Monday, October 31, 2005

Horace Cooper: Rosa Parks, Where Have You Gone?

Law professor Horace Cooper, a member of The National Center's board of directors (and a founding member of Project 21), has a column on Rosa Parks posted at Townhall.com that I like a lot.

An excerpt:

But Rosa Parks was not the first black person in Montgomery to refuse to give up her seat; she was the first black person whose rights had been violated that the nascent civil rights movement was willing to stand behind... [She] was regarded as one of the finest citizens of Montgomery...

...The success in Montgomery transformed Dr. King into a nationally known figure and triggered other bus boycotts, ultimately igniting a nationwide assault on the injustice of segregation...

...Worse than perhaps the troubling trend towards an ever expanding definition of civil rights grievance and a glaring failure to acknowledge significant progress and achievements has been the civil rights community's almost wholesale rejection of the notion of using the finest individuals or causes as occasions to promote their goals...

...Redefining civil rights to include a license for criminality, unjustified racial animus and even misogynistic gangsta lyrics has taken the noble cause of civil rights equality down an unfortunate path that must be reversed...

...We would be well served to remember Rosa Parks' legacy. Decent and morally upright, she played a key role in a long, primarily nonviolent struggle to bring full civil rights and equality under the law to blacks in America.

That battle has largely been won. There is still more work to do. But as we wage the peace, it's vital that it be done in a morally clear and unambiguous manner. To rephrase Paul Simon, "What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson? Rosa Parks has left and gone away?" Let's hope not.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:00 PM

Southern Appeal Sings for Joy

Steve Dillard at Southern Appeal is moved to song by the nomination of Samuel Alito.

Hat tip: Daou Report.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:17 AM

Spinning Wheels

From Britain's Daily Telegraph:

A mother spent two hours waiting with her sick baby on a hospital children's ward while the doctor they were due to see was passing in front of them on a unicycle. After Paula Dadswell complained, she received a letter from hospital managers assuring her that in future all unicycling on the ward would be restricted to 'special occasions.'

I'm glad they got that straightened out.

Hat tip: Kevin, M.D.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:12 AM

Manny Miranda on Samuel Alito

Manny Miranda of the Third Branch Conference has this to say about President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito:

The nomination of Samuel A. Alito to service on the Supreme Court is consummately in keeping with President Bush's trust and mandate from the American people to be a steward, together with the Senate, of the third branch of government. Judge Alito is a constitutionalist who has weathered one of the more liberal federal circuit courts in the country. As former counsel on religious liberty for the Senate Majority Leader, I know Judge Alito is a special friend of religious liberty -- America's first civil right. Judge Alito is immensely well qualified. When he is confirmed, Judge Alito will add to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. When this nomination comes to the Senate floor, it deserves an honest up or down vote, and in the process, the American people deserve a national debate worthy of us.

As with Chief Judge John Roberts, the President has hit a grand slam with this nomination. Moreover, the president has ended the corrupting practice of stealth nominations, a presidential act of statecraft for which he will be long remembered.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:06 AM

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Tactical Genuises -- And Some Who Aren't

Quote of the Day:

Rome cranked out military worthies faster than the Clintons created scandals.

Speaking of Clinton scandals, several Clinton defenders have been on cable TV lately, saying the Libby legal matter is more serious than the Clinton perjury because Libby's alleged offenses deal with national security, and Clinton's with sex. Isn't that a dangerous argument, from a spin perspective? Assuming Libby did lie, it is at least possible that his motive was (at least partially) national security -- whereas it is undeniably clear that Clinton was covering up adultery. So the matter spins two ways.

Personally, I think at the point in time in which a spinner (of either party) is going to the trouble of travelling to a TV studio for no higher purpose than to say "your crime is worse than our crime," he or she might as well just stay home with a good book. In fact, the Good Book might be especially appropriate, because the only real point here should be that no one should be lying. No spin needed.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:57 AM

Pathetic Bozo Alert

I read the papers this morning thinking that there is nothing more pathetic than journalists decrying the culture of leaking that goes on in Washington while playing the leak game themselves with zeal, but then I read this.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:21 AM

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Krauthammer on Realism, Oppression and Scowcroft

Charles Krauthammer hits another home run with this zing on Bush 41 National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft:

Realists prize stability above all, and there is nothing more stable than a ruthlessly efficient dictatorship. Which is why Scowcroft is the man who six months after Tiananmen Square toasted those who ordered the massacre; who, as the world celebrates the Beirut Spring that evicted the Syrian occupation from Lebanon, sees not liberation but possible instability; who can barely conceal a preference for Syria's stabilizing iron rule.

Even today Scowcroft says, 'I didn't think that calling the Soviet Union the 'evil empire' got anybody anywhere.'' Tell that to Natan Sharansky and other Soviet dissidents for whom that declaration of moral -- beyond geopolitical -- purpose was electrifying, and helped galvanize the dissident movements that ultimately brought down the Soviet empire.

It was not brought down by diplomacy and arms control, the preferred realist means for dealing with the Soviet Union. It was brought down by indigenous revolutionaries, encouraged and supported by Ronald Reagan, a president unabashedly dedicated not to detente with evil, but its destruction -- i.e., regime change.

For realists such as Scowcroft, regime change is the ultimate taboo. Too risky, too dangerous, too unpredictable.

About six months after the fall of the Berlin Wall I toured parts of Eastern Europe. Returning, I was invited to the White House (not me alone -- a group) for a discussion about the arms control negotiations that then were occurring with the Soviet Union. It quickly became apparent that the Bush 41 national security officials present were treating Eastern Europe as a continuing part of the Soviet Empire. I contested this and was rebuffed several times, politely but firmly. To them, the world stood as it had in previous decades. I persisted, to no effect, except that in my frustration at the horror that the Soviet Union was ending and the White House appeared not to be noticing, I began to cry. This quite unintentional action mortified me, but such was the passion of the moment, and it had the effect upon the Administration people present (gentlemen all) that the sight of a woman crying always has. I give them high marks for their solicitations ("It's okay, ma'am! Really, it will be fine!"), but on the issue of the Cold War ending, they remained unmoved and unseeing.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:08 AM

Five Best Books on Environment

Bestselling author Michael Crichton, writing in OpinionJournal.com, recommends five books that "question the conventional wisdom on the environment":

"Playing God in Yellowstone" by Alston Chase
"The Culture Cult" by Roger Sandall
"Man in the Natural World" by Keith Thomas
"The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjrn Lomborg
"The Logic of Failure" by Dietrich Dorner

Crichton supplies mini-reviews in his essay.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:16 AM

Friday, October 28, 2005

Global Warming Joke of the Day

Peyton Knight writes to say:

An actor, a daytime talk show host, and an activist all get together to discuss "one of the most important issues facing all of humanity."

That's it.

Funny?

Well, it would be if it weren't so sad.

Yesterday on the Oprah Winfrey Show, Leonardo DiCaprio joined former Environmental Defense activist and United Nations Earth Summit architect Michael Oppenheimer to hype -- what else -- global warming. According to Leo DiCaprio, recent hurricanes and tsunamis are a harbinger of worse things to come.

Right after a segment covering the problem of sex offenders who prey on children, Oprah gracefully segued:

So there is another frightening problem affecting our world, the whole world, that I believe we all need to know about. Have y'all noticed something's going on with the planet? Have you -- really? Haven't you felt that something's going on? OK. The deadly hurricanes were my wake-up call. And I know a lot of other people are wondering if these extreme weather patterns that we're having have something to do with something else that's going on; global warming, perhaps. Why should you care? Well, you're about to find out. Leonardo DiCaprio is here to share some of his thoughts on an issue that he has been passionate about for quite some time.

Now, if Ms. Winfrey is concerned about global warming and the hurricanes it supposedly spawns, and she really, really wants her disciples to care as deeply about it as she does -- can't she find someone more credible to make her case than a Hollywood actor? Someone like, oh I don't know, perhaps the director of the National Hurricane Center?

On the heels of similar chicken-little scaremongering spewed by Barbra Streisand last month, NHC Director Max Mayfield put the lie to any actors eager to play the part of meteorologist. Mayfield said:

Hurricanes, and especially major hurricanes, are cyclical. We'll have a few decades of really active hurricanes, and then inactive periods, followed by active periods again.

So I think that this activity that we're in can be explained without invoking global warming. The bad news here is that we are in this active period, and the research meteorologists tell us that it may last another 10 or 20 years.

For his part, Leo DiCaprio showered Oprah with gratitude for providing him a soapbox to wax misleading:

Well, first of all, I want to thank you, and I'm sure every environmentalist around the world would thank you a thousand times over for bringing this topic up on your show, because it's something that hasn't really gotten enough attention in the media nowadays.

Now, while a thinking person would certainly understand Leo getting the science and the facts wrong on global warming, keeping up with current media is something that should be well within his grasp. Though it apparently isn't.

A Google News search for the term "global warming" brings up 7,490 hits. I'd say it's getting enough media attention. Moreover, judging by the biased, left-leaning type of media it's getting, Leo should be quite pleased.

Ms. Winfrey then aired various excerpts from a new drama -- er -- "documentary" cleverly titled "Global Warming," which features Leo, Oppenheimer, "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David, and of course, Oprah herself. After admiring herself on the screen, Oprah remarked:

So, you know, I look at this and feel it. You know, I don't know a lot about it. I mean, I'm here to be educated by you and Dr. Oppenheimer.

Kudos to Oprah for at least acknowledging her ignorance of the subject.

She may "feel it" -- but she clearly doesn't get it.

And since she doesn't get it, what is she doing on a documentary about it?

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:31 PM

The Senator From I-Told-You-So?

This AP story on the Miers nomination wrap-up is unusually colorful.

Addendum: It also appears to be word-for-word the same as this Dana Milbank column in the Washington Post. What gives?

(Link error corrected -- sorry.)

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:38 PM

Insist On Obesity Liability Waiver

The Center for Consumer Freedom suggests that folks who hand out candy on Halloween first get trick-or-treaters to sign this document (pdf).

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:54 AM

Good Thing They Aren't Teenage Girls

The story "Right's Victory in Miers Case Backs Bush into a Corner" in the Globe and Mail begins:

The Christian right is ecstatic. Their campaign to scuttle the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court succeeded yesterday, demonstrating their political heft with a beleaguered President who needs every friend he can get...

To whom does this Canadian newspaper refer? Jim Dobson? Jerry Falwell? Chuck Colson? Richard Land? Jay Sekulow? Pat Robertson?

All backed Miers.

One delineation between Miers-backers and Miers-skeptics I rarely if ever saw noted in the press was this simple human difference: People the White House telephoned for support early in the process (hmmm, dare I say, "kissed up to?") were far more likely to support Miers. Some media-identified leaders apparently are a bit vulnerable to seduction.

Good thing they aren't teenage girls.

The White House has now learned the hard way that conservative troops really aren't "poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:08 AM

A Bitter Man

From the Christian Science Monitor, an anecdote about a man who appears to be a tad bitter:

Beltway politicos, famously slow to adopt technology, are wooing blogs - all but Trent Lott.

'Bloggers claim I was their first pelt, and I believe that. I'll never read a blog,' says the former Senate majority leader, who forfeited that title after bloggers Joshua Micah Marshall and Glenn Reynolds picked up a racially charged remark, drawing the attention of mainstream media (MSM) and his Senate colleagues...

The blogging world will survive this snub, but if Trent Lott had been the sort of fellow to read blogs, he might have had more of an inkling of how the public would react to his comments about Strom Thurmond's justifiably ill-fated 1948 presidential run, and saved himself the heartache of losing the title and prestige that clearly meant a lot to him.

I personally think Senator Lott was so used to Senate insincerity -- those folks say nice things about one other all day while simultaneously stabbing each other in the back -- that he thought he could say anything nice he wanted about Strom Thurmond without anyone taking it seriously. There is, however, a world outside the U.S. Senate -- even for Senators.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Arlen Specter on Miers Withdrawal

In a Senate floor speech about the Harriet Miers nomination today, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) said:

I respect Ms. Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw from consideration for the Supreme Court.

At the same time, I do regret that our constitutional process was not completed. Instead of a hearing before the Judiciary Committee and a debate on the Senate floor, Ms. Miers' qualifications were subjected to a one-sided debate in news releases, press conferences, radio and TV talk shows, and the editorial pages. I acknowledge the rights of everyone to express themselves as they see fit. But that should not have precluded Ms. Miers from getting basic due process.

There was a decisive imbalance in the public forum with a case for Ms. Miers not heard because of the heavy decibel level against her.

I have repeatedly noted her excellent work in handling complex civil cases. Had the constitutional process been followed with a hearing, she would have had an opportunity to establish that her intellect and capabilities demonstrated in her thirty-five year professional career could be carried over in the field of constitutional law and the work of the Court.

Whether she would have been confirmed remains an open question. But at least she would have had the major voice in determining her own fate.

Ms. Miers did deliver late yesterday evening, on time, her responses to the Committee's request for supplemental information on her questionnaire. Eight large boxes are in the Committee's possession but now there is no reason to read or analyze those responses. The Judiciary Committee carefully did not intrude on the President's executive privilege. The Committee studiously avoided asking what advice Ms. Miers gave to the President and that limitation would have been continued in any hearing with an adequate range of questions available to enable the Committee to decide on her qualifications for the Court.

We must guard against having the Miers proceedings become a precedent for the future.

Specter's comments have the whiff of elitism. One gets the sense that, like Senator Lott, Senator Specter didn't like mere citizens expressing a point of view.

Well, Senator, tough cookies. Silly cookies, too. Harriet Miers and the White House apparently made the decision that the Senate could not be relied upon to confirm her. Citizens groups could have raised the roof, but if Senators weren't agreeing with the "outside groups" (as if citizens groups are "outside" America!) it would have meant nothing. The groups simply would have been ignored, as they are so often, on so many matters.

The Senator's "one-sided debate" observation is silly as well. Ms. Miers had the White House behind her. The debate was not one-sided, it simply appeared that way because the White House was not answering the questions that were being raised. Furthermore, Senators (including Senator Specter), after private meetings with Ms. Miers, were raising even more questions. If the Senators had come out of meetings with Miers expressing firm confidence in the nominee, or if the White House and its varlets had given good solid responses to the questions of critics, the outcome would likely have been much different.

Finally, Ms. Miers's nomination did receive procedural due process, until such time as she removed her name from consideration.

If billboards were permitted on Capitol Hill, I'd buy a big one reminding Senators that they put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everybody else. Wouldn't help, though. They'd probably just consider it more unwelcome advice from an "outside group."

P.S. On the due process question, my comments to Senator Specter apply to former Senator Dan Coats as well. Harriet Miers got turned down for a promotion. She isn't getting thrown in jail.

Besides, the most powerful man in the world -- the guy who got her into this -- now owes her a big, big favor. There are worse things.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:50 PM

Black Conservative Reaction to Withdrawal of Harriet Miers

Project 21 has a press release out on Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:46 PM

Miers: Withdrawal With Honor

Not so quotable:

I hate to see a woman go down this way. I really, really do.

-Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

But you like it when men do, Dianne?

There is no shame in Harriet Miers's dignified withdrawal. The fit wasn't right, but that is no reflection on the lady. Many, many people who are in a position to know have said she is a very intelligent person of high moral character and great kindness. She simply trained for a different aspect of law -- one in which, by all accounts with which I am familar, she excelled.

In my judgment, Ms. Miers erred in accepting the nomination, but it probably is her habit to accept all the assignments the President gives her and tackle them with zeal. Because she reportedly did not know she was even under consideration for a Court appointment, she scarcely had any time to consider the matter when it first was presented to her. As such, it is more than understandable that her habit of a lifetime -- to serve the client to the best of her ability -- determined her response.

If there is blame in this episode, the bulk of it goes to those Supreme Court justices, past and present, who have seen themselves as lawmakers, thereby making it impossible for citizens who prefer to be governed by the elected branches to take any chances whatsoever with Court nominees, even those of demonstrably high character and great intelligence.

Godspeed, Ms. Miers. We wish you success and happiness. You have our respect.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:39 PM

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

If There Is No News, Couldn't We Stop Talking?

I don't suppose the mainstream press would agree to stop reporting the supposedly-pending Fitzgerald indictments until information is actually available?

No, I thought not.

Pity.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:10 PM

Journalistic Fakery

From David Almasi:

On October 19, the USA Today web site posted a photo of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that was augmented in a manner in which her eyes virtually glowed and did not appear to be focused. After blogger Michelle Malkin posted the original photo alongside the USA Today version on October 26 - and Malkin's posting was picked up by the Drudge Report - USA Today editors quickly replaced the doctored photo with the original.

USA Today posted this explanation:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

It took eight days to notice their standards had been compromised?

Regrettably, this seems to be yet another example of people not worrying about slights - even racial ones, usually abhorred these days - when it comes to black conservatives. Secretary Rice holds a very special place in the hearts of her detractors, with cartoonists and commentators feeling free to compare her to Aunt Jemimna, saying she needs re-education to find her blackness and calling her names such as "Brown Sugar." And they largely get away with it.

Remember when Time magazine darkened the skin tone of a photo of O.J. Simpson? That was "infamous." When the slight involves a black conservative, however, the criticism is deflected.

These are comments on this most recent incident from members of The National Center's black leadership network, Project 21.

Mark Quinton Jordan, a financial planner living in Baltimore, Maryland:

I would like to believe that the photo published by USA Today on October 19 was simply the result of poor quality control, but give me a break. I might even be inclined to accept their lame explanation if this type of photo or similar cartoon depictions of Ms. Rice were a rarity in the print media. But Secretary of State Condolezza Rice is a black conservative and a key member of the Bush Administration and, as far as the left and the civil rights dinosaurs are concerned, anything goes.

We need only flash back to some of the demeaning and juvenile cartoons of Secretary Rice published during the presidential race and her confirmation hearings to get a sense of how far into the abyss these people will descend in an effort to hurt an opponent. USA Today's photograph portrays Secretary Rice with a demonic gleam in her eyes. I am convinced that, as we approach the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, we will see an increasing number of these "lapses" and the accompanying excuses.

What else can they do when confronted with the bitter reality of their growing cultural impotence and inability stop an impending political implosion?

Deroy Murdock, a syndicated columnist living in New York City:

First, there was CBS News' and Dan Rather's fake documents about George W. Bush's military record. Then Reuters photo-enhanced a picture of President Bush's note in which he asked Secretary of State Rice how he could diplomatically excuse himself for a restroom break during the United Nations General Assembly. Now, USA Today has manipulated an image in which Secretary of State Rice herself has had the whites of her eyes lightened to the point that she looks a little crazed and the pupils don't quite point in the same direction.

These developments represent breaches of journalistic ethics. The American people have decreasing faith in the news media, which seem increasingly comfortable twisting and shading the truth rather than reporting it - that is, when they do not simply fabricate things as former anchorman Rather, the New Republic's ousted Stephen Glass and the New York Times' expelled Jayson Blair all did.

Also, this journalistic fakery almost always occurs at the expense of Republicans and conservatives. Rather than keep their opinions on their editorial pages, the mainstream media's liberal agenda now even uses Photoshop to embarass Republicans, free-marketeers and Bush Administration officials. The perpetrators of these misdeeds should be ashamed of themselves and deserve to have their TV shows unwatched and their publications unpurchased by increasingly vigilant American news consumers.

Addendum 10/27: Mr. Big recreates the photoshop work.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:47 PM

Protesting Steele-as-Sambo and Other Racial Stereotypes

Scripps-Howard columnist and Project 21 member Deroy Murdock has this to say about the doctored photo of Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele that appears on "The News Blog":

This is just one more example of the Left's bigotry towards black conservatives. Rather than engage us in serious debate, they make Michael Steele, Maryland's democratically elected lieutenant governor, look like Black Sambo, one of the ugliest of the ugly racist stereotypes -- complete with extra-darkened skin, huge red lips, and illiterate lingo ("I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House" [U.S. Senate]). Cartoonists have depicted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a bird with fat lips and as a barefoot mom in a rocking chair on a rural porch. Radical calypso singer Harry Belafonte compared Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, to house slaves. One magazine a few years ago portrayed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas shining fellow Justice Antonin Scalia's shoes. The same magazine published an illustration of Thomas as a lawn jockey.

Largely having retired such stereotypes and images from polite company, it is nauseating that they now only survive among the American Left. Out of answers and devoid of ideas, all they can do is excavate the iconography of the Ku Klux Klan to attack honorable, black American public servants who do not drink the liberal Kool-Aid. If the American Left's reservoir of decency were not running on fumes, they would denounce such racist rhetoric and instead, debate the issues. I am not holding my breath.

Addendum 10/27/05: An interesting follow-up story can be found here.

Addendum 10/29/05: Robert George at RAGGED THOTS has plenty of coverage of this and also links to other blog coverage, as well Washington Post and Baltimore Sun reports, of the story.

Addendum 11/2/05: For the reference of those who want to see the photo of Michael Steele as doctored by blogger Steve Gilliard (and later deleted by Gilliard from his website): Michelle Malkin has posted it on her blog.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:50 PM

Dittos, Professor & Sorry, Hugh

Professor Bainbridge posted on this first and well, so I am not going to say as much about Hugh Hewitt's "Not One of Us" remarks as I otherwise might.

However, the Professor's remark about Hugh's misinterpretation of the Cato Institute's Roger Pilon's use of the term "one of us" deserves extra dittos. This is Hugh's comment:

The difference between conservative legal elites' support for Justice Thomas and their split over Miers is that Justice Thomas was indeed "one of us" in their eyes, meaning one of the Capitol's regulars at roundtables and seminars and receptions prior to his elevation to the D.C. Circuit. Justice Thomas had many personal friends who went to the mat for him against the onslaught in 1991.

I'm going to be obnoxious and claim decent experience, as the CEO of a conservative think-tank that has been based on Capitol Hill for my entire 23-year-tenure, with what a Washington conservative/libertarian means when he says "one of us" in conversation. What he means is what Professor Bainbridge says, that is, someone who thinks the way free-market conservatives do on philosophy and principle. It is shorthand, frankly, for someone who values philosophy over career and (sorry, Hugh) political party.

For example, in the 1980 presidential primaries, Ronald Reagan was "one of us," while George H.W. Bush was not.

This phrase is very commonly used in DC's conservative/libertarian circles, and, as such, its meaning should not be in any doubt.

And, by the way, yes, Clarence Thomas did have a lot of personal friends supporting his confirmation in 1991, but, speaking as one who was involved, he had even more supporters who had never met him yet were glad to be supportive -- because Thomas, philosophically, is and was "one of us," and the nation knew it because of Thomas's professional record.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:48 PM

I'm Sure It's a Fluke

I admit to a certain fondness for the Washington Post's new "who's blogging this?" feature:


Hat trick!

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:11 AM

Trent Lott to Citizens' Groups: Shove Off

From the Washington Post, Trent Lott tells citizens' groups to take a hike, as outside views are not wanted on Supreme Court nomination:

Lott cautioned that outside groups have a limited ability to influence senators of either party. 'I'll call them when I need to hear from them,' he said. 'As far as I'm concerned, they can all shove off, left and right.'

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:01 AM

Clues About Miers Increase Confusion

It is getting harder to determine Harriet Miers's positions on key issues, as the Washington Post reports on page one today.

On the one hand, we have earlier reports that Harriet Miers supported a constitutional amendment to ban abortion; on the other, these new Washington Post reports of Miers speeches in which she seems to be saying that she opposes a government ban on abortion.

Unfortunately, the Post does not, at least so far, appear to have posted the transcripts of these newly-reported speeches, so all we're left with is more confusion.

Addendum: It is later in the day now, and the Post has posted links to two PDFs of 1993 speeches by Harriet Miers on its webpage. The links are:

Spring 1993 Harriet Miers Speech to the Executive Women of Dallas

Summer 1993 Harriet Miers Speech on "Women and Courage"

I read both speeches, and remain as confused as ever. Even when read in context, the first speech appears to endorse keeping abortion legal -- a position hard to reconcile with her 1989 answer on a Texans United for Life questionnaire, in which she indicated support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

One hopes the answer is not that Ms. Miers tailors her views to suit her audience.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 AM

Donald Trump, Pathetic

Donald Trump has a blog.

If post titles such as "Donald Trump: Headliner in an Arena of Wealth-Seekers" float your boat, here's the link.

Beware of posting comments, however. Blogger Ike Pigott posted a comment asking about Trump's attempt to force elderly widow Vera Coking from her Atlantic City home of 36 years so Trump could build a limousine parking lot on her land. As blogger BL Ochman reports, the pointed question was edited into something quite fawning by Trump's webmaster before it was posted on Trump's blog.

(Coking, by the way -- this being pre-Kelo and thanks to legal help from the Institute for Justice -- defeated Trump and was "allowed" to keep her own property.)

Speaking of sore points, "The Donald" seems to feel a need to advertise his sexual prowess. Take a look, if you can stand it, at the text of his October 25 radio commentary, which, his website claims, is heard on 400 stations. Trump, who soon will be old enough to receive Social Security, has two themes in his 153-word commentary: He wants listeners to know sex was a big part of his college life, and he thinks -- believe it or not -- that it is a "problem" if college students don't want to have sex during their college years.

Trump's text:

Have you heard about one of the newest, most popular clubs at Princeton University? It's a student formed group promoting chastity. Can you believe it? Chastity?...

Club organizers say they knew before they ever showed up on campus that sex would be a big part of college life, but many of them were surprised at how prevalent it would really be. Maybe they should have spoken to me about it. [Emphasis added.]

They started the club to let students who didn't want to be part of the scene know that they're not alone. They were surprised at how many students were interested in being involved. Well, when I know a student that doesn't want to be involved in sex, that's a big problem. That student is very unusual.

That's where the commentary ends. No larger point seems to have been sought after, let alone achieved.

Donald Trump may be marketing machismo, but to me he seems to be reaping ridicule.

Kind of pathetic, really.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 AM

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Republican House Speaker Goes Populist

When presented with the opportunity to educate the American people about market economics, our Speaker of the House choose instead to champion ignorance.

Link is to Pravda.

More here, here and here.

Note: Yes, The National Center has received contributions from the fossil fuel industry. In 2004, such contributions totalled one sixth of one percent of our total income. This year to-date, such contributions total zero.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:13 PM

Professor Bainbridge on Loyalty

Professor Bainbridge says loyalty is a two-way street.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:41 PM

La Shawn Barber on Rosa Parks

La Shawn Barber seems to be the lead blogger commemorating the life of Rosa Parks.

Many links, plus comments.

Addendum: John Meredith, Project 21 member and son of civil rights pioneer James Meredith, has this to say about the legacy of Mrs. Parks:

Rosa Parks started a tidal wave of social consciousness in this country that ended the government's disenfranchisement of millions of black Americans. Without Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. would probably have remained a pastor at a little-known church in Atlanta, Oprah Winfrey would still be in the backwoods of Mississippi and John Lewis would never have been empowered to represent the people of Georgia in the U.S. Congress. But Rosa Parks's biggest impact on the fabric of America is the hope that the movement she started provides for today's economically disenfranchised of all races. The legacy of Rosa Parks will always provide inspiration for those seeking to escape the shackles of poverty and enjoy the promise of the American Dream.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:13 PM

Jim Inhofe's Discretionary Spending Amendment

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) says he will introduce the following amendment

Beginning with Fiscal Year 2007 and thereafter, non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels... without a 2/3 vote.

to the "FY '06 Labor/HHS Appropriations Bill and keep introducing until it succeeds."

I'm all in favor of not increasing discretionary spending, but, assuming this Inhofe amendment passes at some point, if at a later date, a spending increase was sought, wouldn't it be possible to lift the requirement of a 2/3rd vote by a simple majority vote?

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:24 AM

Monday, October 24, 2005

Do They Not Bleed?

I was glad to see this conclusion to John Fund's excellent Wall Street Journal piece on the Harriet Miers nomination today:

The damage to [President Bush's] relations with his conservative base would blow over quickly if Mr. Bush were to quickly name a well-qualified nominee who was not a sphinx when it came to judicial philosophy. Perhaps this time he might even expand the talent pool to include--gasp--men.

On the other hand, John is a white male, so he probably should be ignored.

(Yes, I am kidding.)

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:58 PM

Thinking as a Wonk

This guy Matt Drudge is linking to says human beings soon will live 1,000 years or longer.

We really, really have to get going on Social Security reform.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:45 PM

Sunday, October 23, 2005

LiLPoH: Icing the Cake

Jack Rich says the support of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-in-Polite-Conservative-Circles for Harriet Miers is just "icing on the cake" for her opponents.

Increasingly, that's hard to argue.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:34 AM

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Nuts and Sluts: North County Reviewed by Power Line

Regarding the Anita Hill "nuts and sluts" reference John Hinderaker is wondering about on Power Line this evening as he previews the film North County: The reference presumably is to David Brock's 1992 description of Anita Hill as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty."

For the uber-feminists, the Hill-Thomas clash was always about something larger -- specifically, the confirmation of their self-identification as victims of nasty sexually-harassing men -- than about Clarence Thomas. As such, David Brock's 1993 magnum opus, "The Real Anita Hill," is viewed by the left as a key part of the Hill-Thomas story, although Thomas was confirmed in 1991.

David Brock, of course, now runs the leftie web media-monitoring site Media Matters, and the feminists stopped talking about sexual harassment about the time Bill Clinton's proclivities became known.

What's interesting about North County is Hollywood's willingness to explore the sexual harassment theme. Apparently, even as "Commander in Chief," a TV show about a female President, is supposedly trying to help us envision Hillary Clinton as the nation's chief executive, North County is taking a stand against sexual harassers and those who enable them.

Hollywood, apparently, is not getting its plot lines straight.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:53 PM

Global Warming and Hurricanes

Next time someone blames global warming for hurricanes, just read this.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:19 PM

Friday, October 21, 2005

Congressional Action: Hurricane Katrina Relief Problems

On October 21, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) shared on the Senate floor a summary of a diary kept by a constituent who observed serious command and control problems during Hurricane Katrina relief operations:

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the situation in Louisiana, particularly New Orleans, as it relates to the Katrina hurricane. I do that because of a very devoted constituent by the name of Craig Van Waardhuizen of 3716 Pearl Lane, Waterloo, IA. We are members of Prairie Lakes Church, Cedar Falls, IA, a Baptist church. He approached me because he had bad experiences in trying to help people in Louisiana at the height of the hurricane and the period of time thereafter.

He says things just were not right. That is quite obvious to all of the country. I had a chance to hear it from a person who witnessed it. He kept a diary of his experiences. He is a sincere enough individual to spend time with me, sincere enough individual to put things down in writing, and he is a sincere enough person who would like to have things that happened to him not happen again in a future natural disaster.

So I promised my friend in Waterloo that I would make sure the entire Senate knew of his situation. It will be on record for people to refer to so corrective action can be taken.

I suppose most of this falls in the area of FEMA's responsibility, but I am not so sure but what some of it doesn't fall into the area of local responders and to State people as well. But FEMA is the one most referred to. So I am going to spend my time reading word for word from this diary so that people will know the trials and tribulations of one bus driver, trying to help people all the way from Iowa, going to Louisiana to help people there who had problems.

This starts on September 1, which is the Thursday after Katrina hit. I believe Katrina hit either on that Saturday or Sunday, the 27th or 28th of August. Presumably some time after Katrina hit, my constituent friend was desiring to help the people in need there. He was affiliated with a bus company that could provide transportation. This starts on September 1, but presumably on the days of Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday before September 1, he was trying to get involved in helping:

September 1, 2005, Thursday: Another day of searching on the internet and contacting our motorcoach associations has brought no success as we (Northwest Iowa Transportation, Inc.) look for ways to help in New Orleans. We have coaches and drivers available to go help in moving people out of the New Orleans area. However, we do not believe that we should just drive down to New Orleans without any contact. It is discouraging when you want to help and yet can't find the avenue to help.

September 2, Friday: There is a light in the tunnel. Today we were contacted by Utah Transportation Management to see if we had any coaches and drivers that could go help in evacuation of New Orleans. Finally a way to head to New Orleans and provide the assistance that we have wanted to do since a hurricane hit last Monday. Since this help will fall under FEMA we will be able to use four drivers and two motorcoaches to drive straight through to New Orleans. After finding three other drivers who were willing to help in this effort I head out to New Orleans. We pack extra supplies in the coaches along with water and food for ourselves. We also take along extra paper towels and toilet paper. About 9:00 p.m. we head south from Waterloo-

That is Waterloo, IA-- ready to go provide assistance to those in need.

Saturday, September 3: Driving straight through the night and switching off with driving we arrive at the staging area at Le Place, LA. The first thing we notice is the large number of motorcoaches waiting in the staging area and many more like ourselves, just pulling in. Our first order of business was to get in line to refill with fuel. We didn't stop for fuel on our way as we had been told that FEMA would provide fuel for all motorcoaches when we arrived at Le Place. We are ready to go to work and start moving people. The fuel was brought in by the National Guard and they did all the refueling in Le Place. Finally, it was our turn to get fuel. While fueling, we visited with the other drivers to find out what had been happening. We learned that after fueling you would get in another line and wait for orders. Nobody seemed to know who was in charge of the operation and there was very little communication. Finally a man with an orange vest came and asked us to get in line to go transport people. We lined up with 12 other coaches. Nobody moved until the state patrol was ready to provide escort. At last we have action. We are headed into New Orleans to do what we came down to do, move people. We had traveled about 10 miles when we were pulled onto the shoulder. No reason given for pulling all of us over. We sat and waited on the side of the highway wondering what was going to happen.

After a waiting about 45 minutes we started traveling again, and it was soon apparent that we were headed back to the staging area. This whole operation seems to lack leadership and direction. We arrived back at the staging area at Le Place. Then we were sent down I-10 to the scale house and were staged with about 40 other coaches. Even the State patrol assigned to us didn't know what was going on. About 10 pm a deputy sheriff patrol showed up with some food for us. They didn't have any news or information. About 11 pm the State patrol said to stay with the motorcoach as we might be called upon at any time. As drivers we decided to get as much rest as we could while we had the opportunity.

So then presumably they slept the evening. That is a presumption on my part because it goes on now to Sunday, September 4. This is the fourth day of this tribulation.

Last night was a long night with little sleep as it is hard to sleep on the coach. About 4 am a group of school buses arrived from Houston, TX. They had been told to report to this staging area and wait. The morning passed by very slow and we never saw or heard from anybody that knew what was actually happening. This is really amazing as we are all here to work and provide help and we are just sitting along the interstate. At the scale house on the other side of the interstate a unit of federal border patrol agents is also waiting for instructions. They have been waiting since Tuesday for orders.

So that means that they had been waiting for 5 days, the Federal border patrol was waiting -- that's my assumption -- waiting for orders. My writer says:

I asked the state patrol to radio to the main staging area where we fueled to see what was going on. The patrol had as many questions as we did. It sure seems like mass confusion and no clear leader. I really wonder who is in charge of this operation. About noon a guy shows up in an orange vest and tells us that we are moving to a new staging area at Lake Charles, LA. Soon the rumor is going around through the drivers that we will be moving people out of temporary shelters to better places. We move to Lake Charles with high hopes that we will finally be moving people. At the edge of Lake Charles we are pulled onto the shoulder of the interstate. With over 60 motorcoaches sitting on the shoulder of a major interstate (I-10), this is an accident waiting to happen. The school buses from Houston are headed back to Houston as they were told there was no work for them. What a waste of resources to have them drive all the way from Houston to New Orleans only to turn around and head back. A highway patrol escort arrives and leads us to a large parking area at the Lake Charles airport. We are all parked in a row with no other instructions. When the last coach is parked a man who tells us he is the dispatcher for this operation arrives and tells us that we are going to regroup.

This man has made arrangements for us to have a hot meal supplied by the Lake Charles Firefighters in the armory at the airport. During this meal he informs us that rooms in a motel have been reserved for us for the night. As we sign up for our rooms we are told to report back tomorrow at 1:30 pm for more instructions. Since the rooms are in Beaumont, TX he arranges to have five motorcoaches to take us as a group. At least we will have a good bed to sleep in tonight and we will be able to take a shower.

Now, Monday September 5.

Continued conversation with other drivers reveals only rumors and no facts. About noon we head back to Lake Charles to report in at this temporary dispatch office at the airport. When we report in, we are told there will be no movement until tomorrow. This is disappointing and hard to understand, especially as we listen to the radio and hear about this huge need to get people moved. Seems to me that there has to be a better way to organize and run this system. Who is in charge and who gives the orders to all of us (drivers)? There is very limited and very poor communication. If I ran operations like this, the company would lose all of its business and drivers. Calling back to the office--

I think he means his own office--

and to any other contact I can come up with doesn't provide any help. About 2 pm the dispatcher comes around looking for two coaches that have two drivers. We are just what he is looking for and we offer to be of service. He tells us to head to Fort Smith, AR as soon as we can hit the road and to report in at Fort Smith. We head right out and make the trip to Fort Smith. As we are going down the road we find out that a mistake has been made. Instead of Fort Smith at Fort Smith, AR, it is Fort Chaffee. The drive to Fort Smith is a long one, about 500 miles. Upon arrival we are to report to Fort Chaffee for instructions. As we are travelling we begin to notice many other motorcoaches headed the same direction.

September 6, Tuesday.

We arrive ..... and find the directions we were given in Lake Charles to be wrong. Finally, we arrive at Fort Chaffee and enter the base. The guards at the gate are very surprised to see us and they wonder why we are reporting at 2 a.m. The guards give us direction to the area where the people are housed. We get to that area only to find out nobody knows why they sent us to this base. Once again I get on the phone calling the numbers I was given. These calls just get voice mail and nobody ever returns the calls. One of the guards gives me the phone number of the base commander. I give him a call (at 2 a.m.) and have a nice conversation with him. I can see that he has no information to help us out. He suggests getting a motel room and coming back in the morning. There are no motel rooms available and it is now 4 a.m. We decide to head back into Fort Smith to top off the fuel tanks and get a hot breakfast. Looks like we are in a race headed nowhere. At 8 a.m. we report back to the base. We are wondering why we were sent over 500 miles to just sit and wait. The guards at the base are telling us that the people are being moved out to other places to live. Many of the other coaches from Lake Charles are showing up this morning. About 10 a.m. there is movement and they begin to load coaches to move people on. Some guy comes along and tells us to hang in there and we will soon be working. At noon we are moved into position to load people. However, we received no instructions or information as to where we will be going. Even the people we are loading don't know where they are headed. What a way to treat people who have lost everything they have. Soon we are loaded and waiting to go someplace. A representative of the state of AR comes aboard and wishes the people a good future. At the same time we are told we will be escorted by the state police to Siloam Springs, AR. We are part of a 12 coach move with a highway patrol escort for every three coaches. The drive is supposed to take about 90 minutes. The actual drive took us over three hours as the escort never went faster than 40 mph. All of the people are very thankful for the help in moving them and they are very pleasant considering what they have all been through.

Finally we arrive at Siloam Springs at a church camp. It seems like the whole community is here to welcome the people and help them make a home. It is very heart touching to see all the generous help. We unload and clean our two coaches. Feeling tired and hungry we head back towards Fort Smith. After what happened last night we see no need to arrive at Fort Chaffee in the middle of the night. We find rooms in Fayetteville and shut down for the night. The whole trip is nothing like we had hoped or thought it would be. Maybe we will feel better in the morning.

Morning is September 7, Wednesday. So this would be the seventh--it is my judgment this is the seventh day that my constituents were going through this trial and tribulation.

Our week of service is almost over and we sure haven't [done] much of any good. We have spent more time driving around empty as they have moved us all over. This morning we went back to Fort Chaffee and waited for new orders. Many other drivers were also waiting to see what we were to do. About noon we get the word that we were to report back to Lake Charles for the next duty. Here we go again on a 500 mile drive with no passengers. Does anybody really know what is going on? As we drive to Lake Charles, we know it will be about 9 p.m. when we arrive. Hopefully somebody will be around to fill us in. No such luck. When we arrive at Lake Charles the parking lot is filled with hundreds of motorcoaches. There are hundreds of coaches and drivers. Many drivers are very upset as they just sit idle. At Lake Charles we are told to report back in the morning and we are also told good luck on finding any lodging. Looks like another night of sleeping in the coach. I make some phone calls and find out there are some rooms at the casino. I call them and ask about rooms and explain what we have been doing. The manager gives us a deal on three rooms for the four of us. At least we will have a bed to sleep in and be able to take a shower in the morning.

September 8.

This will be Thursday.

This is the last day that we can help as we need to return to Iowa tonight. The coaches need to be back to go on charter trips. We will report to the temporary dispatch office early. With hundreds of coaches just parked it doesn't look good. The dispatcher said there is no work today and the next opportunity might be tomorrow. I ask if there is anybody that needs to move north as we could take people north as we head home. Nothing available today and with all the idle coaches it looks bad for tomorrow. I sign us out and we start back home. I am glad that we came down and tried to help. There is a huge sense of disappointment in the fact that we drove about 3,000 total miles and only hauled 47 people 103 miles. It seems like a huge waste of valuable resources and money. Especially as I look over a parking lot filled with hundreds of motorcoaches.

Somebody made the order to get all these coaches here and now they sit idle. It easy to see why people get frustrated with the system. Along with these coaches sitting idle, many school buses were moved to the area and never used. They were sent back home as they weren't needed. Today we learned that in the city of New Orleans all of the school buses were left to get caught in the flood. Why weren't they used before the hurricane and flood to get people moved out of harm's way in New Orleans. There are a large number of public officials at all levels and the news media pointing fingers trying to put the blame on FEMA when they should look at themselves. Why did the school buses get left and not used? Why didn't people heed the notice to get out and move to a safer area?

I think the whole process needs to be looked at and evaluated for making improvements. We were not the only ones to wonder what was going on. Almost all the drivers were asking who is in charge and where are the lines of communication. Of all the people who gave us orders, none of them seemed to understand operations and dispatch. From my viewpoint, it appears to me that many of those who were supposed to manage the coaches didn't have any idea of what to do and just how much help they needed.

September 9.

After driving through the night we arrived back in Iowa. We are tired and ready to be back in our own homes. The hardship we went through was very minor compared to what all the displaced families were going through. As a team, we all agreed that we would go again and we would do whatever we could to provide assistance to people in need. Hopefully, if there is a next time, there will be better organization and all involved parties will work together.

About 10 a.m. I received a call from the dispatcher in Lake Charles saying he had a trip for us. He was looking for us and wondered where we were. This is a good example of poor management as this was the same person I had signed out with yesterday morning in Lake Charles. What a joke and what a lack of management. I just hope that all of the drivers and coach companies didn't get mad at the system. If they did get upset with the whole system, there might not be enough help the next time.

I would go and help again. It seems like the call to come and help was about two days late. Then when the call went out, too many resources were brought into play and then there was overkill. I do hope to be able to sit down and talk with somebody who evaluates this operation.

Let me say parenthetically that he is going to continue to talk to other people, but he asked me to be part of this communication, to lay out, as he saw it, the problems, in hopes that action will be taken here and at the local responder level and the State level to make sure these things don't happen again.

I am going to say that sentence again that I just was distracted from.

I do hope to be able to sit down and talk with somebody who evaluates this operation.

Someway, somehow, there has to be a method to get operation managers in the right place to guide a mass movement of people as fast as possible. Maybe when this is all over people will have time to look back and make new plans.

The saddest part of this whole experience was the difference of the news media coverage to the real situation. The devastation was huge. The generous helping spirit of the American people was huge. A large number of resources available and there were people willing to provide assistance. Yet, many of these resources were poorly used as the lines of command and communication were poor. We went down to New Orleans to work hard and help. That goal of providing help was not accomplished in my eyes. Yes, we moved about 94 people on our two coaches. However, we only moved those people 100 miles and we spent the rest of our time driving empty as we were moved from place to place. There needs to be a better system of command and coordination.

I am very thankful for this opportunity to go and help, no matter how small the help seemed to be. The people we moved were very thankful and they greatly appreciated the efforts of many. My heart hurts for those people who have lost everything but their lives. I also know that we had the right kind of intentions as we went to help.

Note: "Congressional Action" is a blog feature highlighting an official activity undertaken by or in Congress, very often chosen at random, to provide an educational snapshot of our Congress at work. Opinions and facts represented in this feature do not necessarily represent the views of Amy Ridenour or The National Center for Public Policy Research, nor is this feature intended to express an opinion on any measure under consideration by the Congress.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:00 PM

Internal Washington Post E-Mails Show Paper Editors Wary of Web Success

Based on these internal e-mails, it looks like some editors at the Washington Post dead tree edition aren't very happy that the web version of the Post is doing well.

The web version, apparently, is outside their control. It's also growing -- one editor frets it has more readers than the paper version -- and is making money, besides.

More info on the angst is available here.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:57 PM

Trafalgar 200: "England Expects That Every Man Shall Do His Duty"

Two hundred years ago today, 27 ships of the British Navy under the command of Admiral Lord Nelson won a decisive victory at the Battle of Trafalgar over a combined French and Spanish fleet of 33 ships. 22 French and Spanish ships were sunk.

Napoleon never again contemplated an invasion of Britain. The battle was a milestone in the defeat of Napoleonic France.

The Battle of Trafalgar was the most significant naval action of the Napoleonic Wars and of the 19th Century. It marked the beginning of over a century of British naval dominance.

Our British allies are today celebrating this event (go here for extensive multimedia resources).

Writing in the Scotsman (paid subscription required) today, author Arthur Herman writes:

Does anyone still care about the battle of Trafalgar? The empire which it secured 200 years ago, is long gone. The triumphal sense of British destiny, which sustained the Victorians and fed on the mythic image of Nelson dying on his flagship in the hour of victory, has vanished...

The Royal Navy has shrunk away to a shadow of its former self, while Nelson has become a tarnished figure....

So it would be easy to dismiss 21 October and the great hoopla over Sea Britain as just an exercise in nostalgia for a vanished navy and empire, and for an era when the Royal Navy ruled the waves with "wooden ships and iron men."

But that would be wrong. The secret to the battle ... has to do with the very nature of the sea fight in the age of sail, the horrific din, confusion, and carnage, with 60 great sailing ships locked in close combat in an area not much more than a mile and half square, and with more than 47,000 human beings risking instant death.

...it's worth remembering that the average British seaman at Trafalgar was not a professional warrior.

In most cases, he did not want to be there. He might have been an American or a Dutchman (there were 12 nationalities on HMS Victory alone); more likely than not he had been impressed against his will...

And yet he or she had been thrust into a battle where death or mutilation came at any moment from cannon balls, bullets and deadly wooden splinters the size of a forearm whizzing in every direction, as well as by tumbling masts and spars - a battle in which they not only endured but rose to genuine heroism and self-sacrifice.

It was the average British sailor, not Nelson, who triumphed at Trafalgar. Nelson's plan to break the French and Spanish line and force a "pell mell battle" was as risky as it was innovative.

If he had not had British crews, the best trained in the world, under his command, he would have been steering to certain defeat. "But I knew what I had under me," Nelson had written about his men and his victory at the Nile seven years earlier, "so I went on the attack."

Risking death in battle, defeating the French, and then keeping the fleet together in the terrible storm afterwards - a hurricane which, we now know, probably killed almost more sailors than the battle itself. How did they do it?

Nelson's contemporary, the military theorist Karl von Clausewitz, put his finger on it. He said there are two kinds of courage in battle. One depends on an emotional impulse triggered by patriotism or religious fanaticism or ideological fervour. It's the kind that drove the armies of the French and Russian Revolutions, and the Japanese and Germans in the Second World War. We see it every day in Iraq's insurgents, or the suicide bombers on a Spanish train or London tube.

The other kind of courage rests on a calm deliberate training of mind and body, until courage becomes a habit not just "in the face of physical danger, but in the face of responsibility."

The first type of courage looks impressive; but the second, Clausewitz says, "is more certain, because it has become a second nature" to those who have it, both on the battlefield and off.

That is the kind of courage the British sailors at Trafalgar had. It's the kind American and British sailors and soldiers showed on D-Day and in Burma in the Second World War, and show every day in Iraq in regiments such as the Black Watch. They were and are not driven by fanaticism or hate or an arrogant warrior's code. They just know they have to stay with the job with all its ugliness and horrors, until they reach the victorious end.

In short, as Nelson himself said, they do their duty. And as long as free societies ask the best of us to keep doing that, the memory of Trafalgar should and will endure.

In our own, insignificant tribute to the heroes of Trafalgar, and those who fight for freedom everywhere, we have added this eyewitness account of the action at Trafalgar to this blog's list of historical documents.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:32 PM

Vote on Bridge to Nowhere

KTVA Anchorage has posted a poll:

Are you for or against the bridges?

No registration, nor local residency, is required to vote.

The "bridges," of course, refers to the Congressional allocation of $452 million in tax funds for two bridges in Alaska, one of which has been dubbed "the bridge to nowhere." The matter was the subject of a verbal scuffle in the Senate Thursday.

Despite rather ardent support from Alaska's Congressional delegation, in Alaska itself, it appears, the bridge appropriations are not receiving unanimous support.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 PM

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Congressional Action: Federal Spending Priorities

On October 20, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) addressed the issue of excessive federal spending:

Mr. President, I have offered a second-degree amendment that deals with a subject that has been on everyone's mind. It has been in every newspaper in the country. It is about almost $500 million for bridges in the State of Alaska... that are very low on the totem pole in terms of the needs of the country.

...we find ourselves in a significant difficulty as a nation. We had the worst natural disaster to hit our country we have ever experienced. We are in a war. We added $600 billion to our national debt this last year. That is not our national debt. That is our children's and our grandchildren's national debt. That is over $2,000 per man, woman, and child. In this country this year we added to what they are going to have to pay back, compounded at 6 percent over the next 30 years, $30,000 to $40,000.

I think it is important for us to look back at history a little bit to help us get redirected in terms of our priorities. There was a President who faced tremendous difficulties in our Nation. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He made a lot of great decisions for our country -- enabled us to win World War II through his leadership. But less well known is FDR's decision to slash nondefense spending by over 40 percent between 1942 and 1944. Among the programs that were eliminated entirely were FDR's own prized creations. By 1944, such pillars of the New Deal as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Youth Administration, and the Work Projects Administration had been abolished. In 1939, those three programs had represented one-eighth of the Federal budget. Roosevelt and the Congress of his day knew what to do in an emergency. Indeed, he chose to begin the reordering of budget priorities long before Pearl Harbor.

In October 1939, one month after Hitler invaded Poland, Roosevelt wrote Harold Smith, his budget director, ordering him to hold budgets for all Government programs at the present level and below if at all possible. The next month he told him the administration would not undertake any new projects, even laudable ones. He told reporters that the next year his policy would be to cut nonmilitary programs to the bone. He kept his word. Between 1939 and 1942 spending for nondefense programs was cut by 22 percent. Everyone realized that no matter how popular or deeply entrenched the program, the Nation's priorities had to change.

I believe we find ourselves as a nation at that point in time again. With the catastrophe we have seen to our gulf coast, with the war in Iraq, with the energy crisis, and with the budget deficit, it is time for us to change our priorities...

...I think it is important also to know what the people of Alaska think. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the RECORD quotes from letters to the editor and editorial opinions from the major newspaper in Alaska on the status of these two bridges...

...The first is from Dave Person, Ketchikan, the very place where 50 people live and a $230 million-plus bridge is going to go to service them. So you can get perspective on this, $230 million for 50 people, where there is a ferry service already running every 15 to 20 minutes that takes 7 minutes to cross, is enough money to buy each one of them a Learjet. Think about that for a minute -- a bridge longer than the Golden Gate for 50 people to a small area in Alaska. That is enough money to buy every one of the inhabitants a speedboat to cross any time they wanted. They could cross and leave the speedboat for somebody else to pick up and buy a new one the very next day and still not spend this much money.

So the fact is, it is the priorities we have in our country that are askew today. The priority of spending almost one-half billion dollars on bridges to a very small section of the population needs to be addressed.

...let me quote Dave Person from Ketchikan: Thinking about the immense disaster in the Gulf States, it occurred to me the most effective thing we can do as residents of our island would be to return the money earmarked for our Gravina Bridge.

This is the people of Alaska, with compassion. They know what is right. They know what we should be doing.

Here is another citizen from Alaska: I am embarrassed to see the town of Ketchikan become synonymous with a $300 million bridge. If there were an election right now on using the money for the bridge or building up the New Orleans levees or repairing a bridge in New Orleans, almost everyone in town would say no to the bridge. Anchorage Daily News.

And: The decent -- that is, the American thing -- for Alaskans and our congressional delegation to do would be to send these one-half billion dollars south to the real needs of millions, rather than spending them here in Alaska on legacy projects that benefit a few.

Anchorage Daily News, September 13, 2005:

This money, a gift from the people of Alaska, will represent more than just material aid; it will be a symbol for our beleaguered democracy.....

I would assume that most Ketchikan residents would agree that thousands of suffering fellow citizens and billions of dollars of destroyed economic and social infrastructure are of higher priority than our ability to drive to the airport...

...It is my understanding this amendment is going to be vigorously opposed by the home State Senators. This has nothing to do with my respect for them but has everything to do with my respect for our country and our desire to change the way we put our priorities on spending. If you think about the unfunded liabilities that are coming, $37 trillion on Medicaid and Medicare, another $8 or $9 trillion on Social Security, a debt that is soon to reach, by 2009, 2010, $12 trillion, how much more can we give to our kids, our grandchildren?...

Note: "Congressional Action" is a blog feature highlighting an official activity undertaken by or in Congress, very often chosen at random, to provide an educational snapshot of our Congress at work. Opinions and facts represented in this feature do not necessarily represent the views of Amy Ridenour or The National Center for Public Policy Research, nor is this feature intended to express an opinion on any measure under consideration by the Congress.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:00 PM

Eminent Domain Reform Needed

The National Center's environment and regulatory staff is calling on all states to adopt policies to prohibit governments from taking private property for economic development or to increase tax revenue.

Says Peyton Knight:

One man's blight is another man's castle. Without proper restrictions and well-defined parameters, governments will exploit the blight loophole and continue to abuse eminent domain power.

Read all about it here.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:48 PM

Blogging Notes

Miscellaneous notes about blogs and bloggers...

ProfessorBainbridge has been my #1 blogger of choice on the Supreme Court nominations. Today he's got an interesting debate going with David Limbaugh over the question: Does the Constitution require the Senate to reject Supreme Court nominees only over questions of character and competence, or may the Senate reject a nominee for any reason -- or no reason -- as it chooses?

Furthering the conversation on Constitutional debates, The Paragraph Farmer is fisking Hugh Hewitt's fisk of Robert Bork. (Speaking of Hewitt, when did the pro-Miers people start calling themselves "anti-anti-Miers" people?)

I've only been reading PostWatch for three days, but it already is a must-read blog for me. My only concern: Given the quantity of quality output Christopher Fotos is putting on that blog, isn't he in danger of burning out? I'm one who hopes not.

I agree with I Respectfully Dissent that Tucker Carlson did an excellent job handling the ex-White House officemate of Harriet Miers who called critics of the Miers nomination "far right." It was nice to see someone get called on using that epithet.

Jeff Quinton is requesting honeymoon advice.

Thanks to Political Site of the Day for the recognition Thursday.

Finally, a note about my blogroll policy. If you have a blog and have me on your blogroll and I have not reciprocated, feel free to drop me a note. I might not get to it for a while, but I'll try to reciprocate. Two caveats: Because this is a think-tank blog, I don't link to candidate or campaign blogs. And, as I try to keep this blog PG or better, if I click your link and I see breasts, you are out of luck with me unless you have a cooking blog.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:18 PM

Fred Barnes on Childish Conservatives

Fred Barnes had to know his criticism of conservative Bush critics as "in some ways childish" (especially as he had it published in a conservative journal and declined to back up the insult with examples), would create at least a bit of a fuss.

Any chance Fred Barnes is doing a favor for White House staffers who do him the favor of being valued confidential sources?

Maybe not, but whenever a journalist opines against critics of a source, the possibility of a conflict of interest has to be considered.

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:25 PM

Stop Congressional Spending Now

Mark Tapscott is covering the Senate reaction to Tom Coburn's anti-pork amendments, while Power Line reports that Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is threatening Senators who vote against pork.

At about the same time as the Senate vote, a new "Stop Spending Now" coalition, whose lead organizers are the American Conservative Union, Heritage Foundation, and the Club for Growth, had a press conference calling upon Congress to cut spending. The Family Research Council and the National Center for Public Policy Research (we joined the coalition late yesterday and lent only moral support today) also are members.

As you can see from the facial expression of Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner (left), in this photo taken at the Stop Spending Now press conference, these guys are serious.


The ACU's David Keene (at the podium above), citing a Cato Institute study, charged that "discretionary spending increased by 48.4% during Bush's first term, more than double that of the 21.6% increase during the entire Clinton administration and embarrassingly higher than the 48.3% increase resulting from Lyndon Johnson's entire discretionary spending spree."

Ed Feulner essentially said that, unless Congress gets its act together, the U.S. will be worse off than France. The situation is really that bad.

I urge folks to read Ed Feulner's remarks in full. It's a short, important, and scary read.

Ed Feulner's remarks are available online here; the remarks of David Keene can be accessed here<