Farewell

As we say goodbye to our friend, Dan Rather, I thought It appropriate to reflect on a touching moment from Dan's Career. Here's a Dan moment from 87:

rather
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

This rumor was given an enormous jolt of credibility when Dan Rather bumbled into a matchlessly goofy fiasco. On the evening of September 13, Rather was anchoring CBS's Sunday newscast. The sports division had been covering the U.S. Open all afternoon. A match between Lori McNeil and Steffi Graf was running long, and ratings-conscious network bigwigs warned Rather that the overtime would have to come out of his 6:30 broadcast. Infuriated by this edict, Rather stormed out of the studio right at 6:30. The match ended at 6:32. The entire
Columbia Broadcasting System thereupon went black for seven minutes.

Most people would doubtless have taken this little peccadillo in their stride: So the network went black. Big deal. That's what test patterns are for. Besides, Rather hotfooted it back to the studio and got on the air as soon as he realized that his childish tantrum had left CBS eyeless. But what did he do next? He issued a statement. "I would never, nor would anyone at CBS News ever think of deliberately allowing the network to go to black,' Rather told a breathless America. "I do believe that the CBS Evening News is a public trust and will continue to do anything and everything to meet the responsibilities of that trust.' Meanwhile, Larry Tisch played it cool. He called the blackout "unfortunate' but said he wouldn't "condemn' anyone. For building confidence, this ranks right up there with a friendly peck on the cheek from Don Corleone.

Teresa Heinz Kerry: Ever the Loose Cannon

Teresa_Heinz_Kerry
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

I suppose I pick on Democrats a lot. But really all I ever do is quote them when they accidentally reveal themselves. And, yes, I do realize that there are some republican nuts as well. But Alan Keys is on the fringe of the party not in the mainsteam.

When I quote Dems, I'm not making an argument about Democrats based on some obscure congressman from Vermont. Thus far I've only quoted the nonsense of Howard Dean, the newly elected leader of the Democratic Party; Robert Byrd, the most senior senator in the senate (I believe); and now Teresa Heinz Kerry, the Democratic almost-first lady. One would hope these very prominent Democratic figures are somewhat reflective of the party as a whole.

So here is the latest wisdom from THK:

COUNTING THE VOTES: Heinz Kerry is openly skeptical about results from
November's election, particularly in sections of the country where optical
scanners were used to record votes.

"Two brothers own 80 percent of the machines used in the United States," Heinz Kerry said. She identified both as "hard-right" Republicans. She argued that it is "very easy to hack into the mother machines."

"We in the United States are not a banana republic," added Heinz Kerry. She argued that Democrats should insist on "accountability and transparency" in how votes are tabulated.

"I fear for '06," she said. "I don't trust it the way it is right now."

The Ten Again

More on The Ten Commandments, this time from Larry Kudlow. Here's my favorite passage:

I have a few direct questions for you: Is it such a bad thing to think about not killing, not stealing, not lying, and not committing adultery? Is it so bad to talk about honoring one’s parents? Or to think about a power greater than oneself — about God or some higher deity? Or to set aside just one day a week as a spiritual day, separate from the material strivings of the other six days?

Genetics?

I was recently told I was obsessed with gays! Hmm. Well anyway I have this thought. If homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't the gay gene eliminate itself from the gene pool pretty fast? This argument is of course fairly susceptible to the argument, that, yes, homosexuality is genetic, but because for such a long time gays where shuned/socialized into living pseudo-heterosexual lives, the gene spread etc. etc. Anyway, its far from a full proof argument that homosexuality is not genetic, but its something to think about.

More on Romney

The current Republican Governor of Massachusetts published an article yesterday in The Boston Globe about stem cell research, to which I linked. Today in The Daily Standard, read about the Globes odd, and possibly underhanded references to Romney's religion (Mormonism, that is).

Chimps Ahoy

The guys at NRO are blogging about chimps (primarily because of that chimp who attacked a man and chewed on his face!) Anyway, for some reason I found this awkwardly written post very funny. Probably because the source of the authors expertise are The Planet of the Apes movies.

Deanomania

I don't want to seem like I'm picking on Dean all the time (or do I?) But really he deserves it. Look at what Tucker observed:

Libby (Cedar Rapids, IA):
Very sorry that Harold Ickes did not call you on your throwaway comment that Dean has a "demonstrated lack of [self] control" - or similar verbiage. Please, please go back to the damned Dean Scream: look at it unfiltered, as it were. The man is pumped, he is elated, he is hoarse [and getting a cold - check next 2 days' clips] - and he croaks out an exuberant whoop. Please: be the first on your block to actually look at this [and succeeding clips] and say publicly that this man maybe does have a little self-control. Need more proof? He got through med school, where self control counts for way more than a good mind.

Tucker:
I don't need to look at the clips. I was there in the room, about 10 feet from Dean when he screamed. You're correct in one sense, that nothing he did that night seemed remarkable at the time. Everyone in the room was screaming. Dean was hardly the only person there who lost control of himself. But you're wrong to think I was referring only, or even especially, to the famous scream when I said Dean lacks self-control. I was also in Iowa a few days before, when Dean barked at a man at a rally who dared to question him, and then berated reporters for no apparent reason. I watched as he made comments about Osama bin Laden ("innocent until proven guilty") and Saddam Hussein and partial birth abortion and Israel and the U.S. military and a lot of other topics that clearly he hadn't thought deeply about before uttering. In other words, Dean is a guy who just says whatever pops into his larger than normal head. Which may be good. Or not. But it's not evidence of self control.

This is taken from Tucker's PBS website.

For fun, I thought I would post an LSAT question that I missed, and you can see how you do. To simulate the test you should limit yourself to about a minute and a half. The question:

Trust, which cannot be sustained in the absence of mutual respect, is essential for any long lasting relationship, personal or professional. However, personal relationships, such as marriage and friendship, additionally require natural affinity. If a personal relationship is to endure, it must be supported by the twin pillars of mutual respect and affinity.

If the statements above are true, then which one of the following must also be true?

(A) A friendship supported solely by trust and mutual respect will not be long lasting.
(B) In the context of any professional relationship, mutual respect presupposes trust.
(C) If a personal relationship is supported by mutual respect and affinity, it will last a long time.
(D) Personal relationships, such as marriage of friendship, are longer lasting that professional relationships.
(E) Basing a marriage on a natural affinity will ensure that it will endure.

Note: Don't pick the answer that you agree with, pick the answer that follows logically from the statement. Email me at sexualharrisment@hotmail.com, and I'll respond and tell you if your right.

Ukrainian Mischief

Former President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, has been of accused of the murder of reporter Georgiy Gongadze, famous for publishing embarrassed stories about corruption under the Kuchma administration. A Kuchma body guard fled Ukraine with hours of audio tapes, wherein Kuchma orders Foreign Minister Kravchenko to "get rid of" Gongadze (Kuchma claims the tapes have been doctored).

Now a new development:

Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Yuri Kravchenko is said to have committed suicide over the investigation into the murder of reporter Georgiy Gongadze. There was even a suicide note where Kravchenko writes he killed himself because he claimed to have "become a victim of political intrigues of Kuchma and his entourage."

Still, one has to wonder how someone shoots himself in the head twice.

Read more here. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this looks like fowl play to me.

Stem Cells

Mitt Romney, who has my endorsement for 2008 (as if anyone cares) has written an op-ed piece on stem cell research for the Boston Globe.

Rather Untruthful

I've learned of more deceit from Dan Rather. I think by now we all know that Rather is/was a shameless partisan parading as an objective arbiter of facts. It also turns out he's a shameless self promoter.

Two points:

1. Rather claimed he was the first to get the "Kennedy is Dead" scoop, when in fact it was really his coworker Eddie Barker who was the first to find out President Kennedy was dead.
2. Rather reported a story about Texas school children cheering upon finding Kennedy had been assassinated. Barker's children attended that school, and told Rather before the story aired that this was not the case. The principle of the school had let the children out early because of the assassination, but had not told them why they were being let out. The children were merely happy to be out of school. Despite being forewarned, Rather still arranged for a special live segment, and allowed as local Minister to repeat the school children 'story' on air.
   

What Have Americans Done for Us?

Funny article with Monty Python quote.

Let the Record Show...

Dan Rather did not tell the truth last night on Letterman. Rather must have said, 4 or 5 times that the independent panel found that the Bush AWOL story was not politically motivated. Actually what they said, "The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the segment of having a political bias."
But even that estimate is conservative. This article applies the legal standard for measuring bias to Rathergate and get a positive result. And the panel enumerated many instances that can accurately be interpreted as political bias.
Also I was a little insulted that Rather went on Letterman to make his case, yet dodged every serious news venue. I'm sure Meet the Press would have been glad to have Dan explain Rathergate on their program.

Romney 2008

Romney
Originally uploaded by RHarris.

2008 elections seem to be the only reason Democrats didn't resort to mass suicide after Bush won in 04. I've been thinking about them as well, and I'm not so sure the Dems should get their hopes us yet.

Hillary is the front runner for the Democrats. Some think she is a strong candidate, some a weak. I'm not sure. She doesn't appeal to me, but then again, I don't represent every voter. What I do know is she is smart, and that scares me. She's already started positioning herself more towards the middle (e.g. her speech about making room for/tollerating pro-lifers). New York is a liberal state, and so is Hillary. Because of this, one may be tempted to think "here's one more northeastern liberal, bound to lose." But there are reasons to be concerned. One is how well she did when she ran for senator, winning some counties that traditionally vote Republican. Then again, New York is home to Republicans like George Pataki, Michael Bloomberg, and Rudy Guliani. I like Pataki and Giuliani, but there far from being conservative's conservatives. My guess is those Republicans who voted for Hillary, are the kind who also voted for Bloomberg: Not exactly your typical heartland conservative republican.

Democrats, in my opinion, would do better with someone like Evan Bayh, or Barack Obama. Obama is too green to run in 08. Bayh it seems is too moderate to get the nomination: That's why he's already started positioning himself more to the left. I don't think it will work though. It looks like Dems are more or less set on Hillary.

Hillary may have a shot though. She could convince some women, who would otherwise vote Republican, that it's time to have a woman president. On the other hand, if in 2008 were still talking about terrorism and national security, It difficult for me to believe we'll pick a woman to be our Commander and Chief and keep us safe. My prediction is Hillary will take the nomination but lose for this precise reason.

The Republican side is harder. I really like Dick Cheney, but he has said, unequivocally, he will not run in 2008. That leaves Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; New York Gov. George Pataki; Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain, Pataki and Giuliani could win, but are really to liberal for my taste, and probably too liberal to get the nomination. Frist is a charismatic dud. Does anyone know anything about Hagel? Jeb Bush as far as I can tell is doing a good job if Florida. He's a lot like his brother, but seems to be a much better communicator, and that would help a ton. ( I still think that's Bush 43's biggest problem).

All and All, I think Mitt Romney is our best bet. He's a handsome Mormon Harvard Law School graduate with a wife and kids (original wife, original kids). He's pretty conservative, yet has managed to get elected governor of MASSACHUSETTS!! (only the most liberal state in the US!). This is partially due to his great communication skills. He's pro-life, though he promised not to do anything to change the laws in Massachusetts in order to get elected (he both compromised, yet didn't compromise). I especially like his positions on stem cell research and same-sex marriage. Romney is for using the embryos from fertilization clinics for research, but not for cloning human embryos (he's more liberal on this point, probably because his wife has MS). He also is against same-sex marriage and civil unions (in my opinion civil union is just a euphemism for same-sex marriage) but he favors some benefits for same-sex couples, such as hospital visitation rights (That seems very reasonable to me, especially since a hospital patient should, in my opinion, be able to have those people who are close to them come visit if they so desire). He also has executive experience. We Americans seem to prefer governors to say senators, partially for this reason. Lastly, he is talented politically. He smoothed the Salt Lake City Olympic scandal over, and did I mention, he was elected Governor of Massachusetts?!

More on the Ten

Rich Lowry writes about the Supreme Court cases i wrote about in the not so distant past. Here are the highlights:

A better question is: If a Ten Commandments display establishes a religion, exactly what religion is it? Is it Judaism? And if so, Orthodox or Reform? Or is it Christianity? If so, Roman Catholic or Protestant? If the latter, is it Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or something else? Maybe Seventh-day Adventist? If government has gone to the trouble of establishing a religion, shouldn't all of us know which one? Or is this just another case of government's notorious bureaucratic inefficiency? It meant to establish a religion, but memos got crossed somewhere and it couldn't agree on its fundamental tenets?

Indeed, the alleged harm of Ten Commandments displays is attenuated to the point of nonexistence. The Texas case came about because in 2002 a homeless man named Thomas Van Orden — on his way to idling the day away at the State Law Library — noticed the display on the grounds of the Texas state capitol. As it happens, Van Orden has a law degree (is this an over-lawyered country or what?). With nothing else to do with his time, he sued. The display had been up since 1961, and in 40 years, no one in Texas had noticed the state was trying to establish a religion.

The Texas case is dicier, since the display isn't quite so clearly part of a historical statement. Expect tangled 5-4 decisions in the two cases that do little to clarify anything. The Ten Commandments are one of Western culture's great symbols of law. In its arbitrary and erratic jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court has become a symbol of the opposite.

Read the full article here.