A spokesman for the Alfred E. Nobel Foundation announcing Al Gore’s Peace Prize.

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

He follows a long line of illustrious humanitarians who have selflessly and with no thought of personal reward, served the needs of humanity through the sheer goodness and purity of their souls. Or, in Gore’s case, those who have shamelessly promoted themselves as saviors of the planet when they have been proven in a court of law to be nothing more than alarmist charlatans.

Dedicated peace activists like the Dali Lama, Nelson Mandela, and Mother Teresa have preceded Mr. Gore in winning the Prize. As have not so dedicated peace activists like Yassar Arafat (who could have been described as a “piece” advocate due to the condition of the bodies of his victims after they were blown to bits), Mikhail Gorbachev – the first time a Peace Prize was awarded to a dictator for not sending in tanks to crush liberty, and Kofi Anan whose contributions to the peace of such places as Rwanda and Darfur will long be remembered – at least by those lucky enough to be left alive following his spectacularly inept and corrupt leadership.

Yes, our Al is in good company alright. But never mind the Peace Prize. Will he or won’t he? Does the light of ambition burn bright enough that he would, once again, shoulder the burdens of a long, difficult campaign for the presidency of the United States?

Though Gore’s name has been frequently mentioned in presidential politics this year, potentially as a “draft” nominee, he has declined to enter the contest.

But the Nobel is a huge honor recognized worldwide and gives him even more stature. It gives him a moment to reconsider the race for the Democratic nomination, now led by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Gore has not completely ruled out running, saying in the past he had “no plans” to be a candidate and shying away from the fund-raising extravaganza that now is central to American politics. At one point, he even said that he is “not very good” at politics. Critics often lampooned him as wooden as a campaigner.

Let’s put it this way; I doubt whether Hillary Clinton is losing any sleep over a potential Gore candidacy. She’s way ahead, she has more money than God, and it’s just about 90 days to the New Hampshire primary – not enough time to pull an organization together, raise the money, and run any kind of a professional campaign. It’s not that his chances of success would be small. His chances of success would be zero.

All that aside, just what has the Nobel Committee done by giving the prize to a man a British Court called an “alarmist” just the other day? He is a man whose major achievement – his film Inconvenient Truth – has been debunked even by scientists who share his fears of climate change. Other scientists have called on the former Vice President to quit being such an alarmist.

The fact is, Gore’s major “contribution” to the global warming debate has been shown to be at the very least problematic and at worse, a shameless piece of propaganda. Yeah – but at least his heart is in the right place.

I can never decide whether Gore is being used by the Luddites, the one worlders, the NGO’s, the anti-globalists, and the anti-industrialists as a front man for the implementation of their political agendas or whether he actually agrees with many of their ideas. The fact is, it’s not about the science. It’s never been about the science. If it were about the science, those who do not believe in anthropomorphic global warming theories wouldn’t be branded as “Nazis” and would receive a fair hearing. Similarly, those who reject the idea that global warming, even if it comes to pass, would not have the catastrophic effects promised by the alarmists, would not be marginalized and shunted to the sidelines of scientific debate.

Global warming is mostly about politics which is why Gore has probably done so well in promoting it. It has left the realm of science and entered the world of religion – a belief system with dogma, sacraments, and penalties for apostasy. And standing above all others as the High Priest, Great Prophet, and number one snake oil salesman has been Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

Our climate is changing and thank God for that. About 20,000 years ago, there was an ice sheet a mile thick where I am sitting right now. I daresay if I had been siting in the same place back then, it would have been a tad uncomfortable. But the earth warmed, the glacier receded, and the Great Lakes were created in all their beauty and splendor.

I simply don’t know if the scientists who posit catastrophe are right. I do know that every “sign” pointed to as “proof” their theories are correct by global warming advocates today is not indicative of long term climate change. But I do not reject out of hand the idea that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut in order to prevent (or mitigate) drastic changes in the climate.

In short, I’m an agnostic on the subject. I am not a scientist. I can’t examine the evidence the way a climate modeller or a atmospheric physicist can and reach an intelligent conclusion. We must base our beliefs on explanations of that data by scientists themselves.

No, I am not a scientist. But neither is Al Gore. And the Nobel Committee’s curious choice of the former Vice President for the Peace Prize is perplexing indeed. Global warming is a scientific phenomena. To give it to someone whose scientific acumen has been questioned both by scientists and the courts strikes me as incomprehensible.

But then, that seems to be par for the course as far as the Nobel Committee is concerned.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is “Gratefully Not Dead: Iraq Civilian and US Military Deaths Plummet” by Big Lizards. Yours truly came in second for my post “Man Without a Party.”

Coming in first in the non Council category was “That’s Propa-tainment!” by my colleague at Pajamas Media Jules Crittendon.

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

I didn’t want to write about the SCHIP imbroglio again today but frankly, I find it fascinating that simply by writing about it, I am accused of “smearing” or “swiftboating” a 12 year old boy.

Are many on the left brain dead? If you don’t say anything negative or snarky about a 12 year old boy and, in fact, express concern over his condition, would someone please explain to me how that constitutes a “smear?”

A “smear” is a lot more than simple criticism – something no one has directed toward young Graeme Frost. A “smear” is “a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization” according to Webster. Very well. Let’s give the left the benefit of the doubt and say that the original round of criticisms of Mr. and Mrs. Frost (not Graeme or any other child) were “smears” in that the Freeper who googled up the information that most conservative blogs relied on to originally comment on the issue was incorrect and flawed. Of course, it was “substantiated” to the extent that the Freeper supplied links to his information much of which was later proved to be false or exaggerated. But let’s ignore that little detail and acknowledge that the information was incorrect and further, was disseminated in order to show up the Frost’s and, by extension, the Democrats.

Where does the smear of little 12 year old Graeme Frost come in? Did anyone question his injuries? Did anyone say he was faking it? Did anyone anywhere on conservative blogs write anything that could possibly be construed as an “unsubstantiated accusation” – or any accusation at all – directed against Graeme Frost?

I’m serious about an answer because even today, I’ve gotten several emails and have seen several headlines on liberal blogs that are accusing the right of “smearing” a 12 year old kid when my investigation yesterday revealed not one single conservative blog had said one single word against Graeme Frost.

So far, no one on the left has bothered to explain how conservative blogs are smearing Graeme Frost. They use the term in their headlines and the body of their posts. They use the word in comments left far and wide on righty blogs. They use the word as if it is simply a given, as if “the smear of Graeme Frost” exists naturally in the universe and needs no explanation – sort of like the sun coming up every morning.

This would be mindless stupidity – if there wasn’t a purpose behind it. And since the intent all along was to cut off debate on the fact that the Democrats wish to expand SCHIP eligibility to include adults and people who by any stretch of the imagination would be seen as middle class (or even upper middle class), it has worked like a charm. The Democrats set a trap and the right has fallen into it. They used the Frosts as human shields and for exactly the same reason that terrorists use them – to make sure that any attack against them would also hit the civilians (Frosts). As I have said, it was a brilliant political ploy. I’m only sorry that the Frosts weren’t informed of the strategy prior to their becoming embroiled in the debate. They may have had second thoughts about becoming involved.

For in the end, that was the entire point of the political exercise; to make sure that as little light as possible was shed on SCHIP, obscuring the debate by hiding behind the Frosts and generating fake outrage when the inevitable questions would arise about the family’s choices which prevented them from being able to afford insurance for their children.

As such, those choices have been attacked by many on the right as selfish. Is that a smear? Their “choices” can be substantiated by what is already on the record regarding their assets. The fact that there are tens of thousands of families – perhaps many times that – who make sacrifices so that the family is insured before any tragedy strikes them and who are being asked to subsidize the choices made by the Frosts opens up the question of fairness.

And therein lies the debate. Not whether the Frosts have too much money to enjoy the coverage supplied by SCHIP but whether any family can make choices that force other families to pay for them. Yes, in order to afford insurance for their children the Frosts at the very least may have been forced to sell their rental property and perhaps even have one or both parents get a job where an employer provides health coverage. But there are thousands and thousands of families who are faced with those choices all the time and choose to make sacrifices so their kids are covered. Now those families are being told that, in effect, they’re a bunch of chumps for making those sacrifices because others who may even be better off are “smart” enough to avoid the responsibility and get coverage via SCHIP.

Where is the left’s outrage at this injustice? Where’s the hand wringing about the inequality of this situation?

The liberal answer to this unfairness is not try and make private insurance more affordable or come up with some other private alternative but to expand the program even further thus trapping more people into a dependency that prevents them from keeping the benefit if their income exceeds a certain amount. The disincentives in the program are obvious. It may make for good politics but it’s lousy policy.

I’m glad Graeme Frost didn’t have to suffer for his parent’s shortsightedness. And the left is right – we should leave little Graeme out of the debate. Let’s talk instead about fairness and how best to insure those who have problems getting coverage in the private sector.

Just let me know when you’re finished smearing conservatives by accusing them of something they’ve never done.

I believe it entirely appropriate that we conservatives criticize little Graeme Frost – an injured boy of just 12 years old – for…well, I’ll think of it in a minute. I know we should be skewering him for something. Maybe we should go after him for getting in front of the car that caused his injuries? How about for not being born with a silver spoon in his mouth? Perhaps we could come down on him for giving a poor performance during his response to the President for vetoing SCHIP?

I know there’s something that we should be hammering the kid for. After all, if liberals accuse conservatives of something, it’s got to be true. They never exaggerate. They never lie. They never twist words or make outrageously stupid analogies.

The problem as far as I can see it is that conservatives must have erased their blog posts in the middle of the night of all the nasty things they’ve written about little Graeme while no lefties were looking because for the life of me, I can’t seem to find a single example from any conservative blog where one negative word has been written about a 12 year old little boy suffering the pain and trauma from an automobile accident. Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

There has, of course, been plenty written about his parents. Even Rush Limbaugh’s accusations of the kid “lying” are not based on anything the child came up with on his own but rather what he was handed to say. Unless the critics are saying the kid wrote that response all by himself, blowhard Limbaugh (whose shtick is really getting rather tiresome) was spot on. The Democratic response, written we are told by Democratic staffers, was full of lies, exaggerations, and distortions of the conservative position on the issue. This is not the fault of Graeme Frost but of the supposed grown ups – including his parents – who used him as a prop and human shield in their propaganda war against the right.

The point is simple and worth repeating; not one single righty blogger that I have read has criticized a 12 year old boy. Despite all the hand wringing, wailing, fake outrage, and deliberate obfuscation of the truth, to charge conservatives with the crime of piling on an injured child is outrageously false and, since the left knows it’s not true, a blatant lie.

It has, however, given liberals the opportunity to stretch their vocabulary of invectives – including this ignorant analogy drawn by the normally intelligent Ezra Klein:

This is the politics of hate. Screaming, sobbing, inchoate, hate. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to drive to the home of a Republican small business owner to see if he “really” needed that tax cut. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to call his family and demand their personal information. It would never occur to me to interrogate his neighbors. It would never occur to me to his smear his children.

I’m glad it would never occur to you Ezra because trying to compare a tax cut to an entitlement program is the most stupefyingly idiotic analogy I have ever seen a lefty make. It’s not even worthy of Oliver Willis. It’s not even comparing apples to oranges – more like peaches to elephants.

But Klein’s analogy is instructive. Not of leftist stupidity although you’d be hardpressed to find a more doltish example of liberal witlessness. Rather, it points up very nicely the difference between a liberal and conservative on the reason and function of government.

Klein has no trouble equating a tax cut with an entitlement program because he sees the tax cut as a gift from government. It is government as daddy giving us a boost in our allowance. More prosaically, it is, like SCHIP, just another responsibility of government – in this case, by “giving money back to the people,” consumerism is encouraged.

But tax cuts have nothing to do with government and everything to do with personal property. That money is the taxpayer’s. It is already in his pocket. A tax cut is nothing more than a law preventing the government from reaching into the taxpayer’s pocket and taking away his property. It is not a gift or a favor or even a responsibility of government. A tax cut has everything to do with expanding personal liberty and nothing whatsoever to do with government being nice to taxpayers.

This simple, basic, liberty loving concept has been forgotten by liberals like Klein who see tax cuts as part of a government “plan” for the economy hence, monies that the government will forgo collecting in order to modify or encourage some kind of economic activity. In short, the money “given back” to taxpayers is really the government’s money to begin with, theirs to do with as they see fit.

To not see how that concept turns the idea of freedom on its head reveals a moral blindness that makes it easy to posit that all property is subject to government approval and control. It justifies eminent domain and host of other egregious threats to human liberty that used to be a concern of liberals but is now seen as an impediment to government management of most every facet of people’s lives.

The struggle here is not over little Graeme Frost who no one has criticized or smeared. The ideological battle over “need” and “want” is what is at issue. Of course the middle class wants SCHIP. Why not? It’s free, isn’t it? But no one is asking if there is a better way to insure those who don’t make a million dollars a year. No one is asking if this expansion of federal largess at the expense of other taxpayers is a good thing or not – certainly no one has queried those taxpayers who are going to foot the bill for families like the Frosts whose situation, while complicated, is not desperate or hopeless where no one would begrudge them the benefit.

But if the left can’t see this fundamental issue as one of taxpayer fairness I don’t hold out much hope for entitlement reform and indeed, see a wild expansion of government programs in the future that would benefit families who aren’t needy but simply don’t want to make the sacrifices other families willingly make in order to get insurance, or send their kids to college, or go on a European vacation for that matter – something I have no doubt the left would use government to subsidize if they thought they could get away with it.

The whole problem with SCHIP and other entitlements is that we have confused “need” and “want” to the point that there is no longer any difference between the two. It is the difference between freedom and capitalism and dependence and socialism. As each incremental increase in government’s ability to make decisions for us becomes law, a corresponding loss of freedom occurs – freedom to make our own decisions about family and our futures. SCHIP does not represent much of a loss as far as our freedom is concerned. Perhaps technically none at all. We simply abrogate responsibility for supplying health care to our loved ones and place the burden on our neighbors.

Compassion has nothing to do with this issue. If it did, liberals would emote just as histrionically for taxpayers. Instead, they obscure the entire issue by hiding behind the problems of a middle class family who have clearly made choices that their neighbors may or may not have made if they were in a similar position. And because of those choices, those same neighbors are footing their health insurance bill.

If it is a socialist state (European model) that is sought by the left, why don’t they come out of the closet and proudly proclaim it to the rest of the country? If not just the needy are to be taken care of by government but also anyone and everyone who has their hand out, why not take your case to the people and run on it?

It won’t happen, of course. And liberals will keep playing Santa Claus while painting conservatives as Scrooge. Damned effective politics, that. Whether it’s the right thing to do as far as maintaining our liberties is concerned just never seems to enter into the discussion. And I have no doubt, we will rue the day that we stopped weighing the consequences of what we give up in freedom for what we gain when abrogating our responsibilities to live as independent, self reliant people.

UPDATE

Two additional posts I believe are well worth reading.

First Michelle Malkin’s thoughts – especially in her syndicated column – touch on some of the themes I’ve written about above.

Appropos of stupid analogies, some idiot published her personal information on their website. I guess the thinking was since she “stalked” the Frosts, someone should do it to her.

I thought that Ezra Klein’s jaw droppingly stupid analogy above was pretty dumb. But whoever pulled that crap is beyond stupid and enters the world of metaphysical mindlessness.

Also, Dan Reihl’s piece from yesterday reflects much of my thinking as well.

I don’t agree with everything either blogger has written in those posts nor do I necessarily subscribe to the tone of their criticism of the Frosts. But that’s a matter of taste. I agree with the idea that the Frosts entered the political fray of their own volition. Ignorance of what might happen to them as far as criticism of the choices they have made is not an excuse.

The Democrats hoped that using the family as I say above as a “human shield” would not only mute criticism of their tactics but also give them a nice juicy opening if anyone had the temerity to criticize the Frosts. In this, they have well and truly succeeded in scoring points against their critics. As I said, damn smart politics.

But I’m not going to sit here and be accused of “smearing” a family when the Democrats believe it is perfectly legitimate political discourse to use the Frosts as a poster family for what is good about SCHIP while not allowing me to use them in the exact same political context to show what is wrong with the program.

UPDATE: 10/11

Reader DC Lemmon points out that SCHIP is not an entitlement but is funded through a block grant to the tstates. My bad. Doesn’t let Klein off the hook for his poor analogy, of course.

This part was precious:

And this doesn’t even address the most insidious thing about this whole
story…..the need to attack this kid. You and your ilk are low life scum for
perpetuating this trash. You should be ashamed, but you’d have to have a
conscience, so I know that’s not an option.

I suggested the gentleman attend a remedial reading course at his local JC. Poor reading comprehension seems to be an epedemic in lefty circles these days.

UPDATE III: CORRECTIONS

Here’s an email I received from Marc Marton who is Communications Director for a children’s advocacy group in Georgia. regarding some specifics about the SCHIP program that I neglected to mention as well as some corrections and misstatements I made about the program:

Not only is SCHIP not an entitlement, it requires enrollees to pay a monthly
premium.

You can point fingers at Democrats and the lunatic left all you like, but the Republicans and ridiculous right are just as guilty of spreading false information and sliming others.

Mr. Marton makes some good points and I thank him for his corrections.

However, SCHIP is being used not just to insure “children:”

According to the states’ budget projections, 13 will spend more than 44 percent of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women.

Michigan tops the list with 71.6 percent of its SCHIP money earmarked for adults who have no kids. In New Mexico, 52.3 percent of the state’s SCHIP dollars will be spent on childless adults.

Source: Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data

And Mr. Marton may accuse Republicans and conservatives of “misrepresenting” many of the facts surrounding the Democrat’s planned expansion of the program, but what does he think about the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 50 percent of the upper-income enrollees added to SCHIP under the Democrats’ proposal currently have private health insurance but will drop their current health insurance coverage and shift these costs to the taxpayers.

Just sayin…

And what about waiving the requirement that enrollees must prove they’re citizens?

H.R. 976 says that simply writing down a Social Security number is good enough to prove you are a citizen, although the commissioner of the Social Security Administration says emphatically that Social Security numbers are laughable as proof of citizenship because thousands are issued every year to non-citizens. Moreover, the Democrats’ SCHIP bill doesn’t even require that an applicant flash an ID to demonstrate that he or she could be the actual owner of the number.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that erasing the mechanism that reserves welfare for Americans instead of illegal aliens will cost U.S. taxpayers an extra $3.7 billion in federal spending and $2.8 billion in added state spending.

Again, I thank Mr. Marton for pointing out my errors (especially the fact that enrollees pay a premium – something of which I was totally unaware). But there is plenty in this bill to dislike not the least of which it seeks a top down government solution to a problem that should be addressed – along with all other Americans who are unable to afford coverage if they desire it – by reforming many aspects of the insurance and health care industry in order to bring premiums down to a level most Americans (and American employers) can afford.

The Rick Moran Show will go live in just a few minutes at 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM Central time on Blog Talk Radio.

Call-in Number: (718) 664-9764

Join me as I go live one hour early and welcome some of my BTR hosts for a discussion of the upcoming GOP debate.

You can catch the stream here. A podcast will be available after the show.

UPDATE

The podcast is available at the links above or you can access it on the player below.

UPDATE II

Due to technical issues, the podcast of today’s show is unavailable.

This is the second time this has happened and I am no closer to any answers than I was before. I hear the intro so I know that I’m logged in properly. After that, I don’t have a clue why nothing records.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

Superb article by David Nather today in CQ Politics about the “quagmire” in which the anti-war movement finds itself.

I should start out by saying that the lack of progress made by the coalition of groups who want to bring the troops home does not mean that the American people have still bought into the war, or George Bush, or the surge, or anything else. By clear majorities, the American people believe the war was a mistake and want the troops home.

But…

The inconvenient truth that the anti-war crowd can’t seem to grasp is that the American people are also ambivalent about how they wish our Iraq misadventure to end. For that reason, the people are all over the lot on the timing of troop reductions, the number of troops to come home, and what kind of mess we should be leaving in Iraq after we’re gone.

Nather grasps this which is why the article is so good. And he points up many of the problems – both internal and external to the coalition:

These are frustrating times for the collection of political, veterans, labor, and grass-roots organizations that make up the modern anti-war movement. At a time when a solid majority of the American public wants to pull some or all troops out of Iraq, these groups have been unable to turn the public support for their goals into enough votes to get a withdrawal proposal through the Senate, much less override a presidential veto.

Some of the groups have made tactical blunders along the way — most famously, the MoveOn.org advertisement in The New York Times last month deriding Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq — that have alienated their own Democratic allies. But that isn’t why the movement to end the Iraq War has failed to gain more traction in Congress, according to Democratic lawmakers and outside analysts of the movement.

Instead, they say, it’s because the groups simply have won all the Democratic votes they’re going to get. The only place to pick up more votes, at least for the next year, is on the Republican side.

I said at the time that the “Betray-us” ad was “the dumbest, the most spectacularly ignorant political maneuver in modern history.” To continue the idiocy by featuring the ad on their website as Moveon is doing only highlights their tone deafness about the nature of politics and what it takes to be right and win at the same time.

And the gimlet eyed hard left radicals at Moveon and Code Pink have no intention of working with Doubting Thomas Republicans to bring about a true national consensus on when and how to leave Iraq:

Most of the groups in the anti-war coalition have appeared unwilling to work with Republican skeptics of the war on a plan they could all support. “They’re exercising their constitutional rights, and that’s fine, but by and large they aren’t doing anything to help us find a positive solution,” said Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who has been pushing for goals, rather than deadlines, for troop withdrawals based on the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana.

Some anti-war activists say they’re just not interested in dealing with the GOP and want to apply more pressure to the party now in control. “We’re looking at some of the Democrats who were voted in on a platform of fighting against the war, and we’re not really seeing that,” said LeiLani Dowell, a member of the Troops Out Now Coalition, which wants to end war funding and staged a rally at the Capitol last month that reportedly drew fewer than 1,000 people.

But in the view of lawmakers from both parties, the groups have also failed to connect with potential GOP allies because they have unrealistic expectations of how quickly the United States could withdraw from Iraq.

To coin a phrase, “Aye, there’s the rub.” The de facto position of Code Pink, Moveon, and most others in the anti-war coalition is an immediate withdrawal from Iraq – a repeat of Saigon, 1975 complete with the last helicopter lifting off the roof of the unfinished, overbudget boondoggle that is the American embassy being built in Baghdad. They would like nothing better than to see a humiliating bug out of American troops, preferably within 6 months of the day it is begun.

That ain’t going to happen. Even rational Democrats don’t want us to leave that way. At least most of the Democratic timetables include a semblance of rationality in that they stretch the withdrawal out over a year or more. The Moveon bunch wants every American soldier – no residual forces, no bases, – out in 6 months. It’s madness and Republicans won’t even discuss it:

“I think they’re actually counterproductive. They don’t seem very thoughtful,” said Republican Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who opposed President Bush’s troop increase this year but wants any troop withdrawals to be based on benchmarks of progress in Iraq rather than a timetable. Democratic Rep. Zack Space, a freshman who will be up for re-election in a Republican-leaning part of Ohio next year, said of the antiwar groups, “By embracing a kind of impractical view of the situation, I think they hurt their cause.”

Ya think? The last Gallup poll showed 18% of Americans believe we should follow the advice of the Moveon crowd and bring the troops home now without regard for what is going on in Iraq or even the military practicality. We would have to leave vast stocks of military equipment in Iraq if we simply loaded 160,000 troops on planes and flew them home. Billions of dollars of stuff left to rot – or be used by both friend and foe in whatever kind of country Iraq will become after we leave it in the lurch.

That 18% is half that of the number who don’t want any timetable or benchmarks at all – 38% want to stay until the “job is done.” What does that say about the political acumen of the anti-war coalition?

And their public personae is nothing to get excited about:

Demonstrators from Code Pink, a peace group formed just before the Iraq War started, routinely disrupt congressional hearings and speeches, drawing the wrath of even Democratic lawmakers who share their views. Last month, when members of the group interrupted a House Armed Services Committee hearing where Petraeus was testifying, Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri angrily described them to a colleague — and to a national television audience — with a vulgarity.

Even the most anti-war Democrats are scratching their heads at activist Cindy Sheehan’s decision to run for the Democratic nomination for the House in San Francisco next year against Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They insist Pelosi has fought the war every way she can. “This isn’t a weakness for her. It’s one of her strengths,” said one House Democrat who did not want to be identified speaking candidly about his disagreements with the groups.

I suppose this is to be expected of radicals in any age. I fondly recall the Robin Hood aura that surrounded many anti-war types when I was in school during Viet Nam. I would think that young people today would probably look up to the Cindy Sheehans of the anti-war movement in a similar fashion.

But I also remember my anti-war parents thinking the radicals at the time were scruffy looking as well as being a little dangerous. They were used to the 1930’s radicals who were anything but scruffy looking but perhaps even more dangerous considering from where their orders came. Moscow liked their stooges and plants to blend in to the background.

This crowd is scruffy looking and politically inept – which makes for a not very dangerous coalition:

But most of the Republicans who have voiced skepticism about the war say they’ve seen little, if any, effort by the anti-war groups to find a compromise they could all support. “There were so many attempts to score media points rather than actually engage,” said Phil English of Pennsylvania, one of the House Republicans who opposed the troop “surge” in Iraq. He said he has seen anti-war demonstrators in his Erie-area district with out-of-state license plates. One anti-war group, he said, invited him to a rally in August with just a week’s notice — and after his schedule was full — then announced at the rally that he had failed to show up.

Some groups say they have not given up on bringing members of Congress around to their side, but many activists say they have grown so frustrated with Congress’ failure to end the war that they’re in no mood to try to reason with lawmakers from either party. “I think people are done being polite and obsequious with their members of Congress. People are fed up,” said Sue Udry, legislative coordinator for United for Peace and Justice.

Somehow, I don’t think Sue or any of her friends are going to be writing a sequel to “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

The fact that both the radicals and liberal Democrats in Congress are dealing with a severely wounded, lame duck President with approval numbers nearing Nixon territory only highlights their total inability to win the day. Politics is the art of the possible. And both the hard right and hard left have always had trouble defining what is possible and have reached instead for the unattainable. Failure and defeat follows such folly.

We are going to leave Iraq – probably long before George Bush wishes we would. But we are not going to leave on terms set by the radicals in the anti-war movement. It would be best for all if Bush, the Democrats, and the Republicans could all sit down and work to get us out of Iraq as quickly as possible with the least damage to our national security interests.

That’s what grown ups would do. Unfortunately, I hold out little hope for such a meeting of the minds given the poisonous political atmosphere and the constant yammering from the anti-war left who have sabotaged their own cause time and time again.

It occurred to me last week during the imbroglio over Barack Obama’s missing flag pin that the meaning of “patriotism” was as elastic as a rubber band – that the word means entirely different things to different people depending on your political point of view.

In the comments to this post at Balloon Juice where my integrity was called into question, some ignorant commenter (who didn’t bother to read what I had written about the Obama flap) said that those on the right who consider themselves patriotic are, in fact, nationalists instead.

Indeed, I think the fellow just proved the million monkey theory. Because at bottom, that very well may be the defining difference between left and right when it comes to patriotism.

The lefties hate it when I engage in these little verbal exercises because they believe such archaic concepts as “meaning” and “intent” belong in Derrida’s grave. They wish words to have their meaning obscured by ignoring convention and definition. And intent doesn’t matter half as much as how they reserve the right unto themselves to define what you are saying. Of course, this makes it impossible to communicate with many liberals on a rational or logical level because the sands of dialogue keep shifting underneath your feet. It becomes pretty hard to talk to someone whose definitional constructs regarding words and their usage is based not on an agreed upon framework but rather whatever the hell they wish to pull out of thin air at the moment.

And given the average emotional temperature of your average liberal, chances are you are better off talking to a stone. At least a rock won’t drive you nuts by putting words into your mouth or bringing up subject matter wholly unrelated to the discussion.

This was never more on display than in the brouhaha over the flag pin. It seems that the sticking point in the debate occurred over the use of the term “patriotism” with those on the right believing it means love of country while those on the left believing it means…love of country.

Before you think I’m being disingenuous, allow me to explain. I think it is apparent that some on the right love America in a different way than some on the left. Think of the right’s love of country as that of a young man for a hot young woman. The passion of such love brooks no criticism and in their eyes, the woman can do nothing wrong. They place the woman on a pedestal and fail to see any flaws in her beauty, only perfection.

On the other hand, love of country by many liberals is more intellectualized – perhaps the kind of love we might feel for a wife of many years. The white hot passion may be gone and her flaws might drive you up a wall at times. And it is difficult not to dwell on her imperfections But there is still a deep, abiding affection that allows you to love her despite the many blemishes and defects they see.

It isn’t that most on the left love America any less than those on the right. They simply see a different entity – a tainted but beloved object that has gotten better with age.

Having said this, I should point out that the insufferable way in which the left seeks to claim some kind of moral superiority for their view of patriotism by belittling and demonizing the way the right expresses their love of country is unconscionable. There are those on the right who accuse the left of lacking in patriotism – something I have abhorred in the past and will continue to do so. Many conservatives defend dissent even in time of war as a patriotic exercise especially those who have their own beef with the way the war is being run. But I have yet to see anyone on the left take a fellow liberal to task for questioning the methods by which conservative choose to express their love of country.

Indeed, the very idea of a heartfelt expression or outward manifestation of patriotism smacks of “nationalism” to these liberals. And that perhaps, is the real divide between conservatives and liberals when it comes to a definitional framework regarding the use of the word “patriotism.”

Webster’s definition informs us that nationalism is “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” Further, a nationalist is “a member of a political party or group advocating national independence or strong national government.”. While I would hesitate to say that patriotism and nationalism are the same thing, there is clearly a strong correlation where the definition of nationalism augments or supplements the definition of patriotism which is defined as “love for or devotion to one’s country.”

It should go without saying that liberals despise the concept of nationalism. In this, they are not entirely off base. Most of the evils of the 20th century can be traced to nationalistic impulses in Germany, Japan, the old Soviet Union (Despite their “all men are brothers” rhetoric, the Soviets never had any intention of allowing independent communist states. Their expressed desire was that the revolution be controlled by Moscow.), and the early 20th century saw nationalist movements destabilizing the Austria-Hungarian empire as well as super-nationalistic sentiment in Europe leading the continent to war.

But whether deliberately or not, the left confuses that virulent kind of nationalism with the simple expressions of patriotism most Americans see as harmless and uplifting. Yes there are those on the right who have a “my country right or wrong” attitude where a mindless form of nationalism has taken over and a creeping authoritarianism is expressed by a slavish devotion to a man like Bush. There are also aspects of militarism at large in these quarters where the military can do no wrong and any criticism of the armed forces is tantamount to treason.

I am not denying any of this. I am simply saying that this is a small minority of Americans (whose numbers are blown all of out proportion thanks to the internet). For the left to paint all conservatives and all Americans who express their love of country in a more demonstrable fashion than liberals as xenophobes and simple minded, brainwashed automatons is outrageously arrogant. It stinks of class warfare as much as it animates any criticism for the right’s overly nationalistic impulses. According to many on the left, that kind of patriotic display is reserved for the rubes in flyover country and can safely be ridiculed as the mouthings of ignorant, bible reading, goober chewing yahoos who are too stupid to “vote their own interest” we are told after every election won by a conservative.

The idea that nationalism is bad in and of itself and any manifestation of it must be stamped out is ludicrous. But you’d never know it by listening to how the left constantly denigrates people who feel proud to express their love of the United States for all to see. Of course waving the flag or wearing a flag pin doesn’t make one any more or less of a patriot. Except many liberals will remind you that the superior patriot does neither, that such vulgar displays in fact show one to be a mindless stooge or worse, a towering hypocrite.

The idea of American Exceptionalism has taken a beating in recent years because of this overt fear on the part of the left that believing America to be special smacks of the kind of nationalism that had Europe marching off to war in 1914 or Germans goose stepping under the Brandenburg Gate in 1939. Nothing could be further from the truth. You don’t have to read Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky to rid yourself of the notion “my country right or wrong.” And if that is the only education you allow yourself about America and her past, I pity you. Nor do you need any special knowledge vouchsafed those lucky lefties who are able to see through Bushitler’s lies in order to oppose the President on many issues. Unless you are a blind, mindless partisan, such wisdom comes from picking up the daily newspaper and reading it every once and a while.

In short, the privileged moral position the left seeks to occupy on the question of patriotism is an arrogant lie – a belief that those who are more nationalistic in their expressing love of country are not only wrong but dangerous. I hate to disabuse my lefty friends of this notion that patriotism can only be defined as the last refuge of scoundrels but the kind of nationalism expressed by most on the right is in fact healthy and sincere form of patriotism. There is not a whiff of authoritarianism or militarism except in the fevered minds and paranoid imaginings of those who either don’t understand the right’s patriotism or refuse to recognize it as genuine.

What it comes down to is that I am a patriotic nationalist. Or perhaps a nationalistic patriot. And I believe this view is reflected by many on the right as well as those who through gesture and action, choose to overtly express their pride and love of the United States.

This is not a cause for concern. Nor should it occasion ridicule or condemnation. It is simply the way the majority of us choose to be. And for the left to besmirch those who through word or deed outwardly demonstrate their affection for the nation of their birth is perhaps the most unpatriotic thing they can do.

By elvenstar522

For the first time in many years, I almost feel like missing my Beloved’s game on TV. It is going to be too painful to watch as Brett Favre – a man on a mission from the Football Gods – carves up, slices, dices, masticates, and spits out the Bears secondary on his merry way to the playoffs and perhaps the Super Bowl appearance he so devoutly seeks.

History says that this is the 171st meeting between the Packers and the Bears, a storied rivalry that only the Packers seem to take seriously anymore. Bears-Packers games used to be gladiator bouts with genuine hate expressed on the field with filthy play, late hits, cheap shots, “bounties” paid for injuring a particular player on the other team, and other niceties not seen much in this sanitized age of robo-players and stifling corporate conformity.

Coach Lovie endeared himself to true Bears fans when, at his welcoming press conference, some of the first words out of his mouth were not “Super Bowl” but “Beat the Packers.” Not since Ditka had a Bears coach placed any emphasis at all on beating the team in Puke Green and Diarrhea Yellow. Succeeding coaches had laughably told the press that the Green Bay games were “just another game” – as if the Packers didn’t think that beating the Bears was more important than life. The result was predictable. No matter how good the Bears were or how bad the Packers were, Green Bay would tear into my beloveds and usually come out on top.

This has been especially true in the Favre era although Lovie had a 4 game win streak going against them until the New Years eve debacle last year when Rex Grossman admitted he wasn’t mentally ready for the game and Green Bay ran up almost 500 yards in offense.

But this is a different Packers team and a different Brett Favre. The future Hall of Famer seems as if he is trying to will the Packers to success all on his own. His weapons on offense are few but he makes the most of them. Not much of a running game but who needs a rusher when you have a gunslinger like Brett? Last week, Favre became the all time leaders in TD throws. He celebrated by throwing another.

My Beloveds have no offense. The replacement of Wonder Dog with Greasy Kid Stuff was dictacted not by reality but by the fans and media. Sure enough, GKS proved he is a disaster by throwing two interceptions on the goal line, missing wide open receivers, and standing around like a bufoon in the backfield. He isn’t rusty. He’s a back up quarterback – an emergency, a guy who can give the first team QB a break every once and a while. What he is not is a QB capable of bringing victory. Almost any wins the Bears get from here on out will come as a result of their defense and special teams outscoring the opponent. If the offense can score more than 10 points a game, I will be shocked.

With no offense, the Bears defense will be on the field most of the game, leading to 4th quarter meltdowns as we have seen the last 2 weeks. Couple that with 8 defensive starters on the injury list and you have a predictable disaster waiting to happen tonight. Brett Favre will pass left. He will pass right. He will pass down the middle. He will go long, short, and everything in between. By the time it’s mercifully over, Favre and the Packers will have routed my Beloveds, sending them careening toward a mediocre season and a failure to make the playoffs.

Prediction: Packers 37 Bears 10.

UPDATE: DESERVE’S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

No, my Beloveds did not deserve to win this game. An inexplicable Green Bay decision to get conservative in the second half allowed the Bears to capitalize on a few breaks and then drive for the winning TD thanks to a breakdown in the secondary.

But a win is a win and boy did we need it. The Bears still don’t have much of an offense and they keep suffering injuries on defense so it is still doubtful in my mind, what with their tough non conference schedule, that they can advance to the playoffs. But they showed that they have no quit in them which promises exciting games if not a successful season.

Cubs LF Alfonso Soriano (2-14, 5 SO’s) sits glumly in the dugout following the North Sider’s 5-1 loss eliminating them from the playoffs – until next year, of course.

Well what the hell did you expect? They’re the Cubs fer crissakes!

The Chicago Cubs once again lived down to all expectations, getting swept by the Arizona Diamondbacks in the Division Championship Series 3-0 while establishing new records for post season futility. The Cubbies lost to AZ 5-1 last night, demonstrating that you can indeed play baseball while sleepwalking – a novel strategy employed by manager Lou Pinnella in lieu of actually sending a team onto the field that would resemble a Major League ballclub.

Of course, every time the Cubs lose a series in the post season, it’s a new record. This is the advantage of being in sole possession of the old record, and the one before that, and before that, and before that…

Obviously preferring nice round numbers, the Cubs will enter next season boasting an even 100 years of failure. One wonders if the North Siders will ever tire of such spectacular ineptness given that their fans may be starting to get a little antsy. A chorus of boos rained down on Wrigley Field when the last out was made in the game last night – an almost unheard of occurrence at this shrine to mediocrity. In the past, Cubs fans would have simply shrugged their shoulders and walked out of the ballpark dreaming of next year.

But it could be that Cub boosters are tired of the jokes, tired of the razzing, and tired of the fact that one of the biggest media conglomerates on the planet – the Tribune Company – can’t buy, beg, or steal the players and organization necessary to bring a championship ballclub to the North Side.

Perhaps realizing the 100 year honeymoon is over, the Trib is trying to sell the team. Maybe the new owners will figure out that even the masochistic Cub fans have had enough and will settle for nothing except an end to their agony.

As for this latest collapse, the Cubbies played three games in which Houdini would have been proud. They were, for all practical purposes, invisible. Five runs scored in three games with their top three hitters – Soriano, Lee, and Ramirez – going a combined 6-38 with zero runs batted in. Ramirez was especially awful going 0-12 with 5 strikeouts. Throwing out the ceremonial first ball, Ernie Banks at age 76 could probably have done better. The rest of them were equally awful, as the Cubbies hit .194 as a team.

I would say to my friends who are Cubs fans, look on the bright side; at least the team didn’t tease you with visions of victory this time around. They were never in the series to begin with. This time out, there were no crazy plays or costly errors to ruin your off season. The Cubs lost the old fashioned way; they stunk up the joint.

And so, another season ends on the North Side without a championship. But even the most diehard of Cubs fans have got to start questioning their sanity much less their allegiance to this team. The Cubs are beyond curses, beyond bad luck and have entered the realm of physics where the random interactions of atomic particles at the subatomic level is the only explanation for their continued failure. Amidst the scurrying of muons and gluons and quarks, there must be some as yet unamed particle (the cubuon?) that flits about, destroying the order of the universe and prevents the Cubs from winning a World Series.

Or maybe they need another right handed power hitter…

This blog post originally appears in The American Thinker

Robert Novak, who wrote the column that exposed the Plame connection to Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger, has been trying unsuccessfully to set the record straight regarding the “outing” of Wilson’s wife for a long time.

Novak’s problem has been that the Plame narrative, created by Democrats and the media, has little room for the truth. The story began as a myth, morphed into a legend, and is only now being examined as history. That last step will occur in a vacuum, of interest only to future academics and those who seek to place truth above politics.

For indeed, most have given up trying to alter the narrative, soon to be immortalized in film as the portrayal of an evil administration, hell bent on going to war, which tried to stifle and smear the heroic Mr. and Mrs. Wilson to hide their nefarious plans.

The narrative is tailor made for Hollywood. The truth, as Mr. Novak points out in this article in The Hill, is a little less dramatic and quite a bit more problematic for the Wilsons:

Columnist Robert Novak said Saturday Ambassador Joe Wilson did not forcefully object to the naming of his CIA operative wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, when Novak spoke to him prior to the publication of a column that sparked a federal investigation and sent White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby to jail.

“He was not terribly exercised about it,” Novak said.

Instead, Wilson focused on not being portrayed as simply an opponent of the Iraq war. Wilson also stressed that his wife went by his last name, Wilson, rather than Plame, Novak said.

Wilson seems to be following the age old Hollywood publicists plea, “Say what you want about me, just make sure you spell my name right.”

Apparently, only when the media and the left began to make a big deal about the “outing” of Valerie Plame Wilson did Ambasador Joe begin to ratchet up the outrage. Once Wilson hopped on the gravy train, his fake anger went from mild to white hot – intimating first that exposing his wife’s position at CIA had ruined her career then building on that theme until Wilson was saying outright that the incident was threatening to her life. The more the left lionized him, the more aggrieved he appeared to get. It was a classic performance matched by his wife’s before the House Oversight Committee where she perjured herself several times trying to explain how her recommendation that the CIA send her husband to Niger came about.

Two seperate Congressional Committees have proven Wilson a liar. Novak is calling Wilson a liar. But the left, the media, and soon Hollywood will lionize Wilson, taking those lies and setting them in stone where only those truly interested in the truth of what happened and bother to examine the entire record will realize what actually occurred.

Novak summed up the difficulty of getting to the truth in this matter:

I was stunned by how little editorial support I received. I was under assault from editorial writers from across the country,” Novak said. “It is startling how little is known about this case by the people who are commenting on it.

Where does the myth end and the truth begin? Even asking that question proves that in the popular mind, the narrative created out of whole cloth by Democrats and the media will dominate and Joe Wilson will probably go to his grave a hero.

Perhaps 50 years from now, history will finally overtake the legend. It happened with the Whittaker Chambers/Alger Hiss story where now most historians believe Chambers’ allegation about Hiss’s spying and his membership in a communist cell. But this is cold comfort to the principals today whose lives have been ruined by a lie and an overzealous prosecutor.