Monday, October 31, 2005

Molly Ivins: Speak Up

Cross-posted to Blogmeister USA.

Last Thursday, Molly Ivins spoke at the Shubert Theater in New Haven about the loss of freedom Americans are experiencing. She discusses the story of her brother-in-law's mother, a 102-year-old woman escaping from Katrina who was searched at the airport.

Because she had a one-way ticket," Ivins said, "she was pulled aside for a full search. My brother-in-law is watching his bewildered, blind, 102-year-old mother going through this.

"She was saying, 'You want me to put my feet where?' and 'I can't raise my arms that high.' She was getting really upset.

"But my brother-in-law was thinking, 'I know if I speak up, it could get worse.' So he held his tongue."

I agree: it's ludicrous that this woman was searched. But if the left wasn't so adamantly against racial profiling, airport security wouldn't be going after grannies in wheelchairs and babies in strollers. By worrying about "offending" a particular group of people who fit the description of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks (and other terrorist attacks around the world), then the rest of us are going to be inconvenienced.

During the evening, Ivins claimed many are being accused of being "unpatriotic" and that she, in particular, was accused of "treason," and that many are "intimidated" by the "patriotic bully." And of course, she got the obligatory swipe in at Bush's intelligence.

Ivins, who knew Bush casually when they both spent their youths in Texas, licked her chops when somebody in the audience submitted a question asking: "Is he as dopey as he appears?"

"He's not actively stupid," she replied. "He doesn't react well to stress. He's limited."

Tee hee. Questioning her patriotism is off-limits, but it's not off-limits for her to call the right "patriotic bullies" and infer that the president is a doofus extraordinaire. She must be really subdued by the opposition.

If so many people are intimidated, as Ivins says they are, why are there so many like her able to talk about the so-called intimidation? Actor Tim Robbins spoke of a "chill wind" at the National Press Club luncheon a couple of years back. Actor Martin Sheen marched in a demonstration with tape over his mouth. Were Ivins, Robbins or Sheen tossed into jail for disagreeing with the current administration? Not to my knowledge.

When conservatives disagree with the left, the left cries that they are being oppressed and bullied, and that their patriotism is being questioned. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Oh, some of us definitely question their patriotism. However, the claim that they're being oppressed is nonsense. If you want to know about oppression, check out the policies of China, North Korea and Iran regarding political dissenters.

Besides, I'm not so sure I want to take the word of someone accused of plagiarism .

Alito Attacks Beginning on Left

Bill Scher at the HuffPo begins a salvo on an abortion case.

The opinion that people will focus on the most was his desire to uphold a spousal notification provision in a PA abortion law that severely restricted reproductive freedom.

Most will look at his opinion to indicate opposition to Roe, and they should. But fundamentally, it was an opinion that was dismissive of women's independence.

The vast majority of married women already discuss abortion decisions with their husbands, they don't need a law to force them to do so. But there are situations where a married woman would not want to, such as when she is mired in an abusive relationship, or if the marriage is fraying and near its end.

At issue was a Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement prior to a woman having an abortion. Patterico points out that the notification requirement was not terribly onerous:


...[T]he spousal notification provision at issue did not give the husband a veto power. Rather, a married woman simply had to certify (through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions, including:

(1) [The husband] is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) [the woman seeking an abortion] has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.

Note that Scher's hypothetical (when she is mired in an abusive relationship, or if the marriage is fraying and near its end) was already covered under Exception 4. So essentially he's lying in an effort to smear Alito.

This gets to one of the thorny problems of abortion rights. If a woman becomes pregnant and brings the baby to term, the husband/boyfriend/sperm donor is on the hook for 18 years of child support. Ask a feminist about this and they'll tell you, tough luck, he made his choice when he had sex without a condom. Of course, the same equally applies to women seeking abortions; apparently they are the only ones who have a second chance.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

LLP Readership Survey

The week President Bush announced Miers to SCOTUS, our daily unique visitor readership fell from around 800 to the mid-500s. Last week, our readership went back up to the mid-700s. What do you think explains this bump?

1. Renewed interest by conservatives to read blogs in general after "Katrina/Miers depression?"

2. Renewed interest by liberals to read conservative blogs to watch the conservative "crack-up?"

3. Renewed interest by LLP bloggers to post more frequently on intersting issues due to "Katrina/Miers depression"/conservative "crack-up?"

4. Global Warming

5. All of the above?

6. None of the above? (provide your belief in the comments)

This article inspired the survey...

Dowd on Men

You can kind of guess how we come out before you start it, right?

It's a long one, and it's all about how it's not Dowdy Doody's fault that she's still single at age 54 (or so). There's a rather pathetic picture of her alone at the bar in fishnet stockings and red high heels that has to be seen to be believed. You can almost hear the piano in the background.

I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with young women whose job it was was to care for them and nurture them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.

You know, this isn't really that hard to figure out, Maureen. The important word in that whole paragraph is "young".

Or, as Craig Bierko, a musical comedy star and actor who played one of Carrie's boyfriends on "Sex and the City," told me, "Deep down, beneath the bluster and machismo, men are simply afraid to say that what they're truly looking for in a woman is an intelligent, confident and dependable partner in life whom they can devote themselves to unconditionally until she's 40."

Well, you go around asking cast members of "Sex and the City" and you'll probably come up with a good anti-male quote, and Bierko delivers. But I disagree about the "until she's 40" part. Most men (Hollywood stars like Michael Douglas aside) don't abandon their women. In fact, I'd suspect that most divorces at that age are initiated by women.

And note that despite the focus of the column being about how men should start marrying up, we never hear anything about Dowd herself looking down for men? Oh, we do get one anecdote about how one guy wanted to ask her out but was too intimidated because she was a goddess at the New York Times. But we don't get any sense that this was anything Dowd was really interested in except as an example for her book.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

SO, WHO WAS NOVAK’S SOURCE?

"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally, outed a covert agent. We have not charged that." - Patrick Fitzgerald, Justice Department Special Counsel

Color me confused, because I'm still not clear what Libby supposedly did. Besides, Valerie Plame wasn't "covert."

* Obstruction for What?

Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.
...
The indictment itself contains no motive. And Mr. Libby is not alleged to have been the source for Robert Novak's July2003 column, in which Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was revealed.
Rather, according to the indictment,Mr. Libby did a little digging, found out who Joe Wilson's wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak's column had run. What's more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn't tell a grand jury and the FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.

* John Podhoretz sums it up nicely:
Scooter Libby was not charged with the misuse of that information, or with the unlawful exposure of an undercover agent, or with involvement in a conspiracy to reveal her identity. He is, it is worth repeating, charged only with lying about his knowledge of it.

* Same Media Pounding Cheney Over Libby Yawned At Al Gore's Convicted Fundraiser

* L'Affaire Libby could start a trend. Got a beef with your spouse, neighbor, boss, or even a mere stranger? Then E-indictments are for you!

Friday, October 28, 2005

Fair Assessment by a Democrat

From Senator Lieberman:

When the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States is indicted in a criminal case, it is a sad day in the history of our government. While it is important to remember that an indictment is not a conviction, these charges are extremely serious. Our national security, intelligence protocols to protect covert agents and classified information must be protected. Witnesses under oath and in legal proceedings must tell the truth and be held accountable if they do not. The public’s confidence in government has been damaged by this matter and it must be restored. For this reason, Mr. Libby’s resignation is appropriate and necessary.

This indictment is about serious violations of law. It is not about partisan politics or the war in Iraq. Whatever our party affiliation or opinion on the war, we all agree that perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to a grand jury are inexcusable criminal acts. That is where our shared focus should be so that today’s indictment does not become one more cause of debilitating political divisiveness in our government.

Precisely.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

King Kong--King Dud?

OK, time for some fluff. Who wants to see the upcoming King Kong movie?


Variety quotes a bigwig from Universal as saying it's "brilliant." Well of course she'll say that...she wants people to buy tickets. After all, it's costing $207 million to make and distribute. That's a lot of shamoola.

Still, I'm leery of any movie remake, especially a movie that is already a classic in its own right. Think of all the rehashes we've seen in the past couple of years: the Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Honeymooners, Charlie's Angels, Bewitched, and so on. Can't Hollywood come up with any new ideas?

And, three hours of a big ape climbing the Empire State Building being buzz bombed by airplanes sounds rather tedious. (Speaking of apes around the Empire State Building, I saw a guy in a gorilla suit running around near the main entrance to the ESB last week...some kind of promotional thing. Wish I'd had a camera.)

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. And King Kong is pretty big. Does anyone out there want to see it? Do you think my prediction is off base?

Miers Roundup

Kitty: I know many feel as though the conservatives won, and maybe we have, but we also lost something in the process, too. I was neither for nor against Harriet Miers because I didn't know her. I was appalled by the knee-jerk reaction by the conservatives, which did nothing for Bush and smeared Miers in the process. Their reaction was instant and severe even though they knew relatively nothing about her, and it fed into the ongoing left-wing anti-Bush feeding frenzy. Pam said it best:

You know, all of those Republicans and conservatives who declare that a nominee should be afforded the dignity of a straight up-or-down Senate vote after a timely confirmation hearing really need to check their double standards list. I'm just disgusted with the whole affair.

---

Pat: I hope that now the Miers nomination has been scuttled that we Republicans can "all just get along". We also need to be prepared for the onslaught on the new nominee, who will be blasted by the Democrats and their friends in the media as a sell-out to the "extremist wing" of the party. The Democrats are already sowing the seeds for this with their comments about how religious fundamentalists were responsible for the uprising. This is completely untrue; in fact many Christian Conservatives were among Miers' most enthusiastic backers, while largely secular conservatives like NRO and George Will were opposed. But of course that something is untrue will not prevent them from saying it.

Let Them Gloat

Democrats are out in force talking about the FAR RIGHT WING influencing the president.

They will eat those words when Bush nominates a judicial conservative and the NARAL, PFAW and Moveon.org types lose their collective minds.

Miers Withdrawl

I hope that conservatives remain respectful of an accomplished attorney who serves our president dutifully; gloating is not appropriate.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

And in Other News…

With all the excitement about possible indictments of White House bigwigs, the "milestone" death in Iraq, and Janet Jackson denying the existence of a secret child from her brief marriage to James DeBarge back in 1984, here's a tidbit that got left by the wayside:


A federal judge upheld the conviction of terror lawyer Lynne Stewart yesterday, finding that a juror who said she was scared into voting guilty is not believable.

The defense had argued for a new trial based on a letter from the anonymous juror — written six weeks after the trial — claiming she was terrorized into agreeing to the conviction and had feared for her life.

Judge John Koeltl found there was not enough proof that the juror was actually intimidated.

Stewart faces up to 30 years in prison for providing material support to terrorists and filing false statements while she represented blind terror Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Stewart has claimed she was only engaged in "zealous representation" of her client and was constitutionally protected when she issued public statements on his behalf.

But Koeltl said the cleric used his communications from prison to participate in a terrorist conspiracy.

Hmmm...nothing on her support Website as of this writing.

Sentencing is set for December 22. See you in court, counselor.

“Culture of Corruption and Cronyism”

The CIA tells the president that it is a SLAM DUNK that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

A woman sends her husband to Niger to refute CIA claims. He comes back and files an oral report stating that Iraq did not BUY uranium from Niger.

He then pens columns in the New York Times saying that VP Cheney sent him to Iraq knowing his wife did; he also split hairs knowing that Iraq tried to acquire uranium but the "transaction" did not take place.

The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bi-partisan report stating that he was a liar.

If nothing define's the new Democratic mantra of "corruption and cronyism" more than a man who went to Niger at the recommendation of his wife then lies repeatedly, I don't know what does.

But again, if members of the administration broke the law in exposing this "culture of corruption and cronyism" and/or broke the law during the investigation: then they should be tried, convicted and spend long years in prison.

EUTHANIZE THE SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM

"Health care is too expensive, so the Clinton administration is putting a high-powered corporate lawyer -- Hillary -- in charge of making it cheaper. (This is what I always do when I want to spend less money -- hire a lawyer from Yale.) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Canadian health-care system is ailing

Canada's health care, held by American supporters of single payer health care as a model our country should follow, isnt working, and Canada's highest court recognized that in a recent landmark decision.
Heres what happened: Told that he would have to wait a year for surgery to replace his painful, arthritic hip, 73-year-old George Zeliotis of Quebec decided to pay for the procedure himself. But Zeliotis was shocked to learn that its against the law in Canada to get private medical care.
In fact,according to the Pacific Research Institute, Canada, Cuba and North Korea are the only countries that ban private health care, whereas countries like France and Switzerland allow their citizens to purchase supplemental health insurance on the open market.
...
The [Canadian] Supreme Court made it clear: Canada must either provide workable health care or allow a private system that does.
...
Following the spectacular failure of the massive, national government-run health-care proposal dubbed Hillary Care, activists changed tactics and are working to dismantle Americas health-care system one piece at a time. Even now, California lawmakers are expected to approve a state-run system of single-payer, universal health care.

DEAD MEAT: The video about the Canadian health care system.

Harriet Miers Couldn’t Even Write This Stuff

Notice Jake Gyllenhaal's brilliance when answering a simple question about the upcoming movie Brokeback Mountain:

Latino Review: Are you nervous about doing the role, since it’s a love story about two men?

Jake: I’m nervous more about, the movie is about identity and about figuring out your identity and that I’m more scared about facing then I am about, you know, the, I think the secondary part of it which is that it is a story, you know a love story between two guys. That doesn’t really, look, you do a love scene in any movie it’s uncomfortable and it’s, you know, pretty asexual no matter what, and if you do get off on doing a love story, a love scene in a movie you should figure some stuff out.

The next question is the obvious one:


LR: What do you mean by that?

Jake: I don’t know, just ‘cause it’s very perverse and weird. It’s like tons of people are watching you, and it’s not real and it’s a very intimate thing that you’re faking intimacy in a weird way, you know? That’s always the place where it doesn’t have to be anything really. What has to happen—what has to make it something are the scenes before and after it. That’s what makes it that, I think, intimate...

What did you mean by that? His answer: I don't know. At least he's honest about it. Also, notice he believes that gay love scenes are "perverse and weird." Don't forget he is a BIG-HEARTED LIBERAL!

Gyllenhaal for Senate! Miers for SCOTUS!

USA Today Goes too Far

They are messing with my girl!

When will they learn that they JUST CAN'T GET AWAY WITH THIS STUFF ANYMORE. Bloggers rule the day.


vs.

Malkin has the roundup.