Friday, October 01, 2004

Hysterical, Dead-on Brilliance

For those of you unfamiliar with the work of Lileks, I highly recommend it. This may be the funniest breakdown of the debate and Kerry's desire for summits ever. Here's an excerpt...

I hate the debates. I have a vision of 65 million undecided Americans tuning in and making a snap judgment for all the wrong reasons. Wow, he pounded the podium to emphasize each word - but the other guy pounded each syllable. What’s this about sealing Fallujer? Is it leaking? Did they have a flood?

But mostly I hate the debates because I simply cannot abide hearing certain statements I’ve been hearing over, and over, and over again. I can’t take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin’nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galactic Order of the Belgian Dominion? Did we piss off the Vulcans? Who? If we mean “France and Germany,” then please explain to me why the reluctant participation of these two countries somehow bestows the magic kiss of legitimacy. They want in? Fine. They don’t? Fine. At this point mooning over France is like being that sophomore loser dorm pal who spent his dateless weekends telling his loser roommate about a high school sweetheart who stood him up for the prom. Give it up. Move on. I understand; they are wise and nuanced, we are young and dumb. We’re the cowboy leaning with his back against the bar, elbows on the rail, watching the door; we need our European betters to teach us how to ape the subtle forms of Nijinsky, limbs arrayed in the exquisite form of the Dying Swan. Understood. But I don’t want to be the Dying Swan. And I don’t want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks.

...Germany? Whatever.

And it took lots of dead Americans to be able to say that.

Also dead Russians. Is Russia the great ally we’ve dissed? If we invite Russia to help, then we have to tell them things. I don’t want to tell them things. At least as they relate to the battlefield.

Perhaps the “ally” is that big blue wobbly mass known as the UN, that paragon of moral clarity, that conscience of the globe. You want to really anger a UN official? Tow his car. Short of that you can get away with anything. (Sudan is on the human rights commission, to cite a prominent and amusing detail. It’s like putting Tony Soprano on the New Jersey Waste Management Regulation Board.) I don’t worry that the UN is angry with us. I’d be worried if they weren’t. And I find it interesting that someone who would complain about outsourcing peevishly notes that we hired HALLIBURTON to do the work instead of throwing buckets of billions to French and German contractors who sold them the jets and built the bunkers.

I’ve been hearing this shite for years! That’s why I can’t stand the debates! ENOUGH WITH FRANCE AND GERMANY!

(pause; huffing into a plastic bag to restore blood chemistry)

And another thing: the idea of a summit with the Muslim world doesn’t particularly billow my sails, either.

So Osama is using our invasion of Iraq to recruit new troops? First of all, you know this how? We have a tape of OBL holding up a copy of 2004 TV Guide Fall Season edition to verify the date, declaring a new and improved jihad? Second, do you think a summit in which the various satrapies of the Middle East and elsewhere convene for a marathon bitchfest about Gaza is going to make America beloved in Sadr City? They want us to extend a hand, yes, so they can lop it off. Ah, but what of the moderates. Those who have been turned against us because we threw out the Taliban and deposed Saddam – the relentlessly secular Saddam, as we’re often reminded. If it hasn’t occurred to these folks before, let me spell it out plainly: if you think there’s a war against Muslims now, you lack a certain sense of perspective. If tiptoeing around sacred sites and taking special care to pick off the snipers hiding in mosques so as not to disturb the plaster is a war against Islam, you will be looking for new terms when Putin drops a big bag of hammers somewhere someday. Surely the alienated moderates must be asking: the United States could destroy the madmen, completely. Yet they do not. Why?

Good question, eh?

So no, I’m not enthused about a summit, unless we get to set the agenda. Item one: get over the frickin’ Jews, people. They’re not going anywhere, and if they do they’re taking all of you with them. Item two: You poke the hornet’s nest one more time and the skies of Tehran and Riyahd will darken with 747s, which will disgorge a fleet of Jeeps. We will ride around with bullhorns and announce that all women are free to leave, with their children, so they can live in a society where they get to show some shin without having some gynophobic wanker whip them with sticks. Your choice! Madrassas and no women, or a live-and-let-live world with women, and cable TV and the odd cold beer now and then, if you like. Beer will not be mandatory. We’re not the sort of people who impose beer on the unwilling. But you know, on 9/111 we recognized the downside of coexisting with societies that want to hang people for having a Pabst after a hot day. Your choice. Item three: we’re going to play a video of the events of 9/11. And then we’ll have a discussion. We’re willing to entertain all sorts of commentary, with one proviso: the moment you use the word “but,” you’re escorted from the building and put back on a plane home. You can never come to the US again. Your nice condo in the new Trump building will be sold for five dollars to a nice Jewish lesbian couple we met the other day at parent’s night at our school in Park Slope. One’s an artist, the other’s a lawyer.

...So, I get it. We are wrong and bad and stupid and stupidly wrong-bad. We failed to make France act as though it wasn’t, you know, France, a militarily insignificant nation that is understandably motivated by self-interest, and we haven’t convened a summit so we could be castigated for ignoring the extralegal use of Israeli helicopters to turn Hamas kingpins into indistinct red smears. You’d think we nuked Paris and converted everyone to Lutheranism.

Here’s the thing. I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.

I'm not sure anyone's expressed it better. Read the whole thing. Then send it to ten friends. Especially the last paragraph from the excerpt.

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

So we went to grab a little quality sushi for lunch (and by the way, there is a dearth of good sushi in DC). And of course, this means subjecting ourselves to the usual: the musical tastes of the folks behind the counter.

Luckily, they were playing one of the greatest songs of the 1980's, at least in my demented mind. I'm reasonably certain most people would disagree. But the thought of people who spent much of their time acting producing albums always cracks me up. The '80's were very good to us in this sense -- we got Eddie Murphy and Patrick Swayze songs in the top ten, for crying out loud.

And then there's quasi-rock star Rick Springfield, who's got the best song of a former General Hospital star ever (edging both Jack Wagner and Ricky Martin... yes, these are facts I really should not know). And if you don't know what I'm talking about... it's time for a little bit of "Jesse's Girl."
Jessie is a friend
Yeah, I know he’s been a good friend of mine
But lately something’s changed that ain’t hard to define

Jessie’s got himself a girl and I wanna make her mine
And she’s watchin’ him with those eyes
And she’s lovin’ him with that body, I just know it
And he’s holding her in his arms late, late at night

You know I wish that I had Jessie’s girl
I wish that I had Jessie’s girl
Where can I find a woman like that

I play along with the charade
That doesn’t seem to be a reason to change
You know I feel so dirty when they start talkin’ cute

I wanna tell her that I love her, but the point is probably moot
‘Cause she’s watchin’ him with those eyes
And she’s lovin’ him with that body, I just know it
And he’s holding her in his arms late, late at night

You know I wish that I had Jessie’s girl
I wish that I had Jessie’s girl
Where can I find a woman like that

Like Jessie’s girl
I wish that I had Jessie’s girl
Where can I find a woman
Where can I find a woman like that?


You're welcome.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

The Debate

Well, it was definitely a debate.

Impressions from tonight are easy. Conclusions are not.

First of all, Kerry looked better simply by showing up and not stumbling over himself. He should get a bounce simply because he was up there trying to look Presidential. To some degree, he succeeded.

Bush got thrown off by Kerry a lot more than he ever did by Gore. I think the level of personal animus between these two was evident for much of the debate -- these two guys really dislike one another. Bush bristled a lot more early before settling down nicely.

Kerry wears badly on people during the course of the debate -- there's only so much attacking you can do during a debate before people start looking for solutions rather than more criticism. He's strong on his theme, but he's still an annoying guy. A lot of lecturing early on, followed by some pretty good, realxed lines, and then a drop off at the end.

Kerry had a good response on the $87 billion line, except he didn't respond to the actual issue of his vote. Bush should have followed up on it. At the same time, am I the only one who found it surreal to watch Kerry arguing for unilateral talks with North Korea while Bush is arguing for multi-lateral discussions?

Bush has a smirk. So does Kerry. A draw there, except that we've had four years to get used to Bush's smirk. Kerry's is a little weird -- it reminds me of the tight smile you get from a boss who's trying to fake a smile for a client (not that I've ever seen anything likke that from any of my bosses).

The debate was strong on policy differences, but it missed a lot of substance. I blame Lehrer a little bit for that -- I thought some of the questions were silly and stuck on personal issues.

Darfur -- sadly, no one will care about it. And both guys have the same reaction, and they're both wrong. Bush should have said we should be doing more, and waiting around for the U.N. to start taking action, as Kerry would like to have done on Iraq and in other places, leads to a hell of a lot of death.

North Korea... I keep returning to this because it was the most substantive part of the debate. And they still missed the main point -- I mean, why did we go with Clinton's idiotic pact in 1994?
And finally, Iraq. We had a pretty clear demonstration that these guys have differing views on the issue. I still don't know what Kerry will do differently, except talk to people at a summit. I'm not sure what that will do, but who am I to look for substance at this point?

Bottom line, Kerry probably helped himself tonight. Bush missed a chance to land a knockout blow early. But Kerry missed a chance to grab the upper ground -- perhaps it's just his weakness as a candidate. Kerry did look like a President tonight. But he didn't blow anyone away. I think kerry probably solidified his base. But I don't know if folks will change their mind too much at this point.

Labels:

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Senator Condiment finally explained his line about voting for the $87 billion appropriation for the troops in Iraq, before voting against it (the more times we read that, the less sense it makes). Here's what he said on Good Morning America yesterday, as noted by Powerline...
"It was a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those moments late in the evening when I was tired in the primaries and didn't say something clearly. But it reflects the truth of the position, which is, I thought, to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden of paying for that war. It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted."

I have no clue how this qualifies as a protest, but maybe it's all part of the Kerry motif regarding Vietnam; he was protesting then, and he's still protesting today. Fine and good. Except for one thing -- here's the original statement, from the Washington Post back in March...
But the Democrat -- whom Bush has criticized for taking both sides of difficult issues -- offered a less-than-crisp statement defending the nuances of his position.

"I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it," he told a group of veterans at a noontime appearance at Marshall University.

Note the Post's statement -- this was a noontime appearance. Kerry's now changing day to night -- perhaps he has mysitcal powers or something.

Well, it was the day before St. Patrick's Day. Maybe the Senator just got an early start.

Labels:

CBS Goes Fake but Accurate, Yet Again

For those of you wondering, CBS News is now officially around the bend. The other night, they ran the following story, "Reviving the Draft" on the Evening News...
Beverly Cocco has spent most of her life protecting children in Philadelphia. She spends most of her time worrying about other people's kids.

But as Election Day approaches, it's her own two grown sons who Beverly is most worried about. "I go to bed every night and I pray and I actually get sick to my stomach," she says. "I'm very worried; I'm scared. I'm absolutely scared; I'm petrified."

Beverly is petrified about a military draft – and she's not alone. There's an undercurrent of anxiety; mass e-mails are circulating among parents worried their kids could be called up. "I think there's a good possibility," Beverly says.

But neither President Bush, nor Sen. John Kerry has said he will re-institute the draft. In fact they both say they won't. Kerry says, "I will give us a foreign policy that absolutely makes it unnecessary to have a draft for this country." Kerry says he'll try to get allies of the U.S. to send troops that could relieve American soldiers.

The Bush campaign says expecting great numbers of foreign troops to help out is pure fantasy. The president wants to train more Iraqi troops to take over for the Americans. And, he says, despite the war on terror, there will be no draft. "The war on terror will continue," says the president. "It's going to take a while and no, we don't need a draft."

But Beverly's not buying it. She's a Republican, but also a single-issue voter.

Would she vote for a Democrat? "Absolutely," she says. "I would vote for Howdy Doody if I thought it would keep my boys home and safe." In fact, there are at least three votes in this house riding on the draft: Beverly's and her sons' Carmen and Nick.

Are her sons worried about being drafted? "Yeah," says Nick. "It's the talk; the talk's there. Though people aren't actually coming out and saying it, it's there."


I heard the other day, on a street corner here in DC, that Martians are planning to invade on October 1st. And that's about as likely as the draft. Best of all, CBS reported no facts in the story.

But CBS considers this a news story, which is absurd and yet again more proof that the network news has gone off the deep end. Ratherbiased.com debunked the story quickly, before going down from too much traffic hitting the server. But Little Green Footballs and Powerline both saved the work for us...

In a story that was a textbook example of slipshod reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails and an unlabeled interest group member to scare elderly “Evening” viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft.

At the center of Schlesinger’s piece was a woman named Beverly Cocco, a Philadelphia woman who is “sick to my stomach” that her two sons might be drafted. In his report, Schlesinger claimed that Cocco was a Republican and portrayed her as an apolitical (even Republican) mom worried about the future.

Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is
a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal proscription, seeks to establish a “peaceful, rational foreign policy” by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Like Schlesinger’s Cocco, the group portrays itself as “nonpartisan” although its leadership seems to be entirely bereft of any Republicans.

The group’s domain is registered to a man named Jacob Levich, a left-wing activist who in
a 2001 essay compared the Bush Administration to the totalitarian government portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984.
Oh, yeah, CBS might have wanted to mention that in the original report. Instead, they revised the transcript of the report later, as LGF points out. The Annenberg Center (non-partisan, we might add) already de-bunked this story. But it gets even worse, as INDC Journal interviewed folks from CBS News, among them the reporter on the piece (Richard Schlesinger) and the producer (Linda Karas). Their rationale for the story is even funnier...

INDC: "First of all, what motivated CBS News to run this story?"

Schlesinger: "The point of the piece was taking look at issues through the eyes of people who feel that those issues are the most important ... in the campaign. People who are vitally concerned. We've done many of these stories on many topics. I did another one around affordable housing ... and minimum wage, for example."

INDC: "A lot of people have a
problem with this issue though, because it's specifically something that's been used by the Kerry campaign as a recent talking point. Did this influence ..."

Schlesinger: "No, it was an issue because it was out there. There are issues that we choose to do stories on ... I specifically said in the story, 'both candidates have said they would not support a reinstatement of the draft.'"

INDC: "Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they've been
debunked on various internet sites long ago ..."

Schlesinger: "The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it’s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there’s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think there’s going to be a draft? No. But it's an issue that people are talking about."

INDC: "Where did you get the e-mails? Were they sent to you?"

Schlesinger: "A friend of mine got the e-mails and forwarded them to me."

INDC: "Ok, another complaint regards the testimony from Beverly Cocco. Some people are pointing out that she's a chapter president for an advocacy group called
People Against the Draft, that seems to have a clearly anti-war position. How did you choose her?"

Schlesinger: "Long story short, she’s a Republican. When we put the story together, I went looking for a Republican. We worked backwards from the e-mail, that’s how we found her. She told me that she was going to vote for Bush, though she said she may flip-flop."

...To round out CBS's perspective on the story, I then spoke to Linda Karas, the CBS News Producer that oversaw the creation of the segment.

INDC: "Why did you choose the story?"

Karas: "It’s an issue that voters are talking about."

INDC: "Ok, the e-mails in the story have been criticized because they've been debunked online for some time, why did you use them?"

Karas: "The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It’s a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail."

INDC: "But what about Ms. Cocco? What about her affiliation with this group,
People Against the Draft, that has an explicit goal of enacting a 'peaceful, rational foreign policy' that wants to bring U.S. troops out of Iraq?"

Karas: "I know that she’s affiliated with the group, and what her views are on the draft, and that’s what I was interested in. I was looking for a character that has a personal story that might be affected by the issue. And to be honest, I was looking for a Republican. I e-mailed several groups that deal with this issue, and she was the woman who responded that fit the profile and was the most interesting voice, because this is a woman with two sons ... and she is concerned about the issue. If I had some rampant leftist on there, what would you say?"
The best line is Karas' line -- the truth of the e-mails was absolutely irrelevant to the piece. Are they going to run reports next on Nigerians looking for help with obtaining a large sum of money from a bank account? If they had taken the time to actually state that the e-mails themselves are wrong, perhaps they'd have an actual story.

Or maybe this is the actual story that they should discover -- John Kerry's plan for a draft. No, I'm serious. We're not just talking about the bill before Congress, that was proposed by two Democrats, Sen. Fritz Hollings and Rep. Charlie Rangel. No, Kerry has a plan for a draft -- Swimming Through the Spin and Captain's Quarters provide the details. As Ed Morrissey at Captains Quarters noted...

But lost in the shuffle until now is John Kerry's proposal to require service for high-school graduation, found by Swimming Through The Spin. Brian found the original web page archived, as somehow this proposal has been mysteriously deleted from the John Kerry website. Since the Democrats brought this up, what exactly are the plans for American youth under a Kerry/Edwards administration?

As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.

The more expansive PDF of Kerry's plan doesn't detail how the mandatory high-school service is supposed to work, nor does it clearly explain how they plan to pay for four years of college tuition for the 500,000 students per year they expect to put through this program, other than closing a loophole that allows lenders on student loans to keep extra interest paid. If a "typical public university" charges $5,000 per year for tuition -- a rather moderate amount these days -- then just the cost for the first year alone will be $10 billion, not the $12 billion over 10 years that Kerry claims. ($20,000 times 500,000 students = $10 billion.)
Great -- Kerry's flip-flopped again. Does someone have a tote board around here somewhere? At least this plan was more detailed than the four point proposal for getting out of Iraq. Of course, it was also fiscally nutty, but we'll ignore that for now.

You know what's sad? A bunch of guys on the Internet not only debunked this story in one day, but they also found an angle worth pursuing that CBS totally missed. And CBS "News" can't do the same. Maybe we shouldn't blame Dan Rather. Maybe they just lack standards in general.

Talk About a Lack of Confidence

Jim Geraghty at the Kerry Spot mentions this e-mail from the DNC, which is so perverse it's hysterical...


The DNC is distributing an e-mail:

Dear [e-mail recipient],

Tonight, don't let George Bush's henchmen steal another victory. We need your online help immediately after the debate, so save this email, print it out, and have it ready with you as you watch the first Presidential debate tonight.

We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to let that happen again, and you will play a big role.

Immediately after the debate, we need you to do three things: vote in online polls, write a letter to the editor, and call in to talk radio programs. Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the difference.

Vote

National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions.

...Write

Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the editor of your local paper. If you feel John Kerry commanded the debate and had a clear plan for fixing the mess in Iraq, put it in your letter. If you feel George Bush dodged tough questions on Iraq and didn't level with voters, put it in your letter.

...Call

Do you listen to national or local call-in shows on the radio? How about on TV? Call them and let them know what you thought of John Kerry's plan to keep America secure and George Bush's continuing refusal to admit the truth about his record.

...2. Make your voice heard!

Don't forget to visit our 2004 Debate Center before, during, and after the debate for important information, including questions Bush must answer, a Bush/Kerry contrast on keeping America safe, and Bush Debate Bingo, a game you can play with friends during the debate.

...And after the debate, check your email for a very special message.

Thank you, Terry McAuliffe, Chairman

...PS: Make sure to forward this email to at least 10 other people who will be watching the debate. Also, give printed out copies to your friends, family members, coworkers and neighbors and get them involved.
I love the revisionist history that Al Gore won the first 2000 debate "on the issues" but only lost because the GOP did a better job of spin. But beyond that, I'm now convinced that the media and the Democrats will be spinning a "comeback Kerry" story by the end of the day tomorrow, no matter what happens during the debate. Whether such a result will conflict with reality remains to be seen. The funniest idea is someone actually uncovering a "clear plan" from John Kerry for Iraq.

One other thing. I haven't gotten such an e-mail from Ed Gillespie or Ken Mehlman yet. Maybe the GOP figures its supporters actually like their candidate, while the Democrats just want to blast George Bush.

Sequel? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Sequel

The Lord of Truth tells us that Mel Brooks wants to piss away his legacy...
In a Q&A with Playbill magazine, Mel Brooks says that he's currently working on a Spaceballs sequel.

...Playbill: Will you have a role in it?

MB: It's doubtful, but I'm writing myself back into the Spaceballs sequel that I'm now writing, so you haven't seen the last of my face. Why another Spaceballs? It wouldn't feel right have anyone else play Yoghurt and the first one was the best experience I've had making a movie since Blazing Saddles.

Well, it can't be worse than what George Lucas has done with his work.

Maybe Oprah Should Give Her a Free Brain

Cameron Diaz, on the Oprah Winfrey Show...
After a discussion with Oprah on lynching and the vote, Diaz spoke of the dire consequences for women if they sit out this election:

Ms. DIAZ: We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the...

WINFREY: It's your voice.


It's your voice. Unfortunately, it's not connected to a brain.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

You know, we really haven't paid enough attention to our old pal John Edwards, the Fallout Boy to Kerry's Radioactive Man (and if, you didn't think the Oompa Loompa look isn't radioactive, you need help). Then again, you'd need a microscope to find him on the campaign trail. But here's a small sampling of his visit to the Garden State, courtesy of PoliticsNJ.com...
Concrete proof that things had gone off schedule -- badly -- at today’s much-hyped rally for John Edwards came at about 5:15 P.M. when, with the Democratic vice-presidential candidate already over hour late an and still nowhere in sight, Sharpe James was called from the audience to the stage, from whence he relayed a story about a chicken and a pig.

It was a funny tale that was made only more flavorful by the Newark mayor’s inimitable delivery, but it also sent a message: Edwards was behind schedule and the Democrats were scrambling to kill time. And that’s not something you want to be doing at a carefully-orchestrated media event at the peak of campaign season-- especially when the event is taking place in a state that your party already stands accused of taking for granted.

The 1,000 or so Kerry-Edwards loyalists who had overstuffed a ballroom at the Robert Treat hotel in downtown Newark had been advised to arrive at 3:00, with Edwards's slated to appear at 4:00. It’s customary for politicians to be late, and when Bonnie Watson Coleman, the Democratic state chairman, grabbed the microphone to quiet the crowd at 4:30, the faithful were simply revved up for some old-fashioned rally-the-base rhetoric.

Watson Coleman had no trouble delivering the red meat, and had Edwards taken the stage immediately after her warm-up act, his visit today likely would have been a rousing success. But he was nowhere near.

...When all of the bodies on the stage had apparently been exhausted, Watson Coleman handed the microphone off to Secretary of State Regena Thomas, who, from somewhere in the sea of Democrats on the floor, proceeded to spend fifteen minutes exhorting the audience to join her in increasingly bizarre chants.

...At about 5:50, a woman named Kristen Breitweiser was introduced. A 9/11 widow who has been traveling with Edwards, Breitweiser, in a measured but nonetheless emotional voice, charged the GOP with politicizing the terrorist attacks at their convention and chided the Bush administration for fighting the creation of the 9/11 commission. Antsy and irritated moments before, the crowd was transfixed

It prompted one reporter to wonder, “Why didn’t the Democrats have her at their convention?” But when Breitweiser finished, there was still no vice-presidential candidate, and the exodus resumed.

It wasn’t until 6:15, when members of the national press corps assigned to Edwards's campaign trooped into the press area and the candidate’s Secret Service detail took its position, that it was clear Edwards had arrived.

By that time at least twenty percent of the original crowd was no longer present, and, after standing for so long, much of the enthusiasm had been drained from those who remained. A number of state Democratic dignitaries, including Codey, had to leave because of other commitments.

Edwards uttered his first word to the audience at 6:22 -- nearly two-and-a-half hours after he was originally supposed to start -- and then spent twenty minutes warmly reciting his stump speech.

It didn’t go off without a hitch, though. Spotting Breitweiser behind him on the stage, he called the 9/11 widow forward and began to tell her story to the audience. “I’m going to let you hear from her in a few minutes,” the North Carolina senator said in his syrupy southern drawl.

“We have!” the crowd shouted back in unison.


Well, at least they can't lose New Jersey. As far as we know.

In case you thought we would ignore Ketchup Boy, here's his interview with Dianne Sawyer this morning on Good Morning America, cortesy of Powerline and Polipundit...

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.


She doesn't need to twist, Senator -- you're doing all the twisting we could hope for, and you're not even windsurfing.

Again, Kerry is torturing us with semantics because he can't find a way to admit that he has been wrong and inconsistent -- which only goes to make him look more inconsistent. There's no logic to the position that Saddam could or would have been removed by anthing save armed force -- he'd been sitting in power for over 20 years, and had basically thumbed his nose at the U.N. and the inspection process for over a decade. He takes a minimum of four different positions here -- the war was wrong, the war could be right if it was better led, the war was unneccessary to keep the pressure on Saddam, and Saddam needed to be removed. Yikes. In a span of two minutes, tops.

Again... this was the best candiate the Democrats had?

Labels:

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

Another mistake this morning. While stuck in commercials across the board on talk and sports radio, yours truly decided to flip over to the '80's station on XM Satellite Radio. And of course, I ran across a song that I hadn't heard in years. Hell, the last time I saw the artist in question, he was playing Jim Carrey's pal on the police force in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (appreciated by yours truly because it actually features my beloved Eagles playing the Dolphins in the Super Bowl).

Yup. It's Tone Loc.

Actually, this isn't completely accurate, since I have apparently seen Tone in Heat and just missed him. How could I have done that -- it's not like there were any other important actors in the movie. Maybe that Pacino guy... and that De Niro fellow. Not to mention Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Ashley Judd, Natalie Portman and Tom Sizemore. Man, I can't believe I missed Tone Loc in the credits.

Tone's acting career aside, he will always be remembered for two songs. The first was Wild Thing. The second was Funky Cold Medina, which may be one of the greatest song titles ever. The two songs sound alike (in fact, I'm betting all of his songs sound alike), but it was Funky Cold Medina that got stuck in our head this morning. So without further ado...

Cold coolin at a bar, and I'm lookin for some action
But like Mike Jagger said, I can't get no satisfaction
The girls are all around, but none of them wanna get with me
My threads are fresh and I'm lookin def, yo, what's up with L-o-c?

The girls is all jockin at the other end of the bar
Havin drinks with some no-name chump, when they know that I'm the star
So I got up and strolled over to the other side of the cantina
I asked the guy, Why you so fly? he said,

Funky Cold Medina
Funky Cold Medina

This brother told me a secret on how to get more chicks
Put a little Medina in your glass, and the girls'll come real quick
It's better than any alcohol or aphrodisiac
A couple of sips of this love potion, and she'll be on your lap

So I gave some to my dog when he began to beg
Then he licked his bowl and he looked at me and did the wild thing on my leg
He used to scratch and bite me, before he was much much meaner
But now all the poodles run to my house for the Funky Cold Medina

You know what I'm sayin?
I got every dog in my neighborhood breakin down my door
I got Spuds McKenzie
Alex from Stroh's
They won't leave my dog alone with that Medina, pal

I went up to this girl, she said, Hi, my name is Sheena
I thought she'd be good to go with a little Funky Cold Medina
She said, I'd like a drink,
I said, Ehm - ok, I'll go get it
Then a couple sips she cold licked her lips, and I knew that she was with it.

So I took her to my crib, and everything went well as planned
But when she got undressed, it was a big old mess, Sheena was a man
So I threw him out, I don't fool around with no Oscar Meyer wiener
You must be sure that the girl is pure for the Funky Cold Medina.

You know, ain't no plans with a man
This is the 80's, and I'm down with the ladies
Ya know?

Break it down

You're welcome.

Lie, Cheat & Steal?

Conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt has a book out currently entitled, "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It." Yes, the headline will strike every moderate as funny and every liberal as outrageous, but the first portion of the title is important.

Look, as far as I'm concerned, Al Gore tried to steal the 2000 election. There were enough improprieties in New Mexico and Wisconsin that Bush probably could have challenged the results in each of those states. He did not, and maybe that's the result of being the guy who was ahead. But Gore did, and he did so in a dishonest, dishonorable way, up until his fine concession speech (the last good speech we've seen from him). Did Gore lose a ridiculously close race in 2000 in Florida? Sure. And it's got to be frustrating that a consequential number of voters in Palm Beach County mistakenly cast votes for Pat Buchanan. But maybe that's what you get for courting the votes of people who have trouble deciphering a ballot and not enough diligence to ask for help. Certainly, plenty of Bush supporters in the Florida Panhandle bailed out early after the networks called Florida before the polls closed in one part of the state. I'm not going to feel sorry for either group.

But 2000 showed us what the Democrats will do to try and win an election. 2004 may show us what they're really willing to try. Jim Geraghty has three stories up in the last few day about the massive voter fraud that appears to be taking place in several key swing states, including Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Nevada. Most of these involve third-party voter registration drives where ballot forms are filled in and sent in en masse. This article from last week's Cleveland Plain Dealer is instructive...
Elections officials have said hundreds of absentee ballot applications and dozens of voter registration cards are in question. Lake County Prosecutor Charles Coulson, also involved in the probe, said the problems are more significant than originally thought.

"We've seen voter fraud before, but never on this level," Coulson said Thursday. "I grew up in Chicago and this looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s."

Lake election and law enforcement officials said their investigation is centered on absentee registration attempts by the nonpartisan NAACP's National Voter Fund and an anti-Bush, nonprofit group called Americans Coming Together, or ACT Ohio.

The National Voter Fund could not be reached Wednesday or Thursday at its Washington, D.C., offices.

A spokesman for ACT Ohio, however, said the group believed the allegations would prove groundless.

... Dunlap said the probe will include visits from detectives to addresses of the voters in question. In one other instance, an elderly nursing home resident who usually signs with an "X" appeared to have a firm, cursive signature when she registered.

"We are going to have to see who's alive and who's well," Dunlap said. "We're going to have to burn up some shoe leather."

In Summit County, meanwhile, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation has agreed to assist the Sheriff's Department in the examination of 803 suspect voter registration applications.

Bryan Williams, director of the Summit County Board of Elections, said high interest in this year's presidential election has resulted in unprecedented numbers of voter registrations, absentee ballot requests and irregular voter applications.

Williams said the suspect voter registration applications include some with nonexistent addresses while others from the same street all have the street identically misspelled.

Williams said that usually people applying to vote fill out their own cards before signing them, drawing attention to the odd fact that the street name is not spelled correctly.

Still other voter registration cards bear strikingly similar handwriting, suggesting one person submitted a group of fraudulent voter registration cards.

That's just one example, of course. The Kerry Spot articles are here, here and here. They relate similar stories in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin. Even worse, the third one notes the absentee ballot scandal from the Orlando mayoral election in Florida and how the investigation seemingly ended for no reason. Bill Hobbs has more links at his site, where he's trying to collect stories.

This is more important than simply winning the election. Look, I know the dead vote everywhere -- heck, I'm from Philly, which mysteriously had 100% + turnout in some places in 2000. But we as a country need to do more to stop this chicanery, because it undermines the country on a fundamental level. The dead shouldn't be voting. Entire phone books should not be registered by advocacy groups. And when you show up to vote, you should have an ID -- driver's license, passport or something similar with your picture on it. If not, get something. It's idiotic in this country that we need picture ID cards to purchase liquor, but some states refuse to require them to vote. Hell, you need a picture ID to enter the YMCA back in my hometown.

In the past, we put up with this crap because the tools didn't exist to stop it. Now they do -- people can publicize fraud and challenge the obscene examples, even when the press chooses to ignore them. Richard Daley's 1960 effort on behalf of Kennedy wouldn't pass muster today. A candidate might bow out gracefully (as Nixon did) but his supporters won't do so, and they shouldn't until the story is fully aired for all the world to see. And then our democracy gets a little better.

Is This in the NEA Manual?

The Lord of Truth is back, with a story that should not be read with breakfast...

A teacher is on paid administrative leave after sending a first-grader home with feces in his backpack because the boy soiled the classroom floor.

The teacher apparently was frustrated with the 6-year-old student's actions so she wrapped up the waste and sent it home with the boy Tuesday along with a note, Dallas school district spokesman Donald Claxton said.

Claxton declined to identify the teacher at Gabe P. Allen Elementary School.

"It generally appears the teacher was trying to help raise awareness with the family," Claxton said. "It's just an unfortunate incident. Unfortunately, she took this course of action."

Uh... yeah. Not a good idea. Even worse, this is not an "unfortunate incident." It's idiotic and shows a complete lack of judgment. Although as the Lord pointed out, we now have proof that the liberal crap being served our kids in school isn't fitting well with their diet. Or perhaps this "unfortunate incident" points out that our public schools can't even teach a kid the basics of life nowadays.

Note to Johnny Goblin: The last line was a joke. You know, much like public school education in the country today. Okay, that was a joke, too. We think.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

The NFL Recap, Week Three

I do these at work as part of my duties as Sports Czar, so why not share with the greater public?

Another week, another boring old recap, with more lame jokes about Dan Rather. Or so you all thought.

Nope, this week, it’s time for one of your favorite features – 20 questions about the NFL season! Yes, we realize your actual favorite feature probably involves another writer… but it’s not like we care.

Jokes aside, this primer should tell you everything you need to know about the NFL. And it’s from a totally unbiased point of view.

1. Are the Dallas Cowboys evil?

Answer: Yes, of course they are. We hear that the Cowboys are actually Communist agents. Rumor has it Bill Parcells likes to beat up senior citizens and steal from the weak and defenseless, like girlieman John Kerry. Which accounts for Dallas’ win against the Redskins Monday night.

2. We didn’t ask for Redskins abuse, although we appreciate the gratuitous shot at John Kerry. Back to the topic -- what’s the worst team in the NFL right now?

Answer: Most people would answer Arizona, but that’s not fair. The Cardinals may actually be a high school team from the Phoenix area rather than a professional franchise. No, our pick for worst team so far is Miami, which is 0-3 and has been outscored 46-23 by Tennessee, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Granted, the team has been dealing with Old Testament-style rains throughout their home state, but we’re reasonably confident this team would stink no matter what the weather.

3. Why isn’t Tampa Bay the worst team instead?

Answer: Good point. At this point, if we combined the offenses of Tampa Bay and Miami, we would still have less talent than the cast of ABC’s Desperate Housewives. Let’s just say any pro football teams south of Jacksonville should probably be replaced by one of Florida’s college teams.

4. Speaking of Jacksonville, how are they 3-0?

Answer: We don’t really know. Voodoo, perhaps? The Jaguars have scored 35 points in three games and have won two of their three games with scores in the final 20 seconds. Clearly, we’re looking at the NFL’s biggest surprise, unless you count the fact that Seattle opted to continue wearing those monochrome uniforms.

5. Hey – how about Seattle? Aren’t they the best team in the league?

Answer: Beating up on San Francisco 34-0 does not really impress us – we saw flag football teams on the mall that might have posed tougher competition. The Seahawks are a good team, but they haven’t really been tested yet. Like Britney’s marriage, we’re going have to wait and see if this is real.

6. Well, what about the defending champions? Aren’t the Patriots the best team in the league?

Answer: Probably, but they didn’t play last week. Neither did the Jets, Buffalo, or the Panthers. Why waste a question on them? Are you that bored reading this recap? Don’t answer that.

7. Fine. Who is the best team in the league? Wait, let me guess – you’re going to claim it’s the Eagles, right?

Answer: Well, we’re glad you agree. They have a 3-0 record, with every win coming by more than 10 points. Better yet, the Eagles have beaten three teams who have not lost another game this season. At this rate, they’ll just cancel the rest of the regular season and skip to the NFC Championship Game, so the Eagles can lose and torture me again.

8. Are you really that bitter?

Answer: No, of course not. I get to blog every day, making fun of John Kerry's hair and what-not. How could I be bitter? Although I guess I'll be pretty bitter after November 2nd. Then again, I can start the Hillary jokes then.

9. Do you really think that you, a man who could be a posterboy for Rogaine, should be making fun of someone else’s hair?

Answer: It’s either that or discuss the Falcons 6-3 win over Arizona that made Atlanta 3-0. That game was more painful to watch than Gigli. Well, we think it was. We don’t know anyone who actually saw Gigli.

10. Why not talk about an entertaining game? What about the Colts-Packers shootout?

Answer: Everyone save the defensive coordinators of the two teams must have enjoyed this game. Manning and Favre’s duel for the ages will likely be an NFL Films special by the end of next week – we can hear Harry Kalas doing the audio commentary right now. As for the game itself, the Packers killed themselves with turnovers, although it was nice to see their defense stop blitzing Manning… after he’d thrown five TD passes. We’re not sure how the Indianapolis offense ever gets stopped – maybe it’s boredom.

11. Speaking of boredom…. Can you finish this recap?

Answer: No, we still need to tell you about Minnesota’s 27-22 win over the Bears, where they knocked out Chicago QB Rex Grossman for the season. On the plus side, Grossman can now join former coach Steve Spurrier at the driving range.

12. Another Spurrier joke? Isn’t that pushing it?

Answer: He had a five year-contract. I had five years worth of jokes, and I have to use them sometime. I even had a joke which involved Spurrier, Danny Wuerffel’s glove and Dan Snyder wearing lifts. I may never get to use it now.

13. What a tragedy. Back to the games already. Don’t you have to make fun of Cincinnati or something?

Answer: The town or the team? The team is 1-2 after losing 23-9 to the Ravens. The town is located in the great state of Ohio, which means it’s subjected to regular visits by Presidential candidates due to its status as a "swing" state. They’re already subject to enough abuse.

14. Well, are you going to avoid making fun of Cleveland for the same reason?

Answer: No – there’s nothing in the rules that says I need to be consistent. Okay, so the Browns lost to the Giants 27-10. But they didn’t set the lake on fire this week, so it’s probably a net plus for the city.

15. Who else will you make fun of, then?

Answer: Well, there are the Redskins…

16. Stop. They’re only 1-2. That’s not fair -- doesn’t Gibbs deserve some time before you start making fun of him?

Answer: The question makes the mistake of believing that I’m fair and impartial. Unlike someone like, say, Dan Rather, I’m totally biased. An entire off-season of playoff-like hoopla in D.C. has left me in a position to enjoy the Redskins’ 1-2 start. Not as much as a 1-3 start, we suppose, but hopefully we’ll know next week.

17. That’s terrible. How can you actually wish for bad things to happen to D.C’s football team?

Answer: Because it generates more material for this recap. Otherwise, I’d spend ten minutes typing jokes about meaningless games like Denver’s 23-13 win over San Diego. This way, I get to make jokes about Dan Snyder’s secret plot to ruin the legacy of Joe Gibbs.

18. Seriously, enough. Why don’t you make fun of the Chiefs? They started 0-3 and people were calling them a Super Bowl contender. Aren’t they worthy of abuse?

Answer: When you get your own blog and your own recap, you can do the abuse. K.C. has now lost three straight games at home (counting last year's playoff loss) after going unbeaten at home during the regular season last year. It's so bad Dick Vermeil stopped crying.

19. Do you think Kerry would hate you after all this abuse?

Answer: Why? One, he'd have to hop off his snowboard long enough to notice me. Two, he wouldn't notice me, because I'm not a billionaire heiress. Three, any publicity is good publicity... well, unless you're Kerry. He probably doesn't want me to keep writing about him.

20. That assumes someone actually reads this. Do you have a life?

Answer: I'm sitting at a computer at night, typing this. Does that answer the question?

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Consider this two posts in one, to make up for a missed post a couple weeks back -- besides, we have so much Kerry material, it might get lost if we tried to save it.

As if I would pass on the chance to make the Oompa-Loompa reference everyone else, including loyal reader and former Clintonite JK, made after seeing the linked picture. Yikes. To me, Kerry suddenly resembles George Hamilton. The 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag version of Hamilton.

But there's more to report about Kerry today. We also have his latest accusation of a Bush "secret plan." This time, Kerry thinks Bush will hurt dairy farmers, which is convenient for Senator Flip-Flop to advertise, since he's hanging in Wisconsin, where he's trailing...
In the 1990s, Kerry supported the Northeast Dairy Compact, a regional pricing program that propped up prices for Northeastern dairy farmers over objections from their Midwestern counterparts.

"We've had a difference between the Midwest and the Northeast," Kerry said. "I'm going to be very upfront with you about it.

"As a senator representing Massachusetts, I fought for the dairy compact and fought to have our dairy farmers get help," the four-term lawmaker said. "I'm running for president of the United States now and I intend to represent all the farmers of America."

Kerry said Bush is opposing an effort to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract that helps dairy farmers when milk prices drop and is set to expire in October 2005. He said the Bush administration would wait until after the election to act so voters in swing dairy states wouldn't turn against him.

The plan was described in an Agricultural Department briefing paper that was reported in National Journal's "CongressDaily" on Sept. 7. The Bush campaign issued a statement that said accounts of White House opposition to the milk program are false.

Kerry said if he is elected president, he will ensure the program is extended. The Bush campaign said Kerry's position is "political opportunism" and an attempt to change the subject from his support for the Northeast Dairy Compact.

Kerry told the voters that as a young boy he would fill milk bottles at his uncle's dairy farm. "I have a great sense of the land," Kerry said. "I really do. I'm tired of small family farmers getting squeezed."


"I have a great sense of the land?" What the hell does that mean? Linguistic peculiarity aside, Kerry's in classic mode here. He supported one policy for many years, even though he now admits it was a bad policy -- otherwise, wouldn't he try and change the minds of the Wisconsin voters? No, it's easier to flip-flop (although this time, he's flipping to the correct policy position). And keep in mind, the Northeast Dairy Compact is one of the few issues on which Kerry hadn't flip-flopped yet.

Next, we have the classic moment of a person crying uncle (hat tip: MartiniPundit)...
Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry appealed for an end to the TV advertising war that has marked his election battle against President George W. Bush.

Kerry said the avalanche of negative television spots and attacks being shown on US screens was scaring off voters.

"Americans need a real conversation over our future," Kerry said in a speech at a school in Spring Green, Wisconsin.

"What they don't need is all these trumped up advertisements, they just make people curl up and walk away," added the Massachusetts senator.

"I'm calling them 'misleadisments,'" Kerry said of the adverts. "It's all scare tactics ... because (Bush) has no record to run on."

You know, if Bush used a term like "misleadisments", Jon Stewart would be tooling on him for a month.

If they're scare tactics, as you allege, tell people why they're wrong. Whining about them isn't what areal man does... it's what a girlieman does (sorry, I needed to channel some Ahhnold).

Finally, check out this quote, from later in the same AFP dispatch...
In Wisconsin, Kerry also made a personality attack against the president, saying that he and his rival are both children of privilege, but Bush considers his comfortable position an entitlement.

Kerry said "he and I, we went to the same university, we're both very privileged." Both men attended Yale University.

The Democrat added that from his education "came a sense of fairness and responsibility" while Bush "thinks it's entitlement."


This comes from a man who's basic approach to making money has been to marry one heiress, dump her, date actresses, then marry an even richer heiress. And he thinks Bush has the sense of entitlement.

Labels:

As My Harvard Law Degree Continues to Depreciate...

The esteemed Lawrence Tribe, one of the most respected constitutional law scholars in the world (in addition to being a professor at Harvard Law), gets accused of plagarism, as we noted yesterday. In an article in today's Harvard Crimson, Tribe admits via e-mail that he made a mistake, and takes personal responsibility for it (hat tip: Powerline). Tribe used language in his 1985 book, God Save This Honorable Court, that mirrored language from Henry Abreaham's 1974 book, Justices and Presidents, including one verbatim quote. Tribe's book featured no footnotes -- a conscious decision -- and only had a single sentence mentioning Abraham's work as background literature.

Tribe deserve full credit for having the decency and sense of personal honor to step forward and take some well-deserved blame. He may not have actually been responsible for what took place -- but the buck stops with him, because his name is on the book.

What's appalling is the reaction by some of his best-known colleagues. Check out the comments from Alan Dershowitz and Charles Ogletree, both of whom have suffered through allegations of plagarism as well...

Ogletree, speaking to The Crimson yesterday, dismissed The Standard’s allegations against Tribe as “nonsense.”

“I think Larry [Tribe] may be overreacting,” Dershowitz said yesterday, when asked whether Tribe was right to apologize. “Abraham sat on this story for 20 years. If he had a gripe, he should have written to Larry 20 years ago.”

Abraham told The Standard last week that Tribe’s failure to credit his sources did not come as a surprise.

“I was aware of what Tribe was doing when I first read his book,” Abraham told The Standard. “But I chose not to do anything at the time. I’ve never confronted him—and I was wrong in not following it up. I should have done something about it.”

Abraham told The Standard that Tribe is “a big mahatma and thinks he can get away with this sort of thing.”

...Dershowitz said yesterday that The Standard’s charges against Tribe were politically motivated.

“Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime,” Dershowitz said—a quotation he attributed to Soviet spymaster Lavrenti Beria. “Clearly someone was looking to pin something on the most prominent liberal constitutional scholar in the country.”

Tribe joined the Harvard Law faculty in 1968 and quickly entered the spotlight as an eloquent advocate for liberal causes. He has argued three dozen cases in front of the Supreme Court—famously representing Vice President Albert J. Gore Jr. ’69 in the December 2000 Florida recount dispute.

Dershowitz said that Tribe’s 1985 book was an effective element of “the Democratic arsenal” as liberals tried to block Ronald Reagan’s right-wing judicial nominations.

“It worked, and the Right has been pissed at Tribe ever since,” said Dershowitz.

Dershowitz called yesterday for stricter University guidelines on source citations and the use of research assistants so that scholars could avoid ideologically motivated charges of plagiarism in the future.

Harvard’s Writing With Sources manual, which is distributed to all undergraduates when they enter as freshmen, offers a crystal-clear definition of plagiarism: “passing off a source’s information, ideas, or words as your own by omitting to cite them; an act of lying, cheating, and stealing.”

But Dershowitz said guidelines in the legal profession are murkier.

He said that judges frequently rely on lawyers’ briefs and clerks’ memoranda in drafting opinions. This results in a “cultural difference” between sourcing in the legal profession and other academic disciplines, Dershowitz said.

Okay, I'm unbelieveably embarassed.

I went to a law school where Dersh is a professor. He's an exceedingly nice guy, and is often willing to take on unpopular causes, even when they disagree with his own point of view. And he's a damn fine lawyer.

But the quotes in the article above are a great example of why people hate lawyers. If you ask a layman to define plagarism, he'd tell you that it involves copying someone else's work and passing it off as your own. That's exactly what Tribe did.

Yet Dershowitz seems to think lawyers should be held to another, lower standard, because of the nature of our profession. What a load of hooey. Look, if you're copying from another source, give it attribution. You learn that as an undergrad, before you hit law school. Heck, some of us even learn it in high school. There's no cultural difference for lawyers that allows you to quote another source verbatim in a written work and claim it as your own.

On top of that, we're supposed to question the substance of the charge because of the motivation behind it. I'll stipulate that The Weekly Standard is a conservative news magazine. So what? If the substance of the charge is right, then the claim of bias is irrelevant. Again, answer the substance of the charge (as Tribe did) instead of whining about who's accusing you (as Dan Rather did).

Does it matter if someone with a partisan bent wants to take Tribe down? Not really. Tribe's the one who made the mistake, so he will suffer the consequences. At least he's willing to live up to it. Maybe he could teach a lesson to Alan Dershowitz at the same time.

It Better Be a Joke

Someone please tell me this item is a joke.

Okay, maybe not. But I really hope it is. And this item is somehow more perverse, especially when you read the description, "Two things a guy wants to see when he takes off a girl's clothes: a thong and the slogan "I Love Abortion." This product is designed to fit juniors. It fits snug, sizes run small."

I'd like to think of a funny way to end this post. I can't.

Monday, September 27, 2004

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

A picture says a thousand words. In this case, I'm sure Kerry subjected the guy sitting next to him to 1,000 words about his speech last week at "Lambert Field." The truth, as always, is available on the Web, as the Lord of Truth pointed us to a group of outrage football fans.

Jokes aside, this left-wing dishrag article over the weekend seemed to capture the essence of John Kerry in one paragraphs...
His attention to detail can serve him well on big projects, as it did when he sent aides scurrying across the country to find long-lost fellow Vietnam veterans who could vouch for his war record. But sometimes, his aides say, it is a distraction, as it was in early 2003, when they say he spent four weeks mulling the design of his campaign logo, consulting associates about what font it should use and whether it should include an American flag. (It does.)

Four weeks to decide on a logo. That about says it all, don't you think?

Labels:

No Such Thing As Liberal Media Bias

I don't have the time or energy to catalog the outrageous antics of the Associated Press and its reporter Jennifer Loven. Good thing the boys at Powerline have it covered. Read this story first, where Loven brazenly tried to write the equivalent of a Kerry press release as news. The followups here and here provide more detail about Loven's marriage to a veteran Democrat operative, her earlier hit pieces for the left, and the AP's continuing willingness to turn a blind eye to all of it.

And people wonder about the polarization of the media. As Howard Kurtz noted in today's Post, people are increasingly turning to sources more in tune with their points of view...
If you were watching the network evening news in June, July and August, you would have seen somewhat favorable coverage of John Kerry -- six out of 10 evaluations were positive -- and somewhat unfavorable coverage of President Bush.

If you were watching Fox News Channel's 6 p.m. newscast, you would have seen about the same coverage of the president. But Kerry's evaluations were negative by a 5 to 1 margin.

That finding, by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, might suggest that some Fox folks have it in for Kerry. Or it might suggest that the broadcast networks are too easy on Kerry, who the group says has gotten the best network coverage of any presidential nominee since it began tracking in 1988. Or that we have entered an era of red media and blue media to match the country's polarization.

...On every major story this side of Hurricane Ivan, the media are seen by partisans as blowing in one direction or the other. Iraq war? Journalists are either unpatriotic naysayers hurting the morale of American troops, or pathetic pantywaists who blindly carried the false White House claims of WMDs. The campaign? Journalists are either nasty nitpickers who are painting Kerry as an elitist flip-flopper the way they distorted Al Gore's record, or liberal sympathizers who are openly rooting for Kerry and can't hide their distaste for the president. CBS? They are fellow travelers who share Rather's bias and had to be prodded into challenging "60 Minutes" by fearless bloggers, or White House lackeys stoking a phony media controversy rather than uncovering the real story of Bush allegedly being AWOL.

Brit Hume, Fox's Washington managing editor, whose "Special Report" was examined by the study, says he's surprised by the anti-Kerry findings. "Our day-in, day-out coverage by Carl Cameron has been extremely fair to Kerry, and the Kerry campaign has recognized this," he says.

... Matthew Felling of the media center is skeptical. "If this is what passes for 'fair and balanced' journalism, it looks like someone has a finger on the scale at Fox News," he says. For the NBC, CBS and ABC evening newscasts, Kerry drew 62 percent positive evaluations and Bush 41 percent.

Some of the anti-Kerry comments come from the show's commentators, not its reporters. On Thursday, after airing straightforward news reports on a speech by Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, and Kerry's criticism of the remarks, Hume asked his pundit panel for reaction. "Disgraceful," said Charles Krauthammer. Michael Barone called it "bad politics." Mort Kondracke accused Kerry of "pessimism."


But read the last sentance of the second-to-last paragraph. According to the Media Center, Kerry's getting better coverage than any other candidate... and he's still a terrible candidate. Imagine if they treated him objectively -- he might make McGovern look good by comparison.

I Swear, I Didn't Go to Harvard

As noted two weeks ago, one of my former professors at Harvard Law has been accused of plagarism. This isn't exactly shocking nowadays, since plagarism seems to be discovered with some regularity among many scholarly authors, but it is depressing. It's even more depressing when another HLS professor gets accused of the same thing.

I never had Larry Tribe for class, although I sat in on a couple of his classes for the experience of hearing from one of the foremost scholars of Constitutional Law (friends will note that this is a surprising admission, since I rarely attended classes in which I was actually enrolled). But Tribe's about as big a name as there is in Constitutional Law, and his book God Save This Honorable Court is the Bible for liberals who seek to keep conservative judges off the high court. If it is plagarized, that's shocking; as Powerline noted, his current problems may also relate strongly to those of another big-name liberal...
There are indications that Tribe's book may, in fact, have been written largely by others, especially Ronald Klain, who went on to become Vice-President Al Gore's chief of staff, but at the time was only a first year law student. I don't know, of course, what caused Tribe's apparent plagiarism. But my guess is that two forces were at work.

The first is the fact that a famous scholar can ultimately turn into a brand. Larry Tribe's Harvard biography says that he has published more than 100 books and articles. Realistically, this is more work (along with everything else the prolific Prof. Tribe does) than one man can possibly accomplish. Inevitably, he must have come to depend on law students and other assistants for much of the research and writing that has gone into has books.

The second element, I suspect, is that Tribe regarded
God Save This Honorable Court as politics, not scholarship--much as Dan Rather knew that his National Guard story was politics, not journalism. I don't believe that Larry would deliberately commit plagiarism. But I do believe that when a book is written not as a serious work of scholarship, but as a popularized tract intended to influence a political debate, it is not surprising that the author's editorial standards may slip. The overriding criterion by which a book like Honorable Court is judged is neither truth nor originality, but political impact. Once a scholar starts down that path, plagiarism is, perhaps, the least of the pitfalls to which he is subject.

Political impact as the measuring stick would also be a good excuse why CBS and Dan Rather raced out with the memos at the center of Rathergate. But it's not an excuse for shoddy journalism, or in Tribe's case, shoddy scholarship. Hopefully, Tribe can explain the discrepancies. But if he can't, here's hoping he doesn't try the Rather-Nixon defense.

Reasons I Miss College, Part 617391

The Lord of Truth puts us on the trail of some very creative college students...
Three students at Jacksonville University have been punished for installing a stripper pole in an on-campus apartment and taking pictures as fully clothed women performed on it at a party. A female student who won a dance contest also was disciplined.

About a dozen women competed for a $100 Victoria's Secret gift certificate Sept. 11, said James Foster, a 20-year-old who hosted the party. None of the women disrobed.

The men bought the steel pole from Home Depot, bolted it to the concrete ceiling and attached the bottom to a plywood stage covered in red felt.

"Honestly, we just wanted to say we had a stripper pole," Foster said. "We never actually expected girls to dance on it."

When university officials ordered the men to remove the pole, they complied, but not before building a huge party around it.

Signs reading "Pole Dancers Wanted" were posted around campus and the men bought large quantities of beer. Friends were enlisted friends to check identifications and manage security.

... Residential adviser Amber Davis said the party degraded women.

"There are other ways they can go out and get a girlfriend if that's what they want," she said.

This RA needs help if she believes the guys were using this to get a girlfriend. Something short of a girlfriend, yes. Committed relationship, no.

For those who know the reference.... I'm reasonably certain that the only reason this didn't happen in the Jungle was that no one thought of it. Which goes to show that even the greatest things in life could be improved.