and a huge hassle. However, according to some bloggers linked in the article, if you do it right you can get away scott-free.

So, following their instructions and advice, I am going to try for a free iPod.

Now, this brings me to the sad story of my current iPod, which I have told very few, because of the great pain it causes me to drudge up these memories (j/k that pain was only temporary ;-) )...

I had one of the original (6 GB) models of the iPod and I loved it. I was cool before the iPod was mainstream, and thus no longer really that cool. I had maxed out its storage, and it was a bit bulkier than the current iPod models, nevertheless it rocked... that is, until it met its unfortunate demise, accidentally falling out of my hand extended over my head (when I was reaching for something), and then fell 6+ feet to a hard marble floor in the Hesburgh Library at Notre Dame. My iPod was unhappy.

Now, to hold back my tears for a moment, should I successfully get my free iPod, I will of course promptly sell it, and use the money plus some to get an iPod Photo.

[hat-tip Daniel]

Update: Ok, if you want to help my little quest here, click this link. For me to get credit, you have to click that link and you have to complete one offer. Most of the offers are free if canceled within the trial period. You don't have to buy anything, and you don't have to refer people of your own unless of course you want to go for the free iPod yourself.

Btw, if you do decide to help me, leave a comment or send me an e-mail if you want, so I have an indication of who is participating.

I was watching the Simpsons last night, and they had a newish episode on. This scene was great...

Some event was happening in Springfield, and the national media was arriving to cover it. A long line of TV trucks and vans drive by, and then this huge RV, several times the size of all the other vehicles comes cruising in... blaring "We are the Champions." On the far left of the side of the RV, the FoxNews logo comes into view, and then as it continues driving you see the Bush/Cheney 2004 logo. Beautiful.

Iraqi forces captured one of Iraqi terror-leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's key aides recently. The vice is tightening on this Al Qaeda leader and his opposition to freedom and democracy for the people of Iraq.

As Glenn says, Heh.

Apple announced the $99 iPod Shuffle and the $499 Mac Mini, and immediately the speculation about sales began. But now is the time for the rubber to meet the road.

Initial sales of both products look quite strong. My brother reports that the Apple Store on Indianapolis's northside sold out of its first shipment of iPod Shuffles (2 boxes worth of them) within the first hour after receiving them.

Further, Apple stores elsewhere are reporting crowds waiting for the products. Initial sales can be deceiving, but I'm not betting against Apple on this one.

Yesterday marked the 32nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, and as pro-life marchers take to the national mall tomorrow, we are again reminded of the sad division this issue has caused our great nation.

The statistics* are sobering. Here are some that stand out:

• Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S.

• 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
• 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
• 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion.
• Black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely, than a white woman.**

• It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception. [note: emergency contraception is often classified as an abortifacent, because it is likely to cause the demise of a conceived embryo]
• See the trend of abortions from 1973-1996

And then finally a somewhat positive statistic: according to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.


*A quick word on the source of these stats. They are from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which bills itself as a "non-profit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research... [whose] mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." So, one would be hard-pressed to say I found anti-abortion slanted statistics.

**The high rate of minority abortions is alarming. In 2003, I attended a panel discussion on Roe v. Wade, and one of the panel speakers calculated the numbers and determined that the number of African American babies aborted is roughly equal to the total number of African Americans alive in the United States today.

A human being lives out not only his personal life as an individual, but also, consciously or subconciously, the lives of his epoch and contemporaries; and although he may regard the general and impersonal foundations of his existence as unequivocal givens and take them for granted... it is nevertheless quite possible that he senses his own moral well-being to be somehow impaired by the lack of critique.

- Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain (translated from the German by John E. Woods)

[this Nobel award winning novel, also happens to be my current reading project, apart from my numerous legal reading assignments of course]

Since 1998, the Pentagon has fired 20 Arabic translators on the basis of sexual identity. Two things need to change. First, the military's policy toward gays and lesbians has to end. Private corporations get sued when they discriminate against gays; the military should be no different. If gays are truly morale-downers in close quarters, they can be reassigned. They should NOT be dismissed. A military facing the threats of the 21st century can't be bound by the anti-diluvian moral standards of the 19th. Secondly, the military should be recruiting and training more Arabic speakers. Since training them takes so long, this means we need to start recruiting people with olive-skinned complexions. Most Arab-Americans love their country as much as their (insert ethnic group here) counterparts. What better way to show both bigots and naysayers at home and terrorists and persons-on-the-Arab-Street abroad that America is a tolerant, magnanimous country working to win the hearts and minds of our enemies?

In more news about people with way too much time on their hands, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family said SpongeBob SquarePants was "enlisted in a 'pro-homosexual' video." As Dave Barry would say, I swear I am not making this up. I won't say anything else except this: latent?

Moron story of the week: Apparently Jenna Bush worships the devil. Here's the photographic proof, taken at an inaugural ball sponsored by rich Texans.

In the latest issue of The New Yorker, famed journalist, Seymour Hersh, reveals that President Bush has authorized Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld through a series of findings and executive orders to use secret commandos to engage in covert operations against terrorist targets in ten different countries in the Middle East and South Asia. Among those ten countries is Iran, who according to Hersh, has been the site of covert US operations since last summer. Hersh goes into great detail about the what these commandos are currently doing in Iran. He states that US commandos have teamed up with a group of Pakistani scientists and technicians who have dealt with Iranian scientists previously. He also states that these commandos have penetrated into Eastern Iran and are using secreted remote devices to test the atmosphere for radioactive emissions.

Tony Blankley of The Washington Times writes that Hersh may have violated the Espionage Act by disclosing information about on-going covert operations in Iran and expresses alarm that he has not "seen [any] articles or public comments expressing concern at the revelation of such vital military secrets of an ongoing secret military operation." Michael Ledeen of National Review disagrees because he believes Hersh's story is full of inconsistencies and is therefore, not aiding Iran with accurate information about any US covert operations.

After reading Hersh's article closely, I have to agree with Ledeen. There are two major problems with the article. One, as Ledeen mentioned, there are some significant inconsistencies in the story. In the second page of the story Hersh claims, "The core problem is that Iran has successfully hidden the extent of its nuclear program, and its progress." Then on the next page Hersh quotes a government consultant who claims, "[Defense Department civilians and Israeli planners and consultants] believe that about three-quarters of the potential targets can be destroyed from the air, and a quarter are too close to population centers, or buried too deep, to be targeted." Thus, the question becomes if Iran has successfully hidden its nuclear program, how can DoD and Israeli officials have any relative certainty on the success of an air attack on Iran's facilities. As Ledeen states several times in his article, Hersh cannot have it both ways. The second problem with the article is that the most compelling information of article such as the teaming up of Pakistan scientists and US convert commandos comes from a former "high-level intelligence official". My question is how can this former official know what the US is currently doing in Iran? He or she no longer works for the government. He or she no longer should have access to highly classified information like this. If some intelligence official is feeding this former official up-to-date information, then that current official has probably committed a crime. In addition, I am always suspicious when anyone in the media quotes a former official because I believe these officials usually have an ulterior motive to give journalists all this juicy (and usually false) information. Namely, to embarrass their former employer.

While I doubt the veracity of Hersh's article, I am troubled by its publication. Hersh obviously believes that his article is true (I do not think he is pulling a Jason Blair). I have to wonder what would compel a journalist to provide details of on-going covert operations when the publication of that information would endanger the lives of convert United States agents and provide aid to a country that is an enemy of the United States.

I don't know what it is about Republicans. I'm not sure why, but it always seems that whenever the party is about to embark upon something great, certain individuals get weak in the knees. Peggy Noonan's column is one example, but it pales in comparison to the "fifth column" usually occupied by people like Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, and John McCain.

Let me make one thing clear: this is not about suppressing dissent, or denying people the right to have their own opinions. We have plenty of variety in the GOP: pro-choicer's, isolationists, government-expanders, and other different points of view. I think this fact is a great positive for our chances at the ballot box, as a counter to the traditional conservative stereotypes of religious zealots, school-lunch-theifs, and corporate puppets. In addition, the party's platform benefits from a constant supply of new ideas and fresh faces.

But from the day Bush took his first oath of office, he has been subject to sabotage by certain elements in his own party. At the most inopportune times, the so-called moderate wing of the GOP plays the role of Stalin's "useful idiot" by joining with the left in saying the W's agenda is bad for America. The previous criticism of Bush's "freedom" inaugural is just another example of this tactic.

What is there to be ashamed about, fellow Republicans? And fellow Democrats! All Americans, regardless of party affiliation, have no reason to be shy about the transformative power of freedom. No one would seriously doubt that the success of this nation is directly proportional to the amount of freedom we possess. One can trace this process throughout our history; as we (albeit gradually and hesitantly) expanded the values and rights of democracy to all our citizens, American grew from a fragile, disunited republic, to the most powerful nation the world has ever known.

And as we espoused freedom abroad, other peoples were able join in the peace and prosperity afforded by life in a true democracy. Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea emerged from terrible wars in shambles, but with the help of the United States, today they enjoy economic security and peaceful relations with their neighbors. With the courage to stand up to the U.S.S.R., America truly was a force and model for freedom for the breakaway republics of the Soviet Empire. Today, the nations of Eastern Europe are rapidly moving into modernity, when just a few decades ago they were backward blackholes of oppression.

Why, why in the world would we today, confronted with worst threat to our stability since the Cold War, abandon our pursuit to expand freedom? What reason have we to doubt democracy? We have no cause to accept the incessant stream of pessimism, cynicism, and self-doubt spouting from the talking heads in the MSM. They said we were losing the aftermath of WWII. They claimed that confronting the Soviets would lead to disaster. They mourned Vietnam as the example of the inability of the American military, and the lack of will of the American people, to fight. They predicted chaos and failure in Afghanistan. They foresaw stalement in Iraq.

They were wrong.

Why anyone would take what these people have to say seriously is beyond me. Perhaps some just like to drive themselves crazy.

The Civil War started out as a conflict between states rights and national sovereignty. But as it progressed, Lincoln saw the North tire of this battle for federal power. Fortunately for all Americans, his Gettysburg Address transformed the war from a battle over political control, to a crusade to save free government and free men. Only then did the tide of the war change.

It is no different today. Whether it be Iraq, Palestine, Iran, or Afghanistan, people will not fight to re-establish corrupt tyrannies or oligarchies. Terrorist recruiting wells will not dry up through appeasement; they will overflow.

No, in the war of ideas that is being waged in the world at large, our best defense is the weapon that has served us faithfully all our existence: freedom. And George W. Bush showed that he gets that. So do not fear, Ms. Noonan, the "freedom agenda".

After all, they called the Gettysburb Address pie-in-the-sky, too. Read the story...

I admit that I was feeling a bit lonely in my criticism of President Bush's speech-- liberal law school friends, conservative commenters, and even Andrew Sullivan gave praise-- but now that former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has leveled the exact same basic criticism of the speech, I think I'm in good company:

The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike...

The speech did not deal with specifics--9/11, terrorism, particular alliances, Iraq. It was, instead, assertively abstract...

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth.

One wonders if they shouldn't ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not.

Exactly. Noonan might be verbose, but she is eloquent as hell. And this criticism she lists, perfectly parallels the last paragraph of my post:

No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy, which was the subject of the last third of the text. This may prove to have been a miscalculation.

Read the story here. No word on possible replacements yet. Powell did a lot of good things, like keeping the FCC's hands off of new and emerging communication technolgogies (cell, VOIP, etc.) but he also goofed up big when he tried to relax the restrictions on media conglomeration, which blew up in his face. But of course, he'll be best known for his efforts to grapple with events such as this: (pun definitely intended)

The transcript of the speech... Now my thoughts...

To be frank, I was somewhat disappointed by President Bush's second inaugural speech-- for two main reasons.

First, the speech did not seem altogether heartfelt on behalf of the President. (Note that I am not saying that he was insincere, but rather that this was the perception given.) We all know that most modern politicians utilize speechwriters, and the president is not an exception, but the frequent use of metaphors in the speech coupled with the President's delivery of those metaphors screamed "these are not my words I'm reading."

When he read off:

And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well -- a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

I had to cringe. The metaphor was too good, the annunciation too careful and labored. In short, it was unnatural.

Second, the speech was much less convincing and moving than it could have been, because it spoke in too vague and grand terms rather than concentrating on making the connection between our current efforts and the future these efforts help bring about. Observe:

...Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes -- and I will strive in good faith to heal them.

Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart...

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events...

We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.

So, that is 5 paragraphs and 5 "freedoms." Must every paragraph contain that word? It's easy to say things like Americans should unite around freedom and end racism and discrimination, and so forth, but it's more difficult and compelling to describe HOW we as a society can do such things. Read the speech again, and you'll see what I'm talking about here.

On a final note, I will say that I did like the President's overall message: freedom is more than just security. In Bush's seeming obsession with protection from terrorism and homeland security, this aspect of his presidency can too easily be overlooked. His compassionate conservatism uses the same language of many liberals that have preceded him, and indeed shares its impetus to help society's weakest. If only Bush could articulate how compassionate conservatism is ultimately more effective than liberalism, then Bush would be a conservative in my heart.

A scathing review of the media's coverage in Iraq-- by a soldier.

The soldier, LTC Tim Ryan, says that the media reports the negative without putting it in context, and they fail to report the overwhelming positive events. So he asks:

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are better than others, the Army and other military organizations today understand the importance of getting out the story--the whole story--and trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and the military that goes: "The only way the me