October 18, 2005
Responsible Journalism
Sometimes, journalists simply flub a key fact, as did San Francisco
Chronicle Washington correspondent Edward Epstein in
this article about Saturday's constitutional referendum in Iraq:
Analysts do not see an end to Iraq's nonstop jockeying among competing ethnic and religious groups or to an insurgency that is averaging 570 attacks a day, despite voters' apparent approval of a new constitution on Saturday.
Epstein claimed that terrorists in Iraq were averaging 570 attacks each day in Iraq. When I emailed him asking for the source of this staggering figure, he quickly responded:
From latest CSIS report:
"The Bush administration's Oct. 2005 report to Congress does not show any decline in the number of attacks before the referendum. They totaled some 570 a week during 29 Aug. to October 2005. This compares with about 470 during 12 Feb-28 Aug.'"
When I pointed out that the report was claiming 570 attacks a week, not a day, (a difference of 3,420 attacks a week), Epstein quipped:
Where were you yesterday, so you could have caught that mistake?
Thanks, we'll run a correction tomorrow.
Professionals and amateurs alike, we all make mistakes from time to time in the stories we write. A certain columnist at the NY Times could learn a lot from Mr. Epstein on how to handle those mistakes.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
more...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:24 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Folks, I apologize for doing this, but I'd like to direct your attention to this "
bleg" if I may. My PC is on it's last legs, and any help would be greatly appreciated!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 19, 2005 11:28 AM (g5Nba)
2
That was a graceful response. Did he indeed follow-up on his promise to issue a correction? Of course, the paper being the SF Chron, his inadvertent error is probably gracing a thousand protest signs on some street in Berkeley, even as we speak.
Posted by: Bookworm at October 20, 2005 08:58 PM (abJTN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Chain Chain Chain... Cheney Fools
hilzoy at
Obsidian Wings.
Anonymous Liberal.
Bilmon.
O-Dub.
The last time the left got this excited a dress got ruined, but what exactly does today's Washington Post article Cheney's Office Is A Focus in Leak Case by Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus actually tell us?
Not a whole lot, actually.
While full of speculation and reputed leaks from inside special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's office, the WaPo "bombshell" is using much of the same powder it has tried to fire before, only to watch it fizzle.
But don't take it from me. Ask Kevin Drum:
Today's Washington Post story about Dick Cheney being a target of the Valerie Plame probe turns out to have no actual new information about Cheney being a target of the Valerie Plame probe. In fact, it quotes a former Cheney aide saying that "it is 'implausible' that Cheney himself was involved in the leaking of Plame's name because he rarely, if ever, involved himself in press strategy."
It looks like the WaPo is slinging stuff against the wall and hoping that something sticks. We'll find out soon enough if and of it does, and should the charges have it have merit, I'm sure that the White House can think of someone to step into the vacated position...
...but at this point, VandeHei and Pincus seem to be engaged more in wishful thinking than serious journalism. I'll take everything I hear regarding "Plamegate" with a mine full of salt until Special Prosecuter Fitzgerald lays out his case, at which point I hope justice is served.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.
Bats in the Belfry, Rove in the Garage
Associated Press writer Darlene Superville, who first gained critical acclaim for her whimsical
Plasterer's Digest expose, "Cheney: A Study in Stucco," and turned heads with the tawdry
American Builder Weekly home foundations article, "What's in Condi's Crawlspace?" has now turned out her finest work yet in the riveting, "
Rove: A KingBuilders Garage:"
He is "the architect" who steered George W. Bush to victory four times, twice as Texas governor and twice as president.
But can Karl Rove organize his own garage? Can the master of Bush's political planning figure out where to put the ladders, paint cans and cardboard boxes?
Engrossing, isn't it? Just the kind of stellar reporting you've come to expect from the Associated Press. But that's not all the sordid detail Superville has to offer:
There was no car in the garage. And the stuff left behind turned out not to be much different from what gathers dust inside most American garages.
The inventory, seen from outside:
_Some cardboard file boxes stacked one on top of the other, labeled "Box 6," "Box 4" and what appears to be "Box 7." No sign of boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5.
Could it be possible? Are these the same "boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5" that a secret operative of "G.W" removed just last week, claiming that the only contained jeans and assorted ties? Was there in fact a spotted blue dress? Has Patrick Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Patrick been notified?
What appear to be paint cans stacked alongside a folded, folding chair.
Are these really paint cans, or are they the WMDs planted in Uncle Saddam's Happy Fun Palace, used to justify an illegal and immoral war to force democracy upon unwilling Iraqi torturers, and then smuggled back to Rove's lair for later use against Syria or Finland?
A rather large wood crate marked "FRAGILE" and painted with arrows indicating which way is up.
Could she verify that this crate contained the stolen and almost mythical Daily Kos Plan For Taking Over The Democratic Leadership Council?
On top of the crate, two coolers.
Uday? Qusay? Oh, Bartleby! Oh, humanity!
A tall aluminum ladder.
Because the ice caps are melting and sea level is rising! Proof of global warming!
A snow shovel leaned in front of another cardboard box.
Because the ice sheets are returning and glaciers are coming! Proof of global cooling!
Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets on top of a shelf running the length of the rear wall. Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff. Another cardboard box.
Is it really "indiscernible stuff," or Ohio ballots carefully hidden from Keith Olbermann among the Longaberger?
In one corner, the rear wheel of a bicycle sticks out, along with what appears to be a helmet.
Just a reminder of who's really in charge, eh George?
Another ladder, this one green, leaning sideways.
Leaning right, you devious shill.
I can hardly wait for Somerville's next article, "Scooter Libby's Private Privy."
Update: Don Surber has similar thoughts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:29 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 4 kb.
October 17, 2005
Counterpoint
M.D. Patrick Cunningham sent the following email to Instapundit today regarding
avian flu hype:
As a medical researcher, I want to make a gentle but sincere plea to the blogosphere to calm down this flu hysteria just a bit. The main way that flu kills is by predisposing its victims to "superinfection" by bacterial illnesses - in 1918, we had no antibiotics for these superimposed infections, but now we have plenty. Such superinfections, and the transmittal of flu itself, were aided tremendously by the crowded conditions and poor sanitation of the early 20th century - these are currently vastly improved as well. Flu hits the elderly the hardest, but the "elderly" today are healthier, stronger, and better nourished than ever before. Our medical infrastructure is vastly better off, ranging from simple things like oxygen and sterile i.v. fluids, not readily available in 1918, to complex technologies such as respirators and dialysis. Should we be concerned? Sure, better safe than sorry, and concerns about publishing the sequence are worth discussing. Should we panic? No - my apologies to the fearmongers, but we will never see another 1918.
Patrick Cunningham M.D.
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Section of Nephrology
University of Chicago
I emailed Glenn the following as my response:
I am not a doctor, nor a biologist, nor a chemist. In any way that matters, I am completely unqualified to challenge the theory of Patrick Cunningham M.D. that the avian flu is over-hyped to the point of hysteria.
I'm going to do so anyway.
I, too, thought little at first of the media-darling pandemic, because I still remember the doom and gloom of Y2K, which wasn't that long ago. Hype alone doesn't do it for me. Then I read this article in the Raleigh, NC News and Observer, and decided to do some reading. I wasn't happy with what I found, and among those unhappy surprises, was the concept of "surge capacity."
To quote Dr. David Weber, medical director of hospital epidemiology at UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill:
"Wal-Mart doesn't have a three-week supply of TVs; they may have a 12-hour supply," Weber said. "We've designed our hospitals the same way. We don't have surge capacity for anything, be it a bioterrorist attack, the avian flu, whatever."
In other words, if a pandemic does hit, it will happen with such speed that it will overwhelm the medical system by sheer weight of numbers, in an extremely brief amount of time. Having 50 ventilators in a hospital is a great thing, until you need 500, along with every other hospital in the region. The hospitals will fill up quickly, and after that, people will be largely on their own, and essentially left to fend for themselves at home, where technologies aren't that different on the internal medical front where they were in -- you guessed it -- 1918.
To me (and more importantly, the North Carolina Division of Public Health, and UNC epidemiologists interviewed in the N&O article) it seems like Dr. Cunningham's premise amounts to whistling past a graveyard.
I would love to be very, very wrong.
Sincerely,
It seems that a lot of the experts are blindly focusing on what we might have the knowledge to do, but not on the technical capability we have to execute their schemes in the compressed period of time in which a pandemic will likely occur.
What I've seen from the medical community so far (and what they've gotten wrong) makes flu pandemic planning look like Hurricane Katrina evacuations in a lab coat.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:14 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.
1
cunningham is DEAD WRONG:
the 1918 flu killed HEALTHY YOUNG PEOPLE (not just the infirm and the old and the very young, as in a noremal flu epidemic).
and they DIED IN A FEW DAYS!
therefore they did NOT DIE FROM SECONDARY INFECTIONS - as cunningham WRONGLY ASSERTS - ["The main way that flu kills is by predisposing its victims to "superinfection" by bacterial illnesses - in 1918, we had no antibiotics for these superimposed infections, but now we have plenty."]
antibiotics will have ZERO EFFECT - for those with the flu or as a prophylactic.
if the 1918 flu were to strike today, we would fare just as badly. perhaps worse because the world is - in a fiogurative senmse - a smaller place inwhgich more people from more places interact closely and spread germs.
IF ND WHEN the current bird flu morphs into a human2human from, we are "cooked" - until a vaccine is made and is made available - which will take alot of time.
we do not even have the inductrial capaciy to make enough, RIGHT NOW.
be prepared; hard timers are coming. i know not when. but PROBABLY within the next few years and maybe next year.
Posted by: reliapundit at October 17, 2005 08:58 PM (/PNt3)
2
Geez, reliapundit, what are your credentials for making such a harsh condemnation of Cunningham's statement. Seems that every year we have a flu scare that stampedes people to get flu vaccinations. Could there be an agenda here? It also seems that every year the same proportion of people with or without vaccinations get the flu with much less then the predicted number of deaths. Is this going to be the year for a wide spread flu epidemic? No one knows. After 'crying wolf' every year who can believe CDC.
Oh, yes, in all those past years, I have never gotten a flu vaccination (I am 70 now) and I have never gotten the flu. Could be that Cunningham is right about at least one thing.
Posted by: docdave at October 18, 2005 06:26 PM (n16Wm)
3
facts are facts. you can look it up: most of the 1918 victims were young men - 18-35, and most died in 3 days.
they did not die from secondary/"superimposed" infections as cunningham ERRONEOUSLY offered.
therefore, his argument that antibiotics and other medical interventions to deal with these superimposed infectioins is WRONG.
that is NOT to say we will have a pandemic at all. the bird flu does NOT have to mutate into a human2human form.
but if it does, it can spread VERY fast, and kill a lot of people before it burns out and before any vaccine is available to a significant percentage of the population.
these are facts.
like'em or not. a fact is a fact.
this is not fearmongering. we shouold be prepared. and arguing that we have plentantibiotics around is NOT a good way to get prepared.
we need a sense of URGENCY about this POTENTIAL problem becasue the downside is so bad.
and by the time it is an EMERGENCY it will be too late to do ANYTHING.
okay?
Posted by: reliapundit at October 18, 2005 10:00 PM (cOGAf)
4
Reliapundit is right about the demographics of death in 1918. A fabulous book from a couple of years ago about the 1918 influenz, called
Amazon.com: Books: The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague In History pretty much spells out the details. Apparently that flu hyperactivated the immune system and the strongest humane systems were in the young adult range. It's unclear whether, if that flu were to strike today, modern antibiotics would be of any use in quelling this immediate and violent immune system response. I'm with CY that this is something different and worth being afraid of. I'd rather have an over reaction now, which results in vaccine research and drug stock piling, then place my hopes in a belief that this might end up being a tempest in a teapot. We're long overdue for something like this, and the 50% mortality rate for those who have gotten avian flu demands vigilance.
Posted by: Bookworm at October 20, 2005 08:57 PM (abJTN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bush Lied, Grandma Fried
Via
ABC News:
The driver of a bus that caught fire while carrying nursing-home patients fleeing Hurricane Rita was charged Monday with criminally negligent homicide in the deaths of 23 passengers.
Juan Robles Gutierrez, a 37-year-old Mexican citizen, was taken into federal custody on an immigration violation five days after the Sept. 23 explosion near Dallas...
* * *
...Sheriff Lupe Valdez said investigators also found no evidence that Robles helped several people off the bus before it was engulfed in flames, which was widely reported after the explosion.
"After an exhausting number of interviews, we have been unable to confirm any of those claims," Valdez said in a statement.
However, Peritz said a failure to help crash victims was not part of the charges against Robles.
Great.
It makes you wish that the Minutemen, or more properly the Border Patrol, had been their to intercept this coward at the border instead of not picking him up until he after stood by and watch 23 elderly people in his charge burn to death.
Perhaps if the President gave a damn about border security, this loser wouldn't have been behind the wheel, or the motorist who tried to flag him down before the bus caught fire might have been able to communicate with him. Possibly not.
I've had it up to here with illegals in this country, those businesses that employ and them, and enablers in the government (local, state and federal) like President Bush. This issue only gets more pressing as time goes on, and these 23 nursing home residetns are just the latest victims.
Are you listening, '08 hopefuls?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:28 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I agree that Bush is woefully lax on the border security issue. However, there is nothing in this article to indicate that the driver's status as an illegal had anything to do with the explosion or the deaths.
Posted by: Hank at October 17, 2005 11:01 PM (gykUF)
2
Hank, you are correct in that it did not have any direct cause -- to the best of my knowledge, buses don't explode because of a driver's immigration status -- but one has to wonder if his status as an illegal was held over his head to drive a bus that was in such a state of disrepair.
I would not be suprised to discover that this bus company has a long record of bad maintenance and illegal hires.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 18, 2005 12:08 AM (0fZB6)
3
I don't know if there is any truth to this but I have heard that this bus had been out of service for months and could not pass DOT inspection and yet FEMA told the bus company to put it in service to aid in evacuation.
Posted by: Allen at October 18, 2005 01:26 PM (KJVaG)
4
I suppose Bush hired the guy to drive the bus too. Hey, I live in Texas and the Mexican border was leaking badly a long time before Bush was president. Where you think the name 'wetback' came from?
Posted by: docdave at October 18, 2005 06:33 PM (n16Wm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
There Goes The Dem-Love
John Fund in today's WSJ
OpinionJournal:
Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: "When you know some of the things that I know--that I probably shouldn't know--you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."
Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. "I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade," Mr. Dobson said last week. "But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion."
It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.
I'd still like to see Harriet Miers get a chance to get up in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee before I make my decision on whether I'd support her or not, but at this point...
Let's just say things don't look too good.
Update: Brian at TBSC discusses the relaunch of Miers and explores a bit of SCOTUS nominee history. I think the "ship of state" above pretty much sums up the extent I think relaunching the nomination will now accomplish. They've played this badly since the beginning.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:17 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I'd still like to see Harriet Miers get a chance to get up in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee before I make my decision on whether I'd support her or not, but at this point...
The problem I have with this is twofold. The first is that we really don't learn anything from the hearings, at least not since Bork. Second, once the hearings start, it will be impossible for Bush to save face anymore. His only 'outs' are her confirmation, or her withdrawing her own nomination.
The third part of my twofold problem (heh) is that this is a good chance for true conservatives to let Bush know that he can't do whatever he wants and expect us to blindly follow. Bush has to realize that we know he's not following through on what the conservatives want. To recover our trust, he may have to do one or more of the following:
-Cut spending
-Close the borders (and afterwards, secure them)
-Delay/destroy the prescription drug debt creator
-Nominate a conservative known to have judicial restraint.
Wouldn't that be good news? All in all, it would be best for Ms. Miers to withdraw.
Posted by: Kevin at October 17, 2005 09:14 PM (24kgX)
2
Powerline has its modest proposal that I wish Harriet would follow: Go into the hearings and boldly declare Roe was improperly decided because the Constitution is silent on the subject and this is best an issue left to the states to sort out. Then she should go on and say while she is pro-life personally, she doesn't know how she would rule if an abortion case came up--she would have to look carefully at the facts and precedents and consider stare decisis before she made a decison.
The Dems would go nuts. The Conservatives would be reassured. If the Dems filabuster, invoke the nuclear option (I bet Lindsay Graham would be on board, you only need one more Republican from the Gang of 14). McCain may even be willing to recant to make up with the base. Even if they lose the battle, Miers comes out a champ. The President looks good to his base then can bring forward a Luttig, McConnell, Garza, Jones, etc.
I can't see another good option--but the beauty of this is it is actually a pretty good option.
Posted by: Ginko Bilboa at October 17, 2005 10:09 PM (+PS1/)
3
And now, we know that Miers believes "Griswold v. Connecticut" was "rightly decided." I don't buy Arlen Specter's artful retraction. He's usually very precise when it comes to Constitutional law, and for him to have such an incorrect read of a discussion with a nominee about such a seminal case? No way.
So, Bush named a Pro-Choicer. So much for being true to the Conservative base. Like father, like son. It's Souter Part II.
That's what you get when you go with cronies.
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 18, 2005 10:04 AM (3NYgD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Mouse as Judas
[please note: this post is about the
marketing of the film, not the film itself, which I have not seen.]
Quick: What movie does this describe?
"This story is about four kids, disempowered by the war in their own world, World War II, who enter this land where they're not only empowered, but they're ultimately the only solution to war in that land. And it's only through betrayal and forgiveness and finally, unity as a family, that they can overcome those odds... We're taking the story of a family, and exaggerating it to the level of the battle between good and evil. But at its heart, it's still a very personal story."
"This story" of Andrew Adamson is not one I would easily recognize, even though I've read it through several times as a child, and later as an adult.
Adamson's quote comes from the Educator's Guide, to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, a 15-page PDF that literally misses the point of the source material entirely. There is not one reference to Lewis' background as one of the greatest Christian writers and apologists of all time, nor of the importance and power of the story as Christian myth.
Adamson, devotes quite a bit of his time and quite a bit of Walt Disney's money to ignoring the fact that this series by C.S. Lewis is one of the greatest Christian stories told in the 20th century.
When I heard that they were having a go at the C.S. classic Chronicles of Narnia I was both excited and filled with trepidation. I was worried they would botch the script, and that they would rip the Christian not-quite-an-allegory (Lewis called it a "supposal") that is The Lion... to shreds in an attempt to be politically correct.
To be honest, we still don't know how or what they did with the actual film, but their marketing of the film so far is chilling...
Last week, I attended a “sneak peek” of the new Chronicles of Narnia movie, put on by Disney for local pastors. The purpose of the event was to encourage pastors both to encourage their congregations to see the movie, and to the release as an outreach opportunity.
But what are they getting at?
This is all an attempt to replicate some of the success of The Passion of the Christ, which has made something like 600 million dollars primarily by marketing to church groups.
As I said yesterday, I think this is going to be a great movie, and I look forward to seeing it. But I have two main concerns about the marketing effort:
1) The people that are making and marketing the movie are non-Christians who have no concern whatsoever for the promotion of the gospel, except that they have now realized that there is a lot of money to be tapped into in the church...
Disney is willing to sell out Christ for coins. That sounds familiar.
You should click over to FoolishBlog to read Eric's full concerns about some of the things surrounding film, which are troubling, and to my mind, justified.
Mel Gibson had wonderful success with a movie about Jesus Christ. Andrew Adamson and Disney would appear to deny Christ's role in this series, despite author Lewis's own clear intent:
In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the fifth book of the series, Aslan tells the children that although they must return to their own world, they can find him there also (Hooper 123). Aslan says, "There I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there" (Hooper 123). Some of Lewis' readers wonder what the significance of this statement is and begin to search for Aslan here on earth. Hila, an eleven year old girl from the United States asked Lewis what Aslan's name is in this world (Dorsett 31-32). His response was this:
As to Aslan's other name, well I want you to guess. Has there never been anyone in this world who (1.) Arrived at the same time as Father Christmas. (2.) Said he was the son of the great Emperor. (3.) gave himself up for someone else's fault to be jeered at and killed by wicked people. (4.) Came to life again. (5.) Is sometimes spoken of as a Lamb.... Don't you really know His name in this world. Think it over and let me know your answer! (Dorsett 32)
When Lewis' readers find Aslan in the real world, they will find out that his true name is Jesus Christ. And when this occurs, Lewis is successful at opening a person's heart to accepting Christianity.
The Mouse seems more than willing to take Christian money, but not before betraying the essential Christianity that runs in, around, and through this series of books.
Disney had a wonderful opportunity to share a wonderful story with the world, and if the director's all-too-P.C. slant in the marketing materials is any indication of the slant of this movie, then they have failed their audience and the intent of the author by half.
I had great hopes for this film, but right now those hopes are only running on faith.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:33 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 873 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Huw Raphael at October 17, 2005 01:02 AM (U5WfQ)
2
I had hoped that the involvement of Lewis' stepson Douglas Gresham would lead to the retention of the spiritual and allegorical aspects of the story. The trailer clearly shows top-class production values...but (as with Miers) we're in the position of having to take faith on faith.
Posted by: Watchman at October 17, 2005 07:11 PM (6mUkl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 16, 2005
"Blair" Witch
Judith Miller: The
New York Times "Blair" Witch
via Editor & Publisher:
Saturday's Times article, [my link] without calling for Miller's dismissal, or Keller's apology, made the case for both actions in this pithy, frank, and brutal assessment: "The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public's support, it was unable to answer its questions."
It followed that paragraph with Keller's view: "It's too early to judge."
Like Keller says, make of it what you will. My view: Miller did far more damage to her newspaper than did Jayson Blair, and that's not even counting her WMD reporting, which hurt and embarrassed the paper in other ways.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
October 15, 2005
Anniversary Post
This is our 7th Anniversary weekend for "Mrs. Yankee" and I, and as my parents have our daughter, blogging will be light (you're looking at it).
I'm a very, very lucky guy, and it will be nice to have some time for just the two of us. We don't have a whole lot planned (I did manage to sneak in a reflexology pedicure for her), but I'm sure we'll think of something to do later.*
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.
October 14, 2005
Shakespeare and Bush
WS: "George, have you ever read '
Much Ado About Nothing?'"
GWB: "No, I never read the Times."
Update: (ht:MM)
WS: "All the world's a stage."
GWB: "Um, No."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:15 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If it's much ado about nothing, if "the president is looking forward to having just a conversation" with soldiers, then why coach soldiers as to who will answer what questions?
Generally, when I gather with friends or co-workers and we converse, I don't say, "Well, how is the weather? Weather questions I want to go to, ummmm, to Lisa."
But, a read of Shakespeare might be in order since this isn't proper English: "We got a strategy, and it's a clear strategy," Bush said.
Do you think a simple grasp of proper English and even basic speaking abilities are too much to ask of a Chief Executive Officer or Head of State (especially of a traditionally English speaking state)?
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 14, 2005 09:47 AM (ikdVG)
2
Generally when you get gather with coworkers to converse you are not televised. They were not given THE questions ahead of time, they were asked questions which the president might ask in an effort to make them more comfortable in front of the camera. Really nothing wrong with that.
Oops! That last sentence was not a proper sentence. I hope sally doesn't pick on me.
Posted by: Ed Colletta at October 14, 2005 10:30 AM (9UEu0)
3
Do you think a simple grasp of proper English and even basic speaking abilities are too much to ask of a Chief Executive Officer or Head of State?
Overlooking your inherent bias for a moment, I think it is largely irrelevant. You confuse eloquence with strategic vision.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 14, 2005 11:47 AM (g5Nba)
4
The White House's understandable desire to perfectly package the message screwed up the message. If you don't trust the men to respond appropriately then don't give them the mike.
Posted by: yeti at October 14, 2005 12:08 PM (x00hV)
5
That's almost as good as the 'Roe Vs. Wade' New Orleans statement by Bush - "I don't care how people get out of N.O. as long as they leave..."
Posted by: Tash at October 14, 2005 03:55 PM (1x+IX)
6
then why coach soldiers as to who will answer what questions?
Obviously you have never been in front of a TV camera.
Its bad enough when you've done it a few times, the first time is very stressful and your mind almost goes blank.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 14, 2005 04:20 PM (kRxBU)
7
Purple Avenger -
The troops told you that's why they needed the coaching? I'd think people who are under stress of being killed by a faceless enemy could handle the pressure of a TV camera. Then again, I don't know the reasons they needed coaching, so I don't feel compelled to speculate. It just seems that the transcript of the exchange with the White House official didn't appear that she was trying to calm nerves (especially not of 5 officers).
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 14, 2005 04:25 PM (ikdVG)
8
Sally, please see Michelle Malkin's site for comments from one of the soldiers (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003723.htm).
Posted by: MikeM at October 15, 2005 11:27 AM (THuRh)
9
Old Soldier -
Wow, a personal attack so soon. At least we all see where you hold civility.
You raise some valid points. I think I'd caution against one thing. You don't know anything about me, where I'm from, what I've done - perhaps you shouldn't make claims when you don't know the facts.
Contrary to what you think, yes, I do know the military hierarchy as well as the structure of government. I, too, passed high school civics/American Government. Hopefully the White House telling which soldier to answer which question does, as you said, "enable the winning of battles and wars," as amusing as that sounds.
I think all I asked was, don't you think our leaders should at least be able to speak, I don't know, sensibly, or articulately, anything like that? I'd get into the content or veracity of his comments, but you can read about that in any news outlet.
Oh, is that a Clinton reference you're making? Hehehehe. That was a good one, I found that one amusing. It's almost as amusing as saying months ago that anyone involved in the CIA leak will be fired, then changing the story this past week to "No Comment."
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 16, 2005 08:35 PM (Rbdrm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 13, 2005
Bush's Brilliant Move
Not only is George W. Bush one of the most "misunderestimated" presidents in American history, he is also one of the most ambitious, a fact that the Harriet Miers nomination now proves.
John Paul Stevens is 85. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 72.
Both could conceivably serve on the court for years to come, potentially outlasting the Bush administration... if they wanted to. But what if they didn't want to?
What if the court was stripped of its prestige and dignity, and was instead ridiculed and scorned by the press and citizens alike? What if the press ignored your contributions and body of work, and continually focused upon the capricious whims of the "new kid" on the court, a mash-note writing cheerleader that cites odd bits of scripture in her opinions?
After years of prestigious service, retirement might start looking like quite an attractive option. With Michael Luttig and Janice Rogers Brown waiting in the wings, Bush's "trust me" nomination of Harriet Miers is nothing less than a court-packing trojan horse.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:17 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Interesting theory. Sure would love to think something as complex as that is the reason.... but I'm not so sure.
But I agree with you in that I think there is something more behind the nomination than simple cronyism.... I really, really hope so.
Posted by: Jason Smith at October 13, 2005 10:43 PM (TwSjW)
2
I completely agree that it HAS to be something more than cronyism. But I really think this isn't some super secret Rovian plan to de-elevate the court's status. I really do think that the President knows more about what he's doing than most of the people commenting on it, but I've seen some pretty wild speculation on what it might be...
The best one I saw today was someone positing that it was an effort to get Stevens to feel more comfortable about retiring.
Posted by: Tony B at October 13, 2005 11:27 PM (mozBv)
3
If it did get that old Bolshevik Stevens to hang it up, it would be a net win.
Too many dominos need to fall for that to be a reliable outcome though.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 14, 2005 01:38 AM (kRxBU)
4
Twenty years with Rehnquist wasn't enough to drive Stevens into retirement, the NKOTB won't either. Stevens will serve for life, just like Rehnquist, and continue to make Ford happy with his decision.
I guess the question I have for you all is, I hear alot of, "The President must know what he's doing, otherwise why would he be doing that? So, I'll just go ahead and trust him."
What will you say when you realize he isn't God and is capable of making mistakes? Are you capable of admitting you were wrong?
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 14, 2005 10:00 AM (ikdVG)
5
Old Soldier -
Just wanted to say, good arguments. We may not always see eye to eye, but I truly think you are onto something.
Don't 100% agree with the "more brilliant long term strategist" remark, but then again it'd probably be pretty weird if we agreed 100% of the time.
Otherwise, I think you're spot on. The big question is whether those 27 Republican Senators will fall into place or not.
Also, the fawning, sycophantic collection of greeting cards the White House released this week doesn't help Miers' case.
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 14, 2005 10:20 AM (ikdVG)
6
What will you say when you realize he isn't God and is capable of making mistakes? Are you capable of admitting you were wrong?
I wasn't aware that anyone had ever made Bush a deity. I personally disagree with him on many domestic issues and get irritated with the tactical execution of his foreign policy on many occasional. Lockstep sycophants are relatively rare among those on the center-right that I tend to associate with, and so I write your comment off to ignorance, willful or otherwise.
It is quite common to find a conservative who will disagree with Bush when he is wrong. It is next to impossible to find a liberal to concede that he may have ever been right.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 14, 2005 11:56 AM (g5Nba)
7
Above should read "on many occasions."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 14, 2005 11:57 AM (g5Nba)
8
"I personally disagree with him on many domestic issues and get irritated with the tactical execution of his foreign policy on many occasional."
What are five domestic issues you have with him?
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 14, 2005 04:18 PM (ikdVG)
9
I only wish this was true. Liberals may be contemptable and wrong, many lack moral compasses, but most of them are painfully sincere. They believe what they are doing is right. If Miers turns out to be a bumbling fool, the old Liberals will hang on until they either keel over in their chambers or someone takes over the presidency that they trust will make the "correct" replacement choice. Even Sandra Day O'Connor might be thinking maybe she made the wrong decision.
Posted by: Ginko Bilboa at October 14, 2005 08:54 PM (+PS1/)
10
This is all a set up. Harriet Miers is in on it. That the plan was really to put HM on the Appellate Court all along and when everyone started to freak out, the President would put someone of unquestionable loyalty and credentials on the High Court. . .
Hugh Hewitt is the true steath nominee.
Posted by: Ginko Bilboa at October 14, 2005 09:00 PM (+PS1/)
11
What are five domestic issues you have with him?
Just five? I can think of that many broad categories when I disagree with him; if you want to get into specifics, I could probably find dozens of individual things, but I don't see where that would advance any the conversation.
I disagree with President Bush in the following broad areas:
1. Immigration. Bush is an "open borders" advocate. I want strong border security, a zero-tolerance policy towards illegals, a robust and enforceable guest worker program, and a higher threshold of requirements for permanent immigration. I'm all for letting people in to this country to work, but they must follow our laws and cultural norms. It is a privilege for them to come here, not a right. This is actually just one of many homeland security issues I have with President Bush.
2. McCain-Feingold. He should have vetoed this blatant infringement on free speech rights, which is far worse than anything the Patriot Act had to offer. He didnÂ’t. IÂ’m still mad.
3. Size and role of government Bush is a big-government liberal when it comes to spending on useless domestic programs. An example is the Dept. of Education. I want the Dept. of Education disbanded; he wants to pour millions more down that rathole.
4. Rebuilding New Orleans He should have bought out the most flood-prone and flood-damaged areas and returned them to the wetlands. Instead Bush has engaged in political pandering that will cost hundreds of billions on a city that Mother Nature has marked for death within the next century. This is a huge mistake weÂ’ll pay for time and again before the Big Easy finally slips under the Gulf of Mexico.
5. Expanding the role of the Military stateside I am morally opposed to broadening he power of the military domestically. Historically, that has rarely turned out well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 17, 2005 10:59 AM (g5Nba)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Misunderestimating "Captain Trips"
According to an article in the 10/12 Raleigh
News & Observer titled "N.C. flu plan needs checkup," reporter Amy Gardner notes in her
opening paragraphs:
The potential for a catastrophic flu outbreak has public health leaders worldwide reviewing how ready they are. In North Carolina, the bottom line is the same as nearly everywhere else: A pandemic would overwhelm the state's health care system.
With a shortage of hospital beds and vaccines, the state would struggle to treat the sick in a worst-case epidemic infecting 1 million North Carolinians, hospitalizing 25,000 and killing 5,000.
Wait just a minute. 5,000 dead?
The numbers cited by Gardener came from the N.C. Division of Public Health's Pandemic Influenza Plan.
The NC DPH begins its report by admitting it was calibrated using obsolete data, basing their population data on 1999 NC population figure of 7,425,183, and readily admits that these figures are substantially off by approximately 1 million residents. This concurs with 2004 US Census Bureau estimates, which states North Carolina had an estimated population of 8,541,221. Acknowledging that your base numbers are wrong to begin with doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Based upon woefully outdated population figures, the DPH actually cites a worst case scenario (PDF) of nearly 1.4 million North Carolinians infected and requiring outpatient visits, 30,631 hospitalized, and resulting in the deaths of 6,994. The figures cited by the News and Observer story above were actually mid-range figures from the same report, not the worst case as the article claims.
With a rough calibration taking into account the 15.044-percent jump in population from 7.43 to 8.5 million, more accurate numbers are probably that same percentage (15.044%) higher.
A worst-case scenario flu pandemic based up these figures with a 35% infection rate claims to kill fewer than 11,000 North Carolinas, or something in the neighborhood of 0.129-percent of the total North Carolina population.
This is what we are afraid of?
Not quite. These are estimates based upon one software model that I am highly suspicious of, as history shows us something else entirely.
The closest-known relative of the H51N avian flu we currently fear is the H1N1 Type a Influenza virus responsible for the 1918-19 pandemic.
Overall infection rates of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic were 20-30 percent of the overall population. Global mortality rates from the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic ranged from 2.5-percent to 5-percent of the infected population.
Figuring a 20-percent infection rate in a population of 8.5 million, and a minimal mortality rate of 2.5-percent of the infected population, we are looking at 42,500 dead, not 5,000.
I may be wrong on the math. It has been consistently been my worst subject throughout my educational career.
That said, I cannot understand the huge apparent discrepancy between the anemic pandemic forecast by the NC Division of Public Health, and the historical example of the last major Influenza Type A infection seen in the Spanish Flu of 1918.
Comments and a thorough debunking are encouraged. I'd be thrilled to be wrong on this one.
Note: "Captain Trips" was the nickname of a weaponized super-flu that escaped a military weapons lab and killed 99.6% of Earth's human population in the 1978 Stephen King opus, The Stand.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:23 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Your math is correct, 42,500 with the basic assumption there has been NO advances in medical science over the last 88 years that would reduce the mortality rate. But then you are using the least case scenerio 30% and 5% would give a level of ]
127,500
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at October 13, 2005 07:35 AM (ZgJa9)
2
Your math is correct, 42,500 with the basic assumption there has been NO advances in medical science over the last 88 years that would reduce the mortality rate.
There
is a reason I didn't factor in medical advances, and that can be summed up in two words: "Surge capacity."
The medical system has a finite amount of physical resources, and these resources are not designed for mass casualty events of any sort, especially not on the scale of a pandemic. If the forecast pandemic hits with the speed and distribution expected, the medical system will (most likely) be completely overwhelmed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 13, 2005 08:14 AM (g5Nba)
3
Surge capacity may bring the rate up a bit, but not several percentage points. The nation as a whole is healthier, since then we've also started inoculating the general public with vaccines going to those most susceptible to the virus. From the research IÂ’ve seen and the doctors IÂ’ve talked to the virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 has for all intensive purposes been rendered impotent.
Right now itÂ’s a minor issue and the virus will have to mutate slowly to maintain its full strength, it will take several years before it can effectively be transmitted from person to person. In which case experts all say a vaccine will be readily available.
Or it may become intertwined with another strand of the flu that can be readily spread from person to person; however it will suffer a distinct drop in its virility (punny huh?).
Either way, thereÂ’s much ado about nothing. If there isnÂ’t a breakdown in the supply chain of the flu vaccine we shouldnÂ’t have a problem. Remember last year when we had the break down in the supply chain, and there was a virulent strain of the flu virus running rampant that was going to kill millions in the US alone. Yeah I donÂ’t remember the death counts being that high.
I blame Bush.
Posted by: phin at October 13, 2005 11:00 AM (Xvpen)
4
I'm not sure you understand the huge limitations low surge capacity has during a mass casualty event such as a pandemic.
Use the 150 ventilators example from the N&O article.
You have 150 ventilators. Patient 151 that requires a ventilator to live. He doesnÂ’t get one. He will likely die.
The problem with a pandemic is that you won't need just 151 ventilators at a time, you'll need 1500, or more, in a matter of just a few days. Anyone beyond that 150th person is likely to die. Likewise, UNC Hospitals has a less than 700 bed capability, and thousands are expected to need hospitalization at once, meaning many people will have to be turned away.
The current avian flu (H15N) when it makes the jump to capable of being spread human-to-human, will spread at a much faster rate than the 1918 flu. The 1918 virus circled the globe in less than a few months, even with the relatively primitive transportation systems they had at the time (primarily land transportation, often still relying on isolated rail services, foot, horseback, and ships). We now have subways, interstate highways, and commercial aviation. Instead of months, the virus could circle the globe in just weeks, and if 1918 can be a guide, it will run its course so fast that it will be over before it can substantially mutate and weaken.
The vaccine cannot be developed until the virus mutates until a human-transmissible form, either by shift or drift. You want to guess how long it will take to create a vaccine for the newly emergent strain, and make it commercially viable?
4-6 months.
Just after the pandemic has run its course.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 13, 2005 12:17 PM (g5Nba)
5
Your math is fine, but from the CDC website, the estimated mortality rate of Avain Flu (strain H5N1) is approximately 50%. Fifty percent.
If this bug mutates, which viruses do all the time, to an human-to-human airborne transmittable virus, then g-d only knows what we'll see.
Q: Are medical advances since 1918 offset by the speed and frequency world travel?
Posted by: yeti at October 13, 2005 01:07 PM (x00hV)
6
We don't have a single reliable number of the illegal aliens in this country at any given time. Any one of these folks could be carrying more viruses than we could possibly identify, in any time necessary to develope a vaccine. Wash your hands, purify your water, eat healthy, and don't wait for big government, they will bury you, when they get around to it!
Posted by: Tom T at October 13, 2005 08:31 PM (6krEN)
7
Yeti, I read somewhere that when it comes to the flu the modern medical advances made really offer little difference in the outcome...mainly because it is viral and not bacterial.
Like the 1918 avian flu, this pandemic is projected to hit the 20-40 year old "healthy" group the hardest.
Posted by: Maggie at October 13, 2005 08:38 PM (QKXCW)
8
I wonder what IS the surge capacity of the health care system in NC
When we look at the numbers
42,500 to 127,500 they seem overwhelming and I by no means want to discount such a level of human suffering, but about 80,000 people die every year in NC and a lot of people get sick but don't die. We may be strained if we get hit, but we might not be helplessly overwhelmed.
I wonder what the number of beds in treatment centers IS? Hospitals Clinics etc and the numbers of care givers? Nurses Docters, EMTs?
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at October 14, 2005 12:55 AM (hxRR8)
9
Information on hospital beds, numbers of hospitals, medical clinics , nursing homes
and nursing home bed with other information for different states can be found here.
http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=profile&area=North+Carolina&category=Providers+%26+Service+Use&subcategory=Nursing+Homes&topic=Number+of+Nursing+Home+Residents
Quick glance there seem to be 23K hospital beds in 113 Hospitals and 40K nursing home beds, and maybe a hundred or so rural clinics.
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at October 14, 2005 01:05 AM (hxRR8)
10
Dan,
80,000 people die each year in NC, but with a pamdemic, we're talking
double that amount of hospitialization (based upon a 20% infection rate of 8.5 million people... and I'm not including the hypochondriacs and "just in casers" who will help clog the system) in
one or two weeks.
If there are approximately 23,000 beds, and normal illnesses have them 2/3 to 3/4 full, and you slap 170,0000 flu victims on top of that, and you've got major surge capacity issues.
These things trigger mass graves for a reason.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 14, 2005 07:01 AM (0fZB6)
11
Yes it will be a State of Emergency for certain.
There are however 300K employed in the Health Industry. I would hope that non-essential businesses and schools would be closed. So ALL non-life threatenig medical treatments should be off the books. Schools have kitchens and mutlple bath rooms and if they are not being used would make good triage centers. It would be a mess but suvivable.
But the same thing could be happening in every State so the only effective responce would have to be local
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at October 14, 2005 08:43 AM (ZgJa9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 12, 2005
Remembering the Cole
The al Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole five years ago today was my first awakening to the willingness of Osama bin Laden to attack the United States head-on. Michelle Malkin has the
definative round-up.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
Missed Again
Via
Fox News:
...two rockets exploded near the U.S. Embassy in the center of the Afghan capital Wednesday, wounding two people hours hours before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was due to arrive on an official visit. Rice's visit on Wednesday is her second trip to Afghanistan as secretary of state.
Sooner or later, people are going to learn that terror attack just serve to make make Condoleeza Rice that much more determined.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:08 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
al-Zawahiri: Annotated & Unhinged
Overall al Qaeda #2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri sent a letter to al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zaqawi, a letter that was intercepted by coalition forces. That letter hasnow been made public. Download the entire letter al-Zawahiri letter
here, or read the conveniently annotated version below.
f
In the name of God, praise be to God, and praise and blessings be upon the Messenger of
God, his family, his Companions, and all those who follow him.
.................................
The gracious brother/Abu Musab, God protect him and watch over him, may His religion, and His Book and the Sunna of His Prophet @ aid him, I ask the Almighty that he bless him, us, and all Muslims, with His divine aid, His clear victory, and His release from suffering be close at hand. Likewise, I ask the Almighty to gather us as He sees fit from the glory of this world and the prize of the hereafter.
1-Dear brother, God Almighty knows how much I miss meeting with you, how much I long to join you in your historic battle against the greatest of criminals and apostates in the heart of the Islamic world, the field where epic and major battles in the history of
Islam were fought. I think that if I could find a way to you, I would not delay a day,
God willing.
[I know if I left the cave, the Americans and Pakistanis would light me up like an infidel Christmas tree.
2-My dear brother, we are following your news, despite the difficulty and hardship. We
received your last published message sent to Sheikh Usama Bin Ladin, God save him.
Likewise, I made sure in my last speech-that Aljazeera broadcast Saturday, 11 Jumadi I,
1426h, 18 June 2005-to mention you, send you greetings, and show support and thanks for the heroic acts you are performing in defense of Islam and the Muslims, but I do not
know what Aljazeera broadcast. Did this part appear or not? I will try to attach the
full speech with this message, conditions permitting.
Likewise, I showed my support for your noble initiative to join with your brothers,
during a prior speech I sent to the brothers a number of months ago, but the brothers'
circumstances prevented its publication.
[Infidels once again captured my messengers before the could carry out their mission]
3-I want to reassure you about our situation. The summer started hot with operations
escalating in Afghanistan. The enemy struck a blow against us with the arrest of Abu
al-Faraj, may God break his bonds. However, no Arab brother was arrested because of
him. The brothers tried-and were successful to a great degree-to contain the fall of
Abu al-Faraj as much as they could.
[For a change, the capture of al-Faraj did not lead to the capture of his entire cell. You could learn from this. Ha-ha.]
However, the real danger comes from the agent Pakistani army that is carrying out
operations in the tribal areas looking for mujahedeen.
[They're on us like a fat kid on a pork chop]
more...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:59 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1550 words, total size 12 kb.
1
Excellent interpretation! My sarcasm is lockstep with yours.
Posted by: Craig at October 12, 2005 10:17 AM (aklAt)
Posted by: Buckley F. WIlliams at October 13, 2005 07:14 AM (O2fD/)
3
Great job there. Makes me feel a little better even though I'm surrounded by supporters of radical Islam and communists (think Che). Be aware of racist black muslims some liberal, pervertive gays this weekend in Washington, DC.
Take care.
V/R
Paul Rozek
Posted by: paul.rozek at October 13, 2005 07:31 AM (PJ4Iq)
Posted by: tioedong at October 13, 2005 08:22 PM (ZsR7t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 11, 2005
Accuracy ni Media
If you a member of the media and you intend to snipe at a critic over the quality of localized newspaper reporting, you
might want to start by
not mischaracterizing what he says.
Jay Rosen of PressThink takes News and Observer Executive Editor Melanie Sill to task on her blog for getting it wrong.
John in Carolina has more.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
October 10, 2005
et tu, Bushe?
As previously on-the-fence conservative pundits
make their decisions about Harriet Miers and others
reverse course, I'm starting to feel more than a little lonely at the table marked "wait and see."
Despite all the emotionally inflated commentary to the contrary by some very smart people, Harriet Miers is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. The Constitution is not the sole property of Ivy League law school graduates, and it never should be.
Intelligent Americans can understand and interpret the Constitution without a degree from Harvard or Yale. If our system gets to the point where only elites are allowed to understand and interpret the Constitution, then it is time to re-write the Constitution (and yes, we have that legal option as Americans).
Miers is not the most experienced, nor the most highly educated, nor the best pedigreed candidate... but she appears to be as qualified as some who have worn those black robes, and more qualified than a few. That said, while Miers seems qualified on paper, it remains to be seen if she should be confirmed. Miers, if anything, is a cypher.
She has given up precious little in her defense, and sadly, neither has the administration. She is presented as a shoo-in conservative bysome because she is an evangelical. Kids, I got news for you; I belong to an evangelical church that saw its membership skyrocket in the 60s by recruiting California hippies. Slapping on the label "evangelical" on someone doesn't make them a lockstep conservative, and other elements of Miers' past paint her as being a potential—you know—"S"-word.
I still want Harriet Miers to have her day in front of the Senate. That said, if the President doesn't start providing her some support soon, her experience is likely to resemble that of Caesar's.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:49 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I'm still on the fence also.
Posted by: Juliette at October 10, 2005 10:22 PM (FuVFZ)
2
You ain't alone at that "wait and see" table, and I really don't see how anybody can make a call on her at this point.
Posted by: Johnny Yuma at October 10, 2005 10:49 PM (tCxcM)
3
Ditto. I've got my fingers crossed, and the charges of cronyism don't wash with me. I can't imagine this president, who's duked it out over countless appellate court appointments, has suddenly decided to sacrifice his legacy just to reward a pal with a job for life. Doesn't make sense.
I will concede that, for some reason, the administration badly misjudged the reaction they'd get with this nomination.
Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at October 10, 2005 10:54 PM (Pt3Le)
4
I am also waiting to hear what the judiciary hearings dredge up from Miers. I'm rooting for her to knock our socks off with a sound Constitutionalist philosophy; however.........I'm not bettin' the farm on it.
Posted by: Cindi at October 10, 2005 11:51 PM (/sHpt)
5
Good comments, all. I'll wait and see. But I trust the President more than I trust the bloggers who are saying he should dump her... even more than bloggers like Betsy Newmark who says the President should have checked with conservative bloggers and pundits before making his selection.
Posted by: greg at October 11, 2005 10:36 AM (20/vO)
6
Regardless, it's nice to know that the White House is applying a litmus test to judicial nominees now.
So long as you are "religious," whatever that means, you are qualified to wield the law objectively ... apparently.
This sounds a little familiar, what with litmus tests and all. I was unaware I was living in a country with a government watching and ranking my religious affiliation and/or participation.
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 13, 2005 05:28 PM (4k1jT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Quag-Miers Deepens in the Senate
This can't be good news for President Bush (via
Drudge):
Nearly half of Senate Republicans say they remain unconvinced that Harriet Miers is worthy of being confirmed to the Supreme Court, according to a survey conducted by The Washington Times.
As with the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the vast majority of senators say they will not announce their final decisions about the nomination until after Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, which are expected sometime next month.
What's troubling for President Bush, however, is that 27 Republican senators -- almost half of his party's members in the chamber -- have publicly expressed specific doubts about Miss Miers or said they must withhold any support whatsoever for her nomination until after the hearings.
While I want to see how Harriet Miers performs in front of the Senate before I render a verdict on her nomination, it is increasingly apparent that Miers is not gaining support in the Senate, and is at best holding her own. Pro-Miers advocates have their work cut out for them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think the Miers thing is rather dull, but this whole mess makes me wonder...
If Bush is the smart guy we know he is - look at the Roberts nom - then could Miers be a front?
In other words, has Bush nominated a smoke-screen to draw all the fire and give dems a woman to smear who will, after she's drawn as much hatred as she can, withdraw from the process and allow Bush to nominate his real first choice?
Why else choose a "christian" with zero experience? Makes me wonder...
Posted by: William Thrash at October 13, 2005 09:34 PM (yheG2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
106kb generated in CPU 0.0284, elapsed 0.0972 seconds.
65 queries taking 0.0762 seconds, 246 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.