Rago Holds Up More of a Mirror Than an Indictment

Joseph Rago writes in the December 20 Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal what at first might appear to be a scathing indictment of the blog community, but it is fact a mirror reflecting the worst of the mainstream media and ultimately explaining why blogs rise and newspaper circulations plunge.

Rago's entire take on the WWW and blogs in general is broad brushed, elitist tripe:

The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.

Wow; I'am glad Rago has moved past this elitism stuff, otherwise I might think he was just another traditional media snob. Journalism requires journalist? Tell me Mr. Rago, where do you pick up your journalism license? I majored in Journalism, was managing editor of my small college weekly, won awards from various collegiate press associations, worked for a while at a network affiliate, in public relations and in politics and have yet to meet a journalist that was such by any other virtue but educational emphasis and a decision to work in that field.

There is no standard, test or commission that ensures one is a good or bad journalist except for the court of public opinion. As far as the blogs picking up scraps, it sounds exactly like picking up a dozen different dailies from around the country and reading the same AP news/opinion/can't tell the difference story. The MSM chases its own tail with frightening regularity and if Rago does not see this it is willful blindness. Watch any White House Press briefing, read the major daily papers, watch the network news and cable news (Yes, including Fox) and you see an automaton of frightening proportions when you consider this is supposed to be the vanguard of truth and accountability. The press has become a lazy, following and often politically driven institution that mistakes self aggrandizing as asking tough questions and too often gives out free passes to those in our public service considered "friendlies."

But what really seems to bother Rago more than anything (except that the right seems to dominate the blogs) is that there are so many non-journalist writing these days. We're not as serious as Rago and his pals, we don't posses the same faculties for introspection, seriousness and we are just, darn it, NOT journalist. It's obviously so vexing to Rago.

Rago complains that there is "rarely...sustained or systematic blog thought." Oh dear God. Watch any C-Span panel of journalist and often what passes for "rigor" or systematic thought" is simply the systematic regurgitation of the same press releases and/or quotes again and again without the slightest hint of skepticism or real intellectual digging for underlying fact or verification. If bloggers are the cattle of journalism, the MSM has become the great Bison herds of the 1800's.

His writing about the blogs also underscores the complete lack of introspection among "professional" journalist these days; their defense of even their most glaring mistakes is reflexive and vacuous, so lacking in intellectual honesty that it has led to the blog explasion he so decries.

But what really offends me about this hit piece posing as the rigor and careful thought trumpeted throughout is the anti-democratic notion that the competition in the marketplace of ideas is okay, so long as the ideas are put out there by the right people. Like the thoroughly trained, intellectually fit journalist of Mr. Rago's caliber:

But democracy does not work well, so to speak, without checks and balances. And in acceding so easily to the imperatives of the Internet, we've allowed decay to pass for progress.

Without the checks and balances of a highly qualified journalist to tell us which opinions are valid, Mr. Rago? Are there lots of bad blogs? You bet. There are also lots of bad journalist. There is a lot of fault to be found on the blogs, but they do not erode democracy or the great debate, Mr. Rago, just your over-inflated opinion of yourself and your occupation.

Anyone who reads the last quote from Rago's piece and does not detect the malodorous scent of a snob is suffering from an common sense head cold.

Now THIS Is Ironic

I noticed this post on Gateway Pundit yesterday: Iraqi Red Crescent: U.S. threatens work .

Dr. Jamal Al-Karbouli, vice president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, said some U.S. forces appeared not to realize that the society, which uses as its symbol the Muslim red crescent instead of the red cross, was part of the international humanitarian movement.
"The main problem we are facing is the American forces more than the other forces," Al-Karbouli told reporters in Geneva. "We are spending a lot of time to explain about the Red Crescent."
Al-Karbouli said insurgent groups in
Iraq did not pose as great a problem for the organization.
"The insurgents, they are Iraqis, a lot of them are Iraqis, and they respect the Iraqis. And they respect our (the Red Crescent's) identity, which is neutrality."
He also complained that Red Crescent offices in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf provinces had been repeatedly "attacked" by U.S.-led multi-national forces searching for insurgents.
"We have flags, we have everything, we have (the) logo, so they (U.S. forces) know everything, but unfortunately they come again and attack us many times," Al-Karbouli said. He complained that U.S. forces broke doors and windows at the Red Crescent headquarters "and they didn't find anything, and they left." Al-Karbouli said insurgent groups had tried to enlist support from the Red Crescent, but the organization had refused.
"We always say no. We want to keep our neutrality," he said.
Doctors and other medical workers have been targeted by militants in bombings and shootings in Iraq's relentless violence. Hospitals also have become safe havens for insurgents or Shiite militiamen, who have sometimes holed up in them in battles with U.S. forces.

Then I wake up this morning to see that gunmen carried out a mass kidnapping of RED CRESCENT workers in Bagdad just hours ago.

You see, when we try to find terrorist who kill civilians in Iraq by kicking down doors, our Democratic party politicians, like John F Kerry says our troops "terrorize children." (Kerry is now on his "World Tour 06: President Bashar Assad , Eat with the Troops!") By the way, I'm sure the people of Lebanon are just wild over Kerry meeting with the man who, along with Iran, is seeking to plunge their nation into bloody constraint once again and ultimately spark a wider pan-Arab-Israeli war.

So the contrast is clear, we kick down doors, then leave, the terrorist kidnap, torture and kill the men, when they are not busy bombing markets full of women and children.

Folks, this ISG, Kerry, Nelson, ET AL lunacy is getting out of hand. Peace in our time. Oh Joy.

Porn, Morality and Feministing Girls Gone Wild

The sleazy piece of human excrement shown here is Joe Francis, responsible to the trash called Girls Gone Wild. Francis has made millions selling tapes of flashing college and sometimes high school age girls to closet pedophiles and teen boys who can't get dates. Cruising spring break spots with video cameras, Francis and crew goad drunk girls into performing on camera for free and then sells them via cable TV infomercials.

But it seems some were underage and his company got a big fine, community service and he still faces more charges.

In 2003 a GGW crew filmed two 17 year old girls engaging in sexual activity and others came forward shortly after.

Many are outraged, and rightfully, so that this odious enterprise has resulted in a fine that equals about 12 percent of his company's profits from 2005. There is a lot of outrage out there on the net and rightfully so.

Except.....

My favorite target for non-thinkers everywhere is Feministing. Check the short post and endless comments on the subject of Francis and GGW; everything from wishes for jailhouse rape of Francis to fantasies of violence abound. This is a website that revels in thoughts of violence on men who objectify women, once again, under some circumstances not a bad idea, as in unwanted physical contact.

So what's my problem with the Feministing ladies? The fact that they scorn and make fun of Mary Beth Buchanan for prosecuting people who write stories about the abduction and rape of children and men who make porn films depicting the violent rape and even killing of women. Seriously.

I don't mean to beat this to death, but the outright hypocrisy and/or lack of thought on where they stand on these issues of exploitation of women and children is astounding and will remain so until, I suppose, I get hit in the face with the brick that makes me think Girls Gone Wild is bad because it objectifies women and prosecuting people who write about and/or film the rape of women and children is bad. Honestly kids, I just don't get it...

Iraq Study Group, Fruit Salad and Iran

I am struck by the difference in attitude and questions between the press attending the grand unveiling of the ISG Recommendations and the White House Press Corps.

There were actually some pointed and tough questions at the grand unveiling, such as:

QUESTION: You're certainly a group of distinguished elder statesmen, but tell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said, given that -- as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb; none of you made it out of the Green Zone -- why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?
HAMILTON: The members of the Iraq Study Group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record. We don't pretend now, we did not pretend at the start, to have expertise. We've put in a very intensive period of time. We have some judgments about the way this country works and the way our government works, and some considerable experience within our group on the Middle East.
We recognize that our report is only one, and there will be many recommendations. But the report will stand on its own and be accepted or rejected on its own.
We tried to set forth here achievable goals. It's a very easy thing to look at Iraq and sit down and set out a number of goals that really have no chance of all of being implemented. We took a very pragmatic approach because all of these people up here are pragmatic public officials.
HAMILTON: We also hope that our report will help bridge the divide in this country on the Iraq war and will at least be a beginning of a consensus here. Because without that consensus in the country, we do not think ultimately you can succeed in Iraq.
BAKER: Let me add to that that this report by this bunch of has- beens up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there.

It is impossible to impart the sneering tone of Baker's comment. The question was perhaps the most important however glossed over by Hamilton and rejected out of hand by Baker. The Military Adviser's to the ISG were not consulted on the military recommendations and many a military person from John McCain to General Barry McCaffrey has pointed out its tank-sized holes.

Other good question were posed on the reality of their recommendations being accepted in toto (more on that in a bit), the reality of real dialogue with Iran and Syria etc.

On the other hand, the White House press corps and network anchors/talking heads saw the delivery of the WORD, the repudiation of Bush and the confirmation of their every deepest, darkest thought about the Iraq.

It also, in their eyes, justified how bunch of reporters who rarely get out of New York City or the beltway, never get intelligence briefings (except for leaks they print) and have never consulted with a General, Colonel or Master Sargent on the ground in Iraq could know the REAL story of Iraq so well. For them it's not about Iraq per se, it's about vindication of their point of view. One wonders what the reaction would be if the ISG had come out with recommendations to increase the intensity of the war. But they did not and it's a no brainer why.

Commissions, committees and think tanks run to the center, to compromise and away from controversy and decisiveness like dogs run to steak over corn on the cob. Committees do not come up with bold new visions, they promote blinders and more of the same. They ISG report is full of cold war thinking in an asymmetrical war world.

Baker, in the announcement news conference (the Second Noel to the media left, but this time with two wise men and eight sheep) justified the loathsome idea of actually negotiating with the fascist regime in Iran by citing the fact we spoke with the Soviets during the cold war. We sure did; but it was not until we negotiated from the position of a military and economic buildup they could not possibly keep up with was real concessions and eventually the dissolution of the USSR achieved under Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Baker then sat before the Senators the next day and said the plan was "not fruit salad ...where you can just take the parts you like..it's a comprehensive plan."

Well I'll agree that it's not fruit salad and as my old bud used to say, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken crap either - and this is chicken crap at its worst.

R.I.P. Elizabeth Bolden

Elizabeth "Lizzie" Bolden died yesterday at 116; she was the worlds oldest person.

Hey, Sean Penn, Mike Farrell, Janeane Garofalo, Tim Robbins: THIS Takes Guts:

(AFP Photo)

Iran students heckle Ahmadinejad.

This is not criticizing an administration that, despite your dim-witted hyperbole, will never arrest, jail, torture or take away your life or family; this takes REAL guts. When you go protest dictators instead of elected officials of our republic, we'll take your seriously.

I'm Sure Iran Will Be Quite Reasonable:

Holocaust deniers gather in Iran for 'scientific' conference in this Guardian story. You know, the usual gang, Ahmadinejad, David Duke, those cuddly Klansman. Wow, I bet Israel is sooo pumped over Jim Baker wanting to throw them under the bus for Mid-East peace.

Haniyeh: Hamas will not recognize Israel

I'm sure the ISG will figure out a way around this little speed bump:

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told thousands of Iranians on Friday that his Hamas-led government will never recognize Israel and will continue to fight for the "liberation of Jerusalem."

Making his first visit abroad since the militant group took power in March, Haniyeh blasted U.S. demands that Hamas recognize Israel as a basis for renewed peace talks and before international aid to the Palestinians resumes.

The U.S. "and Zionists ... want us to recognize the usurpation of the Palestinian lands and stop jihad and resistance and accept the agreements reached with the Zionist enemies in the past," Haniyeh told worshippers at Tehran University.

Interesting Stories from Daily Telegraph: Aghanis Feel Better Off; Just retired head of British Army Says Don't Leave Job Unfinished in Iraq

In Afghanistan:

70 per cent say they are "grateful" rather than "unhappy" with the presence of NATO troops in the country.

While the same report says more Afghans are worried about the security situation, with increased Taliban backed attacks, they clearly feel better off with NATO there. Go Figure.

On Iraq, General Sir Mike Jackson, just retired head of the British Army says about Iraq:

Despite the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group that there should be a clear exit strategy from the country, Sir Mike warned that not to see the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to their "proper conclusions would be a disaster".
Commenting on the Iraq Study Group's conclusions, Sir Mike said: "To leave Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are fully able to deal with the current violence would be both morally wrong and a fundamental strategic mistake."

T.F. Boggs, Plain Spoken Solder, on ISG

Read it here. (Hat Tip Powerline)

More Katrina Follow Up

After receiving a rather strong comment saying "Your lies disgust me" I decided to expand a bit more on the Katrina recovery effort. But first let me digress for a moment:

The person who left the comment (posted below unedited) starts out by saying he/she is a "white" and "conservative." For anyone else who may care to post comments in the future, your race means nothing to me and trotting out racial credentials like I would have a racial/ethnic litmus test for commentators to this site is frankly stupid and insulting. So save it.

On to post Katrina: my earlier blog was about whether or not there was a massive response to Katrina. There was.

Here in San Antonio we hosted a large number of Katrina victims (many of who carried on about the superiority of our schools, etc, compared to pre-Katrina New Orleans). Everyone from churches to private citizens to the Red Cross bent over backwards with kindness for the evacuees here (many are still here). I wonder if the indignant "white conservative" who blasted my post know that so many people in San Antonio donated clothing, bedding, toys and other materials to our evacuee guests that they had to start turning them away for lack of staff and storage to handle it all? Or that San Antonio hosted 25,000 + Katrina victims, 18,00 in shelters, the rest in private homes? Or that donations to our local food bank tripled the first month to six millions pounds of food?

More on this: San Antonio spent $37,000,000 on Katrina/Rita evacuee-related costs (the overwhelming amount on Katrina victims) and had been reimbursed or received approval for $35,000,000 by FEMA as of June 2006. So does FEMA just like San Antonio more or could it be a matter of competence? I would invite anyone who cares about the facts to read this report from the City of San Antonio (PDF). It shows a city and state government that knew how to interact with both private and public sectors to get things done fast and it should make Louisiana and New Orleans officials weep with shame.

Contrast that report with this:
New Orleans hires expert to tackle Katrina recovery04 Dec 2006 20:04:33 GMT04 Dec 2006 20:04:33 GMT . Notice the DATE on this Reuters report? A few excerpts for those who hate clicking links:

Fifteen months after Hurricane Katrina destroyed his city, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said on Monday he has hired a disaster recovery expert amid widespread criticism that rebuilding has been too slow.
Edward Blakely, who worked in New York after the Sept. 11 attacks and in northern California after the 1989 earthquake and 1991 wildfires, will head Nagin's newly created Mayor's Office of Recovery Management.
Blakely, currently chair of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Sydney in Australia, has visited New Orleans several times since the deadly storm on Aug. 29, 2005. More than 80 percent of the city was flooded after water broke through the levees.
"This is the first city that I've been in that was totally devastated," Blakely told reporters at City Hall. "All the others, there was only a portion of the city that was devastated."
Blakely, 69, said he will coordinate all the pieces of the public bureaucracy and work with private plans for his long-term goal of bringing back those who want to return.
"I want to do that as soon as possible, because I think that's the stumbling block right now," Blakely said.

An observation or two: Fifteen months? This man with great credentials is out there for fifteen months before this idiot mayor (re-elected by the citizens of New Orleans, by the way) hires a coordinator? What is the first thing the man says he will do? COORDINATE between private and public sector - what a great idea! Too bad not a single politician in Louisiana had this thought prior to now. An entire city devastated - an entire city. It can take longer than fifteen months to build a hotel.

Nagin's answer for why it took him so long to make this appointment? Once again, from the Reuters story: "Nagin justified the delay in the hiring by saying that only now did the city have the "momentum and clarity" to take advantage of the expertise of someone like Blakely." Good answer, Zenmaster Nagin.

I've read comments about people not even applying for federal aid after 15 months because they do not have proof they owned or were paying on a house; if after 15 months, you cannot put pen to paper, send a certified return receipt letter to your lending company and get a payment record, well, I leave others to draw conclusions. Those lenders want that property paid for/rebuilt as well; If you can't get a response from your mortgage company after 15 months, hire a lawyer, there are more of them in any given city than refugees.

I DO agree the conduct of many insurance companies in the post-Katrina climate has been criminal. As a conservative in the legal field for many years, I have told my other conservative friends again and again that all of the "tort reform" and concessions to insurance companies would come back in a big way. I knew it did the day I saw that Trent Lott had filed suit against his insurance company. Good Trent, now you know the consequences of passing legislation without knowing what the hell you're talking about.

As far as FEMA trailers, I bet they suck. But once again, my point was in third world countries, people don't live in trailers provided for free, the sleep in tents or the dirt and the only way to get their home back is to rebuild it with their own two hands.

One last thing: the people of New Orleans have known, or should have known, for YEARS that those levees were a problem waiting to happen. Now matter who was in charge of them, the PEOPLE sat passively by and assumed the government who brought you medicare, social security and the levees in question would deal with it and fix everything lickity split. In 2002 THE TIMES-PICAYUNE ran a four part series with dire predictions of what could happen if a major storm hit the NOLA area. In 1965 Levees broke and 8 feet of water filled the lower 9th ward. Stories about corruption and shoddy building practices from levee contractors have been around for years. You can't just sit passively in a frying pan and then say it's all someone else's fault when you get burned - and please don't write implying that race or economic standing prevented New Orleans residents from demanding better.

Listen, lots of things were done wrong before and after Katrina and lots of people have suffered. Everyone from Bush to Nagin to New Orleans residents have to take their proportionate share of the blame. But to say it's dishonest to point out that the money is there and the people at the bottom have to take responsibility too is just plain wrong.

Christmas Quote of the Day

Pray you, dutifully prime

Your matin chime, ye ringers;

May you beautifully rime

Your evetime song, ye singers.

Gloria, Hosanna in excelsis!

"Spiking" the Katrina Myth

This article in the Federal Times outlines what has been common knowledge since early this year: Far from the Federal Government under responding to the Katrina tragedy in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, the response was so overwhelming that ONE BILLION dollars (at least) went to fraudulent and duplicated payments.

Spike Lee said the Hurricane Katrina response made him think he was in a third world country after he breezed into New Orleans to film his one sided agenda driven documentary. Jeff Crouere of New Orleans wrote an excellent piece regarding Lee's slanted documentary.

But since I heard Lee's third world country comment on the Monday Night Football Pregame show earlier this year (sitting beside Marshal Faulk, who grew up in one of New Orleans' poorest districts and who was not buying it, it appeared to me) I have been bothered by such obvious hyperbole.

New Orleans official population when Katrina struck was 454,000; there was likely well in excess of 100,000 in the city when Katrina struck and the levees broke, yet the wildest estimates place the dead at around 3,200 and this is likely an overstated number with the most accurate counts around 1,800-2,000. That's for every area hit, not just New Orleans.

3,000 + were murdered on September 11, 2001.

Katrina is around number 28 on the list of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes--let me say that again: number 28. The great hurricane of 1780 is estimated to have killed at least 22,000. In fact, the 1780 hurricane season is the deadliest on record (I wonder how the global warming crowd explains that?). The 1900 Galveston Hurricane killed 8,000-12,000 and so on (click chart link above).

Before, during and after Katrina countless thousands were relocated, provided with food shelter, homes and jobs; communities opened their arms while the federal government provided untold billions in relief funding, so much that a billion was wasted. Just for some perspective:

In order for a Spike Lee movie to gross one billion at $7.00 a ticket, 142,857,142 people would have to go see it. That's about half the total population of the country. Yet we threw that much away on fraud and duplication. People want someone or something to blame when really bad things happen and mistakes get amplified in today's 24 hour news world when Geraldo Revera stands on camera and blubbers for the victims instead of lifting a finger to actually help, as did the U.S. Coast Guard, citizens and, yes, the federal government.

Third world country? I think not.

Say Thanks to the Troops!

Let's Say Thanks from Xerox makes it easy. (Hat Tip to The Corner)

Iraq Psychotherapy Group?

Well, John Podhoretz nails it again.

Feministing Shows lack of Moral/Intellectual Courage, Consistency

Sa'eed Mortazavi; Hey, at least he's not John Bolton !

Feministing has an understated celebration of John Bolton's resignation as United States ambassador to the United Nations. Way to go ladies. The left hates Bolton because he is so mean to an organization that allowed in its Human Rights Council Said Mortazavi. a "Special Prosecutor from Iran, involved in the arrest, torture, rape and death of Canadian photojournalist Ms. Zahra Kazemi in 2003. But we certainly would not want someone like Bolton to stay at the UN and plainly call them on their repulsive hypocrisy on such matters.



By the way, the same man said he wanted distributors of pornography in Iran executed, has ordered the mass arrest (and surely torture) of young Iranian protesters and shut down countless newspapers and blogs, arresting and imprisoning the journalist. But with people like him as a delegate the UN Human Rights Council we don't want John Bolton going there and being mean, would we?



And they are afraid of Mary Beth Buchanan and her "moral" opposition to pornography that portrays the rape of women and children? Way to go Feministing.

Borat, Iraq and Variations on Democracy

William Tucker post an excellent piece on the American Spectator.

In regard Iran, Tucker writes:

I THINK OUR BEST STRATEGY right now is to let Iraq sink or swim -- but not necessarily to expect the worst. There is something oddly compelling about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "letter to the American people." Why not allow him to join the discussion? After all, Iran will be living cheek-by-jowl with Iraq much longer than we will. Whatever influence the Iranian Shi'ia have in Iraq, it will be offset by Sunni intervention from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and so on. They can do a much better job of calming the civil war than we ever will. The Sunnis and Shi'ia have been killing each other for centuries. If we can put them under the glare of world opinion, they may learn to get along better -- which would make the whole Muslim world less lethally violent.

While interesting, I think Tucker assumes a level playing field between nations that does not exist. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria each have internal considerations that may not allow them to have the single-purpose driven policies towards Iraq as does Iran, which considers itself THE new power player in the middle east. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will be able to modulate the policy goals of Iran in the region; I think this is particularly true when viewed in light of the fact that America has always supplied the military backbone for the Saudis (and this only when the flow of oil is endangered).

This does not mean that talks with Iran are impossible in either the near or short term; but it must be done from strength; none of the aforementioned countries have the muscle and they and Iran are acutely aware of this.

Also in today's AMSPEC, Joel Himelfarb expands on the potential dangers of rushing into talks with nations who have failed in the past to respond to diplomacy.

"ACLU Nativity Scene" Displayed at UT

As noted last week, the Young Conservatives of Texas-University of Texas put up their ACLU Nativity Scene yesterday and it will be up again today at the West Mall.

The accompanying picture from the YCT-UT website shows "Gary and Joseph, Nancy Pelosi as an angel, the three wise men are Stalin, Lenin and Marx and a terrorist shepherd.

Obviously demonstrating the absurd with the absurd is the aim of the project, which of course has no baby Jesus and says "The Season" rather than Christmas. It's ashamed this is not as absurd as it should be, with the ACLU constantly at war with the Christian religion and Christmas displays around the nation.

Tony McDonald, Chairman of YCT-UT was kind enough to do a short email interview with Celebrate Democracy Prior to the display going up:

CD: Tony, how did the event come about
TM: I actually had the idea of doing an ACLU Nativity without a Jesus in the manger right before Christmas last year, when the War on Christmas was getting a lot of attention. I'm actually optimistic that last season may have been the peak if Christians continue to demand that their rights not be infringed upon.
As the year moved on, we continued to bat ideas around of how we could alter the scene entirely while I maintained the restriction that regardless of how entertaining each item in the scene was, it had to relate to either an issue from the war on Christmas or a specific ACLU position.
We've been actually working on the scene for the last couple of months, ordering plans, cutting the outlines, painting and building the manger.

CD: What has the reaction been since your announcement?
TM: The reaction has been 10-1 positive. I've gotten some hate mail from far-leftists and honestly, If I don't aggravate them then I'm not doing my job. I've also gotten a little apprehension from Christians who don't like us "denigrating a religious symbol." However, I think these are people who don't realize that this event is one of the most effective ways to get people's attention and make them talk about the role they want groups like the ACLU to play in shaping our society.

CD: How is your relationship/interactions with left or liberal groups at UT?
TM: I generally have a pretty healthy relationship with our University Democrats and other liberal groups, with the exception of the extremists that generally make up the ranks of Students for the ACLU or the International Socialists.I generally don't mind counter-protests when they are students...It is really only off-campus groups that attempt to be violent or irrational.
In Regard to teachers and administrators while many of the administrators that I deal with are liberals and don't approve of the message that we put forward, they have never cause us problems with the content of our events. UT is surprisingly good on Free Speech Issues for a liberal university. Many of my friends from YCT chapters across the state envy my position. While there is still some regulation on issues like amplified sound and space reservations, there isn't really any regulation on the content of speech.

Tony also has some comments about reaction to conservative speakers/groups on campus that placed UT in a surprisingly good light and also showed something of the character of this young man:

TM: As far as the general tempo of campus, I would say that we don't fit the myth that we have as an overwhelmingly liberal university. No neo-con can speak on campus, otherwise a group of 9/11 conspiracist students will show up and make trouble. We haven't faced too terrible of trouble holding events....people will challenge and yell at us, but all that requires is a spine. Since I have been at UT, we really haven't had any hateful or violent opponents.

Thanks to Tony for responding at a busy time that includes going into finals next week.

You can follow this link to see more pictures of the display.

Bolton Resigns, America, World Victimized by Democrat Extremist

John Bolton, who despite hysterical predictions from such left luminaries as Ted Kennedy, his sandwich partner Chris Dodd and Barbara Boxer has served as an effective and respected advocate for the United States at the United Nations has resigned, one presumes to save himself from another round of manufactured accusations and half truths before a democrat majority senate Foreign Relations Committee.

President Bush has called the democrats tactics this morning "stubborn obstructionism" and he could not be more on the mark.

The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . .
(Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)

For those of you who pontificate about the Bush Administration "shredding the constitution I would submit that transferring the power of the FULL SENATE to give up or down votes on nominees to a hand full of Committee members is extraordinarily dangerous. Yes, this means when republicans do it too. Committees should hold full, vigorous hearings, listening to witnesses for and against the nominee, issue uncompromising reports and recommendations and then let the vote go to the floor. Anything less is unacceptable.

Of course, except for effectively building coalitions and consensus on North Korea, Darfur, the Middle East, UN Reform and being an aggressive defender of the United States, he really was a flop. I'm sure the business as usual people at the UN (take our money while bashing our country), North Korea, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are as happy as the democrats on this. It really angers me for the folks who scream the most about using the UN want anyone but the most effective person for the job there. It takes irrational opposition to a new low.

Christmas Quote of the Day

I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old, familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Rumsfeld's Parting Thoughts?

According to Reuters, by way of the New York Times, Donald Rumsfeld has some suggestions about Iraq. The memo has been confirmed by the Pentagon. Some of the more interesting reported:

• Decrease quickly the number of U.S. bases, now 55, to five by July 2007;


• Place substantial U.S. forces near the borders with Syria and Iran to reduce infiltration and reduce Iran's influence;


• Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and coalition forces to encourage the Iraqi government to take charge.

There are several others, including troop increases either in Baghdad to fight insurgents or a substantial build up in Iraq all-around, though reportedly he called these options "less attractive."

Sounds just like the inflexible tyrant described by a hand full of mostly anonymous complainers.

John Podhoretz nails it

In Yesterdays New York Post.

Baker, Hamilton and the Surrendering Cowboy Band show why commission, panels and Think Tanks should never be trusted with important matters more important than coffee or tea. Commissions and Panels by their nature are scared, timid little things, afraid to take a real position or offend anyone (or so they often think they do not give offense). If you don't buy that, just read the leaks so far; this is a compromise report headed by two men who have repeatedly espoused a Chamberlain like solution to the Iraq question.

Bjorn Lomborg Interview; UPDATE

Story at Sun-Sentinel regarding quiet hurricane season. (Hat Tip AccuWeather Global Warming Blog)

Additional Update: This 2002 article from Nexus
by Dr David E. Wojick again shows how GW panic groups ignore data not convenient to their theories.

At TCS Daily, one of THE very best websites out there, period, Lomborg talks about global warming and allocation of resources (While there, take note of the related stories in the sidebar).

The Global Warming debate has reached such shrill levels it is hard to believe any progress will be made in finding the actual causes and how or IF man can control it.

Some of the more spectacular failures of the doomsayers include the predictions of a calamitous hurricane season this year, caused by ocean warming. Of course, what the chicken littles failed to understand is that OF COURSE WARM WATER CAUSE BIGGER HURRICANES. But to make the leap of logic that an overall temperature rise of .06 F alone has caused a long term warming trend in the Gulf of Mexico, in particular since overall temperature averages in the Southeast United States have DROPPED is fundamentally flawed.

(Just a cool Graphic, follow links for relevant charts)

Also, this excellent animation and charts shows that for August 2005 in the Gulf of Mexico the surface temperatures of the waters in the Gulf (which can swing wildly, relatively speaking) started an August warming trend towards the beginning of the month (typically the hottest month along the gulf, as anyone who has or does live there will tell you) and peaked along the area most affected by Katrina right as it neared landfall. Got that? The gulf had not been sitting there boiling and waiting for a hurricane to turn into a monster. In Fact, check the charts for a year at the above link and you will see that, as a trend, Gulf surface temperatures rose and fell with the seasons. Amazing.

Not that it matters, because when temperatures cool, the GW shamans say it is due to (you guessed it) WARMING, in fact, whatever happens climatologically speaking is caused by global warming; it's just that those of us who like to see hard evidence are blind anti-science nuts. This is very important to grasp kids: if you prefer the scientific method over wild predictions of future calamity based on little or no hard facts or computer modeling that make the most radical assumptions in their design, you are now an anti-science dullard.

Christmas Post for the Day

Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.