"We're movin' on up..."

I haven't been posting on PP&P because I have been setting up my new blog at Townhall.com. Beginning now, please refer to katiefavazza.townhall.com for all future entries. I am going to continue to check in here occasionally, but I do not expect to add new posts at this time. Thank you all for your support as I got my feet wet in the political blogging world, and please join me at Townhall.com.

Good ol' Hugh

Good stuff here.

Stem Cell veto talking points #2

Here is the other document from Martin:

* President Bush will veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells.

* The President’s policy permits the funding of research using embryonic cell lines created prior to August 9, 2001, the date his policy was announced.

* It is possible to advance scientific research without violating ethical principles -- both by enacting the appropriate policy safeguards and by pursuing the appropriate scientific techniques.

* The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would provide federal funding for the first time for a line of research that involves the intentional destruction of living human embryos for the derivation of their cells.

* Destroying nascent human life for research raises serious ethical problems, and many millions of Americans consider the practice immoral.

* President Bush believes that government has a duty to use the people’s money responsibly, both supporting important public purposes and respecting moral boundaries.

* Every year since 1995, Congress has upheld a bipartisan balance by prohibiting federal funds for research in which an embryo is destroyed.

* The availability of alternative sources of stem cells further counters the case for compelling the American taxpayer to encourage the ongoing destruction of human embryos for research.

* The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is seriously flawed legislation that would undo current safeguards, and provide a disincentive to pursuing new techniques that do not raise ethical concerns.

Stem Cell veto talking points #1

This is one of two documents that were just released from Martin Gillespie, RNC Director of Catholic Outreach. (He's the man responsible for my trip to Cuyahoga County, Ohio during the '04 election! YAY for GOP Catholics!!)

It is copied below in its entirety, though it's format has been adjusted slightly from the PDF for HTML reasons.

Myth/Fact: The President's Stem Cell Research Policy
Impact Of The President's Policy On Research

MYTH: The President's Policy Prohibits Or Restricts Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

FACT: President Bush Is The First President Ever To Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Since 2001, nearly $3 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been invested in all forms of stem cell research. Of this amount, more than $90 million has been devoted to research on approved human embryonic stem cell lines.

FACT: President Bush's Policy Made Federal Funding Available For Embryonic Stem Cell
Research On Lines Created Before August 9, 2001. This permitted Federal funding to support basic research without using taxpayer dollars to encourage the destruction of human embryos.

FACT: The President's Embryonic Stem Cell Funding Policy Serves Both Science And Ethics.
The policy advances stem cell science without supporting or encouraging the destruction of nascent human life.

FACT: There Are No Restrictions On The Kinds Of Experiments That Scientists May Do Using
Federal Funds On Eligible Embryonic Stem Cell Research Lines. The President's policy does not prohibit any embryonic stem cell research.

FACT: There Is No Cap On The Dollar Amount Of Federal Support That Embryonic Stem Cell
Research On Eligible Lines May Receive. Applications are considered by the NIH, which uses a
peer-review process to identify funding recipients.

FACT: 85 Percent Of Publications On Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Involved The Use
Of Lines Approved For Funding By NIH. (Jason Owen-Smith and Jennifer McCormick, "An International Gap In Human ES Cell Research," Nature Biotechnology, April 2006)
• The vast majority of this work has been done in the past five years during the President’s time in office.
• This is far more than the research that has actually been funded by NIH, which means these lines are being used because they are useful, stable, and reliable – not just because they are eligible for funding.

FACT: There Is Significant Federal Support For Research Using Non-Embryonic Stem Cells.
Non-embryonic stem cells are derived in ethically uncontroversial ways from adults, children, and umbilical cord blood.

FACT: The President's Funding Policy Does Not Affect Privately-Funded Research.

FACT: Every Living Human Being Was Once An Embryo Exactly Like The Human Embryos
Supporters Of H.R. 810 Want To Use Federal Funding To Destroy.

Benefits Of Stem Cell Research

MYTH: H.R. 810 "Would Help 100 Million Americans And Their Families." (Rep. Diana DeGette, "President Refuses To Meet On Embryonic Stem Cells," Press Release, 7/11/06)

FACT: Supporters Of H.R. 810 Are Vastly Exaggerating The State Of Embryonic Stem Cell
Science. The research to date has not yielded a single therapy. There has never even been a human clinical trial using embryonic stem cells. Offering false hope is not a responsible foundation for public policy.

FACT: Scientists Have Dismissed The Claims Of Cures For Millions As Unfounded.

REP. MARK SOUDER (R-IN): "A common figure tossed around regarding the 'promise' of embryonic stem cell research is that it can provide cures for 100 million people. Is there any scientific evidence to actually support that claim?"

NIH STEM CELL TASK FORCE CHAIR DR. JAMES BATTEY: "It is unclear where this statistic came from. Human embryonic stem cell research is a relatively new field of science, having been first reported by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin in 1998. More basic research needs to be conducted in the laboratory before the full potential for treating diseases is clear." (Dr. James F. Battey and Rep. Mark Souder, Questions For The Record Following March 6, 2006 Hearing, Committee On Government Reform, Subcommittee On Criminal Justice, Drug Policy And Human Resources, U.S. House Of Representatives, Available At: http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Battey%20response.pdf)

Public Opinion

MYTH: The President's Veto Is "Part Of Karl Rove's Cynical Electoral Strategy."
(Rep. Diana DeGette, "President Refuses To Meet On Embryonic Stem Cells," Press Release, 7/11/06)

FACT: The President's Policy Is Based On Principle, Not Public Opinion Polling. The President's stem cell policy is rooted in the fact that human embryos are developing human lives and on the core ethical principle that no human life should be taken for the benefit of another. The President does not believe taxpayers should fund research presenting such ethical problems.

Discarded Human Embryos

MYTH: "Embryos Are Already Discarded From Fertility Clinics. Scientists Merely Want The
Opportunity To See If Cures Can Be Found From The Microscopic Blastocysts That Will Never Be Brought To Life." (Editorial, "Don't Veto Stem Cells' Potential Cures," Detroit Free Press, 7/12/06)

FACT: Being Unwanted Does Not Mean An Embryo Is Not A Human Life. The fact that human
embryos may be unwanted does not eliminate the ethical issues associated with taxpayer funding for projects that destroy human embryos for research.

FACT: The President Believes All Human Lives Have Worth. The President strongly opposes
using taxpayer money to enact the view that only certain human lives have worth.

FACT: The Question Is Whether Taxpayer Dollars Should Support The Destruction Of Nascent
Human Life. Whether human embryos are destroyed at their parents' request or for use in research does not change the underlying ethical issue. For the first time in American history, H.R. 810 would compel every American taxpayer to become a supporter of research that destroys human embryos.

Contamination Of Existing Lines

MYTH: Many Of The Existing Stem Cell Lines Eligible For Research "Are Deteriorating,
Contaminated Or Suffer From Technical Problems That Limit Their Usefulness."
(Editorial, "Standing Up For Stem Cell Research," The New York Times, 7/18/06)

FACT: President Bush's Stem Cell Policy Has Made Federally Funded Stem Cell Lines Widely
Available To Scientists. The NIH has sent more than 700 shipments of cells to researchers, and has thousands more available upon request.

FACT: 85 Percent Of Publications On Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Involved The Use
Of Lines Approved For Funding By NIH. (Jason Owen-Smith and Jennifer McCormick, "An International Gap In Human ES Cell Research," Nature Biotechnology, April 2006)
• The Vast Majority Of This Work Has Been Done In The Past Five Years During the
President’s Time In Office.

FACT: The Eligible Lines Are Uncontaminated And Are Very Widely Used By Researchers. The
use of mouse cells is standard scientific practice, and the resulting stem cell lines can be carefully screened to ensure they are safe for use in any future clinical trials. Drug and biological products are routinely co-cultured with animal cells with no adverse consequences for the millions of people who have benefited from them. The FDA has proven itself time and again to be fully capable of ensuring the safety and efficacy of such products.

FACT: Several Scientific Publications Have Now Demonstrated Techniques For Removing All
Animal Materials From The Existing Cell Cultures. This helps further alleviate concerns about
animal material issues. (James Thomson et al., "Derivation Of Human Embryonic Stem Cells In Defined Conditions," Nature Biotechnology, February 2006)

Brain Drain

MYTH: "Ever Since Bush Limited Federal Funding To A Small Number Of Existing Stem-Cell Lines In August 2001 … Top U.S. Scientists, Many Of Whom Depend On Federal Grants, Decamped To Labs In Europe Or Singapore, Where The Government Has Made Biotechnology A National Priority." (Nancy Gibbs, Alice Park, Mike Allen, and Massimo Calabresi, "What A Bush Veto Would Mean For Stem Cells," TIME, 7/24/06)

FACT: 46 Percent Of All Human Embryonic Stem Cell Studies Published Have Been Done In
American Institutions And Publications By Americans Have Increased Each Year Of This
Administration. The most recent survey of international human embryonic stem cell work, published in Nature Biotechnology in April 2006, shows 46 percent of all human embryonic stem cell studies since the first studies in 1998 have been done in American institutions – the other 54 percent are divided among 17 other countries. (Jason Owen-Smith and Jennifer McCormick, "An International Gap In Human ES Cell Research," Nature Biotechnology, April 2006)

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Versus Alternatives

MYTH: Failure "To Expand Federal Support Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research" To New Lines
Created By Destroying Human Embryos Has "Stall[ed] Medical Progress For Nearly Five Years." (Editorial, "Science, Not Politics, For Stem Cells," Los Angeles Times, 7/18/06)

FACT: The Right Public Policies And The Right Scientific Techniques Can Enable Stem Cell
Research To Advance Without Violating Human Dignity Or Life. Stem cell research is a young
field at a preliminary stage of development, and embryo-destructive research is not the only promising avenue.

FACT: Stem Cells Derived From Non-Embryonic Means Are Working. Stem cells derived from
adults, children, and umbilical cord blood with no harm to the donors (and therefore without ethical concerns) are already used in human therapies and have treated thousands of patients. These adult stem cells also show potential for further uses in basic research and clinical therapy.

FACT: Researchers Are Exploring Techniques For Developing The Same Kinds Of Cells Now
Derived By Destroying Human Embryos Without Using Or Harming Embryos. Such techniques
are still preliminary – as is embryonic stem cell research as a whole – but significant advances have been reported in the past year. If they prove successful, these techniques could offer medical solutions without implicating serious ethical concerns.

FACT: Even TIME Magazine Says The "Science Has Outrun The Politics" And Adult Stem Cells
May Be More Valuable Than Previously Thought. "The good news for all sides is that over the
course of this long argument, researchers have learned more about how stem cells work, and the science has outrun the politics. Adult cells, such as those found in bone marrow, were thought to be less valuable than embryonic cells, which are 'pluripotent' master cells that can turn into anything from a brain cell to a toenail. But adult cells may be more elastic than scientists thought, and could offer shortcuts to treatment that embryonic cells can't match."
(Nancy Gibbs, Alice Park, Mike Allen, and Massimo Calabresi, "What A Bush Veto Would Mean For Stem Cells," TIME, 7/24/06)

H.R. 810's "Ethical Construct"

MYTH: H.R. 810 Respects Ethical Concerns.

FACT: H.R. 810 Ignores The Most Critical Ethical Issue Addressed By The President's Policy.
The legislation allows taxpayer dollars to encourage the ongoing destruction of human embryos. The President's policy is designed to prevent this while still allowing basic research to advance.

Money Magazine's "Pricey Homes"

The list is dominated by California, and for the most part sounds very fancy-schmancy. So will someone please explain to me how Bethesda ended up on this list? I find it absolutely hilarious.

To the Metro we go!

Yikes!!

Cusack fights back

The first time I saw High Fidelity, I thought about doing this, too.

Just kidding.

The faux-princess diaries

This is too funny to pass up.

CNN reports:

It was not a storybook ending for Antoinette Millard, 43, who admitted to criminal charges brought after she stole hundreds of thousands of dollars by failing to pay for items she had charged on her American Express Centurion black card.

She also admitted she had tried to collect a $262,000 insurance payout by saying that jewels she had sold had been stolen.

Prosecutors have said she told jewelry store clerks that she was a Saudi Arabian princess.

Schoolhouse rocks.

There may be an overdue victory for the school choice movement on the horizon, according to the AP today.

Me? I'm all for it!

"Nice pearls. And very nice jacket."

Yesterday, USA Today ran a column by my old friend Newt that features some smart military advice. This sums it up:

United Nations Resolution 1559, supported by the European Union, called for Hezbollah to be disarmed. If not now, when? If not by the Israelis, who? The G8 advice, if taken, would only guarantee the cycle of violence. The terrorist alliance must be destroyed or it will be rebuilt with more dangerous capabilities. The appeals for an Israeli cease-fire, if heeded, will enable Israel's enemies to re-lay the groundwork for yet another violent campaign for what has been a nearly six-decade episode with the sole objective of destroying Israel.

The key steps to ending the violence in Lebanon first requires recognizing that Hezbollah in its military form must be eliminated, that the 100-plus Iranian guard in southern Lebanon must be removed and that the allowing of the Syrian and Iranian dictatorships to supply, train and equip the terrorists must be stopped.

To do that, the United States should offer to help strengthen the Lebanese government so that it has the ability to re-establish itself in all of Lebanon and defeat the military wing of Hezbollah. We should encourage the Israelis to work with the Lebanese government to eliminate the thousands of missiles within its borders that threaten Israel. Finally, Iran and Syria must be forced to cease their support of Hezbollah and Hamas by the United States communicating to them such dire consequences that they could not sustain the relationships. And then we should be prepared, if necessary, to impose those consequences.

Also check out MKH's blog from yesterday with some great Newt quotations from the Blogger Briefing on the Hill.

I do love the 'Vito' power (hehee!)

President Bush is expected to veto the first bill of his entire presidency today.

Conservatives who have felt distanced from their party and their CEO should rejoice. We'll see how everyone reacts...

I told you Talent had the cash...

Looks like we had a visitor up here in DC yesterday.

Poor baby.

It will "enhance the integrity" of elections? Then Dems aren't interested.

More fighting about the changes at the Show-Me polls. (See my May archive if you are confused.)

"We believe the law is constitutional and it will enhance the integrity of Missouri elections," said Spence Jackson, a spokesman for Gov. Matt Blunt.

Yes, we do. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Shocking

I shouldn't have read this story before eating dinner tonight. I think I just lost my appetite.

Cute kids support our troops!

Here's yet another story you probably won't hear about on the national news anywhere, but definitely deserves a little credit. It just goes to show what good things 2 determined (and darn cute!) kids can do when they put their heads together.

Inspired by the book "A Treasure Trove," by Michael Stadther, and the Disney movie "National Treasure," 10-year-old Rachel and 8-year-old Kelsi Okun created their own scavenger hunt to raise scholarship money for military children and spouses.

Their idea, which they dubbed "ThanksUSA," quickly captured the attention of their parents, teacher, neighbors, major corporations and even Congress, blossoming into a national treasure hunt to raise funds for scholarships.

Now a non-profit organization, ThanksUSA has joined the Defense Department's America Supports You program, which showcases Americans' efforts to support servicemembers and their families.

Since the event's Memorial Day weekend kickoff, more than 4,500 participants have signed up. The treasure hunt encourages citizens to become involved, however it's primary focus is to encourage "hunters" to donate to the scholarship fund.

"More than 2,000 official treasure hunt clue books have been sent to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of Congress of both parties are asking their constituents to play the national American history treasure hunt as a way to thank the troops," said Robert Okun, Kelsi's and Rachel's dad.

...ThanksUSA intends to award 1,000 scholarships in amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 each.

H/T to jla for sending this link my way.

Why I'm boycotting sushi until further notice...

I just found out today that Rev. Moon founded The Washington Times. I'm still in shock and not really ready to comment...BUT what is more unexpected is the connection between the Moonies and my favorite Japanese treat.

A small introduction to the issue is below, but you really must read this incredibly informative article from the Chicago Tribune to get the whole picture:

In a remarkable story that has gone largely untold, Moon and his followers created an enterprise that reaped millions of dollars by dominating one of America's trendiest indulgences: sushi.

... Adhering to a plan Moon spelled out more than three decades ago in a series of sermons, members of his movement managed to integrate virtually every facet of the highly competitive seafood industry. The Moon followers' seafood operation is driven by a commercial powerhouse, known as True World Group. It builds fleets of boats, runs dozens of distribution centers and, each day, supplies most of the nation's estimated 9,000 sushi restaurants.

Although few seafood lovers may consider they're indirectly supporting Moon's religious movement, they do just that when they eat a buttery slice of tuna or munch on a morsel of eel in many restaurants. True World is so ubiquitous that 14 of 17 prominent Chicago sushi restaurants surveyed by the Tribune said they were supplied by the company.

I am on a mission to find out which DC area sushi restaurants get their supplies from Rev. Moon's business--and I'm announcing now that I will not eat sushi again until I get to the bottom of this. Stay tuned for the results of my research.

Afghani rug shows gratitude for war

This is a breathtaking story. H/T to jla for sending the link my way.

I'll admit I thought the blanket itself was a bit creepy at first glance, but when I read the story of the risk that was involved in making it (not to mention the time), I couldn't help but be moved.

Read part of the story below:

(...and find the rest here.)

The colorful and beautifully crafted rug was hand-knotted by an elderly Hazara man from Kabul. The Hazaras, believed to be descendants of Ghengis Khan, were one of the most persecuted ethnic minorities in the Middle Eastern country prior to the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance's war with the Taliban.

The Taliban, Gile said, reserved their most ruthless wrath for the Hazaras.

"The Pashtuns (another ethnic group) would be kicked in the head, put in the dirt and the Taliban would be done with them," said Gile, 51, a member of the U.S. Army's 7th Special Forces Group. "But with the Hazaras, that was not enough. They would herd them into (steel containers) and leave them languishing in the desert sun until they died. Most of the Hazaras are alive today because of the Northern Alliance."

Gile spent nine months in the country assisting the Northern Alliance.

"Basically, we broke the back of the Taliban's war-making capability in a viable mass. We worked with the Northern Alliance and supplied firepower and close air support," he said.

While in the country, Gile got to know many of the natives. "We got to have quite a bit of interaction with the people of the host nation, probably more contact than most soldiers. It took time to establish a rapport with them, but once we established trust, we had friendships," he said.

One of those friendships involved a Kabul rug merchant who pulled Gile aside before he left the country. The merchant told Gile the story of an elderly man, so overwhelmed with gratitude to the United States for its intervention in the conflict that he made a gift for President Bush - a gift that was a year in the making and made, given the conditions of the country, under penalty of death.

MKH also posted the link on her blog, at my suggestion. (Thanks girl!)

Let's be 'blunt' about it: tax rebates are awesome

One more reason why I love Matt Blunt (and the Missouri GOP for getting him elected!).

Pro-life organizations around the country: take note.

Talent has the cash. Now he needs the votes.

(Thank you, AP.) Read about it here.

Be sure to visit Talent's site for his stance on important issues in the Show-Me state.

The "mass of niches"

(Written July 12, 2006. Sorry for the posting delay.)

Marc Gunther, a senior writer for Fortune magazine, reports today that "the advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences - and the explosion of choice has left us poorer."

He makes some very good points about the media/communications "explosion" in the article:

The point is, mass culture isn't so mass anymore. Instead, culture is evolving into a "mass of niches." So, at least, says Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, in "The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More" (Hyperion, $24.95).

His new book, based on a 2004 article in Wired, is generating a lot of buzz, climbing up the best-seller lists and raising provocative questions about the future of our culture.

"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content," Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are all into different things."

Mostly, Anderson's book is about business. He makes a persuasive case that the Internet is exploding the limits of bricks-and-mortar distribution channels, giving consumers vastly more choice and creating business opportunities that have been exploited by the likes of Amazon (Charts), Netflix (Charts), Apple's (Charts) iTunes and Google (Charts).

Those online media businesses are all driven to a surprising degree, not by a handful of hits, but by the far larger number of books, DVDs, music and Web sites with narrow appeal.

"The Long Tail is nothing more than infinite choice," Anderson writes. "Abundant, cheap distribution means abundant, cheap and unlimited variety."

The book's title, by the way, refers to the long, stretched-out tail of the demand curve for most products. You can see what the long tail looks like and explore the thinking behind the book at Anderson's blog at www.thelongtail.com.

It's stating the obvious to say that we have lots of choices now that we have the Internet. Duh. Still, I think reading an analysis of the larger implications for the business and economic world would interest me. I might pick up a copy of "The Long Tail" and add it to the huge stack of books I need to read ASAP.

I don't know anything about the book beyond what Gunther wrote here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I would agree with Anderson much more than I do with this Fortune article. Gunther editorializes in the second half of the article:

I think the explosion of choice has left us poorer in at least two arenas. The first is journalism. (Yes, as a Fortune writer, I've got a stake in the health of the mainstream media, which bloggers call the MSM.) The network evening newscasts, big-city newspapers and the national news magazines once had the money, access, skills, commitment and power to deliver lots of original reporting and put important issues on the national agenda. Today, they are all diminished.

To pick a single, timely, example, The Tribune Co. announced just the other day that its newspapers would be closing foreign bureaus in Johannesburg, Moscow, Lebanon and Pakistan. This is happening all over newspaperdom and it happened years ago at the broadcast networks.

Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don't think we are better informed. Niche media will, inevitably, continue to weaken mass media.

The second arena where we are worse off is politics. This is related to journalism, as the moderate and responsible (okay, bland) voices of the MSM get drowned out by partisan, opinionated cableheads and bloggers.

Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree. Anderson suggests that this could well be a temporary problem, and that if the major parties continue to move to the extremes and the quality of debate continues to deteriorate, the Internet could well enable a new party or parties, to arise.

To his first claim, I say, "Amen."

I'll admit, few of my blogger friends have international resources--and it would be nice if each of us has a direct, personal connection to global politics. Maybe I'll make enough money off Google AdSense to pay for a trip overseas for some blog research. But until then, I will have to rely on other "niche" writers (or, sigh, the MSM) for my international dose of news.

All that aside, I say "amen" because the big news powerhouses needed to get knocked down. Worldwide offices and resources don't do much good when the journalists themselves are out of touch with their audience. Elementary school children are taught to be cognizant of their audience and this concept is reinforced through the highest forms of rhetoric, but journalists still sometimes forget. There are leaders in the MSM, for example, that have never even met someone who is pro-life--and it is beyond them that a rational, moral being could wholeheartedly believe in the sanctity of unborn life.

Journalism has become so elite that more and more average Americans avoid it all together. In grade school, I was taught that newspapers were written at a 5th or 6th grade level so that they would always be approachable to audiences of all sorts. I think the MSM is a lot of things--none of which are "approachable."

Frankly, I think it's great that the MSM is losing readers/viewers every day because it will force them to improve and develop a strategy to survive. (Sidenote: I sincerely hope newspapers will stay alive throughout this online media mania. I buy newspapers the old-fashioned way when I have the time to read them, but I know my quarters can only do so much.)

As for Gunther's second claim--that we are "worse off" in politics--I couldn't disagree more. We are a polarized nation, yes, and as someone who thinks helping the environment can be a fiscally conservative choice, I sometimes find it difficult to prescribe to one party myself. However, this polarization has been a part of American politics for a very long time, much longer than the Internet has been around.

Rather than serving as a vehicle for separation, the Internet unites people of similar beliefs. I suppose for Gunther, who admits he has a vested interest in the "health" of the MSM, this is a frightening thought. Just ask the staff of the new Townhall.com about what good the web can do for those with a strong political belief. There you can read all the top conservative columnists in the country, start discussions with other Americans about your favorite topics, form your own email groups to coordinate political action, and so much more. And there are sites for the Left that provide these same brilliant services as well. Those across America who used to feel so distant from the world of Beltway politics can now get in on the action through researching and networking online. Politics seems to have been placed back in the hands of the people--right where it belongs.

The Internet has already changed the face of economics and business as we know it, and Gunther admits this in his article. He is, however, vastly mistaken if he thinks the Internet has made us 'worse off' in politics and journalism.

It is quite probable that other bloggers have given Gunther a bit of attention; perhaps he should be thanking us for increasing his page views and making his journalism 'better off.'

My favorite headline ever

Someone thinks Scary Spice isn't so intimidating after all.

I'm linking to this for 2 absolutely ridiculous reasons. Yes, I love Spice Girls and I don't care who knows. But more importantly, I think this article has my favorite headline ever.

Purchasing Diamond Jewelry Online

*This is a paid advertisement. Blog post sponsored by Make Money Blogging.*

Purchasing a diamond ring from a brick and mortar store will cost 30-40% more than buying on the Internet. If you are looking to buy a diamond engagement ring or other diamond earrings, be sure to check out DanforthDiamond.com before making your jewelry purchase - you will save money on a quality ring.

All's well

I safely returned to the District last Friday evening and have spent the past few days getting back into the groove of things. Let the blogging proceed...

Just in time for my trip to Vegas...

Beatlemania is back! 'Love' debuts tonight in the newly-renovated Mirage theater (formerly of tiger fame).

Maybe I'll rub elbows with a former Beatle--or one of their bitter relatives-- during my own debut in Sin City.

It's a good day to be pro-life

Assisted-suicide measure in California falls a vote short. Read about it here.

Support animal rights, disrespect women

I have plenty of problems with the whole Hooters culture already--but this is too much.

A wedding story

If you are feeling bitter or cynical about love and marriage...

If you want to be touched in your heart and soul...

If you want to reaffirm your belief in the power of love...

If you love someone...

If you are a parent...

If you are a child...

If you have made a promise and kept it...

If you are eagerly awaiting "The One" to come into your life...

This story is for you.

(H/T: jla)

Lest we forget

It is easy for people far removed from tragedy to resume their routines--and easy to forget to pray for those lives forever altered by an event:

The suicide rate in New Orleans has tripled.

Please, please continue to pray for this magical city on the Mississippi and its wounded people.

A convenient truth

The Senate has spoken...

...and AP was wrong.

This is not Tom Cruise's week

Poor Tom Cruise. First his ex-wife marries in the Church, and now no one will pay more than $3 million dollars for a picture of his baby girl.

Of course no one will pay! The money is reportedly going to Scientology.

Most disturbing part of the story? "...now that the baby is nearly three months old, her price will only go down..." The end of the world must be around the corner...

(Thanks to Jared for recommending I check out the story.)

Catching up on the NYT

In case you haven't been following the stories about the New York Times, I've included a number of links, in no particular order. It is all a bit overwhelming at first if you have managed to miss out on all of it (as I have, for some mysterious reason), but keep in mind that a lot of the following information will overlap or be slightly repetitive. Check out some or all of the links, and let me know what you think about the whole thing. Let's get a discussion going in the 'Comments' section.

These are just some starting points. Stay tuned for more information throughout the week.

Letter to the editors of the NYT by Treasury Secretary Snow
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater
Bush condemns leak of bank program
NYT's encore: "[A] matter of public interest" ... and basically, Hugh's whole blog.
The NYT deserves to be prosecuted for treason
That was then
Did the NYT cross the line between a free press and treason?
NYT: Threat to national security?
Why do 'they' hate us?
Rep. Peter King on why the NYT should be investigated
All eyes on the Times
The treasonous media

And last, but not least: What you can do about the New York Times--if, of course, you think something needs to be done.

Roman Catholic Service? Amen.

Congratulations to newlyweds Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban. The two were wed in a traditional Roman Catholic service. :) I am keeping Kidman and Urban in my prayers, that their marriage will be abundantly blessed.

I'm also keeping Katie Holmes' family in my prayers, as I'm sure their hearts are breaking to see the choices their daughter has made. (Holmes was raised Catholic in Toledo, OH, but denounced her faith to wed the Scientologist Tom Cruise, much to the disapproval of her family.)

'Time' wastes mine

I clicked on "Women wear the wrong bras, right?" on CNN.com out of sheer curiousity.

Never has Time wasted more of my time. If you are utterly bored, take a look. If you have better things to do, check out this short quote from the story for a good laugh.

On women's unwillingness to accept if they have size D-cup breasts, Ana Marie Cox writes:

It could be that we're slightly afraid of our boobs— after all, over time they do seem to develop a mind of their own — or it could be we don't like what larger-than-average (though not that much larger than average) breasts invite: attention, whistles, shade.

I hope this woman is fired for stupidity. A mind of their own? Please.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

You have learned how to be cautious and think everything is under control, right? Wrong.

Mammograms might increase your chances of getting breast cancer.

Water, water everywhere

My brother Mark called yesterday to ask if I remembered how to swim. He wasn't kidding.

Abortion survivor counters Planned Parenthood tribute

Here's the start, but you really do need to read this entire article to get the whole jist. [UPDATE: Due to the new Townhall.com, this link is now unavailable. However, Ted Harvey himself has written an account of this event that can be read here. What follows remains an excerpt of the original AP article that I found on Townhall.com.]

When Republican Ted Harvey, the assistant minority leader in the Colorado House, learned on May 8 of legislation meant to honor Planned Parenthood's Rocky Mountain branch, he says he was disgusted. He labeled Planned Parenthood's record a "90-year legacy of genocide."

Harvey attended a pro-life rally the weekend before the scheduled hearing on the bill and it was there that he met abortion survivor Gianna Jessen. Jessen's biological mother was 17 years old and 7 1/2 months pregnant she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to have a saline abortion.

The abortion failed and Jessen was born weighing two pounds and afflicted with cerebral palsy as a result of the complicated birth.

Harvey approached Jessen after hearing her story and asked her if she would sing the national anthem in the Colorado House on May 8. [emphasis my own]

I think my favorite part of the story was Colorado House Majority Leader Alice Madden's response in the Denver Post: "I think it was amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics." What else, if not HUMAN BEINGS, is an example of personal politics? And what's wrong with politics being personal? Shouldn't politics be about PEOPLE? Shouldn't members of the House be reminded that their 'chit-chats' and 'pieces of paper' affect real people's lives?

My hat is off to Rep. Harvey on this one.

Catholic U. rejects internship ad from gay group

My school is making faux-headlines around D.C. this week. According to the Washington Blade (not exactly my typical news source), Alan Goodman, Director of CUA's Career Services, rejected a post for an internship at Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

The director, Alan Goodman, did not return repeated calls seeking comment. Calls to the school’s press office and administrative offices also were not returned.

However, in an e-mail exchange with Jennings and Gaylord — provided by Jennings — Goodman said GLSEN’s internship posting does not meet the standards of the Catholic school, which enrolls a student population of more than 5,000, according to its website.

“Our practice is that we accept and post only those jobs and internship listings that are consistent with the values of this institution,” Goodman said in the June 16 e-mail to Gaylord.

Catholic University has every right to reject such a job posting. The leaders of GLSEN are accusing CUA of contradicting the Catechism's teachings on homosexuality, but they are wrong.

“Perhaps you made [the decision] out of ignorance of the mission of our organization,” Jennings wrote to Goodman, “in which case I would hope and expect it to be reversed. If not, I would expect a full explanation of how you reconcile your behavior in light of its explicit contravention of the Catechism.”

The passage Jennings referred to in the English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994, states that gays “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

It is one thing to discriminate without just cause. But take a closer look at GLSEN. It is not a gay rights group focused on obtaining the right to marry (though CUA would be justified in forbidding such an organization from participating in their online job search tool for students). It is not an apolitical organization serving to provide a social network of any kind. It is the nation's leading organization pushing the homosexual agenda in the education system, seeking to teach respect and tolerance of homosexual and transgender individuals in schools. They organize events and policy reform within the education system at all levels--including elementary school and kindergarten students!! One such event is the national Day of Silence. Read about it, and the estimated 3,000 K-12 schools that participated in it, here. You may also be interested in reading The GLSEN Public Policy Platform. Neither give any clear indication of any precautions used when teaching the youngest of children about these issues. (You might also want to read this letter from GLSEN's Executive Director from the morning after the 2004 election. Poor LGBT activist.)

I myself have always attended Catholic schools--and I am very familiar with other Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. "Human sexuality" is never taught before fifth grade curriculum--and even then it is considered optional to participate in the "Family Life" class. In kindergarten, we were taught to play nice on the playground just like everyone else. We were taught that Jesus loved everyone, so we should too--hence, the respect and tolerance for others. We are all children of God. Period. No hitting, no pushing, no name-calling. End of story.

Clearly, then, it is not part of the Catholic education model to begin the discussion of sexuality issues in a classroom of children under the age of 10, if then. Perhaps Catholic University did their homework and disagrees with this particular group's mission, as opposed to rejecting them simply because they are a 'gay group.'

It seems to me that the lessons of sharing and politeness can be taught in a nondescript way. Elementary and middle school children should be taught to play nice, but what is the value in bringing up specifics that a child cannot yet fully understand?

This is not the first time that an age-inappropriate agenda has caught my attention. Some of you may have read my March 23rd C-Log post, "AIDS and ABCs." [UPDATE: Due to Townhall.com's new site, this link is no longer available.] In it, I quoted Bill Donahue, President of Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:

“Now it has decided to teach little kids—still on their tricycles—about AIDS. It matters not a whit that those pushing this program say that the kids won’t learn how HIV is transmitted until the fourth grade (as if nine year olds are ready to learn about the wonders of anal sex), what matters is that this represents a coordinated effort on the part of city officials to sexually engineer our children. If they were truly interested in protecting kids from diseases, they would start by teaching them about such things as food poisoning."

I concluded:

The idea of integrating AIDS information into a schedule of storytelling and naptime is simply appalling. Five year olds are not at high risk for HIV. Good habits must be formed early, but let's start with the importance of sharing on the playground, washing hands after going to the bathroom, and wearing seatbelts in the car before we get into complicated (mostly) sexually transmitted diseases. Let's teach children to treat everyone with respect--and get into the details later.

I still stand firm with this belief. It is unnecessary, and even harmful, to teach children about topics that are not age-appropriate.

...And I hope that Catholic University rejected the GLSEN's job posting for this very reason.

(Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, the details of the internship in question can be read here. I post it not because I want to encourage anyone to apply, but because I was curious about the details myself.)

Get ready for the conservative media revolution!

Over here at Townhall.com, we are gearing up for the launch of our new website. You can see the new product on July 4th.

In the meantime, check out my editor-in-chief's open letter to Townhall readers delineating what is to be expected on the new, Salem-owned site. [UPDATE: Because Townhall has already relaunched their site, the previous link no longer works. I encourage you to go to Townhall.com and see the changes for yourself.] But don't just take his (and my) word for it; this project is getting attention from the mainstream media, too. Check out Newsweek's article on the upcoming conservative media revolution.

As I wrote on the Townhall.com C-Log... Dems: Brace yourself.

Sorry about that

My apologies for the prolonged absence.

Now, where was I...?

Baby girls aborted in India

...one more reason to make abortions illegal...

283 9/11 workers have cancer

Since 9/11, 283 World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers have been diagnosed with cancer, and 33 of them have died of cancer.

Read the full story here.

'Imperfect' baby--against all odds

This story is a true miracle.

Tear down this wall!

On this day in 1987, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Brandenburg Gate.

Read the full text of his speech (and a discussion that ensued) here.

Setting the record straight on Haditha...

Mary Katherine Ham--blogger, co-worker, and friend--published a great column on Townhall.com today, highlighting the 'corrections' that the mainstream media is brushing over in their Haditha coverage. She gives proper credit to the military bloggers ('milbloggers' for those outside the Web world) for their role in revealing the truth.

I've included part of the story below, but read the whole thing here.

A couple of weeks ago, spurred by Congressman John Murtha's assertion that Marines in Haditha had killed civilians "in cold blood," the media promptly rushed to judgement, topping every story with Murtha's cold-blooded soundbite. When word leaked from Pentagon sources that there might be murder charges in the case, the media ran with the "maybe murder" story.

Because no one had yet been charged, and no one was leaking the Marines' side of the story, many became concerned that the slanted coverage might affect the fair treatment and presumption of innocence to which American servicemen are entitled. One of those people was Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, a former Marine lawyer who the Washington Post quoted out of context in its eagerness to get an Abu Ghraib reference into the story.

This week, the media is backing off of its original tone, and it's time to highlight corrections so they don't end up being relegated to the back of the paper and the back of people's minds. So, I give you the Top 3 things to remember about Haditha that the press would like you to forget.

Need some inspiration?

Look no further than our military and Commander-in-Chief.

Thanks to haystack for posting the pic at nobleduty.org. Click here to read more.

Imperfect baby? Here's a better solution...

Forget the technological advances that allow people to kill their imperfect unborn children...
What about those that restore the sight of newborns?

This is an absolute miracle. My prayers are with this family as they undergo this important, but dangerous surgery:

A BABY boy from Windsor will become the youngest British child to receive an artificial cornea in a pioneering operation today that offers hope to thousands of children who are born blind.

Aaron Rai, who is seven weeks old and cannot see through his right eye, will have surgery in the US after his parents found one of only two doctors in the world who perform the operation on babies.

James Aquavella, of the University of Rochester Medical Centre in New York, will replace Aaron’s cornea — the transparent dome of tissue that covers the eye and focuses light — with a plastic prosthesis. If the £11,000 operation is successful, he should eventually be able to see with an eye that would otherwise have remained sightless.

Aaron is the second-youngest child in the world to have an artificial cornea implanted.

(Photo credit: Ben Gurr)

Sex offender is 'too short for jail'

To quote a dear friend: "People are too short to go on roller coasters, not to go to jail."

This story is ridiculous enough to stand alone. No further comment necessary.

Army meets recruiting goal for 12th consecutive month

Drudge Report posted the happy news.

Neighborhood revitalization at its best

So glad to see that Derio Gambaro, candidate for Missouri State Senate and personal friend, has joined on to the new Tower Grove Farmers' Market. Initiative like this amongst honest, family-oriented politicans is exactly what the city needs to bring suburbia back to downtown St. Louis.

Here's some links for more info: Riverfront Times' column, Chowhound's review, and the Park's main site.

Natural Gas: The Future of Energy?

My brother attended the World Gas Conference earlier this week in Amsterdam. Stay tuned to PP&P for inside information about the event and related materials looking ahead of the issue.

[Find more information here, here, and here.]

Is it just me...

...or is it very bizarre that neither this article nor any other that I have read about the recent cervical cancer advancements mentions that HPV is a sexually-transmitted disease?

I think it's wonderful that medical discoveries are being made to help a potentially-fatal disease; however, the fact that the STD vaccine is intended for girls as young as NINE YEARS OLD is simply appalling. Forget discouraging young girls from engaging in sexual behavior; just give them 6 months of injections and let them be on their way.

It's just further proof that the apocalypse is upon us. (H/T: Steve.)

"Marriage by the numbers"

According to this week's Newsweek cover story, the [marriage] situation looks much brighter.

Twenty years ago, the major media source reported:

...a woman who remained single at 30 had only a 20 percent chance of ever marrying. By 35, the probability dropped to 5 percent. In the story's most infamous line, Newsweek reported that a 40-year-old single woman was "more likely to be killed by a terrorist" than to ever marry.

And this was before the post- 9/11 world we live in today.

Today, Newsweek reports, "about 90 percent of baby boomers are married or will marry, a ratio that's well in line with historical averages." The article continues: "Today the median age for a first marriage--25 for women, 27 for men--is higher than ever before."

Interestingly enough, 11 of the 14 women profiled in the Newsweek "Marriage Crunch" article 20 years ago were tracked down for this anniversary piece. Of the 11, 8 are now married and 3 remain single. Some have children or stepchildren. None divorced.

***

I'm glad to hear that more people are in fact getting married. But the overall results aren't necessarily good news. It is wonderful that women are finding love, staying married, and living a happy life--but let's not forget the increased risk involved with having babies later in life. Children born to mothers as young as 35 have a higher chance of bring born with mental retardation, among other ailments, and the risk increases each year for mothers over 35. I suggest 'older' couples (I use the word 'older' lightly) need to consider the gift that is adoption, rather than engage in risky infertility treatments. I'm happy to know that even during the War on Terror, marriage is not--entirely--outweighed by terror.

Flawed theological architecture

H/T to The Washington Times for including this today:

"It tends to be the case that Catholics especially produce really good art, Protestants less so and evangelicals often hardly hit the map. There are some historical and theological reasons for that, obviously. The last pope, John Paul II, wrote a call to the arts community calling artists to use their gifts for the Church...
"I think that evangelical churches have put such an emphasis on soul-winning that they've ended up with a bottom-line, like a profit-and-loss statement: 'How many souls did we win this year?' No one is arguing that we should not do evangelism. But when that's the primary category, everything that is not in some direct way 'measurable' then becomes suspect. 'Why should we invest our time or money and energy in those things, since we can't quantify the results in terms of numbers or converts?' To which I say, When God created the world, He made both trees that bear fruit and trees that are good to look at. Why? He made the earth extravagantly beautiful, and it didn't have to be that way. God said it was good that way.
"We seem to assume someone wrote a rule somewhere that churches have to be ugly, with fluorescent white lights and plain white walls. But we don't realize that we are communicating theological things with the way we design our churches."

--David Boyd in "Truth and Beauty" in the spring issue of Cutting Edge

I agree with a lot of what Mr. Boyd says here. But I would like to take it one step further-- it seems to me that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has also gotten away from well-designed churches due to the influence of Protestantism. A church is not just a building that people go to for Mass or services; a church is intended to make manifest the majesty of God, to represent heaven on earth.

Not-so-Dixie Chicks

The President's approval ratings may be remarkably low, but actions speak louder than words. America has loudly proclaimed that it is uninterested in lousy pop-country music that deliberately attacks American ideals and America's CEO. True, their record hit #1 and stayed for a short while, but everyone knows that concerts bring in the big bucks--and for a country band to have to cancel its stop in Memphis, among others, is laughable to their entire industry.

The Dixie Chicks don't need to "make nice," but if they want to get back on top, they should consider their audience.

Imperfect baby? No problem.

This must be read. Those with a weak stomach may want to brace themselves.

What a disturbing article. And please don't make the mistake of thinking, "Oh that's from another country. We have nothing to worry about." This isn't from some obscure, savage land; this is from the UK, our closest ally and best international friend. We may not be so far off... especially if the Republicans lose their Congressional majority this fall.

'Dr. Death' shows a mild form of remorse

Now, as he sits in jail, Kevorkian may have had a change of heart — not about his dedication to the "death with dignity" movement, but on how he went about promoting it.

Nervous on The Hill

Maybe an office in Arlington, VA isn't so bad afterall. Let's just hope that no one is hurt and that this doesn't escalate into something more troublesome.

(Note: This is not referring to "The Hill" in St. Louis for those readers from the Show Me State.)

Sneaky Santorum?

Uh-oh.

For a man who's approval ratings seem to keep dropping, this is not good press. I love the man, but he has to be careful if he wants to stick around the Beltway.

I hope more information comes out about this. If anyone finds another link with more details, let me know. If I find something, I'll be sure to add it to the site.

Scary news from Iran

Don't mess with...Iran.

Adoption sounds good right now

Increased risk of placenta praevia identified in women who use in-vitro fertilization. In lay men's terms:

Placenta praevia can cause haemorrhaging in the mother, and increases the risk of a premature birth, and problems during delivery.

Small studies have suggested in the past that placenta praevia is more common after the use of assisted fertility techniques.

The Norwegian study was much larger, considering data on over 845,300 pregnancies.

The researchers believe it is the first time an increased risk of placenta praevia has been directly linked to the reproductive techniques used.

Lead researcher Dr Liv Bente Romundstad focused on the 1,349 women in the study who had conceived spontaneously in one pregnancy and after assisted fertility in the other.

"Regardless of whether it was the first or second pregnancy that was conceived through assisted reproductive technology, we found a nearly three-fold higher risk of placenta praevia.

"This suggests that a substantial proportion of the extra risk may be attributable directly to factors relating to the reproduction technology."

Idle?

63 million votes for American Idol.

Not so idle now, eh America? Let's see that kind of interest this fall at the polls.

Chapter of the Year

When I first read Mike Adams' column "2006 Book of the Year," I yelled to my editor in the next room that I wanted to read the book. He walked out of his office and set a copy on my desk. [insert a chorus of angels and a bright light]

I have quite a summer reading list already, but I was too intrigued to let this opportunity pass. I've was pro-life before I was old enough to understand what it all meant, but I hoped I could still learn from the "book of the year."

Today, when I finally had some time to start, I jumped right to the 18th chapter (that's the kind of reader I am). "Pro-life Democrats" interested me the most because Mr. Adams hadn't focused on it in his review and I was curious what author Ramesh Ponnuru would have to say on the subject. I have campaigned for pro-life Democrats in Missouri on several occasions--and I wanted to make sure that Ponnuru wouldn't dismiss me as completely malicious and horrible.

I am eager to read the rest of the book (24 hours in one day is never enough!), but in the meantime, I want to share what I have already learned in this chapter:

-I was happy to see mention of such famous flip-flopping 'pro-life'/pro-choice Democrats as Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, and my personal 'favorite,' Dick Gephardt. In response to Kucinich's loss "as a kind of protest candidate within the Democratic primaries," Ponnuru writes, "It's a sad day when a man can be corrupted by power he is never going to have." Zing.

-The DNC used to have 261 links to Democratic-related sites, but refused to link to "Democrats for Life." A big fight ensued, and the DNC eventually removed all the links. Ponnuru comments: "It was an elegant solution to the problem, one that neatly illustrated the instincts that have brought the party to minority status: better to cut off all ties to the outside world than to include pro-lifers." Yet another well-placed zing. Read the chapter for more details.

-I've often heard pro-lifers laugh at the idea of a pro-life Democrat, calling it an oxymoron or a flat out impossibility. Not so fast, dear friends. According to Ponnuru, "in 2003 and 2004, Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI) voted the way the National Right to Life Committee wanted 91 percent of the time. In 2004, he also voted with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 90 percent of the time--more than most House Democrats." Amazing stuff. Low profile or no, the pro-lifers of the nation need to do research of their own like this--and reach out to support legislators like this. Fiscal and social conservatives may have a harder time, but there are many people who put abortion or the pro-life issues as a whole about many other issues and they need to find more Dales out there if both sides of the aisle (in Congress and at Church) want to get along.

-"Pro-life Democrats are more likely than pro-life Republicans to oppose capital punishment and to regard that position as integral to being pro-life." Hats off to the pro-life Dems for this. As a pro-life conservative voter, I have a tough time having patience for people who call themselves pro-life but support capital punishment. I hate to sound like the MSM, but call a spade a spade and call yourselves anti-abortion.

-Lastly, I was happy to hear that there are now more crisis pregnancy centers in America than abortion clinics, according to a Jan. 2006 New York Times article. Good news for people who normally hate the Manhattan rag.

"Lives mean nothing"

John Allen Muhammad is serving as his own lawyer in the Rockville, MD trial. His "accomplice and former protege," Lee Boyd Malvo, began testifying against Muhammad yesterday. Muhammad antagonized Malvo, according to today's Washington Times:

"The last time we played basketball, who won?" Muhammad asked.
"You," said Malvo, glaring.

Nice to know that Muhammad is taking his own trial so seriously, as he faces the death penalty. Malvo, whose record is anything but clean, may have had a legitimate change of heart. Malvo admitted that he would have died for Muhammad three years ago. He also testified on Tuesday that Muhammad told him that "lives mean nothing." Malvo explained the torment he went through upon hearing details of Muhammad's plans to terrorize Baton Rouge, LA:

After that conversation, he put one bullet in a five-shot revolver and pulled the trigger four times, but he could not pull it a fifth.

"I sat in the bathroom and played Russian roulette for several hours, crying," Malvo said. "I couldn't pull the trigger.... I broke down."

Wow.

Intense.

But, no matter how tormented he was, he still killed people. And rest assured:

Assistant State Attorney Katherine Winfree made it clear that Malvo is not receiving any benefits in exchange for his testimony or his guilt plea, and that she will ask the court to give him the maximum sentence for each murder--life in prison without parole.

Justice and honesty prevail. Now that he's come clean with legal officials, let's hope he's come clean in his heart with God. And let's hope that his former mentor, Muhammad, will feel some remorse--or at least get a clue.

Idle for Idol

Taylor Hicks looks a little too old for to be an American Idol, if you ask me. Can you see any 7th grade girls hanging his poster in their lockers? I don't think so.

And as a side note - looks like he spent a little time with some 'bunnies' in the recent past.

I'm curious to see how many votes come in tonight... and if it's more than we saw for the 2004 presidential election. Stay tuned tonight for the announcement of the winner (and the total # of votes).

Read this if you think the war in Iraq was unjustified

Yesterday, the WSJ published a vey important piece by Peter Wehner, deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives, in which he responds to the still-lingering claims that the war in Iraq was unjustified.

I've included the entire text of the column for the sake of those without a subscription. (The link is here for those who can access it.)

Revisionist History
By PETER WEHNER
May 23, 2006; Page A16

Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations -- the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so -- and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:

The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war. "There is no question misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq," according to Ted Kennedy. Jimmy Carter charged that on Iraq, "President Bush has not been honest with the American people." And Al Gore has said that an "abuse of the truth" characterized the administration's "march to war." These charges are themselves misleading, which explains why no independent body has found them credible. Most of the world was operating from essentially the same set of assumptions regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.

Let's review what we know. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Thanks to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE" (my emphasis). We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress. This helps explains why John Kerry, in voting to give the president the authority to use force, said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." It's why Sen. Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And it's why Hillary Clinton said in 2002, "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

Beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."

In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.

The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments. Earlier this year, Mr. Gore charged that "CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House . . . found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases." Sen. Kennedy charged that the administration "put pressure on intelligence officers to produce the desired intelligence and analysis."

This myth is shattered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. Among the findings: "The committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so." Silberman-Robb concluded the same, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . [A\]Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." What the report did find is that intelligence assessments on Iraq were "riddled with errors"; "most of the fundamental errors were made and communicated to policy makers well before the now-infamous NIE of October 2002, and were not corrected in the months between the NIE and the start of the war."

Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren't found, Saddam posed no threat. Howard Dean declared Iraq "was not a danger to the United States." John Murtha asserted, "There was no threat to our national security." Max Cleland put it this way: "Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs." Yet while we did not find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, what we did find was enough to alarm any sober-minded individual.

Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told the Senate: "I actually think this may be one of those cases where [Iraq under Saddam Hussein] was even more dangerous than we thought." His statement when issuing the ISG progress report said: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities" that were part of "deliberate concealment efforts" that should have been declared to the U.N. And, he concluded, "Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Among the key findings of the September 2004 report by Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Mr. Kay as ISG head, are that Saddam was pursuing an aggressive strategy to subvert the Oil for Food Program and to bring down U.N. sanctions through illicit finance and procurement schemes; and that Saddam intended to resume WMD efforts once U.N. sanctions were eliminated. According to Mr. Duelfer, "the guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual capacity achieved over so many years at such a great cost and to be in a position to produce again with as short a lead time as possible. . . . Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution."

Beyond this, Saddam's regime was one of the most sadistic and aggressive in modern history. It started a war against Iran and used mustard gas and nerve gas. A decade later Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was a massively destabilizing force in the Middle East; so long as Saddam was in power, rivers of blood were sure to follow.

Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization. "The president now says that the war is really about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. This effort at after-the-fact justification was only made necessary because the primary rationale was so sadly lacking in fact," according to Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, President Bush argued for democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. To take just one example, he said in a speech on Feb. 26, 2003: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."

The following day the New York Times editorialized: "President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. . . . The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."

These, then, are the urban legends we must counter, else falsehoods become conventional wisdom. And what a strange world it is: For many antiwar critics, the president is faulted for the war, and he, not the former dictator of Iraq, inspires rage. The liberator rather than the oppressor provokes hatred. It is as if we have stepped through the political looking glass, into a world turned upside down and inside out.

'Choice' out of control

I am continually grossed out today:

Thanks to birth control pills and other hormonal contraceptives, a growing number of women are taking the path chosen by 22-year-old Stephanie Sardinha.

She hasn't had a period since she was 17.

"It's really one of the best things I've ever done," she says.

A college student and retail worker in Lisbon Falls, Maine, Sardinha uses Nuvaring, a vaginal contraceptive ring. After the hormones run out in three weeks, she replaces the ring right away instead of following instructions to leave the ring out for a week to allow bleeding.

[...]The period is "way over-romanticized," says Linda Gordon, a New York University professor specializing in women's history and the history of sexuality.

"It doesn't take long for women to go from being excited about having a period to feeling it's a pain in the neck," said Gordon, author of "The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America."

She says caution is needed because there's not enough data on long-term consequences of using hormones continuously. Gordon notes menopausal women for years were told that hormone drugs would keep them young — until research uncovered unexpected risks.

Madonna crucifies herself

The only word for this is disgusting.

Later on, she donned a crown of thorns and suspended herself from a giant mirrored cross to deliver the ballad "Live to Tell." Video screens showed images of third-world poverty and reeled off grim statistics.

During one of her half-dozen costume changes, another video montage juxtaposed images of Bush, members of his administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair with footage of Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, and Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe. Midway through the new song "I Love New York," she deviated from the script and made a crude reference to Bush and oral sex.

[...] Billboard magazine has forecast ticket sales could reach the $200 million range, making it the most successful tour by a female artist. Cher holds the record with $192.5 million from 273 shows on a "farewell" world tour that began in June 2002 and lasted almost three years, according to Billboard.

Gun makers' rights protected

Here's the story.

I love how the Post sub-headline so unbiasedly declares: "Federal law protecting manufacturers trumps local law protecting residents." Who says the local law is effective in protecting residents? I am a resident, and I still don't feel safe.

When will DC get the picture? Sigh...

Rising religious left?

Is the "religious left" on the rise?

See what the Washington Post has to say:

Recently, there has been an increase in books and Web sites by religious liberals, national and regional conferences, church-based discussion groups, and new faith-oriented political organizations. "Organizationally speaking, strategically speaking, the religious left is now in the strongest position it's been in since the Vietnam era," said Clemson University political scientist Laura R. Olson.

What is not clear, according to sociologists and pollsters, is whether the religious left is growing in size as well as activism. Its political impact, including its ability to influence voters and move a legislative agenda, has also yet to be determined.

"I do think the religious left has become more visible and assertive and is attempting to get more organized," said Allen D. Hertzke, a University of Oklahoma political science professor who follows religious movements. "But how big is it? The jury is still out on that."

"My gut tells me that all this foment [on the religious left] is bound to create more involvement in politics," he said. "I don't know whether there's going to be more of them numerically, but you don't need greater numbers to have a political impact; all you need is to be more active. You already see that in Ohio and some other states, where Christian conservatives no longer have a monopoly on faith in politics."

Conservative Christian activist Gary L. Bauer said the religious left "is getting more media attention" but "it's not clear" that it is getting more organized.

"My reaction is 'Come on in, the water's fine' . . . but I think that when you look at frequent church attenders in America, they tend to be pro-life and support marriage as one man and one woman, and so I think the religious left is going to have a hard time making any significant progress" with those voters, he said.

One small step for Frist, one giant leap for conservatives

Congress agreed to increase broadcast-indecency fines.

Your P.E. teacher was mistaken

Lactic acid. Yum.

A truly Catholic university... on one end

Thank God I go to a Catholic school that is actually Catholic.

The students don't always behave according to doctrine, but at least the administration does.

Stay tuned for more reactions to the Catholic University Women's Lacrosse story. I may be publishing a column on Townhall.com next week.

Joke jobs

#13. Sweet.

(Thanks to my new blogging friend, Mary Katherine Ham, for posting the link.)

Lighting the fire?

Though I'll always have a place in my heart for Catholic eduation, this is definitely something to consider. The article covers all the basic concerns; send me your thoughts if you'd like to discuss the topic more.

(Thanks to my brother for recommending the link.)

Da Vinci Code disappoints

Yesterday I overheard a woman say:

"If everything in The DaVinci Code is fake, why is the Church so concerned about it? Makes me wonder why they're so nervous."

UGH. I won't be spending any money or time on this movie. If you need some reasons, look to my previous posts on Townhall.com: [UPDATE: Due to Townhall.com's new website, these old links are now unavailable.]

What's all the fuss? If you haven't read the book, check out some of the Catholic Answers information below:

Why should a Catholic be concerned about the novel? Although a work of fiction, the book claims to be meticulously researched, and it goes to great lengths to convey the impression that it is based on fact. It even has a "fact" page at the front of the book underscoring the claim of factuality for particular ideas within the book. As a result, many readers-both Catholic and non-Catholic-are taking the book's ideas seriously. The problem is that many of the ideas that the book promotes are anything but fact, and they go directly to the heart of the Catholic faith. For example, the book promotes these ideas:

-Jesus is not God; he was only a man.
-Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
-She is to be worshiped as a goddess.
-Jesus got her pregnant, and the two had a daughter.
-That daughter gave rise to a prominent family line that is still present in Europe today.
-The Bible was put together by a pagan Roman emperor.
-Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.
-The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.
-In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene rather than Peter was directed to establish the Church.
-There is a secret society known as the Priory of Sion that still worships Mary Magdalene as a goddess and is trying to keep the truth alive.
-The Catholic Church is aware of all this and has been fighting for centuries to keep it suppressed. It often has committed murder to do so.
-The Catholic Church is willing to and often has assassinated the descendents of Christ to keep his bloodline from growing.

Catholics should be concerned about the book because it not only misrepresents their Church as a murderous institution but also implies that the Christian faith itself is utterly false.

Should other Christians be concerned about the book?

Definitely. Only some of the offensive claims of The Da Vinci Code pertain directly to the Catholic Church. The remainder strike at the Christian faith itself. If the book's claims were true, then all forms of Christianity would be false (except perhaps for Gnostic/feminist versions focusing on Mary Magdalene instead of Jesus).


Plus, it hasn't received great reviews.

"A lawful and a welcoming society at the same time"

Last night, President Bush said we are at "a time of decision." He reminded us of the problems of our current immigration system at the start of his speech, pointing out that illegal immigrants put pressure on schools and hospitals that serve people who do not pay taxes and contribute to their success. It's sad that he even needs to remind us of that. Conservatives gripe about it all the time. I know all too many liberals who are the first to criticize public schools, but it never seems to occur to them to think about the taxes that are coming in and who's paying them (or, more importantly, not paying them).

Bush reminded us also that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent individuals, working to support their families. Yes, they are a part of American life, he said, but they are also "beyond the reach and protection of american law." He continued, "We area also a nation of immigrants and we must uphold that tradition." He followed shortly with the message that we can be "a lawful and a welcoming society at the same time."

Bush outlined 5 objectives, and seems to have appealed to hard-lined conservatives determined to send the military south and to bleeding hearts that want...peace, love, and happiness. First, he said, the United States must secure its borders. He made it clear that the border "must be open to trade and lawful immigration." He has already increased funding to the border patrol by 66% and raised the number of patrolmen from 9,000 to 12,000. 6 million people have been sent home through the work of these honorable men. By 2008, Bush explained, an additional 6,000 patrolmen will guard the border, leaving Bush with a small legacy of doubling the border patrol during his reign. Bush also emphasized the importance of developing and utilizing new technologies, something that representatives from both sides of the aisle can generally agree about. High-tech fences and motion sensors were discussed, among other things.

As Scarborough pointed out tonight on his show, Bush may have won over some Democrats with this move, if not his drifting conservative pals. As Rep. Luiz Gutierrezi (D-IL) said on MSNBC last night, "I can't criticize the president when I've called upon him to show leadership in regards to this issue." He seemed generally pleased with the plans. On the other hand, Bush's placement of securing borders as the first of the 5 objectives is smart and will probably help his approval ratings. (Check out billoreilly.com for a poll asking that question... or better yet, for the results.) Pat Buchanan disagreed with me on MSNBC tonight. [I still need to research this number in particular, but according to Buchanan, someone who doesn't have a high school education costs the government $90,000 in their lifetime.] Michelle Malkin wasn't happy on Bill O'Reilly either.

Now to the National Guard. Up to 6,000 National Guardsmen will be sent to the border if Bush has his way. They will "support and train," according to Bush, and they will not be directly involved with law enforcement. He also said that the number of men would decrease after a year as new technology and newly trained patrolmen took the lead. Many people (Michelle Malkin included) think that 6,000 people is nothing. As Peter King pointed out last night, there are 35,000 cops in NYC alone. What impact can 6,000 men make on a border that is an expansive, immediate threat? Well, if it was a case of only 6,000 National Guardsmen helping this situation, yes, I would be concerned. But you can't forge that these men will be implemented to help the cause ALONG WITH Bush's 'objectives.' 6,000 isn't much, but 6,000 plus new technologies plus more patrolmen plus increased local funding... and so on... is a strong front to face this problem. We're attacking the issue from all sides; Bush's emphasis on comprehensive reform could not have been more on target.

But I digress...

Also as measures to secure the border, state and local law enforcement can expect increased funding for targeted missions. "Catch and release," Bush explained, will come to a complete end. It baffles me that anyone ever thought that would work. Bush also cited expanded prisons and expedited legal processes in the effort to secure the border most efficiently.

...and that's just the first objective. Bush spent much more time addressing that first objective than any of the others, but in doing so, his argument for a comprehensive approach became clear. It's not just about a fence. It's not just about man power. Everything is involved.

Bush's second objective was to begin a temporary worker program for those honest people with a desire to work. He believes this will reduce the number of Mexicans trying to sneak across the border because there will be a legal opportunity for them to come into the United States. He also wants Congress to create a legal path for foreign workers to enter for a limited time, matching "willing workers with willing employers." Bush argued that this will help the US economy and hopes our wallets and our stocks don't skip a beat. This has been another big source of tension in Congress and even within the parties themselves. I think Bush's plan is the best compromise; the program will exist, but it will be limited and in no way resemble a free pass to citizenship.

Holding employers accountable for their employees was Bush's third objective. He proposed a new ID card for legal immigrants and guest workers that would include advanced technology, making it more difficult to create fraudulent versions. Republicans and Democrats alike seem to think this is a good idea.

As his fourth objective, Bush flat out said that he does not support amnesty. He acknowledged that millions are here already--but while they should not be given "an automatic path to citizenship" (his definition of amnesty), he warned that it is "neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people." Illegal immigrants with clean records (and of "character") who have been here for the longest amount of time and have raised or are raising families will be given the chance to 'right their wrongs,' behind those who play by the rules the first time around, according to Bush. Many conservatives are unhappy with this and say that it is in fact amnesty. However, I have not heard a single rational case for a mass deportation.

Lastly, Bush urged Americans to help newcomers assimilate. "They add to the unity of America," he said.

In his closing remarks, Bush asked the Congress and the American people to continue the discussion about this issue with a "reasoned and respectful tone" because "every human being has dignity and value." Amen to that.

Only with comprehensive reform can we dually honor our immigrant heritage and preserve one lawful nation, under God.

"We get the idols we deserve"

This week was the first time I saw American Idol this season, but I am just appalled by the fact that the one person with something to offer was booted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051102135_pf.html

I love her closing line. "As so often is the case, the quality of the candidates makes it hard to go to the polls."

Poll burdens in the Show-Me-State

Lazy Missouri voters will be up in arms when it comes time to hit the polls this fall. They will have to punch ALL the holes and they have to bring a photo ID. Who knew democracy could be so burdensome?

Much ado about nothing here.

There is a big fight amongst Missouri House and Senate members to require photo IDs at the polls. Carnahan (son of the famously-elected dead man) asked Blunt to block the measure, despite the fact that the bill has already been "softened." The Missouri Association of Counties is against the bill, too. What a waste of time. Am I the only one who doesn't understand the fight? It only makes sense to require an ID to vote. Maybe this will stop dogs and dead people from voting once and for all.

Also, 'straight-ticket' voting is "at risk," according to the Kansas City Star. A ban on one-punch voting has been inserted into the photo ID bill described above.

The Post Dispatch's website doesn't seem to be reporting on this much, probably because it shouldn't be a big deal in the first place. Here's some good information about the bill though, posted just this morning at DigitalBurg.com:

Sen. Delbert Scott, R-Lowry City, sponsored Senate Bill 1014 and said the changes are important given the ample examples of voter fraud in Missouri. "Every time someone cheats when casting a vote, it discounts an honest vote," Scott said. "It's important that every one in Missouri can vote, vote once and know that vote is counted."

Well said, Delbert. He goes on to explain:

"More than 95 percent of Missourians already have an acceptable form of photo I.D.," Scott said. "For those who don't, we?ll provide them one for free. And in the case a voter doesn't bring a photo I.D. in an election before November 2008, they can simply sign an affidavit and cast a provisional ballot that can be verified later."

That takes care of the Democrats' problems. Now what will they complain about?

I think this is a positive mood to create a greater sense of personal responsibility for politics. People who want to punch the holes right on down the line, without caring about the candidate's specifics, are free to do so, but at least now voters will have the duty to read the names of their choices. Straight-ticket voting doesn't make sense, particularly in light of the recent disagreement within each party. Fiscal conservatives often have different priorities than social conservatives, and sometimes those priorities involve stepping outside the lines. Kudos to Missouri for encouraging responsible citizenship.

-----

(This post is based on a shorter version that was published today on Townhall.com. UPDATE: Due to Townhall.com's new website, the old link is now unavailable.)

Welcome to my blog!

I was mapping out a blog for tomorrow morning at Townhall.com when it occured to me that I could start my own...

So here it is. My blog. Let's see what happens, eh?