February 6, 2005

Aroint Thee, Babs!

Victor Hanson has it in for today's Dems, especially the Senator from Marin County, Barbara Boxer:
What in the world has happened to us?

Democratic idealism that once alone gave the nation its needed social safety net, civil rights legislation, and environmental protection is becoming ossified and in danger of ensuring a permanent party of strident second-guessing and deductive furor at the loss of almost all political power. A majority of the state legislatures and governorships is lost. The Senate is lost. The House is lost. The Presidency is lost, the Supreme Court almost. Whether Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Alberto Gonzales, minorities no longer have any need of liberal gate-keepers or of a particular patron like Barbara Boxer.

The former idealists and reformers have become backward-looking. Like most reactionaries whose comfortable world is vanishing, they are frustrated, looking for scapegoats and acting very, very bizarrely. Thus for a sober documentarian Edward R. Murrow, we now get the conspiracist Michael Moore who praised the terrorists who kill voters in Iraq as Minutemen. Instead of JFK's muscular idealism, we see a Ted Kennedy hours before the historic elections in Iraq screaming to withdraw American troops. And in place of a crusading Hubert Humphrey, we now endure Barbara Boxer endlessly on television not to apologize, but to recycle the boorishness of her earlier distortions against Condoleezza Rice.

This is all so sad.

Well, we elected Harpythe harpy.



Snoozefest?

The half-time show with Paul McCartney was tasteful, sweet, and decent.

Hardly a snoozefest, as Frank Rich predicted, although my 12-year old said there should have been some dancing and country music, too.

HT: American Digest.

Lookin' Over Jordan

The incomparable Hugh Hewitt has been hocking the contrast between the mainstream media (MSM) coverage of two speeches: one by CNN big Eason Jordan at the élite conclave at Davos, Switzerland, and another by Marine general James Mattis in San Diego at a meeting sponsored by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Assn. and the U.S. Naval Institute.

Jordan apparently told the assembled gnomes of Zurich and other bigs that U.S. forces in Iraq had deliberately targeted and killed journalists -- not just as a matter of collateral damage, but deliberately. Meanwhile, Gen. Mattis was quoted as saying that it was fun to shoot Taliban in Afghanistan, and that he enjoyed war.

Matttis's remarks were widely covered by the MSM, such as the Los Angeles Times:

Seated at a long table next to other military commanders, Mattis told about 200 people at the San Diego Convention Center: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."

Mattis added: "You go into Afghanistan, you've got guys who slapped women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Initially at least, there was almost no MSM coverage of Jordan's charges, which he could not substantiate, and shocked even Rep. Barney Frank and David Gergen, who were part of the Davos panel.

Hugh saw this as evidence of deep-seated media bias:

Type "Eason Jordan" into those same search engines and you will get nothing concerning Jordan's scandalous accusation at Davos on January 27 that the American military "targeted" and killed a dozen journalists in Iraq. Zip. Nothing.

The elite media instantly saddles up to ride to the condemnation of a speech given by a warrior much beloved and respected by his troops --a genuine hero and charismatic war-winner who believes in closing with and killing the enemy before they kill his troops and more civilians, and for whose ideology of fascism he has complete contempt.

But let the speech be given by a MSM big, and let the subject be a slander on the entire American military, and the result is total MSM silence.

This is why there is near complete contempt for the MSM among center-right people. Think about it. Every major paper has an anti-Mattis story. Not one has even mentioned Jordan.

Cancel a MSM subscription today. And find a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine to thank for their service.

Jack Kelly was apparently the first MSM type to surface the Eason Jordan story:

The scandalous remarks of Eason Jordan, CNN's top news executive, last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and the failure of the major media to report them suggest the distortions are deliberate.

Mr. Jordan told a panel that the U.S. military had killed a dozen journalists in Iraq, and that they had been deliberately targeted. When challenged, Mr. Jordan could provide no evidence to support the charge, and subsequently lied about having made it, though the record shows he had made a similar charge a few months before, and also earlier had falsely accused the Israeli military of targeting journalists.

Mr. Jordan's slander has created a firestorm in the blogosphere, but has yet to be mentioned in the "mainstream" media.

Gee, I wonder why not.

The Jordan thing has built into a blogosphere swarm, even getting its very own special blog.

Gen. Mattis's remarks simply remind us that as Rush Limbaugh puts it, the Marines' job is to "break things," and also to kill the enemy. If a war is just, killing the enemy is just, and although we know one of God's creatures has been killed, if a conflict is worth going to war over, killing the enemy is the right thing to do. No use being squeamish about it, unless one wants to adopt pacifism as a philosophy.

The Mattis story seems to have died down.

The Jordan charges, if seriously intended, on the other hand, are quite serious. Deliberate killing of any civilian is a violation of the law of war. Whether journalists are entitled to any greater deference than any other civilian is debatable, but there's no question that the charge is very serious indeed. If Jordan meant what he said in such a public venue, he needed to back it up. If he just made the charge casually, without evidence, or knowingly falsely, it was a libel of the American armed forces. In any case, it's a big deal when a big shot makes a big charge.

Why, then, the days of silence in the MSM?

One would think that if it were a case of the usual solidarity among journalists (e.g., the "sky is falling" coverage of threatened contempt citations against journalists in the Plame affair), Jordan' remarks would get great play, if anyone in the MSM thought they were believable. The silence, then, belies embarrassment that one of one's fellows has gone off the rails.

Honor Among Thieves

As with Dan Rather, the MSM are reluctant to pile on one of their own, even when his conduct is outrageous. With the blogosphere and talk radio out there, this conspiracy of silence may well fail. Or succeed.

Up to now, I haven't found this story terribly interesting. Having decided to blog it, and thinking about it, for a honcho at a major US network to accuse American armed forces of repeated violations of the laws of war, to then lie about it, and to present no evidence, is a big story. It's certainly worse than any numerical inaccuracy in Joe McCarthy's Wheeling speech, that prototype of the liberal parade of horribles. And the MSM's silence is indeed deafening.

Pseudo-Science Shouldn't Be Used Even to Convict the Despicable

The Chattanooga Times Free Press, quoted by Injustice Busters, makes some sound observations about the trial of the despicable Father Paul Shanley:

It should be our fervent wish to protect children from sexual abuse and to see to it that those who do abuse children are punished to the fullest extent of the law. But solid evidence should back up any conviction of a person suspected of
committing such a crime.

For that reason, it is troubling to learn that a theory of so-called " repressed memories" is the basis of the prosecution of a defrocked Catholic priest in Massachusetts. Paul R. Shanley is accused of raping a boy repeatedly in the 1980s. Others originally accused Mr. Shanley as well, but they have withdrawn from the case.

This case is difficult because whether or not Mr. Shanley is guilty, he is clearly not a sympathetic figure. Officials in the Boston Archdiocese had evidence that he was in favor of sex between boys and men, but they transferred him from parish to parish. Even if it was not certain he had acted on his views, he should not have been given repeated opportunities to do so.

Nevertheless, the question before the court is whether he did act on his beliefs, not merely whether he advocated them.

His lone remaining accuser says he suppressed the memories of abuse, and they were triggered only when news accounts of the clergy sex abuse scandal in Boston appeared.

We do not suggest the accuser is making this up. He may have been abused just as he belatedly remembers. Or he may be honestly mistaken. But the sudden resurfacing of decades-old memories seems to be a shaky basis for convicting
even a man who held the disgusting views of Mr. Shanley.

The psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has the better of the argument, for which she has suffered a good deal, that the culty notion of "repressed memory" has weak scientific support and has been the basis of many injustices.

From what I've read, it appears that Shanley is a horrible human being who has publicly advocated man-boy sex, abused his trust and broken his priestly vows, and was shielded for years by the Catholic hierarchy.

But now he's a defendant in a criminal trial with one accuser left, and that one claims to have recovered memory of abuse. I question whether testimony based on "recovered memory" as discussed here and referenced here should even be admissible at trial:

In State v. Quattrocchi III, 1999 WL 284882, *8 (R.I. Super. April 26, 1999), the prosecutor in a recovered memory case argued that the Daubert factors should not be applied to the "soft science" of psychology. The Kumho Tire opinion was issued between the evidentiary hearing and the court's ruling on admissibility in that case. Noting Kumho, the court rejected the prosecutor's argument and applied the Daubert factors, with an emphasis on the general acceptance factor, to hold that recovered memory evidence was not sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial.

The same question arises under the Kelly-Frye test that applies to certain scientific evidence in California and some other states.

In fact, the more despicable you find child sexual abuse by clergy, the more careful one must be to avoid convicting defendants based upon techniques and theories that have the same scientific credibility as, say, dowsing.

February 5, 2005

Early Industrial Technology As Art

Steam Saw SculptureThis picture (credit: Laguna Beach Independent) shows an obsolete steam saw, mounted for public display by Ganahl's Lumber in Laguna Beach, California. This type of saw is also Ganahl's logo.

The élite in early agrarian society hunted for sport. The Victorians, in an industrializing world, gardened. Some of us go in for crafts, or restoring old vehicles.

In short, we turn the hard work of bygone days into recreation, into chic. 100 years from now, will our great-grandchildren rebuild CP/M and Windows 98 computers?

A Famous Victory, Or a Shot In the Foot?

Mangan's Miscellany is concerned about the Iraqi election results so far. He seems to think the apparent victory of the Shi'i coalition may not be as good a thing as some, such as Gerard, think it is.

Of course, from a historical perspective, we won't know for another 200 years or so what the true effect of the election is.

However, from a shorter-term perspective, I believe Mangan's worries may not be justified. Ayatollah Sistani was not a candidate, although he backed the Shi'i coalition. This is a diverse group that includes all sorts of people.

Although Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran developed the heterodox principle of wilayat-e-faqih, or rule by the religious experts, the Iraqi Shi'i have not adopted this concept. They have played their hand carefully, not allowing themselves to be provoked by the Ba'ath terrorists, Zarqawi's group, and not allowing Shi'i extremists such as Muqtada As-Sadr to seduce them into violence.

They have even allowed as how the Sunni parties, notwithstanding their electoral boycott, will have to participate in the writing of the constitution.

Does this mean Iraq is about to turn into a Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian democracy, or that ethnic, religious and tribal strife won't occur? Of course not. But neither is Iraq about to turn into a Shi'i theocracy -- the more so because the Iraqis are keenly aware of the corruption and excesses that have plagued Iran since Khomeini. It may not be easy, and it may not be pretty, and the Ba'ath and Zarqawi haven't been defeated yet. But it's too soon to write off Iraq as either a budding theocracy or an inevitable cockpit of civil war.

Or so we must hope.

February 4, 2005

Gerard Is On Fire

I wouldn't call this fisking.

More like carpet bombing.

This is the Amen Corner.

Kofi Is Shocked (My Winnings Please!)

Shocked

If you believe this one, there's a bridge at 59th St., less than a mile north of UN headquarters, that I might be able to get you at a discount . . .

CNN reports:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Friday he was "shocked" by an initial investigative report that found the man in charge of the U.N. oil-for-food program made illicit oil deals.

What, he thought those were reserved for his son Kojo?

February 3, 2005

Mr. Insufferable Finds His Tinfoil Hat

We were getting the shakes, thinking that maybe the Tiffer (The Insufferable Frank Rich) was on some new medication, because for a short time his column was just trivially wrongheaded. I began Jonesing for Frank’s obsessions with the supposed persecution of homosexuals and the imminent threat of fascism, and his hatred of all things dear to normal Americans.

Not to fear.

First, this choice rant:

JAN. 30 is here at last, and the light is at the end of the tunnel, again. By my estimate, Iraq's election day is the fifth time that American troops have been almost on their way home from an about-to-be pacified Iraq. The four other incipient V-I days were the liberation of Baghdad (April 9, 2003), President Bush's declaration that "major combat operations have ended" (May 1, 2003), the arrest of Saddam Hussein (Dec. 14, 2003) and the handover of sovereignty to our puppet of choice, Ayad Allawi (June 28, 2004). And this isn't even counting the two "decisive" battles for our nouveau Tet, Falluja. Iraq is Vietnam on speed - the false endings of that tragic decade re-enacted and compressed in jump cuts, a quagmire retooled for the MTV attention span.

HT: This Isn’t Writing, It’s Typing.

As to this venture into military history, it’s enough to observe that the Tet offensive was a massive military failure for the Viet Cong, turned into victory by anti-American journalists and the anti-war movement, and the defeat in Vietnam led to the Cambodian genocide, years of oppression in Southeast Asia, and the Boat People. We can have no more confidence in Rich’s reading of Iraqi history than of Vietnamese.

This week Frank has taken of his tinfoil képi and donned his “Arts Critic” tinfoil beret.

Because the Times has apparently decided to forgo editing his column, deciding what the subject matter is like trying to create Cliff notes to summarize the ravings of a lunatic passing through a subway car.

But let’s press on.

Frank opens with the observation that it’s almost Super Bowl time and hence the anniversary of Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction.” The reaction to this epoch-making event has gotten Frank’s goat, having “unleashed a wave of self-censorship on American television unrivaled since the McCarthy era,” and led public television to “flirting with self-immolation.”

Let us set aside the “McCarthy” reference, designed though it is to stop thought and evoke emotion, and examine what is being repressed. It turns out Rich is referring to a few snippets of profanity in Saving Private Ryan, and some “cuddly animated animals.” Rich makes no case that any important artistic or entertainment effort has been curtailed in the post-mammary backlash he rattles on about.

Scratch Frank Rich for 30 seconds, and you don’t win the lottery, but his usual obsession, homosexuality, begins to appear. Buster It’s the supposed elimination of a pair of lesbian parents from a PBS kids’ show, “Postcards from Buster,” that really sets Rich off, although he chides PBS for some other indisputably trivial excisions, like brief nudity from a detoxification scene on a show about terrorism.

Nor does Rich really explain why the uproar about Ms. Jackson’s breast had anything to do with PBS’s editing decisions.

What really galls Rich is that Pres. Bush was reelected, and some attribute his reelection to “moral issues,” which concern began with the Super Bowl events. The bluenoses in the red states, says Frank, are on a rampage:

The political bosses of "family" organizations, well aware that TV's collective wisdom becomes reality whether true or not, have been emboldened ever since. They are spending their political capital like drunken sailors, redoubling their demands that the Bush administration marginalize gay people, stamp out sex education and turn pop culture into a continuous loop of "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm."

Mind you, there have been no roustings on Christopher Street or San Francisco, no censorship of “Who’s Your Daddy,” “Jerry Springer,” or anything else, and although the Feds have been subsidizing “abstinence education” for a while with no discernible effect, nothing has happened on the sex ed front since November that I’m aware of. Sounds scary, though, which makes it good copy, if entirely predictable for Frank.

Having alluded to nonexistent anti-gay razzias and the blandification of popcult, the Tiffer then laments that instead of receiving the tender mercies of MTV, the Super Bowl show this year will be produced by one Don Mischner and will therefore be a “snoozefest,” and the commercials will be “tasteful” (oh no! anything but that!).

Because he can’t really claim that any of these things, if true, are of any consequence, he segues into what he claims is a federal government campaign against indecency.

Rich launches into a tirade against outgoing FCC Chairman Michael Powell, calling him a “Savonarola,” no less. Savonarola was a monk who briefly ruled Florence in highly censorious fashion, going so far as to burn piles of books, paintings, and gambling tables on February 7, 1497:

For the time being, however, Savonarola rode high in opinion. No building could hold the thousands who came for his sermons. He called on the Florentines to burn all books, paintings, carvings and any other luxury that drew their hearts away from the deeper things of God. Florence listened. On this day, February 7, 1497, he consigned the follies of the city in a great "bonfire of the vanities." Dirty pictures, gambling tables, books and art went up in smoke. Savonarola especially loathed paintings that made the Madonna look like a whore.

As far as anyone knows, of course, Mike Powell doesn’t even own a cigarette lighter, and doesn’t have a thing about paintings of the Madonna. Nevertheless, upon the departure of this “Savonarola,” and of John Ashcroft, who suffers from a “right breast fixation” according to Frank Rich, we’re going to get worse, whatever that may mean? Nero? Attila the Hun?

Apparently one of the worse is incoming Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who is the real villain, because she wrote a letter to PBS critical of an episode on a kids’ show called “Postcards from Buster” that showed children with lesbian mothers in an episode about maple syrup. That gay persecution obsession again.

Of course, it turns out that PBS had already decided to bag the episode in question. Although most Americans have come round to the notion that whether or not they approve of homosexual conduct, we shouldn’t persecute people for it, but not everybody likes it, and relatively few parents want their children’s noses rubbed in it at a tender age by schools and TV. Most Americans tolerate abortion, alcohol, and atheism, but none of this is fit fare for preschoolers or first-graders in a publicly-sponsored forum. If parents want to discuss these things with their children, they can do so privately.

Frank Rich and the gay movement apparently won’t be satisfied until “Sesame Street” adds a furry “Birdcage” to its cast. Never mind that orthodox Christian, Jewish and Muslim teachings all disapprove of homosexual conduct. Although these beliefs are over a thousand years old, apparently any public reticence, even in child-oriented entertainment and education, regarding these matters, is a hallmark of oppression, repression and censorship, itself to be repressed, as in Sweden and Canada, as "hate speech."

Rich is realistic enough to know that the invincible vulgarity of market-oriented popcult is such that the protests of a few “family oriented” advocacy groups, or even cabinet members, will not change it. So even if MIchael Powell is a book-burning monk, and various conservatives have breast- and penis-fixations, their pecksniffery ultimately amounts to little, by Frank Rich’s own admission.

So what’s his problem? That the attitudes underlying the impulse to censor could lead to real-life discrimination against real people. After another ritual reference to McCarthy, with J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn thrown in, Rich closes his piece by quoting the lesbian parents whose episode of “Buster” was excised. All one can glean from the quote is that their feelings were hurt:

"I feel sick about it," Karen Pike of Hinesburg, Vt., told The Burlington Free Press, after learning that PBS had orphaned the "Buster" episode showing her, her partner and their three children. "I understand they get public funding, but they should be the one station we feel confident in, in knowing that what we see there represents our country."

Having one’s nose out of joint because one ends up on the cutting room floor is hardly equivalent to persecution.

The Tiffer has tried to wave the bloody shirt, but it’s not a shirt, it’s a paper napkin. And that ain’t blood, Frank. It’s ketchup.

Update: added the image of the annoying educational bunny.

Update: Mickey Kaus weighs in and chides Frank, too. Of course, Mickey just thinks Frank's wrong on this one. I think he's an insufferable prig. But that's what makes horseraces.



February 2, 2005

Mickey Loves Johnny

Mickey Kaus, Democrat though he may be, could never stand John Kerry. Here's his latest take:

P.S.: Patriot of the Week Award goes to Sen. John Kerry for appearing on Meet the Press and being just as petty, negative, solipsistic ("I laid out four steps ..."), self-serving, inarticulate and semi-delusional as his many reluctant supporters feared he might be in office, thereby allowing millions of Democrats and independents to feel more comfortable with their president and putting in place the preconditions for a vast, bipartisan coming-together surge of national unity! ... A deeply satisfying performance. ... He could have been good! But no--he chose instead to put his country first.

I guess it's ok for a righty like me to be a bit sanguine about Howard Dean, if Mickey can thrash Kerry like that.

They're Underestimating Howard Dean

Republicans who think he's a mad socialist or a nutcase are celebrating the likely selection of Howard Dean as head of the Democratic National Committee. Not so fast.

Munch Scream

Dean got a bad press mostly because (a) the Dems DC Establishment types early on were afraid to oppose the Iraq war, if only because most of them had voted to give the President the power to wage it; and (b) The press blew The Scream up into something much bigger than it was.

Dean had one great virtue as a candidate compared to the others. He wasn't afraid to take on the Republicans, right or wrong.

But he's not a nut case, and is far more thoughtful and courageous than the Kerrys of the world. The trick will be to challenge W. and the Republicans without going far left, and without sounding like Bush Lite, tea to weak to stimulate the base or the electorate. Dean's not an extremist, he's very articulate, and he's not a shrinking violet.

So I think he may be more effective as a party chair than the GOP thinks. If it can be done, I think he will mount an intelligent challenge to Bush.

A vigorous opposition, if it's not completely bonkers, is good for the country. "Throw the rascals out. Long live the new rascals!" has to be a real possibility if political hardening of the arteries is to be avoided.

SOTU V: Hewitt's Take

Hugh Hewitt's take:
Mrs. Norwood's embrace of the Iraqi representative was as moving a moment as I can remember from many SOTUs, more eloquent than many of the fine passages in the remarks.

Domestic side:

"And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress."

Great line about the need to face the social security problem. The tremendous opening that applauded voting in Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, Ukraine and Iraq gave the speech tremendous momentum, and the president never surrendered it. A bold and specific set of objectives, support for the Marriage Amendment, a demand for a vote on his nominees to the courts, a call for help for at-risk youth and the embrace of expanded legal assistance to death penalty defendants were all well stated and enthusiastically received by at least his party.

Foreign Affairs:

The restatement of his vision for a secure America and the expansion of democracy abroad provided his strongest moments because his record is credible and his resolve palpable.

"In the next four years my Administration will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time." That is the essential promise a president must make and keep.

Syria got a message tonight, as did Iran, as did the terrorists in Iraq. Serious messages, and necessary ones to send. The resolve of the president is in stark contrast to the Kennedy demand for retreat. We can only hope that the enemies of freedom in Iraq belive the president and not the senator.

Hugh's a loyal partisan, of course, but his observations about the mood and structure of the speech are right on.

And Pelosi and Reid were indeed pathetic.