Nightly Ramble: Quality, Not Quantity

• Someone whose judgments I value told me here just recently, that it’s not how many hits you’re getting that really matters to the stature of a blog, but who is reading. I’m starting to understand what he meant. The recent mails are telling me, along with my trackers, that we’re getting rather a lot of larger types reading here of late. I won’t deny a little link from some of those folks once in a while would help my mood, but it’s nice to know they’re reading here regularly.
• Speaking of people who read here and who I read, where’s Venlet been the last week or so?
• I see McGehee’s father in law passed on on Monday. Our thoughts are with you and your family.one
• A Little More To The Right posts the story of a man who won two million pounds in the lottery in Germany… and turned it down. (Raises hand)
• A Western Heart posts a story I’ll bet you didn’t hear about; The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that would have allowed homosexuals to marry, upholding a 1973 state ban that limits marriage to one man and one woman.  Now ask yourself; why didn’t you hear about this?
• I’ve said for a long time that the worst possible thing you could do a democrat, is give them precisely what they want.  It appears Glenn Reynolds has picked up on this.
• The Washington Post points out that there’s a large number of people who bundled large sums of money from individuals to give two Hillary Clinton‘s presidential campaign this time around, are the same ones who were involved in the democratic party fundraising scandal back in the nineties, fund raising for her erstwhile husband.  Some things never change, I suppose.  funny thing; Hillary Clinton claimed she didn’t know about it then, either.  So, too, did the rest of the Democrats.  Can we call it criminal activity, this time, do you suppose?

I’ve taken Megan McArdle to task on several occasions in these spaces in the recent past.  This isn’t going to be one of those days.  Our topic, this time, is a bounce off from rabid foamer Cass Sunstein, who says in part:

The Myth of Balance Between Left and Right holds that the Court has a “liberal wing,” consisting of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and a “conservative wing,” consisting of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote, the “moderate.”

It should be clear, right off the bat, that something is fishy about this picture. Cautious on the lower courts, Ginsburg and Breyer were prescreened by and fully acceptable to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both their votes and their opinions have been far more moderate than those of the great liberal visionaries of the Court’s past, such as William O. Douglas and William Brennan. Souter is a Republican appointee. His approach to constitutional law is in the general mold of Justice John Harlan, the great conservative dissenter on the Warren Court. Stevens, also a Republican appointee, was a maverick on the Burger Court, far to the right of three of its members. Contrary to what you hear, Stevens hasn’t much changed in the last decades.

Here’s a simple way to expose the Myth of Balance. In 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.

First we would have to chop off the Court’s right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.

Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.

Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court’s moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)

Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).

To say the least, all this would represent a radical change in the Court’s composition — so radical that liberals cannot even fantasize about it. But this radically changed Court would be essentially identical to the supposedly conservative Court of 1980!

Look, let’s be honest enough to aver that as usual, Sunstein’s complaint is that the court isn’t liberal enough. Let’s also be honest enough to suggest that the qualities by which he makes these conclusions, are different than the ones stated here. In short, he’s making judgments, based on skewed information.  He’s under the illusion, that his politics are at the political center of America.

Says McArdle, and rightly:

Seriously: why on earth would the definition of a “conservative” court in 1980 be some sort of lodestar by which all future courts should be judged. By the standards of 1880, the current court would be a bunch of wild-eyed socialist libertine radicals bent on undermining everything that made America great. Does that entitle me to re-nominate Oliver Wendell Holmes, or his modern day equivalent?

Exactly so. And by the way, the modern day Holmes would be Robert Bork, in case anyone’s curious.

Sunstien’s conclusions are skewed because his evidence is at best anecdotal…  Something which McArdle confirms:

Cass Sunstein (who graduated from law school in 1978) seems to be under the delusion that the conditions of his youth are the golden mean by which all future events are to be judged and found wanting. I mean, we all feel the same way, but most of us don’t expect anyone younger to take us seriously when we drone on about how much better The Pogues were than any of this modern noise.

McArdle’s piece, I think, draws clearly, something even she doesn’t really pick up on…… a historical headlong rush to the left, that’s always been there.  It’s true, as McArdle says, we’ve moved to the right slightly since the disastrous Carter presidency, and the 1980 landslide for Ronald Reagan that was a result of Carter. But that’s because the people are leaning right, as well…again as a result of being exposed to the product of liberalism under Cart and that’s something Sunstein would never see, much less admit if he did.  Again, his evidence is at best, anecdotal.  Sunstein thinks he’s at the center of the political universe, and thinks while he doesn’t drive American political views he is certainly in tune with them. Much the same as Dennis Kucinich thinks himself at the political center, too.

As McArdle points up:

The court is to the right of the average law professor, not to mention the average Cass Sunstein. But that’s because the average law professor is to the left of the average American, and any reasonably democratic system is going to produce a Supreme Court whose mean opinion hews more closely to that of the voters than to that of any larger group from which the appointees are drawn.

Go and RTWT.

However, keep in mind one thing; Much the same way as the priesthood of the catholic church must remain conservative as respect to the teachings of the church, so too must the United States Supreme Court, remain conservative as regards the United States Constitution and its teachings.  Without a heavy conservative influence on each, they would each lose their original meetings , and their purpose, and their impact.

In context, the more liberal approach to the constitution would be to do justice.  However, as the aforementioned Oliver Wendell Holmes reportedly remarked to judge Learned Hand, the job of the supreme court is not to do justice, but to apply as written in the constitution. It is apparent to me, Sunstein has never understood what Holmes meant. Likely, he never will.

A rather startling comment from Jawa Report, this morning:

We won the war, so Iraqis have finally come to believe. Only on the streets of Europe and America is there really a question over “if” we can win.

Again: We won.  I know that will disappoint many on the Left.

And I know the response: if we already won, how come there are so many Americans still dying in Iraq.

And the answer is: there aren’t a lot of Americans dying in Iraq.

3783 Americans have been killed in in Iraq over the course of 4 years.

At the Battle of Antietam, in a single day, 23,000 were killed.

At the Battle of the Bulge 19,276 Americans were killed.

It’s never been a question of if we would win, only a question of if Americans would see it through to victory.

You’ll definitely want to read the article below.

“The Article Below” turns out to be from the WSJ site, and written by Fouad Ajami, who teaches at Johns Hopkins.

“We may differ with our American friends about tactics, I might not see eye to eye with them on all matters. But my message to them is one of appreciation and gratitude,” he said. ” To them I say, you have liberated a people, brought them into the modern world. They used to live in fear and now they live in liberty. Iraqis were cut off from the modern world, and thanks to American intervention we now belong to the world around us. We used to be decimated and killed like locusts in Saddam’s endless wars, and we have now come into the light. A teacher used to work for $2 a month, now there is a living wage, and indeed in some sectors of our economy, we are suffering from labor shortages.”

Rant mode on:

The article is one that will fly in the face of the conventional wisdom …(I hate to call anything associated with the left, “Wisdom” , but the phrase is so ingrained in our language, that I can hardly do else, whatever the particular meanings… ) … and will, therefore, be ignored.

Rusty’s points about the small death rate, are well taken.  They are points I’ve made here, previously, many times.

One more thing about that; I am firmly convinced that many, many more Americans would have died had we not reacted as we did.  Very few of those dead would have been wearing military uniforms.  What would those who are currently complaining about our military people dying say about that?  Their complaints are thereby labeled , correctly, as disingenuous.

The writer is correct, we most certainly have won the war.  Now it comes down to hanging on to victory.

Any bastion of freedom, including our own country, requires military strength to maintain itself.  We know, for example, that both Iran and Syria have been playing their little tricks in trying to overturn this victory.  We know with some reasonable assurance , that they’ve attempted on at least one occasion, recently, to deploy chemical weaponry to that end.  Thankfully, that attack backfired.  We know that Iran is busy chasing nuclear weaponry.  It seems likely that the reports of 10,000 centrifuges to create such weapons is pure nonsense, and on that basis it seems more likely that they are obtaining their weaponry from elsewhere.  Recent reports would seem to suggest that the PRK is supplying Iran.  Frankly, that wouldn’t surprise me at all… the timing of the revelation is spot on with what one would expect were the PRK lying to the world about their own nuclear intentions.

So, as I asked yesterday, does anyone really think that these two are going to behave themselves absent a strong U.S. presence in the region?

I fear I’m going to get a little pedantic, here, but it’s to make a point.

Certainly, the Democratic party, and the left as a whole, have a great deal invested in declaring our actions in Iraq and abject failure.  That’s a lot harder to do, however, with the news coming out of Iraq these last few months.

Certainly, the Democratic party, and the left as a whole, have a great deal invested in declaring what’s being waged over there just now a civil war.  However, that’s a lot harder to do, given the involvement of Syria and Iran.  Civil wars, after all, are by definition internal matters not involving people from the outside. Further, there are the reports to deal with of the Iraqis themselves being very grateful for our involvement.  Given that sentiment, and given the involvement of the rogue nations, as well as rogue actors from Pakistan Malaysia and so on, it seems inaccurate to suggest that American deaths are taking place at the hands of Iraqis, per’se’.

Certainly, the Democratic party and left as a whole, have a great deal invested in saying that we should withdraw from the region yesterday, that our withdrawal will make little to no difference.  I am immediately, and unwillingly, reminded of the unmitigated disaster that occurred upon our withdrawal from Southeast Asia.  The resultinone g bloodletting was almost incalculable.  I fear such bloodletting would not only also occur in the Middle East under similar circumstances, it would be worse.  Far worse.

There is a blind, stupid brand of sinister driving the left,  that they can ignore such signs as have been coming from Iraq, these days.  I don’t think the majority of them smart enough to be sinister in their intentions toward the United States.  Rather, I suspect that they are blind to what the consequences are, of what they recommend in terms of our policy in Iraq, and the rest of the world.  That said, the end result of the following their advice, is the same as it would be if they really intended harm to the U.S…. and to the world.

That statement, perhaps, is more insulting than is intended.  In looking at the left as regards military affairs over the last five decades or so, it doesn’t take a great deal to discern the patterns involved.  It seems to them too much like ego, to say “We are very powerful”, and to make policy based on the judicious use of that power.  And so, they would rather that we in the west pretend that we were not.  But I think in doing that, we do ourselves more harm than simply admitting our strength is a factor, and moving on from there.

What drives this lack of willingness to admit we are strong , among the left, is fear.  Ultimately, fear.  Afraid of one another, afraid of themselves.  Afraid of what misuse of that power could create in the world.  The fear, perhaps, is justified, but I think overemphasized.

Are we concerned that every electrical outlet in our homes, and are places of work, contain enough potential energy to kill?  No, we simply accept that such things are powerful, and move on from there.

Similarly, are we concerned that when we drive our automobiles were carrying with us to allow us to level small buildings?  No, we simply accept that such things are powerful, and move on from there. 

I would argue, that the power that we have as a nation, has served to do much good in the world, over the course of our nation’s history… The total of which, the battles which Rusty lists our losses in, is but a small part of.

It is illogical in my view to keep that power under wraps , hidden, out of sight, unused, in the name of protecting the peoples of the world, when those peoples have so obviously benefited from the judicious use of it , in the last century and more.

History has shown us, time and again, that peace is not brought through negotiation.  Peace is not brought through peace treaties.  Peace is not brought through sitting around a campfire and singing songs of peace.  And history most certainly shows is clearly that peace is not brought through capitulation.  Peace is brought by the judicious use of force. Only then does any of the rest of it, have any effect whatsoever.  Peace treaties aren’t worth the powder to blow up, until such time as the war has been won. Further, all parties must be willing to abide by such treaties… and the use of force is usually required to accomplish that willingness. War, after all, never solved anything, except Nazism, communism, slavery, oppression, etc.  War, unfortunately, is the price we pay for peace and freedom.  Welcome to the real world.

What I am asking the left to do, in this, is probably the hardest thing that anyone will ever have to do; I’m asking them to admit they were wrong.  That is particularly hard to ask of a political movement, because to admit such means that their claim to power disappears with their perceived correctness.  That said, the evidence that the left has been wrong, all along, is there for all to see.  That’s the kind of evidence, upon which we are supposed to be making decisions, out here in the real world.

The evidence is in ; we’ve won the war.  Will the left allow us to keep the peace?

Michelle Malkin suggests giving Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a real New Yawk welcome.  Michelle asks is it “Time to organize an Ahmadinejad welcoming party?” For her part, Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs, is organizing the party.

A truely appropriate welcome for Ahmadinejad, kidnapping, would be illegal.  Yet Americans have utterly no responsibility to make Ahmadinejad feel welcome.

Addendum: Bit

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.  That, dear reader, is cold, hard, fact.  They are known to be suppliers of weaponry which are being used against our troops in Iraq today.

Look, let’s face it, the only reason that we have to let this magnificent bastard into the country in the first place, is because this is where the supposed “United Nations” is headquartered.  If that isn’t a reason to withdraw from that body and kick them out, I don’t know what is.

Mitt Romney, this morning, showed a glimpse of reality, when he pointed out that instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, We should be indicting him.  It’s a good line, and I wish I’d thought of it.  At least I get to repeat it to you.

There is, an update, to all of this; apparently, he’s not going to get to visit ground zero , on security grounds.  Apparently, NYPD thinks there’s a lot of very angry people here in the U.S..  Gee, I wonder why?

There is an old saying that states that there is a limit to smart, but there is no limit to stupid.  Apparently, Dan rather fits the latter category rather nicely. But I’m not so sure about it.

NEW YORK (AP) — Dan Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and his former bosses Wednesday, claiming they made him a “scapegoat” for a discredited story about President Bush’s military service during the Vietnam War.

The 75-year-old Rather, whose final months were clouded by controversy over the story, said the actions of the defendants damaged his reputation and cost him significant financial loss.

Well, look, a scapegoat he may very well have been….  But let’s not be so quick to toss verdicts out, on CBS, just yet.

All that means that Rather wasn’t the only liar. Both CBS and Dan rather are trying to pass this off as a bungled investigation.  Most people who are still breathing, regarded as an example of leftist tools gone amok in the mainstream media.

Perhaps you remember the strenuous denials that Rather engaged in;

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn’t going to be — there’s no — what you’re saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or…

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don’t like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

The bottom line here is CBS thought they had a serious hit against President Bush with the forged documents they submitted to the American people as genuine… and to this day CBS swears the documents were ‘falsified but accurate’, and thought thereby they could throw the election into the lap of the Democrats and John F’ing Kerry. They were driven to this point by a rabid foaming bias that all but the farthest gone can see clearly. That’s the truth.

But think about this… If Rather was that much of an idiot, that he did not understand the slant that both his staff and CBS has a network were putting on the news, and for what reasons they were doing it, he deserves what he got. If he doesn’t understand that the tongue baths he gave the Clinton administration every night for almost a decade, isn’t bias, and then he deserves what he got.  But frankly, I don’t think he’s that stupid.  He knew full well what was happening.  On that basis we are now forced to question the integrity of the man.  As I have been since the 70’s, frankly.

So, it bottom lines, here:

Both CBS and Dan Rather gambled on being able to throw the election against President Bush, and CBS managed to push the blame for it off on Dan Rather, when the story blew up in their faces. Rather’s pissed, and I suppose I can’t blame him for that part. CBS threw him under the bus for doing what they’d defined as his job. Such passes for honor among the dishonorable.

I have to wonder, also, if Rather and his lawyers aren’t smelling blood in the water, after the successful court action by Don Imus.
Still… If Rather is going to try and spread some of that blame around, more power to him.  The timing of this, would seem to culminate just about the time of the election in November ’08.  More stories under public discussion about how the media tried to steal the last election for the Democrats with fake documents, can only help.

Some others blogging this:

Captain’s Quarters, On Deadline, Little Green Footballs, michellemalkin.com, Stop The ACLU, NewsBusters.org, and Hot Air

(edited for flow-Bit)

I find myself more than vaguely  insulted by Michael Gerson’s column in the Washington Post this morning.

It is a strange spectacle. Conservatives are intent on building a more appealing, post-Bush Republican Party. But their most obvious change so far is to reverse remarkable Republican gains among one of the fastest-growing groups of American voters. The renovators seem more like the wrecking crew.

Apparently the idea of “principle” never enters this gentleman’s lexicon.  Republicans have been screaming bloody murder about how the Democrats have been willing to throw the military under the bus so as to gain short term political victory.   They are screaming, and rightly, I think, about the principals involved with  the thing. So, how is it, then, that Gerson figures we’re willing to toss aside the American culture, and  the security of our borders, for a short term political victory?

Gerson says:

  From the beginning of his political career, George W. Bush refused to support amnesty for illegal immigrants. He did, however, take a principled, middle-ground position that also appealed to Latinos — a proposal that would give legal status to those who want to work in America and return home, while also providing a realistic (but not easy) path to citizenship for those who want to stay.

That’s a mischaracterization of the first order.   What Bush offered this was in fact an amnesty deal.  Which, in turn, is why the American people rejected it in overwhelming numbers.

There’s this, also;  Gerson is as much as suggesting that if we’re not behind Bush on these matters, we’re Bigoted, short-sighted fools.  I can hardly think of something to more polarize the issue than this nonsense.

Says Boortz:

This one was for our BBC friends: Muslim dentist in the UK told a patient that she had to wear a headscarf in order to be treated.

The Jawa Report notes the same story and quotes the story saying:

It is claimed that the 31-year-old dentist asked to speak to the woman in private after she turned up for an appointment at his clinic in Bury.

According to the charges, he questioned her on whether she was a Muslim and told her that if he was to treat her she would have to wear Islamic dress.

He is also said to have read out a number of religious rules to her.

He then told his nurse to give the patient her own headscarf to wear, the accusation says.

At least they are prosecuting him.

Well, yeah, but to what end? The government health care system and Britain is so short on qualified people, that they will probably slap his wrist and send him back into the game.  And the relationship between the goals of this man and that of his brother, should also be noted.

Oh… and there’s this, too….Can anyone imagine this kind of thing happening, absent governmental involvement in the Healthcare system ?

What goes around comes around.  Hardly a day goes by without Henry Waxman or Senator Depends mourning about the Bush administration lack of response to congressional subpoenas.

Well now the shoe, on the other foot.  It is congressmen who being subpoenaed.  How they responding?  Not very cooperatively says, Richard Simon Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., and 12 House colleagues plan to fight subpoenas issued to them in the federal trial of a defense contractor accused of bribing jailed former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif.

The subpoenas for the trial, due to start soon in San Diego, were issued to a bipartisan group of lawmakers by Mark Geragos, an attorney representing contractor Brent Wilkes.

C0me on Henry, is this the best your guys can do?

The Jerusalem Post–

 Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane’s Defence Weekly report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

I will admit to a certain satisfaction knowing that their own weapon jumped up and bit them.

That said,   there are serious considerations here.  For one thing, this incident, in combination with the reports we’ve been getting about nuclear weapons showing up from North Korea… (which were then subsequently bombed by Israel, with unknown effectiveness, ) paints a picture of two rogue states collaborating so as to dominate the region.

Syria, particularly, has a fairly long history with this stuff ;

According to globalsecurity.org, Syria is not a signatory of either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), – an international agreement banning the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons – or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kipper War. Globalsecurity.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.

 It doesn’t take seven college degrees to understand that Saddam Hussein was busy trying to give everybody the idea that he was armed to the teeth to keep these two at bay.  It seems logical that the intelligence that Syria and Iran were getting, was even worse than what the rest of the world was getting.  All they knew is what Saddam told them.  That doesn’t make Saddam any less of a bad guy, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been taken out, particularly given al Quieda, with whom he was already starting to cooperate….but it does explain a few things.   Does anyone think these two wouldn’t have been a cause for a military response, even absent our dealing with Iraq?

 But now the future looms…

Look again, at the weapons being amassed.  Look again at the history of the region, and of Iran and Syria in particular.  Does anyone really think that these two  are going to behave themselves , absent a strong U.S. presence in the region?

Jack Murtha is a rank coward.

He’s still dodging the consequences of his smirching our troops at Haditha. Here he is, caught on tape, squirming, then cutting and running.

We need to keep the pressure up on this cowardly, corrupt slimeball.

BBCT to the YAF and HotAir. Michelle has it, too.

• They’re calling for ten days of relatively dry weather with Thomson the seventies to the eighties, around here.  Not at all unusual, and it looks like we may be able to get some fall camping in.
• Why is it that anybody getting even close to speaking with Jack Abramoff is characterized as being in the same class as Jack the ripper, and yet the spin coming from the New York Times this morning is that Norman Hsu “Just wanted to be LIKED”?  It couldn’t be that Hillary Clinton was caught with their hand in the communist Chinese cookie jar again, could it? It couldn’t be that the leftist Times is covering for the world’s smartest woman, now, could it?And let’s be honest about the degree of Hillary Clinton’s involvement, here.  Not only is she the one that benefits the most from his largess, but she is the one responsible for making those connections.  I can tell you from experience that the woman will not delegate anything.  She is a micro manager.  On that basis, it does not wash that her underlings are responsible, and she doesn’t know anything about Norman Hsu.
• By way of Dale Franks,I note that the New York Times has finally given up on the idea that anyone would want to pay for liberal propaganda. Apparently in deference to the idea that this is a presidential election year, they’ve decided to start dispensing this garbage for free. Gee, that’s mighty generous of them, don’t you think? I note Captain Ed giving the pay for product wall at the Times the “Firewall of Sanity“… yeah, well, it DID serve that purpose, didn’t it?
• Earth to Barry Manilow... Had it occurred to you you’ve just offended the vast majority of your fan base? What an idiot. This kind of reaction, unfortunately is becoming more prevalent among liberals; the idea that they might actually have to engage in conversation with someone who may disagree, results in immediate flight.  So much for an open dialogue that they’ve prized so much for years. When it comes down to it, if they can’t control the situation, they want no part of it.  I would run immediate comparison between this and they’re cutting and running on the Fox News Debates.  Then of course there’s the Silencing of Larry Summers at UC Davis, and UC Irvine’s firing Erin Chemerinsky.  All part and parcel of the same reluctance to have leftist world views challenged. As for Manilow himself, it seems to me that he’s just engaged in a little more over the top bombast.  Sorta like every single he’s had for the last 30 years. Only this time, he’s cost himself his audience.
• Speaking of liberals not being able to deal with open discussion, did you notice where that student was Tazered at a speech of the John Kerry?  Clayton Cramer and Michelle Malkin, and Stop the ACLU all have more.
• As I noted here last evening, Hillary Clinton did get around to unveiling that supposed $110 billion health plan.  The response has been lukewarm at best.  The usual Clinton apologists, such Ezra Klein being the exceptions of course. but past those kind of morons, nobody… including liberal pundits…  really wants it.  I say again, people, Hillarycare is precisely why the Democrats lost both the House and Senate in 94… a with only marginal help from Newt Gingrich.  Does anyone besides HIllary Clinton and her cheering sections, really think HillaryCare version 2.0 going to be popular enough to put are in the White House? For an extra 50 points, someone please find for me in the constitution, the passage where it even suggests that the government has the right to force anyone to purchase anything, including insurance.  (Side note to Rich, Thanks, guy, excellent!)
• I notice Boortz, this morning, making reference to Houssein Zorkot, who was arrested in Dearborn on September the eighth, for wielding an AK 47 at a park in Dearborn .  Likely, this is the first you’ve heard of it. The reason is, that Dearborn’s mayor delayed releasing the information about the case. apparently, he was worried about creating “anti Muslim sentiments “. Well, gee, what would cause that, I wonder?  It’s not like you see Lutherans wandering the parks with AK-47’s all the time.  Will someone please explain to me why this man is still in office?
• I’m seeing an awful lot of traffic on the supposedly in stream media, and the left side blogs, complaining that Fred Thompson’s campaign efforts are abysmal.  If so, please explain to me why it is he’s either tiny with or beating the rest of the pack?
• A side note to Neal Boortz: It occurs to me, that Congress, of either party, will be less than inclined to remove the IRS from existence, since the IRS is now serving as a scapegoat for problems Congress is charged with fixing.  remove the IRS, and Congress may actually be forced to do something .  Obviously, they’re not going to do that.

Richard Cohen is a liberal apologist of the first order.

So what is that when he comes up with something like this, you tend to sit up and take note:

If there is a phrase more closely associated with both Hillary and Bill Clinton than “the politics of personal destruction,” it does not come to mind. All the others — “It’s the economy, stupid,” for instance — belong to one or the other, but “the politics of personal destruction” is a phrase both Clintons have used repeatedly — so much so, it seems, that for Hillary it has lost all meaning. When, for instance, Gen. David Petraeus was slimed as “General Betray Us,” Hillary Clinton looked the other way. This was the politics of personal expediency.

The swipe at Petraeus was contained in a full-page ad the anti-war group MoveOn.org recently placed in The New York Times. It charged that Petraeus was “cooking the books” about conditions in Iraq and cited statements of his that have turned out to be either (1) not true, (2) no longer true, (3) possibly not true, or (4) like everything else in Iraq, impossible to tell. Whatever the case, using “betray” — a word associated with treason — recalls the ugly McCarthy era when, for too many Republicans, dissent corresponded with disloyalty. MoveOn.org and the late senator from Wisconsin share a certain fondness for the low blow.

Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did. “I don’t buy into that,” he said. “This is an honorable guy. He’s telling the truth.” But lonesome Joe, whose virtues have yet to come to the attention of the vast and apathetic electorate, was seconded only by Joe Lieberman, not a presidential candidate, and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.

It may seem unfair to single out Clinton in this matter when the bunker in which she took shelter was crowded with her fellow quivering candidates. But Clinton is the front-runner, quite possibly the next president of the United States, and so it is reasonable to focus on her and wonder if, as some allege, she indeed does have a spine. In this instance, it was nowhere to be found.

Which, logically, makes one wonder if the wicked witch of the west was not in fact that the root of this particular problem.  We know, the denials of MoveOn on Err America yesterday notwithstanding that they and the Democratic party have been working hand in hand since the formation of the group.

It’s as Cohen says:

The issue with Hillary Clinton is not whether she’s smart or experienced but whether she has — how do we say this? — the character to be president. Behind her, after all, trails the lingering vapor of all those gates: Travel, File, Whitewater, and other scandals to which she was a part only through marriage. In a hatless society, she is always wearing a question mark.

That O.J. Simpson was, until last week still walking the streets, is an indication that Hillary will probably get away with this one too.  Ones past transgressions appear not to the sources of shame, but talking points on a resume anymore.  Too bad that Cohen’s anger with Hillry doesn’t extend to the remainder of the Democrats running for office, who share so much of a history, and a prevailing attitude, with her.

Michelle Malkin notes that Al Gore could be the next Nobel Peace Prize recipiant:

Oh, mega-crikey:

The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize could go to a climate campaigner such as ex-U.S. Vice-President Al Gore or Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, reinforcing a view that global warming is a threat to world security, experts say.

The winner of the $1.5 million prize, perhaps the world’s top accolade, will be announced in Oslo on October 12 from a field of 181 candidates. The prize can be split up to three ways.

“There are reasonably good chances that the peace prize will be awarded to someone working to stop the dramatic climate problems the world is facing,” said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister.

He noted that the U.N. Security Council, the top forum for debating war and peace, held a first debate in April about how far climate changes such as droughts, heatwaves or rising seas will be a spur to conflicts.

“We have many good candidates for the prize and we are approaching a decision,” said Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute where the five-member committee meets.

Says Michelle:

Just when you thought Al Gore’s head couldn’t get any bigger…

All that goes to prove, Michelle, is that there is no limit to stupidity.  Awarding such a prize to Mr. Gore, will ultimately point to the irrelevance of the Nobel peace prize.  I’ve been saying that it’s irrelevant, for several years now. This, I think, would prove it.

Pinch Sulzberger, d.b.a. the New York Times,  has  adopted his own policy.     The Times has declared victory and then surrendered, so reports Richard Perez-Pena:

The New York Times will stop charging for access to parts of its Web site, effective at midnight Tuesday night.

(…)

The Times said the project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers — out of 787,000 over all — and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.

For those who care, you now get your Modo for free.