The Wall Street Journal weighs in on the Chuck Schumer / Charles Pickering renomination fight. Here's an encouraging excerpt from the concluding paragraph of their editorial:

Democrats defeated Mr. Pickering the first time on a 10-9 party-line vote in Judiciary, even though they know he would have won on the floor. Now that they are in the minority, they are threatening a filibuster strategy that would take judicial politics to a whole new level of enmity. Since 1949, a study by the Congressional Research Service shows the only successful filibuster against a judge was in 1968, when Strom Thurmond used it against Abe Fortas, LBJ's nominee for Supreme Court Chief Justice. Call him Strom Schumer.

The editorial, much more straighforwardly than I did (below), accuses Schumer of racial politics and shows how thin his case against Pickering is. If one can presume that one of the reasons the Democrats were beaten so badly in the midterm elections was due to their obstructionism in the judicial nomination process, this vapid attack against Pickering is sure to backfire, especially once the facts get out. Bring it on, Chuck.

On the December 14th edition of "The McLaughlin Group", John McLaughlin concluded the show with this prediction: "I predict a new TV series premiering in January, "Mister Sterling," created by our own very Lawrence O'Donnell, will be a break-away hit of 2003."

Boy, I'll take that bet. McLaughlin was being kind to one of his panelists who is a writer/producer for the new show. NBC has been advertising the dickens out of this "West Wing" meets "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" so they must also think they have a hit on their hands.

Here's my prediction: this show will be a huge flop.

I mean, just look at these commercials. The characters are so cartoonish (the cynical old pols, the bewildered aides, the idealistic white knight) and the dialogue is drivel. How many weeks can Americans stand a plot where the young Senator stands up against bad-old Washington?

While everyone else was laughing at the ridiculous New York Times piece about the Democrats’ search for a liberal talk show host to counter the “conservative” media, Susanna at Cut on the Bias was doggedly looking for, well, bias in the article. Or, if not outright bias, then the willful omission of facts contradicting the tone and intent of the article. In this case, she found that the NYT was aware of a popular liberal talk show host in New York, but chose not to mention his existence. Nice detective work.

This reminds me of a quote by Thomas Huxley: “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.”

Occam's Toothbrush has moved - be sure to check out this great weblog, new and improved, and link accordingly.

Senator Schumer cries: "Where's my spotlight?!?"

On election night in November 2000, my buddy from Long Island moaned in anguish when Hillary Clinton won the New York Senate seat vacated by Pat Moynihan. Later (after he had calmed down) he said: "This is going to kill Schumer…that guy always wants to be on the news and now he's going to be upstaged by the junior senator."

Now Chuck Schumer's back to his old microphone-grabbing ways, upset and shocked that Bush would renominate Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals after he was rejected in committee on a straight party line vote by the Democrats. Republicans believed that the nomination would have passed the full Senate, so the partisan vote in committee was a way to keep a conservative judge off the bench. But now the Republicans are back in control, and it's time to give Judge Pickering his chance. Senator Schumer, in high dudgeon, is vowing a filibuster.

Schumer comforts himself and welcomes the moral media circus because he does not believe in the long-standing "advise and consent" role of the Senate to appoint federal judges. Instead, he has made it clear since Bush took office (yet not before) that ideology should be considered in judicial nominees, and not necessarily judicial competence. In this June 2001 press release, Schumer notes:

Schumer said the stigma attached to using ideology as a consideration in evaluating nominees to the federal bench since the nomination of Robert Bork to the United States Supreme Court in 1987 has led to an "escalating war of gotcha politics over nominations that has warped the confirmation process and harmed the Senate's reputation," and called for an open and rational consideration of a nominee's ideology.
Schumer also said the Senate is responsible for ensuring the federal bench does not tilt too far in either ideological direction, justifying opposition to nominees whose views fall outside the mainstream and have been selected to push the bench in one ideological direction.
"This era, perhaps more than any other before, calls out for collaboration between the President and the Senate in judicial appointments," said Schumer. "It certainly justifies Senate opposition to judicial nominees whose views fall outside the mainstream and have been selected to further tilt the courts in an ideological direction."

Nice use of the passive voice there: the "stigma" that somebody (I don't remember) attached to the Bork nomination. Also, note "this era" – the era of a Republican in the White House obviously. Schumer's doublespeak simply means that how well a nominee adheres to the law is secondary to him – he must be "in the mainstream" and we know what that means.

This twisting of Constitutional duty was on further display back in May 2002, when Schumer tried to sink the nomination of D. Brooks Smith who was up for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. As Byron York of the National Review noted at the time, it wasn't enough for the Senator that Smith said he would "follow the law"; Smith had to show allegiance to Schumer's interpretation of "good law".

"Schumer's letter is disturbing to Republicans because it seems to move the examination of judicial nominees into new territory. Under what may become a new test for judicial nominees, it is no longer enough for a candidate to swear that he will follow the law; he instead has to say he believes that certain laws — Griswold, Roe, and a few others — are good and well-reasoned laws. "Schumer wants to get Smith to say that he personally feels the Griswold decision is the right decision," says one key GOP aide. "Trouble is, any good jurist would have difficulty making that statement. A good jurist would argue that stare decisis [the authority of established legal precedent] applies. But it's another thing to ask whether a judge would have come up with the same decision under the same circumstances."

Senator Schumer, working on maybe 30% principle and 70% spotlight-grabbing, is doing a grave disservice to the Senate and the country. My only hope is that some of the damage backfires onto him and the Democrats, who have played these games more than once too often.

This article in the Economist noted that Saddam Hussein gave a speech assailing the U.N. weapon inspectors on January 6th, which is “Army Day” in Iraq. Since I don’t imagine there are many Easter Egg hunts there, I checked out Iraq’s other holidays:

January 6th – Army Day
February 14th – Ramadan Revolution Day
March 21st – Nau Roy (New Day)(Iraqi Kurds)
May 1st – Labour Day
July 14th – Republic Day
July 17th – Ba’ath Revolution Day
August 8th – Peace Day

And here are some future holidays:

February 22nd – Glorious Defense of our Beloved Leader from the Great Satan Day
February 27th – Liberation Day
March 1st – Burqa-disguised cowardly Tyrant captured while trying to flee to Libya Day
November 11th – Election Day

Mmmmmm.....Soylent Green

From today's NYT: "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the animal welfare group, begins a global boycott on Monday of KFC to seek an improvement in the lives and deaths of 700 million chickens who become the chain's fried meals every year."

Wait a second....KFC is Kentucky Fried Chicken? (charltonhestonvoice) "KFC is chickens! KFC is chickens! KFC is chickens!" (/charltonhestonvoice)

And now, my nominee for the oddest quote of the year so far:

"I've been doing research into chicken welfare since 1965 and change has been slow, very slow," Mr. Duncan said in a telephone interview.

Dude.

Logging in at a (dis)respectful #19, New Jersey Poet Laureate Amiri Baraka has made Right Wing News’ list of “The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals in the United States for 2002.” This (dis)honor was bestowed in recognition of Baraka and his odious poem “Someone Blew Up America” which perpetuated his perverse anti-Jewish viewpoints (and don’t tell me he’s “Anti-Israel” or “Anti-Zionism” – I got plenty more “poems” from Baraka):

Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed
Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers
To stay home that day
Why did Sharon stay away?

Although I suspect most Americans have not heard of Baraka, I was at Rutgers in 1990 when he was denied tenure for a position in the English Department. (What that position might be escapes me since I don’t think he actually teaches…he seems to just rant all the time.) Most descriptions of Baraka note his tenure rejection, but fail to fill in the background. In 1990, Rutgers was going through a severe budget crisis that necessitated cutbacks and tuition increases. A group called CARE (Campaign for an Affordable Rutgers Education) organized to petition the Board of Governors to hold down tuition costs.

What happened next is a sad tale of liberal self-righteousness gone bonkers. After some initial success organizing students and communicating objectives, CARE quickly morphed into a grab-basket of radical-left causes. Immediately, students who had been focused on a single goal (lower tuition) were grouped in with the protest nuts marching against U.S. policy in El Salvador. Suburban students (who make up the vast majority of the Rutgers population) left CARE in droves, leaving the field open for the radicals who, predictably, occupied the Admissions Hall. While still agitating for lower tuition, the “new” CARE also called for tenure for Amiri Baraka; this was during a time when Rutgers was making it clear that they were extending tenure to nobody due to the budget problems. No matter – Baraka met with the students and constantly inflamed their passions against the (wait for it) racist faculty and administrators at Rutgers.

When he was turned down for tenure, Baraka reverted to his malefic form: “The power of these Ivy League Goebbels can flaunt, dismiss, intimidate and defraud the popular will…We must unmask these powerful Klansmen…their intellectual presence makes a stink across the campus like the corpses of rotting Nazis.” Nice. Eventually Baraka left New Brunswick and (I think) CARE collapsed under the weight of its own incoherence. In any case, I didn’t hear (or notice) either one until I graduated in 1991.

Did anyone catch The Simpsons last night? There was a (very) brief shot outside the church and the sign in front read: “Welcome Pissed-Off Catholics”.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to send an Email to Kathy at Relapsed Catholic.

The Unintentional Humor of the New York Times' "Corrections" section:

Last Sunday, the New York Times had this line in a tribute to the late Joe Strummer of the Clash:
"When the Sex Pistols' Johnny Rotten, draped on his microphone, intoned, 'No future,' it was the cry of youth coming out of school to discover that there were no jobs in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and refusing to accept that as reality." [thanks to NROs Corner for saving this]

From the NYT "Corrections" today:
"An article last Sunday about the legacy of the Clash and other punk rock bands in the 1970's referred incorrectly to the social climate from which the Sex Pistols emerged. It was not the Britain of Margaret Thatcher: she became prime minister in 1979, and the Sex Pistols disbanded in 1978.
A picture with the article was published in error. It showed Mick Jones of the Clash - not Joe Strummer, who died earlier in the week."

The "Paper of Record" indeed.

I smell a Blogosphere stampede coming: Paul Krugman is on "This Week" this morning. Surprise! He hates President Bush's pending economic stimulus package.

Newt Gingrich to Krugman: "I understand class warfare is a requirement to be a modern, qualified liberal." Zing! Hahahahaha!!!

Bold Viking Pundit prediction: The U.S. will go to war with Iraq

There's an old axiom in the theater that if a weapon is present on stage – e.g. a hunting rifle hanging over the fireplace – it will be used by the end of the play. This morning, the Boston Globe opened an article with this paragraph:
WASHINGTON – About 100 U.S. Special Forces members and more than 50 Central Intelligence Agency officers have been operating in small groups inside Iraq for at least four months, searching for Scud missile launchers, monitoring oil fields, marking minefield sites, and using lasers to help U.S. pilots bomb Iraqi air-defense systems, according to intelligence officials and military analysts who have talked with people on the teams.

The Hans Blix Keystone Kops will submit their report to the U.N. on January 27th. I'm figuring that, after a major presidential speech, the United States will commit forces by mid-February. Keep an eye on Slate's Saddameter, which tracks the odds of war, to jump well above 70% this week.

Follow up on the SUV/ELF story: I found a choice quote from P.J. O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the World":

"Ronald Bailey, who besides being the author of Eco-Scam is also the producer of the PBS series TechnoPolitics, believes that environmental advocates enjoy the idea of living in apocalyptic times. Their drab existences – spent sorting through trash, wearing lumpy hand-knits, attending indignant meetings, and trying to get the photocopier to work with recycled paper – are made exciting by the imminent end of the world."

Imagine the rush of striking a blow for Gaia by torching some Ford Explorers. Wheee!!!

Some eco-losers, acting on behalf of the Earth Liberation Front, recently torched some SUVs in a dealer lot in Pennsylvania. There's something so viscerally unsettling about these suburban terrorists; it's hard to grasp that in this post-9/11 world we live in, that any Americans would employ such mindlessly destructive tactics like this to further their cause. Have they learned nothing? Once an acolyte has supplanted his/her life for "The Cause" (whether it is radical environmentalism, stopping abortion, or spreading sharia), it is a slippery slope down to the base level where there's nothing a disciple wouldn't do to elevate himself/herself through advancement of "The Cause."

Torch a couple SUVs? – it's for the Earth!
Murder 3000 Americans? – it's all for Allah!
Force people into communes? – we're creating Utopia!

Another not-so-bold Viking Pundit prediction: when they catch the SUV gang, I guarantee they'll be a couple of mid-20s misfits from upper-middle-class families.

Quote of the day:
"In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
Harry Lime (Orson Welles) in "The Third Man"

Occasionally I'll pick up Blender magazine (Maxim magazine's answer to Rolling Stone). I do this for several reasons: 1.) they always have 100+ CD reviews 2.) they always have some kind of best/worst list 3.) they always have some scantily-clad honeys inside. In the Jan/Feb issue, the one with Mariah Carey and about a square foot of leather bikini on the cover, there is a listing of the "Top 50 Rock Geniuses of All Time."

#1 is Bob Dylan – yes
#2 is John Lennon – OK
#3 is Chuck Berry – so far so good
#4 is Eminem

What the….? I realize that a music magazine has to stay contemporary and appeal to the kids, but COME ON. Mr. Mathers edged out the Glimmer Twins at #6, that piker James Brown at #12, and that poseur Elvis Presley (one spot behind Madonna!) at #11. Further down on the list are losers like Lou Reed (#23) and that talentless hack Jimmy Page (#28).

Well, I can't buy "Rolling Stone" because of their politics; "Q" is too expensive (British import mag) and Spin is owned by Bob Guccione. (Sigh). So I guess I'll just have to forget about this unfortunate list and move on.

A brutal Krugman deconstruction at Hoystory. Check it out.

Is Patty Murray the next Trent Lott? The Bloggers won't let this story die, even if the mainstream media has lost interest. Do check out Victor Davis Hanson's excellent takedown of Senator Patty "No Rocket Scientist" Murray in the National Review. Then, if you're thirsty for more blood, check out this article I wrote for Tech Central Station about Ms. Murray and her vacuous energy policy.

Update: Ooops! I may have spoken too soon. James Taranto of Opinion Journal's Best of the Web leads off with the latest news. That's mainstream media...I think.

Little Green Footballs has an account by Josh Kraushaar about a Muslim school in Potomac, Maryland. Take note of this section:
Almost no matter what they were asked, the students' answers often included something about how the United States should focus not just on bin Laden's terror network but on "the real terrorists," which is their code for Israel, which they refer to as "the illegitimate Zionist regime." Whether questions were about patriotism or faith or the difficulty of maintaining Muslim practices in a society that embraces open sexuality, the teenagers' thoughtful answers somehow found their way back to bashing Israel.

In 1951, Eric Hoffer wrote a book called "The True Believer." The front-cover blurb on my copy reads "The highly provocative, best-selling analysis of the fanatic – a man compelled to join a cause, any cause – and a penetrating study of mass movements from early Christianity to modern nationalism and Communism." Needless to say, I've been referring to this book again and again since 9/11 to understand the mass movement of fanatical Islam.

At the heart of Hoffer's exposition is a section titled "Unifying Agents" – the reasons why people band together in a mass movement. The very first listed is "Hatred" with this opening sentence: "Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents." This is followed by this section:
Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil. When Hitler was asked whether he thought the Jew must be destroyed, he answered: "No…We should have then to invent him. It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract one." F.A. Voigt tells of a Japanese mission that arrived in Berlin in 1932 to study the National Socialist movement. Voigt asked a member of the mission what he thought of the movement. He replied: "It is magnificent. I wish we could have something like it in Japan, only we can't, because we haven't got any Jews."

The question here is whether Middle East governments are hostile to Israel because they are reflecting the sentiment of populace, or whether it is the policy of these governments to purposely foster hatred of the Jews to perpetuate their rule. Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton, certainly believes the latter. In a September 2002 opinion piece, he noted: "The conflict with Israel certainly receives overwhelmingly major attention in the Arabic media, but since this is the only specific grievance that may be publicly expressed in a region of numerous and painful problems, that is hardly surprising. One may therefore wonder whether Middle Eastern governments would indeed wish for a peace settlement, which would deprive them of this valuable safety valve, leaving them to face the undeflected anger of their subjects, including those who live under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. From the almost monotonous regularity with which a series of promising peace processes have failed at the moment when they seemed most likely to succeed, one may be driven to the conclusion that they prefer to keep the conflict unresolved, but at a low level--simmering not boiling, and usefully controllable." Also, in the conclusion of his piece titled "Time for Toppling", Lewis notes "….the dictatorships that rule much of the Middle East today will not, indeed cannot, make peace, because they need conflict to justify their tyrannical oppression of their own people, and to deflect their peoples' anger against an external enemy."

I won't dwell on this issue, but I might ask this hypothetical: what if Israel disappeared tomorrow? If Hoffer and Lewis are to be believed, the Islamofascists would surely turn all their vitriol onto the United States. Then, who knows, Canada, Great Britain, Australia (who already suffered through the Bali attack), Europe, Hollywood, baseball, Budweiser, jazz music, Pizza Hut – anything to divert attention from their own failed policies and their own brutal dictatorships.

Right Wing News (who, incidentally, named Viking Pundit the "Website of the Day" today – thanks John!) has an incisive comment from a "disgruntled doctor" in response to the story about doctors walking off the job in protest of exploding malpractice insurance costs. The wing-nut prattle of Helen Thomas aside, his comments provide a real insight into the anger of doctors and the reasons for spiraling health care costs:

You have no idea! As a doctor who teaches medical students, interns and residents, we often sit together and talk about how much cheaper (and better) we could treat our patients if we could treat them, like we would treat our own family. We would order fewer tests, prescribe a lot fewer medications, and suggest a whole lot less surgery. Why do we do all of these things? Because if we do the tests, give the medications, and suggest the surgery we won’t get sued! It is sad but true! In addition we get consultations without number, most of which aren’t needed because of lawyers! Get real tort reform instituted (which won’t happen – we keep electing lawyers) and I promise you medical costs will fall by more than 50%!
By the same token, so would the cost of buying a car, groceries, or anything else. Talk to any small business man. Try to buy a small airplane. (I do not have one, by the way!) I have talked to a manufacturer, who told me that the cost of a private airplane had to be increased more than 100% due to legal costs. In almost EVERY case, when a plane crashes, the manufacturer is going to get sued! This entire industry has been almost destroyed by lawyers. Who is next?
Remember breast implants? (By the way, not the smartest idea anyone came up with.) They don’t harm you, but tell that to Dow Corning. They went under due to law suits. Now their product has been scientifically proven to do no harm, but it is far too late for them. The lawyers did them in! The court system is fair? Again ask Dow Corning or O.J. Simpson
I know I’m preaching to the choir on this web site, but oh well.

A disgruntled doctor

PS You are right, we all pay this cost. Congress even figures that when the calculate what a doctor gets paid by Medicare 3 things are considered, the complexity of the procedure, his overhead, and his malpractice risk. (They want to be sure he can pay the lawyers!)

If doctors have to operate under the Sword of Damocles of lawsuits, health care costs are going to spin further and further out of control.