After being closed the last several months - more like a year - the Little Red Blog is returning shortly. Older archives will be available in a re-sorted manner. And other features will be added.
All archives listed prior to this entry are from the prior versions of the LRB.
Perhaps I’ve just become too cynical. When I read the NY Times headline for David Kirkpatrick’s column on Janice Rogers Brown, I immediately believed the column was an attempt to portray Brown in a negative way. The headline – Seeing Slavery in Liberalism. After reading the column, aside from reaffirming my belief that Brown will make an excellent Justice on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, I had to believe that either the NY Times had missed its mark or I’d wrongly pre-judged their intent.
Kirkpatrick uses several quotes to exemplify Justice Brown’s views on "the perils of liberalism." His telling of her life story includes her move from the liberal values of her family to her more conservative values. Along the way Kirkpatrick reminds his readers of her faith on more than one occasion. All in all, to my mind, it wasn’t a bad piece of reporting. Yet the headline keeps popping up.
Seeing Slavery in Liberalism
A headline aimed at the left. Many on the left call themselves liberal; this headline is aimed at them. It is meant agitate them, to draw their ire at the gall of a Justice seeing their political view in a comparable light to that of slavery. And moreover, the many liberal, yet not leftist, out there may also be stung by this headline. Although on reading the article, if intellectually honest, they’ll understand what Brown stands for and that it isn’t that far from their own beliefs.
Try this one on for size – "We no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it." Taken alone, one might wonder. Who’s embracing slavery? Is Brown? Kirkpatrick thankfully points out the context with further remarks from Justice Brown – "If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression."
Sounds a tad bit like Alan Keyes on tax policy or John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. Here! Here!
Brown apparently takes issue with Affirmative Action, I'd call that a form of group kleptocracy, is opposed to current abortion rulings, and heaven forbid... "She has criticized the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws. She's questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest," to quote Senator Ted Kennedy. Perhaps that explains Kirkpatrick’s less than clear description of her position leading up the quote – "the triumph of our socialist revolution."
In the end, I’d like to thank Kirkpatrick and the NY Times. I like Justice Brown even more now. Next up Justice Pryor.
I’ve read, listened to, and considered arguments both for and against the deal signed yesterday between 14 members of both parties (7 each) in the Senate. And while I will be pleased to see the nominees get a vote, those that will, there remains a nagging feeling that the Republicans have sold us out.
The more I consider the issue, the less I believe it was necessary to deal and I become more convinced that the milder sort of conservative in the Senate failed, again, to uphold their espoused values. In place of values, such as each nominee should be voted on unless in committee or otherwise prevented, we’ve got the idea that compromise – the greatest Senate aspiration by far – supplants conscience.
In the coming days things should move rapidly and some portion of the President’s nominees will get a vote up or down. In the days after, others will continue to be held outside the intent of the Constitution and the threat against others will remain. Put off till tomorrow that which pains you today seems to be the norm.
The words of Linda Foley, President of the Newspaper Guild, are neither the first nor the last to reveal the truth about much of the media’s distorted reality. For the uninitiated, a quick review of Foley’s comments and attempts at cleaning up afterwards.
Last Friday, while speaking before the National Conference for Media Reform, Foley says:
"Journalists are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. And what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal."
And...
"It's not just U.S. journalists either, by the way. They target and kill journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries, at news services like Al Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios, with impunity. This is all part of the culture that it is OK to blame the individual journalists, and it just takes the heat off of these media conglomerates that are part of the problem."
When contacted by Editor & Publisher on Thursday, Foley said:
"I was careful of not saying troops, I said U.S. military. Could I have said it differently? There are 100 different ways of saying this, but I'm not sure they would have appeased the right."
For other responses to Foley’s comments read Blackfive, This isn’t writing, it’s typing, Winds of Change and The Fourth Rail.
As for the Little Red Blog’s view, it’s simple. Foley lives in an alternate reality. In her reality, saying the U.S. military targets journalist doesn’t mean that members of the service, the troops, target journalist. With 100 different ways to say that the U.S. military purposefully and willfully targets journalist, Foley manages to believe that the military isn’t the troops. In her reality there comes a point when a member of the armed forces, formerly known as a troop, becomes part and parcel of the “U.S. military” and is no longer worth supporting. Perhaps it’s when he achieves rank or command, perhaps it’s when he supports the orders of his commander-in-chief, and perhaps we’ll never know. In the odd, and non-existent, reality of Linda Foley, you are a patriot by saying you support the troops, all the while deriding their service, incriminating their character and inciting those who seek to do them harm.
Foley clearly believes that those who are bothered by her statement are just members of the “right.” I would guess she said that with an appropriate level of disgust, the sort that makes you think she had to find the Listerine afterwards. As a member of the “right” it may be that my words are of little value and will be seen as the mere joining of a chorus under the direction of Karl Rove. Even if so, I have a little more to add.
I have not been quick to challenge the patriotism of the media elites who’ve made similar statements, such as Eason Jordan, or of those who’ve clearly taken a position in opposition to current U.S. policy in Iraq. As a general rule, I would rather give someone the benefit of the doubt. But there comes a point, a point when you realize that the language doesn’t mean the same thing to them as it does to you. Being misunderstood, aren’t we all on occasion, is one thing, but saying something until it’s noticed and then dodging the criticism rather than admitting the truth is not an endearing quality. I have a little advice for the next Foley, Jordan, Newsweek, Rather...
If you are a reporter, report the facts, anything else you offer is subject to being ignored, ridiculed and... remembered.
Way back on April 6th I wrote of my approval and support for Florida’s new so-called “Stand Your Ground Bill” which had just won the approval of Florida’s House and Senate. Today, via Instapundit, I came upon David Kopel’s lengthy look at the details behind the new law.
While I wrote of the more positive moral stance the state takes in this new law, Mr. Kopel’s piece explores the stipulations, the do’s and don’ts, of the law. It’s highly readable, and recommended for those interested in seeing it coming to a state near you.
Newsweek, if we give them the benefit of the doubt, made a terrible mistake. If you are, as am I, not so quick to believe Newsweek’s version of the story, then you are left with the realization that Newsweek, its publishers and editors, are at least partly responsible for the death of 15 people.
It is not that I don’t believe Newsweek made an error, I believe the reporting was erroneous, the question for me is whether or not Newsweek knew, in advance of its publication, that the story lacked credibility, would cause an outrage, and would further damage U.S. relations with the Muslim world. It is hard for me to accept that Newsweek’s staff of supposedly worldly journalist and editors weren’t aware of the potential for a story of this nature to become a spark in the tender box that is the Muslim world. I believe they either knew, and were okay with it, or worse, knew and wanted it.
Without any significant knowledge of the Muslim world Newsweek should have known of the cultural propensity to accept false reporting about the U.S. or the west. As such, if we are foolish enough to believe that Newsweek neither understood the potential from such a comment nor recognized the lack of necessity to report baseless and inflammatory accusations, then we too have become like the proverbial Arab street. Thankfully the majority of the U.S. has not made that fall. As for Newsweek, there is no depth great enough to describe their fall.
There's been a lot going on of late, and unfortunately for this space, and the few who still return to it, there has been little added. I would ask that you continue your patience and patronage, and know that soon I will return with the same ferocity and delight that I once had for filling the ever wide channels of the blogosphere with the ringing sound of my thoughts. Or is that some sort of tinnitus. Anyway, here's a bit of catching up that's over due.
The Watcher of Weasels has selected two fine additions to join the Watcher's Council. I must admit that both are better bloggers than I am, and like the other members probably only tolerate my presence as an odd means of blogger charity. I'll have to check into the tax law to see if it benefits either of us. So without further delay, more on Tom later, the two newest members are The Glittering Eye and Carpe Bonum. If you aren't familiar with them, please go and get acquainted.
It's April 15th. You know what that means - it means the 2005 EO Symposium (2nd Quarter) - Judeo-Christian Morality in an Ethically Pluralistic Society is due tonight. Thankfully, my entry will be ready with time to spare. If you plan to submit an entry, you've got until 11:59 P.M. CST. Joe runs a great blog and the responses to this symposium, while perhaps not as numerous, will be just as thoughtful and engaging as the first installment this past January.
Another of the side issues that I've been working on was mentioned today. And by a co-conspirator at that. Along with Bill Rice, Dawn's Early Light, and Tom, the Redhunter, I'm working to build a new site to focus on open source assessments of the various threats against the United States and her allies. I'm confident we'll launch shortly and that it'll be a plus for those interested in the topic.
Now to close the evening out with a flourish I’ll offer a couple of quick items of News and Notes for Thursday and early Friday morning.
Senator John McCain signaled his lack of desire to make a serious run for the White House in 2008 today when he announced that he'd side with the Democrats should the Republican leadership decide to lead and break the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees. Like many of you I'm fed up with GOP Senators dressed like asses, polling for direction and dancing about on every issue. The principled elephant doesn't bray, hem or haw, it stands firm, does not forget and most importantly - never backs down. Senator McCain has long been heralded, and rightly so, for being a hero. And that he was and always will be, but as a Senator, I'd rather see him go.
Thankfully Senate Majority Leader Frist seems prepared to bring the issue to bear. Should enough salamander skinned Senators side with the obstructionist weasels, like Bird, at least we will know who to leave off the list for our support in '06 and '08. And if I could I'd add another animal to keep this up.
Robert Zoellick goes to the Sudan to press for action. Vice chief murdering thug, Ali Uthman Muhammad Taha, repeated his consistent message of denial saying his government was "working diligently to stop the violence" and "get Darfur back to normalcy." We have to watch out, if Kofi leaves the UN - this is just the guy to take over.
In Central Asia, Hamid Karzai wants to keep the Americans around, and so does Kurmanbek Bakiyev, acting prime minister of Kyrgyzstan, so long as we don't bring our AWACS along.
And while China stages protest against Japan, the EU Parliament affirms a measure to support the binding of the Arms Embargo to China's human rights and cross strait relations with Taiwan. The measure means nothing officially, and in China certainly means less. Just think how little it would mean to someone in... say - North Korea.
DPRK leaders have determined that they'll have to increase their nuclear weapons cache, or as Kim Yong Nam would say - "[w]e will continue increasing our self-defensive nuclear deterrent" - and to think, just a few years back the U.S. was building them a light water nuclear reactor. Ah... the good 'ole Clinton years.
Okay, that's it for tonight. Tomorrow we'll have the EO Symposium, the winners of this week's Watcher's Council, and more news, notes, quips, rants, rambles and the like. And thereafter....
Sure, the title of the post is a lame pun, but the story is not.
Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee has signaled that he may not support John Bolton’s nomination to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. [HT: Dilley Blog] Given his role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this could prevent (along with a party line vote by Democratic committee members) Bolton from making it to the Senate floor for debate and a full vote. Unacceptable.
The Boston Globe reports that Chafee has received little support from his constituency favoring Bolton, and notes that a campaign against Bolton is being waged in Rhode Island. They point out that anti-Bolton advertisements are running on radio and television and that the group behind the ads, Citizens for Global Solutions, also runs the website, www.stopbolton.org. For Chafee, being reelected is more important than sending the right man in to do the job.
Tomorrow Bolton will testify, and I’ll be watching closely, perhaps blogging along the way. Additionally, I'll be sending Senator Chafee's office a kind bit of advice, voting for Bolton is voting for the nation, voting against him is simply voting to keep your job.
UPDATE: The committee has delayed the hearing.
The Florida legislature has approved by a 39 – 0 vote in the Senate and a 94 – 20 vote in the House a bill which, after being signed by Governor Bush, will make it the law that deadly force can be used in self-defense without an attempt to flee or escape from harms way. As a general rule, I am not a “gun blogger” although I have recently met a couple. This post is not about guns. Nor is it about the soon to be signed law either. So what’s the point you ask? The point is that the Florida legislature, quite unlike many recent Florida court rulings, have established as law a position that is morally a more acceptable position for the state. As for the individual, well, read the rest of the post.
For a state to require that the individual flee or take no action to defend life or property it codifies two forms of immoral action. The first being that it limits the rights of the individual to defend life, and secondly it makes a moral man, who under attack defends himself or his property, a criminal. Far too often our state and federal laws make criminals of those who should not be seen as such. This, whether by over legalization or by restrictions on personal liberty, has become for many an inescapable norm that is seldom noticed or recognized as such.
Florida’s new stance will instead place the moral burden on the individual under attack. That, I believe, is the proper place for the decision-making. If your faith, ethical standard, moral compass or what have you, permits the defense of life and limb with deadly force the law will now acquiesce. If you are the sort that believes that under no circumstance should you act to defend yourself or those around you, you will, as always, remain free to flee or seek alternative means to end the situation. As for me, I’m pleased to see Florida take this position, and can chalk it up as yet another reason to consider Florida one of the more liberty loving of our states.
Paul Wolfowitz won the unanimous approval of the Board for the World Bank to become the next head of the agency, despite the media and the left in the U.S. attempting to portray Wolfowitz as bad for the agency. Wolfowitz’s statements of support for the agency and its mission, fighting poverty and improving living standards in developing portions of the world, were apparently enough for the Board members, who I doubt gave serious consideration to opposing Wolfowitz, and lays the foundation for continued positive developments and democratization around the world.
President Bush announced that Secretary of the Navy Gordon England would be nominated to become the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz’s previous post. At this point I’ve not seen much of a fuss about the selection of England, yet I expect it will come. His responsibility for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will at a minimum create a few interesting moments for the Democratic Senators during his confirmation hearings.
Congratulations to the President and both nominees.
The AP reported today that Sandy Berger would plead guilty tomorrow to a misdemeanor charge of taking classified materials from the National Archives. While I'm pleased that something is being done, I can't help but once again believe that special care is being taken in this case, and that Sandy the Burglar will receive but a slap on the wrist.
Of course, I could be mistaken. Anyone of us could inadvertently stuff our pants with classified documents and leave with them.
UPDATE: Must read coverage of Sandy Berger's plea and the background info leading up to it at Balloon Juice. Excellent coverage. [HT: Instapundit.] Also check out Captain Ed's take and Bill at INDC Journal.
Yesterday I read and then responded to former Senator Danforth's criticism of the religious right within the Republican Party. Hugh Hewitt's blog entry pointed out the Danforth essay, and after reading so many other criticisms of the Republican take on stem cell research, same-sex marriage and the Terri Schiavo case, I was frustrated and vented in this space. Hugh’s Weekly Standard column notes with much more significant clarity that it is "wrong and demagogic to attempt to question the right of people of faith to participate in politics."
From my position, I am not a Republican by way of my faith or affiliation with a particular religious movement. I am a Republican because the party, to a larger degree than the alternative, supports and defends the values that I hold near and dear. It is easy to ignore the elitist take of those on the left who believe that people of faith are somehow not worthy of political participation. Their irrational fear that faith will determine the law, that men who aspire to serve and please God in their personal lives cannot hold reasoned and logical positions based on principles with merit of their own accord, and that our government will somehow better serve its purposes by freeing the nation of religious influence is just about too much to believe. Yet we must accept that for many, including some who espouse faith more openly than I in their personal lives, there is a sincere desire to remove any influence of either our moral foundations or our religious beliefs.
Our nations greatest leaders have always been men and women of faith. Like them, I would never bind another to a particular belief system. Instead, I would simply, tirelessly and persistently pursue the principles of our nation’s founding. The nannies that seek to remove the religious from the political active would be so much better served if they too would choose to those founding ideals over their inane attempts to shun and shudder those who find a light external to man’s law.
In a pathetic clamor to avoid being seen as a religious conservative, or worse, a conservative Christian, many a pundit and politician are balking at current Republican efforts to hold strong to the moral foundations of our nation. It is reprehensible when it comes from a citizen of little note, like me, but even more so when the froth brews from the mouth of a former Senator. In today’s New York Times, former Senator John Danforth follows the folly into the land where Republicans are not principled at the core, instead choosing only those portions of their ideology that are commonly supported without a necessary underlying faith. [HT: Hugh Hewitt.]
Senator Danforth is unlikely to ever note my thoughts, yet I am given to address them specifically to him. As such, here is my reply:
Senator,
Like many conservative Republicans, I am an advocate of the three disparate, yet rightly connected, issues you began your opinion column with - the banning of federally funded embryonic stem cell research, not the same as adult stem cell research, supporting an amendment to the Constitution to support marriage, and the Congressional actions to permit federal court review of the Terri Schiavo case. Where I draw issue with you is your assertion that Republicans are following a conservative Christian agenda by taking these positions. While I am not by any means an important conservative, I can assert that my support for these issues, and I believe that of many others, is not driven by a Christian ideology or worldview but instead by the same principles that frame your view of shared Republican values during your time as a Senator.
We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade.
Those principles, which I fully agree with, are built upon an underlying and inner course within each of us that when aligned to Life and Liberty yields a basis also for each of the issues you have taken issue with. We conservatives accept that government is at its best when its role is limited to the protection of its citizens.
It is the protection of its citizens that drives my belief that embryonic stem cells should not be used for testing. While I oppose federal funding for such research, I do not oppose any and every State having the right to permit the testing or even fund it. Although I would oppose it in my own State, Colorado. Advocacy of embryonic stem cell research, funded by the federal government, neither supports the principles of limited government or the notion that human life, no matter how it came to be formed or its viability, is to be protected. This position strikes at the core of our rights with or without a religious or Christian understanding of life’s value.
Likewise, the support of a marriage as being between one man and one woman should not be assumed to be a Christian ideal, as you rightly note that religious liberals advocate exactly the opposite. The most vocal voices on either side of the issue may be those either incapable of supporting their position outside their faith, or perhaps they are driven entirely from their religious worldview. That being said, I support the Constitutional amendment as a last recourse to prevent the further attacks by courts around the country which abrogate the law, the votes of the people, and the clear assurance that while norms are not required for all, they are as a point of fact the norm. I do not oppose laws that provide legal protections for non-marital relationships between same-sex partners. Yet I cannot stand by and watch as rogue judges ignore the law in an attempt to create that which has never been. Indeed, that is the place of the Congress, and should it decide to press the issue with an amendment, I would support.
And finally sir, to the issue of Terri Schiavo. Like many a conservative and liberal alike, we are conflicted and challenged by this case in a way unlike any other. As for my position, I supported the Congressional action because it was an attempt to ensure that the courts in Florida were not ignoring the rights of a Floridian. It was generally a toothless effort that without teeth fell on deaf ears in the 11th Circuit. By supporting this action, the Congress acted to protect life, to give one last hearing to the unheard. If that to you is a Christian agenda worthy of alarm, then let it be.
Senator, we Republicans are not falling prey to an intrusion of religion into politics. We are instead experiencing a willingness to assert the fullness of the values that we should all use as barometer for governance. As a minister, you recognize the difference between what is legal and what is sin. The current Republican efforts you take issue with are guided not by an understanding of sin, but rather an understanding of the moral depth behind the founding principles of our nation and a desire to support them. These issues, like your support for ending the genocide in Darfur, are important to me because they tell me about our world, our nation and our desire to make the world more free and just.
Signed.
No, that's not the real title of the Time article. Time calls their artcle "A Jihadist's Tale - How a young Jordanian left his American life and died an insurgent in Iraq." It's Time's version of the Hilla bomber's story. The same bomber who by killing 125 sparked Shi'a outrage against Jordanian and other Sunni Muslims who continue to support the attacks in Iraq.
Time has again glorified the ignoble. Scott MacLeod, who authored the article, would have us believe that Ra'ed al-Banna was a good 'ole boy who loved America until we turned our backs on him by in 2003. By the account of this tale, al-Banna was turned away at Chicago's O'Hare airport and returned to Jordan where he began the course that would lead to his "martyrdom."
This column, like so many others, pays little attention to those of values and character and instead profiles a man who possessed little character and eventually killed himself as a final testament to a perverted view of the world. The best line of the column turns up near the end when al-Banna's family claims that their obituary proclamation of his death as a martyr is nothing more than a testament to his dying in a foreign land. In a world where "martyrs" are no longer men of character but instead assassins and murderers, the utter lack of intellectual honesty, even in discussing the death of one’s son, is shameful. Nearly as much so as the supposed reporting that ignores the stories of the 125 killed in Hilla, those who’ve taken to the streets in opposition to violence or those who’ve stood to defend the freedom of Iraq.
The potential for the utterly stupid McCain-Feingold law to be applied to the Internet and bloggers has caused quite a stir, based on the Shays-Meehan v. FEC ruling. Appropriately so. Whether, as some suggest, it is unlikely that the FEC would extend the regulations to blogs or not, the matter shows the complete lack of respect for individual rights under the Constitution and instead how the powers that be are adept at maintaining their authority.
This week's Homespun Symposium question deals with the issue, as have more bloggers than I care to link to. That being said, I add only that I am opposed to any attempts to regulate speech on the Internet, political or otherwise, and like Patterico and the many taking his pledge, I will continue to blog as I do now, no matter what the FEC decides. Furthermore, I would probably become an even more active blogger.
I’ve signed the Online Coalition letter and suggest you do the same, if you haven’t. Also, I wrote both Senators from Colorado and my Congressman. And if those who think we are over reacting to the issue wish to continue to believe in the good will and wisdom of the government, might I suggest that they consider this passage.
The latest Bush nominations to the State Department, UN, and World Bank offer great insight into the administration’s understanding of the failures of the past, the challenge of today and the promise of tomorrow. For that, I am pleased. In general the criticisms that I’ve seen appear to be those that would be critical of any Bush nominee to those post, save a nomination from across the political aisle. As with so many other issues, this is troubling, though not surprising. Whether it is an absence of understanding, both of the nature of the positions or of the issues being addressed, a fault in moral thought or simply a matter of politics, I’ve come to accept that much of our nation will gleefully deride any and all decisions made by the President.
I’ve expressed my thoughts to a degree on Secretary Rice, John Bolton, Karen Hughes and Dina Habib Powell. I did not yesterday get a chance to discuss the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, although I have in the past expressed an appreciation for his intellect and wisdom based on an interview with Hugh Hewitt. What all of these nominees possess that seems to be either unnoticed or the cause for alarm is their relationship with the President and their explicit understanding and agreement with his position.
Being a political appointee to lead the State Department is not a position that requires inordinate expertise in foreign affairs or policy. It is a position that requires a willingness and ability to lead. Hughes will be charged with communicating U.S. policy both internally to the State Department professionals under her employ and externally to diplomatic and political leaders around the world. Her challenge in the State Department is likely to be greater than her external role, given the significant expertise of those she’ll be leading. She will have to guide the experts toward not acting on their personal views or past policies, but rather toward taking the invaluable expertise they have and putting it to the best use to implement the policies of the President. Or as New Sisyphus said: "Experts execute policy, politicians direct it."
Whether it is Bolton or Wolfowitz, the criticism has been loud and just as unfounded. Bolton’s own words on his view of the UN, offer not that he seeks to sack the organization, but that he seeks to see it become more accountable through reform from the Secretary General, the fragmented make-up of the body, and the lack of fiscal transparency. Additionally he favors defined roles for maintaining peace and limiting nation building. From his essay, published in a book of essays by the Cato Institute, he offers that the UN is a "tool" not a "theology." [HT: The Redhunter] Does this warrant the opposition he faces? Certainly not, it is a statement of his grounding in reality. In his new post, he will not forgo his moral obligation to the U.S. and will be charged with communicating with the UN the position of the U.S., and as much as possible, bringing about agreement and compromise from the UN. Would he better serve the U.S. by serving the UN? Not a chance.
Wolfowitz is derided as a hawk, as inexperienced in development efforts and in general as a neo-conservative ally of the President. The new role he will take on should in no way be negatively impacted by any of those matters. It is a leadership role where Mr. Wolfowitz will be charged with guiding a huge organization tackling an even more enormously challenging problem. His leadership, decision making and advocacy of his beliefs are essential to the nature of such a role, yet those characteristics are at the core of the criticism against him. Take his statements that economic development leads to political development. Those who oppose him clearly recognize this to be true. And that is entirely the issue; they do not seek real development, economic and political, throughout the third world. Instead they prefer the status quo, large amounts of highly ineffectual aid provided by a system that serves to prevent death but not to provide freedom, opportunity or self-reliance. Is it not their ideology that is served by the continuation of decades of despair across much of the world?
Having said all this, or so little depending on your view, I remain enthused by the nominations and hopeful that each will better utilize the resources and authority we have entrusted to them. If you disagree, feel free to let me know how and why.
UPDATE: Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has an excellent post on citizen diplomacy and the reshaping of the State Department.
Senate Democrats made a rather clear statement today that their intention is to defend their attack on the Constitutional balance of powers even at the risk of shutting down the Senate. Behind Senator Harry Reid, 37 other Democratic Senators, stood in agreement as Reid made his argument that it is the Republicans who are attempting to “break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch.”
Here, via RealClearPolitics, is Senator Reid’s statement.
On a late September day in 1787, the Constitutional Convention finished its work. As Benjamin Franklin walked down the steps of Independence Hall, a Philadelphia woman named Elizabeth Powell stopped him and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?"Senator Reid fails to note that every Senator gets an opportunity to share his view, his advice and then through the vote his consent or lack thereof, unless the Democrats continue to filibuster nominees. President Bush recent nominated 12 judicial candidates for a second time. Those twelve were not voted down. No vote was taken and the current rule that a supermajority is required to bring them to a vote flies directly in the face of the letter and intent of the Constitution.He responded, "A republic. If you can keep it."
For more than two centuries, we have kept our republic because Americans have understood that our liberty is protected by our laws and by a government of limited powers.
Our Constitution provides for checks and balances so that no one person in power, so that no one political party can hold total control over the course of our nation.
But now, in order to break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch, President Bush and the Republican leadership want to eliminate a two-hundred-year-old American rule saying that every member of the Senate can rise to say their piece and speak on behalf of the people that sent them here.
The fact is that this President has a better record of having his judicial nominees approved than any President in the past twenty-five years. Only ten of 214 nominations have been turned down.
So it is clear that this attempt to strip away these important checks and balances is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power.
But our nation's basic rules are there for the moments when the eyes of the powerful grow large and hungry; when their willfulness makes them determined to do whatever it takes to win, and prevail at whatever the cost.
Presidents and parties have grown drunk with power before. Two Presidents of my own party --Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt-- began their second terms of office with majorities in Congress and then tried to change the rules governing judges so that they could stack the court with those who would do their bidding. They were wrong to try to change our basic American rules -- and Americans, and Senators of both parties, stood up to tell them so.
Today, another attempt is being considered to rewrite the rules so that those in power can get their way.
It would mean that the US Senate becomes merely a rubber stamp for the Executive Branch.
It would mean that one political party --be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow-- gets to have all the say.
Our republic requires many things in order to be kept. Senate Democrats are expressing a form of partisanship that denies their patriotism and devotion to the Constitution in favor of their devotion to their Party and its power. In order to keep the Republic, we must make it abundantly clear to Republican and Democratic Senators alike that such action is morally reprehensible and violates the oath that each of them pledged upon taking office. As Senator Reid might be apt to say – Let Every Vote Count.
Karen Hughes will be nominated to become Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. There have been criticisms of the selection, as I would have expected from some who are critical of every nomination the President makes. Surprisingly, there are some who are politically more inclined toward the President’s policies that are also critical of the selection. At this point, I’ve seen nothing to warrant the criticism of either group. The criticism seems to focus on Hughes lack of "credentials" in diplomatic circles, her close relationship to the President, or her decision to spend the last couple of years with her family in Texas, where her son will soon be graduated from high school and head off to college, none of which seems worthy of criticism.
As for this rarely read blogger, I believe that the selection of Hughes is significant and positive. President Bush has chosen his most trusted advisor for a role that has long been under represented. Combined with Secretary Rice and Dina Habib Powell, who will be named Deputy Under Secretary to Hughes, there will be a trio of strong women that present a foreign affairs and diplomacy background as well as an absolute understanding of the position of President Bush. Middle Eastern leaders will hear less convoluted messages of U.S. policy and instead hear with conviction and clarity the essence of U.S. policy for the Middle East.
A few items for your consideration, or maybe just mine.
Anne Applebaum offers a defense of John Bolton's nomination to become the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. As I’ve posted before, I like the selection and see it as a positive for the U.S. and potentially for the UN.
Amir Taheri has an excellent, must read, column in the Gulf News. While we can in no way interpret the quotes of pilgrims in Mecca as representative of all Muslims, I do believe we should help them spread their views. Taheri's column is one way to do so. Here are a couple of excerpts.
Just outside the Grand Mosque we fall into conversation with a group of Sri Lankan pilgrims, coming to "pray for all our peoples, including Buddhists and Tamils", in the wake of the tsunami that has ravaged parts of their country. The subject of terrorism creeps into our conversation.Taheri had opened his column with a description of Saudi Arabia's progressing through the stages that follow terror attacks. He closes with this."We are the only community in Sri Lanka that has not only stayed out of terrorism but has opposed it," says a toothless pilgrim with a defiant face. "I think Muslims everywhere should lead the fight against terrorism, the scourge of mankind."
Other Lankans nod in approval. They have suffered for decades what the Saudis are experiencing today.
At the Riyadh Conference, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal almost lost his temper during a press conference. He demanded: "Why do we need to fight over a definition of terrorism. Don’t we all know what a terrorist does?"Now if only the Saudi's would insist on the UN defining terrorism as what we all know it is.On that balmy day in Makkah many pilgrims seemed to agree. They believed that the world should name terrorists after what they do and not after what they claim to represent.
American Society of Civil Engineers report that the nations infrastructure is failing. I am somewhat skeptical but will reserve commenting further until I can read the report.
Tanalee Smith gives some perspective on the ties between Syria and Lebanon. There was much more that could have been said, but having the AP say any of it is progress. This one we'll revisit shortly.
Omar Karami has been renominated to become Prime Minister of Lebanon and form the new government. 69 of the 128 members of the parliament nominated pro-Syrian Karami for the post. Not the solution that I would have hoped for. Like you, I'll have to wait to see what the reaction in Lebanon is.
For many reasons I had not intended to discuss in this space the firing/resignation of Harry Stonecipher, the man brought in to rebuild Boeing’s luster just over a year ago. And then I read what was to be one too many attempts to connect his firing to the conservative or religious right. Steven Pearlstein, of the Washington Post, penned a column entitled - Ethics Pedestal Assures Some Hard Falls. And his title is correct, even an understatement. His thesis is, however, broken. Why, because like much of the legacy media, Mr. Pearlstein apparently couldn’t author this column without an unhealthy dose of politics. Politics that not only made his conclusion wrong, it also showed the thinness of his journalistic objectivity.
Pearlstein begins with a rather funny quip taken from the Wall Street Journal.
A question that will be played out in ethics classes at business schools for years to come is whether Boeing, one of the largest government contractors, struggling to get out from under an ethics cloud, should have fired its married 68-year-old chief executive for carrying on with one of the company's Washington area employees.Pearlstein then explains the two "truths" that the "profound" retort exposes.Perhaps the best line of the week goes to the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which noted wryly that if something like this had happened at rival Airbus, the French would have put the fellow up for a bonus.
First, given the political and legal environment in which the company finds itself, and the prevailing business culture in the United States, the board probably made the "right" decision in demanding Harry Stonecipher's resignation.When I first read this paragraph, Pearlstein’s decision to place quotation marks around the word right caused a brief pause. Is Pearlstein implying that it was "right" as in the political right or "right" meaning the proper decision, one he would agree with at least. The second truth Mr. Pearlstein recognized cleared things up a bit.
And, second, it's a ridiculous outcome that leaves nobody better off and raises serious questions about that environment and that business culture.Indeed it does. Pearlstein’s "right" was not agreement or appropriateness. He is implying that it was the political "right." Of course, business executive has affair, gets fired by his employer for affair or through bizarre and convoluted logic gets fired to avoid embarrassing the company, it must be the moral majority reborn as the board of directors.
Ridiculous.
It wasn’t a moral decision to fire Stonecipher, nor was it done to appease the morally inclined government officials who might be offended if, or when, the story got out. The board was acting out of fear, self-loathing, and risk aversion supported by an army of litigious and morally bankrupt attorney’s (or at least morally blinded by their profession) who have all but squashed individual freedom for those employed, particularly high profile employees, by America’s once great businesses.
The problem is that Pearlstein knew this. His comments regarding zero-tolerance and the absence of making a decision on a case-by-case basis prove it. He just couldn’t connect the proverbial dots. Personal responsibility has been abdicated. In the boardroom or the management offices the standard is aligned toward the lawyers advice about potential lawsuits much more so than it is to the ideals of personal accountability or leadership.
Pearlstein continues:
What's most dangerous, however, is the implicit acknowledgment by the board that it is too risky for a company doing business with the government to be run by someone whose personal life might offend the ayatollahs of the religious right.The "ayatollahs of the religious right" he says. Aside from the clear attempt to paint the Bush administration as similar to the Mullahs in Iran (which is shameful but not my point), this is simply wrong. As is his closing.
You would have thought we might have learned a lesson from the disastrous campaign to impeach a president on morals charges, only to ensnare a speaker-designate of the House. Instead, this same puritan standard now seems to have been extended to the corporate sector.And there it is. We didn’t learn a lesson after failing to impeach a President, who should have been convicted of perjury, and now we’ve infected the business world with our mean spirited moral and ethical standards. WRONG.One of the mistakes of the '90s is that we all put too much stock in the magic power of chief executives. Along with giving them too much authority, attention and money, we also held them to unrealistically high expectations. Harry Stonecipher now joins the list of those who both benefited from that misplaced importance, and were brought down by it.
What was learned from the failed impeachment is that personal accountability can be abdicated and nothing will be done about it. The executives Pearlstein describes as having magic power have much less than he attributes to them. The lefts greatest assets, attorneys and judges, have effectively neutered much of the executive sphere, leaving them impotent and incapable of making decisions or holding each other accountable (save of course on matters of P&L). Stonecipher may have acted in a manner inconsistent with the Board's expectation. And accordingly, they have every right to request his resignation. But to pass it off as if it were a moralistic intrusion of the religious right into the boardroom of Boeing is flatly wrong. Had the board been acting morally, they would have determined that Mr. Stonecipher’s relationship was none of their concern, save the use of corporate email, and simply demanded an end to the use of corporate assets for such communication. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a moral issue; it was an issue of risk mitigation and avoidance. And rather than telling them that, Mr. Pearlstein lets his politics guide his response.
Under Secretary of State John Bolton is to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. I can’t help but laugh a little. Not sure why.
Perhaps it’s his past exchanges such as this one reported by the AP:
Two years ago, Bolton denounced North Korean leader Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator" and described life under the ruler as "a hellish nightmare."Bolton will be an excellent ambassador to the UN. Like the President, he speaks directly and isn’t likely to soften his words just for the sake of those less willing to accept reality.A North Korean spokesman fired back that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks" on North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
This also provides yet another great opportunity for the left in the Senate to show their vitriol for the President in April when Bolton goes before them for confirmation hearings. His last appointment received an almost party line vote of 57 – 43 to support his nomination as undersecretary of state.
Senator Harry Reid has already expressed his lack of support for Bolton. He called the nominatin "disappointing." "At a time when President Bush has recognized we need to begin repairing our damaged relations with the rest of the world, he nominates someone with a long history of being opposed to working cooperatively with other nations," Senator Reid said, before adding his view that Bolton "flawed proliferation policy" and "will have much to answer for" in confirmation hearings.
Former Senator Jesse Helms liked Bolton saying he's the "most qualified man for the job" during a previous confirmation hearing. The NY Times, in what was clearly an attempt to paint Bolton as unacceptable, quotes Bolton as saying of the UN - "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference" and "there's no such thing as the United Nations." Preceded, of course, by calling Bolton, a former protégé of Senator Helms.
Excellent choice Mr. President. Excellent.
The Senate is considering legislation aimed at curbing bankruptcy abuse and providing additional protections to consumers. Fair enough.
The news surrounding the legislation comes from a proposed amendment put forth by Senator Kennedy, text here, that would increase the minimum wage by $2.10 over two years and an amendment from Senator Rick Santorum that would raise the minimum wage by $1.10 over eighteen months. The Santorum amendment, no text available yet, is drawing the ire of the left because it apparently has the gall to include measures that would increase the amount of revenue (to $1 million) required for a business to fall under the FLSA standards, currently $500k. Also drawing much attention is the idea of "flex-time." The left sees this concept as a means for employers to avoid overtime, effectively seeing an 80-hour two-week period rather than the current 40-hour per week standard before overtime is required. The intention of the change was to enable more flexibility for the employee, reduce cost and regulatory constraints on small businesses and, of course, increase the minimum wage.
Neither proposal is germane to the legislation at hand and both should be defeated.
Just for fun you might want to visit DailyKos or Nathan Newman to get the Democratic perspective.
UPDATE: Both amendments were defeated tonight. The Santorum amendment fell 38 - 61 with 17 Republicans voting against it. The Kennedy amendment fell 46 - 49 with 4 Republicans voting for it.
Why is it that no Democrats cross the lines but on almost any issue Republicans can be found ready and willing to jump ship! The Democrats may not have principled convictions when it comes to the issues, but their party principle is definitely still intact.
After North Korea, Without Rancor and N. Korea Lists Conditions for Negotiations, in the LA Times, the journalist behind both pieces has responded to Hugh Hewitt’s questions. Barbara Demick doesn’t expect to be on his show however. Hugh has posted her response and has sent three additional questions to her. Here are the questions and her responses, along with my commentary.
"Hello. I still need to get permission from my keepers to appear on the program, but I suspect it will not be forthcoming. Sorry about that. Here, though, are my answers to your questions.Indeed we can judge from "there" that you have reported a portion of his evil actions, but we cannot see that you believe him to be evil. Your latest coverage effectively ignored his actions and intent, choosing instead to report only his agents view of North Korea.Best, Barbara Demick
Do you think Kim Jong Il is an evil man?
- We reported last summer that Kim Jong Il spent millions importing gourmet foods, cookbooks and chefs for himself while his countrymen were starving. One can judge from there.
Do you think Kim Jong Il and his government are responsible for the famine of the '90s.Good, good and good. Why then wasn’t it offered as a portion of the “Without Rancor” column? It would have been very simple to have reported the travesties suffered under the regime, and to have done so without unwarranted rancor. It is simply reporting the truth in conjunction with the propaganda offered by your businessman agent. Choosing not to showed a willingness to espouse the lies of the regime without the well justified inclusion of counter evidence. It was wrong to do so.
- YesHow many people does your research tell you died in the famine?
- Up to 2 million, about 10 percent of the populationDid Kim Jong Il and his government obstruct international relief efforts during the famine?
- Yes
Do you believe Kim Jong Il and his government breached the 1994 Agreement with the United States by secretly pursuing nuclear weapons via uranium enrichment?Technically no. You’ve got to be kidding. The agreement called for the DPRK to live up to its 1992 agreement with the ROK to a denuclearized Korean peninsula and it called for the freezing of the graphite moderated nuclear plants and related facilities and for the IAEA monitoring of those facilities. The DPRK failed to act in good faith with the agreement by continuing its efforts to enrich uranium and by restarting the pre-existing nuclear plants without IAEA supervision or monitoring. Their assertion that they were building a deterrent and then eventually that they have nuclear weapons is not a spirit only violation of the agreement. It is a direct technical violation of the agreement and its requirement that they act to ensure a denuclearization of the peninsula.
- technically, no, but in spirit, yes. The original agreement had several loopholes, which is why the administration now is insisting on CVID (Complete, Verifiable, Irreversible Dismantlement)
How many Japanese and Koreans do your researches suggest the Kim Jong Il regime and his father's regime had kidnapped over the past forty years?This is amazing. You recognize that the regime aborts the children of pregnant women trying to leave the DPRK, recognize that the DPRK has used prisoners as subjects for chemical testing, recognize that the DPRK has kidnapped Japanese and South Korean citizens, and recognize that they possess the means to asymmetrical attack Japan or the South without warning, yet they aren’t evil and none of this was included in your "Without Rancor" column.
- Around 20 Japanese. South Korean intelligence says 486 of their people.Has North Korea been forthcoming about these kidnap victims?
- Only about some of the JapaneseIs Japan correct to insist on an accounting of these kidnap victims?
- YesYou have reported on the allegations of chemicals being tested on prisoners in the North. Do you believe these accounts?
- I believe the guy I interviewed for a story that ran March 2004. Can't vouch for the others.Do you believe the accounts that pregnant North Korean women, caught attempting to escape from North Korea, are subjected to abortions as punishment? Do you believe the accounts that North Korean women, caught attempting to escape from North Korea, are forced to watch their children executed?
- Yes to the first. Not sure if it's a direct punishment for trying to escape the country, but NK women prisoners who are pregnant are required to abort. I'm not sure about the latter.If North Korea were to open its borders and pursue an economy with the same policies as South Korea, do you expect it would be as successful as the South has been in building an industrial base and economic growth?
- NoIs Kim Jong Il capable of launching an attack on the South or on Japan without warning?
- Conventional, no. Assymetrical, yes.
How many people do you estimate are kept in the prison camps of North Korea and how would you describe conditions there.This form of moral ambivalence is astonishing. I would applaud a journalist for the effort, and risk, taken to meet with and interview foreign nationals and agents such as "Mr. Anonymous" who was interviewed for "Without Rancor." But only on the condition that the journalist was acting in the interest of reporting the truth. The truth would include the perverted view of the DPRK and the highly relevant facts that do not jive with the DPRK version. I can’t say more now. Maybe later.
- The State Department says 150,000 to 200,0000 are held in extremely harsh conditions.Do you believe the man you met with in Bejing and interviewed for Thursday's story was an intelligence operative of the North Korean government?
- His job is to bring foreign investment and development aid into North Korea. As all North Korean business is owned by the Workers' Party, government or military, he is a government official -- or agent, as it were. He spoke in ways that other people would get imprisoned for, which means, not necessarily that he was a spook, but definitely that he is elite with some kind of tie to the top that is his source of protection."
A few small bits on not so small items in the news.
ANWR in the works... Perhaps. Senate Republicans are signaling that they'll include opening ANWR to drilling in the budget reconciliation process, where a filibuster is not permitted, just as the President requested. It's also good to see Senator Thune among those heading to Alaska this weekend to show their support for the measure.
Senator Salazar, D-CO, has requested that President Bush withdraw the 12 judicial nominees that the President resubmitted to the Senate. Republican Senators, and I, had hoped that Salazar would support an up or down vote on the nominees and help end the Democratic practice of filibustering nominees. His letter says the "decision to renominate these individuals will undoubtedly create the animosity and divisiveness ... that is not helpful to our nation and will sidetrack our collective efforts to work on other crucial matters." Salazar has not stated how he will vote on any nominee or on efforts to prevent a vote.
Senator Ted Stevens is wrong to want to apply the FCC's decency standards to cable and satelite communications, as is Congressman Barton. More later.
Syria should be aware that the ducks are being aligned. "We do have firm evidence that the bombing in Tel Aviv was not only authorized by Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus, but that Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus participated in the planning," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
Russia boasts of a new missile - "there is not and will not be any defense against these missiles." Sergei Ivanov, Russian Defense Minister, added that "Russia is stretched across 10 times zones, we have many neighbors, and not all of them are as predictable as European states" and that the weapons would be based on the Russian Topol-M ICBM and Bulava, a sea based missile. Of course, he didn't mention U.S. efforts to develop anti-ballistic missile defense systems specifically.
Iran has denied a request by the IAEA to revisit Parchin. In January when the IAEA inspection team visited Parchin, after a seven month wait, they requested to return to visit areas of Parchin not inspected during their initial visit. The denial was announced at a briefing by Pierre Goldschmidt to the IAEA's Board of Governors. Mr. Goldschmidt's report will be covered in a post tomorrow and is available here.
More tomorrow...
The Supreme Court of the United States has prohibited the execution of any criminal who perpetrates their crime while under the age of 18. The ruling, 5-4, once again shows the Courts disconnect from the Constitution and its attachment to the perceived social norms of our age rather than the law and reverses a 1989 ruling, Stanford v. Kentucky, on the same issue. A ruling in 2002, Atkins v. Virginia, that prohibited execution of mentally retarded criminals based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, led to this case coming before the court as it was the basis for the convicted murderers appeal.
The prevailing justices were Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented.
The Opinion of the Court points to the evolving standards of decency as seen by the number of States banning execution of criminals under 18, just as it used the same argument in the Atkins ruling in 2002. It should have been obvious to the Cour