ID = Intimidation?

Last week as part of my trip to Disney World, I had to go through Airport Security three times. Each time, TSA officers attempted to intimidate me from flying. From my observations it appeared that this attempted intimidation was not limited only to me, but appeared to be directed at everyone planning to fly. Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems uninterested in this widespread conspiracy to restrict our constitutional right to travel. What form did this intimidation take? Before I was allowed to fly, I HAD TO SHOW A PICTURE ID!!! Someone call the ACLU. Call Hillary Clinton. Call Al Sharpton. No Justice! No Peace!

Am I being silly? Of course. But no sillier than the critics of yesterdays Supreme Court ruling in the combined cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that Indiana may require a photo ID to vote. Hillary Clinton said the following about the decision:

Most of the fraud that we have seen in the last several years had nothing to do with voters showing up and not having the right identification. It had a lot to do with a concerted effort to deny people the right to vote, to not count votes, to intimidate people from showing up to vote.

How is requiring ID intimidating? It reminds me of the outrage in NYC when the Giuliani administration began requiring welfare recipients to be fingerprinted. The critics claim this was an attempt to “stigmatize” welfare recipients since criminals are fingerprinted. Of course aspiring lawyers taking the bar exam are fingerprinted. As are all licensed teachers. Requiring photo ID or fingerprints have nothing to do with intimidation or stigma. They are simply ways to be sure people are who they say are. Just for the record, when the fingerprinting requirement went into effect in NYC, half of the people receiving welfare never showed up and dropped off the rolls. Intimi8dation or fraud?

Batman Trailers. Deja Vu?

Someone took the trailer for Tim Burton's Batman movie and edited it so it matches up with the trailer for Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight. They did an amazing job. Here they are side by side.

See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

A Just Verdict

There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of Judge Arthur Cooperman’s verdict in the trial of acquitting the police officers charged with homicide and reckless endangerment in the shooting of Sean Bell. While I did not follow the trial religiously, I do think it was fair and just verdict. Don’t get me wrong, the death of Sean Bell was neither fair nor just. It was a mistake and a tragedy and the police were most likely negligent, but negligence does not equal murder.

Legally, it didn’t matter whether Sean Bell had a gun or not, the question was whether it was reasonable for the police to believe he had one. The prosecution’s burden was to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers did not have a good faith belief they were in danger. Police officers accused of crimes are entitled to the same constitutional and procedural rights as other defendants.

The acquittal may not be the end of it however. As Newsday reports:

Also yesterday, a group of black leaders gathered at the Harlem headquarters of the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network and said they are hoping to meet with the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. They are urging the federal agency to investigate and prosecute the officers involved in the shooting. After the acquittal was announced Friday, the Justice Department said it would review the case to see whether any federal civil rights statutes were violated.

Prosecuting the officers under Federal Civil Rights laws would be wrong, a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitutions prohibition against Double Jeopardy. It is one thing to allow a second federal prosecution in cases where the first prosecution was a sham, such as a occurred in the South in the 1960’s when whites who assaulted or murdered African-Americans were acquitted by all white juries or only half-heartedly prosecuted by white district attorneys. But there was nothing “unfair” about how this trial was conducted. The problem is that the verdict is unpopular.

Travel Lessons Learned

I spent last week in Orlando on vacation with my family. I got to spend time with my niece and goddaughter Katie. She is 17-months old and while she tends to be cranky and has a habit of hitting people in the face, she is absolutely adorable.

I had a wonderful time while I was there visiting Disney World and the Universal Parks, but getting there wasn’t nearly as much fun. I booked my flights through Orbitz and chose the cheapest fair. That was my mistake and it ended up costing me more in the long run.

My flight to Orlando had a layover in Washington (which I didn’t mind so much). My mistake was that each leg was on a different carrier. I flew to DC on Delta. My flight to Orlando was on United. Unfortunately, because Dick Cheney flew into JFK, to meet the Pope and the Pope then left for Rome, the airport was shut down. My flight was delayed for 2 hours and I missed my connection, the last flight of the night to Orlando. Since my connection was on another airline that was my problem not theirs. I did get a coupon for a hotel discount. Woo Hoo. They told me it would take 3 hours to get my checked bag, so I had no clean clothes for the next day. I was able to take a shower and get a toothbrush from the hotel, but then I had to put the same dirty clothes on the next morning.

So lessons learned: 1. Never book connecting flights on different airlines. 2. Pack a change of underwear and socks in your carry on. 3. Never fly out of the same airport as the Pope.

What We Learned From The Debate

Yesterday afternoon, Peter Wehner, posted an analysis of the most recent Democratic debate to National Review Online. In Fisking Barack Obama, Wehner first notes the anger directed at ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson by Obama supporters. I can say that this anger is wide spread on the Huffington Post, with many posters calling for a boycott of ABC and its parent company Disney. (Naturally of course I am going to go to Disney World next week.) Wehner argues that the debate questions were fair, relevant and informative.

On Iraq, Obama reaffirmed a rock-hard pledge that he will withdraw our combat troops and leave no permanent bases. He is wholly uninterested in what General Petraeus or anyone else has to say on the matter of our mission; our troops are coming home, come what may. And if as a result of a precipitous withdrawal we see mass death and genocide, a revitalized al-Qaeda, a strengthened Iran, and massive instability in the region, the withdrawal would presumably continue. There is, it seems, no scenario that would cause Obama to change his mind. David Brooks of the New York Times put it well: “To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.”

Charley Gibson noted that past decreases in the capital gains tax have led to increases in capital gains tax revenue, while tax increases have led to decreases in revenue. This is an example of the Laffer Curve at work. You can read my discussion of it here. But basically the idea is that people take tax rates into account when making decisions to work save or invest with lower tax rates leading to more (taxable) economic activity. This is especially true with capital gains taxes, because capital gains taxes are only paid when an asset is sold. The decision to sell or hold an asset is significantly affected by how high the capital gains tax is.

Sen. Obama’s response was, “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Obama assures us that he wants “businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success.” But he also wants to “make sure … that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.” But back to the empirical evidence: when capital-gains taxes are cut, the private economy expands. So if lowering the capital gains tax led to a stronger economy and higher revenues, Obama presumably would still oppose it on grounds of “fairness” (a concept that doesn’t help you determine what the precise tax rate ought to be). This demonstrates the depth of Obama’s animus toward the corporate world, which is the engine of prosperity for America.

The problem with Obama’s idea of fairness is that values reducing income inequality over economic prosperity. We have all heard it said that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. That is only half right. The rich are getting richer but so are the poor, just not as fast as the rich. The gap between the richest and the poorest is widening, but the poor today generally enjoy a much higher standard of living than they did 20 or 40 years ago. The question is this: Is it more important to raise up the poor or to reduce the gap between rich and poor? Because here is the problem, the policies that will do the most to create economic opportunities for the poor and the middle class will also allow the rich to get richer. Is it fair to reduce opportunities for the poor and middle class just to keep the rich from getting farther out in front?

Obama wasn’t much better in his treatment of other issues. Last night he said that a central focus of his campaign was to deliver on “middle-class tax relief.” When asked if he had just taken a pledge on not raising taxes on people making less than $200,000, Obama agreed. But later in the debate Obama admitted he would raise the cap on the payroll tax, meaning that those making more than $97,000 a year would pay higher payroll taxes. When Charles Gibson pointed out this fact to Obama and said there are “a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and $250,000” and that if you raise the payroll taxes, that will raise taxes on them, Obama said, “I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.” But of course if he exempts all of those in between, then he’s not going to raise the payroll tax to help save Social Security. And if he doesn’t exempt all of those in between, then he’s raising taxes on those making less than $200,000.

I remember when Bill Clinton ran for president, he promised to raise taxes on millionaires. When he took office, the tax increases were on people making $125,000 a year. How did that make you a millionaire? Well if you were married to a person also making $125,000 a year in four years you would have a million dollars. It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is, or what millionaire is. Something like that. But anyway, congratulations, the Democratic presidential candidate will make almost everyone rich.

If you read Wehner’s article you can read about Obama’s position on guns and affirmative action.

Mitt Romney *TOP TEN REASONS I DROPPED OUT*

Dick Cheney Speaking Last Night At The Radio-TV Correspondents Dinner

Part I



Part II

Only Watch This If You Are A Democrat

It's a JOKE people!!!

With Friends Like These....

I know that Barack Obama is not a Muslim or an Al Qaeda Manchurian Candidate as some reprehensible Internet rumors claim. But this endorsement is not going to help. During an interview on WABC radio last Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

I don’t mean to knock Obama personally; candidates have no control over who endorses them. I am sure if asked Obama will both reject and denounce Hamas. But again from a policy argument, what does it say that a terrorist organization prefers Obama’s foreign policy to McCain’s?

A Heart-Warming Story Not Fit To Print

Here is a heart-warming story that didn’t seem to make the mainstream media, Coming Full Circle, Iraqi Born Marine Receives American Citizenship in Country of His Birth.

Lance Cpl. Evan Eskharia, a basic water systems technician with Marine Wing Support Squadron 374, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward), received his United States citizenship during a naturalization ceremony at al-Faw Palace, Baghdad, April 12.

Receiving his U.S. citizenship in the war-torn country of his birth represents the culmination of his family’s determination and will to flee an oppressive regime and seek the freedoms and opportunities only offered in America.“

This is in my top three proudest days of my life,” said Eskharia, who lived in El Cajon, Calif., prior to joining the Marine Corps. “It’s up there with the birth of my son and receiving my eagle, globe and anchor.”

The naturalization ceremony was the largest outside the United States, with 259 service members from 71 different countries receiving their citizenship.“

It’s that feeling in your heart, that now you’re a U.S. citizen; it feels really good,” Eskharia added.

When Eskharia was 9 years old, he and his family fled Iraq to Turkey due to Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime. At the time, when an Iraqi boy turned 16, he would be drafted into the Iraqi military. Having five male children, Eskharia’s mother and father decided they would rather leave the country than see their children become a part of Saddam’s tyranny.

After spending 3 years in a Turkish refugee camp, Eskharia’s family was allowed to immigrate to the United States.

To repay the country who took he and his family in, Eskharia made a decision few American citizens and even fewer immigrants make – to join the United States Marine Corps.

“He’s (Eskharia) put in a lot of hard work to get into the Marine Corps and to get his naturalization,” said Eskharia’s brother-in-law, Sgt. Wendall F. Anderson, special intelligence systems administrator, MWSS-373, 3rd MAW (Fwd). “He feels that since America took him and his family in, he owes America a debt of gratitude and that’s why he joined the Marine Corps.”

What’s next for Eskharia?

Conquering one of his life goals, Eskharia stays focused on his future. Speaking Aramaic, and with his knowledge of Arabic, Eskharia would like to go to military linguist school in Monterey, Calif., to hone his Arabic language skills and become a linguist for the Marine Corps.

“I feel he makes a great Marine; he’s a good person, a good father, a good husband and a good brother,” said Anderson, a Buffalo, Mo., native. “I think this is well deserved.”“In my heart, this is what I’ve always wanted to do,” explained Eskharia. “I’ve wanted to be a U.S. citizen ever since we came to the states from Baghdad. It’s very important to me because it’s an accomplishment and an achievement in my life.”

The New York Times has no trouble publishing a story portraying our returning veterans as potential violent time bombs waiting to explode even though statistically, veterans are much less likely to commit crimes than others in their age groups. But Evan Eskharia’s story is unfit to print.

Should We Replace The Progressive Income Tax?

I know I am a few days late for tax day, but here is an explanation of two proposed alternatives to our current income tax. This video is presented by the Cato Institute’s Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation and his hosted by Dan Mitchell. Last month I posted a 3-part series by the same folks discussing the Laffer Curve. You can see those here.

Wildly Popular 'Iron Man' Trailer To Be Adapted Into Full-Length Film

I know it’s a joke, but did you ever notice how often the trailer is so much better than the movie? But I will take my chances and see Iron Man on opening weekend. After all, I went to high school with the director. More importantly, it looks awesome.

Is Denis Diderot Spinning in his grave?

In an example of political correctness gone wild, Bridget Bardot, the beautiful 1960’s sex kitten is on trial in France for "inciting racial hatred." Amazingly she has four previous convictions for the same thing. Read about her latest prosecution in Time Magazine.

The current charge against Bardot was lodged by the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), citing a letter Bardot wrote to French officials in 2004 in which she alluded to Muslims as "this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country." The former actress-turned-animal rights crusader had written that letter to protest the ritual slaughter of sheep during the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kabir.

Her previous prosecutions are described thusly.

In 1997, for example, Bardot was first convicted on the charge of "inciting racial hatred" for her open letter to French daily Le Figaro, complaining of "foreign over-population", mostly by Muslim families.

The following year she was convicted anew for decrying the loss of French identity and tradition due to the multiplication of mosques "while our church bells fall silent for want of priests." Darkening Bardot's public image in both cases was her marriage to an active supporter and political ally of French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

In 2000, Bardot was again convicted — this time for comments in her book Pluto's Square, whose chapter "Open Letter to My Lost France" grieved for "...my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims." And in 2004, another Bardot book, A Cry In the Silence, again took up the question of immigration and Islam — ultimately running afoul of anti-racism laws by generally associating Islam with the 9/11 terror attacks, and denouncing the "Islamization of France" by people she described as "invaders."

Obviously, everything Bardot said and wrote would be protected by the First Amendment. Ironically, it was great 18th Century French philosophers who inspired many of the ideas embodied in our constitution, including freedom of speech. Denis Diderot., who was persecuted for his Encyclopédie had this to say on free speech.

“All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings”

While I think it is healthy to consider others’ feelings before you speak or write, we have an absolute right to be offensive. The government should never punish a person because a person or group is offended. The First Amendment is not a defense to criticism of course. It often seems a person says something offensive and then starts repeating “Free Speech, First Amendment, Free Speech First Amendment.” But that is only a defense if the government is coming after you. The proper response to offensive speech is more speech. Say or write something offensive and you will be criticized. That’s what the First Amendment is all about, a free exchange of ideas and the right to try and convince others.

Would I offend anyone if I said this is one reason the United States of America is far superior to France? Too bad.

The Candidate To Do Shots With

"Hillary Clinton was shown at a bar in Indiana drinking a beer, and doing a shot of whiskey. Hey, and it worked. Today, Ted Kennedy switched back." --Jay Leno

"Did you all see that? She took the shot with the beer chaser. Did it like an old pro. To give you an idea how much she drank, when the phone rang at 3 am, slept right through it." --Jay Leno

"So what is the drink of choice for this hard scrabble Archie Bunker-type? [on screen: Clinton requesting Crown Royal whiskey]. Yes. Nothing says blue collar like whiskey in a velvet pouch. You know it's the only alcohol with both crown and royal in the name. Got a word to fanciness ratio of 1-to-1. Bar keep, your gayest whiskey, please. I've had a heck of a day in the mines. By the way, when you finish the bottle of Crown Royal, you can still use the pouch to hold your broken dreams." --Jon Stewart

Is Hillary Hunting The Wrong Game?

"In an effort to try and connect with some of the rural voters in Pennsylvania, Hillary said she has gone hunting, and once shot a duck. Personally, I like Cheney. He shot a lawyer." --Jay Leno

"Barack Obama had said small town Americas cling to things like their guns because they're bitter. That is ridiculous. You don't cling to your gun because you're bitter. You shoot your gun because you're bitter. Then you cling to it because it's so nice and warm." --Stephen Colbert

The 61st Anniversary

Today is the 61st anniversary of Jackie Robinson's first game in the major leagues. It was on April 15, 1947 that Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in our national past time. He did more than integrate a sport, he helped integrate America.

Recipe for Depression

My brother said something the other day that I found a little disturbing. He said “Democrats are better for the economy.” Of course he was only 10-years old when Jimmy Carter left office. The economy did do fairly well during Bill Clinton’s presidency, but I am not sure that he deserves most of the credit for it. To be fair, while Clinton’s tax hikes did not help the economy, his free trade policies did. Still. In my opinion, the single largest factor responsible for the 1990’s economic growth was technology creating massive gains in productivity. Maybe Al Gore deserves credit for the growth since he invented the Internet. Well maybe not.

But what about today? Since it appears we may be in (or heading towards) a recession, how will the Democrats improve the economy? The economic plans of Clinton and Obama appear to involve turning away from free trade and raising taxes. The last President that I recall doing both in the face of an economic downturn was Herbert Hoover. It didn’t work so well for him (or the rest of the Country).

Michael Barone makes this point on NRO in Uncle Sam Pays? Sure — Whatever.

On fiscal policy, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want higher taxes, at least on high earners. They want to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, as scheduled. On trade, they oppose new free-trade agreements and want to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico.

As it happens, another president embraced such policies in a time of economic slowdown and financial market turbulence. Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter from 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy.

He also talks about Carter memories.

Almost all voters in 1992 and a large majority in 2000 had vivid memories of the 1970s, when we had both economic stagnation and double-digit inflation — stagflation — and thanks to government price controls, motorists had to wait an hour in line to fill up their gas tanks. Those experiences put the advocates of bigger government on the defensive.

This year, half the voters are too young to have been behind the wheel in a gas line or to have been paying rapidly rising monthly bills with a paycheck eroded by inflation. They have lived all their adult lives — all their lives, in the case of the millennial generation, born since 1980 — in an era when we have had low-inflation economic growth 95 percent of the time.

I think McCain really should start challenging Clinton and Obama on the economy, especially on trade. Point out how many jobs were CREATED as a result of NAFTA and other free trade agreements instead of how many lost. Since Clinton and Obama are still battling for Democratic primary voters, they will find it difficult to backtrack from harmful protectionist positions.

Baracky

A liberal friend of mine asked me last night if there was time to turn me into an "Obamican" (Republican for Obama) before the election. I said sure, so long as Obama turns into a conservative first. It's hard not to like Obama, but I think his policies would be a disaster. I put this video here not as an endorsement of Obama, but as something that I think was really clever and well done.



Anyone else notice Hillary is the black guy?

A Wooden Computer

According to PC World Magazine, Fujitsu is working on a laptop with a wooden case in an effort to be more “green.” You can read all about it. Fujitsu to Show Laptop With Wooden Case.

Could this be the environmentally friendly laptop PC of the future? Fujitsu will unveil later this week a laptop PC with a case manufactured from wood rather than the more traditional plastic or metal.

The laptop, which is only a prototype, uses cedar wood for the case and also makes use of bio-plastics for parts. Bio-plastics are plastics produced from renewable sources such as vegetable oil rather than petroleum used in traditional plastics.

The laptop PC carries the names of Fujitsu and Monacca, a Japanese design team that specializes in wooden products. Monacca has a range of furniture and bags made from wood on sale via its Web site and recently launched a desktop calculator with a distinctive large, round wooden case.

Sounds cool, but I am not sure I would want to carry it around. By the way, the photo I posted here is not an actual photo of the Fujitsu laptop (at least I don’t think it is).

Lewis Black On Celebrity Politcal Endorsements

The Limits Of Diplomacy

On Tuesday, while questioning General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker, Barack Obama called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. "We should be talking to them as well," said Obama, adding “I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that"

As a lawyer and a politician, I am sure Obama knows an awful lot about negotiating deals. Both sides come together, negotiate hard, and each come away with some, if not all of what they want. But that assumes both parties actually want to reach an agreement.

It has been said that the only thing worse than war with Iran, is a nuclear armed Iran.

Iran is determined to become a nuclear power and the super power in the Middle East. Sure they want the United States out of Iraq, but only so that they can take control there. While the U.S. wants to draw down its forces in Iraq, leaving Iran in charge is not an acceptable outcome. Leaving a nuclear armed Iran in charge is a recipe for nuclear war.

Some argue that a nuclear armed Iran would not be a disaster, pointing out that deterrence prevented a nuclear exchange throughout the Cold War. But the doctrine of Mutual assured Destruction assumes that both sides are rational actors. I am not sure that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad qualifies as rational.

I am one of the last people to equate religious fundamentalism with mental illness, but Ahmadinejad, while not necessarily mentally ill is not rational. At the very least his public statements do not indicate he is. Consider his calls to destroy Israel. The US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) completed a study last year that indicated Israel would survive as a country after a nuclear war with Iran, albeit with horrific losses, but that Iran would be utterly destroyed. Download the report here. But would this be a real deterrent?

I believe that Ahmadinejad believes that if it ever did come to an all out war with the United States, much less Israel, Iran would prevail because it was God’s will. If millions of Iranians die in the process, well that was God’s will too.

I doubt a good hard talking to by Obama is going to dissuade Ahmadinejad. A credible threat of force might not dissuade Ahmadinejad, but it might dissuade others around him. It might be necessary to use force against Iran. Ironically, the more willing we are to use force, the less likely it is we may have to use it. The threat of force is only effective if it is believable and it is only going to be believable if we are actually willing to use it.

Can diplomacy prevail? It can. But remember, as Karl Von Clausewitz said almost 200 years ago, war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.

The Success of Mark Penn

"As her campaign strategist, Mark Penn is widely credited with catapulting Hillary from her virtual shoo-in to second place." --Jay Leno

John McCain's Opening Statement From Petraeus Hearing

The Colbert Report 3:00 Phone Calls

The Colbert Report discusses the Democratic Primaries and those 3AM ads. Near the end is a joint commercial featuring Barack Obama and John McCain.

Oliver Stone Fair To President Bush? I Doubt It.

Oliver Stone is working on a new feature film called “W” about President Bush. He is planning to start filming this month and hopes to release the film before the November election. The Hollywood Reporter describes how Bush is described in the film.

President George W. Bush is a foul-mouthed, reformed drunk obsessed with baseball, Saddam Hussein and a conflicted relationship with his dad.

Is this portrayal accurate? The Hollywood Reporter gave the script to several Bush biographers, several of which are no fans of Bush. The resulting story is “Bush biographers mixed on script for Oliver Stone's 'W'”

Reactions to the script from the biographers were mixed. They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.

"It leaves you with the impression that the White House is run as a fraternity house with no reverence for hierarchy, the office itself or for the implications of policy," said Robert Draper, author of "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush." "Everybody calling everybody else nicknames and chatting about whether to go to war as if they were chatting about how to bet on a football game really misses the mark of how many White Houses, including this one, are run."

Jacob Weisberg ("The Bush Tragedy") was skeptical about Stone's claim that he wants to make "a fair, true portrait" of Bush. "His saying he is going to be fair to Bush is like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest," Weisberg quipped.

I really don’t see Stone being fair to Bush either.

The Importance of Charity

"The Clintons just released their tax returns to the public. ... It turns out that over the past eight years, they've donated over $10 million to charity. When they asked Bill Clinton why he gave so much money to charity, he said, 'She's a really good dancer.'" --Conan O'Brien

"Barack Obama is narrowing the gap in Pennsylvania, and his campaign is pulling out all the stops. ... His campaign office is now giving away tickets to Dave Matthews concerts. Apparently, this is Obama's attempt to win over REALLY white voters." --Conan O'Brien

"She spent eight years in the White House and she thinks calls coming in at 3 am are about interest rates? I guess Bill had to think really fast when he was asked what the phone call was about." --Bill Maher

Remembering William F. Buckley, Jr.

National Review Online is still publishing tributes to its late founder, William F. Buckley, Jr. There are two I wanted to note here. The first was written by former NYC Mayor Ed Koch who talks about his long friendship with WFB. Read it here.

Bill Buckley, over the years, became one of my heroes. When I was a congressman, he invited me to appear on Firing Line on a number of occasions and always treated me, I thought, more kindly than I had any reason to hope for, since he could have, with his intelligence and debater’s skills, decimated me immediately. Somehow, we became friends, and that friendship continued after I became mayor and after I left office. It was after I left office that Bill invited me occasionally to his home in Manhattan where he and his wife, Pat, held court surrounded by members of the National Review editorial board. I was fascinated by the give-and-take in the conversation and delighted to be asked my opinion.

He talked about being invited by WFB to be a speaker at a conservative fundraiser.

I was honored to do so. I knew that I would have a great time and, in any event, I could never refuse his request. I opened with:

I know what you are thinking. What is a nice, liberal guy like Ed Koch doing here? [Pause]I’m here to convert you.

As you may have guessed, there were no conversions that night.

He concluded with this.

Bill passed on at age 82. I’m 83, so I hope to see him and Pat soon.

Personally, I would prefer that Koch doesn’t join Buckle for many years to come as I think New York and the United States needs all the “liberals with sanity” they can get.

The other tribute I encourage you to read is from the humorist Rob Long. It takes the form of a memorandum from St. Peter to WFB and complains about how active WFB has been since arriving in heaven. It is quite hilarious. Here is a part.

Yes, well. Mr. Karl Marx has registered several formal complaints with the Administration about your repeated pranks — I believe, but cannot prove, that you and Milton Friedman were responsible for what we’re going to call the “jello incident” — and really, sir, if the gentleman doesn’t want to appear in a debate you’ve arranged on the topic “Resolved: This house believes that Marxism is an esophoric condition,” then please, do not keep asking him. Mr. Marx is here on a rather tenuous basis, and wishes to keep a low profile.

The same goes for Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In addition, some of the residents are complaining that you are monopolizing J. S. Bach. The two of you are seen together quite often, and it’s making some of the lesser-known residents feel left out. Also:

There have been complaints about loud late-night discussions between you, Pope John Paul II, and Mr. David Niven.

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

The 50 Funniest Jokes Of The Past 12 Months

The New York Post had an article yesterday entitled “KILLER JOKES THE 50 BEST BITS, GAGS AND QUIPS THAT CRACK UP PRO COMICS - AND MAY HAVE YOU SPLITTING YOUR SIDES” According to the article the Post contacted dozens of comics, ranging from top-dollar headliners in Vegas to regulars on "Late Night" and "The Daily Show" and asked them for the best gag they'd written in the past year and their favorite punch line delivered by another comedian. They then chose the 50 most hilarious jokes of the last 12 months (according to the post).

Here are some examples

Jackie Mason
Hillary Clinton says she's the most qualified because she was married to a president for eight years. Now let me ask you, if a brain surgeon quit his job, would everyone in the operating room say, "Wait, let's get his wife."

Seth Meyers
During a "Weekend Update" segment about Eliot Spitzer: And you wanted to have sex with a hooker but you didn't want to wear a condom? Really?!? That might not be scary if you were client number 1, but you were client number 9. I wear a condom if I'm ninth in line at the deli.
(Robert "Triumph the Insult Comic Dog" Smigel's favorite)

Carolyn Castiglia
My mom says to me, "Honey, I don't want you to think I have diabetes because I'm fat. I have diabetes because it runs in our family." I said, "No, mom, you have diabetes because no one runs in our family!" (Adira Amram's favorite)

This is true in my family too unfortunately.

Read all 50 jokes here.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today is the 40th Anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was simply one of the greatest Americans to have ever lived and Americans of all races owe him a great debt. I believe the proper way to repay that debt is to strive for equality for all. Here is an excerpt from Dr. King’s greatest speech given August 28, 1963.

In Defense of Torture

There is a blog on the Huffington Post today that attacks U.C. Berkley’s Boalt Hall School of Law for, of all things, having a former Bush Administration lawyer as a Professor. The blog is entitled Why Is Torture Lawyer John Yoo Still Teaching at Berkeley by Barry Yourgrau. As Yourgrau writes:

John Yoo is one of the prime--if not the prime--formulators of the blatantly inadequate and outrageous legal opinions that justified the Bush administration's use of torture.

His opinions were not just idle academic theories: They helped further the actual practice of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Why is he still allowed to teach at Berkeley? Why hasn't or doesn't the Berkeley faculty senate or law-school senate demand his dismissal? Why haven't or aren't disbarment proceedings being brought against him?

Where do I start? First of all, having a different opinion does not make you a war criminal. As a matter of fact, the First Amendment protects your right to have a different opinion. People are for example free to disagree with Yoo’s argument that water boarding Al Qaeda prisoners like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks) was legal.

I haven’t read Yoo’s legal memoranda (I believe they are still classified) but I can speculate as to what they said. First of all you need to ask what specific law water-boarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed would have violated. In order for something to be illegal, there actually has to be a law against it.

It didn’t violate the Geneva Convention because Al Qaeda is not a signatory. Therefore, Al Qaeda prisoners have no rights under it. The idea behind having “rules of war” is that they are binding on both sides and therefore, by following the rules, you protect your own captured soldiers. You can ask Daniel Pearl if Al Qaeda respects the rules of the Geneva Convention despite not being a signatory. No wait, you can’t because Khalid Sheik Mohammed cut his head off with a knife as part of a snuff film.

It was not unconstitutional. The Eighth Amendment prohibits torture as punishment, but the water boarding that was done was for interrogation purposes, not punishment. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause would prohibit the use of a coerced statement at a trial, but the information was instead used to disrupt ongoing Al Qaeda operations, preventing several planned terrorist attacks and saving lives.

There are certainly arguments against the use of torture by the United States regardless of its legality. John McCain is one of the people making those arguments. His experience of being tortured as a POW makes it a personal issue for him. But even he opposed a recent attempt by congress to outlaw water-boarding by limiting CIA interrogators to techniques allowed by an army interrogation manual. We do not want future Al Qaeda prisoners to know in advance what techniques will be used against them. Otherwise they can harden themselves against those techniques. There is of course another reason, the ticking bomb scenario. While torturing prisoners may not be our policy, we may in the future need to make an exception or two.
But I will vehemently disagree with any kind of argument that alleges water boarding a terrorist makes us just as bad as they are.

The late William F. Buckley, Jr. used to use this analogy about moral equivalence. A man who pushes an old lady in front of a bus and a man that pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus ought not be lumped together as people that push old ladies around.

She's F***ing Obama

This is an expanded version of the "I am f***ing Obama" bit that was in the Clint-On ad parody I posted last week. What's next? John McCain f***ing Ben Afflec?



In case you are interested, you can see the original Sara Silverman and Jimmy Kimmel videos here and here.

About Political Scandals

If there is one absolute rule in politics, it is that there will be scandals. Scandals generally fall into four categories: corruption, abuse of power, criminal violations unrelated to office and sex. It’s the last type of scandal that seems to get the most public attention, but is the least serious. Personally, I don’t care who politicians sleep with (provided their partners are adults). Everything else being equal, I would prefer a candidate that is faithful to their spouse, but infidelity will not keep me from voting for the candidate I think will do the best job or who I most agree with on the issues.

Of course my four categories are not mutually exclusive. Sex is often involved in other types of scandals. Here in the NYC metro area we have had 3 governors resign in 4 years over different types of scandals.

In August of 2004, I was temping at a law firm and getting ready to start my first year as a teacher. Someone in the office said that New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey.was going to resign because he was gay. My first reaction was why would he resign for being gay? Of course, that wasn’t the reason he resigned. He resigned because it was revealed that Golan Cipel, the man he had appointed to be New Jersey’s Homeland Security Advisor was his lover. The appointment had been criticized from the start because Cipel had no experience to qualify him for the position, not to mention he was ineligible for a federal security because he was not a U.S. citizen. This of course made no sense at all until it was learned he was the governor’s lover. Here is a scandal that falls in 3 categories, sex, abuse of power (appointing an unqualified person to a vital state position) and corruption (a state job and salary to his lover).

John G. Rowland, the three-term governor of Connecticut, was not only forced from office but served 10 months in prison when it was revealed contractors doing business with the state paid for and made improvements to his vacation home. This was a corruption, but since there was no sex, probably the least memorable.

That brings us to Client #9. Eliot Spitzer resigned when it was revealed he had illegally patronized a high-priced prostitute. Here is a scandal that involves sex and criminal violations unrelated to office. I think there are far worse sins for a governor than patronizing a $5,000 a night prostitute. But Spitzer has committed those as well. The real scandal was Spitzer’s abuse of power in ordering the state police to target his political enemy, Joe Bruno. It has now come out that Spitzer may have committed perjury in denying his role in the scandal.

Spitzer’s replacement, Governor David Patterson had no sooner taken office when he was involved in his own sex scandal. Patterson has had multiple affairs and has a history of drug use (into at least his early 20’s). He came clean with them because reporters were apparently snooping around. In one sense I admire his honesty. But I think he should have just taken a stand and said my private life is private and I will not answer questions about my marriage or my sex life. Don’t deny the affairs; just refuse to talk about them because they are no ones business but his family’s.

Before I end this I want to talk about Bill Clinton. While Clinton’s involvement with Monica Lewinsky was a sex scandal, Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. You may understand why a man in Clinton’s position might lie about infidelity with an intern. But defendants in sexual harassment cases often have to answer embarrassing questions. People may lie under oath all the time and get away with it, but when they are caught, there needs to be serious consequences. I don’t care who Clinton has sex with, I really don’t. But I do care that as an attorney, I was told on multiple occasions by a witness not to call them for a deposition because if I did they would lie. After all, as everyone was saying just a few years before, perjury in a civil deposition is no big deal.

So how about we spend less time investigating politicians sex lives and more investigating their job performance?

The Curious Case of Sidd Finch

23 years ago today, Sports Illustrated ran a story about a about an amazing Mets prospect, a 28-year old year old, Tibetan Yogi-trained pitcher who could throw a baseball an amazing 168-miles per hour. You can read The Curious Case of Sidd Finch on Sports Illustrated's website.

Catching Finch fell on Mets catcher Ron Reynolds.

Reynolds is a sturdy, hardworking catcher (he has been described as looking like a high school football tackle). He has tried to be close-lipped about Finch, but his experiences inside the canvas enclosure have made it difficult for him to resist answering a few questions. He first heard about Finch from the Mets' general manager. "Mr. Cashen called me into his office one day in early March," Reynolds disclosed. "I was nervous because I thought I'd been traded. He was wearing a blue bow tie. He leaned across the desk and whispered to me that it was very likely I was going to be a part of baseball history. Big doings! The Mets had this rookie coming to camp and I was going to be his special catcher. All very hush-hush.

"Well, I hope nothing like that guy ever comes down the pike again. The first time I see him is inside the canvas coop, out there on the pitcher's mound, a thin kid getting ready to throw, and I'm thinking he'll want to toss a couple of warmup pitches. So I'm standing behind the plate without a mask, chest protector, pads or anything, holding my glove up, sort of half-assed, to give him a target to throw at . . . and suddenly I see this windup like a pretzel gone loony, and the next thing, I've been blown two or three feet back, and I'm sitting on the ground with the ball in my glove. My catching hand feels like it's been hit with a sledgehammer."

Fortunately for the batters, Finch had perfect control.

Met manager Davey Johnson has seen Finch throw about half a dozen pitches. He was impressed ("If he didn't have this great control, he'd be like the Terminator out there. Hell, that fastball, if off-target on the inside, would carry a batter's kneecap back into the catcher's mitt"), but he is leaving the situation to the front office. "I can handle the pitching rotation; let them handle the monk."

But at the time Finch was trying to decide between playing baseball and playing the French Horn.

The Met inner circle believes that Finch's problem may be that he cannot decide between baseball and a career as a horn player. In early March the club contacted Bob Johnson, who plays the horn and is the artistic director of the distinguished New York Philomusica ensemble, and asked him to come to St. Petersburg. Johnson was asked to make a clandestine assessment of Finch's ability as a horn player and, even more important, to make contact with him. The idea was that, while praising him for the quality of his horn playing, Johnson should try to persuade him that the lot of a French-horn player (even a very fine one) was not an especially gainful one. Perhaps that would tip the scales
in favor of baseball.

Finch never did play in a regular season game. I am not sure if he chose the French Horn instead. George Plimpton did end up writing a novel about what Sidd Finch’s first year in the majors would have been like. I wonder what ever happened to him.

Happy April Fool's Day

In this case the fools are 9/11 Conspiracy theorists. In this video, an Al Qaeda spokesman debates a conspiracy theorist.


9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says