Joust The Facts

Hamas Claims It's A Stick

Earlier, in 'Ridin' The Gravy Train', I discussed the carrot of foreign aid that the Palestinians could be losing due to electing Hamas as a majority governing party.  Hamas is claiming, once again, that's it's not a carrot but a stick.

RAMALLAH, West Bank - A top Hamas official said Tuesday the Islamic militant group will not be "blackmailed" by international threats to cut off aid to the Palestinians and is searching for new sources of funding.

[...]

"We are looking for alternative sources and we will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed," Hamdan said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Beirut, Lebanon. "We will not accept any conditions from anybody. At the same time, we are ready for dialogue."

Monday's meeting of the so-called "Quartet" of Mideast peace makers — the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia — stopped short of issuing an outright threat to Hamas.

But they said it is "inevitable" that future aid to a Hamas-led government "would be reviewed" if Hamas fails to renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept existing agreements between the Palestinians and Israel. Hamas leaders have rejected the Western demands.

Well, either you need the money for your people, or you don't.  It's a fairly straightforward equation.  Hamas should feel free to embrace terrorism, suicide bombings and the destruction of Israel as it's over-riding foreign policy directive, if they feel it is that important to their existence.  The quartet involved in discussing foreign aid are perfectly free to decide that supporting a government that espouses those beliefs and principles is undeserving of support.  This is the principle of economic sanctions that have been used repeatedly by the UN, the US and others to encourage belligerent nations to come to their senses.  As I wrote:

There is a carrot, and there is a stick.  Hamas is looking at the money as a stick with which they'll be beaten by withdrawal.  But it is not a stick, it's a carrot, and should always have been treated as such.  They could just as easily see it as a reward if their behavior and policies are appropriate for their new leadership position, a reward they'll need to earn.  Absent those changes they should receive no carrot.

Calling it blackmail assumes that there is some entitlement to the money.  I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I can assure Hamas that there is no such entitlement.  The encouraging thing is that the quartet is fairly unanimous on this point, with only Vladimir Putin minimally wobbly.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said, "The moment the new government is in place, if Hamas has not adapted its platform as required, it will be very difficult for the EU to continue funding the Palestinian Authority."

and

"Russia has never declared Hamas a terrorist organization, but it doesn't mean we support and accept everything Hamas has done and all the statements it has made," he said.

"Only people who don't carry arms and don't engage in armed struggle can work in parliament," Putin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Ridin' The Gravy Train

The now Hamas-led Palestinian government wants the money to continue flowing even as the terrorist organization continues to call for the destruction of Israel.  You know, for the children.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A Hamas leader asked the international community on Monday not to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority, insisting the money would go toward helping the Palestinian people and Hamas was willing to have its spending monitored.

Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader in Gaza, also said the Islamic militant group is ready to negotiate the terms of continued foreign aid with donor countries.

[...]

Haniyeh urged the West to reconsider cutting off aid, saying it must recognize the result of the Palestinian election. He also said the money would be spent to help the Palestinian people in their daily lives and that Hamas was willing to discuss means of keeping the spending transparent.

"We in Hamas are ready to meet and have an open dialogue with the Quartet," he told a news conference in Gaza City. "We assure you that all the money will be spent under your supervision."

But

"If the European Union countries and the American administration see this as a means that could lead to a change in Hamas' strategic position then they are dreaming and are mistaken. Hamas will never accept that," [Mohammed Nazzal, member of Hamas' decision-making political bureau] said in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV.

So we've got to keep the money flowing, you know, for the good of the Palestinian people, and you can supervise it, but we're also going to continue our work against a UN member state, whose very existence we find offensive.  Sure.  How much money are we talking about?

Western donors funneled about $900 million into the Palestinian Authority in 2005 — including $400 million from the United States — to pay salaries and finance desperately needed infrastructure projects. Failure to pay the 137,000 people on the Palestinian Authority payroll could lead to massive layoffs and ignite violence in an area bristling with guns.

That last part sounds like a threat, doesn't it?  And there are 137,000 on the payroll?  Seems like an awfully high number for a Palestinian population, including Gaza and the West Bank, of about 3.7 million.

It reminds me a bit of Oil for Food, another infusion of funds into an irresolute regime for humanitarian purposes.  Those funds were subsequently used by that regime for its own purposes, and close supervision was ineffective and/or corrupted.

There is a carrot, and there is a stick.  Hamas is looking at the money as a stick with which they'll be beaten by withdrawal.  But it is not a stick, it's a carrot, and should always have been treated as such.  They could just as easily see it as a reward if their behavior and policies are appropriate for their new leadership position, a reward they'll need to earn.  Absent those changes they should receive no carrot.

Furtive Glances - Stare Decisis Edition

The NY Times is going to have to rethink its strategy, and its rationale, in the NSA terrorism surveillance episode.

• John Hinderaker at Power Line cites cases and precedents - several - that support the position of the President that his actions in ordering the NSA surveillance of communication between terrorism suspects and contacts in the United States is legal.
  
  Those cases are pre-FISA, of course, and the Times says that FISA is the statute the administration "violated." So maybe the Times would argue that the pre-FISA cases don't apply. Such a claim would be unpersuasive on its face, since Congress cannot by statute or otherwise strip the executive branch of its constitutional powers. But there is, in fact, a post-FISA case that specifically addresses the question whether the passage of that statute could have changed the pre-existing principle that the President has constitutional power to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Since that case is directly on point, surely the Times discussed it. Right? Wrong. The Times never mentions In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA.
  [...]
  The problem is, you can't base a technical legal argument on what you think the law ought to be. You can only base a technical legal argument on what the law actually is. And the current state of the law, as uniformly articulated by the federal courts, is that the NSA's international surveillance program is a legal implementation of the President's constitutional powers.
  
  The Times still has some moves left, but it is futile.  This game will end in checkmate.

In other glances:

• John Kerry is blogging again, this time with a Huffington Post editorial beating the drums further for the Alito filibuster.  There is a lot of hyperventilating, but not much wind produced, certainly not enough to windsurf on Samuel Alito's nomination.  Some excerpts:
  
  Will it matter if we speak up after the Supreme Court has granted the executive the right to use torture, or to eavesdrop without warrants? Will it matter if we speak up only after a woman's right to privacy has been taken away? Will history record what we say after the courthouse door is slammed in the faces of women, minorities, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor?...
  
  After reviewing Judge Alito's writings as a Department of Justice lawyer and a federal judge, I have no doubt why he is so heralded by the most extreme Republicans. There is no doubt about the kind of Justice Samuel Alito will be. He will make it harder for the most disadvantaged members of our society to have their day in court. He will allow the President's power to grow far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution intended. He will roll back women's privacy rights. Empty promises made in the heat of a highly-charged and exceedingly political confirmation battle cannot erase a twenty year record...
  
  The problem you face, Senator, is that your fellow Democratic Senators on the committee turned the hearings into name calling and farce, and were unable to assail the legal rationale behind the rulings to which they objected.  You rail as if simple conservatism is "out of the mainstream."  It isn't, and the public knows it.
• Cindy Sheehan continues to cozy up to Venezuelan 'President' Hugo Chavez, even as he calls for overthrow of the US government.  This comes pretty close to the textbook definition of treason.
  
  CARACAS, Venezuela - Cindy Sheehan, who gained international fame when she camped outside President Bush's ranch in an anti-war protest, plans to pitch her tent again, Venezuela's president said Sunday as he urged activists worldwide to help bring down "the U.S. empire."
• I'm pretty sure Hamas will moderate itself in the wake of the Palestinian elections of last week.  Yeah, sure, I can see it. Not.

1/30/06 1840: Another furtive glance:

• Carnival of the Clueless up over at Right Wing Nut House.  It's the "what would Jack Bauer do" 24 edition.  Mr. Moran postulates that, faced with a TV ad that needs trimming, so kids don't get the wrong idea, Jack Bauer would "would kidnap the marketing director for Nike and torture him until the cluebat took the ad off the air."  Oh, and Bauer doesn't wear Nikes.  Good man.

On Basketball, A Piece I Should Have Written

A little hooptalk for a Sunday morning.

Jeff Shelman, on ESPN.com, discusses the currently #1UConn Huskies basketball team and finds a plethora of talent that should lead to Indianapolis for the last weekend of play.

Marquette coach Tom Crean pretty much summed it up.

His Golden Eagles had just defeated previously unbeaten Connecticut, but Crean still raved about the Huskies. He talked about their talent and mentioned how Connecticut had a lot of guys who were going to make a lot of money in the NBA.

And that is exactly why it will be stunning if the Huskies aren't in attendance in Indianapolis on the first weekend of April.

Once the tournament comes around it is not only about talent, but about having enough talent that if someone is a little off, the others can pick him up.  Duke has two supremely talented players in Shelden Williams and J.J. Redick.  They have two talented freshman in Greg Paulus and Josh McRoberts, but they are freshman.  The UConn Huskies are seven deep in talent with experience, from big guys Hilton Armstrong (Sr.) and Josh Boone (Jr.), and transfer and former ACC Rookie of the Year Ed Nelson (Sr.); concensus lottery pick Rudy Gay (Soph.); senior wings Denham Brown and Rashad Anderson, both of whom can defend and shoot; and point guard Marcus Williams, generally regarded as one of the best in the nation - when he can stay out of trouble.

The Huskies look to run at every opportunity, even made baskets and free throws, but defense is their forte, though, and for the fifth season in a row UConn is on track to lead the nation in blocked shots.  Part of that is the depth on the front line.  The big guys know they can attack, and a few fouls are less of a problem for them than for others.  They are also on track to produce their lowest opposition shooting percentage ever.  On the perimeter they can pressure, knowing that they are backed up by shot-blockers guarding the rim.

What can stop them?  Other-worldly three-point shooting by the opponent.  Turnovers.  Poor free throw shooting.  Forcing the offense.  And not much else.  They're deep enough that foul trouble is rare, and they get more opportunities than their opponents with the rebounding and blocked shots.

It will be surprising to me if UConn, Duke and Texas are not number 1 seeds (barring an unforseeable meltdown).  I'm not as sold on Michigan State as the ESPN gurus are, but then I'm not as sold on Florida or Memphis either.  I expect that two of those first three will be in Indy for the Final Four.

A Really Bad Nike Ad

Linked: Welcome Baseball Crank readers.  Thanks for taking a look; if you've seen the ad, you know what I'm talking about.

I've been seeing it a lot lately, during both pro and college basketball games, and it gives me the willies every time I do.

The ad stars Vince Carter of the New Jersey Nets, a Nike client, and is essentially a celebration of the dunk.  Carter is shown in multiple clips dunking; some young adults playing pickup in a gym do the same.  But there are three or four scenes spliced in where a young boy - five, six, maybe seven - is placing and climbing a 10 foot ladder.  He sits on top of the ladder in one clip, basketball in hand, and stares at the rim at eye level.  Then, following a couple more spectacular Carter dunks, the lad is shown leaping from the ladder 3-4 feet to the rim, dunking the ball and hanging from the rim.  Every time he does so I shudder.

I just know, and it'll happen soon, that I'll be on call and the beeper will go off with a call from the ER.  Some youngster will have tried to duplicate that move, and missed the rim, or pushed the ladder and come up short.  His landing will have been awkward and uncontrolled, and his arm, or his leg, or both will have been shattered.  Or worse.

I'll go to the hospital to visit with the badly injured child and the shocked parents.  I'll have to explain to them the terrible injuries that have happened to their child.  I'll have to calm the child and explain that we'll need to operate to make things right.  I'll call on all my skills and training to provide treatment.  And I'll also pray that God guides me in providing treatment so that this momentary poor choice doesn't provide a lifetime of difficulty for one so young.

Nike, if you're reading, pull those scenes out of this ad.  This one is tailor-made for copycat attempts, and a recipe for disaster.  I've been to the Nike Basketball website looking for a way to contact them, but I can't find one.

1/28/06 2245: Here's the address for Nike Headquarters in Beaverton, Oregon:

Nike World Headquarters
One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, Oregon, 97005-6453
800-344-6453

The CEO is Phil Knight.  The VP of USA Marketing and Brand Management is Joaqin Hidalgo.  The VP for Corporate Responsibility is Hannah Jones.  I'm looking for email addresses for the latter two - this should be their bag.

1/29/06 1800: Woody has taken the ball and run with it, and came up with the corporate contact link.  Here's my letter:

Do you have any idea how wrong, and how dangerous, your current ad is?  The one that shows the young child climbing a ladder to rim height, jumping off to dunk, then hanging on the rim?  I know dunking is sexy, but this is just wrong.

I'm an orthopaedic surgeon, and I just know I'll be getting calls fromt the ER about kids injured pulling this stunt.  It's extremely dangerous, and especially so for boys and girls of the age you show in the ad, about six or seven by my estimate.

Please do the nation's/world's kids a favor and clip those scenes out.  Believe me, nobody will miss them, and you may prevent some kids from devastating injuries.  You may have a disclaimer in the commercial, but kids don't read disclaimers.

Thanks for your attention to this.  I hope you heed this advice and do the right thing.

I'll be calling the Corporate Responsibility VP, Hannah Jones, on Monday.

1/31/06 1300: No luck so far reaching Ms. Jones, though I've left a message.  In addition, I haven't received a reply to my email contact from Sunday night.  We'll see how responsible Corporate Responsibility is.

2/1/06 1830: A response from Nike, and my reply to them.

2/7/06 0745: Update here.  Successful?  Maybe.

Irreconcilable Differences

The Boston Globe editorial page today contains a really puzzling editorial.  In a story you may have heard about, a Newton, MA librarian made the FBI wait 9 hours to produce a warrant before allowing the Feds to seize a computer from which a terrorist threat had been sent.  Today's Globe implores the librarians and the Feds to work together to solve this dilemma in serious situations like this one, but still wrings its hands over loss of library liberty if the Patriot Act were passed.

Here's the setup:

FBI agents arrived at the library Jan. 18 to investigate the e-mail threat, made against Brandeis University, which had been traced to a library computer. Newton library director Kathy Glick Weil directed her staff to help the FBI pinpoint the three computers (out of some 25 in the library) where the threat might have originated. But she sent the FBI back for a warrant before she would relinquish the computers for further investigation. In the meantime, the threat was found to be a false alarm.

The Globe's analysis of the situation:

Once the threat had been made, a crime was committed, and federal investigators should have been given speedy access to the library computers. This was not a fishing expedition by a snooping government, but a response to a specific danger. The fact that the threat turned out to be a hoax is fortunate, but the threat itself is a crime.

"A fishing expedition by a snooping government?"  Give an example.  (Hint: they can't.)  All in all, though, their concern for the threat is commendable.  But the Globe also includes their now-irreconcilable opposition to the library provisions of the Patriot Act, and continues to call for those to be stripped out.

Librarians around the nation are justifiably opposed to provisions of the USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress just after the Sept. 11 attacks, that expanded the search powers of federal law enforcement. They worry that libraries will be forced to reveal what their patrons are reading or accessing on the Internet, inhibiting citizens' free access to library resources.

[...]

The Patriot Act is up for renewal next month, and Congress would be wise to limit the search powers to protect library records. But American libraries offer patrons thousands of personal computers for searching the Web and sending e-mails. Another Newton scenario is a strong possibility.

Why is this wrong?  Because the Globe is calling for librarians to be the responsible parties for assessing what does or does not constitute a threat to the public.  Last time I checked law enforcement was not a part of library training.  In the Globe's world, the librarian needs to protect the viewing and reading habits of library users - public users - by being the final arbiter of when the Feds are justified in looking.  They call for the librarians to immediately allow access when a definite threat exists; the Globe also calls for librarians to stand firm in protecting their patrons privacy.  Question: How are librarians to know when the Feds come calling whether or not a threat exists without the Feds disclosing classified information?  Are the librarians to be the arbiters of whether a true threat exists or whether this is simply "snooping?"

The Globe needs to make a decision.  Are they going to leave law enforcement to the professionals, and support the provisions of the Patriot Act - provisions that in five years have never been used, and regarding which librarians would be in a position to protest and demand review if they were being used inappropriately?  Or are they going to have librarians stand above the FBI and others as a "privacy court" that must be satisfied before an investigation can proceed?

I have a solution.  The next Globe editorial: "Should all librarians be FBI agents?"

Linked to Wizbang's COTT XLVIII.

Okay, So, It's Working

Well, I've got an internet connection again.  Now, about that router ...

1/27/06 2230: Router is connected and functioning.  Now I need to re-create the wireless network.  (I did take time out to watch BU - wearing some nifty new red road sweaters - finish off #1 BC 4-3, and the recently reconfigured Celtics handle the Artest-y Sacramento Kings before coming back to this task.  Remember: The Beanpot is BU's tournament.)

1/27/06 2315: So, there you go!

Peering Throught The NSA Fog

I meant to blog on this yesterday, but with the home internet-less it had to wait until today.  Four Democratic senators sent a letter to the President about the NSA program and their concerns.  I was intrigued by the comments of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin about those concerns.

Critics say they don't believe Bush or administration officials when they say the program is limited. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Wednesday that Senate Democratic leaders as well as Kennedy and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin have signed a letter to Bush outlining their concerns with the program and the fact that they know very little about it.

So they don't believe Bush when he says that the program is limited, but they also don't know much about it.  Question: how can you do both?

Durbin noted that while an emergency exception to current law allows domestic wiretaps without court approval in the case of an emergency, it should not be the norm that the court is circumvented.

"This is not about whether we should wiretap terrorists. Democrats believe we should use every legal resource we have to put an end to Usama bin Laden's deadly franchise," Durbin said. "It isn't a matter of missing an opportunity; the government can act instantly to deal with a wiretap on a suspected terrorist and has 72 hours to contact the [FISA] court and advise them of the action that's been taken. If the president thinks the current laws are inadequate to wiretap terrorists, he should come to Congress."

Yeah, that'll work.

Durbin said most lawmakers only know what the media has been reporting about the program. Although it appears from those reports that the president has gone beyond his authority, Durbin said, he's waiting to make his own judgment on that.

"I'd like to, before I reach that point, at least know how the program is being used," he said. "I'm not sure any member is looking for political confrontation. (ed: no, of course not) We want to establish a legal framework to keep America safe. I am concerned on a constitutional basis this president is saying, 'I don't need a political framework.' And that, I think, goes too far."

Wouldn't it have been better, Senator Durbin et. al., to do something other than feed into the NY Times ginned up mayhem and hysteria?  Perhaps the intelligence committees could request a list of the primary targets of the surveillance?  Perhaps the intelligence committees could do a little research on the program on which their leaders have been updated for four years and find out more about it before stomping their feet and gesticulating wildly?  And perhaps Senators such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry could stop accusing the president of breaking the law when they don't know the nature of the program.  Even Sen. Kennedy saw through the haze long enough to say "When the president goes around and speaks ... and says we're monitoring calls from overseas from Al Qaeda to the United States, the NSA can go ahead and do that now under the law[.]"

1/28/06 2140: Linked to Mudville Gazette Open Post.

Stuck On Stupid Studies

Surprise, surprise!  A 'new' study finds that the gap between rich and poor is increasing in America.

ALBANY, N.Y. - The disparity between rich and poor is growing in America as the federal minimum wage has remained flat for years, union membership has declined and industries have faced global competition, according to a study released Thursday.

The report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, both liberal-leaning think tanks, found the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of families nationally grew by an average of $2,660, or 19 percent, over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, the incomes of the richest fifth of families grew by $45,100, or nearly 59 percent, the study by the Washington-based groups said.

Families in the middle fifth saw their incomes rise 28 percent, or $10,218.

The figures, based on U.S. Census data, compare the average growth from 1980-82 to 2001-03, after adjusting for inflation.

The poorest one-fifth of families, the report said, had an average income of $16,780 from 2000-03, while the top fifth of families had an average income of $122,150 — more than seven times as much. Middle-income families' average income was $46,875.

More socialist drivel.  Here's the point: Absent socialist redistribution, income disparities between the highest and lowest income groups will always increase.  In fact, it's impossible to stop it from occurring without those socialist redistribution schemes.  Let me walk you through a little math, to make this point clear.

Let's say that the average poor person (lowest 20%), using the data above, earns $16,000 and the average rich person (highest 20%) earns $120,000.  Let's further assume that their incomes increase by the same 4% in one year.  For the rich person that translates to an extra $4800, bringing their income to $126,800.  The poor person's income, by contrast, would increase by $640, bringing their income to $16640.  Both incomes have increased by 4%, and yet after one year the gap has increased by $4160.

What would happen if the rich person's income only increased by 1%?  Well, what do you know?  Even though the poor individual's income increased by four times as high a percentage the income gap still widened by $560.  Go figure.  So a small percentage of a large number can still be bigger than a larger percentage of a small number?  Sacre bleu!

Is there another factor that keeps the lowest incomes from jumping dramatically?  Absolutely.  It's called entry level work.  There is a steady stream of people entering at the lowest levels, but there is no cap on the upper levels of income.  I'm an orthopaedic surgeon now, and I make a lot more money than I did in my first job, washing dishes in the hospital, or even my second job as a hospital orderly, or, for that matter in my third job as a teaching assistant in college.  My income rise was not due to unfairness in the system, but to 14 years of education, college and beyond, and another 14 in practice.  Those just starting out and with the most menial tasks will have a low income, guaranteed.

For the income gap to remain stable year to year using my example above would require about a 30% jump in the average poor person's income.  That is simply impossible, and so the gap is destined, forever and ever, to increase.  Ah, but is it impossible?  The report doesn't say whether this study includes the effect of the EITC.  Looking at the numbers I suspect that it does not.  If so, the income level for the lowest 20% will be higher than listed.

This is the kind of fake statistic that is constantly used by the left to demonstrate the "unfairness" of the capitalist system.  In fact, it demonstrates only the nature of work and its value in such a system.

1/28/06 2100: Linked to Wizbang's COTT XLVIII.

1/30/06 2130: Oops.  I neglected to link Sensible Mom's post on the same topic.  She covers it from a different angle.  Well worth a look.

Sorry ...

... for the sparse posting lately.  It's been a combination of factors.  To wit: a bit of a funk after the events of a month ago; excessive effort and concern with a failing septic system; a failing failed wireless router on the home computer; increasing workload, including some things that I'll discuss in a future post once they're more firmly sorted out.

As a result I'm only able to post at work, which precludes lengthy and thoughtful discourse and analysis.  I hope to have the router thing fixed tonight, but possibly not until Sunday.  If so, and there's not much here to read, I suggest visiting the fine folks in the "Friends of Giacomo" list, or pretty much anybody in the Blog Scroll.  Particularly pertinent lately has been Dean Barnett's SoxBlog, though I was reading Dan Drezner recently and the fresh Massachusetts emigre has been doing quite well, thank you.

So Much For The 'Peace Process'

The Palestinians officially jumped the shark, and have elected a Hamas-majority government.  Hamas is on the list of known terror organizations, and continues to support the provision in its charter calling for the destruction of Israel.

RAMALLAH, West Bank - Hamas' top official told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday the Islamic militant group is ready for a partnership after defeating the ruling Fatah Party in parliamentary elections — a shocking upset sure to throw Mideast peacemaking into turmoil.

[...]

Abbas' Fatah Party will decide later in the day whether to join a Hamas-led government or serve in the opposition, Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath said.

[...]

Israel and the United States have said they would not deal with a government led by Hamas, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings and which they consider a terrorist group.

I guess that ever since the death of Yasser Arafat the Fatah party had become a little too docile and conciliatory for the people, and they needed to return to that good ol' fashioned Palestinian "Death to Israel" jihad.

The Middle East is now populated by two groups of people whose official stated policy is the destruction of Israel - Iran and the Palestinians.  There are some who think that Hamas will have to moderate its activities in order to govern.  I doubt it.

Some Western officials have talked about President George W. Bush's "theory of redemption"—the belief that engaging groups like Hamas could moderate them. Do you get the sense that the United States is trying to engage you?
[Laughs] It's not the United States. It's the whole European [community]. But containment will not succeed with Hamas. I don't trust the term "moderate." We are already moderate. But if people believe we will be moderate in the Western style, or a pro-Israeli style—that's not moderate. That's corruption.

[...]

Does Hamas still stand by the tactic of suicide bombing?
We were forced to do so [in the past]. When we reached the conclusion that nothing could be achieved by peaceful [means], we were forced to do [it]. Believe me, if it is not allowed in Islam, and if your goal cannot be achieved as an open goal, [then] it's justified. It is not allowed in Islam to drink alcohol. But if you are forced to do it, you have to do it.

Could you ever see Hamas involved in a peace plan that would allow two states side by side, Israel and Palestine?
Nobody on the Israeli side, from the extreme right to the extreme left, will withdraw from Jerusalem. At the same time, believe me, nobody on the Palestinian side, in the Arab and Muslim world, will accept keeping Jerusalem under occupation. [The Palestinians] lost everything [after Oslo]. We are not the PLO. We are not going to repeat a failed [process].

I think that we're going to see a bloodier campaign.  It's likely as well that Israel will not take such a campaign lying down, which will make the UN produce more condemnations of Israel's violence, while avoiding mention of Palestinian violence.

If the UN ever has a chance at relevance, and I'll grant that it's a small chance, it needs to come out with a statement now calling for peace from Hamas, calling for Hamas to eschew terrorist activities, and stating that Hamas will be held responsible for terrorism against Israel now that they are a governing body.  And when such activities occur they'll need to produce equally forceful condemnations and sanctions.  It is the least they can do.  Does anyone think they will?  Me neither.

1/26/06 1330:  Lots of reading on the topic.  See Ed Morrissey, for instance:

Unless someone can show widespread voter fraud on behalf of Hamas, the Palestinians should be judged by the choices they have made this week. They have chosen war and the annihilation of Israel over the two-state solution favored publicly (if not fervently) by Fatah. Europe and the United States need to wake up from their delusional dreamland of a situation where both sides in this conflict want a peaceful conclusion and a world without hatred for their children and grandchildren.

Desperation From Osama?

The sublime Christopher Hitchens writes in Slate today on the status of the war on Al Qaeda, and finds the terrorists losing and sees desperation in the Osama Bin Laden tape.

Why are formerly triumphalist jihadists using the language of "truce" at all? Not very long ago, God was claimed to be on their side and victory certain.

[...]

Now, Afghanistan is lost to Bin Laden and Pakistan has had, at least officially, to modify its behavior considerably. The A.Q. Khan network has been shut down. The Saudi ruling class identifies its state interest with a repudiation of al-Qaida, inside and outside its own borders. And the one remaining regime that openly preached holy war and helped train jihadist forces like the "Fedayeen Saddam"—the pseudo-secular terror state in Iraq—has been irretrievably smashed. Wherever Bin Laden is now, it cannot be where he wanted or hoped to be four and a half years ago.

Given the utter discredit and isolation of its forces in Iraq, who would still say that the fighting there is a "distraction" from the hunt for al-Qaida? They have taken tremendous casualties, obviously in the hope that their atrocious tactics would swiftly dissipate coalition morale and coerce Iraqi support. And it seems as if they haven't learned from their mistake.

Rather than lost I would say "being lost."  There is still time for the anti-war forces in this country and around the world to undermine public confidence and troop morale to the point that a loss by the coalition is at least possible.  Bin Laden understands that he can't hope to win a war of arms.  He hopes to win a media and propaganda war and/or a war of attrition from continued terrorism.

But it won't happen in the next three years on GWB's watch.  He will not be accepting offers of truce, and will not be pulling back militarily from any location until the situation is stable and improving.  That's one important lesson you can take from what's happened so far in Iraq and Afghanistan.  You can also take the lesson that Bush is a man of his word.  "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."  Presidents Musharraf and Ghadafi decided to be with us; many on the American left have not, as evidenced by Joel Stein's recent LA Times piece that got so much attention.

Is the war over?  In a word, no, despite Hitchens' presumptive column.  Is it heading in the proper direction?  Yes, if you read between the lines of the Bin Laden tape.

Furtive Glances - Sports Roundup Edition

There are plenty of things swirling through the news and the blogosphere, but I've been a little too busy to be on top of them.  There were, however, several developments in the world of sports worth mentioning.

• Kobe Bryant scored 81 points last night against the Toronto Raptors.  That's right, 81.  And 55 of them came in the second half, when the Lakers chased down the Raptors to win 122-104.  Sure, he shoots too much.  And sure, if he had a little more help around him he wouldn't have to shoot too much.  And sure, the Raptors are a lousy defensive team.  And sure, if one guy is torching your team shouldn't you be doubling him to force him to give up the rock?  But 81 points is still 81 points, and a remarkable game.  I'm not crazy about Bryant for several reasons, but he is one talented basketball player.
• The UConn Huskies have moved to the top of the college basketball polls, after they defeated Louisville and after losses by Duke (to the Big East's Georgetown Hoyas), Florida (to Tennessee) and Pitt (to St. Johns).  UConn has the difficult Big East schedule ahead of them, with two games against Villanova and games against Pitt, WVU and Louisville still to come, so they'll probably accumulate a loss here and there.  But this team is solid and strong, and despite a strong record hasn't played their best ball yet.  Jay Bilas of ESPN has been on UConn's bandwagon ever since they took the Maui tournament title.
• I watched about 5 minutes of the Australian Open tonight. Zzzzzzzzzz.........
• So it's Pittsburgh and Seattle for all the marbles, 13 days from today in Detroit.  The early line has the Steelers favored by about a field goal.  I'll take the Steelers, with Ben Roethlisberger and a stout defense, but I don't think it'll be a blowout.  Seattle is solid, and Coach Mike Holmgren has been there before (and won).  Often these things come down to the breaks, and who gets them.  Put turnovers at the top of the list.  That was the major factor in the Broncos win over the Patriots and the Steelers win over the Broncos.
• Speaking of football, this is real bias in the classroom:
  BEAVER FALLS, Pa. - A 17-year-old high school student said he was humiliated when a teacher made him sit on the floor during a midterm exam in his ethnicity class — for wearing a Denver Broncos jersey.
  

  The teacher, John Kelly, forced Joshua Vannoy to sit on the floor and take the test Friday — two days before the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Broncos 34-17 in the AFC championship game. Kelly also made other students throw crumpled up paper at Vannoy, whom he called a "stinking Denver fan," Vannoy told The Associated Press on Monday.

  Kelly said Vannoy, a junior at Beaver Area Senior High School, just didn't get the joke.
  I think there's a new cause here - equal rights for geographically-challenged football fans,
  UPDATE: I didn't notice until just now - this occurred in an ethnicity class.  Ethnicity?  First, how can the teacher of an ethnicity class not recognize that it's wrong to torment someone just for being part of the minority?  This could have been a good teaching point.  Second, an ethnicity class?  In high school?  Oy vey!

Harry's At It Again

Well, Sen. Harry Reid is, sure, but I mean Harry Belafonte.

NEW YORK - Entertainer Harry Belafonte, one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, compared the national Homeland Security department to the Gestapo and attacked the president as a liar during a fiery Saturday speech.

"We've come to this dark time in which the Gestapo of Homeland Security lurks here, where citizens are having their rights suspended," Belafonte told thousands of people at the annual meeting of the Arts Presenters Members Conference.

Yeah, the Gestapo.  I guess President Chimpy Bushitler's next move, by that logic, will be to round up Mr. Belafonte and send him to the extermination camp.  Oops, sorry, I forgot I wasn't supposed to mention that - the camp is secret, known only to us fascist right wing extremists.  Shhh, don't tell anyone, okay?

He acknowledged that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks demanded a reaction by the United States, but charged that the policies of the Bush administration were not the right response

Bush, he said, was a president "who has risen to power somewhat dubiously and ... then lies to the people of this nation, misleads them, misinstructs, and then sends off hundreds of thousands of our own boys and girls to a foreign land that has not aggressed against us."

Mr. Belafonte hit for the lunatic left cycle in this rant.  He a) compared the US to Nazi Germany, and by extension Bush to Hitler, b) accused bush of lying, misleading and misinstructing - all three! c) repeats the "we weren't attacked" charge that shows no comprehension whatsoever of the nature of the war on terrorism and its sponsors, and d) throws in the stolen election nonsense for good measure.  You know, the one for which no proof has ever been unearthed.

There's just something about Harry ...

Well, he's just another guy that sounds like Osama.

Justice Souter Gets A Promotion

The AP has moved David Souter up from Associate Justice to Chief Justice.  The photograph with caption depicts a protester on front of Souter's Weare, NH home.  A group incensed by the Kelo decision is trying to get Souter's place claimed by eminent domain for conversion to the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

Logan Darrow Clements of Los Angeles stands outside Chief Justice David Souter's home in Weare, N.H., in this Aug. 20, 2005 file photo. Clements is trying to lead an effort to seize Souter's property for being one of five justices who sided with a decision favoring government power to seize private property by eminent domain. Clements is holding a rally Saturday, Jan. 21, 2006, to collect signatures for a ballot initiative that will ask the town of Weare to seize Souter's land for the purpose of building an inn. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

John Roberts is going to be ticked.  He hasn't even been on the job a year, and already he's been demoted.

Linked to Wizbang's COTT XLVII.

It's A Rare Treat ...

... when your blog assists with results like this.

A very happy blogiversary, Rusty.

Furtive Glances - Osama's Back Edition

A few quick links worth your time.

• He's baaack.  "Bin Laden Threatens Attacks, Offers Truce."  Not exactly.  What he has said is "You surrender and leave, and we won't fight you in the places you left anymore."  Meanwhile, he'll be training new terrorists and planning future attacks.  Austin Bay agrees.  I suspect the Bush administration will pass on the offer.  Perhaps we should extend a counter-offer: have all your boys surrender, and we won't kill them all.
  In addition, however, the AP jumps to the conclusion that the tape means Bin Laden is alive.  Actually, it only means he was alive when the tape was made.  Initially that was said to be December, but that estimate was retracted by Al Jazeera.  In reading this AP report there is no quote from Bin Laden that identifies a time frame, other than some time after the London train bombings, in July.  The full tape, at The Political Teen, does not add any additional time markers.
  More: Rick Moran, who finds similarities between the US anti-war voices and OBL.  Oh, and the Carnival of the Clueless is up over at the Nuthouse.
• I was a student at Boston University about 25 years ago, and the university had recently established a "College of Basic Studies."  The initials CBS were prophetic, apparently.  This was a place for students who were entering college needing some ... remedial work.  I see there are a lot more students with this need.
• Here's a must-read: Dean Barnett discusses Al Gore and his NSA speech.
  "Actually, Gore’s awful style has long been his secret strength. Because of his awkwardness and preternaturally stiff manner, Gore has often managed to get people to think he’s a bright substantive guy wrapped in an unappealing package. But the principal problem with Gore has always been substance.
  Or lack thereof. Gore has always been, at best, a second rate mind. Only the widely held but mistaken notion that hopeless nerds are inherently intelligent has obscured this fact."
• Journalism's crazy old aunt, Helen Thomas, is at it again.  Video at Michelle Malkin's, hat tip: Political Teen.
• So, maybe Al Zawahiri escaped death, but Al Masri didn't.

1/19/06 2330: Rob B. at File It Under has the Texas Hold 'Em We're-calling-your-bluff-Big-Man analysis of the Osama tape.

1/20/06 0600: Rob Port, writing at Wizbang, notes that once again someone is "questioning the timing" of the OBL tape.  Oh, brother.  For the record, the timing that you're questioning is not, of itself, evidence.  It's what has made your paranoid little brain feverish with conspiracy, but it's not evidence.  If you've got something more, something that actually justifies that fever, let us know, Mr. Cafferty.  Otherwise, clam up.

Desperation At The Times

So desperate are they at the NY TImes that they have dug up the Joe Wilson/Niger uranium story once again, and as a sign of desperation they have blurred the distinction between the words "sold" and "sought."  They've also used words like "doubt, "improbable" and "unlikely" rather than words like "proved" and "didn't."

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 - A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Okay, to review:

1. President Bush didn't say "bought," he said "sought."  And I defy the Times to find anyone of note who alleges that the sale took place.
2. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report actually found that Wilson's report bolstered the belief in the Niger Uranium story rather than disproved it.
   "Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
3. The Butler Report, looking at British intelligence on the matter, stands by this assessment.
   

   "496. This evidence underlay the statement in the Executive Summary of the Government’s dossier of September 2002 that:

   As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:

   - tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons;

   - sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it"

Captain Ed notes the dishonesty and deperation of the Times in further blurring the distinction between Niger attempting to sell to Saddam Hussein, and Saddam Hussein attempting to procure.  They are, in fact different.

Once again, the Times conflates two different questions and in doing so misrepresents the intelligence that both the British and Wilson himself found. The first question, which prompted this release of material, is whether the Nigeriens were likely to sell and transport uranium to Iraq. The second question is whether Saddam Hussein was still making the attempt to buy uranium at all, from Niger as well as anywhere else.

It is a sign of how far the NY Times has fallen that such politically-charged innuendo is what passes for news.

Read The Classics

The Classical Version of the Hippocratic Oath.  I've highlighted the relevent section.

Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.

The Modern Version contains a contradiction.  Here's the relevant section.

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

Here is the relevant section of the Oregon Assisted Suicide Law.

127.815 s.3.01.Attending physician responsibilities.
(1) The attending physician shall:

(i) Verify, immediately prior to writing the prescription for medication under ORS 127.800 to 127.897, that the patient is making an informed decision;

(j) Fulfill the medical record documentation requirements of ORS 127.855;

(k) Ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 prior to writing a prescription for medication to enable a qualified patient to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner; and

(L)(A) Dispense medications directly, including ancillary medications intended to facilitate the desired effect to minimize the patient's discomfort, provided the attending physician is registered as a dispensing physician with the Board of Medical Examiners, has a current Drug Enforcement Administration certificate and complies with any applicable administrative rule; or

(B) With the patient's written consent:

(i) Contact a pharmacist and inform the pharmacist of the prescription; and

(ii) Deliver the written prescription personally or by mail to the pharmacist, who will dispense the medications to either the patient, the attending physician or an expressly identified agent of the patient.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate. [1995 c.3 s.3.01; 1999 c.423 s.3]

There is a difference between recognizing the inevitability of death and withholding treatment that would prolong suffering while admitting that inevitability, and hastening a death by administering treatements that bring about death.  Long treatises on medical ethics have been written on this topic, to which I could not do justice here.  And I understand the arguments of the 'assisted suicide' proponents; I just disagree with them strenuously.

Hippocrates had it right.  When a physician takes it upon himself, in consultation with the patient, to decide matters of life and death, rather than to understand those matters he errs.  The Oregon assisted suicide law puts the physician in the position of violating an inviolable clause of the classical Hippocratic Oath. In the modern version of the oath  there is the confusing call to be humble and aware of my own frailty in approaching the taking of a life, but to not play God.  The law has put the physician in the position of playing God, and violating even the modern version of the oath.

If the state wants to set up a panel for assisted suicide, and dispense and administer the fatal agents themselves, well, I disagree just as strongly, for it puts the state in the position of removing it's weakest citizens.  We know from history that such a reach is at the top of a slippery slope.  But at least in that construct the physician is not put in a position of violating the inviolable, of playing God.  The assisted suicide puts the physician in a position of hastening the demise of the patient.  No physician should ever be put in that position.  It is contrary to the oath.

1/18/06 0930: More from Ace of Spades HQ, where Ace analyzes the legal more than the medical issues.

So, it seems, Congress could outlaw the practice with a clearly-written law, assuming such a law could pass muster under federalism grounds... which would be difficult.

Althouse notes that several judges are inconsistent about federalism-- some upheld stronger Congressional powers over state drug laws (holding Congress had the power to limit medical marijuana use) and now reject such powers. Only O'Conner takes the states' rights position in both cases, and only Scalia takes the federal superiority position in both cases. Thomas disagreed with the previous decision, but writes that, now that it's settled law that the federal government is supreme in this area, it's "perplexing" to find some of his colleagues, who'd earlier argued in favor of federal supremacy, are now arguing the opposite.

It Seems I Was Right

On Saturday Sen. Dick Durbin delivered the Democratic radio message and called for "honest leadership" in Washington.  I agreed with Sen. Durbin, since that's really what we all want.  I added, however, that

I like honest leadership.  I just don't think I can get it from the Democrats.

If by leadership you mean "Vice President," and by honest you mean "speaking the truth," then it appears I may have been right.  At the Astute Blogger, Reliapundit carves up the falsehoods and misrepresentations of former VP Al Gore put forth during his diatribe against the NSA program for terrorism surveillance.  Here's the text of the speech.  Gateway Pundit has more.

RTWT.  And while you're at it, check out Larry King's conversation with AG Alberto Gonzalez last night.

Meanwhile, the ACLU, among others, have begun to file suit to learn to whose communications have the NSA been listening, and for an immediate injunction against the program.

The New York suit, filed on behalf of the center and individuals, names President Bush, the head of the National Security Agency, and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization.

It seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting surveillance of communications in the United States without warrants.

The Detroit suit, which also names the NSA, was filed with the ACLU along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and several individuals.

The argument essentially comes down to only a few key points.  Does the either the Constitution or the Congressional action after 9-11 give the President authority, as Commander in Chief and for national security reasons, to direct NSA warrantless communications intercepts on foreign targets even when one end of the conversation is in the US, but the US end of the conversation is not the target?  This administration, past administrations, and the justice department have all said yes.

Furtive Glances - MLK Edition

There's some good writing out there.

• Jeff Harrell writes at Wizbang on his transition from liberal Democrat to conservative Republican.  It started with the meaning of the word 'is' and finished on a bright sunny Tuesday morning in September, 2001.
  "I came into the 2004 President election season disenchanted with my own party but ready to be won back. All the Democrats had to do was show even a token willingness to win the war. They didn’t do that. Instead they nominated an undistinguished legislator who saluted with one hand and pandered to the squeamishness of the anti-war bloc with the other."
• Victor Davis Hanson offers the Democratic party an opportunity to grasp a national security issue, perhaps hand in hand with Republicans.
• Varifrank looks at the Venezuela-Iran "Axis of Oil."  While you're there, check out his thoughts on James Risen's State of War.
  "The CIA comes across as a disorganized, disheveled group not even capable of doing a job as even as competent as FEMA did in Hurricane Katrina. Yet, President Bush gets a finger wagging from Mr. Risen for not listening to these learned men whom even Mr. Risen clearly marks as having dropped the ball and left the nation lost and dithering during its dire time of need."
• Rick Moran, proprietor of Right Wing Nut House, pens a moving tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. also at The American Thinker.
  "As an orator, King had no equal in the 20th century. Blessed with a mellifluous voice and a razor sharp pen, King’s speeches not only inspired, they provoked. They got people angry. They made people think. In the end, he moved millions with his words."
• Esoterica: Jimi Fallows explains the origins and nature of bluegrass music at normblog.

Blog Blogging

A couple developments of note:

• Dean Barnett has given Soxblog a whole new look, after recently starting a "Spanning the Web" feature.   Check it out.  He and Varifrank produce some of the best essays on the web.  And he's a Red Sox fan, which automatically moves him up in the pecking batting order.
• Allah, of Allahpundit, is back with a new blog, LinkMecca.  For your Middle East News, which it seems will be important for the forseeable future, and more.  Prior to this he was doubling as Ace of Spades idea man.

1/15/06 2245: Oh, and one more:

• TMH's Bacon Bits is hosting a "Teddy K - athon", featuring numerous amusing looks at Massachusetts senior senator.  I'm submitting 'Kennedy Bloviates', a look at one senator's misreading of the Constitution.

1/16/06 1130: I've been remiss in not mentioning the "Pundit Roundtable" at WILLisms.com.  Check it out.  I do have to agree with Ken McCracken.  For a comedy it's definitely 'Python'.  I also have to take him to task for his response to the first question, on the "next big development" in the Middle East.  He chose a big future development instead.

The Essence Of Sport

Sure, it was a big play.  But looking inside the play is important, because what you find when you peel back the layers, and get to the core, is really the essence of sport.

The New England Patriots spent 60 minutes yesterday repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot.  They fumbled the ball.  They threw interceptions.  They got nailed for big penalties.  They gave Denver a very short field all day. And they lost.  But one of those shots to the foot is worth a second, a third, and a fourth look - the interception return of 101 yards by Denver cornerback Champ Bailey, and the extraordinary effort by Patriot tight end Ben Watson to run him down.

The score stood at Denver 10, New England 6.  The Patriots had forced a punt, and were now driving smartly down the field.  Tom Brady and the New England offensive line had seemingly solved the complex Bronco blitz schemes, bringing 5, 6 and even 7 rushers at a time.  They had, in four plays, moved 73 yards to the Denver 5, first and goal.  A false start moved the ball to the 10, and a short pass regained the lost yardage.  Second down saw an incompletion to wideout David Givens.  It was third and goal from the 5.  Brady dropped back and sensed a strong rush from his blind side, moving agilely in the pocket to his right.  An old favorite target, Troy Brown, had curled to the outside and looked to be open in front of Bailey, and Brady fired.

His throw was, unfortunately for the Pats, a little to the inside, and released perhaps a split second late.  Bailey had a chance, planted and cut to the outside, and slid between Brown and Brady just as the ball arrived, grasping it tightly two yards deep in the end zone.

Ben Watson, the second year tight end out of Georgia, had run a flare pattern to the left side of the formation, and Brady had rolled away from him.  He saw the pick, and then saw the speedy Pro Bowl corner head upfield, the pigskin under his arm, and a phalanx of blockers ahead of him.  Watson started to run.

Bailey, from his defensive end zone, and with 100 yards of Mile High stadium turf in front of him, saw only the opposite end zone.  As he headed upfield there was really only one challenge - to beat the angle taken by Patriots running back Kevin Faulk.  Bailey was in full flight, and Faulk had but one shot.  He dove at Bailey's ankles at midfield, disrupting the defender's stride for just a step, but Bailey kept his balance and resumed his drive downfield.

The blockers looked around.  Tom Brady had given chase, but a quarterback was not going to run down a speedy corner from behind.  The camera followed Bailey, and his blockers, looking around and seeing nobody, began to lope.

Bailey slowed also.  The effort to sprint past Faulk and away from Brady had begun to tighten his legs.  His stride shortened slightly, and his hips dropped.  There was no danger, though.  Eight or ten strides and he'd be in the end zone, and his team would be up by 11 instead of down by three.

But there was a danger, and it's name was Watson.  Watson hadn't slowed, and the 6 foot 3, 250 pound tight end was eating up the turf like a gazelle, running the longer hypotenuse of the right triangle.  Sure, Bailey would score, but Watson wasn't going to slow until the referee's hands were in the air signaling touchdown.

The blockers never saw him.  Watson had come from the far side of the field.  Nobody could catch Bailey coming from there.  It was impossible.

Bailey was loping himself now, completely gassed, but only a couple of strides to go.  And then a Mack truck ran him over, and Bailey flew off his feet and out of bounds at the one.  As he did so, the ball flew out of his arms at an angle, also out of bounds.  The referees marked the ball at the one, where Bailey had been knocked from the field of play.  The corner lay on his back, dazed from his his own effort and from the crushing tackle of Ben Watson.

But what about the ball?  Did it pass out of bounds in the field of play, or through the end zone?  If the latter, Watson's tremendous effort would get the Patriots the ball back, still only down four, at their own 20.  The play was reviewed, and the call on the field stood.  As much as I would have liked to see the call changed, I can't say that any replay clearly showed that it should be.

The Broncos waltzed into the end zone on the next play, and the touchdown that Bailey should by all rights have scored was chalked up to running back Mike Anderson.  Denver 17, New England 6, and with the Patriots committing additional mistakes their fate was sealed.  But what of Watson's play?  Nothing changed.  The touchdown that he prevented was scored anyway.  The game that was being lost was lost anyway.  Nothing changed at all.  So why exert such a tremendous effort fighting against all odds to stave off the inevitable?

You do it because the ultimate reward of sport is in playing the game the way it's supposed to be played, and expending every ounce of effort and every gram of talent at your disposal in pursuit of your cause, no matter the circumstances, no matter the score.  Ben Watson ran down Champ Bailey because that's what you do.  You run a longer distance to catch a player who's supposed to be faster than you when everybody knows you can't do it, and even if you do it probably won't matter.  You do it because when you learn the game, and learn it right, it's a reflex.  You do it because at the end, win or lose, you can look in the mirror and know that you didn't cheat yourself, or your teammates.

You do it because that, my friends, is the essence of sport. 

I Agree With Senator Durbin

I do.  I like honest leadership.  I just don't think I can get it from the Democrats.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois today decried the Republican domination of the controls of government in Washington.  In the Democratic weekly radio address he's calling for honest leadership.

Although he admitted that "neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on virtue," he said the GOP's "unprecedented concentration of power" is to blame for "preventing government from dealing with the real needs of our nation."

There are problems, Sen. Durbin, that you'll need to acknowledge if you wish to have a share in the leadership of this nation.

1. In this radio message you identify problems, and non-specifically criticize the of the administration and Congress, but you and your party haven't proposed a single viable solution.  For instance, you feel the plight of the uninsured, but the Democrats prime solution, universal government healthcare, is one you know won't be accepted by Americans, due to the inevitable rationing, long waits and price controls that stifle innovation.  You want "energy independence", but don't want America to increase it's oil drilling or refining capability.  You criticize the easy-to-criticize Medicare drug plan, but the Democratic proposal at the time was even worse.
2. It's hard to take Democrats seriously when, for example, Al Gore plans a speech to critique the NSA communications intercepts (I refuse to call them "domestic spying"), but he was VP during the Echelon program (hat tip: Ken Wheaton).  Or when Sen. Clinton demands hearings on body armor, but fails to show up because she has a luncheon with Harry Belafonte.  Or when Senator Kennedy tries to use publication of satire to brand a Supreme Court nominee a racist.  Or when Senator Reid's practice of 'civil discourse' includes calling the President a "loser" to high school students.  I could go on.  When they stop doing such silly things perhaps we can take them more seriously.
3. Of course, for head scratchers indicating a lack of seriousness necessary to be a leader, you only have to look to your past statements.  Let me refresh your memory:
   If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

If you want to be taken seriously, and have a chance to lead, then be serious.  Stop painting government run whatever as the pinnacle of efficiency and value; stop playing politics with national security and terrorism; treat serious problems seriously, instead of reflexively opposing everything Republicans propose; and stop publicly treating the man that a majority of Americans picked as president the way you're treating him.

Linked to Wizbang's COTT XLVI.

Federal Government At Work

The best laid plans of mice and men ...

California, Arkansas and Illinois have joined about half a dozen other states taking emergency measures to help residents struggling to get prescriptions filled under the new Medicare drug program.

[...]

In some case, people who enrolled in plans have discovered they aren't listed as participating when pharmacies check their computers. Other beneficiaries found they were listed as owing a $250 deductible when they should have been paying only a few dollars per prescription.

It's early, and any huge new entitlement, and huge new bureaucracy, is bound to have glitches, especially at the outset.  That's the very nature of "bureaucracy."  Nonetheless, they've known they were "going live" in January '06 for some time.  There's really no logical reason for widespread problems, although, to be fair, even though the story indicates this is a multi-state problem, there's not evidence that it involves a large percentage of recipients.

The question of the new entitlement is another issue.  Things are much different now than in 1965, when Medicare was devised without an outpatient prescription benefit.  More people are on many more newer and more expensive medications, and on a low or fixed income each time your doctor writes a prescription it can be a challenge.  It would have been preferable, I think, to have a benefit similar to the Medicaid drug benefit only for those who are truly needy, rather than sweeping in even people who already had coverage.  My experience, and I have a fair amount of familiarity with government involvement in medicine, is that anytime the government is paying for medical services the distortions introduced are detrimental.

Here's an example.  Because Congress failed to act at the end of 2005, physician fee schedules are set for an average 4.4% hit this year, unless a bill is passed soon after Congress reconvenes at the end of this month.  Why?

Because the federal government does not reimburse based on either the value or the cost structure of the service provided.  Instead, it reimburses each service based on what it can afford to pay.

It would be as if you went to the supermarket, completed the checkout with your grocery bill totaling $132.88, and handed the clerk $34 because that's what you had budgeted, and the supermarket had to take it.  As Thomas Russell MD, the American College of Surgeons Executive Director, writes:

What is clear, of course, is that surgeons cannot indefinitely continue to absorb their escalating practice expenses and liability costs while reimbursement for their services fails to keep pace.

Earlier I wrote that

If our office had to rely on Medicaid levels of payment for the services we provide - from four board-certified, Ivy League trained orthopaedic surgeons - we'd be out of business in 6 months.

Well, Medicare payment levels last year were only marginally better than Medicaid, and now they're being reduced.  This does not bode well for medical practices in the face of, as Dr. Russell wrote, "escalating practice expenses and liability costs."

This is the kind of distortion to which I referred.  Government in this case looks at the gross number of dollars that it pays for services, and sets the prices for individual services accordingly.  If they must go down, so be it, and the viability of the provider practices be damned.

On the Medicare drug benefit they bit off probably more than they could chew, and probably more than they needed to.  We'll see how long it takes to sort the early troubles out, and it'll be 'interesting' to see how the cost of the program compares to projections.  If they are dramatically over budget in the first year or two, you can expect both tax increases and attempted drug price controls.

That you can take to the bank.

The Changing Republican Leadership

Over at The Truth Laid Bear is a statement of principle and appeal by center-right bloggers on the upcoming shift in House GOP leadership, following the stepping aside of Tom DeLay.  (Footnote: the link to the post is not working, but it is seen on the right half of NZ Bear's main page.)  (revised: The link is now working - scroll down - but the trackback feature is not)

The gist of it is simple.  There is a call for lobbying reform, and for a leadership committed to "openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process."  That is, no pork, no payoffs.

Further:

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

I think this is something we can all get behind.  Now if the Democratic leadership were so committed, why, then you got something!

Thanks to Kevin Aylward for the heads up.

Ten Truths On The Alito Confirmation

What we've learned from the confirmation hearings for Sam Alito

1. In John Roberts and Sam Alito, President Bush has named two very smart conservative jurists who have a thorough command of case law and an ability to think their way through the problems with fully informed logic.
2. Ted Kennedy has nothing left in the tank.  Nothing at all.  He's on 'E'.  Sen. Kennedy spent the entire confirmation hearing essentially yelling "You're a racist!" at Alito, to no avail, and without any evidence.
3. Liberal will interest groups reflexively oppose any conservative nominee, even one exceedingly well qualified, one whose knowledge and fairness have been uniformly cited by even liberal attorneys and judges with whom he worked.
4. After reflexively opposing such a nominee they then scramble to find grounds for such opposition, even if it means slinging mud and patently unfair, unsupported accusations, including guilt by association.  What's a little mud on a Republican appointee, after all?  They deserve it.
5. Sen. Joe Biden: "He's ramblin', ramblin' 'round.  He's a ramblin' guy, oh yeah.  R-A-M-B-L-I-N ... apostrophe.  Ramblin'."
6. As bad as the tenor of the hearings was, it could have been a lot worse with Sen. Kennedy as chairman.  A. Lot. Worse.  Sen. Arlen Spector did an admirable job controlling the flow and limiting gamesmanship and grandstanding.
7. Democratic/Liberal web site denizens have no shame, and no decency.
8. To the liberal interest groups, just about everything comes down to abortion.  They want it universally available at any time, for any female, of any age.  Other issues come up, but they seem to always start with, finish with, and emphasize abortion.
9. The liberal press twists itself into knots to take the complaints of Democrats and liberal interest groups seriously, even when they are not serious complaints.  They do so to their detriment.
10. Sam Alito will be confirmed, and based on the proceedings there does not appear to be a reason for the seven Democratic members of the "gang of 14" to support a filibuster.  If they do, I'll be interested to see on what justification they base it.

Check out Memeorandum for all you could ever want to read on this topic.

1/13/06 0805: One more truth (hat tip: Jason Smith):

After slinging mud and unfair accusations, the accusers are unwilling and unavailable to listen to contradictory evidence and testimonials.

Massachusetts State Government At Work

From the AAOS daily physician newsletter, via the Boston Herald:

A commission set up by the Massachusetts state legislature more than a year ago to examine whether the state should create a medical liability court has never once held a meeting, the Boston Herald reported. The 12-member commission, consisting of state senators, representatives and individuals appointed by the governor, was required to submit a report on its findings by Feb. 1, 2005. A task force created at the same time to look into medical liability issues also never convened.

Why would you bother meeting?  It's not like there's a malpractice insurance problem in the state.  It's not like physicians are leaving in droves.  Oh, wait ... oops, my bad.

State malpractice grade bodes ill: D- may speed doc shortage

The alarming shortage of doctors in the state could spiral into a “crisis” now that Massachusetts has been judged one of the worst states in the nation for malpractice rates, worried physicians say.

"We’re trying to sound the alarms,” Dr. Alan Harvey, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said yesterday. “It’s very much a concern for physicians in Massachusetts and it’s not improving.”

He spoke after the state earned a D-minus for its medical liability environment from the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Massachusetts doctors say medical malpractice insurance rates are through the roof, with obstetricians shelling out $97,000 a year. Medical liability insurance in Massachusetts spiked more than 50 percent from 2001 to 2004.

Furtive Glances

A few quick ones for the morning.

• Captain Ed Morrissey has been doing yeoman work in Washington blogging the Alito confirmation hearings.  He interviewed Senators John Kyl and Orrin Hatch yesterday, and finds Sen. Kennedy's tactics McCarthy-ish.
  ...I have to add something about Kennedy's pulling out sentences from magazines and newspapers and demanding to know if Alito had ever read them. Isn't this the same kind of treatment that Democrats complain that the PATRIOT Act would do to Americans -- hold them responsible for their reading material?...
  Someone needs to explain to Kennedy that subpoenaing the records of a long-defunct group because one disagrees with its political views sets up a very bad precedent. ... This stinks of Joe McCarthy, another pernicious force who spent far too much time in the Senate soaking up deference while providing nothing but shameful attacks on people who have done nothing to deserve them except give their lives for public service.
• Echoing something I had written earlier, Rick Moran hears the crickets chirping when it comes to Bush's improved poll numbers.
• Rick's Carnival of the Clueless is up.  Guess who the 'Cluebat of the Week' is?
• Schumer for SCOTUS?  Say it isn't so!

1/12/06 1140: Senator Graham thankfully points out the vicious and incomprehensible accusations that Sam Alito has endured so far.  Video Michelle Malkin or Ian's place.

"Let me tell you this: Guilt by association is going to drive good men and women away from wanting to sit where you're sitting. And we're going to go through a bit of this ourselves as congressmen and senators."

Rice Hosed Again

The Hall of Fame voting results are in, and next year the only entrant will be relief pitcher Bruce Sutter.  Jim Ed Rice, the most dominant offensive player in baseball for the 11 years from 1975 to 1986, was kept out once again.

BOSTON -- Despite speculation that this could finally be his chance to gain that all-access pass to baseball immortality, Red Sox slugger Jim Rice again fell short in his quest to make it to the Hall of Fame.

When the voting results were unveiled on Tuesday afternoon, closer Bruce Sutter was the only member of the 2006 Hall of Fame class. Rice finished second in the voting (64.8 percent). Inductees are required to get 75 percent of the votes.

Some writers take him to task because they look at him as a DH; others downgrade him because his longevity in the game was not sufficient to produce larger numbers.

The main reason, it seems, that Rice has been unsuccessful to this point is that his career totals aren't spectacular when compared to the majority of Hall of Fame sluggers. He produced 382 home runs, 2,452 hits and 1,451 RBIs to go along with a .298 average in 2,089 games.

It brings up the age-old debate: What means more -- dominance or longevity?

According to Red Sox historian Dick Bresciani, Rice's career home run and RBI totals were unmatched by any American League competitor during those same years.

Just how dominant a hitter was Rice? Consider that he finished in the top five in the AL MVP voting six times in a 12-year span, winning the award during his epic season of 1978.

Bresciani looked at a large volume of statistics analyzing Rice's dominance during that decade plus one, and noted that Rice led the league in twelve categories and finished in the top five in two others.  During this stretch:

• Rice led all AL players in games played, at bats, runs, hits, home runs, RBI, slugging percentage, total bases, extra-base hits, go ahead RBI, multi-hit games and outfield assists.  That's right, outfield assists.
• Rice had more total bases than George Brett, Robin Yount and Eddie Murray, all Hall of Famers
• Rice had more home runs than Reggie Jackson and Murray
• Rice had more RBI - by nearly 250 - than Jackson and Murray
• Rice scoreed more runs than Brett and Yount
• Rice had a higher slugging percentage than Brett, Murray, and Dave Winfield

And, by the way, in 1978 he was the first player since Joe Dimaggio in 1937 to surpass 400 total bases, and that year became the only player to lead the league in home runs, RBI and triples.

He's often criticized for not being a complete player, a DH.  But he played three times as many games in the outfield as he did at DH.  Sure, the short wall in left in Fenway helped, but he did have the most outfield assists during that time.

This guy should be in the Hall.  Voters, do the right thing and let him in soon.  Next year will be tough, with Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken up, but there's no reason it can't be a threesome.

1/12/06 0600: That's it!  The rallying cry for the Rice candidacy!  Let's make sure he gets in the Hall with his last year of eligibility!

Rice In 2008!!*

Sixteen Candles ...

... and now she's banned for steroid use for the next two years.

French Open quarterfinalist Sesil Karatantcheva was banned for two years after twice testing positive for the steroid nandrolone.

The 16-year-old Bulgarian failed one drug test after losing at Roland Garros on May 31, then failed an out-of-competition test in Tokyo on July 5, the International Tennis Federation said Wednesday. Both tests were treated as a first offense by an ITF tribunal that met Dec. 14-15 in London.

The ban took effect Jan. 1, and the ITF said she has three weeks to appeal.

Her father, who is also her coach, was a Bulgarian rower, back when Bulgaria was 'Eastern Bloc'.  Do you think he might know something about steroid use?

No Fox News?

I drive two cars, though not at the same time.  I have a sedan which is leased through my office, and an SUV that serves as a backup car for my wife and kids should hers have trouble, and as my rotton weather car, for the four-wheel drive in New Hampshire snow.  Due to nearly daily snows over the last week the sedan had pretty much sat idle in the garage since '05.  Until today, that is.

When I got both of these, over the last two years, I got them with satellite radio.  Unfortunately I was unable to stick with one company; due to the carmakers' contracts the SUV has XM, the sedan has Sirius.  That wasn't a big problem - the savings would have only been $4 - $5 per month had I been able to stay with one company, and the programming was slightly different.  I had access to both.

In the morning I like to listen to the news, and my station of choice is Fox News.  That option is, unfortunately, no longer available on both XM and Sirius, as I found out when the weather finally cooperated enough for me to venture out in the sedan.

XM Satellite Radio, which announced amid fanfare Wednesday that it narrowly missed its goal of 6 million subscribers by year's end, has unceremoniously become the exclusive satellite radio provider of Fox News content.

[...]

Meanwhile, XM's exclusivity with Fox News comes courtesy of rival Sirius Satellite Radio's failure to come to terms with the network, despite an hourlong meeting between Fox News topper Roger Ailes and Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin, insiders said.

The previous Sirius-Fox News arrangement ended last year so Sirius stopped broadcasting the Fox News television simulcast before midnight on New Year's Eve and replaced it with CNN Headline News. Fox radio personalities Tony Snow and Alan Colmes, who were heard on channels separate from the Sirius feed of TV's Fox News Channel, already had been yanked in mid-December.

Besides the morning, I'm often driving home during the 6 PM hour, and enjoy Brit Hume's show.  I know very well that, given the craziness of the dinner/bedtime hour, when I arrive home watching the news on TV will not be possible.  I'm not alone, apparently, in listening to Fox News in the car.

Fox News is about the third-most-listened-to channel among the more than 140 channels offered by XM, insiders said.

I could, of course, blame it all on Howard.

Observers speculated Wednesday that Sirius might have balked at a price hike from Fox News in order to conserve cash after signing Howard Stern to an exclusive deal for $500 million over five years.

Both Sirius and XM are adding subscribers rapidly, with XM beating Sirius' fourth quarter additions by about 70,000.  XM still has about double the number of subscribers.

I guess I'll just have to drive the truck more often, Howard Stern notwithstanding.  And if I add a portable satellite radio this makes the choice easier as well.  Note to Sirius: I could do without Howard much more easily than without Fox News.

1/11/06 1445: Looks like Stern himself might be betting against Sirius' future.

Just three days after starting his new job at Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., shock jock Howard Stern is now able to sell the roughly $200 million in Sirius stock that he received as part of his five-year deal with the company.

[...]

On Wednesday, the company made another regulatory filing saying that entities controlled by Stern and his agent, Don Buchwald, would receive the proceeds of the sale of the shares, which could occur at any time. It's not yet clear when or how much they will sell, and Buchwald did not return a call seeking comment.

But I thought that with Howard Sirius would kick some XM butt?

While neither company is profitable, both have also been quickly adding subscribers, who pay about $13 a month for either service. Sirius ended 2005 with some 3.3 million subscribers, compared with 1.1 million a year earlier and well ahead of its earlier forecasts. XM says it now has more than 6 million subscribers.

Sirius shares fell 28 cents or 4.3 percent to $6.22 in active trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market Wednesday, while XM shares rose 29 cents, or almost 1 percent, to $29.87 also on the Nasdaq.

Oops.  "While neither company is profitable..."?  Interesting.

Predictable

I haven't been here much lately, but even if I had I don't know that writing about the confirmation hearings of Judge Sam Alito would have been a wise use of my time.  The hearings have been as vanilla predictable as you could imagine, based on my reading of the SCOTUSblog live blog, the transcripts, and the news reports.  Yawn.

The objections of the Democrats that have surfaced so far have also been predictable.

"Americans have no better answers than they did at the outset of the hearings," said Sen. Edward Kennedy,  D-Mass.

And when he does answer, it is "vague, inconsistent, and at times, contradictory testimony to what his record shows," added Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee's ranking Democrat.

In other words, they don't have any specific pointed objection.  These two had already made up their minds on Sam Alito before the hearings started, to which Mr. Alito might respond:

"I would approach the question with an open mind and I would listen to the arguments that were made," Alito said.

Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer et. al. were going to vote against confirmation, and even if they were open to changing they wouldn't because of the interest groups that oppose confirmation.  It appears to be the case that Mr. Alito is a judge of high integrity and intellect, and the Democratic lions out to claw him have, as a result, been unable to do so.

Certainly that may change when the second round of questioning follows today, or with witnesses, but I doubt it.  Many of the witnesses will be strong supporters, apparently.  The complaints against Mr. Alito - the Vangard recusal, the strip-search case, the "biased for the government" accusation have all fallen flat, as they should given the facts.  The question is not, "Do you disagree with the rulings?"  The question is, "Even if you disagree with the rulings are the positions he has taken reasonable legal interpretation?"  They are.

That having been said, I believe the Democrats will try to hold a filibuster together, though on what grounds is unclear.  A filibuster will come down to the "gang of 14" and their willingness to stick by their agreement, that "extraordinary circumstances" would be required to filibuster.  I've neither seen, heard nor read anything to indicate that characterization would fly.

Furtive Glances

Well worth your time:

• John Hinderaker discusses FISA warrants, and why surveillances that have a very short shelf-life of applicability make them unworkable.  He notes that there are at least two major problems: 1) the unwieldy paperwork, timing and documentation requirments, and 2) the goal is not to gain intelligence from the terrorist's phone.  The goal is to gain intelligence on those who would communicate with the terrorist.
• Whoa!  This is a tough one to swallow.  Saddam was training terrorists?  By the thousands?  Actually you can count me among those who are less than surprised.
• The Indepundit, Citizen Smash, takes on an anti-war Congressman.  There's audio available at the extended read.
• Via Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, people are picking on Europe, and rightly so.

I'll write about the Patriots tomorrow.

Phantom Of The Opera's Long Run

Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'Phantom of the Opera' will set a record tomorrow as the longest running Broadway musical in history.  The previous record holder, 'Cats', was also a Webber creation.  'Phantom' started its run in January, 1988, two years after opening in London, where it is also still playing.

The Broadway production, which won seven 1988 Tony Awards including best musical, has been seen by almost 11 million people and grossed nearly $600 million, another record on the Great White Way.

The musical, which opened in London in 1986 and is still playing there, has been an international phenomenon. It has been seen by more than 80 million people worldwide and generated mind-boggling gross receipts in excess of $3.2 billion, according to the show's publicists.

"It shows no signs of weakening. It's cropping up in all sorts of places," Webber said. "It's most extraordinary."

There are currently seven productions around the world -- in London; New York; Budapest, Hungary; Tokyo; Sao Paulo, Brazil; Essen, Germany; and the U.S. national tour.

A new production is scheduled for Taipei, Taiwan, this month, and plans are in place to launch an open-ended "Phantom" run in Las Vegas.

I've seen 'Phantom' several times, and it is indeed, in my opinion, a great show.  Actually, "seen" isn't quite the right word - I should say "experienced."  It is a very entertaining show.  My family has always enjoyed live stage performances; my brother was a musical theater performer, and that draw to the stage extends to even the much less talented members, such as me.

I'm reminded, however, of Joe Queenan's panning of 'Cats' in chapter 1 of his book Red Lobster, White Trash and The Blue Lagoon.

Cats was very, very, very bad.  Cats was a lot worse than I'd expected.  I'd seen Phantom years ago, and knew all I needed to know about Starlight Express and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, so I was not a complete stranger to the fiendishly vapid world of Andrew Lloyd Webber.  But nothing I'd ever read or heard about the show could have prepared me for the epic suckiness of Cats.  Put it this way: Phantom sucked.  But Cats really sucked.

[...]

Sure, Cats is allegedly based upon the works of T. S. Eliot, but from what I could tell, the show had about as much to do with the author of "The Waste Land" as those old Steve Reeves movies had to do with Euripides.  Cats is what Grease would look like if all the cast members dressed up like KISS.  To give you an idea of how bad Cats is, think of a musical where you're actually glad to hear "Memory" reprised a third time because all the other songs are so awful.

Well, to each his own.  There are, clearly, worse things than a shattered chandelier.

Linked to Wizbang's COTT XLV.

A Packed Weekend

Sorry for the sparse posting, but being on call and celebrating your oldest's seventh birthday will do that to you.  As a result I've been essentially disconnected.  I'll try to get to some of the more 'urgent' matters shortly - remember, patience is a virtue.

By the way, I'm very proud of my daughter today.  (Actually I'm pretty proud of her everyday.)  She had a birthday party with 18 of her friends and relatives, and when the party was being arranged she told her parents she wanted the guests to bring donations for the American Red Cross instead of presents.  Today?  No regrets from her at all.

Yeah, I'm biased, but I think she's pretty special.

Is The Times In Legal Jeopardy?

Maybe so.

The Court's fundamental factual predicates in Bartnicki are that the media defendants played no part in the underlying illegal conduct and their access to the information was obtained lawfully. In the case of the NSA leaks, however, the disclosures to the Times were themselves illegal; it is the fact that the Times is an "unauthorized person" under section 798 that makes the disclosures to the Times illegal.

The Astute Blogger adds:

The leakers knew that the POTUS had the right to do authorize what he authorized, THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T USE THE PROPER CHANNELS SET FORTH IN THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. The leakers knew it was legal and constitutional but FELT that it could be SPUN into a scandal by a willing MSM, an this spin would HOODWINK a gullible electorate.

Which Is The Bigger Crime?

That "famous urinal artwork" was damaged by man with a hammer in France on Friday, or that this sculpture of a urinal was valued at $3 million Euros?  You decide.

The urinal, considered a seminal piece to come from the early 19th-century Dada movement, is valued at some three million euros (3.5 million dollars).

It was made in 1917 by Duchamp and was on display as part of a wider Dada exhibition set to close at the end of this week after drawing in 350,000 visitors.

This is apparently the second time the same man, now 77, has damaged that scupture.

Childish Games

Democrats have suggested that they'll be holding up the committee vote on Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination for a week, as apparently they are allowed to do by the rules.  Not the hearings, which will start shortly, but the vote itself, which committee chairman Sen. Arlen Spector had hoped to hold on January 17.

I'm having a hard time understanding the advantage of being seen as even more obstructionist, particularly when such obstructionism has become futile.  Polls show the American people support the confirmation of Alito, and the ABA recently submitted a letter rating him "well qualified" for the position.  That was nearly unanimous, with only one recusal from the vote.

And there's this:

The Supreme Court is in recess until Feb. 21.

So they're not even going to keep him from any of the Supreme Court's remaining work in this session.  There can only be one reason they've started to move the chess pieces: they think they'll be able to maintain a filibuster, and want to force Sen. Frist to the "Byrd" or constitutional option.

"I don't think anybody today sees a reason for a filibuster, but they may after the hearing if the answers are troubling to them or they feel they haven't gotten the answers to important questions," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor.

Democrats contend Alito is too conservative and could undermine some rights if confirmed. Some of their liberal supporters have urged Democrats to do whatever they can to block the nomination, including a filibuster.

It takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. With the Senate split with 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Democratic-voting independent, Democrats could launch a filibuster with no GOP votes.

Democrats have said repeatedly they don't plan to filibuster Alito's nomination, although they also have refused to promise to refrain from the stalling tactic.

The final decision will be made after the hearings, Schumer said. "If he is out of the mainstream and will use his tremendously powerful position as Supreme Court judge to impose his views on the American people, then there's a potential for a filibuster, and no one really knows that until the hearings," Schumer said.

The problem with that statement is that there are a lot of people in government who are "out of the mainstream" and use a "tremendously powerful position" to "impose [their] views on the American people," or try to, at any rate.  People like Sen. Schumer and Sen. Kennedy, for instance.  Justice Ginsburg could easily be termed "out of the mainstream" given her many opinions in the minority.

Sen. Schumer and other Senate liberals are going to paint Alito as out of the mainstream if his interpretations of law differ from liberal interpretations.  Much as the NY Times is not the final arbiter of the need to disclose classified information, liberal senators are not the final arbiters of legal interpretation.  Despite their best efforts to characterize it so, being conservative is not an irrational state.

Furtive Glances

A brief one.  I'm heavily involved in the national championship game, which Texas, somewhat surprisingly, leads 16-10 in the third quarter.  But I did a little reading during commercial breaks and halftime, and these are must reads.

• Tom Maguire and Rick Moran each discuss the arrogance of NY Times editors, attempting to take the place of Barbara Bush as GWB's mother, and becoming the final arbiter of whether he's being a good boy or bad boy.
• John Hinderaker at Power Line took the time to read the filings in the case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and then reviewed material from Rep. Ney on his involvement.  Is there much there there if what Hinderaker wrote is true?

Yet Another Reason Why Politics Is Not For Me

Several days ago I wrote about the dirt-digging that's already begun by political 'research' teams.  In that case it was a fishing expedition by a Democratic operative looking for information on Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts and possible 2008 presidential candidate.  I wrote:

I'm fairly certain that politics is not for me.  You have to be willing to have your every utterance and activity exposed for all the world, and you have to be slimey enough to do the same to your opponent.  And virtually none of it has anything to do with ideas, character and governance...

So here we go again, with the mudpit that is American politics.  Lobbyist Jack Abramoff is pleading guilty to three felonies in a congressional corruption scandal, and is cooperating with prosecutors.

"I plead guilty, your honor," Abramoff said in flat, unemotional tones, accepting a plea bargain that said he had provided lavish trips, golf outings, meals and more to public officials "in exchange for a series of official acts."

Rick Moran hits the nail on the head.

What is it about politics that seems to attract these kinds of amoral people? Politics is a deathly competitive calling and the character of people who are more and more being attracted to the political culture in Washington (and to a lesser extent statehouses across the country) seem to reflect a kind of casual turpitude where venality and cynicism vie with high ideals and patriotism in a horrible mish mash of colliding special interests and grasping for power.

This is what Whitewater and cattle futures were all about - politicians getting special treatment and special opportunities because of who they were and what kind of back rub they could provide for the people rubbing their backs.  This current scandal is likely to hit more Republicans than Democrats; they're in power, and have been for some time.  A smart corrupt lobbyist would work hardest on the majority party members.  Democratic partisans are feeling their oats in this.  Fine.  Uncover the dirt and send the offenders to the clink.  I've got no use for 'em.  But when those same partisans insist that it shows that the Republicans are the "party of corruption," I have to laugh.  Put the Dems in the majority and the roles would be fully reversed.  You think I'm kidding?  Well, I'm not.

Call me a pollyanna, but politics is just not for me.

1/3/06 2000: Others -- Jay at Stop The ACLU

Looks like old Harry Reid may be involved in the scandal as well. It really is significant news that has great potential to reshape Washington. A scumbag is a scumbag whether they have a D or an R in front of their name.

Kevin Aylward at Wizbang:

Clearly the Abramoff case has the potential to be a major problem for Republicans, but if the investigation are really is as widespread as are rumored it could become a problem for all incumbents regardless of party...

Oh, and there's this, at Bloomberg News:

Some 220 lawmakers received at least $1.7 million in political donations from Abramoff, his associates and nine tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, according to a review of Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service records. Of those, 201 are still in Congress. Republicans received $1.1 million, or 64 percent of the total.

That would be, what, $600,000 or 36% for the minority party?

Several lawmakers are giving back the money they took in from Abramoff's clients and associates. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Dec. 13 he was returning $67,000 in donations.

1/4/06 0600: Missing link added to update.

1/4/06 1315: More from Ace of Spades, who believes that specific politicians should be affected, but not an entire party.

Notice how that's phrased [in the NY Times article]. "Even Democrats, many of whom also benefited from his largesse, acted skittish." Well, if they benefited from his "largesse," why the hell wouldn't they be skittish? What's that "even" doing there? Are they not in the exact same position as Republicans who took money from Abramoff and his cronies?

Apparently not. Republicans are presumed guilty, Democrats are presumed... well, desperate for money and just doing what needs to be done to win elections.

And the passive voice is cute: While Mr. Abramoff is most closely linked to Republicans... Linked by whom? Well, by NYT reporters, among others.

Jack Abramoff is linked to specific Republicans and specific Democrats, not chiefly "the Republican Party."

Does He Read The Papers?

**Welcome Polipundit and RWNH 'Carnival of the Clueless' readers.  Have a look around but remember: You break it, you bought it.

I was reading an interview with Markos Moulitsas, proprietor or The Daily Kos, discussing on MSNBC.com his thoughts on the upcoming midterm elections, and I came upon this gem:

Is the Iraq war the key campaign issue, or something else?
I think as long as Iraq is on the plate it is the issue. You don’t see a lot of talk about the war in the national media. (ed: my italics) Six people get killed in an IED [improvised explosive device] attack and it’s put on page 37.

Does he read the papers at all?  "You don't see a lot of talk about the war in the national media?"  Really, is he serious?  He hasn't noticed that every American soldier's death is reported, without the context of the job they are doing, and the story repeated until the next set of deaths can be reported, and those repeated, ad infinitum?  Obviously he'd like the American military deaths to be emphasized even more, to try to weaken support for the war, but to suggest that it's being hidden "on page 37" is a tad disingenuous.  Then there's this:

How will the Democrats use the war issue?
This is a little frustrating for me. Here’s a perfect opportunity for Democrats to have led on an issue, and they haven’t. The problem is that part of the Democratic caucus thinks it’s manly and tough to be for the war. (ed: my italics)  They are afraid to basically state what the reality on the ground is.

Huh?  The ones that support the Iraq war Kos demeans as doing so just to seem "manly and tough."  No chance that it's due to concern for national security?  No chance it's due to belief in democratic transformation being beneficial in the middle east?  No chance it's due to continued support for the Clinton-era policy of regime change for Iraq?  No chance it's due to humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people?  It's all just because of the need to seem "manly and tough."  I see.

Part of the ability to debate - a large part - is the ability to recognize and understand the arguments and evidence of your opponents.  Here Kos just dismisses those who oppose his view point with statements that, on even superficial levels, are simply silly.  And this guy is a leader of the activist Democrats?

1/3/06 1917: Paul Mirengoff at Power Line and Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey also have something to say about the seriousness of Kos, who irreconcilably thinks Democrats support the war to be manly and tough, but Republicans support it because they are cowards.

It's 2006

Happy New Year.

Drink a toast, with the alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverage of your choice, to the date change.

Don't make resolutions you really have no intention of keeping.  And hey, let's be careful out there, okay?