Quote of the Day

From kf on slate.com:

"Kabuki Watch? Here's the question: If it's

a) in the Congressional Democrats' interest to try but fail to use their
funding power force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (it shows the antiwar left Pelosi is trying without giving Dems responsibility for a messy Iraq outcome),

and it's

b) in the Bush administration's interest to have Congressional Dems' try but fail to use their funding power to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (it lets Bush continue the "surge" while giving him the threat of a Dem-forced pullout with which to pressure the Maliki government),

then

c) isn't it true that what probably will happen in that the Congressional Dems try to fail to use their funding power to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?

Just asking!

I hope it's just an elaborate political dance. Even if it is, though, I know how demoralized it made me to know that the House of Reps had sold out the troops. I can't imagine how demoralizing it was for the troops in the field. The surge was just starting to show results - based on statistical evidence (troop deaths were down), first-hand Iraqi accounts (such as through Iraq the Model), and reports from the military commanders in charge - and just as things were finally getting better, here they have an Unconstitutional surrender order come from Congress. It had even been couched in the same sort of "Peace with honor" garbage that precipitated the retreat from Vietnam in the face of the Khamer Rouges massacres. I just hope that this provision gets stripped out or the President vetoes it and we get a legitimate bill through rapidly so we can make sure that the troops have sufficient quantities of armor, ammunition, equipment, and supplies.

On a tangential note: why is it that the Democrats are so quick to want to implement the 9/11 study group's recommendations but are anathema to the Iraqi study group's recommendations?

Quote of the Day

Editorial in the Daily Telegraph -

"There may be neither political will nor public support for an invasion of Iran, but we do have the power to hurt that country grievously without committing our forces to another long haul, and the threat must be made explicit: release these prisoners, or else."

Quote of the Day

Lorne Gunter, National Post (Canada) -

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm. Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years. And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons.

Quote of the Day

Christopher Hitchens, in today's Slate.com article "Mesopotamia Split?"

"At present, it seems that some Democrats are interpreting public disillusionment with Iraq as a mandate for isolationism and for treating a country that occupies a keystone position between Iran and Saudi Arabia as if it were negligible or irritating or an obstacle to plans for universal health care or the arrest of global warming. That this is a huge historical mistake is the least offensive way of putting it."

Dear God, I'm sick of talking about him...but Al Gore again

Taranto addresses Al Gore's "over-representation of factual presentations".

Now, I TOTALLY agree that this is EXACTLY what President Bush is accused of doing - trumping up the case of a threat he fully believes in order to bring about results which critics view critically. However, Taranto's light-hearted treatment of the costs is way off base. Currently, the U.S. auto industry and the economics of the various rust-belt states, our own in particular, are being devastated. Who's the biggest target of "global warming"? The auto industry. Not because they're the biggest emitters of CO2 (that's mother nature) or even the biggest product of human CO2 emissions (that's power production). No - it's because they represent the spread of capitalism and, with it, individual freedom.

So, what do you think the target will be of the "global warming" crusade? The auto industry. Why bother with building nuclear plants to replace heavily polluting coal and oil power plants when you can just ratchet up the CAFE standards (which, incidentally, have resulted in a substantial increase in fuel use)? Al Gore's exaggerations about global warming are helping to kill U.S. jobs and, in particular, Michigan jobs.

And, I've noticed that John Dingell isn't doing anything about it.

Quote of the Day

Iraq Study Group Report, pg. 30 (PDF)-

"Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have lead to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."

Stop the War

"If you want peace, stop funding the war." - Dennis Kucinich

That's the thinking behind the Democrats' inclusion of an Unconstitutional provision in a bill that passed the House today. According to their line of thinking, if the U.S. troops are removed from Iraq then magically the Sunnis and Shiites will stop trying to kill each other. After all, the only reason that they're killing each other is because the U.S. has troops in Iraq. Al Qaeda will just magically stop wanting to overthrow the democratic government of Iraq because the only reason they don't like having a democratic government in Iraq is because the U.S. has troops in Iraq. The Baathists will magically stop trying to put into power a Saddam-like dictator because the only reason they want a dictator is because the U.S. has troops in Iraq.

I could go on for hours on this because I'm that angry. Instead, I'll just say two words: Khmer Rouges.

More Al Gore...

Al Gore in his testimony:

The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, "well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem." If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.

I'll just also say this: if you have an issue which has the potential to either (1) cripple the economy while diverting funds from humanitarian threats such as African disease, poverty, and famine or environmental threats such as smog, acid rain, and heavy metal emissions; or, on the other extreme (2) destroy the world in a never-in-the-history-of-the-Earth-before-seen ball of fire then you don't say, "well, I saw a movie that tells me it's a problem" particularly when it's by a guy who admits he exaggerates the threat, uses pictures of expansion of the southern ice cap to demonstrate recession of the northern ice cap, and has absolutely no academic credentials whatsoever.

This was really bugging me last night and, frankly, made it difficult to sleep. If there is such an overwhelming consensus among the "scientific community" (which, ironically, apparently includes economists and social scientists who just happen to agree with the idea and excludes geologists and meteorologists who happen to disagree with it) then why not have someone with actual scientific and academic credentials come in? I don't see why a guy with 30 year old degrees in journalism and law is any more reputable than the medical doctor he slams in the above quote. Was it really that difficult to find the phone number to the Union of Concerned Scientists? These are actual academics with actual credentials who actually study the issue who are purportedly on Gore's side. The difference, of course, is that even the extremists in the UCS aren't nearly as far flung as Al Gore.

Quote of the Day

Benjamin Wittes, writing in the New Republic (registration required) -

But, critically, judges shouldn't be in charge of stripping disfavored rights from the Constitution. If the courts can simply make gun rights disappear, what happens when the First Amendment becomes embarrassing or inconvenient? It corrodes the very idea of a written Constitution becomes, in practice, the opposite of what its text says. The great beauty of the Constitution is that, unlike, say, the treaties that form the European Union, you can actually read it. You can see how its language embodies principles that still animate the day-to-day operation of American political life. When that is no longer the case, American democracy suffers; it gets unmoored from its source of legitimacy.

Most interestingly, Wittes is writing an article in response to the Federal Appeals Court striking down a D.C. law stridently restricting gun rights where he agrees with the original gun-control law being struck down. However, unlike what has become standard in liberal elite circles these days where courts imagine things into the Constitution which aren't there or imagine things out of the constitution which are there, he flatly agrees that legal precedent and the text of the Constitution both provide for a right for the citizenry to bear arms - a right he feels the citizens should not have, incidentally. He feels, however, that the correct way to go about this is to amend the Constitution and appeal the 2nd Amendment, not to have courts imagine provisions out of the Constitution that are there. Another interesting quote, although taken so ridiculously out of context that I cannot be sure that this was the actual meaning of the author or an ironic means to get another's point across: "the people's right to 'keep and bear arms' may actually include an individual right to, well, keep or bear a gun."

Either way, it's nice to see people have a different view on a topic but not try to imagine things that aren't there.

Athletics Over Academics

Looks like the University of Michigan coach Tommy Amaker is finally on his way out. The only thing that might save him? His wife is a highly coveted professor at the school. Of course, not everyone agrees with the idea that the school should keep him in order to keep his wife. Drew Lane, of WRIF's Drew and Mike, this morning just made that point: he termed it "disgusting" that the school would consider keeping Amaker in order to keep his wife.

What a shame it is when a school like The University of Michigan might make a decision about the athletics department based on academics. Don't they know that the only purpose of the institution is to put out semi-pro athletes?