WHERE TO OLD BALLPLAYERS GO?

Remember Ron Karkovice the longtime backup catcher for the Chicago White Sox? I read last week in the paper that he was an Orlando native who went to Boone High School with Joe Oliver, another MLB catcher with a long career. The article was touting how Karkovice has opened a new restaurant called Ronnie’s Big League Deli. It really gives him a boost. When I read about the location I realized that it was biking distance from Tricia’s house and thought I would take her there at first opportunity. We went Saturday.

The place was decent sized, but most of it seemed under construction. There were only a few tables in the part that was open. One was occupied by a group of 5. No one else was present except for the girl behind the counter. She was nice and gave me a regular size cup for my water. They didn’t have bottled water or unsweetend Ice Tea. They didn’t really seem ready to open. The floor was bare cement and there wasn’t as much baseball memorabilia as the article led you to think.

I had a roast beef sandwich that was mostly tasteless white sub roll, but Trish did like her Turkey Bacon wrap. The beer was priced well enough if we had been in the mood for it.

After we started eating Karkovice sat down at a table behind us. He was engulfed in a replay of the Florida/Florida State game from a few years back. Later he chomped down on some wings. He wasn’t the gregarious guy welcoming everyone or trying to get chummy with the new, if scant, clientele.

I started thinking that Karkovice started this restaurant because he has nothing to do. He was tired of sitting home everyday watching sports so he opened a restaurant so that he could hang around strangers and watch sports. There didn’t seem to be much attempt to lure customers through décor or good food or a great atmosphere. But it did allow him to eat some wings and watch old football games.

He’s got the reverse problem that most of us have. We’re struggling in order to provide a better life for ourselves. Ronnie’s work is over. He doesn’t need money. He needs an outlet for his time. Like a lot of athletes that get drafted into sports he has no fall back plan in life. Some leave sports and have no money and have to struggle with the rest of us. Karkovice must have plenty of money, what with 11 big league seasons, but his life is only half over and he lacks a purpose for the rest of it.

He’s like a lottery winner that has plenty of money, but no connection to the things that were once important in life. The restaurant seems to be a way to reconnect. I only say this because he didn’t seem to put a lot of attention into the things that are necessary to make money and keep people coming back.

I left feeling bad for him. I felt like he either didn’t want to succeed or didn’t know how too. Maybe I read too much into the small scene I witnessed, but he’ll need to put a lot of work into this place if he wants it to be self-sustained. I suggested to Trish that we should come back in a month or two and see if he was making any progress. Maybe he just opened before the place was ready.

Another old Chicago Ballplayer tries something else.

The trouble with what to do with old politicians is even more difficult.

WMD AND THE ELECTION

Thomas Sowell finds it curious that Bush is blamed for insisting on the WMD when it was once a bipartisan belief.

Saddam Hussein not only had, but used, chemical and biological weapons against his enemies, foreign and domestic. With the help of the French, he was rebuilding nuclear facilities, ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but oil-rich countries do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity.

Who said so? The Russians said so. The British said so. Bill Clinton said so. Leaders of both political parties said so. George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.

I had been worried that we have squandered the capital of going to war. Sowell agrees.

Iran and North Korea -- the other nations identified as part of the "axis of evil" -- are now playing the same cat-and-mouse game, and North Korea is openly threatening to produce nuclear bombs. Either or both these countries are potential suppliers of such weapons to international terrorists.

Libya backed out of the nuclear weapons game after Qadaffi saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What would have emboldened Iran and North Korea? Only a disunited America, full of loud irresponsible election-year talk about "lies" on weapons of mass destruction, making it unlikely that the United States can muster the political will to strike Iran or North Korea.

WAR HERO KERRY?

Kerry was acknowledged by the Vietnam government in 1983, when he was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. Kerry's record of activism benefiting the communists was also lauded by the military commander of the North Vietnamese forces, General Vo Nguyen Giap, in his 1985 memoir of the war. Giap wrote that

“…if it were not for the disunity created by...stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.”

Thus, Kerry¹s efforts aided and abetted the enemy, prolonged the war, and probably resulted in greater American casualties.

This is the real debate about Vietnam. Sure Kerry and the hippies had the right to disagree with the war, but that doesn't absolve them from the consequences. Speech is free, but it comes with a responsibility.

This election may ultimately decide whether the United States has the will to defeat its enemies. The Michael Moore movie has brought about an interesting debate in this country. People who pay no attention to world events are suddenly convinced that we're making a big mistake in Iraq. Talk to any of them and they don't know which of Moore's statements are true or false. When you point out the falsehoods they slip into moral relativism. "You just disagree with him." They say.

Sure I disagree with his conclusions, but whether his documentary is a factual isn't debatable. Many people who read and study world events have pointed out its flaws. The nonpartisan 911 commission denounced it. Only film critics who know nothing about the world, people easily influeced by whatever they see, and liberals love his conclusions. There is probably a decent documentary to be made by the opposition of the war using facts, but this isn't it.

But since Kerry hates war and his party hates war, you have to make the conclusion that a Kerry victory will end any American attempt to stand up for itself. A Kerry victory is simply a capitulation and return to the 1990s response to attacks on America. Was anything substantial done during the first attack of the World Trade Center? Does anyone remember our response to the embassy bombings? What did we do when our Navy ship was bombed in Yemen? ANSWER: We did nothing substantial enough for anyone to remember.

Will we ever forget what Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of 911 -- least of all the terrorists? The main reason for spending the money and risking those lives was to show the world we were serious about our safety. The world may not like our actions or like us, but they have a greater respect for us.

The Democrats complain that the Afghanistan invasion was justified but not the Iraq invasion (though some Democrats go back and forth depending on whether they have to answer to voters). If Afghanistan was such an automatic, why didn't Democrats push for such an invasion after Yemen, the embassies or World Trade Center I? As soon as 911 happened, Clinton was told reporters that he thought it was Bin Laden. Why didn’t Clinton take care of this problem in the 1990s? He couldn’t do anything, because the majority of Democrats don't have the stomach for any kind of war. They're not going to come out against a successful and popular campaign. They'll praise it to the heavens. They would have done the same in Iraq had it went more smoothly.

Democrats have the easy task of never making the tough decision. Republicans will fight the wars. Democrats will praise the ones that are easy and attack the ones that are hard, leaving the impression that they only would have conducted the easy ones themselves. But Democrats have been in the white house 12 of the 29 years post Vietnam. Can anyone remember a decisive military action for American interests? I don't mean dropping bombs on Serbia, but an actual military action that benefited their own country. You can't and you won't. Not then, not now and not in the future. It's not who they are. It's not in them. They refuse to be Lyndon Johnson and get themselves into a conflict with their own voters. They'd rather have two terms of dolling out goodies to voters. It doesn't matter what they personally think unless they are willing to be ran out on a rail.

The election of John Kerry tells the world that we are no longer serious about our safety. We're too squeamish to do the tough work to win. We'd rather return to the 1990s and consider each attack just the cost of being America. We'll hope that our non-action will make them like us and maybe, if we're lucky, another disaster won't occur. Should we leave it to luck?

THE POSITION THAT PLEASES NO ONE

But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, daily, the Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters in the Heartland.

When life begins isn't strictly a religious question. You can have an opinion based on science or philosophy. It doesn't matter how or why you formed an opinion, the question is whether you have the guts to stand up for your convictions. What Kerry is saying here is that he doesn't have the ability to fight for what he believes in. Yes, says Kerry, it is a human being, and though I pain when it dies in the womb, I am but a helpless Senator shackled by the rigors of the constitution.

Put another way, the Catholic Church believes in feeding the poor and offering charity. Is that a religious question? By Kerry's reasoning he cannot support welfare, public housing, food stamps or any government aid the Catholic Church supports, because it would conflict with his views of church and state.

Any opinion can be derived from any number of ways and many opinions are based or supported by more than one set of values. For some people it may take the scientific fact and a religious belief to change a behavior or form an opinion. You might not smoke because it's a sin and science says it might kill you. In the case of abortion a person could philosophically believe that abortion cheapens life which leads to more murder. Scientifically, abortion causes harm to the mother. Economically, the loss of these future humans will be a hardship on the economy. However your opinions are derived is unimportant compared to whether you are willing to fight for the ones you have. When Kerry casts a vote, the Supreme Court isn't going to disallow it because it coincides with the belief of his church.

Some leaders are driven by their beliefs and other leaders nod at the beliefs of voters to get elected. Does anyone think the latter is more honorable than the former? Is it better to lulled into sleep by a panderer or led by a believer?

I would much rather hear a candidate say that the abortion debate at the national level is really just emotionalism. What with the court and filibusters of judges, abortion is here to stay. So can we talk about something realistic that can improve America?

But if Kerry wants to tell us that life begins at conception then his voting record would remind one of the Nazis who ran the trains to Poland. They didn't gas one single Jew themselves in a concentration camp. They were just doing their job according to German law set forth by de Fuhrer, regardless of any personal beliefs. They were personally against this genocide, but it would have been wrong of them to get mixed up in their religious beliefs when they had a job to do. Thank goodness professionals can look past their own view of morality and keep the engines of government running as the law dictates.

VEEP ODDS (found via Drudge)

Sen. John Edwards, N.C.

Odds: 3-1 (Chance for the ticket: 25 percent)

Pro: Caught the fancy of Democrats during the primary seasons, starting with a close second place to Kerry in the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses. Polling around the country demonstrates an appeal to independent voters that Kerry lacks. Con: A one-term senator with no other political experience, he will be dogged by questions about whether he could take charge in the Oval Office in an emergency. And picking him is so widely expected, Kerry would barely make news with this choice.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, Mo.

Odds: 5-1 (Chance for the ticket: 20 percent)

Pro: Delivers Big Labor. Could be a slam dunk if Kerry rests his bid on a Midwest play, and might cinch Missouri’s 11 electoral votes. Of all the contenders, he is the most akin to Kerry’s low-key style and liberal ideology. Con: Widely perceived as an unexciting captive of Washington politics with limited appeal to swing voters.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, N.Y.

Odds: 9-1 (Chance for the ticket: 10 percent)

Pro: Like a bunker-busting bomb, picking her would remake this race and provoke a news media frenzy. No one could do more to excite the Democratic base. Her background in health care politics might be an asset as Kerry struggles to spotlight the issue. Con: She turns off some swing voters. And Bill Clinton’s book tour is highlighting his scandalous past more than his supporters had hoped.

Sen. Bob Graham, Fla. Odds: 12-1 (Chance for the ticket: 8 percent)

Gov. Tom Vilsack, Iowa Odds: 12-1 (Chance for the ticket: 8 percent)

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark Odds: 17-1 (Chance for the ticket: 6 percent)

Gov. Mark Warner, Va. Odds: 19-1 (Chance for the ticket: 5 percent)

Gov. Mark Warner, Va. Odds: 19-1 (Chance for the ticket: 5 percent)

Sen. Bill Nelson, Fla. Odds: 24-1 (Chance for the ticket: 4 percent)

Former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin Odds: 24-1 (Chance for the ticket: 4 percent)

Gov. Bill Richardson, N.M. Odds: 30-1 (Chance for the ticket: 3 percent)

Gov. Janet Napolitano, Ariz. Odds: 30-1 (Chance for the ticket: 3 percent)

Wild Cards: Democratic buzz puts these men on the Veepstakes entrants at the last minute, and with 50-1 odds: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia (1972-97).

He'd be a fool to choose anyone but Edwards. He needs likability before he can worry about carrying Florida. Edwards may be an ambulance chasing lawyer, but he comes off much more personable than the patrician Kerry.

JEOPARDY CHAMPION

I haven't been watching Jeopardy, but this article makes me wish that I had. Ken Jennings has won 22 straight Jeopardy episodes so far.

Jennings's run was made possible by the show's decision last fall to drop the rule that forced champions to retire after five victories. But no one expected this. Prior to Jennings's current streak of 22, the record was seven. Prior to his current cash total of $737,760; the record was $184,900. He's just in a different league. He seems to have no gaps in his knowledge. History. Geography. Science. Literature. Sports. Movies. Music. Languages. He not only knows, he recalls. Under pressure, in the form of a question. He buzzes in to respond while his rivals are still deciphering what's being asked. He wagers aggressively, but never recklessly. It's spooky — in the way that genuine greatness is always spooky. But it's riveting.

FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT

Clinton's speech with Jesse Jackson begins by lamenting that people's taxes are lower and that wealthy people should be feeding school kids. I wonder how much of the President Clinton's income is donated to charities that do that work?

They are coming to my town now for their convention, and it's in early September, and there is going to be so many flags you going to get slapped to death. Everybody is going to be patriotic and that's wonderful. But I'll tell you one thing they won't do before they get there -- they will not pass this [current federal] budget, because this budget that they've got on the [Congressional] floor now -- to protect my tax cut -- kicks the rest of -- listen to this, 1.3 million children out of their after-school programs," Clinton said.

I think some Vienna scientists have proven that Bill Clinton body will turn to dust if he accidently touches an American flag. At the least, no one has ever seen him touch one.

"If you kick another million kids out of their after-school program just to protect my tax cut, it's wrong, and the American people know it," he added.

Why doesn't Bill Clinton ponder the question of why people are having and raising kids they cannot feed? It seems like a bigger issue. Do parents forget that these kids are born mouths and digestive systems? Ah, there are so many rich Republicans we need not sweat the details.

Clinton can't go a whole speech without contradicting himself. Here he says that we shouldn't demonize the other side.

Clinton said he would not engage in any attempts to characterize his opponents as "bad people."

"I believe that we spend too much time in American politics and in the media trying to convince people that those who don't agree with us are bad people. I prefer to think we should argue who is right and who is wrong, not who's good and bad, he said to an approving audience.

Then he calls Pat Buchanan anti-Semetic.

Clinton called the controversial "butterfly" ballots used in some Florida counties so confusing that they resulted in "Jewish Americans" unintentionally casting ballots for Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan's "openly anti-Semitic campaign."

Maybe he means it as a compliment. After all, Clinton was the one who invited Yasser Arrafat to the White House.

BRANDO DIES?

It's not on Drudge yet, but a Phoenix TV station is reporting it.

Confirmed.

The Good Choices:

JULIUS CAESAR (1953) - It would seem a strange choice for Brando, but I immediately liked the whole production and Brando is better than Robin Williams impersonation in Dead Poet's Society would have you believe.

ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) - Easily one of the ten best film performances of all time. If you haven't seen it, you should pull up a chair.

GUYS AND DOLLS (1955) Another strange choice for Brando? He does such a good job and it's such a fun movie you forget that he made his reputation with dramas.

THE GODFATHER (1972) - Can't say enough!

The Overrated Ones

THE WILD ONE (1954) - The classic biker picture doesn't really hold up and seems to have little point. If you've seen Brando in that black leather and Fonzie white t-shirt then you've seen a picture from this film.

STRRETCAR NAMED DESIRE (1951) - Brando seemed a bit much to me here. This is supposed to be a breakthrough in modern acting and a tour de force. It may have been for its time, but I had trouble getting through it.

VIVA ZAPATA (1952) - Brando as revolutionary leader Zapata left me cold. The story seemed uninspired and Anthony Quinn is more interesting in the film.

A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG (1967) - The last film direct by Charlie Chaplin. It's just plain silly in an old fashioned way with no point.

APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) - I liked Robert Duvall as the mad Colonel, but once they hit the river I feel myself drifting. Brando's part is incomprehensible. It's the essence of indulging an actor's nonsense.

Not Sure

THE YOUNG LIONS (1958) - Brando joined by Monty Clift and Dean Martin. Brando plays a sympathetic Nazi. Dean and Clift plays Americans. I liked it enough, but I don't remember much about it.

LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972) - Brando gives a great performance, but the movie is a bit too odd in that early 1970s way when American films were trying to be more like European films (see Altman's 3 Women). Well, Bertolucci directed the thing so I guess it isn't that American after all. Pauline Kael said movies were changed forever when this was released. Roger Ebert said a couple of years ago that Kael had been wrong. This was a just an interesting blip.

SADDAM ON TRIAL

Saddam Hussein scoffed at charges of war crimes and mass killings Thursday, making a defiant first public appearance since being hunted down seven months ago. The deposed dictator fixed the judge with a penetrating stare and declared: "This is all a theater by Bush, the criminal."

That defense would play pretty well in the Northeast and parts of California, but it doesn't always fool Iraqis.

NEW IRAQI PRIME MINISTER AFFIRMS CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA

Much to the chagrin of Tom Brokaw. . .

Brokaw: I know you and others like you are grateful for the liberation of Iraq. But can't you understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States?

Allawi: We know that this is an extension to what happened in New York. And the war have been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism.

Brokaw: Prime minister, I'm surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al Qaeda.

Allawi: No, I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al Qaeda. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can't vouch for this. But definitely I know that he has connections with extremism and terrorists.

But, wait Mr. Prime Minister in my country the real connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam isn't to be exposed until after the Kerry inaguration. Let's instead talk about the effect Kurt Warner will have on making Eli Manning an NFL quarterback.

COULTER

A ferocious pen she wields. . .

The New York Times ran a front-page news story on Sunday about how life was better for Iraqi girls under Saddam Hussein -- living under Saddam, that is, not the girls who were literally under Saddam, Odai and Qusai while they were being raped. The article was titled "For Iraqi Girls, Changing Land Narrows Lives." True, they don't have to run from Odai's rape rooms anymore. But apparently not a single Iraqi female has been admitted to Augusta National Golf Club since the liberation! -- The Democrats want Saddam back.

SOWELL

Is any modern day writer better with marrying an anology with hard data than Thomas Sowell? He'll write down little keen observations and every few months dedicate a column to them. Here are four of my favorites from the most recent RANDOM THOUGHTS.

ON EDUCATION
A recently reprinted memoir by Frederick Douglass has footnotes explaining what words like "arraigned," "curried" and "exculpate" meant, and explaining who Job was. In other words, this man who was born a slave and never went to school educated himself to the point where his words now have to be explained to today's expensively under-educated generation.

ON THE 2000 ELECTION
The same people who were urging us to "get over it" and "move on" during the Clinton scandals have themselves still not gotten over the presidential election four years ago. They are still bitter that the U.S. Supreme Court would not allow the Florida Supreme Court to illegally interfere with the election process.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Why can't anyone get the University of California system or the University of Texas system to reveal the graduation rates of black students, now that affirmative action has been ended in these institutions? Are they afraid the statistics would show an increased rate of graduation, as critics of affirmative action have long predicted?

WORDS MEAN THINGS
I have always been offended by the song that says, "Everything is beautiful in its own way." If everything is beautiful, then the word "beautiful" has no meaning. If everything were purple, there would be no word "purple" in the language because it would not distinguish one thing from another.

WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN IRAQ?

Blogger Eric Johnson was a part of the Iraqi invasion in 2003 as a Marine reservist. He says that the Washington Post's Baghdad office is giving a false impression of what is happening in the country.

Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq.

Very few newspapers have full-time international reporters at all these days, relying on stringers of varying quality, as well as wire services such as Reuters and Agence France-Presse, also of varying quality. The Post's reporting is delivered intravenously into the bloodstream of Official Washington, and thus a front-page article out of Iraq can have major repercussions in policy-making.

The entire article is worth the time. He relates some specific events that he witnessed and how the Post covered them.

BEST LAID PLANS

You paid for it. Some politician looked like a hero. The benefits were minimal. Business as usual.

Tucked into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a little-known program called the "e-rate," setting up a tax that has cost consumers and phone companies upward of $2 billion a year. What has that money bought? A rudderless program riddled with fraud and waste.

The e-rate fund has distributed $12 billion over six years, and estimates place the amount wasted in the billions. Because of lack of oversight, it's impossible to know the extent of the losses.

During a recent House hearing, legislators documented some of the lapses. They showed, for instance, how most of the $101 million in e-rate funds spent in Puerto Rico went to dubious purchases, such as 73,000 wireless connection cards for individual computers. The cards, purchased at more than $300 apiece five years ago, have grown obsolete in a warehouse outside San Juan. Most Puerto Rican children still access the Internet through dial-up modems on roughly two computers per school.

Other rural projects cited by supporters as successes have enormous per-pupil costs. A conflict of interest is built into the program's core: Its dollars are doled out by a nonprofit corporation run by telecommunications service providers whose businesses benefit from the money. They are barely overseen by the Federal Communications Commission.

Did I say "typical?"

GALLUP POLL ON BILL CLINTON

Gallup has done a pretty thorough poll on Clinton with the release of his book. The main point seems to be that Hillary's book was more anticipated. How much of that is Hillary beating Bill to the presses?

Hidden within the study is something that intellectuals may not like. 32% of those polled with a high school education or less plan on reading the book. Only 20% of those with a college education plan on doing so. It will be a nice little fact to cite the next time Bush supporters are called ignoramuses.

HILLARY KNOWS BEST

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

The twentieth Century was full of demagogues who won over a populace by taking things away from citizens. It sometimes led to Gulags and concentration camps. It has never led to more individual freedom.

Hillary's right-win conspiracy is nothing more than a group of working people that want politicians to quit buying votes with the money of middle class Americans.

"IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID" becomes "INVADING IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE"

George Bush 41 lost his re-election bid in 1992 on the argument that the economy of horrible, although the charts show the economy was in recovery about 10 months before the election. Maybe the relief wasn't immediately felt, but if you weren't sure what to think of the economy you could hear the media reminding you every night how bad everyone had it. That recovery began under Bush and lasted until the final year of the Clinton presidency. Bush was elected in the midst of a recession and Democrats were already blaming the economy on him before his economic plan went into effect. The Democrats tried the same "horrible economy" strategy in 2002 and no one listened. The public was more concerned about terrorism. Democrats in the early primaries started to make the argument as the economy was recovering before their eyes. Okay, the economy isn't going to be a winning issue with the voters. Let's try Iraq.

PLAN B - IRAQ was a mistake

1. No links between Saddam and Osama
2. WMD alegations were lies
3. Attacking Iraq will just make Muslims angry
4. Rebuilding Iraq is too expensive and dangerous
5. We didn't gain anything by defeating Saddam

1. Since there isn't a paper trail from the 911 investigations leading to Saddam Hussein's palace, Saddam is innocent of threatening American lives.

The fact the Iraq had numerous ties to Osama and most likely participated in any number of anti-American or anti-Israeli acts is buried under the headlines that the they weren't mobbed up for 911. The insinuation is that Saddam's links to Osama posed us no danger whatsoever. Does anyone think that Saddam was minding his own business?

2. Since we didn't find any WMD the intelligence was skewed, and maybe Bush himself used documents he knew were false to push his larger agenda.

When Clinton warned of WMD in 1998 everybody just figured it was a sideshow meant at distracting us from the Monica Lewinsky mess. Maybe it was a sideshow, but wouldn't it be nice to hear the Democrats who were full support back then step to the mic now and admit their contradiction. What the media has refused to do during this war is make Democrats reconcile their 1998 positions with their current ones. It would be nice to hear them admit that they would bomb a country just to take heat off the president. Or they could admit that Saddam was as dangerous in 2003 as he was in 1998.

Isn't it funny how Democrats will tell you that Bush's negligence caused 911 after Clinton did a genius job against terrorism in the 1990s? We're also supposed to believe that Saddam became less dangerous after he kicked out U.N. inspectors. Therefore, with no inspectors and incompetent Bush at the helm, Saddam wasn't as dangerous as when Clinton warned about him in 1998.

So where are the WMD? Syria. Some cave. Who knows? Iraq was trying to buy Uranium from Niger according to European intelligence. Doesn't this tell us enough about his aspirations? Not in an election year.

3. Attacking Iraq will just make them angry is an age-old argument reserved for people who would rather turn a blind eye. Could they hate us any more? Are they doing any less to come after us than they have? Aren't the citizens of Iraq actually citizens now? Don't they stand to be friendlier to the U.S. than their neighbors?

4. It's a relative question. We could have leveled the country to the ground, grabbed Saddam and walked. That would have provoked the kind of ire that critics warned about in complaint #3. Whether rebuilding was a mistake will be shown down the road. If Iraq eventually takes an anti-American stand then woe to the countries that we defeat next time. We'll just as soon walk away than spend more money that doesn't effect change. But with what we know now I don't see how we couldn't spend the money and rebuild.

5. We needed a target that would wake the Muslim world up. Afghanistan was just a holding ground for terrorists. That was an easy play. By attacking Iraq we showed other nations who support or harbor terrorists that we're not afraid to bring them down. This silly idea of sovereignty for dictators needed to die. Now if Iran or Syria wants to support our enemies they will be opening themselves up to a similar invasion. This was the most important factor in the Iraq invasion and yet the one we hear about the least.

The tragedy is that much of this capital has been squandered by politicians that complain about Iraq to the extent that it seems somewhat unviable for us to take out any of the other pesky countries. If Democrats had only shown a united front on Iraq then the world would have been on notice in a bigger way. Without a united America behind future invasions I fear that these countries will begin to feel too safe. Strength is more in the willingness to action than simply the ability. Our willingness is locked up in an election. The more we're willing to fight the less we'll actually have to fight. Opposition to an offensive campaign only makes our struggle longer and harder.

It would be ironic if Demcorats won by attacking Bush's strong stand on terrorism when they did so little about it in the 1990s. But it was ironic that Bush 41 would lose because of the economy in the midst of a recovery. Politics is the essence of getting your point of view into mainstream thought via the media. As long as the media continues to focus on some parts of Iraq over others, Bush is going to have a tougher fight.

I'M JOHN KERRY, AND I APPROVE THIS MOVIE

Q: "What Liberal Media?" - Eric Alterman
A: "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Tom Stamper

A similar movie made savaging John Kerry or Bill Clinton wouldn't open on 900 screens.

You could fill a trilogy with Clinton capers, but even Kerry would be fertile ground. You could have the right wing version of silly bumbling Michael Moore interviewing the doctor that says Kerry got a purple heart for the equivalent of a paper cut. That batty wife of his could be raked over the coals for marrying the next senator that came along. That she went from pro-defense John Heniz to pro-wine John Kerry could be made good use of. All that footage of Kerry protesting and leveling unsubstantiated charges against the troops could be brought into play. We could use those quotes from Kerry about how Clinton's non-service during Vietnam was no big deal intercut with the constant reminder by Kerry that his service record makes him the only eligible candidate. If nothing else, how much distribution do you think this movie will get?

What Liberal Media, Mr. Alterman? Have you seen Rotten Tomatoes? Moore's movie registered 82% positive when I wrote this blog. This is despite that fact that his movie is filled with any innacuracy needed in order to bridge the gap to his next criticism. Christopher Hitchens sums up the credibility of the film very well.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

I'm sure it is a funny movie. All of his movies are funny. But a reviewer of a supposedly nonfiction film should inform himself a little on reality before giving a movie like this credibility.

"Moore states his argument forcefully and effectively, alternating cold, factual data with emotionally wrenching -- and draining -- human episodes." Jeff Strickler, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE

I'm sure some of the data is truthful, but much of it isn't. If Strickler could seperate fact from fiction maybe the rest wouldn't have been so emotionally wrenching. That's the problem with most of these film critics. Being personally liberal they are less interested in the truth of the subject matter and more enthralled that Moore has leveled a witty attack against someone they don't like.

CHENEY DROPS F BOMB

A brawl would have been more fun.

FORMER VP GORE HAS A FEW WORDS MORE

You think Gore is still sore about 2000? Speech . . .

It is an extraordinary blessing to live in a nation so carefully designed to protect individual liberty and safeguard self-governance and free communication. But if George Washington could see the current state of his generation's handiwork and assess the quality of our generation's stewardship at the beginning of this twenty-first century, what do you suppose he would think about the proposition that our current president claims the unilateral right to arrest and imprison American citizens indefinitely without giving them the right to see a lawyer or inform their families of their whereabouts, and without the necessity of even charging them with any crime. All that is necessary, according to our new president is that he - the president - label any citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant," and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizen's liberty - even for the rest of his life, if the president so chooses. And there is no appeal.

The first sentence is off the charts. When has Gore ever been a champion of individual liberty? The level of proof that he expects of Bush to lock up terrorists is much higher than the level of proof he expects from environmentalists that are screaming that the sky is falling. Gore wants to change individual behavior wherever an owl might be. He’s more than willing to punish successful individuals by taxing them at higher rates in order to buy votes of the less fortunate. To Gore and many left wing thinkers, the only individuals worth protecting are criminals.

What would Thomas Jefferson think of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners - and that any law or treaty, which attempts to constrain his treatment of prisoners in time of war is itself a violation of the constitution our founders put together.

At least Gore talked about citizens in first paragraph. I don’t know why Thomas Jefferson would care one lick about what we do to enemy combatants. We didn’t sign a treaty with the Taliban, Al Qaeda or any group funding or supporting terrorists. Why should we tie our hands when our citizens are getting their heads chopped off in the Middle East?

What would Benjamin Franklin think of President Bush's assertion that he has the inherent power - even without a declaration of war by the Congress - to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes, even if that nation poses no imminent threat to the United States.

Gore didn’t seem to be making these complaints when he was Vice President and the administration went after Serbia.

How long would it take James Madison to dispose of our current President's recent claim, in Department of Justice legal opinions, that he is no longer subject to the rule of law so long as he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief.

Is this Gore’s version of situational ethics? He didn’t think the “rule of law” was such a good idea when it prevented Clinton from lying under oath.

It takes balls to support activist judges that re-write the constitution whenever convenient and then complain that Bush is ignoring the founders vision. After spending a career walking over individual liberty for the overall “benefit of mankind” Gore can suddenly see the virtue in letting people alone. I wonder if Gore will allow such indulgences to those of us who aren’t trying to kill our fellow citizens.

In light of the Clinton book and 60 Minutes interview, NR's The Corner dug out some quotes from a February 1998 issue of the magazine.

#1 From The Week section of the February 23, 1998, issue of National Review: "President Clinton vows to spend the remainder of his term searching for the real adulterer."

#2 The scene: A smoky bar. The character: He and she. Old line: “My wife doesn’t understand me.” New lines: “I’m the victim of a right-wing conspiracy.”

I watched the baseball game instead of the 60 minutes interview. Did he take responsibility for lying under oath or was it my fault for sending money to the Empower America?

Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda

The media is trying to report that the Bush administration was wrong about a contact between Saddam and Osama. Even Democrat members of the commission admit the links. Real Clear Politics does a good job of cutting through the media distortion.

WASHINGTON POST

"Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

CHENEY RESPONDS ON CNBC

CHENEY: What The New York Times did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things but the headline, "Panel Find No Qaida-Iraq Tie". The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who's since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways.

There are critics who think the Iraq invasion was wrong because they weren't involved in 911. That's an opinion. Another opinion says that we should defeat countries with terrorist ties before they do us any danger.

The reason for the 911 commission was to see if there was something we could have done to prevent tha attack. Bush's Iraq policy was designed so that they couldn't do what Osama had done. Whether Saddam funded Osama or the other way around misses the point that both factions were firmly anti-American and hellbent on our destruction.

UPDATE: What does Brokaw know?

CLINTON WRITES

Dan Rather gives Clinton's memoir 5 stars according to The New York Observer. How are you to take a memoir from a man who has no trouble lying in court? The fact that he still blames others for his dishonesty makes me think he wasn't ready to write this book. What he said about Susan McDougal the other night is revealing. McDougal was put in jail for contempt of court after refusing to answer questions about her Arkansas land deal with Clinton.

"Susan McDougal was a victim of abuse of power," Mr. Clinton said. "She was simply a political pawn."

The only reason for Susan McDougal to clam up would be to shield her own self from even more jail time or to protect the president. If Clinton is saying that she is a political pawn then she was put in jail for protecting him. If Clinton had been so worried about Mrs. McDougal he could have told her to protect herself by speaking. There's nothing like a touchy feeling man sending a woman to take the fall.

As always with Clinton he can't see his own culpability. It’s always others that fail. His personal corruption is married to his goals of equality of mankind. You’ll have to accept one if you want the other. It's a shame that McDougal went to jail, but Clinton was irreplaceable. It’s more important that he continue to work for the American people. He's suggesting that prosecutors should know that he is untouchable like a mob boss and they will only be putting the people in jail that are protecting him. Prosecutors should just learn to layoff and let him make his own rules.

The difference between Nixon and Clinton is that Nixon felt a modicum of shame for the damage he wrought. Clinton is sure that his egalitarian goals trump any sort of personal corruption.

RAY CHARLES -- LEGEND

I didn't blog last week deciding instead to take everything in and then expound. The one story I missed that was important was the passing of Ray Charles. I don't think any singer ever committed to a song the way he did. It was like his every last molecule was focused on the passion of that with which he was singing about. There were much better singers, but he performed a song in a way that you were sure it was about him. Sinatra was always given credit for phrasing a song well. Charles should be given credit for fully committing to the material like no one else.

The first time I heard him sing Georgia – I must have been quite young – I was moved by it. I didn’t realize that he was singing about a woman. I had thought he was just singing about the state. I guess it could be taken either way, but as I aged the passion in which he sang started to imply true love.

He brought the same excitement to anything he sang. When I hear “You don’t know me” I visualized him meeting and taking the hand of the woman he loves and I can see her misunderstanding his feelings. There was something real about his reaction to her nonchalance and his resignation that he would never have her.

Then the hard rockin’ “I got a woman” is a gigantic celebration of boy gets girl. It’s a simple song. His woman is good to him. The song is all in the singing. That ass clown Michael Bolton could never register the real feeling for a song like that. I’ve heard other versions that are fair, but Ray Charles seems to be living it.

“What I Say” has that great piano intro and then vocals that say little literally, but much in the way of blues. The song goes on and on and on and I think only Ray Charles could pull such a thing off. The song is so long that you have to turn the 45 over and hear part two on the other side.

I had wanted to see Ray Charles when I was in college, but no one was listening to that kind of music. Who would I have asked? I didn’t even own any of the records, but I had heard him sing on TV quite a bit.

After moving to Orlando I bought a 2-CD set of Ray Charles greatest hits and it was a big disappointment. All the songs were there in their originally recorded versions, but that turned out to be a minus. Sometimes the arrangements were all wrong for his brand of soul and the backup singers made some songs sound ridiculous. I realized that I had been hearing him sing these things live on TV with simple music and they were much better that way. He just throws so much of himself into a song that the old recordings make everyone else in the studio sound lackadaisical. I’d like to find a later album of these recording that were more bare-boned musically.

Luckily in June 2002 I got to see Ray Charles for a corporate event. The acoustics were horrible in the Convention Center, but he was his magical best. He ended with “America, America” and no song sung by anyone could ever make me feel as patriotic. He was much gray and needed to be helped on and off the stage, but I never would have thought he had just two short years remaining. The music will never die.

What is a trade deficit?

The US trade deficit widened to a record $48.3bn in April, putting a bigger drag on economic growth than expected and further damping down hopes that the trade gap is soon set to narrow.

Economists said that with the dollar reviving in response to expectations of higher interest rates, there was little chance that the trade gap would start to close over the next 12 months.

The trade deficit is an illusion.

If Americans trade U.S. dollars for foreign goods what happens to those dollars? Either the recipient buries them in the ground which reduces the money supply and makes our money more valuable. Or they take those dollars and buy goods and services from America. The money we use to buy these things either has to be traded back in the United States for other goods or they were foolish to take U.S. dollars in the first place.

So the money has to make its way back here eventually and that will lead to Americans getting the money back for their services. If the money never returns then we've just traded paper for real goods. That's just the kind of deficit we can afford.

NATIONS KEEPS GOD - SAYS COURT

The Supreme Court says the atheist father has no legal standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance's phrase "one nation under God." He doesn't have legal custody. The girl's mother had no problem with the pledge invoking the almighty.

O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas said further that "Under God" wasn't unconstitutional. Scalia probably would have joined them but sat out this case.

I don't quite know what offends atheists about using God in our common language. They would be best in humoring the rest of us. Nothing makes Americans angrier than frivolous lawsuits. Don’t they know that belief in God is the only thing keeping half the country from kicking their ass?

Oh Captain, My Captain

I was twelve years old when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. I went to the music room to watch the swearing in during recess, but recess had ended and the ceremony hadn't. I figured the teacher would come and get me, but she didn't. When thirty minutes had passed I realized that I was going to be in pretty big trouble. The teacher did feign some sort of anger toward me when I returned to class, but later she took me aside and asked me about the event. Looking back, I think she was pretty impressed that this normally behaved student would play hooky to watch American history.

I was a freshman in High School when he told Walter Mondale during the debate that he wasn't going to exploit his opponent's youth and inexperience. Our school was mostly Republican, but I remember a Democrat trying to make the best of Reagan's landslide re-election. He said that at least they picked up some seats in Congress. I was a junior in High school heading to lunch when news spread about the Challenger explosion. It seemed impossible. But Reagan's speech about slipping the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God and I was deeply moved even as a self-centered teenager.

I was in college when he went to Berlin and demanded the Russians tear down the wall and make people free. By then I had left the high schools that shared my thoughts and joined the quirky academics that would criticize his policies and manner. I didn't know that the elite element in the country looked down upon him until then. They loved the Iran-Contra affair. Our Western civilization class would become a discussion about the awful things that Reagan was doing in Central America. When I spoke up that he was fighting communism the TA pointed to a guy from Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan had nothing nice to say. Reagan was subverting the people's will because he was in the pocket of greedy businessmen.

"How could making a people free be a negative?" I asked.

"Because," he said, "The people are poor and they need the communists in order to eat."

Reagan's tenacity resulted in free elections in that country and the people who needed the communists so bad ran them out on a rail. They weren't ready to trade their freedom for bread. It's not a subject the left likes bringing up much. They will still talk about Iran-Contra, but you never hear them acknowledge that Reagan was really helping those people make their own choices.

It was Ronald Reagan that made me appreciate Rush Limbaugh. When I first heard Rush, I was surprised at how politically Incorrect he was. I had spent the last 3 years being shamed by college professors. Rush was very entertaining, but when I heard him speak about Reagan for the first time I realized that other people still felt the way I did.

I went to the Reagan library in 2002 by myself on a Sunday. It was pretty quiet and I was able to wander around and see things uninterrupted. The museum does a good job of reminding you of his life and especially his presidency. They show video from the assassination attempt and the budget victory after his recovery. Tip O'Neill calls him after the vote and says something like I just want to congratulate you, Mr. President. You beat us old buddy and you beat us good. There's a replica of the oval office with the Original Reagan oval office furniture including some interesting Remington statues. Another room has his cabinet meeting table. There's a great section about the cold war and the arms agreements he made with Gorby.

This week brought much of that back to me. I was surprised at how many of his critics spoke so well of him. On Sunday's This Week show, Sam Donaldson said that he didn't agree with those who thought Reagan lied about the Iran Contra scandal. This was from the man who asked the President if he thought that scandal would taint his presidency. Sam was the loudest voice in those Reagan press conferences. He even wrote a book called "hold on Mr. President." Sunday, Sam showed nothing but true affection for the man.

The funeral at the National Cathedral was a great example of politics yesterday and today. Bill Clinton was upset that he wasn't asked to speak and then he and Hillary fought sleep during the service. Margaret Thatcher was told by her doctors not to travel or speak and yet she was wide awake at the early service and made the long journey to California for the dusk burial.

George Bush the elder was maybe the most surprising. He gave an impromptu press conference shortly after the death announcement last Saturday. He seemed very composed. His speech at the funeral was much different. Bob Dole is known for breaking down at any mention of sentiment, but I was not prepared for Bush's cracking voice as he said Ronald Reagan taught him more than anyone in public life. These political foes that became allies always showed the united front, but Bush wanted a kinder gentler nation which many took to be a criticism of Reagan. His speech yesterday was Bush telling us that he had joined the club.

My southern mother was for Carter in 1980. She said Reagan was a war monger. Dad was a business owner and liked Reagan's economic policies. Neither ever voted because the one time that Dad registered he got jury duty and had to sit around a court room when he had a business to run. Four years later mom admitted that she was wrong about Reagan and she joined the crowd in the tradition of many southern Democrats then and now.

My father is not very political. He doesn't pay much attention to politics. I remember in 1992 when Reagan was introduced at the Republican convention. He got a bigger and longer applause than anyone before or after. Dad simply said, "Americans love Reagan." That expressed it better than anyone has all week.

After Oliver North testified before Congress an older man (probably a veteran) who worked at McDonald’s put a “Col. North for President” bumper sticker on his car. I asked dad if he thought Oliver North would make a good president. Dad had already expressed that he liked North’s tenacity facing Congress. “No,” dad said. “He isn’t smart enough.”

“But so many people think that Reagan isn’t smart enough.” I said.

“He’s smart in a way they don’t understand. He turned the economy around and he made other countries respect us.”

National and world events helped to show Reagan’s greatness, but there was something else that made him important to me. He was like a grandfather to the country. He had wisdom that could be expressed in levity or gravitas. He made me feel safe and proud to be an American. It was like my parents were working and I was going to school and grandfather was running the country.

I don't expect that another President in my lifetime will ever mean as much to me as Ronald Reagan. I was spoiled growing up and thinking that his skills and optimism to be expected. I was 11 when he was elected and 19 when he left office. Those were formidable years and he’ll forever be an influence in my life.

RONALD REAGAN RIP

I was too young to remember Watergate and old enough to know that Jimmy Carter wasn’t cutting it. Reagan made being president look easy. And the presidents since have shown us how hard a job it really is.

He was an optimist in pessimistic times. He could demand that Gorby tear down that wall and joke after being shot. His tax reductions in the early 1980s were that basis for the great economic times we’ve had ever since. His critics called him simple-minded and out of touch with reality. So he made his own reality and then remade the world.

He pulled the conservatives out of the ashes of the Goldwater campaign of 1964 and set the stage for the Republican Congressional victory in 1994. Like Democrats in the shadow of JFK or FDR, Republicans are forever in the shadow of him.

REAGAN THE CONSERVATIVE
PATTI DAVIS:
George Will
Reagan's D-Day Speech
The Queen and Thatcher
Thatcher in 1988
Peggy Noonan
Reagan Vigils
Washington Post
FOX NEWS SHORT TAKES
THE SPEECH (AKA the Goldwater Boost Speech he gave in 1964 that became legend among Reaganites --rendezvous with destiny)
When Buckley met Reagan
Buckley Today
Tom Wolfe in 1988
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Dinesh D'Souza v. E.J. Dionne (1997)
Bob Novak
Michelle Malkin
Rush Limbaugh
Andrew Sullivan

D-DAY AND TODAY

Paul Johnson writes an interesting piece about the D-Day planning and concludes that the Britain and the U.S. didn't consider everything when going into Iraq.

Unlike Montgomery in 1944, who never underestimated the German genius for counterattack, and made provision against it, the allies this time did not study and prepare for the peculiar Arab genius for counterattack, which is to carry out prolonged and vicious guerilla warfare, completely disregarding human life, including their own. Moreover they did not study and prepare for the difficulties of meeting this form of counterattack against the political background of a free society at home, reacting nightly to what it sees on TV, and reading highly critical reports from the front written by journalists who have their own opinions and agendas and feel under no obligation to pursue the war (and peace) aims of the allied commanders. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are currently suffering from their lack of provision and foresight.

In the old days wars were judged by history. These days the wars are judged daily by journalists.

GREYHOUND BEATS HORSE IN RACE

If Bucky were only alive to see it.

A greyhound called Simply Fabulous was celebrating with his favourite meal of bangers and mash last night after pulling off one of the most unlikely upsets in racing history.

Early betting placed Tiny Tim, a six-year-old gelding ridden by Fergus Sweeney, a clear favourite to win the 5.45pm race over two furlongs (400 metres) despite only winning one of its last 33 races.

But the dog made the most of its light frame and rapid acceleration to take an early lead and never looked back. It crossed the finish in 23.29 seconds - more than a second faster and around 25 dog lengths clear of its equine challenger - and promptly lunged at the mock "hare" fitted to the trackside for the event.

CREW: KERRY CAN'T

Stop using our faces in your campaign material, eleven Swift Boat veterans have told Sen. John F. Kerry. The veterans are all from the unit in which Sen. John Kerry served.

"The signers of today's letter object to the use of their photographs in conjunction with the Kerry campaign because they believe that not only is Kerry unfit to serve as the commander-in-chief of the United States, but by using their images, the campaign suggests that these men endorse the senator," said a press release issued by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Of the 20 officers shown in the photograph, only two openly support Senator Kerry, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said. Eleven of the officers in the photo oppose Kerry's bid for the presidency, four wish to remain uninvolved and two are deceased, the press release added.

In an open letter on its website, the group tells Sen. Kerry, "It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war."

The letter also complains that Kerry now seeks to cover himself "in the very medals you disdainfully threw away in the early years of your political career."

Kerry wants to embrace his youthful folly and still convince America that he can lead the American military that he blasted for political gain. That's a tough job that maybe only Clinton could pull off.

IN OTHER NEWS: Kerry Honored by Vietnamese Communists

GORE AND HIS NEW FRIENDS AT MOVEON.ORG

I could write a term paper on Gore's speech. It's full of illuminating things that liberals pretend not to believe when faced with voters. With a political career in the rearview mirror, Albert Gore Jr. is now free to tell us how the world (or the unelected judiciary) would do a much better job running America.

He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.

Gore would be President right now if the Democrats in the Senate had the integrity to remove Clinton from office. By pretending what Clinton did was a-okay, Gore couldn't free himself from the stink of that administration. You can debate the merits of Bush's policy, but his policy was for the defense of his country. Clinton’s mistakes were for his own self-indulgence.

If Gore had been paying attention he would have understood that Bush's invasion of Iraq was in respect to 17 United Nations resolutions. That the United Nations likes to pass hollow resolutions with no teeth is not the fault of a President.

Do the opinions of our allies count when it can be shown that they had illegal oil agreements with the country in question?

What in the world does he mean by the “role of Congress and the courts”? Congress voted for the war. The courts continue to legislate from the bench. What changed?

The Jefferson quote is beyond me. People in this country have supported the war from the beginning. It’s scary to think that a guy who was this close to being President would defend his country only if other nations are okay with the idea.

To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President.

1. Containment was a disaster as foreign policy. Do you build a wall around the fire ant nest or do you give them Amdro to feed the queen? Containment allowed nation after nation to fall to communism. Millions died the same kinds of deaths that were witnessed in Nazi Germany. Vietnam was the ultimate failed example of containment.

2. International Law is not world opinion. The United States was already in a state of war with Iraq because they broke the cease fire agreement signed in 1991. Just because the Clinton/Gore administration chose to ignore Saddam didn’t mean that the cease-fire agreement was null and void.

The United Nations is a great thing for dictators running slave states, but I don’t know how America benefits. And that’s just it. A guy who was one liberal judge away from being President should ask himself if he is an American or a citizen of the world. The United States is the protector of freedom. Any freedom that exists in the world has a friend in the United States.

To take the oath of office to become President a person must pledge to uphold the laws of the land. Too many Democrats want to uphold the laws of other lands. They’re jealous that much of the world has been moving toward a form of central planning that their college professors told them was the most “efficient” way to serve mankind. Since they cannot convince the people in their own country to sacrifice freedom for central planning, they’ll make arguments to tie our hands to international agreements that have nothing to do with our Constitution.

The prison abuse in Iraq didn’t happen because of Rumsfeld or some other bureaucrat. It went on because human beings can’t always be trusted to have power over other human beings. That should be remembered when we decide to give up our freedom to another un-elected government official who promises to “help.” It should also be remembered when the media or an ex-Vice President pretends some country is a sovereign nation when they don’t have a constitution protecting the rights of their citizens. The boot isn't sovereignty unless we allow it to be.

Let's not forget that there would be no international law if the United States wasn't always stepping in and saving the Europeans from themselves. When the United States has a problem it has to be Marshall Will Kane saving the town from Frank Miller all by itself. "Miller was no threat" can be heard all around the world. But the town council (911 commission) will convene the moment another Frank Miller does harm. "Why wasn't this Frank Miller stopped?"

Gore isn't some Michael Moore character trying to sell books or a movie. He doesn't have the personality or humor for that. Gore is an example of a Democrat who doesn't have to temper his views in order to get elected. The Gore approach isn't designed to make us safer as a nation, but to acclimatize us to the bathwater of Internationalism.

France proved that a dictator only has to court one key ally to discredit a United States action to protect itself. Why are French special interests treated as world opinion when American interests are treated as unilateral?

Is John Kerry sending out all the crackpots to shore up for far-left vote against Nader? Or do Democrats want to make us some appendage of Western Europe?

This is becoming a really key question in this election and the media doesn’t want to address it.

KERRY + McCain = Media Lovefest

The media cannot contain their passion for getting John Kerry elected. Despite numerous denials that he would accept the job of Vice President, John McCain is being used in a new CBS poll to test Kerry's popularity.

McCain has continued to face questions about joining his fellow Vietnam veteran Kerry on a ticket, despite having insisted that he is not interested in doing so. America’s voters, meanwhile, do have interest in such a bi-partisan slate: a hypothetical Kerry/McCain pairing holds a 14-point advantage over President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, nearly double the 8-point lead Kerry has alone over Bush.

The logical next question in this poll should have been what Bush's poll numbers would be against Kerry if he ditched Cheney for John McCain. Why don't we do a poll and see the popularity of a Bush/Liberman ticket? It's no surprise that the only hypothetical scenario involves something that makes the dour Kerry seem electable courtesy of the dynamic McCain.

Will the voters go and ruin all of the media's hopes for John Kerry?

Kerry's War Record (David Limbaugh - Courtesy of E Head)

. . . a surprising number of those who served with Kerry in Vietnam have organized a group, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," to speak out against the man and his military record. They are not, contrary to Democratic propaganda, being funded by Republican operatives or the Bush campaign.

The group is committed to correcting the record about Kerry's Vietnam experience and his defamatory statements against his fellow soldiers. Seventeen of the 23 officers on the swift boats with Kerry are either part of or supportive of the group's mission.

The group held a press conference at the National Press Club on May 4 to announce its goal of exposing the real John Kerry. The mainstream media were all but silent on the matter, but C-Span cameras were there.

When the Associated Press (AP) was called on its refusal to cover the story, it released a statement saying it didn't believe it was newsworthy because it contributed nothing to the dialogue between veterans and John Kerry. (Note to AP: This isn't about some New Age touchy-feely dialogue; it's about John Kerry's record.)

The press seems quite interested to tear into Bush's National Guard record. Why aren't they so ready to find the truth about Kerry?

JUNTO BOYS ENJOY VEGAS

We saw Ben Affleck playing at the Palms and we also watched some of the World Series of Poker action on Day 1. If you like a long story with some drama you can read my narriative over at The Nuts.

I didn't get to hear the President's speech on Monday Night. I didn't read a newspaper or even watch CNN outside of the airplane. I wonder what I missed.

JUNTO BOYS IN VEGAS

We'll be around for the World Series of Poker Final Event -- a coincidence really. We booked the trip before the schedule for the WS was posted. The Satelites for cheap entry into the tourney end today so I guess we won't be playing. . . but someday.

See You next week.

WINNING THE LOTTERY DOESN'T BRING HAPPINESS

Emory University researchers measured brain activity in the striatum — the part of the brain associated with reward processing and pleasure — in two groups of volunteers. One group had to work to receive money while playing a simple computer game; the other group was rewarded without having to earn it.

The brains of those who had to work for their money were more stimulated.

He said that other studies have shown “there’s substantial evidence that people who win the lottery are not happier a year after they win the lottery. It’s also fairly clear from the psychological literature that people get a great deal of satisfaction out of the work they do.”

I had this discussion back in 1996 with co-workers and we were evenly divided. It began with a lady who wanted everyone to chip in a x number of dollars to play the lottery collectively. I said that I would chip in but that I was against the theory of the lottery because money that you don't earn is a burden not a blessing. Since I was sure we wouldn't win I would chip in for the camaraderie.

You can imagine how that got the discussion going. I was surprised that almost an even number of people agreed with me, although I think the majority still wanted to win the lottery. My theory was life is a struggle and it's overcoming obstacles that allow us to grow as human beings. The lottery artificially removes many of the struggles that life brings and winning stunts growth. In fact, many of the struggles we encounter are related to but specifically making a living. Once a human no longer has to make a living those other struggles are also lost.

On the other hand, people who earn millions through their own savvy and hard work can enjoy the money all that much more because it is attached to the struggle of life that they were able to overcome. The lottery robs people of the reward of the struggle.

The lady who wanted to play the lottery wouldn't take my money. She said my money would be bad karma since I didn't think we'd win. As far as life being a struggle she said the only thing she wanted to struggle for what multiple or-----.

That retort was quoted for years.

SARIN RE-CLASSIFIED AS NON-WMD DURING ELECTION YEAR?

Politically, the discovery of sarin, and, separately, of mustard gas, would seem to bolster the President, though our esteemed press corps has already begun its spinning.

An MSNBC report yesterday, noted by Glenn Reynolds, implied that the discovery does not vindicate the Bush administration because it doesn't prove "that Saddam was secretly producing weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War." The Washington Post embeds the news of the sarin discovery in the subtitle of a front-page story today, headlined "Iraqi Council's Leader Is Slain." The New York Times also notes the sarin discovery within a report on this piece of bad news, and does the Post one better with the note that "Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reacted cautiously to the discovery, saying more extensive tests were necessary" and directions to find more details on page A11.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter to the press how dangerous Iraq was until Kerry wins the election.

TRY AGAIN?

The link I posted last time to review my Blog was bogus. Please try this new link.

Review Junto Boys

RUMMY SHOULD STAY - Krauthammer

Democrats calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation invoke the principle of ministerial responsibility: a Cabinet secretary must take ultimate responsibility for what happens on his watch. Interesting idea. Where was it in 1993 when the attorney general of the United States ordered the attack on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, which ended in the deaths of 76 people?

Janet Reno went to Capitol Hill and said, "It was my decision, and I take responsibility." This was met with approving swoons and applause. Was she made to resign? No. And remember: This was over an action that did not just happen on her watch but that she ordered -- an action that resulted in the deaths of, among others, more than 20 children.

Given the fact that when they were in power Democrats had little use for the notion of ministerial responsibility, their sudden discovery of it over Abu Ghraib suggests that this has little to do with principle.

Loop it on a loudspeaker outside of the Capitol Building.

THESE ARE THE TIMES

The New York Times is becoming some sort of 5th column for terrorists. Today, they examine the interrogations given to Al Qaeda detainees. It's one thing to criticize members of the military that degrade low-level Iraqi prisoners, but this article explains and criticizes the techniques the CIA and strategies against the real bad guys.

The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials.

In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as "water boarding," in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.

So far, the agency has refused to grant any independent observer or human rights group access to the high-level detainees, who have been held in strict secrecy. Their whereabouts are such closely guarded secrets that one official said he had been told that Mr. Bush had informed the C.I.A. that he did not want to know where they were.

Notice the aside that Bush has set-up deniability.

Counterrorism officials say detainees have also been sent to third countries, where they are convinced that they might be executed, or tricked into believing they were being sent to such places. Some have been hooded, roughed up, soaked with water and deprived of food, light and medications.

Many authorities contend that torture and coercive treatment is as likely to provide information that is unreliable as information that is helpful.

What authorities think the tactics won't work? If the information is incorrect, won't the prisoners face harsher tactics?

Concerns are mounting among C.I.A. officers about the potential consequences of their actions. "Some people involved in this have been concerned for quite a while that eventually there would be a new president, or the mood in the country would change, and they would be held accountable," one intelligence source said. "Now that's happening faster than anybody expected."

The Times is warning the CIA that John Kerry is ready to gut their effectiveness again and for good reason.

Way down here near the end of the article after the criticism we get the information about how these tactics have been successful.

The C.I.A. high-level interrogation program seemed to show early results with the capture of Abu Zubaida in April 2002. Mr. Zubaida was a close associate of Mr. bin Laden's and had run Al Qaeda's recruiting, in which young men were brought from other countries to training camps in Afghanistan.

Under such intensive questioning, Mr. Zubaida provided useful information identifying Jose Padilla, a low-level Qaeda convert who was arrested in May 2002 in connection with an effort to build a dirty bomb. Mr. Zubaida also helped identify Mr. Mohammed as a crucial figure in the 9/11 plot, counterterrorism officials said.

A few other detainees have been identified by the Bush administration, like Ramzi bin al-Shibh, another 9/11 plotter and Walid Ba'Attash, who helped plan the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the Navy destroyer Cole in October 2000.

Now back to the criticism.

Some officials have suggested that some of the high-level detainees may be tried in military tribunals or officially turned over to other countries, but counterterrorism officials have complained about the Bush administration's failure to have an "endgame" for these detainees. One official said they could also be imprisoned indefinitely at a new long-term prison being built at Guantánamo.

What's funny is that any time the government doesn't share their plan with the media it gets written as no plan at all. When the administration shares the plan, the media gets "authorities" to describe how it won't work.

I don't know what this article accomplished other than alerting future detainees to our tactics and scaring CIA operatives into being nice to bad guys for fear of their jobs. Do writers at the New York Times think this was a service to the American people?

THE GOLDBERG TAKE

Here's the article that Tricia linked in the comments.

In 1994, 10 Belgian peacekeepers were horribly mutilated alive (castrated, their Achilles tendons slashed, etc.) in Rwanda. The full extent of the barbarity wasn’t disclosed for a long time for fear of reprisals. Just a month ago, television news networks agonized about how much they should show of the butchery of Americans in Fallujah. They opted for very, very little.

Within 48 hours of the 9/11 attacks, the major news networks and leading newspapers were settling on a policy to stop showing images of victims leaping to their death from the World Trade Center. NBC ran one clip of a man plunging to his death, and then admitted it was a mistake. An NBC News V.P. told The New York Times, “Once it was on, we decided not to use it again. It’s stunning photography, I understand that, but we felt the image was disturbing.”

In fact, post-9/11 coverage illuminates an interesting cultural cleavage in the media. When shocking images might stir Americans to favor war, the Serious Journalists show great restraint. When those images have the opposite effect, the Ted Koppels let it fly.

There is a serious character flaw to always be highlighting your country's mistakes while hiding the barbarism of the enemy.

NICK BERG BEHEADED

Ever since he graduated from high school, Nick Berg lived a life of adventure. He took college classes at Cornell, Drexel, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Oklahoma. He helped set up electronics equipment at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 2000. He even made several trips to Third World Countries — at one point teaching villagers in Ghana how make bricks.

The reaction

An apparent videotape of Berg's beheading was aired on a Web site known to have ties with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. The tape also included threats against Bush and Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

In Washington, word of the beheading reached the Senate as the Armed Services Committee was holding a hearing into the abuse of Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison.

"Senators ... are in a virtual state of shock about the beheading," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., recalling earlier concerns that the prisoner abuse could lead to retaliation against Americans.

The media made a big splash with those Iraqi prisoner pictures and then warned of retaliation. They seemed to know that retaliation was going to be the result of their showing their photos, so it would follow that they bear at least a modicum of the responsibility for the beheading. Only, I have yet to read or hear any media introspection.

At some point you have to cease being a "newsman" and be a concerned "American" who is looking after your fellow citizens. The justification for all their "objective" reporting is that Americans deserve to know the truth. Do Americans deserve to die for their ratings?

UPDATE: More of the Nick Berg Story.

EVERYTHING CHANGES WEEK TO WEEK

Less than two weeks ago Democrats were convinced that they nominated the wrong candidate. Now everything seems to have gone bad for Bush.

Oil Prices are climbing.

Novak says that interest rates will rise before the election.

and, of course, Bush gets blamed for some unruly prison guards.

The 9-11 Commission -- The thing that was supposed to ruin Bush last month left the radar screen the moment Condi Rice testified.

Still, Zogby has John Kerry winning the election. We haven't even had a debate yet.

The 24 hours news cycle is hilarious. The election is so far away that the outrage over the photos will soften. People aren't even angry about 9-11 anymore. People have short attention spans. The news media yaks and yaks about something for a weekend or two and it pretty much loses its significance.

Q: What was the most important factor in the 2000 election?

A: The Gore Team announcement the weekend before the election about Bush being arrested for drunk driving in the 1970s. Bush had a good 3-4 point lead before that weekend and it pretty much disappeared with the arrest news.

Current events spike the polls, but over time the numbers settle back into their default position. If you can time a spike right before the election, and before the numbers settle back to normal, it might be a winning formula.

This election will be won in the 4th quarter by the political operatives that have the best game plan.

Picasso Oil Fetches Auction Record of $104 Million

Pablo Picasso's "Boy with the Pipe" became the most expensive painting ever sold at auction on Wednesday when it fetched $104,168,000 at Sotheby's in New York.
The previous auction record was held by van Gogh's "Portrait of Dr. Gachet" which sold for $82.5 million in 1990.

I'm surprised a Picasso (especially an early one) would sell for so much. Whereas Van Gogh painted for just a few years and had few pieces, Picasso was so prolific that they can create entire shows around his World War II output alone. Supply and Demand would suggest that a single Van Gogh piece is worth more than a single Picasso piece. What would Picasso's "The Old Guitarist" fetch on the open market? It's more famous and a part of the storied blue period.

Or what would "Guernica" bring?

One of the advantages of selling a masterpiece is that most masterpieces aren't for sale. If all of Picasso's work went up for sale at once, we'd probably get a better idea of what the pieces are really worth.

I read once tht Billy Wilder collected art in the 50s and 60s and made several million dollars when he sold the works in the 1990s. In fact, he made more from the sale of his art collection than all of his movies combined.

University of Iowa is so thoughtful

I was wondering if Trish remembered these debates when she attended Iowa.

Adhering to a policy instituted 10 years ago, but not always followed, the UI athletics department recently canceled a baseball game with Bradley University of Peoria, Ill., because of the school's mascot.

The game was originally scheduled to be played today, but the athletics department canceled the nonconference game in February, recognizing that Bradley's nickname - the Braves - falls under the university's policy to not schedule nonconference games with teams that have American Indian mascots.

According to the policy, "In recognition of the UI policy on human rights, the university bans from its athletics facilities any mascot that depicts or represents Native Americans."

What nonsense. UI policy on Human Rights? What human right are we talking about? My Indian blood says that it's a tribute.

Kelsey Grammer is an admitted conservative.

THE WAR IS BAD FOR (FUNNY) BUSINESS

The world opposition to the invasion of Iraq was largely one of loot. France, Russia and others had a pretty good racket going. The evidence coming in these last few months doesn't look good for their objectivity. National Review puts it in context.

The basic assumption underlying Oil-for-Food was absurd: Saddam was trusted to use the proceeds of selling Iraqi oil to benefit his people. It appears, unsurprisingly enough, that Saddam instead provided oil at bargain prices to favored clients, who kicked back a portion of their profits from arbitraging it on the open market to Baghdad, while he purchased foreign goods of dubious humanitarian utility (such as Mercedes-Benz touring sedans) at inflated prices from happy suppliers.

In January, a Baghdad newspaper, Al-Mada, published a provisional list of roughly 270 entities and individuals in 50 countries who allegedly participated in this racket, and Claudia Rosett has performed sterling service in further investigating the fiasco for the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and National Review Online. The list of those identified should raise some eyebrows. They include no fewer than 46 Russians (including "the director of the Russian President's office") and eleven Frenchmen (for instance, former interior minister Charles Pasqua), plus George Galloway, the radical British MP and unyielding anti-war propagandist. And let us not forget the PLO and the Russian Communist party, among many others named as beneficiaries of Baathist largesse.

It's not a long piece and worth reading in full.