Well, Everyone in Philly Would Be Broke

Social Security reform we can all support. Of course, if it was in place for the last twenty years, the Philadelphia populace would have real problems.

Must-Not See TV

John Scalzi's List of the "10 Least Successful Holiday Specials of All Time" is up. I can't believe that "Noam Chomsky: Deconstructing Christmas" wasn't a huge hit.

Are These Stories Really News?

Bonds Admits to Steroid Use.

Police Raid Neverland Ranch.

I mean, was someone betting against either of these?

Actually, the former will have an impact, but it's only because it's official. If anyone out there is shcoked by this story, I'd like to sell you some oceanfront property in Iowa. ESPN has turned this into its big story of the week, thereby assigning the Ron Artest Fight Night at the Palace to the dustbin. I think the story's important, but I think the main point will probably get lost somewhere along the way to media overkill. And just to add to that overkill, I'll blog more on it later this weekend.

A Fighting Faith?

I'm not big into the idea of conservatives telling liberals how to save themselves from being culturally ignored, or Republicans instructing Democrats how best to rise to the electoral challenge. First of all, you never listen to the opposition with much faith, even when they're clearly right; there's too much of a tendency to think they're screwing with you. Second, and more important, our own experiences don't provide a roadmap that the other side can follow, unless they come to the conclusion that they need to change.

That's why it's so heartening to see Peter Beinart's article "Fighting Faith" in The New Republic. TNR is one of the more rational outlets on the left -- certainly, it's more respectable than the screeching banshees over at The Nation. Beinart draws a legitimate historical analogy between the Left of today and the Left following World War II. He notes that folks like Henry Wallace were not devoted anti-Communist crusaders -- he and I might diasgree on whether Wallace and his sort were actually sympathetic (if not in favor) of the Communist cause, but he recognizes that many liberals did not bear antipathy toward totalitarianism. Today, it's much the same -- I think many Americans question whether some of these folks really love other nations more than they love this one. There's a difference between legitimate criticism of America and idiotic hyperbole, and too many on the Left have lost track of that. Or rather, the shrill voices are not told that they're idiots by the decent folks among them.

The real problem is that the shrill voices on the left -- Beinart notes Michael Moore and MoveOn -- really seem to believe that the greatest threat to America is George W. Bush, not Islamic terrorism. When you fail to acknowledge the problem, you immediately leave people wondering if you can recognize it, and whether you should be responsible for dealing with it. Beinart's article discusses both of these culprits in depth...

Kerry was a flawed candidate, but he was not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem was the party's liberal base, which would have refused to nominate anyone who proposed redefining the Democratic Party in the way the ADA did in 1947. The challenge for Democrats today is not to find a different kind of presidential candidate. It is to transform the party at its grassroots so that a different kind of presidential candidate can emerge. That means abandoning the unity-at-all-costs ethos that governed American liberalism in 2004. And it requires a sustained battle to wrest the Democratic Party from the heirs of Henry Wallace. In the party today, two such heirs loom largest: Michael Moore and MoveOn.

In 1950, the journal The New Leader divided American liberals into "hards" and "softs." The hards, epitomized by the ADA, believed anti-communism was the fundamental litmus test for a decent left. Non-communism was not enough; opposition to the totalitarian threat was the prerequisite for membership in American liberalism because communism was the defining moral challenge of the age.

The softs, by contrast, were not necessarily communists themselves. But they refused to make anti-communism their guiding principle. For them, the threat to liberal values came entirely from the right--from militarists, from red-baiters, and from the forces of economic reaction. To attack the communists, reliable allies in the fight for civil rights and economic justice, was a distraction from the struggle for progress.

Moore is the most prominent soft in the United States today. Most Democrats agree with him about the Iraq war, about Ashcroft, and about Bush. What they do not recognize, or do not acknowledge, is that Moore does not oppose Bush's policies because he thinks they fail to effectively address the terrorist threat; he does not believe there is a terrorist threat. For Moore, terrorism is an opiate whipped up by corporate bosses. In Dude, Where's My Country?, he says it plainly: "There is no terrorist threat." And he wonders, "Why has our government gone to such absurd lengths to convince us our lives are in danger?"

Moore views totalitarian Islam the way Wallace viewed communism: As a phantom, a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right. Saudi extremists may have brought down the Twin Towers, but the real menace is the Carlyle Group. Today, most liberals naïvely consider Moore a useful ally, a bomb-thrower against a right-wing that deserves to be torched. What they do not understand is that his real casualties are on the decent left.

...Like the softs of the early cold war, MoveOn sees threats to liberalism only on the right. And thus, it makes common cause with the most deeply illiberal elements on the international left. In its campaign against the Iraq war, MoveOn urged its supporters to participate in protests co-sponsored by International answer, a front for the World Workers Party, which has defended Saddam, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jong Il. When George Packer, in The New York Times Magazine, asked Pariser about sharing the stage with apologists for dictators, he replied, "I'm personally against defending Slobodan Milosevic and calling North Korea a socialist heaven, but it's just not relevant right now."

Pariser's words could serve as the slogan for today's softs, who do not see the fight against dictatorship and jihad as relevant to their brand of liberalism. When The New York Times asked delegates to this summer's Democratic and Republican conventions which issues were most important, only 2 percent of Democrats mentioned terrorism, compared with 15 percent of Republicans. One percent of Democrats mentioned defense, compared with 15 percent of Republicans. And 1 percent of Democrats mentioned homeland security, compared with 8 percent of Republicans.

There's a lot more there, and it's worthy of a read. I don't think the liberals and/or the Democrats have the upper hand on domestic issues, because I think many of their solutions are nothing more than a rehashing of the failed big-goverment reforms of the past. Domestically, the truly innovative ideas are coming from the right, including Social Security reform, school choice, workfare rather than welfare, tort reform, etc. But these are areas where liberals and conservatives are supposed to differ, with the same goal in mind: a better America. The same should be true with foreign policy and national security -- we should differ on methods, but still seek a safer America. The problem today is that many liberals seem unwilling to recognize the threat to our safety -- and they're the big mouths everyone hears from.

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.

I have heard this song pretty often lately, and any Villanova alum will be in favor of the idea of bringing back this particular year anyway. Catchy tune, of course, and good lyrics... except when it keeps reverberating through your brain...

Here's Bowling for Soup...

Debbie just hit the wall
She never had it all
One Prozac a day
Husband's a CPA
Her dreams went out the door
When she turned twenty four
Only been with one man
What happened to her plan?

She was gonna be an actress
She was gonna be a star
She was gonna shake her ass
On the hood of Whitesnake’s car
Her yellow SUV is now the enemy
Looks at her average life
And nothing has been alright since

Bruce Springsteen, Madonna
Way before Nirvana
There was U2 and Blondie
And music still on MTV
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she’s uncool
Cuz she's still preoccupied
With 19, 19, 1985

Woohoohoo
(1985)
Woohoohoo

She’s seen all the classics
She knows every line
Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink
Even Saint Elmo’s Fire
She rocked out to wham
Not a big Limp Bizkit fan
Thought she’d get a hand
On a member of Duran Duran

Where’s the mini-skirt made of snake skin
And who’s the other guy that's singing in Van Halen
When did reality become T.V.
What ever happen to sitcoms, game shows
(on the radio was)

Bruce Springsteen, Madonna
Way before Nirvana
There was U2 and Blondie
And music still on MTV
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she’s uncool
Cuz she's still preoccupied
With 19, 19, 1985

Woohoohoo

She hates time
Make it stop
When did Motley Crew become classic rock?
And when did Ozzy become an actor?
Please make this stop
Stop!
And bring back

Bruce Springsteen, Madonna
Way before Nirvana
There was U2 and Blondie
And music still on MTV
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she’s uncool
Cuz she's still preoccupied
With 1985.

You're welcome.

Maybe We Can Bring Back 1985

I just took a look at Villanova's schedule tonight. If we're not 9-0 when we play at Notre Dame on January 8th, Jay Wright should have his head shaved. Yeesh. What bunch of patsies.

Then again, January 22nd against Kansas... now there's a game worth watching.

Can We Finally Mix Captain Crunch with Count Chocula?

The Lord of Truth informs us about the newest restaurant in my hometown...

How's this for thinking outside the box: a cafe with jammies-clad servers pouring cereal day and night, topping it off with everything from fruit to malted milk balls, and serving it in "bowls" resembling Chinese takeout containers. It's all cereal. Seriously.

Cereality Cereal Bar & Cafe, which opened its first sit-down cafe Wednesday on the University of Pennsylvania campus, is a sugarcoated — and tongue-in-cheek — homage to what your mother always told you was the most important meal of the day. But she probably never dished out bowls of Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch topped with Pop Rocks.

Behind glass-door kitchen-style cabinets at Cereality are 30 varieties of brand-name cold cereal. Customers order from "cereologists," whose most popular mix is two 8-ounce scoops with one of 36 toppings, plus regular, flavored or soy milk for $2.95. Also offered are cereal bars and made-to-order cereal smoothies and yogurt blends.

Too bad the bloggers have coined the term Pajamahadeen, or the waiters could use it.

Another Disgrace at Ol' Notre Dame

If you don't know my feelings about Notre Dame football, read this post.

Now, as to the firing of Tyrone Willingham... it's disgraceful.

Look, I can actually understand that ND has alumni and students up in arms about the school's inability to compete for a national title in recent years. But Willingham apparently fulfilled every aspect of his contract and of his job -- except for the absurd requirement that he win ten games a year. Supposedly, at Notre Dame, it's important that the players actaully are upstanding citizens and graduate and all that.

Earth to the subway alumni: you won't compete for a national title every year. It's not a terrible sin to end up in some Podunk Bowl most years. If you think it is, lower your academic standards -- at which point you're no different from other football factories which double as institutions of higher learning.

The worst part of all this is that there will be allegations of racism. And while I doubt the ND folks are racist in any way, it's mystifying why Willingham gets only three years compared to Bob Davie's five and Gerry Faust's five... until we consider Urban Meyer's status as the hottest coach around.

In the meantime, one piece of good news. I always liked Willingham, and having him coach at ND strained my ability to hate Notre Dame freely. No problems now.

The Sins of Clinton Strike Again

Sigh. I suppose I shouldn't be shocked...

Former American fugitive Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq's suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton, according to oil industry shipping records obtained by ABC News.

And a U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts.

"Without that kind of middleman, the system would not work because the major oil companies did not want to deal with Iraq because there was a mandated kickback," said human rights investigator John Fawcett.

I suppose Clinton's pardon doesn't apply to future crimes, so maybe we can get Rich for his latest round of misdeeds. That is, unless we elect another Clinton someday.

Department of Opinions That Make Me Want to Puke

OK, now when people ask me what defines "loony left", I have an answer. Check out this article by Marvin Olasky on "influential" philosopher Peter Singer...

While politicians debate the definition of marriage between two people, Singer argues that any kind of "fully consensual" sexual behavior involving two people or 200 is ethically fine.

For example, when I asked him recently about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality -- should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants? -- he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' (but) it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts.

Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs and transplant them into their ill older children? Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, (but) they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."

When we had lunch after our initial interview and I read back his answers to him, he said he would be "concerned about a society where the role of some women was to breed children for that purpose," but he stood by his statements. He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth."

The best part? Singer is a college professor -- at Princeton.

The more I think of it, the better I feel about my four years at Villanova.

We're Moving the Level to "Pray for Death"

The Lord Of Truth alerts us to this hysterical piece from the Onion, mocking the color-coded Terror Alert system. Nice tribute to Tom Ridge, who, jokes aside, has done a good job.

The NFL Recap, Week Twelve

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

All right, the triptophan is finally starting to fade. As is the spectre of the offensive offensive display we were forced to watch by three of the four teams on Thanksgiving. Let’s all give thanks for the Colts, who scored enough points for all four teams. Then again, Colts kicker Mike Vanderjagt missed an extra point. Of course, he’s Canadian and wasn’t celebrating Thanksgiving anyway.

Hey, we promise, we deliver. From each of our games this weekend, what the teams and/or their fans are grateful for…

Colts 41, Lions 9

The Colts are thankful they took Peyton Manning in 1998 instead of Ryan Leaf, who might be a bigger turkey than the movie Alexander. The Lions are thankful they only see Peyton Manning every four years, unless the teams were to meet in the Super Bowl – well, we finally have a reason why it’s good the Lions never make the Super Bowl.

Cowboys 21, Bears 7

The Cowboys are thankful that they got to play the Bears, whose offense may need to consider punting regularly… on first down. The Bears are thankful for Jeff George… by itself, that tells you how bad this team is.

Eagles 27, Giants 6

The Eagles are thankful for Coach Andy Reid, their fourth consecutive division title, and the fact that the Commissioner may decide to give them a pass to the Super Bowl rather than making fans watch the NFC playoffs. The Giants are thankful that the New York sports fans are still in shock from watching the Yankees lose four in a row to the Red Sox, and therefore unlikely to care about a football team that’s lost five out of six games… and are still in the playoff race.

Texans 31, Titans 21

The Texans are thankful for David Carr, Andre Johnson and the fact that they didn’t have to play the Packers and Brett Favre this week. The Titans are thankful that their franchise moved from Houston to Tennessee – as a result, they never need to wear those horrible powder-blue uniforms the Oilers used to wear.

Panthers 21, Buccaneers 14

The Panthers are thankful the NFC stinks, which has allowed the defending NFC champs to somehow return to the playoff race after a 1-7 start. Bucs kicker Martin Grammatica is thankful that gamblers don’t have his home address, after his three missed field goals killed the Bucs chances.

Vikings 27, Jaguars 16

The Vikings are thankful that even a late-season choke act like last year’s may not even cost them a playoff berth this season. The Jaguars are thankful that Randy Moss wasn’t at full strength, or they may not have been in this game at all.

Steelers 16, Redskins 7

The Steelers are thankful that they can’t lose with rookie QB Ben Roethlisberger, who’s now 9-0 as a starter. Redskins fans are thankful for the Wizards. Hey, I’m trying to be nice.

Bengals 58, Browns 48
The Bengals are thankful for the fact that even though they live in Ohio, they don’t live in Cleveland. The Browns are thankful for the fact that their own futility has been obscured for so many years by the Bengals. No wonder these teams played each other on Thanksgiving.

Chargers 34, Chiefs 31

The Chargers are thankful that first round pick Philip Rivers held out and allowed QB Drew Brees to win the starting job, since Brees has the Bolts at 8-3 and in first place. Then again, these are the Chargers – they’ll find a way to screw it up. As for the Chiefs, they’re thankful that their defense doesn’t protect anything important, like their homes, their banks or national security.

Dolphins 24, 49ers 17

I’m thankful that I didn’t watch this game. Next.

Jets 13, Cardinals 3

The Jets are thankful that they have two straight wins despite scoring only two touchdowns the last two weeks. The Cardinals are thankful that coach Dennis Green is running out of quarterbacks that he can replace – Green just announced that rookie John Navarre will be starting this week. At this rate, Green may be starting Tom Brokaw by Week 17 – it’s not like Brokaw is doing anything.

Falcons 24, Saints 21

The Falcons are thankful for QB Michael Vick and TE Alge Crumpler, who combined on a late TD to give them their ninth win. They’re also thankful they were playing the Saints. Saints coach Jim Haslett will likely be thankful for severance pay following the season.

Patriots 24, Ravens 3

The Patriots are thankful for coach Bill Belicheck and Corey Dillon’s arrival in New England – the team is unbeaten with Dillon in the lineup. The Ravens are thankful to leave the cold of New England behind, and also thankful that the pundits haven’t figured out that their defense is overrated, particularly versus the run.

Bills 38, Seahawks 9

The Bills are thankful their nine-game road losing streak is over, and are also thankful they got out of Buffalo for a week. The Seahawks are thankful that they play in the NFC, where their fraudulent claim to being a Super Bowl contender actually has some life.

Raiders 25, Broncos 24

The Raiders are thankful for nothing – these are the Raiders, they don’t believe in thanking anybody. The Broncos defense is thankful that coach Mike Shanahan can’t have them beaten with a rod for blowing an 11 point lead in the last five minutes.

Packers 45, Rams 17

The Packers and their fans are thankful for everything – they’re even thankful they live in Wisconsin. The Rams fans are thankful that Mike Martz may be able to coach himself into unemployment before the end of the month.

More (Color)Blindness From Bush

I haven't noted this, but it's worthy of mention that President Bush's choice of Carlos Gutierrez as his new Commerce Secretary again demonstrates a lot about our President, and a bit about the gulf between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of affirmative action.

Gutierrez is a wonderful example of an immigrant success story, and a terrific example of the opportunity America affords to people. He's a Cuban-born exile to the U.S. who started his career with Kellogg driving Forsted Flakes delivery trucks in Mexico City and eventually became the CEO of the company. He should be held up as a role model, and it's good to see him accept a position with the Bush Administration.

Of less significance to me (and probably to President Bush) is Gutierrez's ethnic background. Yes, he's Hispanic, and that's wonderful, but he's there on merit, not on color. Bush has a great track record of selecting people he thinks are qualified without regard to skin color or gender -- Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rod Paige, Elaine Chao, etc. In doing so, he ends up with something similar to Clinton's idea of a Cabinet that "looks like America", but without any public claim about doing so. This is unlike Clinton -- recall that he selected Janet Reno for AG after his first two nominees, both women with federal experience, tanked due to issues related to having nannies who were illegal immigrants. Rich Lowry in Legacy noted that Hillary insisted that the AG be a woman, and Clinton was hamstrung with a lack of available candidates once his first two candidates were bounced. Instead of perhaps looking for a more qualified candidate, he went out got a D.A. from Miami, because he wanted to put a woman in the post. And we got eight years of Reno, who should make people shudder a lot more than Ashcroft.

Hey, Republicans do this at times, too -- W. 's father nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall with the rationale that he needed to nominate an African-American to succeed an But I think it's important to note that Bush is genuinely looking for good people in selecting his advisors, a trait that's very admirable in our society.

Inspiring Words

The Lord of Truth provides us with the following truisms from the great Ronald Reagan...

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."

Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandment's would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."

"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."

"I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me. Even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

*******************************************************************

LAST, BUT NOT LEAST.......MY FAVORITE...

"Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have
made a difference in the world. Marines don't have that problem."

Seriously, that made my day.

Just Another Check in the Mail

It turns out those kids probably did need an education -- maybe they would have fought for those royalty checks sooner...

A group of former schoolchildren who made the line "We don't need no education" famous may soon have some extra pocket money.

That's because the one-time students, now thirtysomething adults, are suing to recover royalties they are owed for working on the Pink Floyd song Another Brick in the Wall Part 2.

...The 23 ex-pupils, who were teenagers at the time the song was recorded, are not suing the band; instead, they are taking advantage of a royalty fund established by a new copyright law in 1997.

Broadcasters pay into the fund, and under the legislation the children qualify as session musicians. They stand to gain the equivalent of a few hundred dollars each.

Their claim has been hard to establish because the recording session was done in secret. The song's lyrics were considered scandalous at the time.

At the band's request, music teacher Alun Renshaw took the children, then students at Islington Green School, to a nearby studio without the permission of the school's headmistress.

I wonder if the San Francisco 49ers will sue for the royalties from Hip to Be Square.

Maureen Dowd Gets Red

It turns out the left-wing dishrag's favorite female columnist, Maureen Dowd, has a family that not only lives in the red states, they thrive in the red states. Here's an excerpt from a letter from her brother Kevin that appeared in her column...

We do not live in a secular country. There are all sorts of people of faith that place moral values over personal freedoms. They are not all 'wacky evangelicals.' They are people who don't like Howard Stern piping a hard porn show over the airwaves and wrapping himself in the freedom of the First Amendment. They don't like being told that a young girl does not have to seek her mother's counsel about an abortion. They don't like seeing an eight-month-old fetus having his head punctured and his brains sucked out. They don't like being told the Pledge of Allegiance, a moment of silent prayer and the words 'under God' are offensive to an enlightened few so nobody should be allowed to use them. ... My wife and I picked our sons' schools based on three criteria: 1) moral values 2) discipline 3) religious maintenance - in that order. We have spent an obscene amount of money doing this and never regretted a penny. Last week on the news, I heard that the Montgomery County school board voted to include a class with a 10th-grade girl demonstrating how to put a condom on a cucumber and a study of the homosexual lifestyle. The vote was 6-0. I feel better about the money all the time.

(hat tip: Best of the Web) See, what's funny to people in red states is that blue staters don't understand this sentiment. Heck, I grew up in a relatively blue state, went to college in the blue part of that state, attended law school in John Kerry's home state and now live in the bluest part of a red state while working in a city where Republicans get elected to local government out of pity. I know plenty of people who would find the above statement as foreign as an extra-terrestrial.

I'm reasonably certain that most friends of mine don't understand the last sentiment for sure -- I mean, what's wrong with public schools discussing sex education and homosexuality with students? I don't know that I share the same views as Kevin Dowd, but I fully understand the sentiment. I don't have kids, but whenever I do, I think I might not be entirely comfortable with everything that passes for sex education in public schools today. I'd start by pointing out something they forget -- our public schools have trouble teaching math, science, history and English to students right now, so why should we have faith in their ability to teach sex education properly?

In the end, let me point out one great thing about this country -- even an unabashed liberal like Dowd has conservative family members who she loves dearly, and vice versa. In other nations, such families tend to break heads instead of breaking bread.

Will Billy Zabka Get Royalties?

It's Karate Kid... the musical. I don't even have a line.

Revenge on One of the Swifties?

Powerline had a link to this Chicago Tribune story on one of the key members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Steven Gardner. Gardner has apparently lost his job and claims to have received threats from some pro-Kerry folks, including Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley.

I don't know how much of this is true -- I hate stories where people claim to have received threats over the phone. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if the shoe was on the other foot, and some anti-Bush partisan had been dismissed from his job and claimed to have received threats from people associated with the Bush campaign, someone would be making Nazi references to John Ashcroft.

Back to You, Greg

Oh, no. I've gotten a response from Greg to my post on Playground Politics -- and it's on the Swift Boat Veterans issue.

This could go on for awhile, but let me state a few things up front. Greg's post also mentions my initial objections to the idea that politics are any dirtier today than they have been in the past, and agrees that it's probably about the same. Let me say that I agree with what I believe is the general intent of his original post -- we should have political campaigns decided without skirting the line of so-called "dirty tricks." Unfortunately, human nature always seems to intrude.

As to who helps me write these posts -- I have yet to hire an intern. Thanks to the work of the "last great Democratic President" (Hillary Rodham Clinton's intro at the Boston Botox Party for her husband, with the accent on the syllable as I deem appropriate), hiring an intern is dangerous business. My fiancee might kill me if I did, and as Greg knows, the women in your life are often just as dangerous as crazed men waving bayonets. Or paper cuts, for that matter.

Jokes aside, Greg does seem rather aggravated with the Swift Boat Veterans for their actions attacking the details of Kerry's service. I recommend reading the whole thing, but here's the portion to which I wanted to respond...

What burns me up is that they decided to transfer their anger with Kerry for having spoken out against the war into questions about his wartime service. This was legerdemain of the most insidious kind, because, as Raj stated, "most of their claims are impossible to disprove." It was a classic "so, when did you stop beating your wife" tactic, coldly calculated to raise questions about something that is clearly central to who Kerry is as a person. And it is the exact same thing that was done to John McCain four years ago when he was gathering momentum in the presidential primaries against George W. Bush. That's why McCain denounced the SBV's attack as "dishonest and dishonorable."

Look, what proof do you need of Kerry's wartime service if (a) the direct support and testimony of every man he served with and commanded from his swiftboat crew, and (b) extensive documentation, including awards and evaluations written and signed by some of the same men now attacking him, is not enough for you?

It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach to think about what these people did to John Kerry. It makes me sick to think that people can live their lives so consumed with hatred that they will adopt any tactic, tell any lie, to punish someone for a personal choice that they disagreed with.

The fact is that John Kerry went and fought in a war that he didn't even believe in, and which he didn't have to volunteer for. He killed dozens of enemy soldier who were trying to kill him first and would have stuck him like a pig if given the chance. He no doubt gunned down a few innocent people along the way. He risked death on a daily basis. He saved lives under fire of men he did not know. He suffered injuries, some of which are still with him to this day. He earned recognition and accolades for his deeds and for his leadership. He walked out of Yale and into all of these things when he didn't have to, and he was probably considered insane for doing so. And when he was done doing his part for his country and for his fellow fighters, he continued to do what he thought best for his country and his fellow fighters by trying to get us the hell out of a war that he personally opposed, but had been willing to die in.

Look, I did something like 13 different posts on the Swift Boat Veterans issue. I don't want to rehash the whole thing. And I doubt anyone wants to read it.

But I don't think it was "abhorrent", to use Greg's word. I don't know if he's read Unfit for Command, or if he really wants to. Most of the details about the book are available in the press, although it depends on which press you read. For example, at least one of the men who served with Kerry on his Swift Boats (Steven Gardner) was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), and even members of Kerry's "Band of Brothers" contradicted Kerry's fairytale of "Christmas in Cambodia." In addition, plenty of doubt exists as to when the documentation was written for Kerry's awards, and who wrote up the awards. A number of the questions raised by the SBVT could have been refuted... if Kerry had executed the proper form to release all of his own military records. Maybe the claims were "impossible to disprove", but the credibility attached to the claims turned out to be the huge issue.

But here's the basic problem with the SBVT charges against Kerry -- most of them relate directly to the heart of Kerry's campaign for President.

Think back to Kerry in Iowa, when Jim Rassman showed up. Just about every campaign diary marked that day as a turning point for Kerry, as a point when his campaign began the ascendancy that would lead to his victory over Howard Dean. Kerry, from that point on, opted to use his Vietnam service as the cornerstone of his argument that he had the character to serve as President and would take a strong stand on national security issues. He made it the basis of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, capping it with that idiotic salute and the "reporting for duty" line. He opted to run away from his service in the Senate, which merited just a brief bit of attention in his acceptance speech.

To use Mary Beth Cahill's coarse terminology regarding Mary Cheney, this made Kerry's service record "fair game." If I someday run for President and opt to use my law school transcript to establish my intellect (now that would be an idiotic move), several people may come forward and claim that I regularly cheated on my exams (as if the professors actually graded the exams in a coherent manner, but let's pretend they did). If the people on the other side establish more credibility than I do -- let's say because some of their claims are true since I made up a story about a paper I did on Cambodian law -- than people will look askance at my claims that Harvard Law Students for Truth (pause for laughter) are just a bunch of filty liars.

No, the analogy's not even close to being dead on for these purposes, but I think the opening Kerry provided was that many people were uncomfortable with the Kerry camp's decision to make his service such a prominent issue. Look, if you're a war hero, that's great. But constantly mentioning it in every interview creeps a lot of people out. I think I heard Kerry in a campaign stop where he referenced Vietnam when he was answering a question about dairy subsidies. By doing this, he'd effectively made his service record a joke before the Swifties showed up.

In the end, Kerry's testimony before Congress was the truly haunting part of the ads -- I'm reasonably confident that any chances of picking up votes in the South went out the window when Kerry's pronunciation of "Genghis" Khan was heard. Another problem was the lack of fact-checking by his allies in the mainstream media (MSM). Attacking some of the SBVT claims upfront and showing that they were dubious, if not false, would have blunted the impact.

Instead, Kerry and the MSM chose to ignore the claims, preferring to avoid the whole unseemly issue. So it was the blogosphere, both right and left, that jumped on the story, mostly the right, and they highlighted the claims by the SBVT that did have merit, like Christmas in Cambodia. And by the time the MSM tried to ride to the rescue (I was shocked when the left-wing dishrag only focused on the SBVT after Kerry attacked them), they were swimming (or paddling, if you like) against the tide. By contrast, look at how quickly Dan Rather's story on Bush's service record unraveled, because the right-wing bloggers went at it, rather (pun intended) then opting to ignore it.

Two final points before I close. First, I could care less what McCain's opinion on the matter was, beyond the fact that he was one more veteran speaking out. That's great, he has the right to have his voice heard. But his belief that someone (like the FEC) should have silenced the SBVT ad campaign ticked me off almost as much as the asinine campaign finance "reform" bill that bears his name. It further angered me when Bush condemned all 527 groups, since he signed the damn bill into law -- although this was the proper political move (unlike Kerry's decision to send Max Cleland to Bush's ranch), it would have been nice if Bush had instead struck a blow for free speech.

Second, Kerry's testimony before Congress could have been honorable, except for the fact that he presented outright lies regarding "atrocities" committed by both him and others with whom he served. His anti-war activism, whatever the motivation, often had little relationship to the truth and resembled the effort of one seeking personal glory, and his decision to demean people with whom he served in order to achieve that glory sickens me.

With that being said, it's not my problem, and I'm willing to guess that many of those men who deeply resented (if not reviled) Kerry for his statements would have forgiven him if he'd only apologized. After all, we all do stupid things in our lives, especially in our youth (personally, I'm of the opinion that the Baby Boom generation owes us an apology for glorifying the Sixties as something more than hallucinogenic drugs, rebellious music, and horrible fashion), and Kerry's statements could well be interpreted as exaggerations in pursuit of a noble cause. But that pompous blowhard opted not to apologize, instead trying to brush the entire incident over, probably (and this is my opinion) because he still believes he did the right thing, and the truth was immaterial to his greater cause of stopping the war and advancing the career of John Kerry. Ironically, for the second goal, it turned out to have the opposite effect.

The Eagles Rule the NFC East -- Again

Okay, I've avoided posting about the Eagles for sometime now, mostly due to the simple fact that there's no reason to jinx a good thing. Then again, I posted about them during the first few weeks, and they responded by breaking out to a 7-0 start.

The team has now clinched the NFC East by Week 11, the earliest they've ever clinched the division, and tying the league record set by the 1985 Bears and the 1997 49ers. Unfortunately, Andy Reid's Eagles will not be reprising the Super Bowl Shuffle, but the world is far from perfect.

But Reid is pretty damn close to as great a regular season football coach can get in the NFL, and it's about time that the fans in Philadelphia acknowledge how great a job Reid does every year. The Eagles organization deserves the plaudits it receives for brilliant managment of the salary cap and their ability to draft players that fit their system, but Reid is the architect of the system, and also the head coach at the ground level. When things go wrong -- as they did at the beginning of last season, when the team faced a slew of injuries and a horrific start by the franchise QB -- Reid still rights the ship, always taking the blame for his players. It's a fact of life in the NFL today that free agency and the salary cap means teams don't stay together -- but it also says something about the culture Reid has put in place that veterans like Hugh Douglas, Jeremiah Trotter and Dorsey Levens eagerly jump at the chance to return. Yes, they needed the paycheck, but all of them want to be here more than anywhere else, particularly Douglas and Trotter, both of whom left on less than ideal terms with the coach.

Reid has now won 66 games and lost 34 in the regular season, which includes a 61-23 mark after his first season. He's also won four division titles in a row, for a franchise that had won three division titles since 1950 before his arrival. He's won five playoff games, which is more than any other Eagles coach. And if you're an Eagles fan, like me, it's almost odd to watch games and feel a sense of security about winning games aginst inferior opponents like the Giants today. Reid's teams win the games they're supposed to win, which is more important than folks realize in today's NFL.

Ah, but we all know about the big hole on the resume. You know, an appearance and victory in the Big Game. Yes, I'm one of those who will condemn Reid mercilessly if the Eeagles choke in the playoffs-- but I'd still rather have him at the helm of this franchise more than anyone not named Belicheck. And for him, all Eagles fans should say a big thank you.

Hey, That Was My Idea

Okay, I've been advocating the end of lifetime appointments for judges for a few years now. This is, admittedly, a rather extreme departure from our historical tradition of lifetime appointments, but it's not like we've just begun to politicize the judiciary. The idea that the judiciary is somehow immune from politics went out the window at least 30 years ago, and has only accelerated since Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination was nixed in 1987.

Personally, I'm not sure whether this is a good idea for the Supreme Court, but such a change for the appellate courts (and even the district courts) might be a good idea. Norman Ornstein has now suggested this idea in today's Washington Post, and makes some solid arguments in favor of the point...

Whoa, you say. Lifetime appointments insulate the judicial branch from political influence, don't they? Not anymore. Is there anything more political than the Senate's unceasing battles over these nominations? Meanwhile, the nominees themselves have become politicized by the battles -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will always remain bitter over how the Senate treated him during his confirmation hearings. It's been 17 years since Senate Democrats blocked the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and the ideological wars over the judiciary began in earnest. If the Senate can't figure out how to reach a truce in its battles over these all-important jobs, maybe the best solution is to make the jobs not quite so important.

A 15-year term would still provide insulation from political pressure; that tenure is seven years longer than any president can serve. It would allow plenty of time for a judge or justice to make a substantial contribution while diluting the efforts of any president to project his views onto future generations. It has worked admirably well in other jobs that require independence to be effective -- for example, the Comptroller General of the United States.

... Now, though, lifetime tenure has serious drawbacks. It has created a powerful temptation to presidents to pick young ideologues, skewing the balance on the bench and leveraging a president's power for decades thereafter. And lifetime tenure ratchets up the stakes of each appointment, giving opposition parties more incentive to block as many presidential nominees as possible, whatever their ideology, to leave more lifetime slots for a future president of their own party.

Moreover, lifetime tenure in the 21st century is no longer a financial incentive, but a financial drawback. Federal judicial salaries are currently barely more than a newly minted lawyer, just out of school, can earn at a major law firm. A 15-year term would limit the financial disincentive for serving on the courts -- for a younger person, there would still be plenty of time to build the nest egg to provide for a family and retirement; for an older person, it would become the final chapter of a career. Presidents would have a much wider array of talent to choose from if people in their sixties could be seriously considered for top judicial posts; many are now largely discounted because of the alternative lure of choosing younger nominees who can serve much longer.

Perhaps this idea will gather steam, but I doubt that an intelligent solution like this would solve the coming judiciary conflicts, especially since such an amendment would take forever to pass. Of course, I'm fully in favor of the GOP adopting the so-called "nuclear" option, which would effectively limit the filibuster rule in the Senate to legislation and throw the rule out the window for nominations. If you thought Congress was polarized before, just watch what happens if Stevens, Ginsburg or O'Connor leave the bench (when Rehnquist retires, they will be trading a conservative for a conservative, and liberals may not see the benefit of going to the mattresses on that nomination fight).

In the end, though, this battle helps the GOP a lot more than Democrats. Wedge issues help draw out the conservative base, and the social conservatives who came out to the polls are waiting for the chance for W. to put his stamp on the Supreme Court.