Joust The Facts

My First (And Last) Brief Conversation With My Failing Septic System

(With apologies, an homage to Jeff Goldstein)

Me: So, after only this brief time, you're leaving?  And without so much as a goodbye?

SS:

Me: You're damn right I'm angry.  I've given you everything I have, and this is the thanks I get?

SS:

Me:

SS: Well, the grass is greener, and all that, you know.

The Forecast

The five-day blogging forecast for 'Joust The Facts':

Things have been awfully busy around here, and the blogging has been light to non-existent.  My attempts to write have been met with disruptions and fatigue, and as a result been rather unproductive.  I've gone back and read some of the pieces I've written lately, and I don't agree with them.

As of tomorrow AM I'm on vacation skiing with my family for a few days, and although I'll be lugging my laptop I'm not sure I'll want to put in much time, or much effort.  Oh, there may be a few little posts here and there, maybe even a photo of my 22 month old daughter on skis.  But for the next five days I suggest you visit the "Friends of Giacomo" and the members of "The Blog Scroll."

Following that, of course, are more hurdles, including time off to attend the Big East basketball tournament at Madison Square Garden.  So I don't know that there'll be much 'in depth' analysis or keen insight.  I do plan, however, to give a thorough NCAA hoop tournament rundown once the bracket is set, and I'll be sure to blog the tournament at least a little.

So the forecast for this blog is cold and dark, with high winds.  Once the storm passes through the sun will gradually return, with highs in the upper 70's, and a light ocean breeze.

Alan Dershowitz On "Politically Correct Harvard"

Long-time Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz writes an op-ed for today's Boston Globe that reveals the "400 pound gorilla in the room."  He reveals that much of the university, other than the Arts and Sciences faculty, still supported Summers.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which forced Summers's resignation by voting a lack of confidence in him last March and threatening to do so again on Feb. 28, is only one component of Harvard University and is hardly representative of widespread attitudes on the campus toward Summers. The graduate faculties, the students, and the alumni generally supported Summers for his many accomplishments.

Further, their lack of support was due to the perception that Summers did not toe the politically correct line, and even abject surrender to the storm that followed was unacceptable to them.

And let there be no mistake about the origin of Summers's problem with that particular faculty: It started as a hard left-center conflict. Summers committed the cardinal sin against the academic hard left: He expressed politically incorrect views regarding gender, race, religion, sexual preference, and the military.

For evidence Professor Dershowitz provides a portion of the text accompanying the "no confidence vote" that was removed.

The original no-confidence motion contained an explanatory note that explicitly referenced ''Mr. Summers' apparently ongoing convictions about the capacities and rights not only of women but also of African-Americans, third-world nations, gay people, and colonized peoples." The note also condemned Summers for his 2002 speech in which he said calls from professors and students for divestment from Israel were ''anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent."

Although the explanatory note was eventually removed from the motion, it was the 400-pound gorilla in the room. Summers was being condemned for expressing views deemed offensive by some of the faculty. I personally disagreed with some of Summers's statements, but that is beside the point in an institution committed to academic freedom and diversity of viewpoints.

...Radical academics do not, of course, burn down buildings, at least not since the 1970s. Instead they introduce motions of no confidence and demand resignations of those who offend their sensibilities (while insisting on complete freedom of speech for those with whom they agree -- free speech for me but not for thee!)

Bravo, Mr. Dershowitz, bravo.  While I'd be far more likely to agree with Mr. Summers statements perhaps than would Mr. Dershowitz , we agree that removal for non-politically correct speech is a black mark on a great institution of higher learning that should be committed to open expression and exploration of all points of view.  That Mr. Summers was forced out for crossing the politically correct slant of a minority of all faculty, even after prostrating himself before that portion of the faculty, does not bode well for the successor to interim and past-president Derek Bok, who will guide Harvard during their search.

Idealogical purity is a poor substitute for academic inquiry.

The Inmates Have Won

In yesterday's 'Furtive Glances' I touched upon the sad tale of Harvard President Lawrence Summers, and the likelihood that he would be replaced.

Harvard is ungovernable, but it is ungovernable because in an institution of higher learning, dedicated to exploring the vast breadth of human knowledge without prejudice, political correctness has made some of that exploration suicidal.  Harvard is Harvard, and if Mr. Summers is forced out they will not lack for candidates to replace him.  But it will be clear to outside observers that the new leader will have to toe a politically correct line.  To get along, you go along.

Well, it's happened, or rather will happen at the conclusion of the current academic year.

Summers, a former treasury secretary under President Clinton, took charge of the university in July 2001, and almost immediately alienated some faculty with his blunt and brusque management style. In January 2005, he sparked an uproar when he speculated about women’s aptitude in science, which led to a vote of no-confidence by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

The same faculty had scheduled a second, unprecedented vote a week from today, after their dean, William C. Kirby, stepped down. Some professors said Summers had forced Kirby out of the position. The episode, the latest in a stormy tenure, was said to have led Harvard’s governing board to consider Summers’ ouster.

See, it doesn't pay to be "blunt and brusque" with the faculty.  Dr. Sanity has some additional thoughts on bullies and appeasement.

Summers abjectly apologized and fell all over himself backpedaling after making some perfectly harmless remarks which happend to mightily offend (to the point of causing a near-swooning episode) some of his female faculty. And for his herculean efforts to appease the eternal victims of academic feminism, Summers reaped only further scorn and rage, expressed in an angry offensive against his administration--not entirely dissimilar to the escalation of the more recent cartoon jihad.

In the history of academia, I don't think anyone has ever come closer to voluntary castration for the cause of radical feminism. And look where it got him.

Ouch.

2/22/06 0630: An interesting post from Scott Johnson at Power Line, referencing Heather Mac Donald's work on the "diversity uber alles" mindset at the institution.

The Port Security Dilemma

While I was busy this weekend with patient care, among other things, a controversy has been raging over the sale of a British company to Dubai Ports World, of the United Arab Emirates, that would put that company in charge of port security and flow in major US ports such as Miami, Baltimore and Philadelphia.  This state-owned enterprise makes port security, in the minds of many, a major risk given the possibility of attacks originating in that part of the world.

I have been a little too occupied to digest the whole story, with all its nuances.  But even without all of the story fully digested I'm skeptical.  Conservative bloggers get criticism for the left for being lock-step supporters of any and all administration actions, without reservation.  It's true that, in general, if I was going to criticize the President or the administration, I would be far less likely to do it than someone on the left, and that criticism is not likely to take the same tone or angle of attack.  But criticize we do, as the Harriet Miers nomination for SCOTUS showed.

Now I'm even more skeptical.  Via Michelle Malkin, this story on Breitbart.com regarding the President's defense of the sale is a raises my antennae.

President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."  That's a shoddy defense, and my guess is he knows it.  They should be held under higher scrutiny for a number of reasons:

1. The company is state-owned, not a private company
2. The company is a relative newcomer in this field.
3. The company is based in the middle east, a region where, no surprise, many people who would like to kill Americans live.
4. For many people the port security of this nation was already somewhat questionable; this would make it more questionable.

"Treated fairly" is not necessarily "treated the same," and it never has been.  That's why many of us object to the random passenger screening process at airports, where Granny and 9 year old children are as likely to be searched as anyone else.  It is perfectly fair to treat the turnover of our security to an Arab company with a more scrutiny and concern than would be the case for the longstanding British company that currently has the contract, and the Arab company and UAE should know that.

So, Mr. Bush, you can prove your task force looking at this sale has done proper due diligence, and assuage any unfounded fears, or you can sound like you're stonewalling.

2/22/06 0615: Kevin Aylward wins the headline award:

"Bush Fulfills "I'm A Uniter, Not A Divider" Pledge"

Furtive Glances - Pitchers And Catchers Report Edition

Ah, there's the smell of horsehide in the air.  A few notable stories and posts at the end of a busy Sunday.

• Label this one 'hope springs eternal', though the wait is a lot shorter than it once was.  The Boston Red Sox, along with the other teams, are getting things going in Florida and Arizona in preparation for the 2006 baseball season.  Curt Schilling is feeling good, and is taking newcomer Josh Beckett under his wing early.  Keith Foulke is looking to bounce back, and Manny is still in Boston.  Go figure.
  
  The Baseball Crank has a quick look at the respective Yankee and Red Sox pitching staffs, and thinks the Pinstripes may be thin.  We'll see.  As with many teams the Sox have some 'ifs' to answer, with Schilling, Foulke, Beckett, Papelbon, Wells, Hanson all on that list.  They also don't have as much offense as the last couple of years.  I think that by acquiring Coco Crisp they came out of the loss of Johnny Damon as sweetly as possible.
• Ed Morrissey discusses Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe column today.  Both find the press cowardly in the face of Islamic extremism.  From Jacoby:
  
  It's about fear. Editors and publishers are afraid the thugs will target them as they targeted Danny Pearl and Theo van Gogh; afraid the mob will firebomb their newsrooms as it has firebombed Danish embassies...
  Journalists can be incredibly brave, but when it comes to covering the Arab and Muslim world, too many news organizations have knuckled under to threats.
  
  From Captain Ed:
  
  The media attacks those who they know will not spend much energy fighting back. Gregory could act like a rude, spoiled child denied his choice of birthday gift because he knew the White House would not dare to even expel him from the room. However, their supposed calling to keep the people informed suddenly takes a powder when the remote threat of violence appears. This only acts to encourage such threats in the future, as the nutcases take a lesson from the pusillanimity of the mainstream American media, especially in contrast with their European counterparts that have taken a stand against extortion and published the cartoons in defense of the Danish press.
  
  Amen.
• Harvard University may be easing President Larry Summers out the door, in the final act of the drama that started with Mr. Summers' comments on gender and mathematical ability.
  
  The governing board of Harvard University is considering removing President Lawrence H. Summers from office to end the escalating strife between faculty members and Summers, according to two Harvard professors and one senior official who have spoken with members of the board recently...
  
  

  The senior official said the people sharing their views with the board are not all in agreement. One key consideration is what the removal of Summers would signal about Harvard -- whether anyone can lead the university and whether it would result in an overly empowered faculty.

  ''It's this dichotomy between people worried that if Harvard ran a president out, it would become ungovernable, and the view, gaining ground, that actually if we lived through another no-confidence vote and its aftermath, that will make Harvard truly ungovernable."
  
  Unfortunately, that about sums it up.  Harvard is ungovernable, but it is ungovernable because in an institution of higher learning, dedicated to exploring the vast breadth of human knowledge without prejudice, political correctness has made some of that exploration suicidal.  Harvard is Harvard, and if Mr. Summers is forced out they will not lack for candidates to replace him.  But it will be clear to outside observers that the new leader will have to toe a politically correct line.  To get along, you go along.
  
  Here's a Summers timeline, courtesy of the Globe.

• Rick Moran discusses brilliantly the left in a post-9/11 world.  To paraphrase: "They haven't learned a damn thing."  He discusses a Simon Jenkins column on Times Online.
  
  Every liberal canard about the War on Terror is contained in those two paragraphs [from Jenkins column]. Despite the rest of Mr. Jenkins’ article which accurately sums up many of the problems engendered by our response to 9/11 (sans his statements about “latent authoritarianism” in democratic leaders), his only alternatives – “restraint” and “policing” – precisely proves my point: That the left has learned nothing from 9/11 and that following the lead of Jenkins and others of his ideological ilk would be extraordinarily dangerous.
  
  This is the argument that John Kerry made unsuccessfully in 2004, that terrorism is best treated as a matter of law enforcement.  In the absence of WMD and attacks on our own soil that may be workable, though it still ducks the issue of "acts of war" and state sponsorship, but with the possibility of WMD used on Americans it is a non-starter, and will continue to lose elections for those who embrace it.

Attention, Mr. Gumbel

HBO's Bryant Gumbel, exhibiting what would be racism were he, say, Rush Limbaugh or Jimmy The Greek, on his Real Sports show: (video also available)

"Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t like them and won’t watch them ... Because they’re so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won ... So if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, when we can move on to March Madness — for God’s sake, let the games begin."

As if to tell Mr. Gumbel to clam up, and quick, American long track speed skater Shani Davis took home a gold today in the Men's 1000 meter race.

An American double victory in the deafening arena of the Oval Lingotto, taken by storm by thousands of Dutch supporters, who had to bow down to the speed and technique of the “black arrow” Shani Davis, the first coloured athlete to win an Olympic medal in the speed skating event.

The awkward translation is from Italian to English.  Sounds a little like a superhero, though, "The Black Arrow."  What do you think, Bryant?

2/19/06 0430: Kind of like this guy?

Of course, there is controversy surrounding Davis, what with skipping the team pursuit race.

Yeah, It Got Me Too

Via Yahoo News:

Storm Slashes Power Across Northeast

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - More than a quarter-million homes and businesses still lacked power across the Northeast on Saturday as temperatures plummeted following a storm with hurricane-force wind gusts that was blamed for four deaths.

Wind was still blowing at about 30 mph through the region Saturday. On Friday, wind of more than 60 mph buffeted the Rochester area and a 77-mph gust was recorded at the city's airport, the weather service said.

The storm swept out of the Midwest on Friday, carrying a wave of bitterly cold air. Temperatures in some parts of western New York plunged from 60 degrees to below freezing within a few hours. Hayward, Wis., had a morning low of 26 below zero, and afternoon temperatures in the Upper Midwest were in only the single digits Saturday. Parts of Arkansas had 5.5 inches of snow Saturday and freezing temperatures extended across the state.

Utility officials in upstate New York said crews would work through the weekend to restore power to 160,000 customers, down from at least 328,000 customers who were blacked out Friday.

More than 40,000 homes and businesses had no electricity in New Hampshire (ed: that would be us), and more than 35,000 in Maine.

Vermont, where the National Weather Service reported a wind gust of 143 mph on Stratton Mountain (ed: !), had about 7,000 customers still without power, and some 1,800 customers were blacked out in Massachusetts.

So, between being on call, sick children, and being up running the generator to heat the house to keep those kids and my wife warm, it's been a busy 24 hours.

On the other hand, things could be worse.  A close friend's family had a ski trip to Utah cancelled due to flight cancellations and no airline capacity to reschedule them.

Federal Judicial Arrogance

In a move of startling judicial overreach and arrogance, a federal district judge has ordered information related to the NSA terrorist surveillance program released publicly.

WASHINGTON - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration on Thursday to release documents about its warrantless surveillance program or spell out what it is withholding, a setback to efforts to keep the program under wraps.

At the same time, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said he had worked out an agreement with the White House to consider legislation and provide more information to Congress on the eavesdropping program. The panel's top Democrat, who has requested a full-scale investigation, immediately objected to what he called an abdication of the committee's responsibilities.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy ruled that a private group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, will suffer irreparable harm if the documents it has been seeking since December are not processed promptly under the Freedom of Information Act. He gave the Justice Department 20 days to respond to the group's request.

"President Bush has invited meaningful debate about the wireless surveillance program," Kennedy said. "That can only occur if DOJ processes its FOIA requests in a timely fashion and releases the information sought."

Let's look at this for a moment.  A federal judge, who likely knows little or nothing about the program and its worth in anti-terrorism activities, is now ordering that the possibly illegal exposure of the program by the NY Times be enlarged against the wishes of the executive and legislative branches.  And this due to a private suit by private citizens who have nothing to do with national security.

I understand the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its purpose.  It does not seem that such an information transfer should be applicable in instances of national security - like this one - where Congressional oversight, or possibly (if you believe they should have jurisdiction) oversight by the secret FISA court, is appropriate.

If this program is valuable for tracking and identifying terrorists at all, it is so because it was - until December - unknown to the terrorists.  Congress may rightly think it should be better informed on the NSA's efforts.  But for a single federal judge to determine that the entire program should be exposed publicly, and therefore possibly made useless to the government, is judicial arrogance writ large.

The only things that will suffer "irreparable harm" if release of the papers is forced in this fashion are the program itself and the chief executive, whose responsibility is to protect the nation.  Congressional oversight, by the respective intelligence committees who have access to classified national security material, fine.  Lone wolf federal judges, no.

No Carnival?

Rats.  I had submitted this post.

Best of luck with the web host, Rick.  We'll see you next week.

The Belated "VP Cheney Shot A Man" Post

The frenzy of wordsmithing, pontificating, posturing and ill-temper over this story has left me speechless until now.  I thought that, despite the fact that millions of words have already been written about this story, there are still a few points worth further discussion.

So on Saturday, while hunting on a private ranch in Texas, Vice President Cheney took aim as a covey of quail was flushed and fired.  Unfortunately the VP's companion and friend, 78 year old Texas attorney Harry Whittington was in the line of fire.  I know nothing about hunting, including quail hunting.  From what I've heard and read, the story is that Mr. Whittington had dropped back from the hunting line to retrieve a bird, then failed to make his presence known as he approached.  Cheney, however, in an interview yesterday put the responsibility in his pocket stating "I pulled the trigger."

There was then a media temper tantrum, the White House press corps infuriated that the story was not released to them until the following day, and only after a local news outlet in Texas had been given the story by the host of the trip, Mrs. Armstrong.  For instance, this question (reporter unidentified) from Tuesday's White House press briefing really ticks me off.

Q By your own account yesterday, information flowing from Texas to Washington on Saturday evening and Sunday morning took a while, you said, to get all of the information of what transpired in Texas. When the Vice President goes on these private trips, does he have inadequate staff and support with him to communicate quickly in case of an emergency?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are communications with the Vice President and with the President, and they stay in touch through a variety of means. This was a weekend hunting trip. There wasn't a press entourage with him, there wasn't a broader staff with him that he might normally have.

Q You said you found out, like 6:00 a.m. the next morning. Are you suggesting that he had plenty of ability to contact Washington and didn't use it?

So now letting the press know is an "emergency"?  On a vacation trip?  Give me a break.  The press is entitled to information about the event, because it involves the Vice President.  They are not entitled to refer to their need to know as an "emergency."  Let's pose a hypothetical question, here.  Suppose that the event was not disclosed to the press for 72 hours, instead of 24 hours.  Would anything at all be different?  Would Mr. Whittington's condition be improved or worsened?  Would the VP's demeanor and thoughts about his friend have been different at all?

The answers are clearly no, no, and no.  In other words, the press' ability to inform the public about what happened was not impacted in any demonstrable way.  Their ability to do it as close as possible to the event was effected, but in no way does that impact the people involved, or the nation.

Let me isolate and highlight this sentence so they can read it carefully and understand:

Journalism is not an emergency.   

It never was, and it never will be.  (David Gregory, please take note.)  I deal with true emergencies on a regular basis - I would know.  The doctors and paramedics dealing with Mr. Whittington's injuries at the site and in the hospital were dealing with emergencies.  The White House press corps, not so much.

One other point.  There is cause, there is fault, and there is responsibility, and in some situations - like this one - they are not the same thing.  The shooting may well be Mr. Cheney's reponsibility, and Mr. Whittington's fault at the same time.  In some situations fault and responsibility lie with the same person, but cause lies elsewhere.  An example would be icy patches in the northeast in the winter that cause a person to fall.  The cause of the fall is the ice.  The fault and responsibility lie with the only active participant, the person who fell.  Sorry, lawyers, it's New England in the winter.  There will be snow and ice on the ground.  It's neither the fault, nor the responsibility, of the parking lot owner.

Finally, there's Lawrence O'Donnell.  Mr. O'Donnell speculated on the level of intoxication of the Vice President without any evidence whatsoever to support the accusation.  Here's the only fact presented:

"This was a hunting accident," said Gilbert San Miguel, chief deputy of the Kenedy County Sheriff's Office. "There was no alcohol or misconduct."

But that's not good enough, is it?

Every lawyer I've talked to assumes Cheney was too drunk to talk to the cops after the shooting. The next question for the White House should be: Was Cheney drunk?

I have never gone hunting with ultra-rich Republicans on a Saturday afternoon, but I have seen them tailgating at Ivy League football games, so it's hard for me to believe that any of their Saturday lunches are alcohol free.

I see.  So a bunch of lawyers make an assumption, and that translates into fact?  And, apparently, you buy into stereotypes.  Very nice.  I've seen blue collar guys tailgating, and in fact I've tailgated.  Tailgaters drink,  That's the whole point of tailgating for many.  Since some people drink alcohol when they tailgate, therefore, all their Saturday lunches are booze fests?  Is that a logical assumption?  Hardly.

Hugh Hewitt rips apart Mr. O'Donnell's assumptions here. (hat tip: Power Line)

This is a sad story of an accident, and I wish Mr. Whittington a full recovery.  On the other hand, the sadder story is the post-incident mindless derangement of the press and others.  Many are coming dangerously close to needing psychological counseling.

2/16/06 1900: Similar thoughts from Jeff Goldstein and Thomas Sowell.  From Mr. Sowell:

The people who mattered—doctors and local law enforcement—were informed immediately about the hunting accident. What was President Bush supposed to do—other than provide the media with something to print or broadcast?

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Furtive Glances: Valentine's Day Hangover Edition

I'm not really hung over, but I did take yesterday off from blogging - hey, I'm a lover, not a fighter.  If you knew Gwendolyn, you'd understand...

But I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on a couple topics quickly, as the work day ends.  I hope to look into a couple of things in a little more detail tonight.

• The Boston University Terriers won the Beanpot.  Again.  For those who haven't been indoctrinated into the cult of Boston college hockey in Boston, the Beanpot is the annual tournament between Boston College, Boston University, Harvard and Northeastern that is held on the first two Mondays each February.  The first round is played the first week, with the winners meeting for the championship the following week (the losers also meet in a consolation game).
  If you're keeping count - and I am - that makes 27 Beanpot wins in the 54 years the tournament has been held.    Almost more remarkable is that BU has only failed to make the championship game on 9 occasions - and five of those occurred before 1963.  This is BU's tournament, and everyone else is just begging for scraps.
  
  Go BU!!
  
• In a great college basketball game, also on Monday night, the Villanova Wildcats took down #1 UConn by three in Philadelphia.  It was a see-saw game, with 'Nova's four-headed guard offense taking over in the second half and draining threes like they were shooting ducks in a barrel.  I said earlier that if a team was going to best the Huskies this year they'd have to do it with great long-range shooting.  That's exactly what the Wildcats got on Monday - along with an inspired (and somewhat unexpected) performance from big man Will Sheridan.  I see both teams in the final four at this point in the season, but time will tell.

More later.

Speaking Of Ill-Advised Speech ...

Ann Coulter stuck her pedicured foot firmly in her mouth the other day, acting to widen the chasm that already exists between the west and Islam.  The conservative pundit used the term "ragheads" in a speech at the CPAC convention.  Michelle Malkin condemns it, as do I.

One of the principles of this blog is that here everyone is treated with respect, starting with how people are addressed.  I try to use "Mr." and "Mrs." for the most part.  While I'll occasionally refer to someone by their last name, I avoid using exclusively their last name.  I do not "modify" a name to demean anyone.  In addition, I avoid using terms like 'repugs', 'moonbats' or the like in referring to the various groups involved in the discussion.

When you treat someone as beneath contempt, even if you vehemently disagree with them, you lose their ear.  Perhaps she's not interested in having those ears, and clearly she doesn't care if some groups have contempt for her.  But she hurts her own arguments, let alone the arguments of those who agree philosophically with her in any way, by stooping to invective.

Next time, Ms. Coulter, put a sock in it, or at least choose your words a little more judiciously.  Keep it up, and I'll be tuning you out.

Gore Does It Again

Is there a single prominent Democratic politician who is able to stave off the urge to talk down America when on foreign soil?  The evidence would say no.  The latest is Al Gore, defeated in the 2000 election by the current occupant of the White House.  In speaking at an economic forum in Saudia Arabia, Gore simply couldn't resist the temptation.

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia - Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

What the heck is he talking about?  To which abuses is Mr. Gore referring?  Is he talking about Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, neither of which involve Arabs arrested for visa violations?  Does he have example of large numbers of Saudis "indescriminately rounded up?"

This nation should be so down-on-it's-knees eyes-lifted-to-the-heavens grateful that Mr. Gore is not, and was not ever, in charge of defending the nation.  Perhaps he's forgotten that September 11 involved 19 Arab hijackers, of whom 15 were Saudi.  Perhaps he's forgotten that having a visa out of order or an improper green card means that you are in the country illegally.  Perhaps he'd like to identify those large numbers of rounded up Saudis and those "unforgivable" conditions.   Perhaps he's forgotten that there is a terrorist organization made up of primarily Arab Muslim men who have declared war on us - while Mr. Gore was the VP, no less.

In order to make these statements while on Saudi soil Mr. Gore had to ignore all of these facts.  He also had to ignore the current "Cartoon Intifada" to maybe throw gasoline on the fire.  But then, he's just following in his mentor's footsteps.

2/13/06 1130: Scott Johnson at Power Line and Tigerhawk both have thoughts on the illustrious former VP.  From Tigerhawk:

There is simply no defense for what Gore has done here, for he is deliberately undermining the United States during a time of war, in a part of the world crucial to our success in that war, in front of an audience that does not vote in American elections. Gore's speech is both destructive and disloyal, not because of its content -- which is as silly as it is subversive -- but because of its location and its intended audience. He should be ashamed. But he won't be. The leadership of the Democratic party should disavow Gore's Jiddah speech. But it won't.

Well put.

2/13/06 1145: More, with a link roundup, at Michelle Malkin.

2/13/06 1445: Rick Moran has researched the "Arabs rounded-up" part and found the results unimpressive.

Were Arabs detained following 9/11? Why yes they were. According to this Arab-American website, the number could have been 1200, with 725 held on immigration violations, another 100 held for unrelated criminal charges, and 360 detained for possible links to terrorism. And according to the US Census Bureau, there are about 3 million Arab Americans in the United States.

Even if you're impressed by those numbers, remember that this is 2006, five years later, that Gore is speaking.  Have there been Arabs "rounded up" since?  I don't think so.

A Disappointment

The 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino opened yesterday, and in less than 24 hours NBC has managed to squander a portion of any interest an avid sports fan might have.  First, when I tuned in last night I was greeted by the smiling mug of Jim Lampley.  Yes, that Jim Lampley.

Then the evil machinations of NBC began to work today.  Even when it's possible to show an event live, or with minimal delay, the powers that be decide to time shift it to prime time, to "maximize the audience."  The problem with this is that most people know the winner by then, and I'm far less likely to set my day around the broadcast, since I know I'll have learned the outcome.  Most of the day was devoid of watchable Olympic content.  How NBC managed to schedule so few watchable hours out of the over 400 they are allegedly broadcasting is beyond me.

Recall that this is the same network that shows Arena Football (?) and refuses to compete to broadcast America's favorite, the NFL.  It's also the network that feels only one college football team is worth broadcasting, and celebrates them endlessly.  They continue to perpetrate the now-tiresome Bob Costas on us.

Listen, if I need to time shift it, I'll set the VCR/DVR.  Otherwise, show it live - it's much more dramatic.  Good luck with your ratings, network #3 #4, you'll need it.

The Times Picks Nits On Katrina

The NY Times has sold it's soul for partisan purposes.  In yet another example, today Eric Lipton takes another stab at President Bush over Hurrican Katrina.  In making a case it references a communication timeline that shows several hours earlier attempts to notify FEMA, DHS and the White House of the levee breach that led to flooding.  What it fails to do, however, is show how that several hour discrepancy is relevant.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush administration officials said they had been caught by surprise when they were told on Tuesday, Aug. 30, that a levee had broken, allowing floodwaters to engulf New Orleans.

But Congressional investigators have now learned that an eyewitness account of the flooding from a federal emergency official reached the Homeland Security Department's headquarters starting at 9:27 p.m. the day before, and the White House itself at midnight.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency official, Marty Bahamonde, first heard of a major levee breach Monday morning. By late Monday afternoon, Mr. Bahamonde had hitched a ride on a Coast Guard helicopter over the breach at the 17th Street Canal to confirm the extensive flooding. He then telephoned his report to FEMA headquarters in Washington, which notified the Homeland Security Department.

"FYI from FEMA," said an e-mail message from the agency's public affairs staff describing the helicopter flight, sent Monday night at 9:27 to the chief of staff of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and recently unearthed by investigators. Conditions, the message said, "are far more serious than media reports are currently reflecting. Finding extensive flooding and more stranded people than they had thought — also a number of fires."

Michael D. Brown, who was the director of FEMA until he resigned under pressure on Sept. 12, said in a telephone interview Thursday that he personally notified the White House of this news that night, though he declined to identify the official he spoke to.

White House officials have confirmed to Congressional investigators that the report of the levee break arrived there at midnight, and Trent Duffy, the White House spokesman, acknowledged as much in an interview this week, though he said it was surrounded with conflicting reports.

But the alert did not seem to register. Even the next morning, President Bush, on vacation in Texas, was feeling relieved that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet," he later recalled. Mr. Chertoff, similarly confident, flew Tuesday to Atlanta for a briefing on avian flu. With power out from the high winds and movement limited, even news reporters in New Orleans remained unaware of the full extent of the levee breaches until Tuesday.

The federal government let out a sigh of relief when in fact it should have been sounding an "all hands on deck" alarm, the investigators have found.

This is written specifically to sound as bad as possible, but let's look a little closer.  First the timeline.  The article notes that Homeland Security was notified by email at 9:27 PM on the prior evening, meaning the 29th, 2.5 hours before the 30th.  The White House was notified at midnight on the 30th, and the claim from paragraph one is that the administration was "caught by surprise" when notified on August 30 that a levee had broken. 

However, in a previous very similar story from January 28 Mr. Lipton wrote

Mr. Rapuano, those present said, acknowledged that he left the White House about 10 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 29, the night the storm hit. Some two hours later, the White House received a report indicating that a major levee in New Orleans had been breached and that most of the city had already been flooded. The report was sent by an official of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who had flown over the city late that afternoon.

But Mr. Rapuano said that before he left that night, the White House received a separate report from the Army Corps of Engineers saying an evaluation of the levees was still under way.

The White House, Mr. Rapuano said, finally received confirmation about the levee breach about 6 a.m. on Tuesday, the morning after it occurred. But even then, it does not appear that word got immediately to Mr. Bush, who was on vacation and who later said that he had had a "sense of relaxation" and had thought the city had "dodged a bullet."

I'm sorry Mr. Lipton, but this timeline does not seem all that inconsistent, or at all relevant.  We're talking about an eight or nine hour difference at most.

Then there's the description of Pres. Bush's response.  "Even the next morning, President Bush, on vacation in Texas, was feeling relieved that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet," he later recalled."  So he later was under the impression that as of Tuesday morning he felt New Orleans had "dodged a bullet," and the earlier story indicates that Mr. Bush might not have been advised of the problem early enough.  Obviously there is no contemporaneous, i.e. Tuesday AM, similar statement from the President, otherwise the Times would have used it.

What there is, however, is the President's official statement of Tuesday morning:

"This morning our hearts and prayers are with our fellow citizens along the Gulf Coast who have suffered so much from Hurricane Katrina. These are trying times for the people of these communities. We know that many are anxious to return to their homes. It's not possible at this moment. Right now our priority is on saving lives, and we are still in the midst of search and rescue operations. I urge everyone in the affected areas to continue to follow instructions from state and local authorities."

Well, that makes it plain.  He just didn't care.

They also attribute "similar" confidence to Secretary Chertoff, but fail to include a quote that confirms such confidence, only a failure to cancel a trip to Atlanta.  This is hardly proof of such confidence.

Rick Moran's Katrina Timeline is helpful.  The President did declare a "major disaster" by 1:45 PM on the 29th. 

There's one more thing.  Considering that mandatory evacuations had already been ordered by Mayor Ray Nagin (and not heeded by many, I might add), and considering that federal and state resources had already been mobilized in anticipation of the disaster, and considering that the levees were the levees and were going to either fail or not fail by this time regardless of federal actions, this communication timeline is completely irrelevant.  This is simply a 'gotcha' by the Times, and a weak one at that.

Were mistakes made at all levels?  Yup.  You can start with the work by the Army Corps of Engineers in designing and building the levees.  Mix in the people who failed to heed the evacuation order.  Then you can move to Mayor Nagin and the New Orleans evacuation plan, with the buses that sat idle; to Gov. Blanco and her hesitancy to call in federal troops; to Michael Brown and FEMA and their delays; and finally to Sec. Chertoff, DHS, communication problems, and the problem of placing FEMA under DHS.  Lipton's several hour timeline kerfuffle, however, is nitpicking.

The fact is that this was a natural disaster of biblical proportions, and while many people, from New Orleans police to nursing home owners to local and federal officials dropped the ball in various ways at various times, the flood was going to occur, and people would suffer unless they heeded the mandatory evacuation call early, and unless local officials used every resource available to aid that evacuation.  There was no way around it.

Can we learn from the disaster?  Sure.  Can security and disaster response measures be improved and sped up?  Yes.  Can communication lines be tightened?  Absolutely.  But will there still be people who suffer when floods and hurricanes strike?  Unfortunately you can take that to the bank.  If you think government action can keep all people safe from all dangers, dream on.

2/10/06 2130: John Hinderaker at Power Line notices the article, and in a more concise post notes some of the same pettiness.

2/11/06 1000: See also Rick Moran and Pat Curley, who have similar takes on the topic.

2/11/06 1620: Wizbang's COTT L submission.

Furtive Glances - Cartoon Craziness Edition

A few good links, and some thoughts.

• Jay Tea explains lucidly the nature of the cartoon conflict, and why agreeing to censorship due to fear of violence should be antithetical to us in the west.
  

  "Those original 12 cartoons were not solicited, published, or sanctioned by any state, but by a newspaper exercising its rights to free speech and free press. No government in the world has any right to interfere with that, and no place apologizing for it. Those who are demanding such action are betraying their fundamental misunderstanding of how the West works.

  I know how silly it might seem for such a huge row to develop out of twelve simple cartoons. But it is not about the cartoons themselves, but a far greater issue: we are being demanded to submit to the dictates of a religion, to subsume our own rights as endowed to us by our Creator (to coin a phrase) to placate the laws of a faith that the vast majority of us do not ascribe to."
  
  Unfortunately his last line in the piece brings up memories of the Kerry campaign.
  
  In general I think we would be a lot better off if everyone took into account the feelings and beliefs of those who may be offended before speaking or publishing.  Do I think external forces should censor?  No, this should be your own conscience and decency doing so.  It seems that extreme points of view and vitriol are often used just to grab attention.
  
  That said, there is no place for mollify a group just because they are crazy enough to do violence that you would find unthinkable.  Two other points: 1) It seems that much of the outrage is manufactured, and the protests staged (hat tip: Power Line), with some of the cartoons not part of the original group, and 2) there is the hypocrisy of anti-Semitic and anti-Christian cartoons being published in the same areas where the outrage is greatest.

• I signed up over at Wizbang Bomb Squad as an associate blogger, but have yet to write a spot for them.  It's been challenging enough to post here and at The Right Place lately.  Part of that is work, part of that is family, part of that is a business transition (to be elaborated upon later), and part of that is the lack of something that grabs my interest at a time when I have energy to do it justice.  Mea culpa.

• Please Come To Boston sang Dave Loggins.  So he did.  Welcome to Bahston, Ace.  Now you're living in the belly of the beast, so to speak.  Maybe you'd like to attend a New Hampshire blogger bash?  It's a relatively short drive.

• Iowahawk has resurfaced after a six week absence, reporting on the rioting in the midwest after the blasphemous cartoons of Vince Lombardi were published.  As a sort-of Packer fan (they're one of my three teams - explaining it would be tedious) I'm outraged!
  
  "Green Bay, WI - Like a pot of bratwurst left unattended at a Lambeau Field pregame party, simmering tensions in the strife-torn Midwest boiled over once again today as rioting mobs of green-and-gold clad youth and plump farm wives rampaged through Wisconsin Denny’s and IHOPs, burning Texas toast and demanding apologies and extra half-and-half.
  
  [...]
  
  Protestors demonstrated against the images throughout the Badger State yesterday, with violent egging and cow-tipping incidents reported in Oconomowac, Pewaukee, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Antigo, Oshkosh, Waubeno, Wauwautosa, Waunewoc, Wyocena, Waubeka, and Washawonamowackapeepee."

• And in further news, the cartoon protestors have turned their attention to the US.  Yeah, I'm shocked too.
  
  QALAT, Afghanistan - Police killed four people Wednesday as Afghans enraged over drawings of the Prophet Muhammad marched on a U.S. military base in a volatile southern province, directing their anger not against Europe but America.

  The U.S. base was targeted because the United States "is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world," said Sher Mohammed, a 40-year-old farmer who suffered a gunshot wound while taking part in the demonstration in the city of Qalat.

  "They are all the enemy of Islam. They are occupiers in our country and must be driven out," Mohammed said.
  
  That's nice.  Liberate a nation from an oppressive regime that allowed at least half its citizens, the women, no rights at all, produce participation of all in a representative democracy, and encourage religious freedom so that followers of all faiths - yes, even Islam - can pursue their beliefs, and this is the thanks you get?
  
  Mohammed?  It sounds like the cartoons are then just an excuse for jihad.  I do kind of like being "the leader of Europe" though.

A Brief Nike Update

I have not been successful in speaking with the Vice President of Corporate Responsibility for Nike, Hannah Jones.  Neither have I received another email response from Christian.

On the other hand, having watched a little basketball over the last several days I have not seen the problematic ad.  I'll be watching at least one game tonight - Duke vs. UNC - and one game tomorrow - UConn vs. Syracuse - on ESPN, so we'll see if it shows up then.  I'm sending a follow-up email letter to Nike today, and I think a formal letter to Ms. Jones is in order.

Previous posts:
A Really Bad Nike Ad
Nike's Initial Response

The Post-Game Post

Super Bowl XL ended last evening with a 21-10 Pittsburgh Steeler victory.  That's about the best that can be said for the game.  The worst that can be said?  Well, the officiating was terrible, and had it been better it's likely the outcome would have been reversed.  As I said, I didn't have a dog in this fight, but Seattle was penalized several times on, to be the most charitable, very questionable calls.  That they weren't able to overcome those setbacks was the Seahawks' fault.  That the calls were made at all was the fault of the officials.

I'll buy the holding call on the touchdown that was called back There was the ridiculous offensive interference call that cost the Seahawks a first half touchdown, but and the holding call in the 4th quarter on a Matt Hasselbeck pass that took the ball down to the 2 yard line was extremely weak.  Hasselbeck then threw an interception and was called for going low while making the tackle.

That's not to excuse the teams, for the play on both sides of the ball by both teams was at best uninspiring.  Dropped passes (are you there, Jerramy Stevens), missed blocks, mistakes by the corners, missed defensive assignments, unimaginative coaching and inaccurate throws by both QBs abounded.  Where was Troy Polamalu the whole game?  Chasing receivers he'd neglected to pick up early.  Ben Roethlisberger played like a frank rookie, and Hasselbeck couldn't read a blitz.  Yeccchh!!

Hines Ward deserved the MVP trophy, in that he didn't stink as badly as the rest.  At least two of his big plays were due to the ineptitude of the defenders more than anything he did, however.  But there was no Phil Simms going 22 for 25 with 3 TD's; there was no Tim Smith rushing 22 times for 204 yards.  Instead we were treated to Ben Roethlisberger going 9 for 21 for 123 yards and 2 interceptions.  And that was for the winning team!

This leads to two comments.  First, if these two teams are the best the NFL has to offer in their biggest showcase on the biggest stage then I'm not impressed.  Second, given that, things are really looking good for Bill Belichick and Tom Brady and the New England Patriots next year.  By comparison the rest of the league is in complete disarray.

2/6/06 0615: Oops.  My memory of the play failed me.  It's been corrected above.

Cartooning For The Masses

Over the last three or four days, while I've been mentally and physically occupied with my primary vocation, an uproar, with ensuing physical damage, has ensued over the publishing of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.  (You may have heard something about this.)

There are just far too many thoughtful essays that have been written to this point for me to throw my hat in the ring at this late time.  I refer you, in particular, to Jeff Goldstein, who discusses this from all angles.  This post, for instance, notes that some people calling for understanding and tolerance of the religious fervor of Muslims are far less tolerant of Christian religious fervor.  Just.  Keep.  Scrolling.

While I don't fully support this as an identity politics issue, for which Goldstein eloquently makes the case, I do recognize that identity politics, or the manipulation of that facet is at least part of the problem.  And with this information it seems the case that the politics have been manipulated to produce just this inflammatory reaction.  If so, manipulation of this kind has certainly happened before.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we should be sensitive to the sensitivities of followers of Islam, and avoid cartoon depictions of the Prophet, lest armageddon ensue.  Is it reasonable to think, then, that those who would be understanding of Muslim unrest over this issue would be understanding of, say, Christian unrest over this

He took particular offence to Mr Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary, which depicts Mary with dark skin, African features and flowing robes. It also features elephant dung and cut-outs from pornographic magazines.

or this.

It has been argued by Jill Singer (Herald Sun, 9-10-97 ) that the closure of Serrano's exhibition demonstrates that Victorians do not support "Freedom of expression".  She claims:

"Its easy to grasp the dollar value of art,but we also need to understand the value of artistic freedom".

Or does you response have to be violence and destruction to be afforded that consideration?*

Further, there are those who would urge censorship so that such offensive material should be pre-emptively struck through the action of conscience.  If so, I would hope that such a belief would then extend to the offensive material I've referenced above.   But no, in the west such material may well be celebrated as a "powerful statement," a "unique vision."

There are areas of this whole affair in which we can easily find agreement.  Embassies should not be torched, nor artists threatened with beheadings and death for such "offenses."  And religious leaders should not be augmenting the "atrocity" to further inflame the followers.

Among the west I think we should be able to agree that you either believe in **freedom of expression, in which case you should not be urging excessive sensitivity to the concerns of Muslims by non-Muslims, or you believe that cultural sensitivity mandates that concern, in which case such concern should extend to the followers of all religions.  Put me in the latter camp, though with that I believe it should be an internally-applied, as to externally-mandated filter.  When artists don't show such sensitivity they should not be killed, obviously, but their work should be shunned.

More good reading: Jeff Jacoby.  Mark Steyn.   An  interview with a Muslim at Right Wing Sparkle.  The photos.  Rick Moran.

2/6/06 0620: Add Karol to the list, plus a minor edit* or two**.  Hey, I was tired.

2/6/06 1840: See, this is the kind of double standard that we don't need.  Is it because of fear of the violence, or is Islam that much more deserving of respect?  In keeping with my statements above, I actually think it reasonable for CNN to self-censor, so as not to further inflame emotions.  On the other hand, when dealing with "art" like Piss Christ the same restraint would have been equally reasonable.  To steal a gag from George Carlin, it isn't art just because you've nailed two things together that have never been nailed together before.

The Pre-Game Post

It's Super Bowl XL Sunday, and I have to admit, I don't have a dog in this fight.  Pittsburgh is my brother's team, dating from somewhere in the neighborhood of the late 1960's - he liked the gold and black uniforms.  Seattle is where Starbucks started.  And grunge bands.  I'm sorry but I have no real reason to prefer one over the other.  May the best team win.

That said, the game is interesting.  Neither team is an offensive juggernaut.  They are efficient.  They run the ball.  They use ball control passing primarily.  They occasionally go long to keep the defense honest.

Neither team has a superstar at quarterback; then again, the same could have been said about Tom Brady before his first Super Bowl win.  John Roethlisberger is only in his second year, while Matt Hasselback sat behind Brett Favre in Green Bay, then took some time to nail down the job in Seattle.  Talent to Pittsburgh, experience to Seattle.

I'll take Pittsburgh's defense.  I'll take Seattle's running game.  I'll take the Steelers special teams.  I'll take Seattle's coach, Mike Holmgren.

Bottom Line: Seattle may win a close one; Pittsburgh could win a blow-out.  Either way, I'll enjoy the game, the food, the commercials, the spectacle.

Here's a few links for fun:

• Game stats for all previous Super Bowls - for those "I remember when" thoughts you want to confirm.
• Or maybe you want to see what the rings look like?
• Need a good recipe for the gang?
• How about an archive of Super Bowl commercials?
• Oh yeah, I almost forgot the Lingerie Bowl.

Apologia

This is a "very busy Thursday and Friday, then weekend-on-call 'Been away, haven't seen you in a while, how've you been?'* cut me some slack, I'll be back soon" lead-in to what I hope is time to address several burning topics later today here at JTF and at this other secret location.  And now, "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work I go."

*The link lists "Anyway" as the opening, but I don't think that's right.  "Been away" makes more sense - anyway.

Ahh, New Hampshire

Working where I do, near the border between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, I had a choice.  Should I make my home in the People's Republic, or should I "Live Free or Die?"  Every now and then I'm glad I chose the Granite State.

CONCORD - House lawmakers yesterday approved two bills aimed at tightening voting rules to prevent fraud.

One bill requires voters to show photo identification before they can vote. The other requires citizenship information to be placed on driver's licenses or nondriver identification cards.

Hallelujah!  The great state of New Hampshire steps to the plate, joining 24 other states in protecting the rights of legal voters from having their vote diluted, and in opening a new front in the battle against illegal immigration.

In both cases, the votes split firmly along party lines, with Republicans overwhelmingly supporting the proposals and Democrats rejecting them. The bill requiring photo identification passed 211-149, and the bill requiring citizenship on licenses passed 200-154.

The proposals related to showing photo identification to vote and citizenship information on licenses were recommended by a bipartisan federal election commission, called the Carter/Baker report, which aims to prevent voting fraud.

That's very interesting.  A bipartisan federal election commission recommended the changes, and yet the New Hampshire Democrats still voted against it.

Voters who do not have valid photo identification can sign an affidavit. Also, voters who are "personally known" to any of the ballot workers can be exempted from the photo requirement.

That's a loophole you could drive a truckful of illegal votes through.  And still the Democrats voted against it (he muses, scratching his head).

Opponents said they fear people's civil liberties will be eroded because the bills could deny some people the right to vote.

"It is about discrimination if it allows certain people to vote based on who they do know and doesn't allow other people to vote based on who they don't know," said Rep. Charles F. Weed, D-Keene, who voted against the measures.

I'm quite sure I can't make any sense of the statement from Mr. Weed.  There's an easy way to avoid having to "know" somebody - get the photo ID!  Unfortunately the House didn't pass the third measure, which would have required questionable ballots to be set aside in case of a recount.  It does not appear that Democratic Governor John Lynch will play nice on this.  The Governor's spokeswoman Pamela Walsh:

"Gov. Lynch believes that our most fundamental rights as Americans is the right to vote, and he would have concerns with any legislation that would make it more difficult for people to vote,"

Ma'am?  It will be minimally more difficult to properly register to vote, but it will be dramatically more difficult to cheat.  We're only requiring that which would be needed to cash a check or buy a beer at Fenway.  A few hundred votes could decide the leader of the free world, after all.

There are, of course other reasons to be thankful I don't live in Massachusetts.

Nike's Initial Response

Updating the "Nike Ad" thread: (original post)

While I haven't yet been able to get in contact with a real person, leaving a message once again for the VP of Corporate Responsibility, I did receive an email response, printed below:

Thank you for contacting Nike regarding the Vince Carter Ad.

We welcome constructive comments concerning our advertising and appreciate that you took the time to contact us.

We will forward your comments to our Advertising Department for their consideration. Consumer observations do have a vital impact on our market research and marketing techniques.

Thanks again for contacting Nike.

My reply is as follows:

Thank you for getting back to me.  While I'm happy that you're forwarding these thoughts to your advertising department, I do wish to know that you'll be informing me regarding the company's decisions.

I am not a "safety nut."  In general I prefer that people be held accountable for their own actions, whatever the consequences.  I am, however, an orthopaedic surgeon, and I do not wish to see children from age 6-14 harmed by trying to imitate something that looks like fun but is in reality extremely dangerous.  I have three children of my own, and I know that they often try things that an adult's common sense would tell them to avoid.

At any rate, I look forward to hearing from you on this matter in the near future.  I have a weblog, Joust The Facts, on which I've posted my thoughts, and a number of readers are interested in what, if any, action is taken.

The wheels turn slowly, indeed.

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

Furtive Glances - SOTU Edition

A few quick ones for a busy day.  I may be able to add more later, but today is not stacking up as a thoughtful blog day.

• Thought about live-blogging the SOTU speech.  Thought better of it.  I'll just go with what he wrote.
• Thanks, Baseball Crank, for a little help with the effort.  Still no getting in touch with the VP of CR, but I'll try again today.  They haven't responded to my email yet, either.
• Varifrank calls for a unilateral pullout from Iraq.  I think he means it this time.
• The Republican vessel may be listing, but Marc at USS Neverdock notes that the USS Donkey seems to be taking on water.