Better Banter

Two scary stories in the news this morning. The first is that Russia may ratify Kyoto . Putin's government has blessed it, but it still must be ratified by their parliament. The Kyoto treaty becomes binding when it has been ratified by countries representing 55% of the world's emissions. Without Russia, emissions of ratifiying nations total 44%. Russia accounts for 17% of the world's emissions. You do the math. As if Europe weren't struggling enough with the financial demands of cradle-to-grave socialism, Industry, which pays the bills, will be taxed (literally and metaphorically) like never before. The irony, of course, is that Kyoto came into being ostensibly to prevent a global-warming apocalypse. In fact, Kyoto may spark an economic apocalypse to give Ayn Rand posthumous nightmares. And if the world's economy collapses, you can bet your last ruble that the environment won't be improving anytime soon. What could the Russians be thinking? This can'

Is Iraq a quagmire, or a tough fight? There's a big difference, and Lt. Col Powl Smith gives us an interesting comparison .

Check out the following Reuters story: GAZA (Reuters) - Ten Palestinians and three Israelis were killed in Gaza on Thursday as Israeli forces thrust deep into the largest Palestinian refugee camp after a rocket attack killed two Israeli children in a border town. It was one of the highest single-day death tolls in Gaza in months. The Israeli dead included at least one soldier and a woman jogger. The Palestinian dead included both militants and civilians, hospital officials said. The courage of the Israeli people to persevere despite the near-constant danger is amazing. How many of us would go jogging in Gaza?

Brett Rogers of OpinionPaper has issued a challenge to conservative bloggers to do two things: 1) Put up a "top" post urging visitors to get out the vote for Bush, and 2) Bring one other Bush voter to the polls on election day. A noble idea, indeed. See #1 on the left. Have been doggedly working on the other...

After reading Jed Babbin's piece in NRO today about Kerry and troop morale I realized my previous post may not have quite hit the mark. What John Kerry has demonstrated, through his words and actions, is that he does not believe in our mission in Iraq. Babbin points out that our troops do, and there can be nothing more demoralizing to our troops in the field than the knowledge that their President, entrusted with their lives, would choose to waste those lives on a mission he does not believe in. He has said it's a mistake. But he also said he would not "cut and run." Meaning he will keep troops there, for a time, for reasons that do not include "victory". Babbin notes that this will give the troops the impression that they are wasting their time and blood: To say, as Kerry does, that we should begin withdrawing our troops in six months and — with the help of the phantom allies he will get to take over in Iraq — be out altogether in four years, says

I had a chance this weekend to view the documentary Stolen Honor , which details the effects of the anti-war movement, and John Kerry's actions in particular, on American POWs in Vietnam. Katie O'Beirne provided a nice write-up on NRO a couple of weeks ago, which is worth a read . Stolen Honor was produced by Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. In it, he interviews 13 former POWs. Two received the Congressional Medal of Honor. Many were imprisoned more than seven years. What I gained from watching this documentary was a sense of perspective. John Kerry's war credentials are "unimpeachable," as the story goes. He is a "war hero," and the Bush campaign cannot touch this due to Bush's own Vietnam story (or lack thereof). While the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth put enough holes in Kerry's story to sink it, a few inconsistencies have left a glimmer of plausible deniability, meaning, in the real world of network news, the accu

I have to agree with Stephen's post about pulling Pedro. The Grady Little parallels are obvious, but what's interesting is how the same conclusion was reached two different ways. In Game 7 of the ALCS last year, Grady left Pedro to pitch the eighth, presumably because he lacked confidence in the bullpen. The bullpen, however, though much maligned throughout the year, was damn near perfect in the postseason. Further, Pedro was not and is not a horse. He does not eat up innings. He does not complete many games. He was near the end of his rope, and Grady was just hoping there was a little more left. After a little trouble, it should have been obvious he was done, but Grady did not take the hint, and the Yankees won the pennant. After the season, Grady was fired. Not entirely because of Game 7 but because he was not a manager who looked at numbers. Theo Epstein wanted a guy who would run the club like an NFL coach and know every matchup, and prepare moves and countermoves based

The Yankees are in Boston this weekend. Political posting may take a back seat to a truly partisan rivalry.

A town that was a haven for American draft dodgers thirty-plus years ago has created a monument depicting a Canadian welcoming two scared American men. I can manage no further comment.

Andrew McCarthy has contributed an essay on the war in Iraq which should be required reading for all Americans. McCarthy takes John Kerry's premise that the war is a "diversion" from the war on terror, and makes the case that Kerry is right, although not in the way that Kerry thinks. McCarthy argues that the "war on terror" is inappropriately named, and is truly a "war on militant Islam." This mislabeling has in part led to our difficulties in Iraq, both real and perceived. He makes a compelling argument for why the WMD argument was always the wrong one, and why those weapons truly didn't matter. The Bush Administration's line on why the war was justified though no WMDs showed up was that Saddam was a murderous dictator. While true, it is still not why we should have gone to war. If we were waging a "war on militant Islam", it would be very easy to make the case that Saddam has been at least as enabling of militant Islam as the

Curious as to liberal reaction to "Rathergate" I checked in with our friends at The Nation . John Nichols, who writes The Online Beat blog column, takes what I consider to be a sensible approach to the scandal. He is furious at CBS for being so sloppy, because it now makes Bush's Guard service almost untouchable. Here's where he starts to go down a questionable path: After more than a month of virtually round-the-clock assessment of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service, major media has a responsibility to reexamine the president's controversial service record. The round-the-clock coverage was due to two factors: 1) Senator Kerry has used his Vietnam service prominiently in his campaign, almost to the extent that it is his sole qualification for office. 2) There was new information being publicized, in the form of a book by John O'Neill, and an organization called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. George Bush has not paint

In light of Kerry's "new" position that he never would have deposed Saddam Hussein, what can he possibly have to say about stories like this one in the Sacramento Bee ? UPDATE: Brett Rogers of Opinion Paper notes this story also, and has some Google stats on the media coverage (or lack thereof) it's been getting. He contrasts this with what happens when an Iraqi critical of the U.S. speaks out.

Just when you think John Kerry has taken every possible position on Iraq, he comes up with another one. Today, Kerry said flat out that he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he been President. This would have been a clear loser position for the Massachusetts Senator even a year ago. But with the bad news coming more frequently from Iraq, it appears that Kerry has decided to make his move. He is gambling that his anti-war, bring-the-troops home message will resonate with swing voters (if they were swing voters while things were not so bad, how can they not side with him when things are ugly?). In taking this side, he must paint the war as a catastrophe. Unfortunately, this means that any news coming out of Iraq, good or bad, for the next six weeks will be politicized like never before. It means that in order for John Kerry to win, America has to lose. It's a crisp, October day, and the press is buzzing in Washington. U.S. forces have just acheived an incredible vi

"Out on the road today, I saw a DEADHEAD sticker on a Cadillac, A little voice Inside my head said, 'Don't look back. You can never look back.'" -- Don Henley Well, I got him beat. Driving home this afternoon I saw George W. Bush stickers on not one, but TWO Volkswagens. Several years ago, my former boss, who was an avid Volkswagen collector, and a colleague, another VW owner and enthusiast, were at a party and having a conversation about... Volkswagens. I think I had accidentally stumbled into the conversation, and finding no easy way out, just stood there, glazed over. At one point they began discussing the various "types" of VW drivers, and one of them looked at me and said, "Howard's kind of a 'Jetta' guy, I think." This, of course, being because the Jetta is the most conservative and "square" VW (apparently). This stuck in my head because I thought they were batty. Sure, a Jetta driver may be conservative i

The Manila Times has a story about a Japanese man who worked with a biological weapons unit during WWII. Now an old man, he is speaking out about his atrocities, so that they will not be forgotten. We tend to flip around the acronym "WMD" fairly casually these days, particularly since none have been found in Iraq. This article is a reminder of what Saddam's regime, at some point in the not-too-distant past, was striving for. And this is the reason we could take no chances, and could give Saddam no benefit of the doubt as to his capabilities or intentions.

My good sense told me "don't post a thing" regarding the Red Sox win Friday night. I thought maybe if I didn't do any idiot-Red-Sox-Fan predicting, I wouldn't hurt the team, but in my heart I knew better, and I also knew I had to risk it... for the sake of the blog. I would like to declare for the record that I do not begrudge the Yankees any of their money, as I am a capitalist. I would also like to concede Stephen's point that many of those who are anti-Yankees spout leftist drivel. In fact, I commented to a friend recently on the topic of anti-Americanism, and explained that it was very much like hating the Yankees. They have the success, the history, the legends, the ballpark, the mystique, and of course all the money. No other team quite measures up in this regard, so the reaction is envy. But no one wants to admit being envious, so they become a little mean, a little irrational, and work up a good jealous hatred. They become like Europeans. Of cour

Not gloating, just reporting.

During the Democratic primary season, when every other word out of even the most serious presidential contenders referred to the Vice President's former company, I had an idea. I would write a musical, called "Halliburton! Halliburton!" in which the protagonist tries to get serious answers out of liberals. Each time he gets close to exposing them for what they are, the chorus (yes, there would be an old-school Greek chorus) would start singing the Halliburton theme song and drown out any further questions. I haven't quit my day job. But each time the Halliburton cry crops up in the media, I get that song in my head (I came up with the refrain and melody while mowing my lawn one day) and smile. Today is such a day. Stuck in an electoral quagmire of his own making, John Kerry is now coming out with a Halliburton-themed ad. The attack this time is on Cheney's deferred compensation. Yes, he's still being paid by Halliburton. However, his compensation has

The reason I mentioned Laffer and the Republicans' tax increase assumptions in the first place was this article by Ralph Rector of the Heritage Foundation. Rector projects that even if the top two income tax bracket rates were restored to Clinton-era levels, the increased tax revenues would amount to just $163 billion over a six-year period from 2005 to 2010.

It struck me the other day that the Republicans are making a bit of an odd argument. They have added up Senator Kerry's new spending proposals and have concluded that his economic plan will cost trillions. Good for them. The problem is their next leap. John Kerry has not come out and said he will raise taxes (what has he come out and said he would do?). But the President and his campaign have been saying that the only way to pay for all this spending is to raise taxes. Are the Republicans being opportunistic, disingenuous, or have we reached the portion of the Laffer curve at which increasing taxes will actually increase revenue? And if that is the case, then Bush's tax cuts must hurt revenue collection over the next few years. Not what we've advertised. If I were John Kerry, looking for a response to an accusation about raising taxes in a televised debate, I might say something like, "Raise taxes, Mr. President? I've got my supply-sider's handbook r

"We know every injury is a serious one..." -- Television commercial, Justice for All , Lawyers for Personal Injury. Stephen and Mark, is it more embarrassing to be a lawyer or a Yankee fan?

The words "hate" and "negative campaigning" seem to be absent in this blurb from the AP: A new radio ad running in New Hampshire and Florida says "the Saudi royal family appreciates the support" when Americans fill up their tanks at gas stations. "Who does the royal family support? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney." Ah, but if the tables were turned... sfortunato! My pet bias issues aside, does John Kerry really want to go down this road? Should we poll e ver y despotic 3rd-world leader and see who they support?

Former major-leaguer John Kruk talks about the NHL lockout, and reveals that he was never asked to vote in the 1994 MLB strike in which the "players" decided to strike. He makes other good points about how the players' union has not always represented the best interests of its players.

Stephen, I'm sure your law professor was just a little mixed up. If he were a true leftist he would not hesitate in using the word "massacre" when discussing government troops firing into a mob. Neil Young might be a poor man today were it not for such an event two hundred years later. Now, regarding those Yankees... nice dig. But let's not forget that the 1978 season did not end Sept. 10. In fact, by Sept. 16, the Yankees owned a three game lead over the Red Sox. In order to set up the final one-game playoff, the Red Sox won their final eight games. The myth of their "collapse" is a half-truth, and should therefore be told only by Democrats. As someone once said (Bill Simmons, perhaps?), "Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for the house in Blackjack." Go Sox! (who said there's no diversity among conservatives?)

... the s--t has hit the fan." -- Warren Zevon. Drudge reports sharp ratings drops for CBS news on Tuesday. http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd3.htm It explains yesterday's shift, when CBS and Rather stopped saying "authentic" and started saying "accurate". Too little too late.

Read this. I'd love to hear John Kerry comment on it.

Today's New York Times raises some good questions about Bush's "ownership society." The benefits of ownership, and thus having some sort of property, have been discussed at length by conservatives. If you own something, you take responsibility for it, and you have something to lose. When you have something to risk, others are willing to extend you credit. Businesses are created, etc. The Times' take on "ownership" society relates to encouraging savings. They predict taxes on savings and investment income to diminish or disappear. Given that many of the wealthiest people in America make their money in investment income, this could be a huge boon to the wealthy. Income taxes will become predominantly "wage taxes" and those taxes would be borne far less by the rich. I'm no egalitarian. I believe the rich have a right to their money. But they should pay their share. Take John Edwards. He created an S Corporation with himself as CEO, an

Or maybe the story is "Even evil racist Columbus reached out to other cultures, so what does that make Bush??" In today's National Review online, Robert Spencer reports on mythmaking in Massachusetts (and it has nothing to do with medals). The claim is that a Muslim was Columbus' navigator, and it has been echoed by a number of local professors, including one from my alma mater, Holy Cross (can you see me beaming with pride?). The trouble is that: a) there seems to be no evidence to support this, and b) Massachusetts public school systems are taking the "Rather" approach to evidence gathering and are adopting this line in their multiculturalist curricula. Worth reading.

A friend makes the following observation on the above-linked LA times piece: Rather runs a story accusing the President of lying about his military service... his primary evidence consists of falsified documents... the President's party calls Rather on it... and that's a "partisan attack"? Yes, obviously. Even more galling was the CBS broadcast last night in which Dan Rather reported on George Bush speaking to a National Guard audience and not mentioning any controversy surrounding his service, all but accusing Bush of ducking the new allegations. Accordingly, I submit the first and last Friends quote you will see in this space: "Hello, Kettle? You're black!"

It has been well-documented throughout the blogosphere that the recent 60 Minutes story regarding President Bush's National Guard service featured forged memos. Powerline notes that the evidence given by 60 Minutes as to the memos' authenticity would not stand up in court for a $10,000 civil case, yet is being used to influence the Presidential election. This is ends-justify-the-means journalism, and as Kerry's position worsens, the more the media will shift from reporting to advocacy, to make sure the proper end --Kerry getting elected -- is reached. When they tell their side of the story, and people still don't seem to care, it must be that they need to tell it again, or be more forceful with their story, because surely their side is right, and they must not be reporting it clearly enough if their views are still the minority. Case in point: A 60 Minutes II story from a few weeks ago. The story is about dropout rates in Houston city schools. The story

So the Kerry campaign is going to start with the "Fortunate Son" theme. The problem, it seems to me, is that the song featured prominently at the 1988 convention. I was in high school at the time, and dumb enough to be supportive of Dukakis, and I remembered Neil Diamond's "America" (hey, son of an immigrant!) and CCR's "Fortunate Son" (GHWB was the son of a Senator). Can't seem to find confirmation of this but it's seared into my memory, because at the time I juxtaposed it with Bush's convention theme of "Don't Worry, Be Happy," which I thought horribly insulting. Given that Kerry ignores that he was ever Lt. Governor in the Dukakis administration, it might be instructive if he were to actually tell us how any of his policies differ from the "Massachusetts Miracle" man's.

The Weekly Standard has a good summary of today's furor over documents appearing on 60 Minutes last night. Drudge is now reporting that CBS is conducting an internal investigation into the authenticity of the documents. Kudos to Powerline for driving this story. They've got a treasure trove of information detailing exactly why the CBS story is a hoax.

Those of you who watch CBS News (masochists, all) are familiar with their "What Does It Mean To You?" series, which focuses on "where the presidential candidates stand on major issues and how a vote for one or the other candidate might affect average people's lives." Apparently the only "issue" with importing drugs from Canada is whether it's "safe." Exactly why drug prices are lower in Canada is not touched upon. If this is the solution, then why not cut out the middleman and force drug companies to sell drugs to Americans at a lower cost? Exactly what would be the ramifications of that? CBS is too busy pointing out that the main interviewee is a "conservative family man" to do any actual journalism, apparently. Making policy without addressing long-term consequences is expected of politicians seeking votes today. However, our media should not leave these Santa Claus promises unchallenged. The long-term economic effec

Ah. In the wake of a terrorist act which can be argued as even more horrific than 9/11, leave it to Reuters to invoke "cycle of violence" rhetoric: But there have been pointed calls from countries like France for Russia to explain its get-tough policy in Chechnya, which human rights groups say has led to an escalation in atrocities by both Russian forces and rebels. Here's the old story: A bus blows up in Jerusalem. The IDF kills two Hamas militants in retaliation. The "cycle" continues. Innocents are killed. Law enforcement lashes out against likely perpetrators. It's all morally equivalent. (There are many Frenchmen still alive today who could tell stories about how to end "cycles of violence". Ask them what happened to the ordinary citizens of French villages when revolutionaries attacked Nazi soldiers or sabotaged Nazi equipment. Israel's restraint, and Western ideas of decency are what keeps the "cycle" alive). Despite th

The New York Times editorializes sensibly today on the issue of global agricultural protectionism: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/opinion/06mon1.html (link requires registration).

In the aftermath of Sen. Zell Miller's scorching address to the Republican National Convention, Democrats are doing back flips to portray him as an angry, mean-spirited, two-faced attack dog who sold out his party for personal notoriety. Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation , blogged predictably on the content of the speech, and I shan't bore you with the particulars. But what was interesting was her post immediately before Miller's speech: Zell Miller has hypocrite stamped all over his forehead. It's hard to imagine anyone more Janus-faced than the Democratic Senator from Georgia. In 1992, Miller nominated Bill Clinton at the Democratic convention. At a 2001 Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Georgia, Miller described John Kerry as "a good friend,""one of this nation's authentic heroes," and "one of this party's…greatest leaders." What vanden Heuvel fails to mention about that 2001 speech is the exact date: March 1,

So, several years ago I needed matches for an office birthday party. A co-worker in the office next door gave me a Jimmy Carter matchbook. I respectfully asked for a substitute. The only other book she had left in her collection of presidential matchbooks was Nixon. Naturally I took Nixon. Yesterday, another office birthday party. Nobody had matches. All smiles, I dropped Nixon on the lap of a militant Democrat and asked if she'd like to do the honors. After getting over my fear of offending liberals in the workplace, my days are much more fun.

Hard not to get emotional listening to Lee Greenwood and watching clips of the Gipper. He made millions proud to be Americans, and millions more want to become Americans. RIP.

Quite a damnation of John Kerry by Zell Miller. Miller spoke almost exclusively about national security, saying "My family is more important than my party." If you missed the speech, I strongly recommend watching it on c-span.org. A few choice quotes: [Wendell Wilke] made it clear he would rather lose the election [in 1940] than make national security a partisan campaign issue. Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most? This one really got the crowd going: Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see us as an occupier, not a liberator, and nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators. A timely reminder: It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. And he drew a stark contrast: Kerry is "more weak, more wrong, and more wobbly than any other national figure,&quo

"We can't afford presidential leadership that comes in 57 varieties."

After watching almost all of the Democratic convention last month, I reflected on what the GOP would need to do this week to make up ground. Turns out of course, that there was no bounce to speak of coming out of the convention, and Kerry began to slide in the polls as the Swift Boat Vets came into the spotlight. Still, parts of their convention were very effective, and I must simply be grateful that virtually no one watched. If I didn't know John Kerry, and wasn't cognizant of the ideas behind the Democratic PR facade, Barak Obama would have convinced me to pull the "D" lever on Nov. 2 (whether the "lever" or some other post-Florida contraption, you catch my drift). He was captivating. Thrilling. He captured exactly what it means to be an American. To say he appealed to the middle is an understatement. He appealed to the right. Too bad there's nothing in the Democratic platform to back him up. So what to do this week? Make a pitch to appeal to the