Al Franken is in the news yet again. He was only about 20 years off in his prediction; as it turns out, the 00's are the "Al Franken Decade."

This time he's made news for attacking a Howard Dean heckler in New Hampshire yesterday. The heckler was one of those Lyndon LaRouche kooks, and when he began shouting at Dean, Franken "body-slammed" him to the ground, according to the New York Post.

The story goes on to point out that:

Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.

I just want to make sure I have this right. A guy at a rally started excercising his free speech rights by speaking out, and Franken attempted to silence him by body-slamming him -- in order to protect free speech.

Makes sense to me.

Here's something to ponder. With the nomination of Bill Murray this morning for the best actor Academy Award, two of the four Ghostbusters have now been nominated for acting Oscars (the other being Dan Aykroyd, who was up for best supporting actor for "Driving Miss Daisy" back in the 80's).

Or, to look at it even more poignantly, both guys who played goofball greenskeepers in "Caddyshack" films are now Ocsar-nominated actors.

I wonder if Murray will do his recurring "Oscar Picks" bit on SNL this year?

While I was out of town and not paying attention, Jon Barlow went and became famous.

He's been written up this week in the BBC, Newsweek, E!Online, and about a million other places. Tonight I even heard his Howard Dean mix over the closing credits of a show on VH1.

Who'da thunk it?

I've been out-of-pocket for the past few days, so I apologize for the lack of activity here. I did want to pop in for a reminder, though. Dennis Miller's new nightly show on CNBC kicks off at 9pm Eastern tonight, and promises to be worth watching if your sense of humor isn't too delicate.

I'm in Nashville tonight for some work stuff. It's currently 29 degrees.

This South Florida boy hasn't been in this kind of temperature in six or seven years. I had forgotten what it felt like to have my face numbed after a few minutes outside. I had also forgotten how much I really don't like cold weather.

On to Baton Rouge tommorrow--hopefully it'll be a tad warmer there.

Unfortunately, even many self-described "conservatives" don't understand the concept of judicial conservatism. They are so steeped in the notion of an activist judiciary that they are now intent on getting judges appointed who will impose by fiat a more "correct" agenda.

This is demonstrated by one of the responses to my post from yesterday on the Charles Pickering appointment. The anonymous respondent posted something from what he described as "Log Cabin Republicans - GOP Sodomite Publication":

WASHINGTON -- "I have spoken with Judge Pickering at length, and have reviewed his record and consulted with several people around the country. Judge Pickering reiterated to me his strong belief that all Americans should be treated equally under the law, including gay and lesbian Americans, and his record as a federal judge clearly demonstrates it," said Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans.

This was posted anonymously, without comment, as if it were some sort of self-standing, knockdown conservative argument against Pickering's appointment to the bench.

It isn't.

Even if the anonymous poster is correctly relaying the article from the Log Cabin Republicans, based on a conversation one of them allegedly once had with Pickering, nothing in this third-hand report militates against Pickering's credentials as a judicial conservative. The reason is that when judicial conservatism is applied, it doesn't matter what a candidate's personal beliefs are. All that matters is what the law says. Indeed, that's the entire point of judicial conservatism--returning the power to make laws back to the electorate.

A true judicial conservative enforces duly-passed laws he doesn't agree with. He applies each law equally, according to its plain meaning, forgoing the opportunity to force his own philosophy (even if his philosophy is noble and correct) on the people, to whom he is not even accountable.

If the people pass bad laws, then we need to work to change those through the democratic process. But lawmaking is supposed to be a political process. Judicial rulings are not. Judges are not supposed to be a corrective to bad laws--they are simply the appliers of them.

I don't care what a judge's personal opinion on homosexuality, abortion, or any other issue is. What I care about is that he will correctly interpret and apply the laws that the legislature has given him. If Charles Pickering will refrain from distorting laws to further his own agenda, then his personal opinion on homosexuality matters little to me. It seems we've gotten so used to judicial activism that conservatives now want their own activists.

Incidentally, I'm also curious as to what Pickering actually said in the quote above that would be disagreeable to a conservative. Note that Pickering allegedly said that all Americans, including homosexuals, should be treated equally under the law. Does anyone disagree with that? He didn't say they should all be treated equally. He said they should all be treated equally under the law. It's a simple statement on due process.

Since a judicial conservative doesn't make laws, Pickering is simply accused here of saying that a judge should apply the law--as written--regardless of a person's race or sexuality or whatever. He says nothing about what kind of laws can exist.

If any "conservative" has a problem with this, he needs to read his Constitution again. It's the Fourteenth Amendment.

I guess Janeane Garofalo, in Iowa to support Howard Dean, must've put that Midwestern, soft-spoken charm of hers to work. Dean's numbers only went down about 20 points there in the last few days.

If working folks in Iowa can't get behind an emotionally unstable, dyed-blonde, Hollywood actress wearing (according to Dean's blog) "a red Perfect Storm hat, a Stand up for Choice Sticker, a Generation Dean sticker, a pink shirt with FREE SPEECH she made herself with a magic marker (and a pen stuck in her pink shirt), a TEXAS DEMOCRAT pin, and on her backback a Dissent protects Democracy pin, Give ?em Hell Howard pin, and I won't Cross the Line pin," who can they get behind?

If you haven't listened to Howard Dean's WWF performance from last night's Iowa Caucuses, you really need to, for the sake of the nation. I know the chances are very, very slim, but this guy theoretically could be president someday (if the President, the Vice President, and also John Kerry, John Edwards, and Wesley Clark were all to suddenly die in the next 10 months).

Here's the 13 second MP3 clip from the Drudge Report. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

UPDATE: Byron York at NRO says last night's speech may have been the death knell for the Dean candidacy.

So, Dick, who's the miserable failure now?

President Bush's recess appointment of Charles Pickering to the federal bench is the first hopeful sign that the administration recognizes the seriousness of the judicial issue. As I've said here many times before, there simply is no other political issue right now. The nation is ruled by an unelected, unaccountable, activist judiciary, and no legislation means anything if it can immediately be trumped or rewritten by a moody judge somewhere.

Bush took good early steps by nominating judicially conservative judges to the bench. But the liberals, realizing that their true power lies in the judiciary--through which they can rule without the consent of the American people--have done everything in their power to obstruct the appointments of judges who will read the Constitution as written rather than imposing a "progressive" agenda from the bench.

Until now, the Bush Administration (and Senate Republicans) have, for the most part, simply shrugged their shoulders as if to say "what else can we do?" Recess appointments, which do not require the consent of the Senate (where a supermajority of 60 votes is required to break the ongoing filibusters) are perhaps the most effective way to break the deadlock by simply removing the ability of the minority party to short-circuit the democratic process.

The administration deserves credit for finally waking up on this one, and they need to follow the Pickering appointment with the appointments of some of the most radically, ideologically driven right-wing judges they can find. Such a move would tell Senate Democrats that if they don't like the filibustered nominees, they ain't seen nothin' yet. The Dems might possibly even end their filibusters at that point, in order to avoid a worse-case scenario. Those strict-constructionist conservatives will suddenly look awfully good next to a few radical, activist wingnuts.

For Martin Luther King Day, Jay Bryant has a remarkable column delineating the covert racism of the Democrat Party.

He begins by citing an astounding fact, considering the lofty rhetoric on affirmative action that regularly spews forth from Democrats: Carol Moseley Braun is the only African-American Democrat ever to serve in the United States Senate. And even then, she only won office by defeating the white guy that the Illinois Democrat party had put forward for the nomination.

Says Bryant:

...[S]omewhere between a quarter and a third of all Democrats are African-Americans. So if we applied the concept of affirmative action quotas to the Democratic Senate membership, there should be approximately twelve black Democratic Senators in the current Congress. But in fact, there are none. There weren't any in the last Congress either, or the one before that. Except for Moseley Braun's single six-year term, there have never been any black Democratic Senators.

Well, sure, but still that's one more than those awful, racist Republicans, right? Wrong. As Bryant points out, "There have been three black Republican Senators: Hiram Revels, Blanche Kelso Bruce and Edward Brooke."

Of course, none of this would even be worth mentioning were it not for the harsh rhetoric that Democrats often hurl towards Republicans on race. But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding:

Oh, Democrats will let African-Americans serve in the House of Representatives, but only after carefully carving out black-majority, which is to say segregated, districts for them. Well, you can't expect white Democrats to vote for one of them, can you?

So the Democratic Party's policy, throughout the modern, post-World War II era has been to create separate-but-equal congressional districts. Keep blacks in the ghetto ? the urban plantation. The handful of African-American Republican members of Congress, by contrast, have come from suburban and rural areas, where they have been, often enthusiastically, supported by Republican voters.

The black community's monolithic, inexplicable support of the Democrat party is one of the great mysteries of our time. I've often asked why African-Americans view the Democrat party as their friend on several local radio programs I've hosted. The response is always something like "I have to vote for the one who has my best interests at heart."

So be it. And if your best interests include crippling dependence on government, urban blight, and not being invited to the dinner party unless you've got your maid's outfit on, then keep on pulling the donkey lever--they've definitely got your "best interests" at heart.

In a crushing blow to the other Democrat presidential candidates, George McGovern has given his endorsement to Wesley Clark. As you'll recall, McGovern was narrowly defeated by Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential contest 49 states to one.

You needn't fret, though, guys. That Michael Dukakis endorsement is still out there for the taking.

Mrs. Discoshaman has entered the blogosphere under the pen-name TulipGirl.

Says her hubby: "...[I]n time, it'll be a virtual smorgasboard of estrogen-laced goodness."

So often, we're assured by our little warm-hearted liberal friends that "human nature is basically good." My response to that is usually to ask them if they have locks on their doors, and if so, why. I haven't gotten a coherent answer yet. But it does demonstrate the power of a pithy aphorism against all contrary evidence.

A recent little picture of human nature: last weekend in College Station, Texas, somebody discovered that an ATM machine gave him twice as much money as he had asked for--and a receipt that didn't show it. According to KBTX-TV in College Station:

....[T]he word spread like wildfire and before long there was a line of people waiting for the handout.

No telling how long this was going on when a police officer noticed a long line gathering at five o'clock Saturday morning at that machine. He noticed the users putting their coats over their heads as not to be identified by the photograph device built into the machine. Like many others, one woman received $1,000 after requesting just $500.

Asked by police if she thought she was doing anything wrong, she said "being a broke college student, I had to take the chance." She told investigators that a friend called her at two o'clock in the morning to let her know about the ATM.

It seems to have escaped these geniuses that not being photographed by the machine still won't negate the fact that they put their bank card into it.

Now of course, none of us are naive enough to think this incident wouldn't happen. But if human nature is basically good, how is it possible that not a single person called the police to tell them there was a problem with the machine?

Even more scary: Some who read this will think "What's the big deal? I would've probably taken the money too."

There's an interesting ad being broadcast locally during the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shows on the news/talk radio station here in South Florida.

The ad implores conservatives to stand against a marriage protection amendment in the United States Constitution. It cites quotes from Bob Barr, Alan Simpson, George Will, and others, and then says something like "Real conservatives agree. Be conservative with the Constitution -- don't amend it."

The kicker is at the end. "Brought to you by Citizen Outreach and the Human Rights Campaign."

Of course, the Human Rights Campaign is a radical, left-wing organization "working for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender equal rights."

Interestingly, the libertine, transgender left believes it has found a ready ally in the paleo right. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Al Franken used to be very funny. He's now much more sanctimonious than he is funny, but every now and again he still gets off a good one.

According to Drudge, at Monday night's frenzied-left Moveon.org awards event, Franken took the stage as a presenter.

"I'm Al Franken," he said. "I'm here to present the funniest ad award. I'm a last-minute substitution, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was supposed to be the presenter, but unfortunately he was murdered."

The bottom line is that some people "get" the space program and some don't. Fortunately, the "do's" still seem to outnumber the "don'ts," though by an increasingly narrow margin.

Nearly 35 years ago, we first put human beings on the moon. And then we just....stopped.

Someone who doesn't "get" it--who has simply imbibed the utilitarian ethos of the day--can't even see why I would consider that sad and incomprehesible. The soul which only sees such things in pragmatic terms of expediture of dollars and manpower ("What a waste..."), or in consumable products generated, is far too impoverished to be convinced by any few words I might say. My hope is that those who were inspired to greater achievement in their lives by people like Alan Shepard and Neil Armstrong will defend that vision, on behalf of their children and grandchildren, against those who see visionary exploration as less important than the "John Q. Patron Interstate Rest Area."

It's been 31 years since a human being last walked on the moon. An entire generation has now grown up without seeing a live image of the Earth over another horizon, without the dream of personally exploring God's universe and of standing on the soil of another world. I think our collective ambition and imagination is much the poorer for it.

St. Louis is installing a new Roman Catholic bishop shortly, and he's Bishop Raymond Burke from LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Burke is already well-known, because in Wisconsin he announced that the Church would withhold communion from Catholic politicians in his diocese who support abortion or euthanasia. Presumably, he will be bringing this view to St. Louis with him.

This has some politicians in the heavily Catholic St. Louis area a bit on edge.

According to a story in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Missouri Democratic Party Chairwoman May Scheve acknowledges that she's in a fix.

Scheve, a former legislator from South County, is a practicing Catholic. She also supports abortion rights.

. . . ."I'm very passionate about my politics and I'm very passionate about my religion," Scheve said, noting that she sends her daughter to a Catholic school. "For the two to collide is an issue that troubles me to my core."

Good. It ought to trouble her. What troubles me is that one could claim to believe in the God of the Bible and not think that this God might just have something important--perhaps even binding-- to say about when life begins and when it should end. If it takes the Roman Catholic Church threatening to excommunicate chuckleheads like this until they can get it figured out, I say good for the Church.

It also removes the weaselly option currently taken by so many politicians.

"Of course I personally am pro-life," they inform us. "But it's not my right to make that decision for someone else." Imagine the silliness of this relativistic argument in any other context.

"Of course, I personally abhor wife-beating. But it's not my right to make that decision for some other husband." The latter is obviously ridiculous. But the former argument is made with a straight face by well-known politicians every day. Because abortion advocates have been so successful in framing the argument as a matter of mere taste, pro-life versus pro-abortion merely becomes another version of "tastes great" versus "less filling."

Of course, such a position actually takes a very particular stance on the issue. By claiming it's a matter of mere preference, one has already presupposed that there are no moral absolutes, that God has not created each individual life, and that He has no particular opinion on the matter--if He exists at all. Bishop Burke is taking this option away from the Catholic politician.

If you think your church is wrong on the sanctity of life issue, fine. Leave your church. If you think they're right, then they have conveyed to you the Word of God on the matter, and you must obey what you know to be true. In either case, stop being such a muddle-headed doofus.

People are beginning to wonder where Howard Dean's wife is. Evidently he has one, but she's usually nowhere to be found.

According to today's New York Times:

Some Dean backers see Dr. Steinberg [Dean's wife] as a role model for independent women balancing careers and children, but others in the campaign increasingly regard her absence as a potential liability for a candidate who is known for his reluctance to discuss his personal life or upbringing. Yet the topic is all but off-limits with the candidate. Voters also have begun to ask about a marriage in which the partners are so often apart — she skipped Dr. Dean's birthday-party fund-raiser, the family-oriented Renaissance Weekend, even the emotional repatriation ceremony of his brother's remains in Hawaii.

It's not all that hard to understand, if you think about it. I mean, if you were married to Howard Dean, would you want to be seen in public?

Well, I just added RSS syndication to the site. What does that mean? Beats me, but the Evangelical Outpost said I ought to do it, and who am I to argue?

"Well if the Evangelical Outpost told you to go jump off a bridge, would you do that too?" Quite possibly.

Did I do the syndication right? Does it work? Does it matter? I have no flippin' idea. I don't even really know what it is. Is it that mark from Revelation that Tim LaHaye is always talking about?

I really wanted to be wrong about the Rams.

As they racked up win after win against subpar competition, and as I continued to complain about their spectacular mediocrity, I had hoped in the recesses of my mind that everybody else saw something I just wasn't seeing. It's never been less satisfying to be right.

The Carolina Panthers tried to give the game to the Rams in about five different ways, but the Rams would not accept it. Mike Martz, who has become almost legendary for taking foolish chances, suddenly become conservative at the one time it would have actually made sense to take a risk. Marc Bulger threw three crucial interceptions. Three.

For those scoring at home, the Rams have been winning games mostly on defense, and they are about to lose their defensive architect to the Chicago Bears. They are about to let go of a two-time MVP quarterback. And the quarterback they do have threw (counting the postseason) 22 touchdowns and 25 interceptions this year.

I'm trying hard not to be negative, but I don't see things moving in the right direction for next year.

Paul O'Neill? Oh yeah, I remember him. He was the Treasury Secretary back when the economy still sucked.

Since blogging is a relatively new entity, much of its eventual nomenclature is still up for grabs. There are terms there just for the coining.

So I'm trying to invent a term to describe the phenomena of deleting someone from your blogroll in the heat of a hissy-fit. It's happening to me more and more frequently lately, and it's crying out for a name.

Some possibilities:

Deletaliation

Microsoft XPunged

Blogdignation

Estrovenge

Exlinkommunicated

Auburned-out

Any votes or other suggestions?

As I've previously mentioned, I like Pete Rose, and I want him in the Hall of Fame. But he has this truth problem that makes it difficult for even ardent supporters to stand by him sometimes.

In the recent swirl of publicity, Rose has been taking some heat for detracting from the announcement of this year's Hall of Fame electees.

Pete's response, from an official statement on his website:

At this time I would like to personally congratulate the newest Hall of Fame Members, Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley. I never intended to diminish the exciting news for these deserving players. The scheduled launch date for this book, established many months ago, was Thursday January 8, 2004. My publisher worked hard to contain the news of this book until after the Hall of Fame announcements and we were both upset when a media leak on Sunday caused the news to be announced on Monday.

It kind of sounds as if this whole Hall of Fame announcement caught Pete and his publisher by suprise, doesn't it?

Now here's an Associated Press story from 12/5/03--a little over a month ago. It's entitled "New Pete Rose autobiography coming sooner than expected":

PHILADELPHIA -- The publication date of Pete Rose's new autobiography has been moved up two months to January.

My Prison Without Bars, written with Rick Hill, will go on sale Jan. 8, Rodale Inc. said Wednesday.

The publication date is two days after the announcement of 2004 Hall of Fame inductees.

Hmm. Of course, it's possible that Pete had no idea of the release date coinciding with the Hall of Fame announcements. But his publisher clearly did, and they had not had this release date planned "many months" ahead of time. In fact, it appears that they moved the date up specifically to coincide with the Hall's announcements.

It's this kind of thing that always ends up making him look bad. He lies even when he doesn't really have to.

Well, Lottery Lady now admits she was lying through her teeth.

But, of course, though she is now facing jail time, at least her motives were pure:

[Elecia Battle] apologized to her husband, her lawyer and [the real winner] Jemison, saying she wanted to use the money to help her family and recently laid-off Cleveland police officers.

Right. She wanted to help police officers, some of whom will be swinging by shortly to take her to get her picture taken.

I'm stunned and saddened. If you can't take somebody's word for it when they assure you that they purchased a $162 million lottery ticket that they don't have on them at the moment, when can you do it?

Brian at Terrible Swift Word has an amusing take on the chutzpah of that gal who claims she bought the lottery ticket worth $162 million--but can't seem to locate it just now:

. . . .the likelihood of success was almost a small as one's chances of being struck by lightning or, well, winning the lottery. Naaah. It's only $162M. C'mon. It's not like the real winner is ever going to come forward, right? You know, just like all those other Hundreds of Million Dollar lotteries that have gone unclaimed!

. . . .even if the winner hadn't surfaced, what did she expect? The Lottery Commission is just going to say, "Oh, you lost it? Well that's understandable. We all lose things. Here's a check for $162M. Can we get you anything else?"

She claims that she lost the ticket, and that the actual winner must have found it afterwards. However, the actual winner has other tickets purchased from the same place at the same time on the same day as the winning ticket, as well as previous lottery tickets in which the same numbers were played.

I almost can't help admiring this gal in a twisted way. I mean, this scam takes cajones! She's quintessentially American, lying boldly and loudly. The more overwhelming the proof against her, the louder she gets.

Come to think of it, I also bought the winning ticket and then lost it...

I'm not comfortable with Dennis Eckersley as a Hall of Famer. In fact, I'm not comfortable with relief pitchers in the Hall period. Rollie Fingers belongs there, because he pretty much invented the closer position. But that's about it.

I don't ever want the Democrat presidential race to end:

Kucinich Shows Pie Chart on Radio Debate

Pete Rose: I never, ever, ever bet on baseball.

Pete's friends: Pete did too bet on baseball. A lot, for a long time.

Pete Rose: Okay, I bet on baseball. But I never bet from the clubhouse.

Pete's friends: Actually, he did bet from the clubhouse. Quite a bit.

Pete Rose: Uhhhhhh....okay, I bet from the clubhouse. But I never bet on Tuesdays.

Pete's friends: Sorry. Tuesday was probably Pete's biggest betting day.

Pete Rose: Doh!

Boy, those Howard Dean rallies are becoming more and more unsettling.

Just sent to me by a friend:

Tommorrow's New York Times headline: "Dean Blames Bush for Job-less New Testament"

Dude, check it out! I've finally made it--I'm Discoshaman's "Clog of the Week"!

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the little people. No, really--I mean dwarves. They inspire me.

Pete Rose has finally admitted betting on baseball.

The announcement comes as a shock to no one, but I can't tell you how profoundly strange it is to hear those words coming out of his mouth after all these years of denial.

I worked with Pete Rose at the SportsFan Radio Network from 1995-1997. It would be going too far to say that we were friends, but we got to know each other as well as you get to know most coworkers. I was based (as was most of the network) in Las Vegas. Pete usually did his radio show from his restaurant in Boynton Beach, Florida via an ISDN hookup.

Once every month or two, he'd come out to Las Vegas to do his show for a few days--usually live from our broadcast set at the MGM Grand sports book. Often, I was the on-set producer for those broadcasts. Though he had a roving band of lackeys and hangers-on, they stayed out of the "booth," and so during the two hours of the program, I'd get to shoot the breeze with him during the commercial breaks about everything from the toughest pitchers he ever faced (Koufax, Gibson, and believe it or not, Randy Jones) to his ban from baseball. Through it all, Rose never admitted that he bet on baseball. Not a wink, not a nod, not any indication of the truth. He always relied publicly and privately on the commissioner's official statement in 1989 that baseball made "no finding" as to whether or not he bet on games.

I liked Pete Rose. In my time around him, I saw some very unappetizing things. He's a deeply flawed guy in innumerable ways. He is driven, as he concedes, entirely by appetites. But there is a better side. Despite being a rather big-named star, he treated the rest of us like teammates. He was even nice enough to once let me and another guy hitch a ride with him in his hotel-provided limo for the long trip from Lake Tahoe to the Reno airport. I never saw him turn down an autograph seeker. He doesn't drink a drop of alcohol (which often suprises people). And when he's in a good mood, he can be enormous fun to be around.

The thing about Pete is, he likes to gamble. No kidding, Sherlock. Right? But I mean, he really likes to gamble. He can't not gamble. It's part of who he is. He's the most competitive person I've ever known, and long past the point of being able to compete physically, he seems to channel that competitive instinct into gambling. There was nothing he wouldn't gamble on for the sheer thrill of competition--even eight or nine years after his banishment from baseball.

During the radio program, he'd be doling out $50 and $100 bills for one of his lackeys to run up to the sports book window to bet on the next horse or dog race. The MGM showed races on TV monitors from at least four or five different tracks at once. Pete bet all of them. And he only bet to win--never to place or show. He rarely won. But he couldn't not bet.

One time, we were all watching an NFL game on the monitor, and he bet one of our hosts $100 (off the air) that one team would do an onside kick on the next play. The host, a little embarrassed said "Well, Pete, I really don't have $100 bucks I can spare. I'm not quite in your income bracket." No problem, said Pete. "If I'm wrong, I'll give you $100. If you're wrong, you don't have to give me anything." As it turned out, Pete was wrong, and he handed the guy a crisp c-note. It seemed like it was worth it to him; the kickoff just wouldn't have been interesting without something riding on it.

Another time, several of us watched in amazement as Pete played blackjack (a real rarity--he is almost exclusively a sports bettor) for $1000 per hand. He lost $12,000 in less than ten minutes.

I'm convinced that he frequently bets everything he has. Because of who he is, his name is an endless source of renewable income (at card shows, etc.), but I doubt that he has anything in the bank. During the aforementioned limo ride out of Lake Tahoe, from where we had been broadcasting for their annual celebrity golf tournament, Pete wistfully commented on how beautiful Lake Tahoe was. "I could stay here a while," he said.

"You ought to," I said. "We have to be back in the office for the weekend, but there's no reason you can't stay."

Pete leaned forward and pulled out his empty wallet.

"With what, Johnny?" he shot back with a grin. "I ain't got any (bleepin') money left!"

I never entertained any illusions that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball. I would have been shocked if he didn't. As I said, betting is who he is. For that reason, I think baseball needs to work out a deal that will allow Rose to enter the Hall of Fame, but not to have any day-to-day involvement with a Major League Baseball franchise. If he were allowed back into the game, it would only be asking for trouble.

But I also know this: the betting rules in baseball are in place to forestall the possibility that a player or manager might be tempted to throw a game to cover a bet. Pete Rose would never, ever, ever bet against himself in anything. The desire to win is the reason he gambles to begin with. Yes, he broke the cardinal rule of baseball, and yes, he deserves to be punished for that (though one could argue that the punishment has been more than served). But no one ever need question the integrity of a game Rose played in or managed, which is what this is all about to begin with.

Newly-minted Christian Howard Dean is continuing with his God strategy. Recently asked which is his favorite New Testament book, Dean again demonstrated his expertise, according to the New York Times (free registration required):

Asked his favorite New Testament book, Dr. Dean named Job, adding: "But I don't like the way it ends." "Some would argue, you know, in some of the books of the New Testament, the ending of the Book of Job is different," he said. "I think, if I'm not mistaken, there's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later."

Dean was later informed by an aide that Job is in the Old Testament, and revised his answer.

The article from the Times contains an even more telling quote, however. Dean has been trying to get mileage out of his newly adopted posture as a "Christian" alternative to the "Christian right." It's fascinating to watch his philosophy spill out as he does it. Witness this statement:

"Don't you think Jerry Falwell reminds you a lot more of the Pharisees than he does of the teachings of Jesus?" he added. "And don't you think this campaign ought to be about evicting the money-changers from the temple?"

Did you catch that? Dean considers the federal government to be the temple. It's the holiest of holies for him (and most of his fellow Democrats).

In that passage in the Bible (hey, at least Dean finally picked a New Testament story), Jesus casts the money-changers from the temple saying "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business." (John 2:16)

Howard Dean is religious, all right. The federal government truly is his father's house.

Happy New Year to all!

I had the rare opportunity to interview former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on a year-in-review radio program yesterday.

While continuing to pursue appeals in his dismissal as Chief Justice, Judge Moore is currently working towards federal legislation that would specifically circumscribe the federal judiciary's powers and authority in ruling on matters of public acknowledgement of God. With his own case and the Pledge of Allegiance case still in the forefront of the battle for religious freedom, the time might be ripe for just such legislation, which is well within the Congress' constitutional purview. It's high time that the legislative branch act within its delegated authority to reign in the runaway judiciary.

We encouraged Justice Moore to run for the United States Senate. His response was a non-committal chuckle, but I suspect we have not seen the last of Roy Moore on the national scene yet.

Even though this was published over a year ago, it's always appropriate during the farcical holiday of Kwanzaa.

Interesting, thought-provoking column from Thomas Sowell today.

Two earthquakes; one in California registers 6.5 on the Richter scale, one in Iraq registers 6.6. The one in California kills less than 10 people. The one in Iraq kills tens of thousands of people. The primary difference? Wealth.

Sowell says that wealth saves lives:

Wealth enables homes, buildings and other structures to be built to withstand greater stresses. Wealth permits the creation of modern transportation that can quickly carry people to medical facilities. It enables those facilities to be equipped with more advanced medical apparatus and supplies, and amply staffed with highly trained doctors and support staff.

Those who disdain wealth as crass materialism need to understand that wealth is one of the biggest life-saving factors in the world. As an economist in India has pointed out, "95 percent of deaths from natural hazards occur in poor countries."

I'll leave the implications for how last summer's French heatwave (and the catastrophic loss of life that resulted) reflects on their culture for another time. But as Sowell points out, there is a cultural aspect to all this:

There is another side to the story of these two earthquakes and their consequences. It gives the lie to the dogma being propagandized incessantly, from the schools to the media, that one culture is just as good as another.

It is just as good to lose tens of thousands of lives as not to? What hogwash! It is just as good to lack modern medicine, modern transportation, and modern industry as it is to have them? Who is kidding whom?

Of course there are other differences between the Iraq earthquake and the California one. Still, the wild disparity in natural disaster deaths between the United States and much of the rest of the world must be accounted for.

There's just no way that someone as tone-deaf as Howard Dean becomes President of the United States in this day and age. It just doesn't happen. Think about it--who's the last elected president who was this graceless and artificial in his attempts to pander?

The most recent example, his laughable attempt to "Christianize" his campaign in an effort to appeal to the South, is just the latest in a string of disingenuous posturings. Unfortunately, none of them are attributable to some finely-honed sense of irony, since Dean is notably (and disturbingly) berift of a sense of humor.

His out-of-the-blue efforts to identify himself as a Christian will be meaningless to those whose brand of Christianity he evidently shares (the New England, congregationalist, non-supernatural, Unitiarian-leaning social gospellers) and it will actually repel the evangelical Christians to whom he ostensibly is trying to appeal with this gimmick.

Dean says, according to the Boston Globe:

''Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind,'' Dean said. ''He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything . . . He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it.''

Oh yeah, that's going to get them fired up in the pews down in Louisville: Jesus set kind of an inspiring example--when you think about it.

Dean honestly doesn't seem to realize that such tonally awkward declarations ring as unadulterated counterfeit and patronizing balderdash (which, let's face it, it is) in the ears of those who believe that Christ was the divine, miracle-working messiah, offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

He'll find out soon enough, and it will be fun to watch this aspect of his campaign fall flat on its misbegotten face.

Just when I tried to jump on the feelgood bandwagon, the Rams had to go and boot me back off again with this little abomination in Detroit yesterday.

Home field advantage was more crucial to the Rams than any other team in the NFL, and they squandered it yesterday against one of the worst teams in the league. I have no reason to believe that the Rams would beat the Eagles in Philadelphia if they played 20 times.

This is my team. I want them to win. I hope that they'll win. I even believe that Marc Bulger has earned the opportunity (whatever I might think of his abilities) to lead this team in the playoffs. But it's just very hard for me to envision a scenario in which they get out of the NFC.

I think Rams fans need to root very hard for whoever plays the Eagles in Philly's first playoff game, because the Eagles getting knocked out is the only thing that can return the home field advantage to the Rams--and the home field advantage is the only chance they have.

From Matthew, chapter 1:

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."

For some reason, Psalm 68 is striking me as a wonderful Christmastime verse today, though I'm not sure I've ever heard it in that connection. Verses 4-6:

Sing to God, sing praise to his name,
extol him who rides on the clouds -
his name is the LORD -
and rejoice before him.
5 A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows,
is God in his holy dwelling.
6 God sets the lonely in families,
he leads forth the prisoners with singing;
but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.

The NASB translates the first line of v. 6 as: "God makes a home for the lonely." What a beautiful statement.

Merry Christmas!

I was reminded this weekend while driving around listening to the radio that the best pop Christmas song ever is Bruce Springsteen's version "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." Bar none.

The worst? The horrendous piece of Paul McCartney dreck, "Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time." It's a stupid song to begin with, and it sounds like it's being played on a dime-store Casio keyboard.

The most pitiful football story of the week would have to be Joe Namath's bizarre interview with ESPN's Suzy Kolber at Saturday night's Jets/Patriots game.

As observed in USA Today:

...ESPN sideline reporter Suzy Kolber interviewed Namath. After initially speaking coherently, Namath then used halting language to repeatedly tell Kolber, "I want to kiss you" — before Kolber ended the interview.

It's a shame that America had to see it, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. It's been well-known in the sports media for some time that...ahem...to put it politely, you don't call the NFL Hall of Famer after dinner time, if you know what I mean. But even his boldness in public intoxication has been growing over the past few years.

Kolber undoubtedly knows this too, but probably thought that Namath would have it together at a football game, and as the article says, he was at first coherent. She probably chatted with him first for a minute or two and deemed him fit for broadcast before telling the truck to have the guys in the booth throw it to her for the interview.

I don't feel sorry for him, since he's responsible for his own behavior. But it's still unsettling to look inside the psyche of a has-been.

Assuming a win next week against the hapless Detroit Lions, the Rams have wrapped up a first round bye and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. They don't lose at home, which would have to make them at least an even bet to go to the Super Bowl.

Yesterday was a high-quality performance all around--including Marc Bulger. The past is the past, and this team ain't the Rams of '99 or '01, but they'll actually finish with a better record than the championship team of '99. In my opinion, the only team that has a shot against them is the Eagles, and they won't face them until the NFC Championship game--at the Edward D. Jones Dome.

The fact that the Rams have largely remained under the radar this season (they are the number one team in the NFC now, and yet one still sees relatively little national coverage of them as contrasted with the Eagles or the Cowboys) will only work to their advantage. They don't have the huge target on their back that they had in '01.

This is just too good not to post. I found it over at Hugh Hewitt's blog:

Okay, I'll have to just come out and admit it: I completely don't get the whole "Lord of the Rings" thing. Granted, I never read the books, which as I understand it is 99.9% of the overwhelming appeal of the movies.

Still, I wouldn't expect these movies to make so much money so quickly from only their devoted literary following. I mean, it's not as if these folks are taking a date to the movie, so somebody else must be jumping on the bandwagon...

I saw the first two, and I suppose I'll see this one too, since I've come this far. I don't hate them or anything. I just don't get the fuss. To me, they're all sort of like the Indiana Jones movies, only without the humor and some of the people have fake feet.

Jodie Foster must be praying he didn't see her in "Silence of the Lambs," too.

I'm a little late on this, but Thomas Sowell did a column yesterday on judicial tyranny that I just cannot recommend highly enough. In it, he examines the recent Supreme Court ruling on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law:

If you think the issue in the recent Supreme Court decision upholding campaign finance legislation is whether campaign finance reform is a good idea or a bad idea, then you have already surrendered the far more important and more fundamental idea of Constitutional government.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to regulate what is said by whom, or under what conditions, in a political campaign. On the contrary, the Constitution says plainly, "Congress shall make no law" -- no law! -- "abridging the freedom of speech."

The merits or demerits of this particular law, restricting what you can say when, or how much money you can contribute to get your message out, are all beside the point. Just what part of "no law" don't the Supreme Court justices understand?

The sad -- indeed, tragic -- fact is that they understand completely. They just think that this legislation is a good idea and are not going to let the Constitution stand in their way.

It occurs to me that we conservatives are going to have to get on the same page if we're ever going to solve the problem. We largely (though unwittingly) buy into the activist court mentality ourselves, and thus forfeit the war in favor of a few individual battles.

A case in point: the recent case of Joshua Davey, who sued the state of Washington because they revoked his college scholarship on the grounds that paying for his theological course of study violated the so-called "separation of church and state." On the surface, it sounds like an egregious case of religious bigotry.

But there's a problem--the state of Washington has an amendment in it's constitution which clearly says that no public money will be used to finance a religious education. Is it a bad law? Perhaps. But whatever it is, it's part of the constitution of the state of Washington. Davey, his lawyer Jay Sekulow, and the Solicitor General of the United States are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rewrite Washington's democratically-encated constitution by decree. They are actually in a postion of begging for judicial activism from the Supreme Court.

The irony of this, of course, is that when the Supreme Court rewrote the Massachusetts state constitution in the recent gay marriage case, conservatives (particularly conservative Christians) were (rightfully) screaming bloody murder over the Court's unconscionable activism in overruling the people of that state, as expressed in their constitution, by mere fiat.

"If you want to change the Constitution," we're always insisting, "do it through the prescribed, democratic means, not by judicial decree." But then a state constitution comes along that says something we don't particularly like, and suddenly we're first in line to find a judge to impose the "correct" viewpoint on an entire state. Ought we not abide by the democratic principle even if we don't happen to like what a particular law happens to say?

As Sowell says:

One of the tragedies of our time, and a harbinger of future tragedies, is that court decisions at all levels have come to be judged by whether we agree or disagree with the policy that is upheld or overturned.

If we're basing our view of what the courts should do on the basis of whether a particular law is a good idea or not, we've already given up the game. For every outcome that goes our way, there will be literally dozens that go against us. Some of those bad decisions might even use Davey as a precedent for judicial activism, and there won't be single objection we can raise.

Oof. This is the kind of thing that hits you like a punch in the gut.

I worked with Rob Ramage in the mid '90's on a Blues hockey post-game radio show in St. Louis, and I like him a lot. "Rammer" has always been one of the good guys--unfailingly polite, friendly, and good natured like so many of his fellow Canadian hockey players. He also usually has a good head on his shoulders--when I was working with him, his daytime job was as a stockbroker.

He's been charged with driving while impaired in an accident that killed former NHL player and coach Keith Magnuson yesterday.

That story just bites in so many different ways.

I never do these quizzes here, but this one is too good to pass up. Via Discoshaman, I stumbled upon the 80's Music Test.

Frankly, being a product of the '80's, I thought I would have done a bit better. I'm disappointed that Disco outscored me. I did well on much of the obscure stuff, and then struggled with basic 80's staples like Heart. Go figure. Anyway, my final score was 77.45, and I'm a:

It's going to be great fun to watch the Democratic Party implode as a result of Saddam's capture. The party had already painted itself into a corner over the war, and the capture leaves them in a very tough spot. They throw out the obligatory "Of course, Saddam was a bad guy, and it's good that he's no longer at large"-es, but you can tell their heart's not really in it. The little act won't last more than a few more days, and the cracks (or the crackpots, to be more accurate) are already showing.

Today's most entertaining tidbit comes from noted Democrat kook Jim McDermott (D-Wash), who was previously best known for snuggling up to Saddam in Bagdhad before the war. According to the Associated Press:

The Washington congressman who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad last year has questioned the timing of the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

Ah, yes. "When they're having all this trouble." Things were going quite terribly, what with the sudden surge in the economy and the Dow closing at over 10,000 for the first time in forever. Of course Bush just waited to do this, since he couldn't have used a boost at all, say, about three or four months ago. And certainly he stands to gain much more by pulling Saddam out of the ground now, rather than, say, next October a few weeks before the election.

The Evangelical Outpost, browsing the Howard Dean blog in the wake of the Saddam capture yesterday morning, discovers an interesting, unguarded comment from a Dean loyalist (and I believe you'll see this sort of opinion much more openly in the weeks to come). From the Evangelical Outpost:

Found in the comments section of Howard Dean's "Blog for America" :

I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election.
Posted by Carrie B at December 14, 2003 10:03 AM


****

I'd like to remind folks to keep in mind...

The press is reading.

Posted by cdmarine at December 14, 2003 10:06 AM

Very telling, indeed.

It was amusing to watch CNN yesterday. I wish I had written down the time and the reporter involved, but I swear at one point they had a reporter saying "The Iraqis we've talked to expressed disappointment in Saddam and anger at the U.S."--underneath video of Iraqis dancing in the streets.

In fairness, that was not the dominant tone of anyone's coverage that I saw. In the early afternoon hours, it seemed like the cable networks were trying to run in some experts to wring their hands and convince us that the capture of Saddam was a Bad Thing ("It will probably result in more attacks, and awaken the pro-Saddam loyalists inside and outside Iraq!"), but by mid-afternoon, they had given up on the Doom Project, recognizing that even they couldn't successfully spin Saddam's capture as anything other than an unqualified success.

For a day or two they'll say what they think they have to say, but over the next few weeks it will be very interesting to see how many people had a deeply vested interest in Saddam not being captured, and what their reactions will be. Beginning with the front-runners in the Democrat presidential race.

Just ask yourself one question: in the privacy of his own home (or wherever he was), what do you think Howard Dean's reaction was when informed that Saddam had been captured? Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe his reaction was joy?

Okay, I'm going to stop complaining and just enjoy it. The Rams are now 11-3, have clinched their division, and have a legitimate shot at home field throughout the playoffs.

Sure, yesterday's win over the Seahawks was typically unconvincing, and sure their lucky break this time was an official getting tangled up with a Seattle wide-receiver on the potential game-winning touchdown pass. But the simple fact is that this Rams team is at least as good as anyone else in the NFC (not that that's saying much).

I'm still dubious of their playoff potential, but I'm through whining about it. Marc Bulger is their quarterback and they don't beat anybody by more than about 7 points, but you don't go 11-3 by accident in the NFL. As the old sports saying goes, "It's better to be lucky than to be good." They're pretty good and they're very lucky, and that might just be enough to do it in this league.

From Antonin Scalia's dissent (with case citations deleted) in the Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling:

Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government.

Reason 10,428 why I love Antonin Scalia.

The always informative Thomas Sowell today has some interesting insights into the manipulation of language that's used to demonize corporations and economic progress.

Lately, you can hardly glance at a business page without seeing somebody--liberal or "conservative"--whining about Wal-Mart and all its supposed "power." Why, they control the market and are destroying the little guy! They are wielding their incredible power to destroy free choice in America!

Nonsense, says Sowell:

Just what "power" does a sales percentage represent? Not one of the people who bought their disposable diapers at Wal-Mart was forced to do so. I can't remember ever having bought anything from Wal-Mart and there is not the slightest thing that they can do to make me.

The misleading use of words constitutes a large part of what is called anti-trust law. "Market power" is just one of those misleading terms. In anti-trust lingo, a company that sells 30 percent of the disposable diapers is said to "control" 30 percent of the market for that product. But they control nothing.

Let them jack up their prices and they will find themselves lucky to sell 3 percent of the disposable diapers. They will discover that they are just as disposable as their diapers.

One suspects that those who relentlessly sing the praises of small, independent, Mom & Pop stores do everything but actually shop there. When it comes down to it, they like cheap prices and wide selection just as much as the rest of us do.

The answer to the "problem" is not to artificially prop up Mom & Pop stores, or to punish bigger, more efficient operations--it's for Mom & Pop to find something more efficient and productive to do for a living.

In no area is the silly sentimentalism of the Mom & Pop mentality more pervasive than in the propagation of the one enduring myth of Americana: the family farm. When I'm more expensive than anybody wants to pay for me, I'll be unemployed. But when food produced by Mr. Farmer becomes more expensive than anybody wants to pay for it, Willie Nelson holds a benefit concert for him. Explain that to me.

Am I insensitive? No, just realistic--and in favor of progress and economic growth. So is Sowell:

How could industries have found all the millions of workers required to create the vast increase in output that raised American standards of living over the past hundred years, except by taking them away from the farms?

Historians have lamented the plight of the hand-loom weavers after power looms began replacing them in England. But how could the poor have been able to afford to buy adequate new clothing unless the price was brought down to their income level by mass production machinery?

Judge Robert Bork once said that somebody always gets hurt in a court room. Somebody always gets hurt in an economy that is growing. You can't keep on doing things the old way and still get the benefits of the new way.

Though our modern-day welfare state will keep trying.

The legendary Casey Kasem is being replaced on the weekly "American Top 40" radio program by that doofus from "American Idol."

Back when I had my radio show about five years ago, Kasem came on to promote the then-upcoming Jerry Lewis Telethon, which he usually participates in. The partial, reconstructed-from-memory transcript of that interview is something like this:

CASEY: I'm very excited about it. This is the 19th Labor Day telethon I've been involved in.

ME: Would you do the "Shaggy from 'Scooby Doo' " voice for me?

CASEY: Jerry is a good friend of mine, and he's been doing unbelievable work for these kids for years now.

ME: C'mon, let's hear just a little "Shaggy."

CASEY: As you know, Muscular Dystrophy is a deadly disease that attacks thousands of people, many of them children.

ME: I would really love it if you would do your "Shaggy" voice for us.

Yes, I'm sure it was a high point for him, too.

The one remaining Constitutional obstacle standing between me and the presidency disappeared today. Look out, Howard Dean and GWB...

Queen Sandra has made another ruling

As I've pointed out before, Sandra Day O'Connor, because she has no actual judicial philosophy and thus rules based on whatever her mood happens to be today, is the de facto Queen of America. As the swing vote on a closely divided court, Mrs. O'Connor's hormones on any given day determine the Law of the Land.

Today, the SCOTUS upheld key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, with O'Connor again acting as our monarch-in-chief:

Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer signed the main opinion barring candidates for federal office, including incumbent members of Congress or an incumbent president, from raising soft money.

Just to recap, if you are a corporation, you can have your CEO stand out in front of the company headquarters in Times Square and set an American flag on fire (which is, of course, protected free speech according to the Courts), but you can't send any amount of money you like to a political candidate.

I would attempt to look for any semblence of legal reasoning to justify this dichotomy, but having read numerous opinions from O'Connor & Company at this point, I know there would be none.

As you'll recall, the Bush administration winked at us when GWB signed the bill into law, basically saying "ah, don't worry about it. We have to sign it, but it'll never pass muster with the Supreme Court." What a load that was. Oh yeah, you can always count on those geniuses on the Supreme Court to do the right thing when you're too gutless to do it...

We receive particular interest in our blog from a few folks in the Austin, Texas area. Especially some folks affiliated with the state government there, who've arrived here through another blog. Who would've guessed?

Welcome, y'all...

Carl F.H. Henry has died at 90.

Henry was one of the major figures of 20th century evangelicalism, who worked hard to bridge the divide between evangelicalism and true intellectual scholarship. His six-volume magnum opus God, Revelation, and Authority, was one of the landmark contributions to evangelical Christianity in the 20th century. Would that there were a million more like him.

"Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!" --Matt. 25:21

Gen. Wesley Clark appeared on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" last night. While the Democratic nomination process has been endlessly entertaining so far, I've been conflicted in trying to decide which candidate is the most cynically calculated, soulless power-monger--Clark or John Kerry?

I had been leaning toward Kerry again lately with his ridiculous motorcycle entrance on Leno and his hokey attempt to seem hip by dropping the "F" bomb in Rolling Stone magazine.

Still, it's hard to overcome the cynicism of Gen. Clark, considering his vast body of documented statements from only a few months ago in support of the war, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and the entire Bush administration. Last night, my pendulum swung back towards him as he insisted on "Hardball" that Osama Bin Laden, when caught, needs to be tried in international court at the Hague, rather than in the U.S.

After all, he insisted, "80 other nations lost citizens in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs to be tried in international court."

Even the Democrat Matthews, recognizing pure idiocy when he hears it, coudn't stomach this.

"Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They don’t have capital punishment at the Hague," Matthews pointed out.

At which point Clarks eyes seemed to roll into the back of his head, and he shorted out. He looked like a deer in headlights. An eternity seemed to pass before he could formulate an answer, as it dawned on him that if anyone were watching (unlikely on MSNBC these days), he had probably just blown his presidential campaign.

"I think that's a seperate issue," he finally protested, weakly. He then blathered on about how there were more important things than retribution, and that we needed to look at the bigger international picture in the war on terror. But Matthews, to his credit, wouldn't let it drop. Here's the verbatum exchange from the MSNBC transcript:

MATTHEWS: But doesn’t life in Holland beat life in a cave?

CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they’re under water, they’re damp, they’re cold, they’re really miserable.

And if that doesn't make them really, really miserable, we'll send them to bed without dessert.

If I were the other Democrats, I'd be using that soundbite in every ad against Clark. If, that is, anyone even still sees him as a threat. Which they don't.

Once again, the St. Louis media have the pom-pons out after the Rams tenth win of the season last night on "Monday Night Football." Anyone who buys into the hype is going to be in for a cold awakening come playoff time.

Once again, the Rams squeaked past a subpar opponent (4-9), almost blowing the game in the final minutes. Once again, they won on defense, against a Cleveland Browns squad that ain't exactly an offensive juggernaut. Once again, golden-boy quarterback Marc Bulger had a strictly ordinary night (223 yards passing, 1 TD, 1 INT).

Al Michaels said in the pre-game that "these Rams are looking like the Rams of 1999." Perhaps--if one only looks at their record. The resemblance to that Super Bowl-winning team ends there. The Rams of '99 blew other teams off the field. The Rams of '99 could destroy you in ten different ways. Defensive players lost sleep over having to play against that offense. The Rams of '99 were able to consistently beat quality opponents. The Rams of 2003 have clinched a playoff spot by feasting on subpar competition (their strength of schedule ranks in the bottom 10 percent of the league), and by playing in a lousy division.

A win is a win, and you can only beat the teams on your schedule. I don't blame the Rams for the watered-down competition. Good for them for clinching a playoff spot so quickly. There aren't many good teams in the league this year, so who knows how it might turn out?

Still, watching them struggle to eke out wins with a weak-armed quarterback and a head coach who is beyond clueless when it comes to managing a football game (the Rams rarely have any time outs left in the last ten minutes of a game) against bad football teams, it's difficult for me to imagine them beating anybody any good. Their saving grace is that they may not have to play anybody any good until the NFC championship game.

It's hard to believe, but today marks the 23rd anniversary of John Lennon's murder outside the Dakota apartment building in New York City.

Lennon (along with his writing partner Paul McCartney) is one of the great musical geniuses in history. I firmly believe that a number of Lennon-McCartney compositions will still be listened to hundreds of years from now. Having said that, I must also admit that I was once among those poor, deluded souls who once mistook Lennon's pithy wordplay for profundity.

In retrospect, I realize that some of his lyrics are clever; many of them are inane, nonsensical, utopian blather. Of the Beatles, his radical political outlook once made him seem to me to be the "cool one." Now, with some age and experience under my belt (I was not quite 12 years old when Lennon was killed), I recognize that much of his pedantic politicizing actually rendered him the "idiotic one."

Still, he could turn an amusing phrase and write a beautiful tune, and he penned some of the greatest pop songs in history. On the 23rd anniversary of his death, the Weekly Standard picks apart "Imagine," simultaneously one of his most popular and most vacuous ditties:

Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can / No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man / Imagine all the people, sharing all the world. . . . Let's begin implementing the third stanza's message by splitting up the royalties to this copyrighted song. Mrs. Lennon, I imagine, will be only too happy to share with the rest of us the proceeds from the semiannual checks she receives for its licensing. In fact, why don't we all participate in every revenue stream created by John's invaluable catalogue?

There you have it. The guy who sang "Give Peace a Chance" and "All You Need is Love" was at emnity with almost every personal relation in his life. The guy who sang about "no possessions" lived in a multi-million dollar New York penthouse with a personal valet, having left England to escape the high taxation that supported the welfare class there. Lennon, while immensely talented, was at bottom a huge hypocrite. Koo-koo-kachoo.

I like the gang at Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, and I also think the liberal bias of the mainstream news media is proven beyond a reasonable doubt--largely thanks to the dilligent efforts of the MRC.

Still, I think sometimes they go a little overboard in their search for supposed bias. In today's Cyberalert, the MRC sees Tim Russert's questioning of Hillary Clinton on yesterday's "Meet the Press" as some sort of attempt to convince her to run for president, ostensibly based on his desire to see her run:

1) On Sunday, ABC's George Stephanopoulos and NBC's Tim Russert grew excited and repeatedly tried to entice Senator Clinton into the presidential derby, eliciting laughter from Clinton for their efforts.

...NBC's Tim Russert presented her with the scenario of a deadlocked convention which turns to her. Russert followed up ten times as he tried to persuade her to run. Examples: "So no matter what happens, absolutely, categorically, no?", "But you would never accept the nomination in 2004?" and, ever hopeful, "I think the door is opening a bit."

First of all, despite Russert's Democratic credentials (he's worked for Mario Cuomo, among others), I think he is perhaps the fairest high-profile journalist on any of the networks.

Second, Russert didn't handle it any differently than I would have handled it (as a right-winger, no less) if I had been in his place. Mrs. Clinton refuses to categorically deny the possibility of a run, always couching her "denials" in the typical, Clintonian language that her husband made famous. Any good journalist would see the cracks of light in her non-denial denials and attempted to nail her down, especially since anything concrete that she lets slip out would be a major coup for a news organization. As long as she refused to give a candid answer to the question, Russert was right to keep exploiting the holes in her evasions.

Simply trying to nail down an evasive subject on an important issue like this is hardly evidence of liberal bias.

From the Onion:

New Alternate-Reality Series Puts 12 Strangers on Island Where South Won Civil War

LOS ANGELES—CBS executives announced Monday that they have begun filming Antebellum Island, a new "alternate reality" series in which 12 strangers compete for $1 million while isolated on an island still under Confederate rule.

"Set to air in the spring of 2004, Antebellum Island gives us the unique opportunity to play with both social dynamics and recorded history," CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves said. "The contestants on Antebellum Island will spend 60 days braving the elements, each other, and the unfamiliar customs and practices of a 21st-century Confederate States of America—all for a chance to win a cool million."

Added Moonves: "That's one million in Union dollars, of course!"

...Executives were reluctant to reveal the themes for Antebellum's weekly competitions, but said contests might include skeet shooting, quilting bees, formal-dress cotillions, and working at a textile factory on the west side of the island for the entire show's duration with no chance at the $1 million prize.

In the massive amount of media coverage about the Terri Schiavo case, the story has been portrayed as an evangelical and Roman Catholic Christian crusade (see, for example, "Victory in Florida Feeding Case Emboldens the Religious Right," New York Times, page 1A, Oct. 24). And there's no question that Christians, who believe each person is created in the image of God and ought not to be ordered to an execution without having committed any crime or had any trial, have taken a major interest in this case.

What you haven't heard in the mainstream media, however, is how this case fits into an ideological crusade of another kind. It's leader is George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo who is working to have Terri's feeding tube removed, and it's goal is "spiritual awakening" through the "death process."

In fact, Felos wrote a book last year, Litigation as Spiritual Practice, in which he lays out his views. To understate the case, this is not a man driven by a concern for fair application of the law. Rather, he sees his law practice as being driven by his worldview--in his case, a bizarre, New Age spirituality, which he wishes to implement through litigation. Doesn't that sound like the kind of thing you would expect to at least hear mentioned in the mainstream media when motives are being endlessly dissected?

As pointed out by an essential, must-read story by James A. Smith, Sr. in the Florida Baptist Witness, Blue Dolphin Publishing, the publisher of Felos' book, specializes in "comparative cultural and spiritual traditions, lay and transpersonal psychology, education, new science, self-help, health, healing, complementary medicine, ecology, interspecies relationships, and whatever helps people grow in their social awareness and conscious evolution,” according to its website.

Felos gained noteriety as the lead attorney in the landmark "right to die" case of Estelle Browning. In his book, he recounts an experience with the comatose Mrs. Browning that forever solidified his dedication to the cause of death. As you read it, try to imagine the media reaction if something like this had been written by someone on the other side. And also ask yourself how it is even possible that you've never heard these words before in the media from the highest-profile attorney in the nation's most prominent current "right-to-die" case:

As I continued to stay beside Mrs. Browning at her nursing home bed, I felt my mind relax and my weight sink into the ground. I began to feel light-headed as I became more reposed. Although feeling like I could drift into sleep, I also experienced a sense of heightened awareness.

As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning.

I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, ‘Why am I still here … Why am I here?’ My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.

Felos frequently has other such "soul conversations." A number of them are recounted in this compilation of his own words as expressed in his book.

Now imagine yourself lying in a hospital bed, fully conscious but unable to move, as George Felos comes in and "touches your soul" and begins a crusade to have you starved to death based on communication he believes he's received directly from you. Do you trust the Birkenstock-wearing George Felos to hear your soul correctly? Should the judges in his cases? Should Terri Schiavo?

And does Felos' self-professed worldview deserve at least some mention in the mainstream media along with those of the Christians who are trying to keep Terri Schiavo alive?

Gephardt's campaign caught extorting unions:

According to today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dick Gephardt's national campaign co-chair, Joyce Aboussie (a legendary bare-knuckles, below-the-belt, unscrupulous fighter in the St. Louis political scene), indicated in a meeting with Gerald McEntee and Andrew Stern, presidents of two of the largest AFL-CIO unions, that if the unions offered assistance to Howard Dean in Missouri, "she would take steps to get a key collective bargaining order for state workers rescinded."

According to the PD article, a the two union honchos have sent Gephardt a letter demanding Aboussie's firing:

According to the letter, Aboussie demanded that the unions:

Not send any of their Missouri union members to Iowa, a must-win state for Gephardt and a place where the two men are locked in a tight race for the lead.

Not make independent expenditures for Dean in Missouri.

Not communicate with their Missouri members about their support for Dean.

McEntee and Stern said Aboussie warned that if they didn't comply, she would send a letter signed by 22 Democratic state legislators calling for the repeal of Holden's executive order giving state employees collective bargaining rights, a longtime public service union goal.

So there's "Mr. Union" Dick Gephardt for you.

More on the more-on:

Justice O'Connor's timing couldn't be better. As Bill Federer's daily "American Minute" points out, it was 200 years ago today that Congress, at the behest of President Jefferson, ratified a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which read in part:

And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature, and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.

C'mon, Sandy, open a book. As Emil Faber once said, "Knowledge is good."

Justice Sandra Day O'Conner is apparently concerned that there are some in the world who are still not aware of her breathtaking ignorance, even after she so famously displayed it in a number of her Supreme Court opinions this summer. To remedy the situation, she's at it again. Has this woman ever even read a book?

The Court heard argument yesterday in the case of a student in Washington state who was denied a state scholarship because he was pursuing a major in pastoral ministry. According to the wizards of the state of Washington, such a thing would violate the supposed "separation of church and state" (a phrase which, by the way, never once appears in the Constitution).

There is an old saying that goes something like "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Yesterday, Justice O'Conner decided to remove all doubt. In questioning Solicitor General Ted Olsen, the following exchange took place, according to the New York Times:

Describing the Washington program, Mr. Olson said that "the clear and unmistakable message is that religion and preparation for a career in the ministry is disfavored and discouraged." He added, "the person who wants to believe in God or wants to have a position of religious leadership is the one that's singled out for discriminatory treatment."

His argument met an unexpectedly skeptical response from Justice O'Connor, who said: "Well, but of course, there's been a couple of centuries of practice in this country of not funding religious instruction by tax money." She added, "I mean, that's as old as the country itself, isn't it?"

Well no, it's not, as any cursory reading of American history might have shown her. Just a look the presidency of Thomas Jefferson alone (who is held up by the Left as the paragon of church-state separation) would be enough to dispel such nonsense.

Among other things, as president he:

• Three times signed legislation funding missionaries to the Indians



• Funded the construction of church buildings for the Indians



• Three times extended a 1787 act of Congress which designated special lands "for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Bretheren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity."



• As Bill Federer writes in America's God and Country, President Jefferson "chaired the school board for the District of Columbia , where he authored the first plan of education adopted by the city of Washington. The plan used the Bible, and Isaac Watts' Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, 1707, as the principal books for teaching reading to students."

And, of course, Jefferson also funded congressional chaplains, and after his presidency designated the rotunda at the University of Virginia for chapel services and encouraged the teaching of theology there. Other than that, though, I suppose O'Connor is right on top of it. What a scholar.

Brendan Miniter of Opinion Journal on rising conservative and Christian discontent with the Bush Administration:

President Bush's armor of invincibility is starting to crack. The president is still infinitely stronger on national defense than any of the nine Democrats running for the White House, but on a growing list of domestic issues, the president is losing his conservative base.

Fiscal conservatives are upset about the Medicare expansion as well as the farm bill and a host of other spending extravaganzas. And now another front of criticism is opening up. Karl Rove is picking up his phone to find the Family Research Council and other Christian groups thundering away. The big issue is marriage and whether the president will defend it.

In all of this, I keep thinking of John DiIullio, the "Faith-Based Initiative czar" who acrimoniously exited the White House last year, saying all the important policy decisions were being made by the "political strategy" arm of the administration (read: Karl Rove).

DiIullio's analysis of the difficulties Bush faced in the 2000 election (as well of those of Bush 41 in '92) was incorrect, in my opinion. DiIullio believed that both Bushes would have done better to be even more "centrist," which I think is a risible misreading of the situation. I further suspect DiIullio would see last week's Medicare bill as a positive development in the president's "compassionate conservative" strategy.

Still, from all I know of DiIullio (with whom I share a couple of mutual acquaintances), he is a man of impeccable Christian integrity, and his larger point is worth revisiting: if the administration's is going to implement "policy light" for the sake of political expediency, who will be interested in voting for such an administration a second time?

I'm about 3/4 of the way through reading Bernard Goldberg's Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite, and it's terrific.

By now, liberal media bias is old news, but what makes the book so good is Golberg's funny, entertaining writing style and the fact that he offers actual, common-sense solutions to the problem. And, of course, like Bias, Arrogance is an insider's account of a tilted media that doesn't seem to know it's tilted. Goldberg is no flaming conservative (in fact, he's basically liberal on all the major issues), which makes his account that much more pursuasive.

It's a great read, though it's likely that the major media outlets will ignore it as fastidiously as they did the number one best-seller Bias.

Bob Novak today on the possible Federal Marriage Amendment:

As George W. Bush traveled to London Nov. 18, he learned of the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upholding gay marriage. It had been dreaded, expected and awaited for months, giving the president plenty of time to decide whether to endorse an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, he uttered only pro forma disapproval of the Massachusetts decision, pledging to defend "the sanctity of marriage."

Aides said President Bush wanted to concentrate on his mission in Britain without distraction by a domestic social issue. However, he has long since returned to Washington (and made a round trip to Baghdad), without revealing his intentions. In fact, the White House is divided, as is the Republican Party, on an issue Bush cannot avoid.

This is an issue so one-sided in the court of public opinion that already more than 30 states (including California, for heaven's sake!) have passed on version or another of the Defense of Marriage Act. And yet the White House can't figure out what to do. The administration can rest assured, however that there will be no politicking their way out of this one:

This is a yes-or-no choice for the president, with a middle course not possible. Without a constitutional amendment, gay marriage will become part of the fabric of American life.

If the administration refuses to take a stand, it will find itself (much like the President's father found himself) without the Christian wing of their party come election time--and they will not win without them.

The much-threatened liberal talk-radio network is close to purchasing radio stations in five of the top markets in America, according to the New York Times.

Fine with me. The more money they pour into this thing, the more fun it will be to watch it all collapse. Ever notice that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and dozens of other "conservative" talk show hosts have never had to buy a single radio station to get their programming on the air? The difference is, stations with actual commercial revenue want to run these programs, whereas they flee from the proposed aural graveyard of the upcoming liberal network as if it were the plague. I mean, these guys don't have a clue.

From the Times:

[Jon Sinton, Progress Media's president] said Progress Media was pursuing a deal to give the comedian Al Franken a daily talk show. The company, whose programming division is to be called Central Air, is also talking with representatives of the comedian Janeane Garofalo.

Memo to Progress Media: I'm only one guy with a few years of radio experience, so I may not be an authority on the matter. But do you think it's even possibly a bad idea to give radio programs to people who are recognized worldwide for their annnoying voices? I mean, regardless of political content, do you think there's a nation full of people who want to hear Al Franken talk through his nose for three hours every day? That they want to hear that whiny twang hectoring them for the long haul?

I hate to point out the obvious here, but it's radio, guys.

Okay. Since I've been hard on the Rams lately, I have to give credit where credit is due. They came up with a decisive, no-doubts win yesterday against a team (the Vikings) that is in first place in its division. Obviously, it's much better than a loss, and much better than just squeaking by.

Still, while I know it will place me at odds with the cheerleaders in the St. Louis press corps, reality constrains me to point out that the Vikings are in first place in a lousy division (the new NFC North, in which two of their wins have come against the Detroit Lions) and are a team that, after a strong start, have lost five of their last six games.

On top of that, Marc Bulger had another thoroughly mediocre day, throwing 20 passes for 220 yards with one interception and one touchdown in a game in which his team scored 48 points.

Fortunately for the Rams, Marshall Faulk seems to be back to his normal, superlative level, and the defense is playing great football. If both of those things continue, the Rams might end up having an opportunity to win a playoff game. But if they do (and I maintain we still haven't seen them beat anyone who's a legitimate contender for anything), it won't be because of their once-great offense, but in spite of it.