Police Cops

Robert Novak has lost it unfortunately. He's wandered off the reservation in his latest piece. It's a piece that lauds the Police Corps, an elite crime fighting organization. He contends that the program has largely been a success and could be useful in fighting terrorism. He comments that it is in danger of collapse due to lack of funding.

And this is his mistake. You see, Americans need tax cuts, and our President, among others, has assured us that we can cut taxes and still completely meet our obligations. Now that seems a dubious premise, but it is the only way these tax cuts will work.

So if Police Corps gets cut, I'm sure it was because it turned out to be a less effective program, not because this Administration is determined to cut taxes no matter what the cost.

All joking aside, the Police Corps program does sound like a good one, and I hope it gets funded. Write your congressperson.

More on Jim Carrey and Bruce

Well, it's hard to hold onto this story. Now Maggie Gallagher, also a Conservative, has suggested that Jim Carrey's movie proves that America is on the right track.

"Holy cow, Bruce, have you seen the new Jim Carrey flick? What do you get when a movie crosses a) respect and reverence in a cinematic portrayal of the God most Americans worship and b) fart jokes?

You get $135 million bucks in less than two weeks, that's what."

Ms. Gallagher also comments on how great it is to see Jennifer Aniston playing a women Gallagher describes as "the adorably blond good girl who works with children, volunteers for her community, cooks (!) for her boyfriend, and wants nothing more than to settle down, get married and make babies with the man she loves." She even compares Aniston's character to Doris Day. Of course the difference is that Doris Day's characters were never presented with an option. There's nothing wrong with choosing to get married and have children, but she should have the choice.

Hope

Ben Shapiro wrote an open letter to President Bush today, speaking of his love and admiration for President Bush, but also attacking his current course of action in regards to Israel.

You are losing your moral vision. Perhaps the State Department has finally convinced you that moral foreign policy is passe. Perhaps you have repeated the mantra "Islam is a religion of peace" so many times that you are willing to stake your entire administration on that dubious claim. But whatever happened, you have lost your way. . . .

You say that Israel's "occupation" has fostered despair in the "Palestinian people" and that Israel must foster hope in order to bring peace. This is backward. It is Palestinian hope, not despair, that causes terrorism. There were no suicide bombings before the Oslo Accords; only after Oslo did terror escalate to its present level. Concessions breed terrorism. In fact, you yourself have rejected the "despair causes terrorism" argument with respect to Al-Qaeda. Islamic terrorists are evil, and neither poverty nor despair causes them to hate us.

Let me repeat one phrase, I found particularly telling. It is Palestinian hope, not despair, that causes terrorism.

What a despairing statement. I wonder what sort of future Shapiro envisions for the Palestinian people, if they are, as he says, basically evil. Does he favor the plan that will end up with them abandoning the land entirely and moving to Lebanon? Or does he favor a mass grave? Like most writers on this subject, he fails to provide an outline.

I certainly condemn Palestinian Terrorist and their terrorist acts against Israel, but I personally believe the bulk of the Palestinian people are just that. They are people. They have kids and work jobs and want to provide a good life for themselves and their children. Removing all hope, as Mr. Shapiro seems to advocate, would make things worse, not better.

Jim Carrey Update

You remember Bruce Almighty. It's the movie that a majority of Americans find unfunny and blasphemous, according to Rich Tucker. Well, that film, despised by the Majority here in America, came in at number 2 over the weekend.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Iraq

Thomas L. Friedman has an interesting article today at the New York Times. I'm not sure I follow his logic completely, but he ends with a paragraph and a sentiment that every American, particularly those in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, needs to understand.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

Remember that.

Black Exploitation

Walter Williams, in his quest to become the nuttiest conservative has done it again. In his latest piece, Williams argues against a National Slave Memorial. He states, "If a slave memorial is built on the National Mall, it will simply become a media backdrop for the likes of race hustlers like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Black Congressional Caucus to spew their anti-American venom and call for quotas and reparations for slavery."

OK, let's follow that logic. So a day honoring Martin Luther King Jr. is bad too, I assume? I mean that provides a focal point for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson doesn't it? Same with Black History month. Same with paying any official attention to African American history. African American History is best forgotten, due to it's potential for exploitation by liberals. I'm surprised he didn't call on us to tear down all monuments to Black Americans.

The problem with Williams is that he is a prominent black Conservative, and thus calling him nuts may or may not bring forth calls or racism. But unlike Thomas Sowell (who obsesses an incisive mind) and Armstrong Williams (who writes very well, and possesses an empathy that many conservative writers lack), he seems determined to push an America in which Blacks are basically told that we've solved all their problems, and that any further problems they suffer from are their own fault.

Guantanamo

There's been a lot in the news about the 19 men that the United States released (out of 664). In particular conservatives have been complaining about the fact that the prisoners had gained an average of 13 pounds. Manny Howard has an excellent article today in which he injects the odd notion of common sense into the debate. He points out, for example, that the Taliban probably didn't provide the best food to their troops, so this is almost certainly a step up for them. He also points out that prisoners often gain weight upon entering prison, due to the loneliness and dislocation. He comments;

Lisa Dorfman, a nutritionist who has counseled inmates in federal prisons in and around Dade County, Fla., says that in prison, food isn’t just about calories; it takes on a special significance. “When you are incarcerated, food becomes one of the few sources of social pleasure available to you. Meals are an opportunity to communicate with other people. Not insignificantly, it also becomes an outlet, like sex,” she says.

Dorfman explains that overeating, hoarding, and what she calls Night Eating Syndrome are a real problem and a significant cause of dramatic weight gain among prisoners she has counseled. “We found that most inmates gain an enormous amount of weight when they first arrive in an institution. They tend to be depressed, lonely, and stressed out and alienated from loved ones,” says Dorfman. “It’s kind of like being in college your first semester.”

I personally don't fully understand the complaints myself. Should we have starved them? What would that have accomplished, apart from proving that we can sink to the same state of barbarism as everybody else?

Fear of Lawyers

Dennis Prager is afraid of Lawyers. "I have come to fear almost everything having to do with law. Though there are many fine people in the legal profession, and though law is necessary to protect society from descending into chaos, I now fear the legal profession more than I do Islamic terror. I am far from alone. I believe that more Americans rightly fear being ruined by the American legal system more than being killed by a terrorist."

He runs down the standard complaints. Lawyers can sue anybody, and are always encouraging people to sue. Judges like to legislate from the bench. Jurors are too dumb to really bring out justice.

However, like those who spend volumes attacking Islam, he proposes no solution. I suppose that's because we've already got several. The main one, proposed by dozens of conservatives is Tort "Reform" in order to deny American Citizens their rights to decompensation under the law. We would just defang the lawyers abilities to hurt corporations, while maintaining their ability to enforce corporate power over individuals. In that way, Mr. Prager, at least, need have no further fear of lawyers.

Comments by Gary Hart

Since Hart apparently can't run for President again, he is free to make statements that would disqualify any real candidate for President. Statements like the following.

But the war on terrorism is now the excuse for America to assume imperial powers and to employ those powers even when our traditional allies oppose our actions. The war on terrorism is fundamentally altering our global policies. We have discarded our half-century reliance on the Atlantic Alliance for collective security. We have marginalized the United Nations at the precise time it should have been empowered to undertake peacemaking roles. And we have alienated key regional powers, including Russia, China, and India, at a time when we should be encouraging them to assume greater responsibilities for regional stability.

All this has transpired in the space of a few months without congressional hearings or review, any comprehensive statement by the administration, serious editorial discussion, or public debate over this new foreign policy. Throughout American history major departures in foreign policy have been the occasion for lively, even contentious debate. This has not been the case as the war on terrorism morphed into the centerpiece of a new imperial foreign policy.

The kicker is that this is in part correct. Congress largely abdicated their role in restraining the President. The President and his supporters have made it clear that they will not accept any limits to their ability to wield power.

Talking is Bad

You heard it hear first. Joel Mowbray has revealed that President Bush has no control over the State Department. When it comes to getting the State Department to do as he says, President Bush has completely failed, at least according to Joel Mowbray.

Of course it could be that President Bush has different expectations than Mr. Mobray. Perhaps President Bush feels that the State Department should work to change the behavior of other nations without the necessity and expense of going to war. Mr. Mowbray takes Richard Haass, the State Department's top policy official to task for failing to implement a policy that the white house hasn't announced yet. According to Mowbray, the White House is about to disengage from the Iranian government, but Mr. Haass is continuing his work as if this policy hadn't been announced yet. Which it hasn't. But it will be.

"As the biggest booster for continuing "talks" with the Iranian mullahs—which invariably give legitimacy to the ruthless regime—he has the most incentive to carry on secret negotiations."

So talking with the Iranian Mullahs would be bad, because it gives them legitimacy. Hey, aren't we talking to Uzbekistan (A country where, according to the State Department, "Security force mistreatment resulted in the deaths of several citizens in custody. Police and NSS forces tortured, beat, and harassed persons. The Government invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit the country, which he did in November. Prison conditions were poor, and pretrial detention often lasted several months. Police routinely and arbitrarily detained citizens to extort bribes.")?

Also I hope you all caught the "secret" method of using quotation marks to "indicate" that what you are typing isn't "true." You see it's clear from the above passage that what Mr. Haas and the Iranian diplomats are engaging aren't talks. They might be literigic dances. They might be nude love-ins. They might be ultimate fighting challenges. But they aren't talks.

At the end of the day it's hard to understand what some of these hard line right wingers expect the State Department to do. It feels like they see the State Department as a sales department, getting the world ready for whatever new war the Department of Defense decides to engage in. But that is not, perhaps, the best use of the State Department.

Jim Carrey and America Redux

Before getting to the rest of the story, let me just take a minute and mention how much I love the word redux.

Well, you might remember earlier this week, an article by Ben Shapiro praising America's decision to go see the latest Jim Carrey movie Bruce Almighty. He said that it showed our happy upbeat personality. Well, Rich Tucker of the Heritage foundation disagrees.

"Consider the new Jim Carrey movie, “Bruce Almighty.” In a film that’s supposed to be a comedy, “God” gives his powers to Carrey’s character, a failed reporter. “God” then steps out, allowing Carrey to wreak havoc on earth.

Imagine, the very idea of an omnipotent God going on vacation. Of God allowing his power to be used by a human for vengeful purposes. Only in Hollywood would that be considered funny. For most of us, it’s merely insulting."

Tucker's main point is that there should be majority rule. Since obviously the majority of Americans would find Bruce Almighty insulting, I'm sure it must have largely bombed at the box office. Let's check.

Well it was the number one box office draw over memorial weekend, pulling in $85.7 Million. I guess some people must have thought it was all right.

But what's even more interesting is how he opens his article. "Our country was supposed to be based on a simple principle: Majority rules."

Majority Rules.

Like many of you I thought that this nation was founded on the principle of freedom. But I guess I was mistaken. We are instead founded on the principle of majority rules. Which means that we Democrats should just roll over and die, as the majority is clearly republican (Rush has assured me of this).

But then again, I kind of think I like the idea of our country being founded on freedom better.

Interesting Story

This story initially got me a little worked up, but then I read it again and realized that I'd been had. It is from MSNBC. Here's the full text, and here's the bit that got me worked up.

"But some analysts believe Bush may still be intent on sending messages about Chirac’s vigorous war opposition and the decision by Schroeder, the German leader, to make his antiwar stance a major plank in his successful re-election campaign.

Chirac and Schroeder said that U.N. weapons inspections should have continued in Iraq and that diplomatic options had not been exhausted before the war.

Bush wants to convey to France and Germany that “there is a price to pay for defying the United States in the way that they did,” said Ivo Daalder, who was a National Security Council Europe expert in the Clinton administration."

The bit that got me worked up was the phrase, "There is a price to pay for defying the United States . . ." But check where that quote is coming from. A Europe expert in the Clinton administration? Hmmmmm, I wondered why the language was so provocative. It's not like being a European expert enables you to understand the inner workings of an American presidency, particularly one who's philosophical leanings are presumably different from your own.