Right Wing Nut House

Coming from a family of 10 children, I can just imagine my sainted Mother’s reaction to the news that it should be considered an environmental “misdemeanor” to bring more than two children into the world:

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4×4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.

Maybe the parents should promise that their extra kids will hold their breaths a lot. Or promise not to fly 620 times between New York and London.

Even in her day and age when families were huge compared to today, my mother had to put up with the occasional tut-tutting from some buttinski who thought it was their business how many children any family should have. In those instances, she would smile and return the gross insult with a pithy comment about the advantages of being able to field a complete baseball team or some other bon mot that made the lout feel about 2 feet tall.

Grace under fire was one of my mother’s strong points.

But that kind of ill mannered behavior really didn’t come to the fore until the 1970’s when the “population bomb” was all the rage and panic rippled through the left that we were going to run out of food by 1985, that there would be mass starvation in India and China, and that hordes of refugees from the teeming cities of Central and South America would stream into the United States desperate for food.

Well - they were partly right about that last, anyway. The teeming hordes may not be desperate for food but they sure are streaming in and not much effort is being made to stop them. But of course, the left has changed their attitude about these “refugees.” Now they are “undocumented workers” and therefore subject to the tender ministrations of the leftist nanny state.

But that’s another story, another issue. This latest effort by eco-terrorizers has little to do with food but everything to do with carbon. And what makes this such an idiotic, shallow, and self defeating criticism - to the point that we now have international eco-arbiters who have taken it upon themselves to police the manners and customs of everyone else in search of “green” violations - is that it fails to take into account the potential contributions and even eco-pluses of those extra human beings to the human race. This is what happens when you stop thinking of human beings as living, breathing, thinking, caring, loving organisms and instead look at them as metrics on a chart who either consume resources like food, or raw materials or belch carbon.

I shudder to think what this world would be like if my mother was “shamed” into not having any more than two children. First of all, I wouldn’t exist which in some quarters would be considered a tragedy. Others, not so much.

But I think of the contributions of my other brothers and sisters and think of all the lives they have touched outside the family and wonder what the world would be like if they had never existed. To my mind, it is easy to see that this planet would be a poorer place, a less interesting place. The 35 years child #3, my brother Jim has spent teaching by all accounts from his students and fellow teachers has positively impacted the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people. And the contributions from my other siblings - both their personal impact on this planet as well as the impact made by their own children - cannot be quantified and reduced to how much carbon they may be adding to the world’s warming problems. That’s a silly, stupid way to judge the value and worth of someone’s life.

What should be an environmental “felony” is giving any credence whatsoever to busybody eco-procurators who find it pleases their own warped sense of self-importance to tell others that the most personal and private decisions human beings make - the size of their families - are subject to their elevated sense of eco-morality.

It is despicable. And worthless.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has some interesting thoughts from the commentariat. And she correctly identifies “Public Enemy #1.

Tough looking desperado…

Say what you want to about those insufferably arrogant, lazy-ass Frenchmen. When it comes to Presidential elections, they have the right idea.

Turnout at an astonishing 85%. A relatively short campaign season. Lots of intrigue and backstabbing for us political junkies. The novelty of a woman heading up a major party’s ticket. Even the threat of violence from left wing loons following an election defeat which shows once again how the Euro-twits and socialists never tire of aping the tactics of their 1960’s ideological counterparts.

In fact, the winner of yesterday’s contest, Nicolas Sarkozy, made it a central theme of his campaign to once and for all rid French politics of the disease that infected the country in 1968. In May of that year, a series of student strikes led to a general strike that paralyzed many parts of the country. Despite the fact that the protests failed to change much of anything in French society and culture much less altering any of President DeGaulle’s policies, the battle cry “May ‘68″ lives on in leftist legend much the same way the legend of Woodstock lives on in this country; as an iconic representation of a time and place that never was. Instead, those two events are treated by the left as talismans that are trotted out at regular intervals and lovingly stroked and fondled by those who see the “revolutionary spirit” or “spirit of Woodstock” as more important than any tangible benefit to society that accrued as a result of those events.

For the French, the legacy of May ‘68 has been devastating. It has led France down the primrose path of hard left socialism much to the detriment of the economy and culture. But beyond that, the infection has created the illusion that if only France were to pile more socialist experimentation on top of what has already been tried, the “spirit” of May ‘68 would become flesh and a socialist paradise would be created.

This political mindset permeated not only the hard left but also the soft right and moderates in France. To one degree or another, every French government for more than 35 years - left, right, or in between - has tried to keep faith with that revolutionary spirit.

Until today. President-elect Sarkozy has finally said “non” and vowed to change course nearly 180 degrees:

Mr. Sarkozy acknowledges he is now part of the elites of French society, but he pledges he will govern in a way that is beyond their interests. “If I’m elected,” he told reporters before yesterday’s balloting, “it won’t be the press, the polls, the elites. It will have been the people.” His clearest break with much of French elite opinion came last week when he made a dramatic speech about a “moral crisis” the nation entered in 1968, when the “moral and intellectual relativism” embodied by the 1968 student revolt that helped topple President Charles de Gaulle from power the next year. Today, many philosophers and media commentators routinely pay homage to “the élan of 1968″ and lament that the revolutionary spirit of the time did not succeed in transforming bourgeois French society more than it did.

Mr. Sarkozy took on that ’60s nostalgia. He labelled Ms. Royal and her supporters the descendants of the nihilists of 1968, and even appealed to France’s “silent majority” to repudiate the false lessons of that period. He claimed that too many Royal backers continue to hesitate in reacting against riots by “thugs, troublemakers and fraudsters.” He declared this Sunday’s election would settle the “question of whether the heritage of May ‘68 should be perpetuated or if it should be liquidated once and for all.”

It appears that Mr. Sarkozy may have found the ultimate “wedge” issue in France, judging by the solid margin he won many traditional working-class neighborhoods that normally support Socialist candidates. Mr. Sarkozy’s triumph provides at least a chance that there will be a real debate on the role of the state in France’s economy and, yes, even some discussion of whether France should be in perpetual conflict with America.

Can it be done? Can benefits and economic policies that have given the people of France an unprecedented amount of job security and leisure time not to mention the comfy, warm blanket of cradle-to-grave nanny state guarantees that government will always take care of its citizens actually be withdrawn at the behest of the people these programs and policies help the most?

It would be unprecedented in the history of Democratic states - at least to the degree that Sarkozy is talking about altering the social compact between citizen and government. And the reason he may succeed is the almost universal agreement among the voters (except the die hard left and anarchists) that the reforms Sarkozy is talking about are absolutely necessary if France is to find its way back to economic greatness:

Mr Sarkozy delivered a lyrical victory speech, voicing his love for “this great and beautiful nation which has given me everything”. He promised to be “the president of all the French” and fulfill his promise of immediate radical reform.

“The French have chosen to break with the ideas, habits and behaviour of the past,” he said. “I will restore the value of work, authority, merit and respect for the nation.”

He would also rid France of its habit of “repenting” for its past historical sins. “This repentance is a form of self-hatred,” he said.

What Sarkozy proposes is nothing less than an “Americanization” of the French economy and a Reaganesque revival of national self-confidence. The new French President has continuously gotten into trouble at home with the Yankophobes by expressing his admiration for the American system as well as his desire to repair the almost shattered relations between the two countries - a state of affairs that hurts the national interest of both nations. The French can be extraordinarily trying as an ally. But their positions directly opposing many American initiatives in the international arena has been a disaster for our foreign policy. Like it or not, the French are still a major power with influence over most of their former colonies as well as a large segment of the Third World who view the French as something of a champion. Even a modest improvement in relations would be a boon to American interests.

From what I’ve seen of Sarkozy, I like. He seems straightforward, down to earth, and something of an idealist. After 12 years of the cynical Chiraq, he’s like a breath of fresh air. Whether he succeeds or not depends on how he handles the coming painful transition to economic sanity that will almost surely roil the streets of France, setting off massive demonstrations against his program. And it’s almost a dead certainty that his “law and order” program will not sit well with the immigrant communities - particularly the Muslim ghettoes where unrest is almost a nightly occurrence.

In his favor, the people of France seem to have spoken fairly convincingly that they want reform. But it will take all of his skills as a politician and communicator to turn his ideas into reality without shattering French society in the process.

It should be interesting to watch.

Were you really surprised that fully 35% of Democrats believe that George Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11? Couple that with the number who “aren’t sure” (waiting for an appointment with their Tarot card reader) and you have 61% of the “Reality Based Community” who have lost touch with reality and should be declared certifiably insane.

While the 9/11 Truthers go on their merry way, ignoring the fact that their “theories” have been totally debunked by the real members of the reality based community -scientists - Democrats continue to find it useful to intimate, to hint, to give credence to, and even to come right out and say that George Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and, by inference, planned and executed the operation.

It was the hard left that first raised questions about the Kennedy Assassination and largely for the same purpose; to undermine confidence in the government. While the Warren Commission has been bruised and battered over the years, it has held up as a narrative of the assassination surprisingly well. Three separate scientific inquiries have shown that the so-called “magic bullet” could easily have made the wounds on both Kennedy and Connally, the most controversial of the Commission’s conclusions.

Other aspects of the Commission’s report have never been seriously challenged while much of the “evidence” that Oswald was involved with the FBI or CIA or the Mafia has been largely debunked. And the “hero” in Oliver Stone’s 3 hour lie of a movie JFK Jim Garrison - the rabidly ambitious, homophobic, out of control District Attorney who ruined the life of an innocent man (Clay Shaw) was exposed for the rogue prosecutor he truly was by both CBS and NBC as well as several authors, most notably Gerald Posner.

It does no good, of course, to point this out. Most young people believe Oswald was working for the American government and was either a patsy in the plot to kill Kennedy or murdered the President at the behest of the CIA or the “military industrial complex.” The damage done by this fantasizing to faith in the government (not, I hasten to add, politicians) has been irreparable. And since some of those early Kennedy truthers were actually being paid by the KGB or writing in magazines that were funded by Soviet intelligence, the disinformation campaign (which began in France with the publication in the French Communist Party newspaper L’Humanite just days after Kennedy’s funeral that Oswald was a CIA agent) succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its perpetrators.

But this meme is different because apparently, only Democrats are stupid enough to think George Bush had anything to do with 9/11. Republicans, as to be expected, reject the idea of Bush involvement by 7-1. But it is independents who close the case for Democratic Party idiocy. Only 18% believe the fantasy.

Call it BDS. Call it laughable stupidity. But every time I read one of these mountebanks bragging about being a member of the “Reality Based Community,” I’m just going to leave a link to this Rassmussen survey as proof that most of those sites should carry the disclaimer “Caveat Emptor.”

As I watched the gaggle of Republican Presidential pretenders (for the most part - there are two who I could see with their hand on the bible taking the oath on the Capitol steps in January, 2009), I was struck by how truly bereft the GOP is of political talent at the national level.

The Governator seems hefty but, of course, can’t run because of that codicil in the Constitution that prevents Austrian-born body builders from becoming President. Still, there’s no doubting his talent for governance, having gone from novice to expert in just a matter of years while receiving high marks for many of his programs. And if a Republican is elected, they should absolutely find a place in their Administration to utilize Arnold’s considerable and varied talents.

But besides Arnold, who is there? Jeb? Puh-leese. After this election, I don’t want to see another Clinton or Bush as a candidate until Chelsea’s grandchild is eligible for office. This run of “power families” who have dominated American politics much of the last 50 years - the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Bush’s, - makes the United States look like a banana republic. Or worse, a debased aristocracy.

The whole point of inventing America was to create a place where it wasn’t supposed to matter who or what your father was, that you were judged on your own talents and merits. But given that these and other families like the Cuomo’s of New York, the Bayh’s of Indiana, the Boren’s of Oklahoma, the Ford’s of Tennessee, the Doles, the Gores, the Dodd’s, and the ever popular Rockefeller’s always seem to get one of their prodigies elected to high office, politics has become almost hereditary in some respects. At the very least, the scion of a well known political family has a huge leg up in any contest as far as money contacts and access to campaign expertise. It is unseemly in a republic for this to be so and I wish it weren’t.

Then again, I wish the talent on display last night would have approached the towering political figures who ran for President in 1980. That year, the Republican party fielded perhaps the most capable group of men ever to run for the presidency. There were two Presidents in Reagan and Bush. There was the 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole. There was the larger than life, charismatic presence of former Democrat, former Texas Governor John Connally. There was the smooth inside the beltway Minority Leader of the Senate Howard Baker. There were two brilliant Congressmen in Phil Crane and John Anderson - either one would have made the pitiful group of small minded men who trudged on stage last night look like idiots.

Actually, a couple of them didn’t need any help in looking foolish. Tommy Thompson’s candidacy is over after answering a question about whether he would fire a gay person just for being gay in the affirmative. The crestfallen look on Thompson’s face after he was cornered into saying “yes” he would fire someone based on their sexual orientation showed he knew full well he had jumped the shark, screwed the pooch, and fallen off a cliff with that stupid, thoughtless answer.

Then there was Tom Tancredo and his problems with communication. He seemed to be speaking a foreign language at times so incoherent he sounded - an irony of great proportions given his opposition to foreigners entering America even legally.

Duncan Hunter will make a fine Secretary of Defense. President? Not so much.

Ron Paul took a wrong turn in 1952 and ended up transported to modern times. How many Republicans today know who Robert Taft was? How many Republicans care?

Mark my words: We will never, ever elect a President named “Huckabee.”

Sam Brownback is at least Vice Presidential material. His appeal to that part of the base who believe social issues are most important is undeniable and he would make a fine addition to a Romney or Guiliani ticket.

Jim Gilmore intrigues me. He comes off as something of a cold fish - a competent, passionless technocrat. But he is smooth, smart, and quick on his feet. I have a feeling that the GOP is going to look very closely at adding a southern face to the ticket if current adverse trends continue in that part of the country.

The so-called “Big Three” of McCain, Romney, and Guiliani pretty much played it safe. McCain started out poorly but came on strong in the second half of the debate. And I think the format harmed Guiliani who never seemed to get enough time to answer the questions directed at him fully.

Romney was probably the “winner” for the night. His response to questions about religion showed he had put a lot of thought (and practice) into how to answer critics who say a Mormon can’t be President. I have no doubt that he will be able to put that issue behind him eventually. He was less competent in answering questions about his flip flop on abortion. This problem will be more difficult to put behind him and will be exploited by his primary opponents as well as the Democratic nominee. It just doesn’t ring true because it isn’t. Romney has not had a consistent position on abortion and every one knows it. It might be nice if he acknowledged that fact and moved on.

Not an entirely depressing night but it’s no secret that the addition of Fred Thompson would have livened up the festivities. Most of my Heading Right colleagues believe that Fred ended up the big winner last night by not showing up. It’s hard to argue with that logic.

(To listen to the Heading Right Debate Roundtable wrap up from last night, go here.)

My overall impression was is this the best the Republicans can offer the country? Not only was the stage bereft of personality and warmth but there was a noticeable dearth of ideas. Part of the problem there was the format and those who hosted the debate; MSNBC and Politico. Compared to the Democratic debates, I thought the questions were hostile and inane (”Would Bill Clinton being back in the White House be a good thing?”). Interesting that we didn’t get a question at the Democratic debates like “Would it be a good thing to have a Mormon in the White House?” or some other equally stupid question. Chris Matthews gave us his best impression of a Democratic party hack while the post debate coverage featured that well known, fair minded, unbiased, journalist/speaker of truth to power/Diogenes wannabe, the Murrowesque Keith Olbermann.

And they say Fox News is too biased?

The country is changing before our eyes. As American is wont to do from time to time, we are re-inventing ourselves to answer the challenges of a new age. And while those men from 1980 who made this bunch look like little old ladies at a coffee klatch advanced a solid agenda of strength at home and abroad and freedom for all, this grouping of average Republicans seemed unable to string more than two coherent thoughts together in succession. And if history has taught us one thing, America waits for no man, no party in its rush to change. Those who don’t adapt are simply left behind while the country goes about the business of re-alignment.

At a time when the nation needs his clarity of purpose, Ronald Reagan was reduced to a ghost on that stage last night; his name invoked constantly, homage paid to his ideas, but the essence of the man and his sense of mission sorely lacking among the pretenders who would inherit his mantle. And with Bush a non-factor, the party at the moment is leaderless, rudderless, and without purpose - except to win elections. And as the Democrats proved in the 25 years prior to 2006, this is a recipe for disaster.

UPDATE

Some quickie reactions:

Michelle has a gigantic round up. Something for everyone.

Ed Morrissey (who did a fantastic job moderating our roundtable last night on BTR) says “It’s Romney.”

Erik at RedState says “It’s McCain…and Fred Thompson.”

Dean Barnett: Romney (natch!)

Powerline: McCain!

Sully: McCain.

Sister Toldjah: No winners. Format sucked. Ditto moderators. Re-ditto questions. She’s got the best liveblogging of the debate I’ve seen.

More later…

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Secretary of State Condi Rice’s meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Waleed Moallem - the first high level contact between Syria and the US in more than 2 years - may be a significant step on the road to better relations between the two countries. At the very least, it signals a willingness on the part of the Bush Administration to explore ways to get the Syrians to stop assisting the Iraqi insurgents by funneling fresh Arab fighters on to the battlefields of Iraq.

Just prior to the meeting in Egypt, a US military spokesman reported that Syria had moved to reduce “the flow of foreign fighters” across its borders into Iraq. This was a prerequisite for any contact to take place between Syria and the US. But one wonders what has changed? Syria has been saying that they have taken steps to close their borders before. The fact that we now “accept” Syria’s contention at this time could mean that our State Department has employed a diplomatic device to justify the meeting.

Cynics would argue that this is the way of the world and that artificial roadblocks to talking with the enemy need to be taken down sometimes with artificial pretensions. But the fact is, this meeting between Syria and the US is not taking place in a vacuum. It comes at a crucial time for Lebanon, now entering the 5th month of political gridlock as a result of the Hezb’allah led opposition’s attempt to bring down the elected government of Prime Minister Siniora.

The fallout from that effort has now reached all the way to the United Nations where the Security Council will take up Lebanon perhaps as early as next week. At issue: Invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that would allow the world body to enforce its will and convene the International Tribunal to try the murderers of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The Syrian backed opposition in Lebanon has blocked the sitting of the Tribunal at every turn, most recently in the Parliament as Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezb’allah ally, refused to even convene the legislature in order to consider the measure that would have authorized the sitting of the judges.

The reason is simple. High level members of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government as well as members of his family have been directly implicated in Hariri’s murder as well as more than a dozen other politically motivated killings. Some observers believe the reason Assad is fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Tribunal from sitting is because of the nature of his dictatorship. The Syrian President is part of a small clique of Alawite Muslims who, with a few Sunni allies, have governed Syria for 40 years. If several of his closest advisors and family members were to be tried and convicted, it could knock the legs out from underneath this clique and lead to the President’s downfall. At the very least, it would make Syria a pariah state with tough international sanctions a real possibility. Given the precariousness of the Syrian economy, that too could lead to personal disaster for Assad.

So Assad’s friends in Lebanon have obliged him by paralyzing the government, setting up a protest camp in front of the government building that serves the dual purpose of putting pressure on Siniora while bringing most of the economic activity in downtown Beirut to a virtual standstill. It has also raised the spectre of civil war - something none of the sides claim they want but that appears almost inevitable at times.

Every effort at reconciliation by the majority has been rebuffed by Hezb’allah leader Hassan Nasrallah. It would appear only complete capitulation by Siniora to the opposition demands regarding cabinet representation (which would effectively kill the Tribunal) would satisfy Nasrallah. And this, Siniora cannot do without his coalition collapsing.

And now 6 months into this stalemate, Syria and the US appear ready to hold serious talks about stabilizing Iraq. The problem for the US is relatively straightforward; there is precious little we can offer Syria in the way of compensation for their assistance in tamping down the violence. Syria would dearly love the US to put pressure on Israel to make a deal on the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 War. This will never happen - at least as long as George Bush is President. Too many Israelis are still alive who remember Syrian gun emplacements on those heights firing indiscriminately and without warning into the valleys below, killing civilians and terrorizing the population. And Bush would never ask any Israeli leader to risk going back to those days by handing the Heights back to Syria.

We could facilitate peace talks between Israel and Syria. But Assad has made it clear that issues involving the Palestinians must be settled first before there could be formal peace negotiations. And given the confused, violent, and contradictory situation in the territories, it doesn’t seem likely that there will be movement on that score any time soon.

Trade and commercial concessions would be welcome but would hardly amount to much. Syria doesn’t produce much of anything the west wants while the country is too poor to afford much of anything the west produces.

Realistically, about the only other enticement we could offer Syria that would possibly interest them would involve Lebanon. US support for the Siniora government has been unwavering. Our commitment to seeing the Tribunal sit and mete out justice has been total. We have urged our allies in the area - especially the Saudis - to play an active and positive role in trying to resolve the political stalemate in Lebanon, something that King Abdullah has done with great skill and unflagging energy.

So what could we possibly offer Syria on Lebanon without selling them down the river?

This question has been on the minds of many Lebanese as several factors loom as possible goads to push US policy toward making some kind of deal on Lebanon with the Syrians.

First and foremost is time. The US military commitment to pacifying Iraq is now hostage to the 2008 Presidential election. The closer the election gets, the more likely that the Democrat’s plan for a withdrawal of combat troops will attract more and more support from Republicans, peeling away enough skittish Bush supporters concerned about their own re-election chances so that any veto by the President can be overridden. To forestall that possibility, some kind of bargain on Lebanon with Syria could be in the offing.

Then there is the practical reality that involves some of the insurgents being directed and funded by Saddam loyalists safely operating in Syria. Over the last few years, Syria has handed over several high ranking former members of Saddam’s security services. But it is believed that many more are still in hiding, funnelling money and arms to some of the insurgents. Assad could be convinced to give the rest up for a price.

Finally, there is the Iraqi government’s need for a secure border with Syria. As mentioned above, the Syrians may be doing more than they were previously to close off the border to foreign fighters. But given the weakness and inexperience of the Iraqi military, Assad’s efforts on the border will probably spell the difference as the current surge strategy unfolds in Baghdad and the western province of Anbar.

Given these and other factors, what could we possibly offer President Assad on Lebanon that would be the basis for some kind of deal?

The answer is not much. At the United Nations, the Russians - Syria’s ally - have been grumbling that Lebanon should be able to deal with its own problems and not always look to the UN to bail them out. And in order to bring the Russians on board, it may be necessary to compromise on the Tribunal in some small way. But any major changes in the makeup of the Tribunal, its mandate, rules of evidence, or even who it may indict will be vigorously opposed by both the French and the United States. It seems improbable that we would make a deal with Assad on the Tribunal even if it would help bring the violence down in Iraq.

The same goes for any other issue that Assad would be willing to deal on with regards to Lebanon, including the future influence of Syria in that country as well as territorial and economic issues. There may be some small, ancillary matters that we would agree on - perhaps a recognition of Syrian “interest” in Lebanon. But anything that would smack of reestablishing Syrian hegemony over the tiny country would be a non starter.

This is what we all hope anyway. And it is what the Lebanese expect. But many Lebanese remember what they consider the abandonment of their country by the United States at the time the Taif Accords ending the civil war that were signed in 1989. At that time, Secretary of State James Baker fully backed the agreement even though it legitimized Syrian occupation and dominance in Lebanon. Many considered our support at that time as a sell out.

But this is a different world, a different Lebanon. Despite our need for Syria to play a constructive role in Iraq, it won’t come at the expense of Lebanese democracy or the Lebanese people who are struggling to throw off the yoke of decades of bloody civil war and humiliating occupation. We must make this absolutely clear to Assad’s Syria and disabuse him of any notion that we would sell out our friends in order to reach some kind of agreement that would nominally affect the battlefield in Iraq.

Anything less would betray our values as well as the Lebanese people.

The votes are in from this Week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is “Earth Day” by Done With Mirrors. Finishing second was “Presidential Power and Criminal Terrorists” by Bookworm Room.

Finishing first in the non Council category was “The Big White Lie” from the City Journal.

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers Council, go here and follow instructions.

I am known as something of a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to humor. For instance, I love Monty Python but hate Benny Hill. Eddie Murphy does nothing for me while Bernie Mac puts me in stitches. George Carlin sends me into hysterics but Rosie O’Donnell makes me want to puke.

This must be the reason I didn’t get the joke the Democrats were playing on the American people with the Iraq War Supplemental appropriations bill. Knowing full well that the President was going to veto the measure because of the artificial timetable for withdrawal that they were able to bribe, threaten, and coerce enough of their caucus to support, the Democrats nevertheless delayed vital funding for our military just so they could turn around after Bush’s veto and yell “Gotchya!” at the voters:

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president’s veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, “transition” the U.S. military role and show “a reasonable way to end this war.”

“We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. “But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.”

The only “mistake” anyone has made is believing the Democrats are serious about anything - much less the war. The funding of our troops (or defunding them for that matter) has turned into a gigantic political game where the Democratic leadership has shown they don’t have the balls to end the war by voting to cut off funds and put their political capital where their mouth is nor do they exhibit one iota of responsible governance by finding the quickest way to send the necessary monies to our troops who are currently engaged in the hardest combat since at least the battle for Fallujah.

The entire exercise regarding the debate, passage, veto, and now capitulation by the Dems is a travesty. And it would be nice to think that the White House and Congress could actually “work together” on anything with regards to the war except that too, is a game - this time played by both sides as each seeks to saddle the other with the “blame” for the delay in funding. Sensibly, the President thinks it a bad idea to let al-Qaeda and the sectarian thugs know exactly when they can ratchet up the slaughter of innocents by announcing to the world the day the last American combat troops will leave Iraq. Frustrated Democrats want some way to change the President’s course also toward something more sensible; perhaps a realization that our troops might be better used elsewhere in Iraq killing al-Qaeda terrorists and protecting the Sunnis from rapacious and murderous Shia radicals in league with the government there.

Of course, the Dems want no such thing but if Bush was smart, he’d realize where the Democrats end game is headed - a total defeat for the Administration - and try to at least maintain some semblance of a mission in Iraq. It doesn’t have to be as I’ve outlined above. But it’s got to be less than what he’s doing now and more than the Democrats would be willing to support six months from now when almost certainly they will have the upper hand.

But this would be too much to ask; especially when there are elections to be won. So Bush stubbornly soldiers on while the Democrats stubbornly refuse to act on principle and conscience by defunding the War and forcing the troops to come home. In the meantime, our boys are dying, Iraqis are dying, Iran is licking its chops, ready to move in and pick up the pieces while the rest of the Middle East looks on in horror at the whole mess.

We’re on a collision course with disaster and our national leadership are acting like spoiled brats. I’d like to say to hell with both sides but there are 150,000 Americans whose lives are being expended in what is shaping up to be a futile effort to give the government of Iraq the breathing room to create some kind of viable nation out of the mess of sectarian and political factions who are currently (and for the foreseeable future) at each other’s throats. I say futile because if anyone believes that Prime Minister Maliki and his Shia brethren in the government have any interest whatsoever in doing the things necessary to heal their bloody, war torn nation, I’ve got a bridge over the Euphrates river I’d be glad to let you have for a song.

NOTE: The original headline of this post referred to Sullivan working for Time Magazine. Of course, he now works for The Atlantic - something I was aware of but totally forgot when I wrote the post at 3:30 AM this morning.

Gosh. Where are those legions of editors and fact checkers when you need them? (I could have used a few myself judging by the note above, eh? Ed.)

Our own crazy conservative uncle Andrew Sullivan got snookered by a fake web site that reported the “news” that Fox was spinning off their hit TV series 24 into a Saturday morning children’s cartoon that featured Jack Bauer as a young cub scout torturing other kids and “kicking Arab ass.”

Here’s Andrew’s post:

Ann Coulter: set your Tivo. Money quote:

“We spent a lot time doing research on this game,” says Surnow. “Using a sponge, team members must take the water from a filled bucket and squeeze the water from the soaked sponge into an empty bucket. First team to fill the empty bucket wins.” Surnow said he chose the Sponge Bucket Game because it provides opportunities for little Jack to interrogate the little Arabs.

“There’s a great scene before the game starts where little Jack takes an Arab kid named Abdul and sticks his head in the water-filled bucket,” says Surnow. “Jack keeps his head under the water until he drowns. The kid did not give Jack the answers he needed, and for the greater good of the Cub Scouts of America, Jack had to send a strong and clear message.”

That’s a strong “enhanced” message. Just like Mr Tenet says.

The irony in this piece regarding Tenet’s “enhanced message” will probably save Mr. Sullivan total embarrassment as he will more than likely claim he knew it was a joke all along, that you can’t fool him, he’s Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic!

But my friend Taylor Marsh has no such excuse:

But one thing the show never tried to do is appeal to kids, children that is. However, considering Surnow also tried to wingnut the “Daily Show” by offering some lame spin off complete with Rush and Coulter as president and veep, I can’t say I’m shocked that he’d also try to morph “24″ for kids. But the idea is creepy. One can only wonder what torture will look like in the new kids version. Abducting their dogs and holding them for ransom or maybe something worse? Mr. Surnow needs a long vacation.

I would think that Mr. Sullivan owes the lovely Ms. Marsh an apology. After all, if The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan puts it on his blog, it must be true, no?

Except Dean Barnett saw through the gag immediately and also offers some thoughts on why Andrew can hardly claim that he knew he was having his leg pulled all along:

[I]n the sidebar of the piece Andrew links to are stories titled, “BASINGER RELEASES OWN LINE OF ANSWERING MACHINES,” “BEAN FARMERS BURNING HUGH GRANT IN EFFIGY,” and “CARSON DALY’S PAID AUDIENCE DEMANDS WAGE INCREASE.”

Did Andrew really not know this was a joke? Is it possible his intellect and sense of humor have been so thoroughly strangled by his oh-so righteous anger? Judging by his post which is completely irony and humor free, the only possible answer is yes. The alternative is that Andrew Sullivan is suddenly joking about torture. For some reason, that strikes me as unlikely.

I knew it was a gag reading “quotes” from series creator Joel Surnow in the story:

“Just because we’ll show Jack as a little kid, doesn’t mean he’s going to stop kicking the ass of all those Arabs he runs into,” says Surnow. “We’re getting our message across to adults that it takes a lot of torture to get the truth from these terrorists, and we believe that children need to see that as well because they’re growing up in an extremely dangerous world.”

I’ve read many articles quoting Surnow and seen him interviewed a dozen times and never, ever heard him talk like that. In fact, I would say that only someone already disposed to believe responsible conservatives like Surnow are perfectly capable of such obscene bigotry could possibly take something like that seriously.

For those who are already down on the right (Marsh is center left. Andrew is…well, Andrew) perhaps this kind of idiocy rings true because they are eager to suspend belief and think the worst of conservatives. This is a mindset that is able to color and spin what conservatives say and twist context and meaning until what emerges as “analysis” bears little resemblance to the original intent of the speaker. Lambchop is an expert at this kind of context assassination. Using a combination of laughably amateurish armchair psychology and a dead serious manipulation of the English language, commentators on the left routinely attack the right in this dishonest manner.

For Mr. Sullivan and his army of fact checkers and editors, however, another explanation might be in order.

Is Andrew really that stupid?

UPDATE

In all fairness, Sully isn’t the only prominent mainstream media organ to have been fooled by this website. A Baltimore TV station breathlessly reported on the Michael Richards story using info from “Dateline: Hollywood” (second item):

A WJZ staffer ripped the story off the Web — without realizing that the source, DatelineHollywood.com, is a purely satirical site, which invented the completely bogus item as a riff on Richards’s real-life racist outburst at an L.A. comedy club last month.

The producer missed some pretty obvious tipoffs– like the line about Richards pouring Aunt Jemima pancake syrup over Goldberg’s head. Also: The links to other “articles,” including “Britney Spears’ Vagina Asks Press for Privacy” and “Rupert Murdoch Found Dead Next to Bloody Glove.”

Yeah…I’d say that link to Spears should have been a dead giveaway. Everyone knows that Britt’s private parts seek out all the publicity that the MSM will grant.

I will be appearing on the highly rated and well respected “Sound Off Connecticut” radio show hosted by Jim Vicevich on CBS Radio’s Affiliate WTIC News/Talk 1080 in Hartford, Connecticut.

I’m scheduled to be on around 9:30 AM Central time (10:30 AM Eastern) for about 10 minutes to discuss Iraq. It should be a lively conversation.

If you wish to access the live stream, go here.

UPDATE

A podcast of the segment I was on is up. You can listen to it here.

Jim’s a great host - made me feel right at home. Somewhat surprised that he agrees with a lot of what I had to say. Equally surprised he reads my blog.

If my visitor numbers keep dropping, I’ll probably be on a first name basis with all my readers eventually…

There are ways to leave Iraq and avoid disaster. And then, there’s rank stupidity:

President Bush vetoed the Iraq-war spending bill this evening, calling it a blueprint for failure and defeat and intensifying a showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

“It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing,” Mr. Bush said at the White House, where he vetoed the bill after the signatures of Democratic legislative leaders were barely dry.

The president said the bill would demoralize the Iraqis and send them and the world a terrible message: “America will not keep its commitments.”

The President may be in for a rather rude surprise when it comes to what exactly would constitute keeping our “commitments” in Iraq. Perhaps he should be jawboning the Iraqi government into keeping their commitments to us - i.e., this is round one in a ten round bout and while he holds the upper hand today, upon each successive revisiting of this issue, it will become more and more apparent that the Iraqi government has no intention of keeping their promises made to him and to the United States to achieve much of anything in the way of reconciling their war torn and riven country.

What this will do to his “veto-proof” GOP firewall is uncertain. Judging by the nervousness of many Republican lawmakers who wish to see at least some political benchmarks laid out for the Iraqi government to achieve as part of the funding bill, my guess is that unless their is a sea change in the attitude of the Iraqi government, GOP desertions will become significant after the first of the year.

Good to see the Iraqi Parliament taking our efforts to tamp down the violence so seriously; they’re going on vacation for two months in July and August. And Prime Minister Maliki is proving himself quite the reliable ally - at least for Mookie al-Sadr and his band of cutthroats. He’s cashiered a few generals who actually took him at his word when he said he wanted to rein in the Shia militias who are causing a lot of the sectarian bloodshed.

Maliki is a practiced liar - and an empty suit of a Prime Minister as well. He and his Shia brethren in his ruling coalition can read the writing on the wall as well as anyone in this country; that the closer we get to the 2008 election, the better the chances that any veto of the Democrat’s invitation to al Qaeda to initiate a bloodbath in Iraq will be overridden with the help of an increasing number of Republican legislators who see the War as a political millstone around the party’s neck not to mention a sure fire roadmap to the unemployment line for them. (The latter reason uppermost in their greedy little minds, I’m sure.)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my dwindling number of readers, might I suggest that the President face this reality and sit down with the Democrats in order to come to some kind of an agreement about the future of our mission in Iraq? It may be old fashioned in this day and age to talk about “the good of the country” but that’s just me, I guess - A fat old codger who can remember when lawmakers took the political adage “Politics stops at the waters edge” seriously. Of course, I’m also old enough to remember when that compact between the parties was shattered. The political ghosts of Viet Nam still haunt this country and unless we can find our way back to a sensible, rational means for the two branches to co-exist and come together on the goals and troop requirements needed for this war, I fear that the disaster that is staring us in the face will almost certainly come about much to the detriment of our interests in the Middle East and our efforts in the War on Terror (or whatever we’re going to be calling it once the Democrats admit we need to fight one).

Even a successful surge - and it is showing signs of success in important ways - will fail to bring about the desired political results that would give us the victory all of us want but is looking more and more impossible to achieve. The recalcitrant Iraqi government seems perfectly content to expend American lives to increase their own legitimacy with the Iraqi people as the violence begins to subside while not doing what is necessary to validate our men’s sacrifices by bringing the warring factions together in order to form a viable state.

So the President’s veto of this bill will not be overridden. And the two sides will sit down and probably come to a compromise agreement that will fund the troops for a very limited time - perhaps 3 months if reports are accurate - with the Democrats abandoning their formal invitation to our enemies setting a date certain for the al-Qaeda/militia bloodbath to begin in earnest. Instead, the withdrawal timetable will be advisory only, thus encouraging our jihadi friends to simply watch, wait, and keep their powder dry and their swords sharpened.

Needless to say, we can’t go on like this. But we will. And when the dust settles from this political row, we can look forward to another Congressional food fight to break out when we revisit the issue in the fall.