Saturday, May 14, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Power Line: Something I didn't know about Tom DeLay
Power Line: Something I didn't know about Tom DeLay: "Last night, I attended a banquet in honor of Tom DeLay. Mike Krempasky was there too. Mike relates what to me the most moving part of the event, a tribute to the Majority Leader by Russian Jewish immigrant Ena Feinberg:
After attempting to leave the USSR in 1979 and being denied, fired, and blacklisted - the Feinberg family by sheer chance caught the attention of Tom Delay. Tom and Christine Delay adopted the Feinbergs and fought for YEARS to secure their right to escape opression and live in freedom. Six or seven years after first trying to leave, the Feinbergs were visited by Tom and Christine Delay - traveling on tourist visas with no official capacity. Mrs. Feinberg told a powerful tale of the Delays (evangelical Christians themselves) bringing with them everything needed for a seder meal. And with the Delay's help, the Feinbergs celebrated the first seder meal ever held in their own home. Tom Delay helped them escape the Soviet Union in 1987."
After attempting to leave the USSR in 1979 and being denied, fired, and blacklisted - the Feinberg family by sheer chance caught the attention of Tom Delay. Tom and Christine Delay adopted the Feinbergs and fought for YEARS to secure their right to escape opression and live in freedom. Six or seven years after first trying to leave, the Feinbergs were visited by Tom and Christine Delay - traveling on tourist visas with no official capacity. Mrs. Feinberg told a powerful tale of the Delays (evangelical Christians themselves) bringing with them everything needed for a seder meal. And with the Delay's help, the Feinbergs celebrated the first seder meal ever held in their own home. Tom Delay helped them escape the Soviet Union in 1987."
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Weapon of Mass Distraction
Weapon of Mass Distraction: "The pigs are dying from a strain of human virus created from the Spanish flu–a virus that doesn’t exist in nature. Somebody took the virus from its natural habitat, a laboratory freezer, and inserted it into the pigs.
Accident? Bioweapon test? Terror event? We just don’t know."
Accident? Bioweapon test? Terror event? We just don’t know."
Power Line: Where's That Video Tape?
Power Line: Where's That Video Tape?Today's hottest media story relates to a CBS News report on the judicial filibuster by Gloria Borger that aired Monday night. The segment included an interview with Ken Starr, in which Starr, seemingly in reference to the Republicans' effort to end the filibuster, said: "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." You can watch the CBS report here. The two Starr quotes are the main feature of the segment; what is most interesting to me is Bob Schieffer's reaction: he clearly understood Starr to be talking about the Republican effort in the above quote.
Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email in which he wrote:
I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her.
As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.
Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email in which he wrote:
I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her.
As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.
What a story from no left turns
No Left Turns Archive: "The Marines
I took a young man to an Armed Forces recruiting station yesterday to meet with an Air Force recruiter. He had made the appointment, and just wanted to hear the recruiter talk about the Air Force and why he should consider signing up. The young man, let’s call him John, has been thinking about joining up for a while, and--for reasons I can’t quite fathom--showed interest in the Air Force. The twenty minute conversation went like this. The recruiter began by saying that there are great educational benefits (it turns out that all the branches have the same educational benefits). And finally, when pressed as to why a young man should consider the Air Force over another branch of the military, the fellow said this (my paraphrase is close to a quote): 'Being in the Air Force is least like being in the military. It feels more like a regular job, you come to work at eight, and you leave at five.' I could see that John wasn’t exactly swayed by this reasoning, so he had no more questions. We left his office, passing the Marine recruiter’s office on our way out.
We were both disappointed by the meeting. I asked John if he thought the Marine recruiter would talk the same way. He said he hoped not. I said, why don’t we find out? So we walked back inside into the Marine’s office. Clearly, we had interrupted him, but he saw us anyway. I asked him a simple question: 'Why should a young man consider joining the Marines over another branch?' This was his response (again, a close paraphrase):
'All the branches offer the same tangible benefits. But we offer the intangibles. Pride, honor, patriotism. When your signing bonus runs out after joining another branch, you still have to look yourself in the mirror every morning. I do that. And I see that I am the tip of the spear. We go in first, and we have been doing this since 1775. We are always ready. We protect our embassies abroad, and all the other hard work. We are Marines.'
The Lance Corporal kept talking, and our hearts were lifted. It was five o’clock exactly as the Air Force recruiter passed us in the hallway on his way home. Soon after that we had to put an end to the conversation--the Marine wanted to keep talking--and stepped out into the sunlight. Well, John, what do you think? That was more like it, said his faster beating heart. On our drive home, we heard a news report that over one hundred bad guys were killed in heavy fighting near the Syrian border, and three Marines met their maker. Good ratio, we said. My wet eyes made it hard to see the road ahead. "
I took a young man to an Armed Forces recruiting station yesterday to meet with an Air Force recruiter. He had made the appointment, and just wanted to hear the recruiter talk about the Air Force and why he should consider signing up. The young man, let’s call him John, has been thinking about joining up for a while, and--for reasons I can’t quite fathom--showed interest in the Air Force. The twenty minute conversation went like this. The recruiter began by saying that there are great educational benefits (it turns out that all the branches have the same educational benefits). And finally, when pressed as to why a young man should consider the Air Force over another branch of the military, the fellow said this (my paraphrase is close to a quote): 'Being in the Air Force is least like being in the military. It feels more like a regular job, you come to work at eight, and you leave at five.' I could see that John wasn’t exactly swayed by this reasoning, so he had no more questions. We left his office, passing the Marine recruiter’s office on our way out.
We were both disappointed by the meeting. I asked John if he thought the Marine recruiter would talk the same way. He said he hoped not. I said, why don’t we find out? So we walked back inside into the Marine’s office. Clearly, we had interrupted him, but he saw us anyway. I asked him a simple question: 'Why should a young man consider joining the Marines over another branch?' This was his response (again, a close paraphrase):
'All the branches offer the same tangible benefits. But we offer the intangibles. Pride, honor, patriotism. When your signing bonus runs out after joining another branch, you still have to look yourself in the mirror every morning. I do that. And I see that I am the tip of the spear. We go in first, and we have been doing this since 1775. We are always ready. We protect our embassies abroad, and all the other hard work. We are Marines.'
The Lance Corporal kept talking, and our hearts were lifted. It was five o’clock exactly as the Air Force recruiter passed us in the hallway on his way home. Soon after that we had to put an end to the conversation--the Marine wanted to keep talking--and stepped out into the sunlight. Well, John, what do you think? That was more like it, said his faster beating heart. On our drive home, we heard a news report that over one hundred bad guys were killed in heavy fighting near the Syrian border, and three Marines met their maker. Good ratio, we said. My wet eyes made it hard to see the road ahead. "
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
G W Bush Wise
Chrenkoff: "President Bush's foreign policy gets attacked from many different quarters. Realists off all political stripes argue that it is too idealist and too naive. The increasingly isolationist left deems Bush's foreign policy hypocritical (why Iraq, and not North Korea or China?) and too realist in a sense that underneath all the lofty rhetoric it is really motivated only by the base commercial and power-politics considerations like control of oil supplies.
In fact, Bush is a realistic idealist, or idealistic realist, and his foreign policy faithfully translates into cold hard realities of international politics a simple prayer attributed to the theologian Dr. Rheinhold Niebuhr. I'm sure you know it - framed, it adorns many a kitchen wall from Poland to Portland, or dangles from many key-chains around the world:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
This is it, in essence: there's plenty we would want to do - every autocrat in the world deserves to be deposed and his people given freedom and democracy - but for various reasons we cannot make it happen everywhere at the same time, so for the moment we'll only pick those fights we can win.
Iraq took courage. North Korea and many other places require serenity. Fortunately, W has got the wisdom. "
In fact, Bush is a realistic idealist, or idealistic realist, and his foreign policy faithfully translates into cold hard realities of international politics a simple prayer attributed to the theologian Dr. Rheinhold Niebuhr. I'm sure you know it - framed, it adorns many a kitchen wall from Poland to Portland, or dangles from many key-chains around the world:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
This is it, in essence: there's plenty we would want to do - every autocrat in the world deserves to be deposed and his people given freedom and democracy - but for various reasons we cannot make it happen everywhere at the same time, so for the moment we'll only pick those fights we can win.
Iraq took courage. North Korea and many other places require serenity. Fortunately, W has got the wisdom. "
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Peg and Joe's Retirement Home
Peg and Joe's Retirement Home
(click for larger view)
This came vacant on one of our old leases and I thought it would be appropriate for our retirement home. I worked several weekends (2) to completely remodel the inside. I haven't finished the paint job on the outside yet. I plan to paint it Geo. Washington green because of the amount I saved on the place. There are some places on the inside that won't pass Peggy's white glove inspection, but I think she will get accustomed to that and the 'oily' smell. What do you think?
Judicial crisis, Congressional Lying
from: Power Line: "Reporters Gone Wild
Reporters and commentators across the mainstream media are casting aside all restraint in their effort to help the Democrats preserve the filibuster, which, after being reviled by liberals for decades, has suddenly been revealed as one of the great pillars of democracy.
This morning's article by Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington in the Washington Post is one example among many. One could spend hours dissecting it, but two quick points will perhaps suffice. First, note how the Post's reporters frame the issue:
The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars.
Got that? This 'crisis' isn't the fault of the Democrats, who, for the first time in American history, are holding out for a 60-vote requirement to confirm judges. No, it's President Bush who 'initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term.' President Bush carried out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges; the Senate, however, failed to carry out its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to those nominations. Instead, the Democrats filibustered, and no action was taken on them. Why on earth would the President not renominate those judges? They haven't yet received a vote. The idea that the President 'initiated' this conflict simply by carrying out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges to the federal courts is ridiculous.
Then there is this outright falsehood, disguised as reporting:
At his news conference, Gonzales singled out for praise Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who is a target of Democratic filibuster efforts. While serving alongside Owen in 2000, Gonzales wrote an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism' in seeking to restrict a minor's right to an abortion.
This is the chief Democratic Party talking point against Justice Owen, but, as we have already shown, not a word of it is true. Gonzales did not criticize Owen. She did not 'seek to restrict a minor's right to an abortion,' but rather voted to affirm the findings of fact made by the trial court, as previously affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. And her opinion could not, under any conceivable legal theory, be construed as a manifestation of 'judicial activism.'
Weirdly, immediately after the above passage, the Post goes on to quote Gonzales, who said: 'I've never accused her of being an activist judge.' The reporters make no attempt to reconcile their statement with Gonzales'. However, given that they stated as a fact that Gonzales did 'wr[i]te an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' an uninformed reader would pretty much have to conclude that Gonzales is lying.
This kind of advocacy journalism is typical of what the MSM is turning out on the issue of judicial appointments."
Reporters and commentators across the mainstream media are casting aside all restraint in their effort to help the Democrats preserve the filibuster, which, after being reviled by liberals for decades, has suddenly been revealed as one of the great pillars of democracy.
This morning's article by Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington in the Washington Post is one example among many. One could spend hours dissecting it, but two quick points will perhaps suffice. First, note how the Post's reporters frame the issue:
The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars.
Got that? This 'crisis' isn't the fault of the Democrats, who, for the first time in American history, are holding out for a 60-vote requirement to confirm judges. No, it's President Bush who 'initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term.' President Bush carried out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges; the Senate, however, failed to carry out its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to those nominations. Instead, the Democrats filibustered, and no action was taken on them. Why on earth would the President not renominate those judges? They haven't yet received a vote. The idea that the President 'initiated' this conflict simply by carrying out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges to the federal courts is ridiculous.
Then there is this outright falsehood, disguised as reporting:
At his news conference, Gonzales singled out for praise Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who is a target of Democratic filibuster efforts. While serving alongside Owen in 2000, Gonzales wrote an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism' in seeking to restrict a minor's right to an abortion.
This is the chief Democratic Party talking point against Justice Owen, but, as we have already shown, not a word of it is true. Gonzales did not criticize Owen. She did not 'seek to restrict a minor's right to an abortion,' but rather voted to affirm the findings of fact made by the trial court, as previously affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. And her opinion could not, under any conceivable legal theory, be construed as a manifestation of 'judicial activism.'
Weirdly, immediately after the above passage, the Post goes on to quote Gonzales, who said: 'I've never accused her of being an activist judge.' The reporters make no attempt to reconcile their statement with Gonzales'. However, given that they stated as a fact that Gonzales did 'wr[i]te an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' an uninformed reader would pretty much have to conclude that Gonzales is lying.
This kind of advocacy journalism is typical of what the MSM is turning out on the issue of judicial appointments."
Monday, May 09, 2005
This is the Laffer Curve
The Laffer Curve
"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future" by Artur LafferThe Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future
The story of how the Laffer Curve got its name begins with a 1978 article by Jude Wanniski in The Public Interest entitled, "Taxes, Revenues, and the `Laffer Curve.'"1 As recounted by Wanniski (associate editor of The Wall Street Journal at the time), in December 1974, he had dinner with me (then professor at the University of Chicago), Donald Rumsfeld (Chief of Staff to President Gerald Ford), and Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld's deputy and my former classmate at Yale) at the Two Continents Restaurant at the Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C. While discussing President Ford's "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) proposal for tax increases, I supposedly grabbed my napkin and a pen and sketched a curve on the napkin illustrating the trade-off between tax rates and tax revenues. Wanniski named the trade-off "The Laffer Curve."
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future: "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future" by Artur Laffer
Here is the full article of explanation of the Laffer Curve.
Here is the full article of explanation of the Laffer Curve.
U.S. Military Band Marches on Moscow
U.S. Military Band Marches on Moscow Unbelievable! Stars and Stripes forever in Moscow!
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
WorldNetDaily: David Hackworth dies of cancer, 74
WorldNetDaily: David Hackworth dies of cancer, 74: " WND David Hackworth RIP,
dies of cancer, 74
WND columnist, most decorated
Vietnam vet, advocate for soldiers"
dies of cancer, 74
WND columnist, most decorated
Vietnam vet, advocate for soldiers"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
