The senior White House staff is burnt out, says the Washington Post.
Cuv governating is hard work.
Orin Kerr’s Got A Blog
Volokh Conspiracy contributor Orin Kerr (GW Law Professor) is starting his own blog, focussing primarily on legal issues.
I don’t always agree with him, but there’s no doubt he’s a smart dude. We’ll keep an eye on him.
Goggle Earth
For those of you not "in the know", Google Earth is a typical Internet service which (like Mapquest) provides maps. The cool feature is that for much of the world, it also provides a satellite photo of the area. So you can (theoretically) see an overhead picture of many parts of the world.
Internet sleuths have found some Google Earth images which are pretty surprising.
For example, one guy in England tried to see his house, but caught an image of a rare World War II bomber flying directly over it. The mystery plane was a historic and flightworthy Avro Lancaster bomber, one of only two left on Earth.
Then there’s the mysterious flying car, found in Australia.
And several UFOs.
And giant swear words in cornfields.
I have no point here — I just thought it was interesting….
Headline Of The Day
Reuters: "Republicans Look To A Future Without Bush"
Oh, I think they aren’t the only ones…..
The Worst Web Design
Look, my blog is pretty bad, but this has got to be the worst designed website in the entire world: Association of International Glaucoma Societies (be sure to have your sound on)
Not Again
WaPo headline: "Bush Goes On Offensive To Explain War Strategy"
Yup. Another series of speeches to hand-picked audiences. Again.
“Bush supporters cite Iraq speeches as start of rebound” [AP, 12/13/05]
“Bush vows victory, not retreat; Speech gives strategy for winning Iraq war, rejects exit timetable” [Toledo Blade, 12/1/05]
“Bush Goes on the Offensive Against Critics of War in Iraq” [Los Angeles Times, 11/12/05]
“In Speech, Bush To Get Specific On Iraq Strategy” [Boston Globe, 6/28/05]
“President spotlights Iraq war successes; Bush plans summer offensive to tout progress against insurgency” [Fresno Bee, 6/19/05]
“Bush to define Iraq strategy in major speeches” [Washington Times, 5/22/04]
“President spotlights Iraq war successes; Bush plans summer offensive to tout progress against insurgency” [Washington Post, 10/12/03]
I think Bush might have a harder time pulling together his hand-picked audiences this time, though.
Bush’s Domestic Advisor A Crook
One month ago, I wondered why Bush’s domestic advisor resigned. Now we know:
A former adviser to President Bush was arrested this week in Maryland and charged with swindling two department stores out of more than $5,000 in a refund scam.
Montgomery County police said Claude Allen, 45, was arrested Thursday and charged with carrying out a felony theft scheme at Target and Hecht’s stores. He was released on his own recognizance.
Conviction on the charges can result in a 15-year prison sentence.
Authorities accuse Allen of going to stores on more than 25 occasions and buying items, taking them to his car and then returning to the store with his receipt where he would carry out the alleged scam.
"He would select the same items he had just purchased, and then return them for a refund. Allen is known to have conducted approximately 25 of these types of refunds, having the money credited to his credit cards," a statement from Montgomery County police said.
The items ranged from a Bose theater system to a photo printer to clothing to small items valued at $2.50, police said.
Allen resigned without explanation in early February as Bush’s top domestic political adviser. Allen had long been a darling among the conservative right — and Bush had even nominated him to be a federal appeals court judge in 2003, but Democrats blocked the move.
In announcing Allen’s resignation, Bush called him a "trusted adviser" who helped "develop policies that will strengthen our nation’s families, schools and communities."
"Claude is a good and compassionate man, and he has my deep respect and my gratitude. I thank him for his many years of principled and dedicated service to our country," Bush said in a statement issued on February 9.
A petty thief. These are the people the President surrounds himself with.
And now a quote from January 6, 2005:
"Claude Allen will be a strong voice in the administration on policy decisions affecting the family," says Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
Gee, I guess it was good that the Democrats filibustered his nomination to the circuit court bench, eh?
UPDATE: Josh Marshall has another Claude Allen flashback:
In the early days of the Katrina Debacle, the White House response was being coordinated by none other than Claude Allen.
Logical choice, of course: get your guy in charge of abstinence education and school prayer policy and banning abortion to run disaster management.
Maybe he was too busy waiting in the return line at Hecht’s to focus on the hurricane stuff.
Faith-Based President
"You’ve got to stand on what you believe, that’s what you’ve got to do, if you’re going to make decisions that are solid and sound…"
Facts be damned, right?
Former Justice O’Connor Smacks The GOP Around
Amy Sullivan has the goods:
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave a speech yesterday at Georgetown in which she slammed Republicans–singling out Tom DeLay and John Cornyn–for undermining the judiciary. (You can listen to NPR coverage of the speech here.) She quoted DeLay’s attacks on the court during Justice Sunday, and then turned on the sarcasm: "This was after the federal courts had applied Congress’ one-time-only statute about Schiavo as it was written–not as the Congressman might have wished it were written. The response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint was that the Congressman blasted the courts…"
As for Cornyn, O’Connor said, "It doesn’t help when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with."
When O’Connor announced her retirement last year, there was outpouring of praise for her "wisdom" and "moderation" and "thoughtfulness." That won’t stop Republicans from turning around now and denouncing her comments, but it will make it harder for them to press their case. And–who knows?–maybe it will inspire some of her former colleagues across the judiciary. The pool of self-hating judges has to be fairly small.
Growing Up Bin Laden
Bin Laden’s niece is getting set to star in her own reality series. No, I’m not kidding:
Osama bin Laden’s niece, an aspiring singer who posed for a sexy photo shoot in a men’s magazine last year, has signed up for a reality television show about her life and her as yet unfulfilled "quest for stardom."
Wafah Dufour Bin Ladin, whose mother was married to the al Qaeda leader’s half brother, was born in California but lived in Saudi Arabia from the age of three to 10.
"I understand that when people hear my last name, they have preconceived notions, but I was born an American and I love my country," Dufour said in a statement from ReganMedia announcing the deal to develop a reality TV series.
Dufour has dropped the "Bin Ladin" — a different spelling of the Arabic name from that used by Osama bin Laden — and now goes by the name Wafah Dufour.
Yeah, dropping "Bin Ladin" as a last name. Good career move.
Does Kaye Grogan Read This Blog?
We think she might be. Because her particular gripe today is about character assassinations on the Internet. Which suits us fine — we feel like John Wilkes Booth today.
The 212th legislature Assembly # 1327 sponsored by Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi to hold Internet providers responsible for content in New Jersey should set the "code of conduct" for public forums in every state.
She’s talking about this bill.
Using the Internet posting "anonymous" nicknames to slander and defame people that one does not like or agree with their beliefs or a political stance should not be tolerated.
In the third grade, Mrs. Gray made us diagram sentences. People over a certain age know what I’m talking about.
Mrs. Gray’s head just exploded.
There needs to be a"criteria" clause established and maintained regarding respect of persons.
We love that sentence, but we’re not sure why. Maybe it’s the "and maintained" part, which Kaye perhaps added as an afterthought. Maybe it’s the use of the word "persons" instead of "people".
If a person took the approach of slandering or defaming another person in public or the workplace — this would be considered "harassment" and liable under defamation laws resulting in lawsuits, and it should be inappropriate behavior on the computer as well.
Wow. And to think that we sat through NYU Law for three years, when we could have had Kaye explain defamation and slander so . . . what’s the word . . . incorrectly . . . in one tortured run-on sentence. What is she talking about?
I am talking about personal attacks here.
Okay. Gotcha.
When many people are void of respecting others, sometimes restrictions pertaining to code of ethics and conduct have to be established. Search engines such as Google, MSN, etc. allow defamatory content to be listed in their engines without anyone effectively overseeing or monitoring "abusive" practices.
We’ve also noticed that the word "moron" is in most dictionaries. Let’s oversee that, too.
The people who (intentionally) set up blog boards to defame others should be held accountable for the content.
But if you accidentally set up a blog board to defame someone, you’re in the clear.
Posting a feeble "we are not responsible for the content of the posts" is irresponsible and should be liable. We should all have a responsibility to show good taste and set examples.
Kaye, are you aware that at the bottom of every Kaye Grogan column on Renew America, one sees this?
Maybe you shouldn’t be calling Alan Keyes, your web host, "irresponsible". We’re just saying .
Oftentimes, underage teens participate in inflammatory conduct on the web, without their parents being any the wiser of their slanderous activity.
"Kids Razzing Other Kids" – Tonight on DATELINE!
The bill sponsored by Biondi would also put the burden of compensatory and punitive damages along with lawyer and court costs on the shoulders of Internet Service Providers.
Unless they, you know, win.
The bill would also require an operator of any interactive computer service or Internet provider to establish, maintain, and enforce a policy where those posting messages on a public forum website must be identified through legal names and addresses.
Okay, so what’s your legal address, Kaye?
This measure would make those who post false or defamatory statements liable for their actions to the courts if they are sued for defamation of character.
You mean if you are sued for defamation of character, you’re liable? Just by being sued? No trial or nothing?
But we have to give credit where credit is due: Kaye hasn’t mixed up the words "libel" and "liable". Yet.
There is also the abuse of copyright infringement of posting articles or excepts from articles with the sole purpose of defaming writers on blog boards.
There’s this thing called the "fair use doctrine". As explained here, it is legally permissible to reprint copyrighted material for the purpose of criticism.
For example, one could quote from Kaye’s *cough* "copyrighted" *cough* article to point out that she is an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between "excerpt" and "except".
Illegal uses of copyrighted photographs are also tolerated by search engines.
We need more intolerant search engines.
Let’s look at what is considered to be libelous in character assassination: The publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation in written form.
That’s why we never keep our reputation in written form. That way we can’t be libelized.
An oral character assassination is considered to be slander.
And a physical character assassination is considered to be homicide.
Both practices are considered to be defamatory and therefore can and should be libelous.
But you just said that libel is just written "character assassination". So how can oral character assassination (slander) be written character assassination ("libelous")? Oh, we’re so confused.
Or wait. Did Kaye just confuse "libelous" and "liablous"? Granted, "liablous" isn’t actually a word, but we have to give Kaye some slack. She probably meant "…should be held liable".
If the legislation passes in New Jersey requiring that ISP owners be held accountable for what they allow to be posted on public forum boards, the law and repercussions will be crystal clear.
Um, we guess so, but since we’re not internet service provider owners, we don’t have to worry.
Since Patrick Henry was a man of decency and integrity-somehow, I feel he would be adamantly opposed to how abusive "freedom of speech" has become over the last 30-35 years. Henry would probably not be the strong advocate in modern times he was on March 23, 1775, if he was alive today, much less proclaim his famous outburst: "give me liberty or give me death!"
Shorter Kaye: "Having failed at finding historical support for my position, I’m just going to pretend that the Founding Fathers would agree with me."
Many people are unaware that Patrick Henry a lawyer by profession, rode into Culpepper, Virginia and found a minister tied to a thrashing post for preaching the "Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Wait, we think we’ve heard this one. "Then Patrick Henry rode further and found a rabbi tied to a thrashing post…."
The minister along with several other ministers refused to be licensed by the governor. I don’t blame him, because this was a movement to control religious freedoms.
We never heard this probably apocryphal story, so we did a little research. It seems that Patrick Henry simply kept on riding, since we couldn’t find any information suggesting that Henry freed the minister. In fact, it looks like the minister died three days later.
But this incident was (supposedly) the inspiration for a stirring Patrick Henry "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech later that month. So some good came out of it. Except from the minister’s perspective, I suppose.
What a selfish prick, that Patrick Henry.
This miscarriage of injustice along with others eventually inspired Patrick Henry’s opposition to restrictions on freedom of speech — not for mankind (in the future) to indulge in pornographic material or use vile profanity.
Only guessing here, but don’t we, as a society, prefer miscarriages of injustice?
Everything in that era was based on morality and establishing a country based on godly principles. Patrick Henry was also opposed to slavery.
Yes, Henry was opposed to slavery, but owned slaves anyway. According to the Patrick Henry Memorial Website, he refused to free his slaves, even after acknowledging that his slave ownership flew in the face of the freedom-loving rhetoric that he espoused. I guess hypocrisy is one of those "godly principles"?
You see, Kaye? History is pretty interesting as it is — you don’t have to make it up. [UPDATE: Speaking of Henry, evangelicals, and interesting history…]
We owe a debt of gratitude to Patrick Henry for being instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
That’s right. We should thank Henry for providing us with such rights as the freedom of speech, because his efforts allow us to write articles in which we advocate the punishment of free speech.
There are respectful ways to express differences of opinions and resorting to personal attacks suggests the people in opposition are void of being able to defend their opposing views in a coherent effective manner. In the process their credibility suffers.
Would that we all could express our views in a coherent manner like Kaye. Like her next paragraph…
The synopsis of the legislature offered by Jerry J. Biondi: Makes certain operators of interactive computer services and Internet service providers liable to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum web sites.
Whoa, Kaye! While we were struggling to find the subject of that last sentence, we realized that you started off this column by saying that the bill’s sponsor is "Peter J. Biondi". Now his name is "Jerry"? And he’s griping about people writing things using pseudonyms?
At least this is a step in the right direction.
Well, it’s a step in something.
What Matt Says
This really is one of the most pig-ignorant dumb things that Rumsfeld has said. Matt Yglesius explains:
"The U.S. military will rely primarily on Iraq’s security forces to put down a civil war in that country if one breaks out, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers yesterday," thus emerges the dumbest thing I’ve heard today. Iraq’s security forces are a party to that country’s sectarian violence. A civil war "breaking out" would just be an intensification of that violence. Iraq’s security forces might well win a civil war against Sunni fighters, with or without American help, but they certainly aren’t going to prevent one.
Here’s specifically why leaving it up to the Iraqi security forces to keep civil war at bay, is a ridiculous and untenable position. From Steven Biddle, a Senior Fellow in Defense Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, in Foreign Affairs:
Iraq’s Sunnis perceive the "national" army and police force as a Shiite-Kurdish militia on steroids. And they have a point: in a communal conflict, the only effective units are the ones that do not intermingle communal enemies. (Because the U.S. military does not keep data on the ethnic makeup of the Iraqi forces, the number of Sunnis in these organizations is unknown and the effectiveness of mixed units cannot be established conclusively. Considerable anecdotal evidence suggests that the troops are dominated by Shiites and Kurds and that the Sunnis’ very perception that this is so, accurate or not, helps fuel the conflict….) Sunni populations are unlikely to welcome protection provided by their ethnic or sectarian rivals; to them, the defense forces look like agents of a hostile occupation. And the more threatened the Sunnis feel, the more likely they are to fight back even harder. The bigger, stronger, better trained, and better equipped the Iraqi forces become, the worse the communal tensions that underlie the whole conflict will get.
Poll Spin
Instapundit cites a new Harris poll for the proposition that the military is the most "trusted" institution in America.
I didn’t know what Instapundit meant by that (the military is trusted how?), so I followed his link. It took me to this United States Department of Defense website, where I read the first line of the press release:
The military continues to be the most admired institution in America, according to the latest Harris Poll.
Emphasis mine.
Instapundit should know better. "Trusted" is not the same as "admired". I trust that bin Laden is serious about his calls for attacks against the United States, but I sure as hell don’t admire him for that.
The rest of the DoD press release (Instapundit’s source) adds to the confusion. After claiming that the military is the "most admired" institution, it states:
A total of 47 percent of Americans said they have a "great deal" of confidence in the military.
Again, "having confidence" in someone is different from "admiring" them, and even (albeit slightly) different from "trusting" them.
So what does the poll actually ask? Did 47 percent of Americans say they "admired" the military, or had a "great deal of confidence" in the military, or "trusted" the military, or none of the above?
Well, it took a while, but I finally found the actual poll question here:
"As far as people in charge of running [the military] are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?"
So there we have it. Less than half of the respondents had a great deal of confidence in the people in charge of the military. Which is not only not great news, but it’s entirely different from implying that the military as a whole is "admired" and "trusted".
It also bears noting that the 47% figure pales compared to what the response was to years ago, when it was at 62%. And in January 2002, it was at 71%. No other insitution in the poll, not even the White House, has seen such a precipitous drop.
RELATED: Speaking of ridiculous spinning pundits, how stupid is the Corner’s K-Lo?
She saw an episode of "The Office" last night — a particularly funny one in which the buffoon of a boss (played by Steve Carrell) makes offensive sterotypical remarks during the company’s "Diversity Day" seminar.
Specifically, K-Lo wonders if CAIR will be offended and issue a press release, because Arabs were NOT made fun of in the show. She also wonders how far behind a "forced apology" from NBC will be.
Some things need to be pointed out to K-Lo:
(1) Arabs were made fun of, as well as just about every ethnicity, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation.
(2) That said, the humor didn’t come from making fun of minorities, but it came from Carrell’s bumbling character reinforcing racial stereotypes while trying to teach his workers about racial sensitivity.
(3) And, oh yeah, K-lo. Last night’s show was a repeat from last season. So if CAIR has been silent about this for over a year, I think we can conclude that your counter-outrage against an imaginary protest is just a waste of Internet space (and that’s saying something since you post at The Corner).
Playing With The Primal Forces Of Nature, Mr. Beale
Stop it.
Seriously, I’m all for scientific progress, but this is — quite literally — playing with fire:
Scientists at Sandia National Laboratories have produced a superheated gas, which is hotter than the interior of the Sun.
The gas achieved the hottest temperature ever recorded when it reached 3.6 billion degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 billion degrees Kelvin. For those keeping score, the Sun is only a mere 15 million degrees Kelvin.
So, if I understand this correctly, scientists have created a superheated gas which is not only hotter than the sun’s interior, but is almost 125 times hotter than sun’s interior.
My first question is probably the same as yours: Why doesn’t this superheated gas burn through whatever container it’s in, burn through the bottom of the laboratory, and burn right through the Earth?
In other words, why aren’t we all dead now?
My second question is this: wouldn’t just one liter of this shit be sufficient to provide enough energy to, you know, satisfy the power needs of the entire world for a thousand years? And if so, should I put off buying a new water heater?
Never mind. I don’t wanna know. It sounds dangerous, and I’m not sure I’m comfortable with a bunch of pyromaniac physics nerds trying to create a literal hell on Earth.
I’m just sayin’.