Rather Untruthful

I've learned of more deceit from Dan Rather. I think by now we all know that Rather is/was a shameless partisan parading as an objective arbiter of facts. It also turns out he's a shameless self promoter.

Two points:

1. Rather claimed he was the first to get the "Kennedy is Dead" scoop, when in fact it was really his coworker Eddie Barker who was the first to find out President Kennedy was dead.
2. Rather reported a story about Texas school children cheering upon finding Kennedy had been assassinated. Barker's children attended that school, and told Rather before the story aired that this was not the case. The principle of the school had let the children out early because of the assassination, but had not told them why they were being let out. The children were merely happy to be out of school. Despite being forewarned, Rather still arranged for a special live segment, and allowed as local Minister to repeat the school children 'story' on air.
   

What Have Americans Done for Us?

Funny article with Monty Python quote.

Let the Record Show...

Dan Rather did not tell the truth last night on Letterman. Rather must have said, 4 or 5 times that the independent panel found that the Bush AWOL story was not politically motivated. Actually what they said, "The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the segment of having a political bias."
But even that estimate is conservative. This article applies the legal standard for measuring bias to Rathergate and get a positive result. And the panel enumerated many instances that can accurately be interpreted as political bias.
Also I was a little insulted that Rather went on Letterman to make his case, yet dodged every serious news venue. I'm sure Meet the Press would have been glad to have Dan explain Rathergate on their program.

Romney 2008

Romney
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

2008 elections seem to be the only reason Democrats didn't resort to mass suicide after Bush won in 04. I've been thinking about them as well, and I'm not so sure the Dems should get their hopes us yet.

Hillary is the front runner for the Democrats. Some think she is a strong candidate, some a weak. I'm not sure. She doesn't appeal to me, but then again, I don't represent every voter. What I do know is she is smart, and that scares me. She's already started positioning herself more towards the middle (e.g. her speech about making room for/tollerating pro-lifers). New York is a liberal state, and so is Hillary. Because of this, one may be tempted to think "here's one more northeastern liberal, bound to lose." But there are reasons to be concerned. One is how well she did when she ran for senator, winning some counties that traditionally vote Republican. Then again, New York is home to Republicans like George Pataki, Michael Bloomberg, and Rudy Guliani. I like Pataki and Giuliani, but there far from being conservative's conservatives. My guess is those Republicans who voted for Hillary, are the kind who also voted for Bloomberg: Not exactly your typical heartland conservative republican.

Democrats, in my opinion, would do better with someone like Evan Bayh, or Barack Obama. Obama is too green to run in 08. Bayh it seems is too moderate to get the nomination: That's why he's already started positioning himself more to the left. I don't think it will work though. It looks like Dems are more or less set on Hillary.

Hillary may have a shot though. She could convince some women, who would otherwise vote Republican, that it's time to have a woman president. On the other hand, if in 2008 were still talking about terrorism and national security, It difficult for me to believe we'll pick a woman to be our Commander and Chief and keep us safe. My prediction is Hillary will take the nomination but lose for this precise reason.

The Republican side is harder. I really like Dick Cheney, but he has said, unequivocally, he will not run in 2008. That leaves Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; New York Gov. George Pataki; Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain, Pataki and Giuliani could win, but are really to liberal for my taste, and probably too liberal to get the nomination. Frist is a charismatic dud. Does anyone know anything about Hagel? Jeb Bush as far as I can tell is doing a good job if Florida. He's a lot like his brother, but seems to be a much better communicator, and that would help a ton. ( I still think that's Bush 43's biggest problem).

All and All, I think Mitt Romney is our best bet. He's a handsome Mormon Harvard Law School graduate with a wife and kids (original wife, original kids). He's pretty conservative, yet has managed to get elected governor of MASSACHUSETTS!! (only the most liberal state in the US!). This is partially due to his great communication skills. He's pro-life, though he promised not to do anything to change the laws in Massachusetts in order to get elected (he both compromised, yet didn't compromise). I especially like his positions on stem cell research and same-sex marriage. Romney is for using the embryos from fertilization clinics for research, but not for cloning human embryos (he's more liberal on this point, probably because his wife has MS). He also is against same-sex marriage and civil unions (in my opinion civil union is just a euphemism for same-sex marriage) but he favors some benefits for same-sex couples, such as hospital visitation rights (That seems very reasonable to me, especially since a hospital patient should, in my opinion, be able to have those people who are close to them come visit if they so desire). He also has executive experience. We Americans seem to prefer governors to say senators, partially for this reason. Lastly, he is talented politically. He smoothed the Salt Lake City Olympic scandal over, and did I mention, he was elected Governor of Massachusetts?!

More on the Ten

Rich Lowry writes about the Supreme Court cases i wrote about in the not so distant past. Here are the highlights:

A better question is: If a Ten Commandments display establishes a religion, exactly what religion is it? Is it Judaism? And if so, Orthodox or Reform? Or is it Christianity? If so, Roman Catholic or Protestant? If the latter, is it Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or something else? Maybe Seventh-day Adventist? If government has gone to the trouble of establishing a religion, shouldn't all of us know which one? Or is this just another case of government's notorious bureaucratic inefficiency? It meant to establish a religion, but memos got crossed somewhere and it couldn't agree on its fundamental tenets?

Indeed, the alleged harm of Ten Commandments displays is attenuated to the point of nonexistence. The Texas case came about because in 2002 a homeless man named Thomas Van Orden — on his way to idling the day away at the State Law Library — noticed the display on the grounds of the Texas state capitol. As it happens, Van Orden has a law degree (is this an over-lawyered country or what?). With nothing else to do with his time, he sued. The display had been up since 1961, and in 40 years, no one in Texas had noticed the state was trying to establish a religion.

The Texas case is dicier, since the display isn't quite so clearly part of a historical statement. Expect tangled 5-4 decisions in the two cases that do little to clarify anything. The Ten Commandments are one of Western culture's great symbols of law. In its arbitrary and erratic jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court has become a symbol of the opposite.

Read the full article here.

Unreal

This article is about Michael Malchin. His stories and his talent are sureal. I highly recommend reading it.

Dead of Alive?

Many are already prematurely pronouncing Social Security reform dead on arrival. Charley Rengel is one individual whose been saying such things. However Byron York writes that although many are cautious when it comes to personal accounts, more people consider social security a problem and think that it needs to be fixed immediately. Read here.

Robert Byrd

West Virgina Senator and former Ku Klux Klan member, Robert Byrd, has decided to offer up some criticisms of the Republican Party.

New York, NY, March 2, 2005 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed outrage at the remarks of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who suggested that
some Republican tactics on judicial nominations were similar to Adolf Hitler's use of power in Nazi Germany. . . .
It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.
The Senator shows a profound lack of understanding as to who Hitler was and what he and his regime represented.
Senator Byrd must repudiate his remarks immediately and apologize to the American people for showing such disrespect for this country's democratic process.

Read the full story here.

More Putin Nonsense

Putin continues to behave badly. Take a look at the list of guest he has had to the Kremlin recently.

And the New McCarthyism is....

Coulter
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

I was sort of thinking that racism was the new McCarthyism. Its so easy to call someone a racist, and all accusations of racism are taken seriously regardless of their actual validity, or the evidence to support their validity. I guess Davis Horowitz was really the first to bring this to my attention.

Ann Coulter suggests that the actual new McCarthyism is Homosexuality (not in those words exactly). It does seem that there is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the left on this point these days. For instance, we're supposed to have a sexual-preference-blind society, however, at the same time the left can't help but parade Jeff Gannon/Guckert's sexuality, despite it having no relevance (he was the reporter accused of asking softball questions at white house press conferences). And the outing of the relatives of conservatives is about as sordid of a practice one can think of.

Orwellian

george-orwell
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

If you're like me you probably have no idea what Eugenics is (or at least I didn't until I read this article). If your interested, Eugenics is improving the human race through better breading. This was popular science in the US, and included sterilizing tens of thousands of people in the early 1900's. Sounds sorta like what Hitler did with the Aryan race. Scary Orwellian stuff.

I was just thinking......

that penguin swatting is probably what the employees of PETA do durring there spare time.

Time Waster

Love penguin swatting? Well then go here.

Good News

More good news from Iraq:

Iraqi troops have spread their control over Mosul, according to Interior Minister Falah al-Naqeeb.

Insurgents controlled Mosul, the country’s second largest city last November, after overrunning its 12 police stations.

“Mosul was on the point of collapse from the security point of view and under threat from organized gangs,” the minister said in an interview.

“The Interior Ministry was forced to take urgent measures, ferrying troops and commandos who have managed to return tranquility and stability to the city,” Naqeeb said.

The minister said the troops have now established “an intelligence and information” gathering center in the city which is receiving full cooperation from residents.

Just thought I'd point it out since you'd probably miss it if i didn't

The Man...

buckley
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

the legend. Here he is for those of you who may not know what William F. Buckley Jr. looks like.

Shut up Lou!

I used to give myself ulcers watching Lou Dobbs every night, hoping that he would have a guest who knows about the economy go on the show and tear him to shreds. Unfortunately he selodomly has guests on that disagree with his views, and when he does there way to nice to Dobbs . There isn't an economist in the world who doesn't support free trade, yet Dobbs uses some of his time every day to stump againt it (yes i am commiting the logical falicy of apealing to authority). I have since deemed this sadistic behavior unhealthy, and stopped watching. Luckily there is Fox News, so most everyone else has stopped watching as well. Anyhow, I was very pleased to see that my hero, WFB, feels the same way about Dobbs as I do. See it here.

The Times

There have been two great articles illustrating the bias in The New York Times recently. One, by Byron York, points out that The Times ran 16 stories about the explosives that disappeared from al Qaqaa facility in Iraq before the election, 0 after the election. The other, by Larry Kudlow, points out that bad news about the economy makes the front page, but a corresponding correction is buried. Both are great.

Putin...

is up to his old tricks it seems. This youth group smacks of communist youth groups like the 'pioneers' or the 'komsomoltsy.'

Iraqis Speak Up

Here is a touching story about Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis take to the streets to protest yesterdays car bombing, chanting "no to terrorism!"

If your like me you've probably wondered why blacks vote so consistently Democratic. I guess it has something to do with the civil rights movement (as if republicans had nothing to do with it). Anyway, if your not wondering, or you just needed some reasons to justify your wondering, read this article by Deroy Murdock; a great conservative.

Catch 22

The Left is always mad at Bush for not making nice with those European countries that constantly undermine our (and their own, for that matter) interests. Which is why this article by The New Republic is so shocking to me. Apparently Bush is both not being nice enough, and being too nice simultaneously.
And what's up with Putin's stupidity? I used to like him, but now he undermines democracy, The US, and consolidates power at every turn. Selling Nuclear fuel to Iran seems like his worst idea yet. Does he not remember that he has radical Islamicts within his boarder? Does he think Iran lives in a vacuum? An Iranian-Chechnian cooperation doesn't seem to out of the question to me (course, I'm no expert).

More Fraud

ward_Churchill
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

Most of us who have been following the Ward Churchill Fiasco already knew he was a fake intellectual and a fake Indian. If you haven't been following let me catch you up. Churchill is tenured professor of Ethnic Studies at Colorado State. He wrote and essay claiming those who died on 9/11 were "Little Eichmanns"(an infamous Nazi). If you look here, it turns out, in addition to being a fake Indian, and fake intellectual, Churchill is a fake artist as well.

At It Again....

dean
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

I think Dean has really captured the essence of us conservatives. Check out the following penetrating observations.

"The issue is not abortion. The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do.
"Moderate Republicans can't stand these people [conservatives], because they're intolerant. They don't think tolerance is a virtue. I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant.

"This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

Democrats really do have a death wish. I found this at www.powerlineblog.com. Check out their analysis. It's good.

Here's a real barn-burner of an essay/debate by David Frum (responding to Andrew Sullivan). Same-sex marriage advocates with heart conditions be warned.