Joust The Facts

Follow-Up: This Breaks My Heart

Back in October I noted this very sad local story, where a 65 year-old gentleman with a prosthetic right leg lost control of his car at a school, pinning three children and a mother against a concrete wall, producing tragic results.

Now the follow-up.  The driver, Enrico Caruso, has been found guilty of negligent operation of a motor vehicle and faces jail time.  The Boston Herald quotes one of the jurors.

"We believe he lost control of the car and probably his foot was stuck in between the gas and the brake that precipitated the car to accelerate,'' said one of the six jurors, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"Driving is not a right, it's a privilege,'' the juror said. ``We all have a responsibility to follow the law. If one deviates from that, you have to be responsible or accountable for your actions.''

The statement of the man's son, who understandably does not want to see his disabled father in jail, is so wrong.

"He's beside himself over this. He was from the beginning. Everyone is a victim.''

No, the driver of the car is not a victim.  He is the source of the tragedy, through negligence.  It's sad that your father must be punished for this negligence, but so he must.  That does not make him a 'victim', however.

"Who's In A Family" Feud

Having been away for the last two days, with my parents in Connecticut, I have been a little out of touch with both local and national affairs.  I did a little reading today, however, and ran into this story at Wizbang.  Michelle Malkin hits it also.  Here's the story in yesterday's Boston Herald regarding the arrest of a Lexington man who protested the reading material presented to his 6 year-old son in kindergarten.

Lexington school calls cops on dad irate over gay book
By Laura Crimaldi
Thursday, April 28, 2005

Police arrested a Lexington father who refused to leave the Joseph Estabrook School yesterday after school officials rejected his demands that his 6-year-old son be shielded from any discussions about gay households.

David Parker, 42, confronted officials after his son brought home "Who's in a Family,'' a storybook that includes characters who are gay parents.
Yesterday, Parker refused to leave a meeting after Lexington Superintendent Bill Hurley rejected his demand that he be notified when his son is exposed to any discussion about same-sex households as part of classroom instruction.
"Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied,'' Parker said in a statement.
Parker also asked that the boy be pulled from similar discussions that arise spontaneously, said Brian Camenker, director of the Article 8 Alliance, which supports the ouster of four pro-gay marriage judges on the state's Supreme Judicial Court.
School officials could not be reached for comment.

Shortly after reading the piece at Wizbang I had a very interesting conversation with one of Gwendolyn's best friends - who happens to hold a Harvard Ph.D. and whose family member happens to work at that Lexington school as a teacher.

Despite her Harvard credentials she managed to avoid the Cambridge far-left cant that seems ubiquitous.  She and her relative argued over this episode, with the relative spewing invective and accusing her of racism, homophobia and all sorts of politically incorrect thought.  She is, of course, none of these things, as I know this person very well.  She is quite level-headed, logical and rational - but leans conservative.  She held her temper and tried to engage her relative in a rational discussion - having had conversations with her on other topics she's quite good at it.  She'd have to be to defend a Ph.D. thesis.  Her efforts, however were answered with insults and accusations.  And Mr. Parker was dismissed as a "religious nut."

According to this friend the book is sent home in a "diversity bookbag."  You can review what's in them online.  Check out the front page at the website, including the "Anti-Bias Committee for Diversity" logo at the top left.

We are very excited to continue the project we began in 2002 with the Diversity Bookbags. The bags are intended to strengthen connections among our school population and to build an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for cultural, racial, ability and family structure diversity.

Here's the description of the book in question, from the kindergarten page.

Who's in a Family by Robert Skutch

Shows the various combinations of individuals that can make up a family, emphasizing the positive aspects of different family structures, including grand-parent headed, single-parent, adopted, gay-headed, and mother-father families. Uses examples from the animal kingdom to illustrate how family groupings can differ.

This 'conversation' our friend had with her stepmother is a graphic real-life example of a kind described by Brian Anderson early on in South Park Conservatives.

The Left's position on homosexuality is no longer about winning tolerance for it but about getting everyone to celebrate it as just one more perfectly normal sexual lifestyle, something many religious conservatives adamantly reject.  The easy assumptions [Newsweek's Jonathan] Alter makes are illustrative: that conservative criticism of homosexual behavior is "degrading," for example, or that the moral teachings of, say, the Catholic Church, are "homophobic."

Anderson notes that those on the left respond with invective and disregard for the reasonable arguments of conservatives all too frequently.

"Racist," "homophobe," "sexist," "mean-spirited," "insensitive" - it has become an ugly habit of left-liberal political argument to dismiss conservative ideas as if they don't deserve a hearing, and to redefine mainstream conservative views as extremism and bigotry...

Illiberal liberalism undermines two principles crucial to liberal democracy and central to its superiority to other forms of government.

First, democracy requires a willingness to engage the arguments of those you disagree with, recognizing their equality as citizens...But calling someone a racist or a bigot says that his ideas have no place in the democratic public square.  It's an annihilating gesture...

And apparently the indoctrination must start early.  It would be perfectly appropriate for these teachers to teach respect for all others, sharing, compassion, and other universally desirable traits in a developing child.  To do this, however, does not require detailing specifics about homosexual-headed or any other types of families.  As Gwendolyn noted that there is no way these teachers would point out economic differences and specify that 'Joey's' family has lots of money and lives in a mansion, but 'Carolyn's' parents rent a tenement apartment, would they?  So what is the purpose of this specificity?  It is to remove the parents from teaching social mores to their own children.  They can't take the chance that you might teach your children something that hasn't received the "Seal of Approval."

Back to Mr. Parker, who puts it just right in the Boston Globe version of the story.

Parker said he wanted to control ''the timing and manner" in which his son learned about ''adult themes."

''This is not about creating a forum for hate . . . for any segment of society," Parker said after his arraignment. ''I'm just trying to be a good dad."

UPDATE:

More on this from Iowa Voice, The Pink Flamingo Bar, Myopic Zeal, KelliPundit

Link to the email exchange between the parents and the school district.

Here's another example of liberal intolerance of conservative speech.

Hospital Blogging Today

In Hartford today for my mother, who is having surgery (just ended, went well, she's doing fine, thanks).  As a result, I've been a little occupied and unable to be as in touch with affairs as I ordinarily would.

Nonetheless, I did kill some time browsing, and have noted several interesting pieces on Power Line regarding the judicial filibuster showdown that I've been following.  Bill Frist has apparently come up with a compromise that does what I would've hoped - he appears to be opening the floodgates to judicial nominees to get their hearing and a vote.  If such a nominee is truly an extremist, show it, then get a majority of senators to vote the nominee down.  Frist's proposal also prevents such nominees from being bottled up in committee.  I strongly doubt the Dems will take the bait.

Meanwhile, they've at least gotten the Minneapolis Star Tribune to acknowledge that their recent editorial against the removal of filibusters is a change from past precedent for them.  They still don't have an explanation, or a withdrawal of that editorial.  The NY Times past comes back to haunt them with a 1995 editorial also decrying filibusters.  Once again this is a malleable position, taken when it helps Democrats, avoided when it helps Republicans.

Finally the Boston Globe editorializes this morning against Senator Frist, using the precedent of the reversal in the House on the ethics committee rules to tell Sen. Frist that he should also back down.  They go off the deep end themselves, describing the Bush nominees as "hard right" when Jonathan Turley, hardly a conservative, has confirmed that characterization as baseless.

But it is a road that threatens embarrassment for Frist and the Senate, and possibly long-lasting damage to the nation's political foundation.

That's a little over the top.  Will the damage be as long-lasting as, say, accepting campaign contributions from Chinese nationals?

Frist says the Republican majority in the Senate may use a parliamentary trick to change Senate rules...

That 'parliamentary trick' would be...getting a majority of senators to agree, right?

This maneuver would eliminate the Democrats' ability to block a nomination by filibuster as long as they can hold on to 41 allies and avoid the 60 votes for cloture that would end debate.

I'm not sure I see how it is democratic to allow two-fifths-plus-one senator to block a nominee from a vote that could pass with one-half-plus-one.

This has become known in Washington as ''the nuclear option."

Called so by the Democrats, and repeated by the MSM.  The Republicans call it the "constitutional option," and so it is.  Maybe they should read Pete Du Pont's piece from yesterday.

Frist is already losing a running debate with the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, over which side is breaking precedent.

Actually, I think the Democrats have lost the debate on this, if you a) look at the honest polls on the topic and b) look at the past votes of Democrats who are now incensed over this.

Frist has promised that, if he does push through a rules change, it will apply only to the appointment of judges, leaving Democrats free to filibuster other matters. But, given their lifetime tenure, federal judges are exactly the kinds of appointments that should be made with some element of bipartisanship, or, at least, protection for minority interests. The same goes double for any Supreme Court appointments.

What they mean is that given their lifetime appointments they're concerned that conservative judges may not allow back-door legislation from the bench by liberal judges.

In the Capitol yesterday, not many yards down the winding marble corridors to the south, House Speaker Dennis Hastert was conceding that his efforts to gut the House Ethics Committee were ill advised. The new rules would have allowed each party to block any investigation.

Yes, and as I pointed out the old rules allowed any partisan witchhunt to go forward.  So we're back to that; I'm not sure that's an improvement.

Senator Frist's proposal today has the beauty of simplicity and openness.  It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats demagogue it.

MSM Bias, Exhibit F: Fiction Is Stranger Than Truth

Hat tip: Professor Reynolds.

I realize others have done the heavy lifting here, but I've been occupied today with the first birthday of my youngest.  But upon reading this story I wanted it on my blog, with the necessary links, even though I freely acknowledge I'm not breaking any new ground.

The antics of the MSM will, at times, make you shake your head in disbelief.  A prime example is today's editorial in the NY Times, Losing Ground In Iraq.  I first encountered this bit of tomfoolery on Instapundit.  The Times not only claims that President Bush's only pre-conflict rationale for war in Iraq was WMD's, it claims that he developed a new rationale of democratic transformation in the middle east only after the WMD's fell through.  The offending penultimate sentence in the editorial:

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious.

This bit of pure fiction is easily debunked, and done so eloquently by Tom Maguire at Just One Minute.

[H]ere is an EJ Dionne column from Jan 2003 criticizing Bush for offering three reasons to liberate Iraq, and asking him to settle on just one:

But Bush still has a problem that goes beyond style: We don't know if this war is primarily about (1) taking weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam's Hussein's hands, or (2) removing Saddam from power, or (3) bringing democracy to Iraq and revolutionizing the politics of the Middle East.

Supporters of war argue that all three goals are compatible. In principle, they are. But because the administration has gone back and forth about which of these goals matter most and how they fit together, its policy has been open to easy challenge.

So we know that at least Mr. Dionne was paying attention before the war.  Was the Times?  Of course, unless they weren't listening to the President's speeches.  But they were, since that's their job.

Is there an archival piece from the Times that demonstrates that, at the time, they were doing that job?  Of course.

Mr. Reynolds thinks this deceit needs both a correction and an apology.  Agreed, but I'm not holding my breath.

A question, though.  The Times writers cannot be stupid.  (Can they?)  Why would you write such an easily researchable fiction into an editorial, which by definition is written to influence opinion?  Don't you lose that influence when you flat-out fabricate?  Don't look at me, I don't have an answer to these questions.

Mr. Maguire thinks he might.  He quotes losing Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry from 2002:

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

Mr. Maguire:

Years later, the Times may be imagining that, since disarmament was the only reason that liberals wanted to hear, it must have been the only reason Bush offered.

That might be it, though it still leaves open the question of loss of credibility for doing so.

Filibuster Hypocrisy Delineated

Pete Du Pont writes in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com on the blatant hypocrisy of the Democratic Senators who now staunchly support the ability of 41 senators to block a vote on the President's judicial nominees.

He points out, as I have here and here, that they weren't always of that belief.  He also gives a concise history lesson in the filibuster and it's uses and limitations.

So what of this supermajority rule requiring a three-fifths vote to end judicial confirmation "debate" in the Senate and force a vote? Why is it here, where did it come from, and should it be part of the Senate rules?

This rule is not a constitutional requirement. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto, pass a constitutional amendment, approve treaties or expel a member of Congress. But all it says about judges is that they are appointed by the president with "the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Absent a constitutional requirement for a supermajority, a majority vote is sufficient. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that principle in 1892.

When the Senate first established its rules in 1789, there was no such thing as a filibuster. A simple majority could move the previous question and vote on the matter before it. That was reversed in 1806 and the rules required unanimous consent to end debate; one senator could filibuster anything. In 1917 President Wilson, frustrated by a dozen Senators filibustering a wartime defense bill, observed that "the Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action." He successfully pressed the Senate to adopt Rule XXII, requiring only two-thirds instead of all senators to end debate on a pending statute. In 1975 that rule was amended to reduce the number to three-fifths, or 60 Senators.

Mr. Du Pont quotes Sen. Boxer:

Sen. Barbara Boxer is a longtime opponent of judicial nomination filibusters. Or she was. Suddenly the light has dawned, and she realizes how wrong she was to oppose them: "I thought I knew everything. I didn't get it. . . . I am here to say I was totally wrong."

A cynic might opine that, for her, this wouldn't be the first time.  In conclusion, he identifies the hypocrisy, the lack of principle on which this opposition is based:

So when Mr. Frist offers his rule change in the next week or so, the Senate should pass it. Ms. Boxer may not vote for it, but five will get you 10 that if the Democrats one day regain control of the Senate, it will take her less than 20 seconds to decide that she had been totally wrong a second time--that judicial filibusters now should never be allowed.

James Taranto (first two sections) has additional reading on the topic at his "Best of the Web" yesterday, with a discussion of a manipulative Washington Post poll, and a look at the Democrats late moves toward a compromise.  (Honestly now, these poll takers must know that their methods and findings will be autopsied post-publication.  Why do they continually try to pre-determine the outcome with dishonest questions and biased samples?)

The Orioles Are Hot

And they "hit a ton", as the manager said about Pedro Cerrano in Major League.  They waxed the BoSox 11-8 last night with 2 2-run HR's in the eighth.  Keith Foulke has not looked as sharp early in the season as he was last season.  He's missing his spots, and it seems his velocity is down a bit as well.  Tejada, Sosa, Roberts, Mora, Matos and Palmeiro can all swat with the best, and the team as a whole churned out 20 hits last night.

It's a long season.

It Makes Me Sad

It makes me sad, now and then, that I have to cross the state line and work in Massachusetts.  This is one of those sad times.

Arthur Chrenkoff points out that Sen. Kennedy declined to speak on other recent important anniversaries.  He also notes the following quote from Sen. Kennedy's speech, via a reader:

"Top officials in the Administration have endorsed interrogation methods that we've condemned in other countries, including binding prisoners in painful 'stress' positions, threatening them with dogs, extended sleep deprivation, and simulated drownings."

Ironically, Senator Kennedy himself drowned more people than American interrogators.  As James Taranto would write, "Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment".

I'd like to know if Sen. Kennedy has a speech planned for the anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's death this coming July.  That was also, certainly, another sad day in our nation's history.   A day when someone rich and powerful, but irresponsible,  took advantage of high level connections and avoided the consequences that would have haunted the rest of us forever.

Sometimes it helps to read Iowahawk.  Yes, it is finally time to exit the Oldsmobile.

The Good Guys Lost...

...last night as David Wells never had it and was knocked out early in a loss to the Orioles, and the Celtics...blew the game, there's no other way to say it, against the Pacers in Boston.  The Celts had a lead in the fourth quarter and proceeded to produce turnovers and bricks down the stretch, in losing to Indiana to knot the series at 1-1.

It was 76-70 with 4 1/2 minutes left after a free throw by Raef LaFrentz before a basket and two free throws by Jermaine O'Neal, who aggravated his shoulder strain in the second quarter but played through it and scored 13 points.

Antoine Walker made a running hook shot at the 2:41 mark, but that was Boston's last basket.

Left unsaid is that the Celtics scored one - ONE - point in that final 2:41.  The stretch defense was nothing to brag about either.

"I was really disappointed in our defense down the stretch," Pierce said. "We gave up too many easy baskets. They got a couple of dunks and a couple of layups. That can't happen. Not in the playoffs. Not at home. Not anywhere."

Exactly.

Meanwhile, I'll be at the Sox-Orioles game tonight with Gwendolyn.  Matt Clement vs. Rodrigo Lopez.  Lopez had the Sox number all last year - I hope he's forgotten the formula.

Picking Up Loose Change

In The Strange Tale of Giuliana Sgrena and It Remains a Strange Tale, about 6 weeks ago, I discussed the flight of Giuliana Sgrena, Italian journalist and communist, from 'captivity'.  This loose change has been lying about for a while.  Now the investigation has been completed, and the U.S. soldiers involved will apparently be exonerated.

A US army official said: "The soldiers were all complying with the standard operating procedures for those checkpoints and therefore were not culpable of dereliction of duty in following their procedures."

All is not right with Ms. Sgrena, though.

"This is an unacceptable slap in the face for Italy," Giuliana Sgrena said.
"It is worse than I imagined.
"At the beginning, the Americans spoke of an accident, and even apologised. But now they are ruling out any responsibility, saying the soldiers were following the rules of engagement."

Ms Sgrena, a journalist with the left-wing newspaper Il Manifesto, was shot and injured by US troops at a military checkpoint outside Baghdad airport on March 4.

That would be communist newspaper Il Manifesto.  That's about as far-left as you can get.  She wants someone's hide over this.

Ms Sgrena insisted the US soldiers had opened fire on the car without warning, aiming at the occupants and not the engine as the Pentagon initially claimed.

"I saw the face of the soldier who shot me, but I won't be satisfied to see him punished," she said.

"I believe the responsibility must be sought higher up, because they killed one of Italy's best intelligence agents and must be held accountable."

It must be that Nazi Bush's fault, obviously.  I'll just bet she thinks he ordered the 'hit' personally.

Still, the Italians are not yet completely on board with the report, and will need to sign off for it to be finalized.  They were, however, involved in the entire investigation, but it is politically delicate in Italy.

Italy is refusing to endorse the findings of the joint US-Italian inquiry into the shooting, news agencies reported from Washington.

"The US is ready to release the report but Italy has more questions," an official said.

He said the US and Italian sides disputed the speed at which the Italian car was approaching the US checkpoint when it was attacked.

The US troops have claimed the Toyota Corolla was speeding, but the Italians insist the car was travelling at less than 50km/h.

The investigators also disagreed over communications between Italian and US officials before the shooting...

Bowing to strong protests from the Italian Government, the Pentagon agreed to let two Italian officials take part in its military inquiry into the shooting last month.

Of course there are some who would never believe the Pentagon.  Never.

There's additional reading at My Pet Jawa.

Teen Girls Do Steroids

Yes, indeed they do.  There has been an increase over the last 10-15 years in the percentage of teen girls who have tried anabolic steroids.  They do it not so much to gain an advantage in sports, but for "the look."

An alarming number of American girls, some as young as 9, are using bodybuilding steroids — not necessarily to get an edge on the playing field, but to get the toned, sculpted look of models and movie stars, experts say.

Girls are getting their hands on the same dangerous testosterone pills, shots and creams that have created a scandal in major league baseball and other sports. Often, these are the same girls who have eating disorders, according to some research.

"There's been a substantial increase for girls during the 1990s, and it's at an all-time high right now," said Charles Yesalis, a professor of health and human development at Pennsylvania State University.

Now for the alarming statistic.

Overall, up to about 5% of high school girls and 7% of middle-school girls admit trying anabolic steroids at least once, with use of rising steadily since 1991, various government and university studies have shown.

There are a lot of undesirable effects for girls on steroids, particularly girls who are not at full maturity.  Male characteristics can develop, including lower voice and hirsutism, smaller breasts, and acne.  Reading just that small list makes you wonder why any girl would do it.  If the use starts early enough then growth disturbances can occur.

How can you tell if your daughter might be trying these dangerous and illegal drugs?  Many of the signs listed in the USA Today article would be discovered late.  The things you can pick up earlier might be:

• Sudden weight gain of 20 or 30 pounds of muscle, rather than fat, and greater muscle strength.
• Increase in facial and body hair
• Deepening of the voice, a decrease in menstrual cycles and stunted growth, including smaller breasts.
• Sudden development of severe acne on the face and back.
• Increased appetite.
• Blood clots.
• Aggressive behavior or angry outbursts, known as "roid rage."
• Paranoia, hallucinations and psychotic behavior.

And don't you worry, if they want them they'll find a way to get them - even if they're illegal.

More Filibuster Hypocrisy

The Minneapolis Star Tribune often plays the fool to the trio of attorneys who blog at Power Line, and so it is today.  In 1994 Was So Long Ago..., John Hinderaker discusses the current strong stance of the editorial board at the Strib, as it is known, against the Republican efforts to end filibuster of judicial nominees.  He quotes from their editorial:

As the Republicans in the U.S. Senate consider invoking the "nuclear option" of prohibiting filibusters on judicial candidates, a bit of Senate history might be in order. It shows that the arguments being marshaled against the filibuster are sheer sophistry.

To end debate in the Senate and force a vote requires a successful motion for "cloture," which takes 60 yeas to pass. From the first days of the Senate, the principle of unlimited debate was the hallmark that set it apart from the House.

Of course, this has not always been the editorial position of the Strib.  Two editorials from the 1990's - you remember, when a Democrat was President - were unearthed taking the exact opposite tack.  This is terribly inconsistent of them.

Or, no, actually it's very consistent.  In both instances the position taken by the Strib is pro-Democrat/anti-Republican.  Therein lies the consistency.  One could easily ask how they can justify one of these editorials against the history of the others.  Two words: political expedience.

And what are we to think of editorial writers whose positions are so malleable - reversible in fact - that they can argue so forcefully both sides of the same issue?  Absolutely nothing.  By taking such obviously partisan positions only demonstrates the worthlessness of their ability to reason.

However, you don't have to go to the media, or even back as far as 1993 to find hypocrisy on filibusters.  You simply need the Senate record.

9-11 Was The Fault Of Whom?

Quoted in the NY Daily News, actress Maggie Gyllenhaal demonstrates that her intellect is not her strongest feature.

Gyllenhaal, 27, made the comments at the Tribeca Film Festival, where her new movie "The Great New Wonderful" - which has a plot centered on the destruction of the World Trade Center - premiered Friday.

"I think what's good about the movie is that it deals with 9/11 in such a subtle, open way that I think it allows it to be more complicated than just, 'Oh, look at these poor New Yorkers and how hard it was for them,'" Gyllenhaal told the NY1 cable channel.

"Because I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way and so I think the delicacy with which it's dealt allows that to sort of creep in," she added.

There really is not much to say that hasn't already been said about such comments, other than to wonder what she sprinkles on her Wheaties in the morning.

UPDATE: Some others have noticed Ms. Gyllenhaal's comments.  Ace is right on the money:

Prediction: Ask this stupid bint to name one of those "reprehensible" things and she'll stare at you like a chicken asked to explain quantum mechanics.

Give her enough time, and she'll maybe manage to come up with "Guatemala," and when you ask, "What about Guatemala?," she'll run out the door crying that you're "oppressing" her.

Dissecting The 'Second Bill Of Rights'

Last Monday Bob Herbert wrote on the NY Times op-ed page about FDR and his proposed 'Second Bill of Rights', enumerated in his State of the Union Message in 1944.  I reviewed (and panned) the column and it's socialist underpinnings.  Then law professor Cass Sunstein began to show up pushing for this package of government goodies, and I surmised that we might be seeing the start of a liberal media push.  It hasn't shown up many other places in the mainstream media, so perhaps I was wrong (or early), but some additional writers have noted it's presence.

Tibor Machan, who is a chaired professor of business ethics and free enterprise at Chapman University in California, wrote on the package of rights on YumaSun.com.  He noted that Roosevelt's proposals would result in the involuntary servitude of many to provide those rights.  For instance:

-- "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation." Well, if we do have such a right, then others must be forced to employ us, thus subjecting them all to involuntary servitude.

and

-- "The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." No way to do this without enslaving a great many of us to serve other people, to do so against our own free will, thus once again violating our right to liberty.

His words echoed my own on this topic.  For those who believe that these 'rights' should be a government priority I'd advise, again, reading The Road To Serfdom.  That advice goes double for George Soros, who is, according to this column by Dimitri Vassilaros in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review today.

Since his Open Society Institute wrote a $250,000 check to the American Constitution Society -- which is promoting a progressive (read liberal) perspective of the once-sacred document -- you reasonably can assume they are of a like mind.

And that mind is deranged.

The ACS sponsored the "Constitution in 2020" conference at Yale University this month. Two speakers had their eyes on the year 2020 and on your wallet. Mostly your wallet.

Professor Cass Sunstein, of the University of Chicago Law School, has mistaken President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as one of the Framers. Sunstein's interest in the Constitution seems to be limited to promoting a shadow bill of rights. That would be the "Second Bill of Rights" FDR spoke about in his 1944 State of the Union address.

Vassilaros wonders

Do you get the sense that the progressives are stuck in the 1930s -- America's golden age of socialism? Did they learn nothing from the repeated failures of wealth redistribution in command dictatorships ... er, um, command economies?

Precisely.  I'm guessing that I'm not wrong about this, just early.  Come election 2008 you'll be hearing this a lot - most likely from Hillary Clinton.

Filibuster Hypocrisy

James Taranto's "Best of the Web" Friday noted information unearthed by Sean Rushton of the Committee for Justice, a group that favors confirmation of the President's judicial appointments.

Sean Rushton ... offers some interesting history over at National Review Online. In January 1995, by a vote of 76-19, the Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. Tom Harkin that would "permit cloture to be invoked by a decreasing majority vote of Senators down to a majority of all Senators duly chosen and sworn." This would have effectively done away with the filibuster--not just for judicial nominees but for all purposes.

Among the senators who favored the proposal (voting "no" on the motion to table it) were nine who still sit, several of whom are now among the most vigorous filibuster defenders: Harkin plus Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman and Paul Sarbanes. It's hard to take seriously their protestations that the Republicans' far narrower proposal to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees only amounts to some sort of assault on America's system of checks and balances.

Exactly.  Rushton also notes that filibusters have been limited in other areas, such as votes to enact war.  In 1995 the Democrats fell into the minority in the Senate, going from a 56-44 majority in the 103rd Congress to 52-48 minority in the 104th.  By March 3, 1995 that Republican majority was 54-46 after the switches of Richard Shelby of Alabama and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.  After Bob Packwood was replaced by Ron Wyden (Oregon) it returned to 53-47.

The significance of that motion relates to the occupant of the White House, a Democrat.  These Senators obviously felt that in order to move the White House agenda they had to be able to do so with a simple majority, which in 1995 would require swinging three liberal Republicans.  That is not that difficult, considering the likes of Olympia Snowe and William Cohen of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and (at the time) Jim Jeffords of Vermont.

It is very hypocritical of these 9 Democratic Senators to rail against Republican attempts to remove only filibusters of judicial nominees when they, only 10 short years ago, voted to remove all filibusters when it suited them politically.  Obviously this is not principled oppostion.

What Is It About Brooklyn Heights?

My sister-in-law and her soon-to-be spouse are currently seeking living quarters near New York City, and have done a lot of looking in Brooklyn Heights.  Judging by this post, and this one, that's not a bad thing.  Check out the great views in Ryan Sager's photos, views that would be more magnificent with twin towers in the picture.

A Busy Sports Night

The Celtics are kicking off their series against Indiana at home, and the Red Sox play Tampa Bay in game 2 of their series, after a ninth inning walk-off home run by Eduardo Perez won the game for the Devil Rays last night.

And, I almost forgot - the first day of the seven round NFL draft is today.  The first round took almost 6 (!) hours.  The talk will of course be about Alex Smith, Utah quarterback picked first over-all by the 49ers.  But the attention in New England is on the Patriots, who took an offensive guard from Fresno State, Logan Mankins.  Of Mankins ESPN says:

The Patriots lost OG Joe Andruzzi to free agency, so drafting the versatile Mankins makes a lot of sense. He played tackle in college but could move to guard in the NFL. He plays with the kind of mean streak coach Bill Belichick loves and also has a solid work ethic.

The Green Bay Packers picked up the guy they probably want to be their leader A.F. (After Favre)  They selected Aaron Rodgers of Cal with the 24th pick in the first round.  Again, from ESPN.

Rodgers was talked about as a potential No. 1 overall selection, but some bad luck and some concerns about his throwing motion and ability to adjust to NFL offenses sent him sliding. Nevertheless, there are worse places to land than as Brett Favre's understudy.

Hopefully he'll by as good for the Pack as the hype signalled by that first sentence might indicate.

UPDATE: The Celtics were, in a few words, brilliant after a slow start.  They outscored the Pacers by 26 in the second quarter, then coasted to a 20 point win.  Nice opener.

The Red Sox' Curt Schilling managed to surrender a 5-2 lead, losing to the D-Rays by 6-5.  He's still not right after the ankle surgery and time away from pitching, and will need to pitch himself into form.  That should happen in 2-4 more starts.

The Patriots traded their second round selection to Baltimore, then took a cornerback and another offensive lineman with the two 3rd rounders.  Day Two today.

The Teddy Chronicles

Jay Tea at Wizbang chronicles the strange, sad and sordid saga of Sen. Edward Moore (Ted) Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.  It makes for interesting reading.

One thing has always puzzled me.  I know he's a Kennedy from Massachusetts, but how did he ever beat Mitt Romney?  In 1994 I thought Romney had him dead to rights, and this was a year, after the Clinton attempted health care takeover, where Republicans gained nationally and the "Gingrich revolution" took place.  Nonetheless, Ted held his seat.  The credit goes, I think, to the marriage to Victoria Reggie.  He never could have pulled it together without that.

Nice work, Jay.  And he's right, some of the best Ted K. lampooning is from Herald columnist and radio talk host Howie Carr.

Out Of Touch

I've been out of touch with current events, sports, entertainment, the real world, etc. for the last two days.  My 'on-call' day Thursday was unbelievably busy, caring for numerous serious injuries at two different hospitals, and it took me all day yesterday just to catch up.  Having not seen Gwendolyn or the little jesters for the last 2 days I thought I'd spend last night with them.

A couple of items did catch my attention, having had a glance at the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal while between operative cases yesterday.  The Globe carried a lead editorial discussing the Tom Delay 'ethics problems'.  Their biggest complaints relate to the changes in the rules for the ethics committee which have the Democrats acting like spoiled children, taking their ball and going home rather than playing by the rules.  The Globe's take is that the rule changes are an attempt to block investigation of Mr. Delay.  From my own observations it seems that the ethics committee itself is the problem.  With equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on the committee and with a rule that says an even split forces an investigation it invites politically motivated investigations.  The rule change makes such investigations impossible, though obviously it also makes blocking even a legitimate investigation possible. 

Looking at it that way there is really no way for such a committee to function, regardless of the rules.  Under the old rules tarring a member with false accusation and investigation is easy; under the new rules protecting a member from any investigation is also easy.  Unless men and women of perfectly good character are the only inhabitants of the committee, representatives who are willing to defy their leadership if the facts so dictate, then this committee has no use.  To be perfectly frank, looking at the ranks of both parties, where in Congress are you to find such men and women?  If you really want congressional ethics to be disciplined perhaps the GAO is the organization to do it, publicly releasing reports on each member's activities on a yearly basis.

The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, published an editorial discussing attempts by Senate Democrats to block release of an investigation into the Henry Cisneros 'ethical' problem.  (subscription required).  This case involves the independent counsel investigation into Mr. Cisneros payments to his mistress and failure to disclose the money involved to the IRS.

Perhaps you remember Henry Cisneros. He's the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who pleaded guilty in 1999 to lying to FBI investigators during his pre-appointment background check about hush payments to a former mistress, on which it also happens he hadn't paid the requisite taxes.

Well, the special counsel report investigating all this still hasn't been made public, thanks largely to procedural roadblocks by Mr. Cisneros's attorneys. And now, all of a sudden, a rash of news stories and editorials are urging Independent Counsel David Barrett to wrap up his investigation forthwith, without releasing his findings.

Then there's the amendment that North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan and co-sponsors John Kerry and Richard Durbin are trying to attach to the latest supplemental war appropriations bill that would de-fund Mr. Barrett immediately. This would have the practical effect of making sure that Mr. Barrett's report never sees the light of day. After 10 long years and $21 million, don't they think taxpayers deserve to see what the special counsel has learned?

I thought Democrats wanted evidence of ethical problems exposed and wrong-doing punished?  Apparently not, for the ethical problems reportedly reach into the former Clinton administration.

So what don't Democrats want everyone to know? We're told that early on the Barrett probe moved away from Mr. Cisneros and his mistress and focused on an attempted cover-up by the Clinton Administration, especially involving the IRS.

Back in the early '90s Mr. Cisneros was considered the rising savior of the Democratic Party in Texas. "So there were people who wanted to save his political future," a source tells us. To that end, when the IRS began investigating him for tax fraud an extraordinary thing happened: The investigation was taken from the IRS district office that would always handle such an audit and moved to Washington, where it was killed.

One would think that every - and I mean every - organization and individual who is currently demonizing Tom Delay should, to avoid rank hypocrisy, call for Senators Dorgan, Kerry and Durbin to withdraw their amendment and allow the independent counsel to complete his work.  But of course they won't because they are, in fact, hypocrites when it comes to ethics.  It's more important for them, as it certainly may be for the Republicans, to turn a blind eye to such violations.

(UPDATE: minor grammatical edits)

Yes, I Am Writing This At 12:30 AM

Overwhelmed by a large number of individuals doing silly things and injuring themselves, I found myself arriving home about 15 minutes ago.  As a result I didn't have time to blog, let alone find out what happened today.  Can anyone tell me?

Then I checked my stats at Sitemeter.  Lo and behold, by not writing all day I increased my traffic 3-4 times normal.  Imagine how many more readers I'd have if I didn't write at all!!

A Few Political Thoughts

Jim Jeffords, senator from Vermont, has announced he will not be seeking re-election in 2006.  According to Jeffords the decision is due to health issues for his wife and himself.  Another likely possibility is that he might have realized that his name on the ballot in Vermont might have served as a nice rallying cry for Republicans not only in Vermont but nationally, in the effort to further increase their senate majority.  It also adds to my suspicion that he knew he would not be running again, and that fact enabled his post-election betrayal of the party that helped re-elect him.

Via Michelle Malkin, the Washington Gubernatorial election fraud watch continues.  Somehow over 900 ineligible felons managed to vote, over 700 of them in King County.  Byron York writes that Hillary Clinton would like to make this problem even worse, and a national one at that.  In examining the Bill she filed, the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005," York notes

One section says, “Each state shall permit an individual on the day of a Federal election to register to vote in such election at the polling place ... [and] to cast a vote in such election and have that vote counted in the same manner as a vote cast by an eligible voter who properly registered during the regular registration period.”

Another provision says, “Each state and jurisdiction shall accept and process a voter registration application for an election for Federal office unless there is a material omission or information that specifically affects the eligibility of the voter. There shall be a presumption that persons who submit voter registration applications should be registered."

And a third section adds, “The following shall not constitute a ‘material omission or information that specifically affects the eligibility of the voter’: (1) The failure to provide a Social Security number or driver’s license number. (2) The failure to provide information concerning citizenship or age in a manner other than” a simple statement that one is a citizen.

Senator Clinton is prescribing bad medicine for an already ill system.  Her solution is to make fraudulent voting by felons, illegals and other non-citizens easier?  Surely she must be joking.  (No, she's not joking.  And don't call her Shirley.)  Actually, I do have some suggestions that might actually improve matters.

Finally, how weak is the Republican Senate leadership that they can't move John Bolton safely through the confirmation process when really all the opposition has come up with against him is rumor and innuendo?  They managed to let George Voinovich (R-OH) gum up the works at the last minute.  This now opens the door for fellow weakling Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) to buckle.

Michelle Malkin has a rundown.

More at RedState.org, where they feel this exposes the weakness so openly that it will have to be corrected.

Power Line prints an email from Rich Lowry, whose second point is that Voinovich's reason for holding back the nominee is "I haven't been to the hearings and haven't heard all these allegations until now."  Oh, come on Senator.  This is your job, man!  Even if you couldn't get there, you do read, don't you?

Wherein Dennis The Peasant Encounters Liberal Tolerance And Rational Thought

Earlier I discussed a silly NY Times editorial on the estate tax.  Dennis the Peasant ran into the left's defense of the estate tax, including disrespect for the engine of the economy, and in a two-fer the ignominy of having his comment to a separate post both unfairly questioned and summarily deleted.

Dennis - don't give up the fight.  Logic is on your side.  You may be the executive officer for the week.

UPDATE: (bumped to top from 04-18-05 @ 2135)  Dennis the Peasant successfully explains taxes and IRS policies to those in dire need of an explanation.

Benedict XVI

The former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany is now Pope Benedict XVI.  I was going to celebrate with other Catholics the selection of a new leader for the Church, but I had an inkling, somewhere in the back of my head, that this choice would not be universally applauded.  Sure enough, there are naysayers, identified in posts by Paul at Wizbang and by Ace of Spades.

Sadly, the spears are out early for Benedict XVI.

UPDATE: Power Line pointed to the Confederate Yankee, where some of the over the top comments at DU are reprinted.  Bring your air-sick bag.

This Explains Mr. Herbert's Column

Yesterday I discussed in detail Bob Herbert's NY Times column which began exploring a push for a " second Bill of Rights," as enumerated by FDR in his 1944 State of the Union speech.  This Weekly Standard Column by John Hinderaker of Power Line helps to explain that Mr. Herbert's work is one of the early moves in the chess game.  You can almost sense the big media outposts starting to march in step, desperately trying to create momentum, as, in the coming months, the need for this second Bill of Rights will be repeatedly affirmed.  The idea was revived and moved forward, according to Hinderaker, at a Yale Law School conference entitled "The Constitution in 2020."

The NY Times is already on board.

Who's next?

UPDATE: Looks like I was right.  Cass Sunstein is now on O'Reilly expounding on the FDR "second Bill of Rights" meme.  Let's see where it shows up next.

Doctor, Doctor, Gimme The News

Jay Tea at Wizbang notices that a) physicians don't make as much as people think, particularly in Massachusetts and b) there may be something wrong with that.  Since I work in Massachusetts I thought it appropriate that I address this, to a degree.

I had intended to do, at some time, a lengthy post describing some of the things I do and revealing what the government payors (Medicare, Medicaid) and the HMO's pay for that work, and comparing those fees to common things for which everyone pays, like plumbing work or auto repair.  I haven't had the time to research it fully yet, but I can give you a recent example. 

Over the weekend our oil burner broke down, leaving us without heat and hot water one morning.  A call to the plumbing and HVAC contractor yielded a fairly quick response, the diagnosis of a faulty controller and a few leaks and the repairs took only about an hour.  Cost?  $640.

Here are some of the reimbursements from the government payors for things I do.  It should be noted that Medicare pays only 80% of the fee listed.  The remaining 20%, particularly in Massachusetts, you may not be able to collect.  Also, as you read these, consider that HMO's often base their fees in relation to Medicare.

• Knee Arthroscopy for torn meniscus - Medicare $632, Medicaid $473
• Total Hip Replacement - Medicare $1438
• ACL Reconstruction - Medicaid $836
• Operative Treatment of a Wrist Fracture - Medicare $677

Keep in mind that these are surgical procedures, with inherent risks and difficulties, in repairing human bodies, where complications can and do happen, with these reimbursement rates.  And remember the significant benefit to the patient of having the procedure, and having it done right.

Medicaid has some interesting numbers for the office work also.  They do not cover the cost of seeing the patient.

• New patient visit with high complexity - $71
• Established patient follow-up, moderate complexity - $33

Both payors use certain tricks to keep the fees down.  For example, if during one of these visits I determine that the patient would benefit from an injection Medicaid will pay for either the visit code or the injection code, but not both.  For Medicare patients, if multiple procedures are necessary during an operation they pay only 50% of the fee for the second procedure, and 25% for the third and any subsequent procedures.

Those of us who depend primarily, due to our location, on government payors or HMO's are getting squeezed.  Our costs of doing business, like everyone elses, continue to increase - malpractice insurance, office salaries, benefits, cost of space and suppliers - but over the next several years, unless something changes, Medicare payments, and as a result HMO and Medicaid payments, will drop further.

I'm concerned for future generations.   The economics of medicine is not all that we're about, but it does not make sense to pursue this livelihood if the only thing you can look forward to is being demonized as a "rich doctor" when you see your income steadily eroding and your worth to society belittled.  Remember, I had to attend four years of medical school and six years of residency/fellowship training, after college, for this.

UPDATE: Just after writing this our office's billing secretary came to notify me that Medicare was decreasing their payment for a complex rotator cuff repair performed largely arthroscopically from $1275 to $1150.  That total includes four separate procedure billing codes.  By the way, their calculation in both instances is wrong, but I'm doubtful that I'll be able to convince them of that.

Meanwhile, a 96 year old gentleman with a shoulder fracture just changed his appointment because he couldn't pay the ambulance transport fee of $300 to come to the office.  My fee from Medicare for complete fracture treatment?  $318.

Every Now And Then...

...I read something in a major newspaper that makes me shake my head.  Today's entry comes from Bob Herbert in the NY Times (registration required).  He writes on the 60th anniversary of the death of FDR on April 12, and the 'ideals' espoused by Roosevelt in his State of the Union speech in January, 1944.

[FDR's] goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

It's important to work DeLay into the piece somehow, since he's the current personification of evil.  So what were the items that FDR espoused in this speech?  In reading the list, they certainly sound desirable.

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
5. The right of every family to a decent home.
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
8. The right to a good education.

Let's translate into simple English.

1. Government guaranteed employment
2. Wage controls
3. Price controls
4. Free trade
5. Housing subsidy
6. Government-controlled healthcare
7. Catch-all nanny state whatever-ails-you care
8. Government-run schools

Now, I'm not completely aghast at all of these things.  Certainly public education and free trade are for the common good.  The difference between public education and government-run schools should be noted, though.  Social Security and unemployment insurance fall into category 7, but the former is in need of revising and the left wants the latter to be indefinite.

What I am against, however, is the assumption that the ends justify whatever means are necessary to achieve them.  I'm against the denial of the lessons of history necessary to assert that these ends justify those means.

I'd advise Mr. Herbert to read F.A. Hayek's The Road To Serfdom if he has any illusions about just how possible these ends are without enslaving the populace.  Or at least read the Milton Friedman introduction.  I first read the book in 1994, the 50th anniversary edition, having been previously too absorbed in engineering and medicine to establish much grounding in political philosophy.

From Friedman's introduction:

Unfortunately, the relation between the ends and the means remains widely misunderstood.  Many of those who profess the most individualistic objectives support collectivist means without recognizing the contradiction.  It is tempting to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power, all would be well.  That view requires only emotion and self-praise - easy to come by and satisfying as well.  To understand why it is that 'good' men in positions of power will produce evil, while the ordinary man without power but able to engage in voluntary cooperation with his neighbors will produce good, requires analysis and thought, subordinating the emotions to the rational faculty.

A point lost, apparently, on Mr. Herbert.  The evil men in Mr. Herbert's view are Bush, Cheney and DeLay.

An aside:

Near the end of this ridiculously superficial piece Mr. Herbert writes of Vice President Cheney "He's one of the leaders of the G.O.P. gang (the members should all wear masks) that has executed a wholesale transfer of wealth via tax cuts from working people to the very rich."

First, that mask bit may be referring to the group as robbers, or it may be innuendo referring to the KKK.  (No mention of Sen. Byrd, however.)   I prefer to think of the masks of The Incredibles, however.

Second, there's the repetition of the falsehood that tax cuts, a reduction in the percentage of income taken from an individual, represent wealth transfers from 'working people' to 'very rich'.  Just how he and others believe this transfer takes place is, of course, never spelled out.

From The Horse's Mouth

In The Judicial Filibuster Dilemma I mentioned law professor Jonathan Turley, who when interviewed by Brit Hume last week indicated that for a large majority of the Bush appeals court nominees there was little to indicate that filibuster was an appropriate remedy.  Today in the LA Times Turley fleshes out the details on that opinion.  As I pointed out, Turley is no staunch conservative.

The decision to nuke or not to nuke has obscured the real issue: Are the Republican nominees qualified or are they flat-Earth idiots? As a pro-choice social liberal, I didn't find much reason to like these nominees. However, I also found little basis for a filibuster in most cases. Indeed, for senators not eager to trigger mutually assured destruction, there is room for compromise.

He runs down the now 12 nominees and find only 3 that are at all questionable.  For even those three, however, he advises compromise, confirming the nine in exchange for withdrawal of the three, rather than filibustering the vote.

There is a dirty little secret behind the not so dirty dozen: Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats care that much about their records because the fight over these nominees is just a rehearsal for the upcoming war over Supreme Court nominees.

Hostilities should cease. Democrats disinclined toward apocalypse should confirm Brown, Griffith, Griffin, Kavanaugh, McKeague, Neilson, Pryor, Saad and Boyle. That should shame the president into withdrawing Haynes, Myers and Owen.

The last one mentioned, Priscilla Owen, has been rated "well-qualified" by the ABA, but ruled conservatively in an abortion-for-minors case in Texas.  This makes her anathema to liberals, of course.

Of the two so-called "extremists" Turley says

William H. Pryor Jr. is undeniably conservative. However, the test is not whether a judge has conservative or liberal views but whether he will yield to the demands of the law despite such views. Pryor has proved that he can do that...

Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court is equally conservative — she once called the New Deal a "socialist revolution." But however inflammatory her remarks outside the courtroom, Brown's legal opinions show a willingness to vote against conservative views, particularly in criminal cases, when justice demands it.

Compromise would be preferable.  If that were possible, though, I'm sure it would have already happened.  It does not appear the Democrats are in a mood for give and take.  What do you do when even a social liberal admits that the nominees have merit, but your political opponents block them regardless?  Think nuclear.

UPDATE: Paul Mirengoff at Power Line discusses Turley's op-ed, noting that Turley's impression of the controversy over Priscilla Owen may not be accurate.

The Celtics Clinch

More sports blogging.  The Boston Celtics just beat Toronto 103-98 to clinch the Atlantic Division.  The last time that happened ('91-'92) Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parrish actually were "walking through that door", not to mention the late Reggie Lewis.  They now have a 45-35 record, and are coming off a win at home over the Miami Heat, the conference leader.

Meanwhile, the Cavaliers lost and the Nets won, and the two are deadlocked for the last slot in the East.  Minnesota's T-wolves lost to Ray Allen's Seattle Supersonics, which snuffs out their chance at a playoff spot.  The Memphis Grizzlies are in, the Timberwolves out.  Denver is lights-out hot.

The Celtics have put together a nice team that will be better in years to come.  They get contributions from two big men drafted out of high school in the last two years, Kendrick Perkins and Al Jefferson.  The latter has great basketball instincts, both have great hands.  Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker and Ricky Davis give plenty of scoring punch, but there's more there with Raef LaFrentz, Gary Payton, rookie Tony Allen and Marcus Banks.  St. Joseph's Delonte West, when given the chance this year, has also shown he can play.  In short, they're deep.  Doc Rivers has them playing good team basketball.

It looks like the Celtics will face the Wizards in the first round (subject to change).  Both have 45-35 records and it should be a fun series.

UPDATE: Apologies to the big guy.  I forgot to mention starting center Mark Blount.

How About A Little Perspective, George?

Well, that didn't take long.

BALTIMORE Apr 17, 2005 — George Steinbrenner is tired of waiting for his New York Yankees to get going. Now he's angry. Miguel Tejada hit his eighth career grand slam, and the Baltimore Orioles roughed up Kevin Brown and completed a three-game sweep of New York with an 8-4 victory Sunday. The last-place Yankees (4-8) have dropped four straight and eight of 10 overall.

"Enough is enough. I am bitterly disappointed as I'm sure all Yankee fans are by the lack of performance by our team," Steinbrenner said in a statement issued immediately after the game.

"It is unbelievable to me that the highest-paid team in baseball would start the season in such a deep funk. They are not playing like true Yankees. They have the talent to win and they are not winning. I expect Joe Torre, his complete coaching staff and the team to turn this around."

You're 12 games into the season, George.  Get a grip.  Baltimore and the Red Sox can play a little bit too, you know.

He is as good a reason as any to be a "Yankee hater."  I don't know if I'd go as far as saying the Yankees suck, though.

The Judicial Filibuster Dilemma

There's great reading on the topic at Right Wing Nut House from Superhawk, and by Will Collier at Vodkapundit.  Collier points out that the filibusters have religious and racial undertones, although no Democrat would be 'brutally stupid' enough to state so explicitly.  At RWNH the discussion centers more on the splintering of the party over whether to "go nuclear" in changing the rule on judicial nominees to eliminate the filibuster as a tactic and force an up or down vote on each nominee who clears committee.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted earlier this week on the Brit Hume/Jonathan Turley discussion of the merits/extremism of the nominees.  Of the 10 being held up by the Democrats Turley really could not find a single one who qualified as a judicial 'extremist'.  Two he thought were perhaps extreme in their work as Bush administration lawyers, and one, though not extreme, had had a number of decisions reversed on appeal.  So seven of the 10, at least, should be acceptable - Turley is certainly no right wing extremist himself.

I don't believe, like Captain Ed, that holding back donations to the RNC NRSC is a useful tactic, agreeing instead with Superhawk that it can divide the party at a time when the Democrats are circling the wagons and uniting, because that's all they have.  And I agree with Collier that it's a mistake for Sen. Frist to appear to be a mouthpiece for the Christian Right.  There's nothing wrong with Frist and the Christian Right having similar views.  There's nothing wrong with Frist getting support from the CR for his views.  I do have a problem with any politician appearing as if his lips are being moved by an influence group, and that's what it looks like for Frist, at least the way it's been presented in the media.

I would have preferred that Frist and the Senate Republicans change the rule immediately, in January, with little fanfare and forewarning, and then move ahead as if nothing much had happened.  The Democrats would not have been as well organized.  The mistake was telegraphing the move, leaking the possibility of using it.  Remember, it's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.  Now, obviously, it's a difficult slog.

UPDATE: Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy makes a point that I had intended to, but overlooked.  Make them filibuster.  Make them actually stand up for hour, after hour, after hour for days on end on the floor of the Senate blocking someone like Janice Rogers Brown.  Having missed the chance to do it quickly and quietly early in the term, now make it noisy, and force those blocking the nominations to make the noise.

What's Good For The Goose...

...ought to be good for the gander.  Howard Dean, MD, vows to use the death of a disabled woman in the political battles to come in 2006 and 2008.

WASHINGTON Apr 16, 2005 — Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections.

"This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'" Dean said in West Hollywood, Calif.

I don't know, Howard.  Of course, a more accurate presentation might make it a choice between allowing your "loved ones" unlimited right to end your life in the absence of a living will vs. protecting that life when no living will is available.  But it wouldn't do to say it like that, would it?

Meanwhile, who's playing politics with a disabled woman's life now?  I'm sure there'll be a glut of media opinion about the inappropriateness of these comments.  Right.

UPDATE: More from John Hinderaker at Power Line, who notes that:

Dean has a unique ability to put his foot in his mouth, from which the Republicans will continue to reap benefits as long as Dean holds his present position.

UPDATE: Bridget Johnson has a lot more on these comments, and others, by Mr. Dean.

I will unequivocally say I don't share Dean's values. I believe in a system that encourages liberty, personal responsibility and self-sufficiency over the nanny state. I believe that individuals are not pawns to be used and held down for political gain by labor unions. Though decidedly not wealthy myself, I find it wrong that those who work hard and achieve financial success are punished for this through exorbitant taxation. I believe that history has shown us the government should protect the rights of the disabled, elderly, infirm and vulnerable.

You go, girl.

The Terrorists Next Door

The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune reports today the arrests of three young men who have been terrorizing our little neck of the woods.

WINDHAM, N.H. -- Three friends turned themselves in to police yesterday to face charges of using homemade bombs to blow up 20 mailboxes in the southern part of town.

Here's the bad news:

Police say the trio used the Internet to find their bomb recipe and bought the materials locally. Between March 18 and April 6, they used those bombs to blow up 20 mailboxes at homes on Castle Hill, Heritage Hill, Bear Hill, Edgewood, Sharon, Canterbury, Field and Fish roads.

The explosions were powerful enough to propel some of the mailboxes into trees and could have caused serious injury, police said. The FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives joined the investigation when police determined the mailboxes were being blown apart by homemade explosives.

Here's the good news:

The 16 counts against Broady and Tuttle are class A felonies, punishable by a maximum state prison term of 71/2 to 15 years for each count.

Of course the neighbors had no idea.

"Honest to God, I'm in shock," said Jan Massie, a next-door neighbor of Broady. "He's always been a straight arrow as far as I was concerned."

Massie called Broady "a great kid" and that, "he was never fresh to me. He was always respectful."

Massie's son Christopher, 25, used to baby-sit Broady. He said he would never have expected to hear Broady was in trouble, "but people make mistakes."

Mistakes?  Mistakes?  This guy went on the internet and got a recipe to build his own explosives, destroyed a bunch of private property, and this was a 'mistake'?  I'm sorry, you may have thought he was okay, but this, if true, indicates otherwise.

One of these Timothy McVeigh wanna-be's lives not too far from our house, walking distance.  Our neighborhood has been regularly vandalized over the seven years we've lived here - mailposts and boxes torn down and smashed, lawns driven over, lightposts destroyed.  Our own mailbox post was shattered three times, necessitating removal of the post and the concrete into which it's set, then replacement.  Finally I got fed up and put in a granite post.  This solved the post problem, but I've still had to replace the mailbox three or four more times.

Then there's the little problem of the willingness to fashion your own high explosives.  These were not a couple of firecrackers lit off in a high school prank.  These were explosions that sent the box, and shrapnel I'm sure, flying.

The explosions were powerful enough to propel some of the mailboxes into trees and could have caused serious injury, police said...

The men charged with the bombings are lucky none of them lost a limb while committing the vandalism...

Yeah, that would have been a shame.  But I think it would have been a much bigger shame if one of these bombs had hurt someone innocent.  Like my three daughters or my wife.  I say lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Mason & Felder Talk Churchill

Jackie Mason & Raul Felder discussed Ward Churchill and his essay, Some People Push Back — On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, in the Jewish World Review.  The article was published March 1, but I only came upon it now.  I had read some of their work in the American Spectator.  This one is worth reading.

For those who can hold their noses long enough to read through Churchill's essay, the overwhelming thought must be, "How in the world could someone whose thinking is so shallow, so patently limited in ability to understand history, so twisted with hatred, and whose logic is so buried in dialectic nonsense, ever be in a position where he could pass along this clap-trap posing as history?"

Amen to that.  They bring up something that I mentioned in a post entitled "Context Is Key," that Churchill likes to pick out bits of history and extract it from the surrounding events that give it context.  He did this in his usage of a George H. W. Bush quote, as I pointed out.  Mason and Felder demonstrate the point using Churchill's reference to bombing in World War II.

The fault, in what can charitably be called his analysis, is that he disassociates cause and effect, picks out bits of history, simply ignoring that which preceded or caused it. History, a la Churchill picks up at a starting point — any starting point — that supports his beliefs. For instance — Churchill whines about the Allies' "strategic bombing campaign' (the foregoing words, we suppose, put in quotes to emphasize that it was a cover-up phrase for wanton destruction) against Germany during World War II." Of course there was indeed a bombing campaign against Germany and its cities from 1940 to 1945. But what was its cause? Who first began the bombings of populations?

Mason and Felder point out the Nazi actions that lead to the bombing campaign.  They then explain, largely for Churchill's benefit, that the first Gulf War had precursers as well.

Read it all.

The Nanny State

See, some people want the nanny state overseeing every transaction.  Oh, I certainly hope that was a prank call.  If not, I fear for society.

The Best Argument Yet...

...against Rep. Tom Delay, the House Majority Leader.  From Zach at In The Agora.  All the other stuff can best be summed up by the words "they all do it."  (Okay, maybe not all, but many, and from both parties.)

The MSM Is Better...How?

In a Reuters report, the Boston Globe has acknowledged publishing a story where a freelance writer fabricated "large chunks" of the reporting.  Lo and behold, the fabrications just happened to have a liberal/PETA agenda.

The Globe, which is owned by The New York Times Co., said it stopped using writer Barbara Stewart because of a story that ran on Wednesday about a seasonal hunt for baby seals off Newfoundland -- a hunt, it turns out, had not taken place.

The story datelined Halifax, Nova Scotia described in graphic detail how the seal hunt began on Tuesday, with water turning red as hunters on some 300 boats shot harp seal cubs "by the hundreds."

The problem, however, was that the hunt did not begin on Tuesday; it was delayed by bad weather and was scheduled to start on Friday, weather permitting, the Globe said in an editor's note.

Now, I don't do any regular reporting work - I don't have the time.  But those who do should be ashamed to be caught in this circumstance.  Those who complain about the blogs jumping to conclusions should take note.

Here's the thing, though.  Had the hunt gone off as planned the same story would have been filed and the reporting would have been just as bogus, but it would have been accepted as accurate, and even quoted in the future by those looking to ban the hunt.  Now I don't really have a position on the hunt.  What I do have is a position on being lied to - I don't like it.

This is of a piece with Mitch Albom's article documenting the presence of former Michigan State players Mateen Cleaves and Jason Richardson at the Final Four - though they weren't.  Didn't they ever see Heaven Can Wait?  Probability and outcome - the escort should never have pulled Joe Pendleton off that bicycle.

UPDATE: Stephen Green noticed, and wonders

what happened to the editors who approved it? Fact-checkers? You know, all those valuable tools (and I mean that in every sense of the word) who allegedly make Big Media "journalists" superior to us pajama types? Are they still on the payroll? And why weren't their names publicized along with that of the fired freelance reporter?

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is on the case too.

The Estate Tax Battle

The NY Times editorializes (registration required) in favor of the estate tax, whose permanent repeal was passed yesterday in the House of Representatives.  Unfortunately for the Times their arguments were addressed by an editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (subscription required), in Paris Hiltonomics.

The House proposal would cost the federal government a whopping $290 billion through 2015, according to estimates by Congress's own budget agency. And that's just the start; the costs after that would be explosive.

Well, doing the math that the Times doesn't want you to do, that's 29 billion per year, about 1% of the federal budget.  That's right, 1%.

Repeal would shield the estates of the very wealthiest Americans from the tax. That's the same group that already benefits the most from Mr. Bush's tax breaks for dividends and capital gains.

Ah, the "tax cuts for the wealthy" argument.  But the WSJ piece makes the case that it's the "just wealthy enough" who get hit hardest.  This argument rests not on who has to pay it, but whom of those that pay the tax get hurt the most.  From the Journal:

In any case, what liberals call the aristocracy of wealth already exists, despite the current tax, because super-rich families like the Hiltons have always found ways to avoid or mitigate it through offshore accounts, tax-sheltered foundations, and so on. It is the heirs of the not-so-super-rich -- the thrifty dentist, the canny investor, the small-business millionaire -- who are typically devastated by the tax.

The Times continues:

Repeal of the estate tax was deemed too expensive in 2001, when the government was still enjoying the Clinton-era budget surplus. So it stands to reason that it's out of the question today, as America's enormous deficits weaken the domestic economy and the country's international economic leadership. But to its proponents, estate-tax repeal is the holy grail of the Republican anti-tax crusade.

Remember that the "Clinton-era budget surplus" existed only briefly, not in the sense that $5 trillion in the future was guaranteed to show up.  It was a projection only.  The end-of-Clinton-era recession got in the way, as did 9-11.  Or did they forget?  In addition, I would hardly call this the "holy grail of the Republican anti-tax crusade."  More like a necessary component for fairness, especially considering it disappears for one year, then magically reappears if nothing is done.  As for the view that we can't afford it amid deficits the WSJ points out:

This is hard to credit coming from the same people who also opposed eliminating the tax during the surpluses of the late 1990s. In any case, in 2003 the estate tax accounted for only about 1.1% -- some $22 billion -- of federal revenues.

The Times continues:

The most commonly heard argument against the estate tax - that it represents unfair double taxation - is specious. First, the estate tax does not even kick in until the assets left at death exceed $1.5 million, or $3 million per married couple - and those exemption amounts will more than double by 2009.

This actually makes the point that the money is in fact taxed a second time.  It says that some, above a cutoff, will be taxed a second time.  And it's convienient that they picked 2009 for the exemption increases, because after the tax disappears in 2010 it returns - at it's previous level of $1 million - in 2011.

Second, much of the wealth transferred at death has never been taxed. That's because capital gains on assets like houses, stocks and bonds are not taxed until the asset is sold. Obviously, if you inherit, say, a house, its owner didn't sell it, so never paid any capital gains tax on it.

This is flat-out wrong.  The person who inherits the house/stocks/bonds obviously didn't pay taxes on the asset, nor did the original purchaser.  The original purchaser did, however, pay taxes on the income that purchased the asset.  So the asset itself has not been taxed, but the income that was earned to purchase it was taxed - that is where to look for the double taxation.

Another popular argument against the estate tax - that the rate is so high the government is basically confiscating your property - is also a sham. Estate tax rates currently top out at 47 percent. But those rates don't even start to apply until an estate tops the multimillion-dollar exemption.

At an exemption of $1M, which is what it returns to in 2011, anyone who inherits a home or farm runs the risk of paying the usurious tax, currently 47%, previously 55%.  If the heir doesn't have the cash, they are forced to sell the home or farm to pay it, regardless of their desire to keep it.  That is the essence of confiscation - forcing you to lose property against your will.

The estate-tax foes' real beef is not with the estate tax per se. It's with the principle that the more you earn, the more taxes you should pay and, specifically, with the idea of taxing capital gains. Those debates are as old as the tax system itself.

I'm going to give the Times a small math lesson that demonstrates that principle.  Let's assume that we have three individuals in a flat tax system where one makes $40,000, one makes $240,000 and one makes $1,040,000.  The exemption is $40,000.  The rate is 20%, no deductions.  The first individual pays...nothing.  The second pays $40,000.  The third pays $200,000.  Doesn't that produce a more-you-earn/more-you-pay outcome?  So the argument isn't really about that, is it?

The Senate must stand firm for an estate tax that provides an ample exemption of up to $2 million per person, but with a top rate, 45 percent, that ensures that a reasonable amount is actually paid to the government.

Now I wonder where the Times came up with these numbers?  Did they research the economic statistics for the population and formulate policy that would produce the desired outcome?  Did they assess the distribution of estates with values above and below $2M in worth and choose a fair break point?  Did they consult the House Ways and Means committee on exactly how much revenue this tax would generate?  No, they just pulled the numbers out of their ear.

The Wall Street Journal has the final word.

Democrats and their media allies like to point out that only a tiny fraction of Americans -- the despised rich -- will ever pay estate taxes. Yet according to a survey by pollster Frank Luntz, 64% of Americans favor a complete repeal of the tax. They understand that the death tax isn't just about economics. It's about justice, and no policy that penalizes the thrifty and busts up family businesses belongs in our tax code, whatever its effects on Paris Hilton.

UPDATE: More on this from Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, who takes a more philosophical approach.  I don't know if I'd refer to paying the tax on your loved one's estate as "giving back."  More like "handing over."  Nonetheless I'd agree that the slogan "f**k the small businessman" is unlikely to generate a huge following.  If you go to that link and read the remainder of the content, it's not much better.

Should She Still Have A License?

This story from the AP caught my eye:

FORT MYERS, Fla. — An 81-year-old woman ready for a test drive hit her husband, a salesman, a car and a tree before running into a wall at a car dealership.

"She must have panicked," said Joe Sica, sales manager at Honda of Fort Myers.

The open car door hit Dorothy Byrum's husband and the salesman. The new Honda Accord kept going backward into a parked car, tree and wall. The air bag deployed, and Byrum was not injured.

Oh, how cruel.  Losing her license would compromise her mobility.  You can't do that to her, it'd be like a jail sentence.

Would you rather explain it to the next person she hits who's not a member of her family?  Then she might get a real jail sentence.  Maybe we could avoid something like this.  Here's my post on that tragedy.

Freedom Of Speech?

Recently three conservatives were hit with menu items - pie for two, salad dressing for one - while speaking at college campuses.  The Robesonian of Lumberton, NC looks at these incidents, and discusses them in the context of the wide latitude given Ward Churchill by the Regents at the University of Colorado for his inflammatory speech.

As Horowitz points out, these pie-throwers - and editors of campus newspapers - get their political philosophy somewhere, and evidence suggest that much of it comes from leftist professors. If only these professors would spend more time on the First Amendment.

The right's treatment of Churchill should not be offered as proof that the knife cuts both ways on this issue: Churchill is a nut, taking a position that the people who died on 9/11 deserved that fate. And that is not a distortion of his message; it is the case he eagerly makes. Further, he is a plagiarist and a fraud. In other words, he has nothing to add to the conversation, and therefore should not be invited to take a seat at the roundtable.

That cannot be said of Horowitz, Kristol or Buchanan, whose conservative lean might not be popular on college campuses, but does bring diversity, which the left often clamors for.

The political groups that yell the loudest for tolerance and diversity have a very narrow definition of what they consider tolerance and diversity, and they're not willing to consider your definition.  Even if they argue, preposterously, that Churchill should be able to defame the 9-11 deceased as he has, and also argue, preposterously, that the food-spattered trio's speech is similarly offensive, they could hardly then argue that Horowitz or Kristol or Buchanan should not be afforded similar freedom to speak as Churchill.  The pie-throwers would, I'm sure, be able to provide a lengthy discourse on their first amendment rights to protest the actions of the American government or 'the establishment', but let someone stand up to advocate the opposite, well, for the good of the people they must be silenced.

Arrivederci Bextra

Dr. Gilbert Ross, the executive and medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, has an article at National Review Online reviewing the removal of Bextra from the market by Pfizer.

So Bextra is gone, joining Vioxx on the pharmaceutical museum shelf. Of course, there is a theoretical possibility that one or both of these drugs, and the unique benefits they hold for many, may someday return. Meanwhile, what about the many thousands of patients who got relief of pain and no untoward effects? Too bad — they have been regulated out of the picture. Bextra’s only a “me-too” drug, after all, and one person in a million may get a skin condition, so out it goes. Activists have advocated, regulators have regulated, and patients will now pay the price. The choice to use this drug in appropriate populations — in bygone days, a choice made between doctor and patient — is no longer to be an option. Someday, regulators and consumers will learn that nothing is risk-free.

The skin condition referred to, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, is a severe delayed hypersensitivity reaction that causes almost burn-like blistering and affects the eyes as well.  It is rare and unpredictable, occurring in 1-2 patients per million; it is associated with a number of drugs, not just Bextra.  The ones most commonly cited are antibiotics such as sulfa drugs - which are still on the market.

Earlier when the controversy arose with Celebrex, Vioxx and Bextra I made the point (below) that Dr. Ross made here (above).

Problems in medicine are never as straightforward as the public would like.  There is, with any medical intervention, a balancing act.  What are the risks involved in the proposed care vs. the risks of alternatives, and what are the benefits of each.  In the case of Celebrex and Vioxx (and Bextra for that matter) there appears to be a higher risk of heart problems.  But for many arthritis sufferers these were very effective drugs that were also otherwise very well tolerated.  Thousands die each year from gastrointestinal bleeding often attributed to NSAID use, and these drugs had a reduced risk profile for that complication.

Nothing in medicine is risk-free.  Nothing.

UPDATE: On the other hand, maybe this is the real problem.

I've Got The Game On

And I'm wondering if maybe the plate umpire in the Sox-Yankees game tonight should be wearing pinstripes.  He's cost the Red Sox four runs already.

UPDATE: 'Strike' three to Jay Payton in the seventh.  Yup, should be in pinstripes.

Some Good News...

...and some bad.  First the good.  Putting your tax dollars, and mine, to good use the U.S. Marshals, working with a large number of law enforcement agencies, have rounded up over 10,000 fugitives in the last week. The list included violent criminals, gang members and sex offenders.

More than 150 who were arrested were wanted for murder, another 550 were sought on rape or sexual assault charges, and more than 600 had outstanding arrest warrants for armed robbery, officials said. Among those captured were 150 gang members and 100 unregistered sex offenders, they said.

Gwendolyn's comment: What were they doing out in the first place?  But this is at least a great use of tax dollars.

Congress gave the Marshals Service more money and authority to go after fugitives when it refocused the FBI's mission toward stopping terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, [Marshals Service spokesman David]Turner said. The Marshals Service now has five permanent regional task forces to search for fugitives, he added.

On the other hand, this second story is not such a good use.  Fraudulent income tax returns filed by prison inmates have cost untold millions of dollars.  The statistics for last year are bad enough.

The IRS says it stopped $53 million in fraudulent prisoner refunds last year, but that more than $10 million slipped through the cracks.

"They attempt to enlist either family members, friends or people outside of prison to assist them," said Nancy Jardini, chief of criminal investigation for the IRS. "They have in some instances worked in concert with correctional officers to assist them in achieving their fraud."

So how did it work?

[Daniel] Naple, 53, now free, was among the first to figure out a now-infamous prison scam to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.Using the names of fellow inmates at the Glades Correctional Institution in Belle Glade, Fla., he says he filed hundreds of false tax returns, using the names of major companies to create fictitious W-2 forms in the prison library.

It was made to appear as if the inmates had jobs, had taxes withheld and were due a refund.

"We just went hog-wild with it," he said. "Say if we used one year a name on Gillette, the following year we'd use that same name and Social Security number on General Motors. And so every year it just kept building and building."

But lots of prisoners have figured out the scam now.

The phony refund scam has now spread to prisons across the country. There are now about a half-million inmates who legitimately file for refunds from prison, according to the IRS, making it all the more the difficult to catch the scammers.

Unfortunately it seems there's little the IRS can do.  You would hope with all the information they collect that their computers would be able to cross-check W-2 forms with other information, but it appears that's not the case.

The heart of the problem is that the IRS computers cannot quickly verify whether a W-2 form is legitimate.

"You could stop it if you decided not to give refunds until you were sure the person deserved it," Blum said. "But if you did that, 100 million Americans who deserve refunds would wait years for their refund check, and that would be completely unacceptable."

PhotoBlogging Turkey

Jim Geraghty at TKS is traveling around Turkey, and posts today some excellent photographs, today from the Ataturk Mausoleum.  Unfortunately he chose to put them in separate links.  The blog is here.  Scroll down until you get to 4/13/05 4:14 PM, then keep going.

The DNC Continues To Hurt

Today's Boston Herald ran a report on the effect of the negotiations with some of the city unions just before the Democratic National Convention hit town.  And to no one's surprise, the DNC cost much more than the pricetag attached to that week.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino's scramble to avoid embarrassing union protests during last summer's Democratic National Convention resulted in nearly $40 million in pay hikes that pushed the city budget past the unprecedented $2 billion mark, a watchdog agency charged.

"The city was interested in getting those contracts negotiated before the DNC and they paid a premium for that,'' said Sam Tyler of the non-profit Boston Municipal Research Bureau.  "The union leadership saw that as a way to leverage a more lucrative union contract. There was a lot of pressure. Obviously it wasn't in the mayor's best interest to have the unions picketing the delegate events.''

The national politicians involved weren't much help to the city, and by extension the Massachusetts taxpayer.

Several city unions working without contracts threatened to protest at the DNC while Bay State Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy vowed not to cross picket lines.

That would have put a damper on the party.  Thanks for looking out for us, Senators.  This pricetag is on top of a convention that already had been estimated to cost the city about $8.2M more than it generated.

Makes Me Want To Read The Book

On OpinionJournal.com, Steven Landsburg discusses a new book by economist Steven Levitt, Freakonomics.  I know, sounds very dry and zzzzz-inducing.  But no:

It was Mr. Levitt who nailed a bunch of Chicago public-school teachers for artificially inflating their students' standardized test scores. I'm dying to tell you exactly how he did it, but I don't want to spoil any surprises. His account of the affair in "Freakonomics" reads like a detective novel.

The evidence is right there in front of you: Mr. Levitt actually reproduces all the answer sheets from two Chicago classrooms and challenges you to spot the cheater. Then he shows you how it's done. He points to suspicious patterns that you almost surely overlooked. Suspicious, yes, but not conclusive--maybe there is some legitimate explanation. Except that Mr. Levitt slowly piles pattern on pattern, ruling out one explanation after another until only the most insidious one remains. The resulting tour de force is so convincing that it eventually cost 12 Chicago schoolteachers their jobs.

This is, apparently, only one of several such tales in the book.  I'm guessing it will be an interesting read.

Via Real Clear Politics.

Dennis The Peasant Does Krugman

And does him good, during tax season, no less.  I'm wondering if we'll hear from ol' Paul ever again.

And that deer-in-the-headlights is a perfect description of Krugman's appearance on TV.  I'd add a stammering-can't-seem-to-find-the-phrase speech pattern to complete the picture.

The Real Reverend Al

At the Right Wing Nut House Superhawk gives a history lesson, elaborating fully upon the trials and tribulations of one Rev. Al Sharpton over the years.  I had all of these items in my memory banks, but it's great to have them catalogued in one convenient location.

There's a new addition to the list, a little matter of allegations of siphoning campaign cash to private...pockets?

One segment of the Reverend's history that's not included in the RWNH post is his full participation as a serious (?) candidate for president last year.  He was treated as a legitimate candidate by all in the Democratic party, including the other candidates.  Yes, with that history.

Here's a link to a Bob Edwards NPR interview with Sharpton the Candidate.  He starts right off with nonsense, in response to the question "Why are you in the race?  He goes on about a "shift in direction" and "tax cuts for the wealthy", then of course brings us back to Florida 2000.

Secondly, I'm running on a platform to give Americans for the first time their constitutional rights to things that we have in the past just had as programs. For example in 2000, Bush won the election at the Supreme Court, not in the electorate. But the reason he was able to do that is because there is no constitutional right to vote.

While that latter point may technically be true, it is also true that an election was held in 2000, people did vote, and no one was denied their vote, even in Florida.  But I digress.

In any event, that this man was treated as a serious candidate was one of the more humerous aspects of the Democratic side of the 2004 race.

UPDATE:  Reverend Al was on Fox tonight with Bill O'Reilly defending himself.  We'll see how this turns out.

Washington Election Summary

In a story with just a great headline, Florida With Rain, John Fund summarizes the status of the Washington Gubernatorial election.

The infamous 2004 governor's race was finally decided seven weeks after the election, after King County officials found new unsecured ballots on nine separate occasions during two statewide recounts. After the new ballots were counted, Democrat Christine Gregoire won a 129-vote victory out of some three million ballots cast. Even as she was sworn in last January, King County election supervisor Dean Logan admitted it had been "a messy process."

He wasn't kidding. During the two recounts, Mr. Logan's office discovered 566 "erroneously rejected" absentee ballots, plus another 150 uncounted ones that turned up in a warehouse. Evidence surfaced that dead people had "exercised their right to vote"; documentation was presented that 900 felons in King County alone had illegally voted and that military ballots were sent out too late to be counted. A total of 700 provisional ballots had been fed into voting machines before officials had determined their validity. In the four previous November elections, King County workers had never mishandled more than nine provisional ballots in a single election.

On top of that, amazingly, they keep finding more ballots.

Don't Write Off Turkey

So says Graham Fuller in the LA Times today.  Mr. Fuller is a former chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA.

Who lost Turkey? That's the theme of a rash of articles in the U.S. press over the last two months. Apparently, there's a growing consensus in Washington that our old ally has been gradually becoming more anti-American.

There was this report at FoxNews.com several days ago discussing the "rocky" U.S. - Turkish relations.  Some of the speculation has centered around Turkish resistance to the ascendancy of a Kurdish President in Iraq, Jalal Talabani.

Turkish and American policy experts agree the relationship between the two countries has been strained as a result of divergent agendas, growing anti-American sentiment within Turkey and a set of diplomatic missteps and misunderstandings.

“My sense is it is too early to call it a crisis or something really urgent, but overall there has been a deterioration in bilateral relations,” said Omer Taspinar, a Turkish native and director of the Turkey program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Fuller, on the other hand, is much more optimistic, though certainly harbors some reservations.  Sure, there is cause for concern.  In 2003 Turkey declined to allow the U.S. a base of operations for the Iraq War, and Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld has pointed to the strength of the insurgency as possibly stemming from that deficiency.

However it should be noted that later that year Turkey offered 10,000 troops to the effort.  The U.S. declined this time, fearing escalation of tensions with the Kurds, whom the Coalition Provisional Government were trying to bring fully into an integrated Iraq government.  The offer of troops is significant, as at that time, even as now, public sentiment in Turkey remains against the Iraq War.

Fuller notes that there is quite a lot to be optimistic about in the most democratic Muslim state.

In reality, U.S. interests — in the broader scheme of things — have been exceptionally well-served by this Turkish government, which has brought broad democratic reforms to the country as part of its explicit commitment to gain European Union membership. Turkey has taken positive steps toward relieving Kurdish dissatisfaction and has moved to improve relations with all of its neighbors, including longtime opponent Armenia. The economy is moving forward, and inflation is way down.

The Turkish public, including those with no special desire for Islamist policies, find the performance of this government to be generally on the right track; politics have been more stable than any other time in the last decade. Most interesting, several of Turkey's Arab neighbors are paying attention to its experience in producing a competent Islam-oriented government — one that can be proudly independent yet democratic, reformist and a candidate for EU membership. Nothing could be a more positive model for the rest of the region.

He concludes:

Turkey is not lost to us; we just need to take a more realistic view of the limits of our own power, be sensitive to the risks of ignoring other states' nationalist feelings and interests, and adopt a longer-term, more enlightened view of our own interests. Turkey is doing fine.

Jim Geraghty of TKS has been in Ankara for some time now, and is similarly cautiously optimistic regarding the 'rampant' anti-Americanism.

So yeah, there’s anti-Americanism. This is a proud country that cannot believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq and overthrew Hussein without their help. They eventually did offer help, and we turned it down (partially because of Kurdish objections) and that really infuriated them. They thought they were our indispensable ally, and events are portraying them as irrelevant.

As I’m rapidly learning, when you’re in a foreign country, you constantly have to justify to readers (and to editors) why they should care about what’s going on in a far-off land. If the story is, “relations with the U.S. have never been better,” it might make an interesting article. If the story is, “relations are a mixed bag, with ups and downs,” well, that’s not quite as interesting. That’s pretty much the story everywhere.

In another post he notes this comment from columnist Yusuf Kanli in the Turkish Daily News:

It's no secret that Turkey has been skeptical of the possibility of Iraqi Kurds — with the backing of the United States, since Washington has considered the Kurds its most loyal ally since the Turkish Parliament's March 1, 2003 vetoing the use of Turkish territory as a launching pad for the Iraq war — carving out an independent state in the northern part of Iraq. Though we never believed a Kurdish state would be in the best interest of Washington in view of the fact that such a move would also lead to the creation of both a pro-Iran Shiite and a Sunni state under the strong influence of the al-Qaeda gang, the election of Talabani as president of Iraq may help ease Turkish worries…

Talabani is no stranger to Ankara's concerns, and Turkey has long experience in dealing with the new Iraqi president, although until yesterday only as leader of a Kurdish faction. Ankara's reaction to Talabani's election as well as the statement by the new Iraqi president immediately after his election appealing for better security cooperation with Iraq's neighbors indicate that a new and more stable Iraq will soon start to emerge.

The closer Iraq gets to a stable democratic government which is willing to work with the adjacent Turkish democratic government, the closer the Turkish government, and the people, will be to strengthening their connections to America.

UPDATE: Just noted another post from Geraghty, who says that Turkey will allow use now of Incirlik Air Base for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Captain Varitek

Scott Miller's piece on CBS Sportsline discusses the significance of catcher Jason Varitek to the Red Sox: Varitek's leadership began long before 'C'.  This was something I touched on at the start of the season.

"I was pushing for it, even last year, to have him named captain," center fielder Johnny Damon said this spring. "To the media, to everyone, every time someone came to me and asked who's the leader on this team ... everybody in here already knew. Grady (Little, former Red Sox manager) knew it. It's been pretty much an unwritten thing."

Now it's a written thing. See? There's the "C," stitched right onto the front of Varitek's jersey.

And when the Red Sox line up for pregame introductions Monday afternoon as they raise the curtain on a what will be a season unlike any other in 86 years in Boston, the most essential ingredient toward defending their hard-earned title will be standing right there on the first-base line, a backstop providing the backbone in yet another Red Sox summer.

Here's the point that Sean McAdam had made earlier:

Nobody watches the video, studies opposing batter tendencies, quarterbacks the pitching staff, takes ownership of the club, contributes offensively, stands up to opponents at precisely the right moment, patiently answers reporters questions, quietly sidles up to teammates in need of encouraging words, commands a presence and hogs the ice and Ace bandages after games to soothe his often battered body like Varitek.

Currently the Sox are opening up their season at Fenway after spending the first week on the road.  They receive their Series rings today on the field.  And in the opposing dugout?  The Yankees, of course.

UPDATE: Sox 8, Yanks 1.  Tim Wakefield baffles 'em for 7 innings.

Gay Marriage And Massachusetts

The Boston Herald editorials today contain an urging to Massachusetts to put a gay marriage ban on the ballot for 2008.

We won't know until we ask. Kansas became the 18th state last Tuesday to approve a same-sex marriage ban by popular vote. Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee voters will decide the issue in 2006. And the Associated Press reports that Minnesota, South Carolina and Texas are getting closer to putting the issue on the ballot.

It would be ironic - and wrong - if voters in the birthplace of gay marriage were denied the chance to have their say because the ballot question's content and timing are inconvenient for Gov. Mitt Romney's national political aspirations.

"When the people are given a chance to decide, their view is overwhelming,'' said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council. "Every state that had this on the ballot passed it. It shows to me there is a tremendous grassroots consensus that marriage is between a man and a woman.''

Despite the consistent defeats at the ballot box the proponents remain optimistic.

"The more places that we are able to extend the same rights and responsibilities to all Americans, the more places we've got a light to shine on what's happening,'' said Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobbying group.

He must mean through the court actions that have accomplished it in Massachusetts.  It certainly hasn't been through changing "the hearts and minds" of the people.

"People are going on with their lives, gay and lesbian couples are raising their families and living their lives like everyone else. None of what has been forecasted or what we've been warned about seems to have happened there.''

This seems a bit premature.  After all, it has only been 14 months since the Massachusetts Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision gave the okay.  I don't think any opponents ever felt the cultural problems they foresaw would show up literally immediately.

For an interesting look at decisions that eventually, though it took some time, displayed the problems opponents feared, Jane Galt has an interesting and lengthy discussion from a libertarian viewpoint, well worth the read.

Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.

A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. "Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual"...

However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. "I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted."

They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.

But voting in Massachusetts will likely have no effect, even if gay marriage were to be defeated by as much as 70-30.  After all, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and would likely overrule the vote of the people.