Klein's Quips

« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »

November 29, 2005

Is This Some Sort of Practical Joke?

Arlen Specter is asking Congress to investigate the Eagles' handling of the Terrell Owens case.

Link via Alarming News.

UPDATE: Specter backs off...

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:24 PM | Comments (1)

Dershowitz-Chomsky Showdown

I watched the debate between Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky on "ISRAEL & PALESTINE AFTER DISENGAGEMENT: Where Do We Go From Here?", held tonight at Harvard’s Kennedy School. The streaming video should soon be archived here. The upshot is that the event lived up to its billing, as Dershowitz, armed with maps, pulled no punches in challenging Chomsky. What came across in the debate was the contrast between Dershowitz, who is optimistic for the prospects of a peaceful two-state solution, as outlined in his new book The Case For Peace, and Chomsky, who doesn’t think Israel is capable of agreeing to any plan that would be realistic for Palestinians.

It’s inconceivable to me how anybody can watch this debate and take anything Chomsky says seriously. Any source that contradicts his viewpoint he dismisses as suspect, and as Dershowitz pointed out, whoever he quotes in support of his theories he identifies as a “leading scholar.” The average member of the audience isn’t going to take the time to track down every obscure source Chomsky cites, and when asked why his theories were not more widely reported, he talks of a media cover-up.

One good example of this related to the collapse of the 2000 peace process. Dershowitz laid the blame squarely on Arafat for the rejection of a two-state solution, but Chomsky blamed Israel. Dershowitz cited statements by U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia as well as private conversations with Bill Clinton to back up his claim. Chomsky said anything coming from Dennis Ross should be disregarded, and cited Ron Pundak, the director of the Shimon Peres Center for Peace as the “leading scholar” on the issue.

When Dershowitz said that Dennis Ross should be considered reliable, because he was at Camp David in 2000, Chomsky said that Pundak was there too. Chomsky held his ground on this point, even after a questioner from the audience challenged him. Chomsky’s assertion that Pundak was at Camp David is contradicted by this biography of Pundak, from the official Website of the Shimon Peres Center for Peace. As the questioner rightly told Chomsky, Pundak was involved in the Oslo process in 1993, but, at least according to this official bio, he was not at Camp David. If anybody else out there has contrary evidence, I’d love to hear it.

Another great point came when Dershowitz asked what country facing a similar terrorist threat to Israel had used preemptive action with better discretion. Chomsky cited Nicaragua and Cuba, for showing so much restraint in the face of terrorism carried out by the U.S. Chomsky then had the nerve to cite Iran, because Israel and the U.S. are threatening Iran with destruction. Hello Noam! It was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who recently called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” As my evidence, I cite this story from Al Jazeera. Even Chomsky would have a tough time dismissing Al Jazeera as American/Zionist propaganda.

It would be great if we could just laugh at Chomsky. But unfortunately, he is more responsible than any living intellectual for brainwashing college students against Israel (and America). I have often wondered what the appeal of Chomsky is, and have concluded that it comes down to the fact that he makes impressionable people think that he’s letting them in on secrets. To his followers, Chomsky is like Morpheus in “The Matrix,” offering people a red pill that will allow them to see beyond the world surrounding them and uncover hidden truths.

Or, as Dershowitz put it, “In order to get the truth, you have to go to Planet Chomsky.” (This is not an exact quote since a transcript is not available at this time).

Posted by Philip Klein at 8:57 PM | Comments (13)

November 28, 2005

Gov. Warner rejects Iraq withdrawal date

Via Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States needs to set milestones for progress, not a firm withdrawal date, before it can leave Iraq, Virginia governor and prospective Democratic presidential candidate Mark Warner said on Monday.

"This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it," Warner said.

"To set an arbitrary deadline or specific date is not appropriate," he said. "... It is incumbent on the president to set milestones for what he believes will be the conclusion."

Warner, whose profile was bolstered earlier this month when he helped elect Timothy Kaine as his successor in Virginia, is sounding like the type of Democrat who could defeat Hillary Clinton in a presidential primary.

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:48 PM | Comments (0)

Bolton Succeeds Again

From the Jerusalem Post:

Following intense US pressure, the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday issued an unprecedented condemnation of Monday's Hizbullah attacks on northern Israel.

This condemnation - slamming Hizbullah by name for "acts of hatred" - marked the first time the Security Council has ever reprimanded Hizbullah for cross-border attacks on Israel. The condemnation followed by two days a failed attempt to get a condemnation issued on Monday, the day of the attack, when Algeria came out against any mention of Hizbullah in the statement.

When asked what changed from Monday to Wednesday, one diplomatic official replied: "John Bolton," a reference to the US ambassador to the UN. Bolton lobbied vigorously for the passage of the statement.

Posted by Philip Klein at 7:27 PM | Comments (0)

Are Liberal Cities More Dangerous?

My friend Rich cites a report by the Bay Area Center for Voting Research that ranks the most liberal and most conservative cities in the United States.

When gazing at the list of the Top 25 Most Liberal Cities, I noticed a strong correlation with this list of the 25 Most Dangerous Cities. In fact, 11 cities were listed as being both among the most liberal and among the most dangerous: Detroit, Michigan; Gary, Indiana; Washington, DC; Oakland, California; Newark, New Jersey; Flint, Michigan; Cleveland, Ohio; Hartford, Connecticut; Baltimore, Maryland; Birmingham, Alabama; St. Louis, Missouri.

None of the Top 25 Most Conservative Cities appeared on the list of dangerous cities.

And I always thought liberals were supposed to be kinder and gentler than conservatives.

Posted by Philip Klein at 6:34 PM | Comments (0)

The more things change...

The more they remain the same:

Nov 27, 1:42 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John Kerry initially voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution calling on President Bush to explain his strategy for success in Iraq. Minutes later, the Democrat changed his vote.

Posted by Philip Klein at 2:17 AM | Comments (0)

Rocky IV at 20

It's been 20 years since Rocky IV hit the big screens. Read my latest American Spectator column to find out why it is the greatest Cold War film ever made.

Posted by Philip Klein at 1:40 AM | Comments (2)

November 27, 2005

Dershowitz vs. Chomsky: It's On!

This Tuesday at 7pm, Harvard's Kennedy School will host a debate between Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz that has been years in the making. The topic will be: "Israel and Palestine after disengagement: Where do we go from here?" The streaming video will be broadcast live here and archived here. I'm sure the debate will generate a lot of discussion, so it's well worth watching if you're interested in the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Posted by Philip Klein at 2:43 PM | Comments (0)

November 23, 2005

Sounds of New York

As soon as I saw three high schoolers walking down my subway car with drumsticks this evening, I knew I was in for it. "Sorry for disturbing you folks," the band leader said, prior to disturbing everybody. He said his group was seeking donations to buy drums, and would give us a demonstration. The three of them proceeded to bang on the floor with their drumsticks for three minutes--and then they went around the subway asking for contributions. From a pure business standpoint, I wondered whether they would have done better had they collected money first, in exchange for NOT playing. Then I was reminded of this Marx Brothers bit:

Ravelli: Now, for rehearsing we make special rate. Thatsa fifteen dollars an hour.

Spaulding: That's for rehearsing?

Ravelli: Thatsa for rehearsing.

Spaulding: And what do you get for not rehearsing?

Ravelli: You couldn't afford it...

Posted by Philip Klein at 6:02 PM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2005

The Ultimate Defense of Wal-Mart

Where else can you buy an animated, singing, trophy deer head to mount on
your wall for $99.93?

Posted by Philip Klein at 7:42 PM | Comments (0)

Senators Should Grill Alito About This

A pregnant woman ticketed for driving in the carpool lane will have her day in court next month to argue that her unborn child counts as a second person in the car.

Posted by Philip Klein at 7:39 PM | Comments (0)

Pope Prada I

Who would have predicted that Pope Benedict XVI, who was described as a traditionalist conservative after he was named pope, would develop a reputation as a "clotheshorse"? Could it be an example of triangulation?

For those who haven't read, he has been seen wearing Prada shoes and Gucci sunglasses. And as you can see from the image below, the red shoes are quite flashy.

All kidding aside, isn't the pope's penchant for wearing luxury designer clothing so prominently an example of Pride, which C.S. Lewis described as The Great Sin? Now, I am not a Christian and do not believe that Pride is a sin--nor do I think there is anything wrong with people wearing fancy clothes. But this dude is the pope after all, so I think it is worth a discussion. If there are any Catholics reading this, I'd be curious to know whether you think Pope Benedict XVI is setting a bad example by getting all decked out.

Posted by Philip Klein at 7:04 PM | Comments (2)

November 21, 2005

The Teflon Insurgent

U.S. military says it ‘just missed’ al-Zarqawi

Posted by Philip Klein at 6:08 PM | Comments (0)

New London Development Goes Nowhere Despite Eminent Domain Ruling

From today's New York Times:

NEW LONDON, Conn. - They have still not moved out. Not Susette Kelo. Not the Derys. Not Byron Athenian or Bill Von Winkle or the others.

Five months after the United States Supreme Court set off a national debate by ruling that the City of New London could seize their property through eminent domain to make way for new private development, no one has been forced to leave.

Read the whole thing here.

More evidence that the backlash against the Kelo v. New London decision may have done as much to stop eminent domain abuse than if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the property owners.

Posted by Philip Klein at 3:22 PM | Comments (0)

November 19, 2005

Individuals vs. Structures

In a recent discussion about Wal-Mart with a very smart liberal friend of mine, I suggested that a woman working at a factory in China for low wages was choosing to work there, because the option was better than her other option of staying in the countryside and working on a farm. My friend thought my analysis was incredibly naïve, arguing that I completely mischaracterized the woman’s action as an actual choice and was ignoring the power of larger, structural realities. Once the process of industrialization begins, my friend argued, there’s no turning back, peasants get swept up in the momentum of change and so it really is inaccurate to say they are exercising a true choice. She said she wasn’t necessarily touting the virtues of an agrarian economy vs. an industrial economy, but just drawing my attention to the bigger picture. We argued back and forth for awhile, but didn’t get anywhere. But I felt as if the conversation really got to the heart of what separates liberals from conservatives. Liberals view issues at the structural level, and conservatives view things at the individual level. Liberals, seeing problems as structural, think that the only solution is a structural (i.e. government) response, whereas true conservatives believe that government should back off, and allow problems to be solved by individuals.

I think this basic analytical difference is true for just about any issue you can bring up. When talking about racial or sexual discrimination, liberals view this as structural and demand a structural response in the form of affirmative action, whereas conservatives believe that a hard-working and ambitious person can overcome discrimination. Liberals believe that government intervention is needed to fight poverty; conservatives believe that it can be overcome by individual initiative. When it comes to criminal justice, liberals talk about root causes of crime, such as poverty, race, etc. Conservatives believe that criminals are in control of their own actions, and argue that by being tough on them, you change the balance of the cost-benefit analysis of committing crime, and nudge criminals into making the proper choices in the future. This is also true when it comes to fighting terrorism. Liberals often try to link terrorism to poverty and lack of education, but conservatives believe that terrorists are individuals who have chosen an evil ideology and will only change their behavior if they know that their actions will be countered by tremendous force.

I can go on and on, but I think you get the point. Also, I’d like to draw your attention to a recent essay, which touches on a similar theme. In it, Mark Helprin (who has pulled no punches in criticizing Bush over the past few years) argues that post-9/11, the Left’s resistance to fighting terrorism derives from its view that the collective is more important than the individual. He compares the passive Left to herd animals, because they want to move on from the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, without a fight. The gist of his argument is:

The nature of one's reaction to aggression against one's country will often be determined by whether one sees the polity primarily as individuals who must struggle with the imperfection of being bound into a collective, or as a collective that must overcome the circumstantial imperfection that it comprises individuals. For wildebeest thundering across a plain in Africa, it takes a village. The herd defends itself by sacrificing a minuscule proportion of its number and moving on. If the herd were to turn upon the jackals preying upon it, the jackals would be pulverized almost instantly. Nonetheless, if the price for the escape of ten thousand is the sacrifice of only a few, that is how it is done when the collective is paramount.

But animals like bears, tigers, and lions, that wander individually or in small groups, know that their survival depends upon how they fight, and their willingness to fight is so well understood that they are seldom attacked, whereas to a predator a herd in flight is a living contradiction of the maxim that there is no such thing as a free lunch…

After all, a herd of 100,000 wildebeest would neither miss just one of its number, nor even pause to reflect. But where the Left in all its wisdom gravely miscalculates is that the dead of September 11th were not wildebeest, and neither are we. That is why America, for all its failings and sins, has not gone down, and will not go down, on bended knee.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Philip Klein at 1:59 PM | Comments (1)

November 18, 2005

Culture of Life

This article by a woman who had an abortion because her unborn child had Down syndrome is upsetting. I don’t want to visit the abortion debate right now, but it does strike me as odd that the same liberals who would jump all over you if you don’t use the current politically correct term for somebody with Down syndrome (whether it’s retarded, mentally handicapped, mentally challenged, etc.) will defend a woman for aborting a baby simply because of his handicap. (The baby was a boy in this case, so that’s why I used a male pronoun).

Whether you are personally pro-life or pro-choice, it is worth thinking about the moral issues that this raises. As we learn more about genetics and our screening technology improves, will women begin to abort unborn babies because they are blind, deaf, dumb or short? How will civil rights leaders—traditionally allies of abortion rights groups—come out on this? Will we see odd alliances between social conservatives and gay rights groups, should women begin to abort fetuses that are genetically predisposed toward homosexuality? These are issues that younger Americans may have to grapple with within our lifetimes.

Posted by Philip Klein at 12:54 AM | Comments (1)

November 17, 2005

More on Wal-Mart

Some good comments are flowing in as a response to my Wal-Mart article. One commenter says:

My sister left Target corporation(company of elites) to work for Walmart, and has been promoted five times in less than three years. Her boss started out as a stock-girl, and moved up the ladder over 25 years to be my sister's boss(My sister makes a 6-figure income now, and has a college degree).

What I've learned about Walmart is this: Their entire business model is: SERVE THE CUSTOMER, STUPID.
My sister flies coach on buying trips(to save for the customer). She gets a $25 a day stipend on those trips(to save the customer). She has to SHARE a hotel room on the road(to save for the customer).

I do think it is worth emphasizing what Wal-Mart does for its customers. Wal-Mart often gets criticized for its anti-union position, but in many senses it does function as a union on behalf of consumers. By having 5,000 stores, Wal-Mart is essentially collectively bargaining with manufacturers. A single mom-and-pop store can't negotiate the price of razor blades with Gillette or the price of toilet paper with Procter & Gamble. In fact, as a friend of mine whose father was in the discount drugstore business emphasized to me recently, before discounters came along, retailers would often collude with manufacturers to keep prices artificially high. Wal-Mart is notoriously a brutal negotiator with suppliers so that it can secure the lowest price for its customers.

Just for what its worth, a study commissioned by Wal-Mart estimated that the company has saved consumers $263 billion through 2004.

Posted by Philip Klein at 8:06 PM | Comments (1)

Libertarians Gone Wild: NFL Pat-Down Policy

I'm starting this new feature on my blog to highlight some of the bizarre stances taken by libertarians. As someone who favors free markets and supports legalizing drugs and gay marriage, I often find myself in agreement with libertarians, but sometimes they take positions which are plainly absurd. As my first example, I cite this piece in Reason, in which Mark Weisenmiller says the NFL's policy of requiring pat-down searches of fans entering football stadiums may be unconstitutional.

There are many reasons why the NFL should be allowed to pat-down people before they enter a stadium. Firstly, it is reasonable to believe that terrorists would view an NFL game as a prime target, given that that football is a clear symbol of American culture and that 70,000 fans or more are packed into a stadium for a game. Second, when you purchase a ticket to a game, you are bound by certain rules. I've been at Yankee games where people have been ejected for cursing too loudly in front of children. Should that be opposed on First Amendment grounds? Thirdly, patting somebody down for twenty seconds or so isn't very intrusive. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that it violates the Fourth Amendment’s restriction on "unreasonable searches and seizures."

While this is by no means a comprehensive defense of the NFL's policy, it would seem that these would be basic points that any intelligent criticism of the policy would have to respond to, but Weisenmiller doesn't. He could have at least demonstrated why he thinks the searches are overly intrusive (if there were widespread examples of female patrons getting groped in a sexual manner, for instance). But, he doesn't. Most of his criticism centers on the searches being useless. He writes:

NFL pat-down searches on football fans, at least as they are currently being conducted, are mostly useless. Joe Durkin, spokesman for the Tampa Police Department, notes that since RayJay's opening in 1998, not one person has been arrested trying to sneak into the stadium with a gun, knife, or any material that could be made into an explosive.

This indicates that even fired-up Bucs fans aren't idiotic enough to try such a stupid stunt.

But until it actually happened, nobody had hijacked commercial airliners and crashed them into tall buildings either. Why not offer football fans one added layer of protection, especially when such a minor inconvenience is involved?

Before 9/11, this type of whining among civil libertarians would just be silly, but in the post-9/11 world, it is dangerous.

Posted by Philip Klein at 6:47 PM | Comments (0)

Wal-Mart, Socialists, and Me

This past Sunday, I went on an undercover mission to watch the new anti- Wal-Mart movie with a group of Greenwich Village socialists--and lived to tell about it. My latest American Spectator column is available here.

Posted by Philip Klein at 1:33 AM | Comments (3)

November 16, 2005

How Rice Won a Mideast Deal

This Time article on how Condoleezza Rice negotiated a deal allowing Palestinians freer travel and trade from the Gaza Strip is worth reading to get a portrait of Condi in action.

An excerpt:

But Rice was, says a State Department negotiator, “totally relentless.” She deployed her full arsenal of pesuasive techniques alternating between charm, relentless badgering and the intimidating suggestion that the most trusted advisor of the most powerful leader in the world was not going to leave town until she got what she came for. "When she focuses on something," says a U.S. official present, "she will use whatever it takes."

As for the deal itself, we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out. There is always the risk that Palestinian terrorist groups will take advantage of the increased mobility to launch attacks against Israel. If that were to be the case, Israel would have no choice but to bring back the restrictions on travel. That, no doubt, would prompt Palestinian leaders to argue that Israelis are not living up to their end of the bargain. And so we'll be back to where we started. I hate to be so pessimistic, but unfortunately, pessimists have had a better track record in predicting the future of this region.

Posted by Philip Klein at 2:42 AM | Comments (0)

November 12, 2005

New 2008 Poll Numbers

In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll for the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, Giuliani does slightly better than McCain with all other possible candidates far behind:

Rudy Giuliani 34 %
John McCain 31
Newt Gingrich 8
Bill Frist 5
Mitt Romney 3
George Allen 3
Sam Brownback 1
Other (vol.) 2
None (vol.) 2
Unsure 11

But when asked who they would definitely NOT vote for Giuliani fares much better than McCain:

Newt Gingrich 21 %
John McCain 19
Rudy Giuliani 8
Bill Frist 5
Mitt Romney 3
Sam Brownback 2
George Allen 1
None (vol.) 26
Unsure 17

Now obviously, the 2008 race won't get serious for another two years. But it is interesting to note that for all the conventional wisdom saying that Giuliani's liberal social views on abortion and gay rights make it impossible for him to win the nomination, he really isn't looking that bad in this poll.

Posted by Philip Klein at 4:45 PM | Comments (0)

November 11, 2005

Lincoln vs. Bush on Civil Liberties

Is Andrew Sullivan really trying to uphold Abraham Lincoln as a defender of civil liberties? Need he be reminded that Lincoln instituted the draft, declared martial law, suspended habeas corpus and jailed dissenters during wartime?

Now, I'm not going to sit here and defend all of Bush's actions. And certainly I'm not implying that Bush is the leader that Lincoln was. But the point in bringing this up is that both leaders were/are fighting wars that made them do things that we'd be morally uncomfortable with under normal circumstances. Lincoln took extra-constitutional actions, but today he is considered one of our greatest presidents because he ended slavery and saved the union. Would we have been better off if Lincoln hadn't taken those measures, and our government fell apart and blacks remained slaves in the South? It's not something people may want to discuss in polite company, but the question is, given the brutal nature of the enemy we face, is it necessary to resort to harsh measures in some circumstances?

You can criticize Bush for the treatment of detainees, but the point is that Sullivan has made the detainee issue his number one cause, leading him to lose any sense of balance. I just don't know how he reconciles this with his declaration that Lincoln was his favorite president, because "He saved the Union."

UPDATE: Sullivan clarifies himself here and here.

Posted by Philip Klein at 10:15 AM | Comments (1)

Republicans vs. Republicans

The Washington Post has this story on the growing rift between conservative and moderate Republicans in Congress, which was highlighted yesterday when the $54 billion budget-cutting bill was pulled.

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:52 AM | Comments (0)

November 9, 2005

Grassley: Social Security reform dead until 2009

What is the point of voting for Republicans, if they're gutless?

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:50 PM | Comments (0)

November 8, 2005

Election Results and Bush

Democrats have won the governors' races in both Virginia and New Jersey. No doubt the media will try to portray this as a referendum on President Bush, who is fighting record low approval ratings. I'm not saying that Bush is in great political shape, but I just don't think you can read too much into these governors' races. Both states had weak Republican candidates in Kilgore and Forrester and neither candidate was closely associated with Bush. Furthermore, let's not forget that both states elected Democratic governors in 2001, when Bush's approval ratings were at post 9/11 highs in the 80s.

Posted by Philip Klein at 10:23 PM | Comments (0)

Krauthammer on Torture

As usual, Charles Krauthammer makes the most sense--this time on the torture debate. I am all for clarifying our policy on the treatment of detainees to avoid situations such as Abu Ghraib. But at the same time, there has to be some leeway to allow interrogators to use whatever means necessary to extract information from high level terrorists who may have knowledge of an impending attack. The challenge for lawmakers is to craft a law that allows for torture in these specific cases without it turning it into a loophole that can allow widespread torture.

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:59 PM | Comments (2)

November 7, 2005

Elimination of State/Local Tax Deduction

Having sucessfully defeated Social Security reform, liberals are ready to block efforts to fix the tax code. No surprise that Rep. Charles Rangel has written against eliminating the state and local tax deduction.

As a New York City resident, I benefit from deducting local and state tax payments from my federal taxes. But in no way is the deduction fair. New Yorkers elect politicians that keep tax rates sky high, so they should bear the full consequences of that decision, including watching people and businesses move away. Why should citizens of a state like Florida, who have the sense to keep rates low, be forced to subsidize tax-and-spend New Yorkers?

UPDATE:

Chuck Schumer does an even better job demonstrating this:

"Nothing could stifle growth and slam hard-working families in New York and around the country more than the repeal of these deductions," Schumer said. "Thousands of dollars in added taxation will create a giant sucking sound as the best and brightest workers, and the most productive companies, face incentives to move to lower-tax jurisdictions."

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:54 AM | Comments (0)

More on Paris Riots

Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule.

Mark Steyn.

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:49 AM | Comments (0)

November 3, 2005

Michael Brown's Greatest Hits

You'd think that by now people would be more careful about what they send via email, but not FEMA chief Michael Brown, whose already bad reputation got even worse with the release of emails he sent during the Katrina crisis.

Some of the better ones:

"Can I quit now? Can I come home?" Brown wrote to Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs, the morning of the hurricane.

A few days later, Brown wrote to an acquaintance, "I'm trapped now, please rescue me."

Melancon said that on August 26, just days before Katrina made landfall, Brown e-mailed his press secretary, Sharon Worthy, about his attire, asking: "Tie or not for tonight? Button-down blue shirt?"

A few days later, Worthy advised Brown: "Please roll up the sleeves of your shirt, all shirts. Even the president rolled his sleeves to just below the elbow. In this [crisis] and on TV you just need to look more hard-working."

On August 29, the day of the storm, Brown exchanged e-mails about his attire with Taylor, Melancon said. She told him, "You look fabulous," and Brown replied, "I got it at Nordstroms. ... Are you proud of me?"

An hour later, Brown added: "If you'll look at my lovely FEMA attire, you'll really vomit. I am a fashion god."

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:45 PM | Comments (0)

Bork Says to Rejoice For Alito Pick

I'm always interested in what he has to say, but can just see leftists getting riled up that Alito was endorsed by Robert Bork.

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:41 PM | Comments (0)

Poor Taste Award

via Michelle Malkin

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:40 PM | Comments (0)

The Bush Doctrine

Commentary has an excellent symposium, asking leading conservative thinkers to address the following questions about the Bush Doctrine:

1. Where have you stood, and where do you now stand, in relation to the Bush Doctrine? Do you agree with the President’s diagnosis of the threat we face and his prescription for dealing with it?

2. How would you rate the progress of the Bush Doctrine so far in making the U.S. more secure and in working toward a safer world environment? What about the policy’s longer-range prospects?

3. Are there particular aspects of American policy, or of the administration’s handling or explanation of it, that you would change immediately?

4. Apart from your view of the way the Bush Doctrine has been defined or implemented, do you agree with its expansive vision of America’s world role and the moral responsibilities of American power?

Well worth reading.

Posted by Philip Klein at 12:45 AM | Comments (0)