Brit, WTHWYT?

On FOX News Sunday, Brit Hume and his colleagues mocked the DC press corps for their response to the Vice-President's shooting incident. They couldn't understand why the press couldn't accept that this was just an accident and have more empathy with the Vice-President's pain.

They failed to mention that Brit Hume asked the most ridiculous question of the week. Vice-President Cheney handpicked Brit Hume to interview him about an understandably sensitive issue and Brit, in his excitement, must have forgotten where he was. He must have thought he had his dream gig and was on Saturday Night Live.

Here is part of the actual interview from the White House web site:

Q How far away from you was he?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm guessing about 30 yards, which was a good thing. If he'd been closer, obviously, the damage from the shot would have been greater.

Q Now, is it clear that -- he had caught part of the shot, is that right?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- part of the shot. He was struck in the right side of his face, his neck and his upper torso on the right side of his body.

Q And you -- and I take it, you missed the bird.

You missed the bird!!!!!! Who cares what happened to the bird?

Brit! Have you given up your RNC aspirations and joined PETA?

What The Hell Were You Thinking?

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume Cheney WTHWYT

Will We Always Be At War?

A few weeks ago, during the NSA press conference, the President promised that he would fight any attempts to disclose more details about the NSA wiretapping program. He said to do so would aid the terrorists which proves, as we've suspected, that there is more to this program than we know. He claims that to reveal more information would only aid our enemies, but cynics point out that it also makes it harder to question the legality, scope and necessity of the program.

The President keeps reminding us that we are in a war. I'm about the same age as the President and I have seen several wars come and go.

The Korean War (Actually, for political reasons, it was called a police action.)
The Cold War
The Vietnam War
The War on Drugs
The War on Poverty
The War in the Balkans
The First Gulf War
The War in Afghanistan
The War in Iraq

I believe in this time frame we also had wars on cancer and the gypsy moth and a few others. I'm not trying to belittle the serious threat of Islamic terrorism, but war is a term that we use quite loosely to describe a condition where we will use our full resources to "win". While you might not put the war on terrorism in the same category as the war on poverty or drugs, you could make a case that the Cold War posed a much more serious threat to this country than Islamic terrorism. The President justifies any action that he wants to take on the fact that we are in a war. At his news conference he vowed to keep renewing his authorization of NSA wiretapping until the threat of terrorism is removed. Implicit in this statement was the assertion, "and I don't care what you think about it".

Does he ever listen to his own speechs? He has already told us that the war on terror will take a long time to win. Does he believe there is any possibility we can win the war on terrorism before his term expires? Does he even have an estimate of when the war on terrorism might be won? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How will we even know when we've won? Common sense tells us that as long as there are people who are willing to die for their cause there will be terrorism. Terrorism evolves. New groups with grievances will emerge and terrorism is an efficient way for the less powerful to influence the powerful. So even if we destroy al Qaida tomorrow, it is reasonable that some other group will take its place demanding the attention of the world with outrageous acts. The very threat that a group might evolve into another al Qaida will be enough to justify a continued war on terrorism.

The President has said something like, "We have to get it right all the time, the terrorists only have to succeed once." I can understand the logic, but this kind of reasoning will always lead presidents to interpret laws and civil liberties in a way that gives them the most flexibility to do whatever they feel is necessary. As President Bush has shown, presidents are more afraid of being wrong once than on worrying too much about legalities. From a president's point of view, the prudent course is to secretly bend the rules. As the NSA wiretapping issue has shown, if your actions are discovered and your authority is questioned you argue that what you are doing is legal under your expanded war powers. Even if it is not legal, it is essential to national security. Either way, those arguments are easier to defend than trying to explain why some city was blown up on your watch. I can understand why presidents would think this way, but these are false choices and it is the responsibility of congress, the courts, the press and all citizens to make sure the executive branch does not lose perspective. There are fates worse than death. There are more serious threats to the nation than terrorist attacks. I can imagine a devastating attack in the US, but to ignore the constitution to prevent an attack is like making a pact with the devil. Somewhere along the line the devil will need to be paid.

I think you can argue that terrorism will be a popular tool for the foreseeable future. Even if we cleaned up all the loose nuclear material (which we are not working hard enough to accomplish), terrorists will turn to biological and chemical weapons (which as technology improves will probably be easier to create and deliver than nuclear bombs). The genie is out of the bottle; from here on we will face attacks by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean we will forever be on a war footing where a president can place himself above the law by invoking his duty to protect us? Presidents of any party will try. We give them every reason to feel that the fate of the country rests, in the end, on them and them alone. Given that charge it is reasonable to expect that they will use every resource at their disposal to do what they feel is necessary. And while their oath to the constitution should keep their actions within the law, the consequences of a mistake and the glaucoma of power make the dark side almost irresistible. That is why we have checks and balances. That is why we have to ask questions that, to some, may look unpatriotic.

You may believe President Bush to be true of heart and a pillar of virtue. You may accept that whatever the President does, he does with the sole intention of saving lives and protecting the nation. But what if, heaven forbid, a Democrat were elected at sometime in the future and claimed these same powers. Would you be comfortable allowing that president to authorize questionable actions in the name of the war on (fill in the current group) terrorism? Keep in mind that technology to spy on us is constantly improving. How long will it be before the NSA has the capacity to monitor EVERY phone call or email in this country? How large must an attack or a threat be before the use of such technology is rationalized? They may even be able to do that now; how would we know?

I'm not suggesting that we don't try to intercept communications between terrorists. I'm not suggesting that we stop the NSA wiretapping program. I am suggesting that this NSA program exposes the administration's belief that immediate threats are more important than laws, civil liberties and the constitution. I am asserting that "war" does not mean that the checks and balances provided by the legislative and judicial branches are diminished. If the NSA wire tapping is as legal and necessary as the administration claims, they need to prove it to Congress and the courts.

The President and his administration claim that since we are in a war, they have additional power and authority. They claim that some of our constitutional checks and balances don't apply during a war. If the President wants to claim extra powers because we are in a war, I would like to hear how we will know we are no longer in a war. The President keeps telling us this is a new kind of war. OK, how about a new definition of how we will know we have won. Without some definition of how we will know the war on terrorism is over we have basically changed the constitution, probably forever. Aren't you concerned about that?

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps War Constitution

Philosophy 101

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound? To non-philosophers that question probably sounds silly. How about another version more in tune with the times?

If you say something that you know is untrue, but there is no way that anyone can prove it is false, did you really tell a lie?

Technorati Tags: Political

Brit For RNC Chair, II

I've written a couple of posts suggesting that Brit Hume of Fox News should replace Ken Mehlman as Chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC). I think the Vice-President seconded that nomination when he chose Brit for his interview this week.

Brit Hume For RNC Chair!

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume

Down With Earmarks

Tonight's edition of Now, on PBS, was about Congressional earmarks. If you missed it, you can read about the issues on the PBS web site.

The Now report made me sick.

We've been watching the Abramoff scandal unfold where a lobbyist is accused of buying votes and influence. Instead of voting for issues based on merit, some legislators may be selling their votes to the highest bidder. One of the ways to pay back a lobbyist is to slip an earmark into a bill, often when no one is looking. An earmark is a targeted appropriation. How can you slip something into a bill when no one is looking? You needed to see the Now report.

What we learned this evening is that a similar kind of unprincipled trading of votes for favors by a few is taking place all the time in the Senate and House by almost all members. The leadership in Congress buys votes by giving individual legislators money from the budget to spend in any way they like, usually for projects in their districts. The Senator or Representative then have earmarks added to bills to designate exactly how "their" money will be spent. For example, someone in the leadership says, "Vote for X and we'll give you 50 million dollars in the new highway bill that you can earmark anyway you like." Or in the case of the Alaskan Bridge To Nowhere, 1.5 billion! The money that the Congressman or Senator gets to earmark and spend in his district buys votes in the next election. As was pointed out in the Now broadcast, would it be better to spend 1.5 billion dollars for a bridge to nowhere or spend that 1.5 billion dollars to rebuild the Lake Ponchatrain bridge badly damaged by hurricane Katrina? The Senate decided Alaska needed its bridge more than New Orleans. In the case of the Bridge To Nowhere, the public was at least aware of this travesty thanks to a Oklahoman Senator Tom Coburn.

Trading favors is not new and will continue to happen, but the current incarnation of this bartering is obscene. Most Senators and Congressmen trade votes for future political success and the currency is earmarks in last minute hidden legislation.

Many earmarks happen in the dead of night when no one is watching. Some powerful Senators or Representatives can slip legislation into a bill at the last minute. Although there are rules that require all parts of a bill be made public at least three days before the bill is voted on, that rule is frequently broken. Legislators often find that they have voted for something they never knew was in the bill.

Write your Senators and Representatives and insist that all legislation, including the earmarks, be made public at least three working days before they are voted on. A Senator or Representative should never have to vote on legislation that they or their staff have not had time to review. While that only seems like common sense, that is not what is happening now. Also, all earmarks should be required to include the name of the legislator who proposed it. Another idea is to allow points of order against individual provisions in conference reports that were not contained in either the House or Senate version of the bill (see Power Struggle Over Pork by Jonathan Allen for a better description of these ideas).

Not only will these proposals help stop corruption from outside, like from lobbyists, it might weaken the strangle hold that the political parties now have (see my post Goodbye, Karl) and allow legislators to vote their conscience and not just what the party requires.

Technorati Tags: Political

I'd Like To See A Diagram

No one believes Vice-President Cheney intentionally shot Mr. Whittington, but in all the noise about how the story was handled I've heard very little about the actual incident. Ron Reagan, today on MSNBC's Hardball, gave a few details. This is more than I'd heard up to this point. I'm surprised there haven't been more explanations of the details. Ron Reagan said Vice-President Cheney apparently shot downward into a setting sun. There may be nothing wrong with taking a shot like that, but I would like to hear the details. What was the actual distance between the Vice-President and Mr. Whittington? Maybe, these details were printed somewhere and I missed them.

It is getting harder and harder to determine what is true and what isn't. Whatever the real story was regarding the Vice-President's errant shot, he wounded the truth and public trust as badly as he wounded Mr. Whittington. Who knows what to believe or who to listen to? This would seem to add impetus to the need for a reporter shield law. As the government works harder to control what information we receive, maintaining a strong independent press becomes even more important.


Technorati Tags: Vice-President Whittington

Did I Miss Something?

Last week on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewd Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. Here is the final exchange (from the Fox News Sunday web site):

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about this question of the Democratic involvement. I want to put up something from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. This comes directly from their Web page, and it says, "Here is a detailed look at Abramoff's lobbying and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, which is a company that Abramoff owned since 1999."

It lists recipients by the amount of money they received. Well, the top two are the Republican campaign committees. The third and fourth biggest recipients were Democratic campaign committees. And if you go down the list, Democrats received more than $1 million from Abramoff-related interests.

DEAN: There's two points to this. First of all, actually, we — the DNC actually got $100,000-some odd. Now, I can assure you Jack Abramoff never directed that money. It is possible that some of Jack Abramoff's clients may have decided on their own to give Democrats money. The key is...

WALLACE: I'm sorry, did you say, I'm sorry. Did you say that you're sure that Abramoff didn't direct them to give that money?

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from some of the — yeah. No, what I'm saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money toward the Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did, sir. We've got evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is that not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything, and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find — and I just want to — we have to wrap this up. But if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That's a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble, and they should be in trouble. And our party, if the American people will put us back in power in '06, we will have on the president's desk things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now it's a Republican scandal. Maybe they'll find that some Democrats did something wrong, too. That hasn't been the case yet.

But our reforms in the Democratic Party are going to be aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. We want to clean up Congress, and we will within 100 days of the new Congress in 2007.

WALLACE: Chairman Dean, we're going to follow up on that. Thank you. Thanks so much for joining us. And don't be a stranger. You're always welcome here.


Later in the show Chris Wallace said that Fox News did indeed have proof that letters were written by Senators on behalf of tribes that Abramoff represented. The clear implication was that Dean needed to crack down on some Democrats and this is a Democrat and Republican scandal.

From the interview it looks like Dean side stepped the first trap, but FNS clearly got him on the second and then after he was off the air and couldn't respond. I watched again this Sunday expecting to hear more about this Democratic scandal. I must of missed something. I didn't hear more explanation about which Democrats had been implicated and details of what they did wrong. Did I miss it? Fox said they had proof and then nothing? If there are Democrats involved in the Abramoff scandal, I want to know who they are.

And if the FNS proof is not there, why wasn't there an apology? Maybe I just missed it.


Technorati Tags: Political Fox News

Someone Take Mehlman To Task!

I watched Ken Mehlman on ABC's This Week this morning. I generally like George Stephanopolous, but I can't believe he let Mehlman skate on several outrageous statements. Stephanopolous made the point that Republicans (most recently in speeches by the President, Karl Rove and Mehlman himself) were throwing down the gauntlet on national security. He played a clip of Senator Chuck Haegle who said "I don't like it. It's wrong for this country. National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party and to use it to get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party." Stephanopolous asked Mehlman his response. He said "I wouild agree with him. I think national security is too important for partisanship."

After a further exchange and a statement by Mehlman that Democrats still used pre-9/11 thinking, Stephanopolou asked
"Are you saying the Democrats don't want to go after the enemy?"
Mehlman responded that Democrats continue to use pre-9/11 thinking. "Well I'm saying when the Chairman of the Democratic Party goes on radio and says we're going to lose the central front in the war on terror." Later he says, "When Harry Reid says we are going to kill the Patriot Act or we killed that Patriot Act, that doesn't connect the dots, that is pre-9/11. When you don't have the ability to listen in on foreign terrorists calling into this country to potential sleeper cells I think that unfortunately is a 9/11 view."

One, I believe Howard Dean was talking about the war in Iraq. It was Mehlman who twisted Dean's words and equated the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Republicans continue to do this because without this clearly untrue connection the failures in Iraq are more obvious. Howard Dean was not saying anything about the war on terror, he was talking about the war in Iraq and most of the country agrees with him. What Mehlman said was wrong and misleading and he knows it.

Two, as I understand it, Harry Reid was talking about stopping the final conference committee version of the Patriot Act. The Senate 79-9 had voted on a version Reid supported that contained a few changes that even many Republican Senators agreed were important to make. The House voted to basically reauthorize the current Patrior Act without any changes. This went to committee and what came out was the House version. Senator Reid wanted to stop that version from becoming law and instead gain some time to negotiate further to try to enact the Senate version (again, a version supported by most Republican Senators). Reid never tried to kill the Patriot Act. Senator Reid and the Democrats offered to extend the current Patrior Act to allow more time to debate the issue, which is what happened. If Senator Reid wanted to kill the Patrior Act, why did he vote on at least two occasions to extend it? Mehlman lied.

Finally, I don't believe I've heard of any Democrat that has said we shouldn't listen in on converstations between al Qaeda members and people in the United States. Democrats and some Republicans have questioned whether the way this administration has chosen to conduct this listening is legal. Members of both parties have agreed to help write legislation to make such listening legal and constitutinal. Most want oversight to ensure that rights are not being abused, but no one is saying we shouldn't try to intercept terrorist communications. The administration has refused to seek such legislation. Democrats have not called for the administation to stop this surveillance. Mehlman lied.

Ken Mehlman says that national security is too important for partisanship and then does just that. It is certainly fair to raise issues about how your opponent would approach national security, but when you distort their position you are not having an honest debate. That is partisan politics.

This guy is unbelievable! Today's distortions are even more reason to hope Brit Hume will leave Fox and replace Mehlman.

Technorati Tags: Political Ken Mehlman Brit Hume

Cable News as Manufactured Outrage

Life is just not exciting enough. How else can you explain the popularity of reality TV shows? We revel in the turmoil, intrigue and contrived spontaneity. At least that is what I think they offer from seeing the 30 second promos. I haven't been able to watch more than a couple of minutes of any of them. I get bored.

TV sports is another opportunity to live vicariously, feel the adrenalin rush and excitement of the unpredictably, bask in unmerited success and bathe in the knowledge that we are not as dumb and blind as the officials.

I do occasionally watch Cops, or shows like that. Although maybe for the wrong reasons. I don't watch to feel morally superior or excited by the pursuits. I usually come away knowing that life is not fair. For whatever reasons, a lot of people find life harder than others. I don't see how you can watch a show like Cops and not realize that given the right (or wrong) circumstances, you could be the loser on TV. I watch Cops and always come away more humble.

But my real reason for this post is a train of thought set off by George Will a couple of weeks ago on This Week (ABC). He used the term "synthetic outrage" and I immediately thought of cable news. Well, actually, I thought of Fox News and then realized they are not alone in manufacturing outrage.

O'Reilly likes to put down competitors because their number of viewers is not as high as his. I think the difference in popularity is how well a show can manufacture outrage. A really good news show would probably not be called entertaining. I love to watch the News Hour on PBS, but I would call it more informative than entertaining. This is partly because Rush calls himself an entertainer, not a journalist or commentator. I think Rush is sort of an entertainer, I just wish I could believe his loyal listeners saw him that way. I suspect most would call him a commentator and journalist.

But I digress. The cable "news" and commentary shows thrive on outrage. The more outrage they can generate in their audience, the more successful they are. When there is no convenient event or person to build outrage on, they invent something. I have sympathy for Natalee Hollaway's family and don't blame them for using any tool to keep interest in her story alive. But does anyone believe we would still be hearing about this case if it weren't for the outrage manufactured by cable "news"? The same goes for Terri Schiavo, cruise ship murders, Happy Holidays, etc. I'm sure with a little effort you can add to the list.

Fox, and maybe the other cable networks, have a nasty habit of picking guests more on their ability to generate outrage than on their ability to discuss an issue or defend a position. A good "kick me again" liberal can get a lot of air time. The same goes for sycophant conservatives.

As you watch news/commentary shows, even the individual segments in a show, make your own decision as to whether they are offering primarily journalism, commentary, entertainment or synthetic outrage. You can do this by analyzing what is being presented and the manner in which it is presented. Is what is offered fact or opinion? Is opinion offered as fact? Does the anchor or host sprinkle in personal comment and/or opinions while describing fact(the news)? Are you being given information by authentic sources? Are people telling you the thoughts and motivations of someone else? Do they offer these insights as conjecture or fact with supporting reasoning? Or have they somehow crawled inside the other person's head and are now reporting from a remote location? During an interview, does the host cut guests off, interrupt before the guest has a chance to answer or restate what the guest just said in a different way with the implication that the guest is lying or ignorant? Does the host treat the guest and their opinions with respect? You can disagree with someone and still treat them with respect (for examples, watch Now on PBS). Does the host end the interview and then give some comments that the guest has no opportunity to respond to? Is the host really trying to elicit information from the guest or trap them into saying something they can pounce on? I love the common tactic of cutting off an answer with a comment like "We only have a few seconds left and I wanted to ask you....". That really means, you aren't supplying enough outrage, let's try another subject.

If you like to watch Hannity and Colmes because it gets your blood boiling, that's fine. You probably spend too much time on the couch and this little bit of activity is probably good for your heart. But don't come away thinking all liberals are dim witted pin heads who look for every opportunity to dis the troops, hurt the country, lie, cheat, steal and evade the draft (yes, I know we no longer draft people into the armed services).

There is certainly enough stupidity, incompetence, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, injustice, violence, evil, perniciousness, arrogance, malfeasance, ...... to outrage us all. We don't need cable news to manufacture it.

Technorati Tags: Cable News Fox News Outrage

Goodbye, Karl

While there was much to comment on in tonight's State of the Union address, one observation from several commentators was the partisanship displayed on the floor of the House.

If the President truly wants to make the last three years of his term successful, I have a suggestion. Boot Karl Rove out of the White House. Send him to the RNC if you like, but get him out of the White House.

The partisan rancor starts with our democracy. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. The winner then has no reason to care about the concerns of people who didn't vote for him or her. If a candidate wins by one vote, she has all the marbles and the losers have none. As long as she can keep the majority that voted for her happy she doesn't need to care about the people who didn't vote for her.

The rancor is increased by having only two major parties and the use of party solidarity to pass legislation. If you want to be elected to the House, Senate or Presidency you must be a member of one of the two major parties. They have the power and, more importantly, the money. The parties believe that any success by the opposition is unacceptable. The opposition must always be derided as incompetent, out of touch and without ideals or ideas since any success for them is a loss for us. Even more importantly, they need the outrage and angst created by a good (bad?) opponent to mobilize their supporters and bring in the money. Therefore, the best way to govern is to not cooperate, because cooperation implies your opponent does have something to offer. Republicans have no incentive to seek or accept any cooperation from Democrats. Cooperation with a Democrat gives them standing which weakens Republicans and vice versa. The best strategy is to pass legislation by demanding party unity and preventing Democrats from taking any actions for which they can claim success.

The Democrats have been frozen out of the legislative process for several years. The Republicans call them poor sports, but won't even let them on the field. The Democrats are left to stand on the sidelines and try to disrupt the Republican playbook through whatever means they can find. Like filibusters. Republicans love this since they can then use these very actions to prove Democrats have no ideas other than opposition. It is the publicly expressed hope of several key Republican strategists to keep Democrats from returning to power for decades. How do they do that? By continually showing that Democrats have no ideas and have nothing to offer the country. Certainly not a strategy to win friends across the aisle. And who leads that campaign? Karl Rove.

Who are the second and third most powerful people in the White House? Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. You can pick their relative positions. We know what the Vice-President does (sort of), but what is Karl Rove's job in the White House? No matter what title he has, he is the take no prisoners political strategist. He makes sure that the President wins politically, which also means helping Republicans win politically. A rejuvenated Karl Rove recently resurfaced to map out strategy for the 2006 mid-term elections. His strategy, the tried and true, make the Democrats look soft on defense and terrorism. This is the second or third most important person in the White House trying to once again bury the Democrats. The President is not running in 2006, so why is Karl Rove still working to trivialize Democrats?

The President has had the majority in both houses for at least four years and still complains about how the Democrats won't cooperate. With the second or third most important person in this administration working every day to politically screw them, why would any Democrat want to play nice?

It is not up to the party out of power to make concessions. They have little to give and the party in power has a disincentive to accept any help. At this point if Republicans want to tone down the partisanship, they will need to take the lead and probably make the most concessions.

President Bush is not running again and I suggest that if he truly wants to be treated kindly by history he should become the President of all Americans and not just the leader of the Republican Party. What is more important to the President, electing Republicans or doing the country's business? Instead of using the White House to elect and re-elect Republicans as a way to pass his legislative proposals, why not work with legislators to create legislation that a majority of Representatives and Senators from both parties can support? He might not get exactly what he or his base wants, but he would quiet the partisan rancor and end up with programs and laws that a majority of legislators thought were good for the country. Not just programs and laws that party leaders steamrolled party members to pass.

Mr. President, send Karl Rove packing! Let the RNC fight the political battles and you work for all of us.

Technorati Tags: Political Partisanship State of the Union

Definition of a Pickle

One definition of pickle from Dictionary.com

4. Informal. A disagreeable or troublesome situation; a plight.

Example: Your goal is to spread democracy in the Middle East and the Palestinians elect a terrorist group to govern them.

Technorati Tags: Political Democracy

Call Me, They'll Never Know

Tonight on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Obermann they did a segment on the idiotic way the White House is trying to parse and manipulate language to obsfuscate. They showed a clip where White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tried to prove that the recently disclosed NSA wiretapping operation does not represent domestic spying by explaining the difference between the words "domestic" and "international". To prove his point he used the example of your phone bill where a call from the U.S. to a foreign phone is listed as an international call, not a domestic call. Therefore, spying on these calls is not "domestic" spying.

Egad! Did he realize he gave away the underlying secret that has made the White House so touchy on this subject? A call made from a U.S. phone to a foreign phone shows up on your bill as an international call, but what about a call made from a foreign phone to a U.S. phone? Aha, it doesn't show up at all! Using McClellan's analogy we now know that the NSA can't snoop on calls coming into the U.S. from foreign phones! To hide from the NSA all al Qaida has to do is call the U.S. from some other country and we'll never know!

Anyone else would be fired immediately for such a gaff, but no one else would take his thankless job, so he is probably safe.

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Fair and Balanced?

I generally watch Fox News Sunday (FNS). I like to get a conservative point of view now and then, and it plugs the hole in my area between Meet The Press on NBC and This Week on ABC.

Chris Wallace is generally pretty even handed, but occasionally his convservative bias shows through. He is certainly better than Tony Snow. By the way, I know that Washington, D.C. is not a really large city, but I was surprised several years ago as the Monica Lewinsky story was breaking when Tony Snow admitted on the air that he personally knew Linda Tripp (Monica Lewinsky's "friend"). I appreciated the disclosure, but it seemed odd that a conservative news anchor had some kind of relationship with a low level Pentagon employee who secretly taped conversations to harm a liberal president. I never heard what their relationship was; they could have just been neighbors. It just struck me as very odd.

If you really think Fox is fair and balanced, just watch the panel discussion on FNS. The regular panel members include: Brit Hume, who I suggested in a previous post should be the chairman of the RNC. He doesn't even try to hide his bias. Mara Liasson, who works hard to be fair and balanced. Bill Kristol, who is a well known conservative thinker and writer. He can generally defend his position with reasoned opinion and without name calling or put-downs. Juan Williams is the token liberal. I like Juan, but it is clear that he is on the panel because he often ineffectively states his position and he obviously will take Hume's crap to stay on the show.

Yesterday, Brit Hume responded to a statement by Williams with "That's crap" or something like that. Later, Juan tried to explain that the Abramoff scandal was indeed a Republican scandal. He explained how part of the Republican "K Street Project" was to push lobbying groups to fire their employees who were Democrats and hire Republicans. Instead of a thoughtful discussion of Juan's point, Brit came back with a smart ass remark asking Juan if he was suggesting the need for civil rights legislation for lobbyists. Brit doesn't attempt to hide his disrespect for Williams. One day Juan should stare back at Brit and say, "No, Brit, that is not crap, but I can believe to an asshole like you most things sound like crap". Obviously Juan would never work for Fox again, but wouldn't that be satisfying? Hume is the managing editor of Fox News? Doesn't that make it harder for other commentators to give it back like they are getting it?

While I'm venting about Fox I've got to say that I do like to hear conservative points of view. While I might not agree with them very often, Bill Kristol, George Will and David Brooks are bright people with positions they defend with reasoned responses. A person's personal views of politics, or anything else for that matter, must be tested against well reasoned opinions of people with opposing views. Otherwise your opinions may be no more than illusions.

Having said that, Hannity and Colmes is worthless. I watch some of the Fox shows frequently, but Hannity and Colmes turns my stomach. I try to watch occasionally, but I'm generally nauseous after about five minutes. If you like someone who is unreflective, rude, obnoxious and pontificating, Hannity is probably your man. And, like Juan Williams, Alan Colmes plays the part of the ineffective, out-of-touch, hit me again liberal.

I'm sure Juan Williams and Alan Colmes are fine people, but I couldn't and wouldn't play the part of the liberal patsy. And I can't respect either for staying with Fox.

As far as Fox being "Fair and Balanced", this is just another example of the Republican/conservative belief that if you tell a lie often enough people will start believing it. Why can't they just be honest and say "We are a conservative news organizaion that is committed to balancing the views from the liberal media." Not simple or catchy enough. How about "We are right and proud of it!"

Technorati Tags: Political Fox News

Brit For RNC Chair

After watching Fox News Sunday this morning, it is clear that Brit Hume is missing his true calling, Chairman of the RNC.

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume

Are We Terrorists?

A recent Reuters news article says that Pakistan now believes as many as four al Qaeda members were killed in the Predator airstrike last week. I would imagine that the administration and the CIA are breathing a little easier now. An attack that killed 18 presumably innocent villagers without killing a top level terrorist would have been hard to explain. But even so, does killing 4 terrorists justify killing 18 Pakistanis?

Are you bothered that we killed 18 other people to get those four terrorists? I want to kill terrorists as much as anyone else. I have no problem killing those guys. I hope we can get some more.

But what if the 18 civilians were men, women and children from Peoria, IL? Would we make the moral trade-off quite so easily? If an al Qaeda member crept into Peoria some night and blew up 18 people, what would we call that person and what would we like to do to him and people who supported him?

What message do we send to the people of the world when we are willing to kill innocent people to achieve our military and political goals? I know that innocent people are always killed in wars and the President keeps telling us this is a war, but there is something about this attack that bothers me. Are we really willing to kill innocent people around the world on the chance it may save some of us? Are American lives worth more than Pakistani lives?

I suppose you can justify the civilian deaths in Iraq because the fighting there is needed to defend their new freedoms, but how do we justify the deaths of these Pakistanis? They might have been providing support to al Qaeda, but we aren't even sure we killed any terrorists so what would make us believe these people were not just innocent civilians?

This bothers me. I can see why some people might think we are also terrorists.

Technorati Tags: Political Terrorists

What's In A Name?

The abortion debate is not likely to end soon. I've suggested that we try to come together on a position that may not satisfy everyone, but might give a common goal that many of us could agree on. See Let's Make Abortion Rare.

We need a tag that quickly and clearly defines this view. Each side has used a term that tries to capture in a positive way their position.

"Pro-life" replaced "anti-abortion" which was too negative. I've argued that for many people who claim this position, "pro-life" is a misnomer. They should more appropriately be called "pro-birth" because they are more interested in making sure a child is born and much less about it's future. Too many pro-lifers care little about what happens to the mother or child after birth. In their zeal to insure that no abortion ever be tolerated, they lessen the moral weight of their arguments.

"Pro-choice" replaced "pro-abortion" as its proponents tried to remove the moral implications of an abortion. It is not the act or its consequences that are important, it is just important that women have the right to choose. In their zeal to insure that no abortion ever be prevented, they lessen the moral weight of their arguments.

What would be a good tag for people who believe that we should work to make abortions rare through positive actions, but retain the right of women to choose to have an abortion with reasonable restrictions? There is the obvious temptation to call the movement "pro-something". "Pro-rare?" "Pro-moral?" Neither of those is promising. How about an acronym? Keep abortions legal, but make them rare (KALBMTR)? Ugh! Make abortions rare, but legal (MARBL). Better, but someone with more imagination can suggest a better name.


Technorati Tags: Political Abortion

Robertson on Robertson

OK, I've changed my mind, it is now time to pray for Pat Robertson to come down with facial shingles (see Shingles For Robertson).

Pat Robertson has managed to utter another outrageous statement. Of course, I knew he would. He won't stop until he is no longer able to open his mouth. I don't predict or wish any bad things to happen to Reverend Robertson (except for the shingles), but we all die and bad things happen to many of us.

What kind of comments will we hear when Rev. Robertson dies or suffers from some serious disease or injury? I think a comment, in the Robertson tradition, would go something like this.

Did he really believe he could continue to make those outrageous statements without incurring God's wrath? There is a price to pay for pretending to speak for God. You can say he was an old man and his time had come, but I think God finally got fed up with his pretentious panderings. I liked the man, but I don't expect to meet him in Heaven.

Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson

Intelligent Design Explained

With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke,

Any sufficiently complex natural phenomenon will prove intelligent design to the insufficiently skeptical.

Technorati tag: Intelligent Design

Immigration Is A Population Issue

Population policy in the US and the world is not a hot topic, but it should be. Especially with the looming debate on immigration. Many of the world's problems are related directly or indirectly to population. China, the worlds most populous nation, is already suffering from many problems caused by over-population and has implemented government programs to try to control its population. You may disagree with some of its population policies, but they have at least recognized the problem and are trying to resolve it. Read Lindsey Grant's essay "China As An Emerging Nation; What It Means To The Rest Of US" for more information.

China and India (the world's second most populous country) are poised to become future super powers because of their large populations of cheap, skilled labor. The U.S. (the world's third most populous country) cannot grow its population fast enough to compete. Even if we could, our high level of consumption of resources per person would doom us. If we could lower our consumption (and standard of living?), we might be able to compete, but a declining standard of living should not be our goal.

Increasing immigration for cheap labor may do us all much more harm than good. It is obvious that cheap labor around the world has harmed the manufacturing base in the U.S. Do we really believe that bringing cheap labor to the U.S. will make us stronger? Or will it just lower the standard of living for even more Americans? For an example, read Lindsey Grant's essay "Social Security And The Fear Of Aging" which explains why mass immigration makes the problems with social security worse, not better.

If we want to increase immigration, we should encourage people with skills we need, like scientists, to immigrate. We should maintain our standard of living through innovation, wise use of resources and education, not cheaper goods, cheaper services and an ever growing population. Cheap labor may mean cheaper goods and services, but only for those who make enough money to afford them. If we win this race to the bottom with cheap labor, what is the prize?

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Immigration Over-Population

Why All The Secrecy?

In two previous posts I suggested that the NSA wire tapping story may have involved wide scale wire tapping and that there was more to this story than we are being told. In the past I've read accounts that indicate the government can scan massive amounts of telecommunications data looking for specific items and then focus on those conversations. Many political pundits have wondered why the administration didn't just go to the courts for approval for their wire taps. One reason may be that the way they are wire tapping is highly technical and highly controversial. The administration did not want to divulge details of this technology because it is so new, current laws may not cover this new technology and/or they did not want to face possible legislative limits on this new technology.

I came across an article that more clearly states the technical possiblities. The article on arstechnica.com is titled "The new technology at the root of the NSA wiretap scandal". You can agree or disagree with the authors opinions (be sure to read his/her followup post), but the technical discussion is very interesting.

The President may have tipped his hand when he kept saying that release of the New York Times article gave our enemies information they didn't previously have. Terrorists have to suspect we are trying to intercept their communications, but they may not have understood how sophisticated the technology had become or that we were using it to monitor communications to the US.

I don't like to be cynical, but I lived through Watergate and know how easily illegal government actions can be rationalized and hidden. How sure are we that this technology, if it exists, is not being used on purely domestic telecommunications?

On Meet The Press this morning, William Safire described how his home phones were, unknown by him at the time, tapped by the FBI for six months while he was working in the White House. It started when he had made an innocuous comment that was misconstrued. It can happen to any of us.

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps