Too cool:

A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity. Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.

"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.

Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."

Where on earth would they get that idea from?

I have to say I'm not too worried by Bush's, or the Republicans', declining poll ratings. Part of these "approval" polls is just people's current feelings about the state of things-- and with gas prices high, a bloody uptick in terrorism in Iraq, and the continuing impression that jobs aren't being created, people obviously don't approve of the current situation.

But just because people don't approve of the current situation -- that they'd like things to be better -- doesn't necessarily mean they've decided that the out-party should be swept back into power.

To get to that point, the out-party would have to, I don't know, actually announce some sort of reasonable agenda capable of persuading voters they'd do a better job, rather than just f'ing things up still further.

Fortunately for the Republicans and Bush, we don't have such an out-party.

The American public is cagey enough to understand that some problems just can't be fixed by new "plans" and "approaches." And the Democratic "plans" always sound idiotic. And they're usually the same.

How do we fix Iraq? Why, we get the French and Germans and Russians to aid us there. How do we do that? How do we get them to act against their perceived self-interest and anti-American domestic politics?

Why, we talk to them! And not talk to them like Bush talks to them, but we speak to them "persuasively" and explain to them that it's in their own best interest to help out.

How do we lower oil prices? Why, we talk to the Saudis, and get them to increase oil production! Hell, maybe even get them to sell oil at cost! All it takes is a little bit of "jawboning" and "pressure" and "understanding" and "nuance"!

I think people are smart enough to realize those aren't actual plans. They're just bubbleheaded rhetoric. You can't just say pretty pretty please with whip cream on top and get other nations to solve your problems for you, especially when they have an interest in seeing your problems continue or even worsen.

If "jawboning" can solve our problems, why not "jawbone" other countries to pay off our deficit for us? Heck, they'd only have to kick in a hundred billion or so each and they'd reduce our deficit by more than half.

Or do the same thing with Social Security. The system will go bankrupt in 2042? No problem. We'll just talk Japan into giving us all the money we need to cover the shortfall. We'll just have to do a lot of bowing, get them drunk, and sing at a karoke bar.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (162)
Post contains 557 words, total size 3 kb.

Fortunately, it was just a bit of anti-white racism, so there's no story here:

Rep. Thomas Yewcic, who is white, said people shouldn't be ashamed to support the American flag. "If any ethnic group wants to fly ... a flag, and they're embarrassed to fly an American flag, they should go back to their ethnic origins and fly it there," he said.

In response, Rep. John Myers accused Yewcic of espousing "a belligerent, racist doctrine."

"I think that those type of remarks would come from a cracker," Myers said, using a derogatory term for a poor, white person.

I guess I have trouble actually being "outraged" or "sickened" by this gob-smackingly vile statement, but two obvious points:

1) You'll never hear about this again. I don't think this should merit page one coverage, but you won't even see it on Page 24. There will be no further media mentions or questioning of this jagoff.

2) Those who profess so much concern about racism really ought to not to practice it themselves. I would think this wouldn't even need stating, but I guess it does.

Thanks to NickS, via Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

From LGF, via Jack:

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch woman who swears by a daily helping of herring for a healthy life celebrated her 115th birthday on Wednesday as the oldest living person on record.

Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.

For unknown reasons, the unbiased reporter fails to mention she celebrated her 40th wedding anniversary the same year the Tuskegee Experiment was begun, and finally achieved her lifelong dream of para-sailing the year Richard Nixon began his illegal bombing campaign of Cambodia.

And also-- throughout her long life, America has just totally sucked dick, and not in a "good way" either.

Posted by: Ace at 10:05 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Publisher to start turning blogs into books.

Okay, personally, I'm not expecting a call. But I'm happy for those liberal political bloggers, or web sex-'n'-relationship diarists, who'll get deals out of this.

Really happy.

I mean it.

I don't begrudge them their coming book-deals at all.

Completely unrelated-- can anyone recommend a high-voltage toaster with few safety features and the ability to continue pumping out juice without burning out if, just for example let's say, accidentally dropped in a bathtub?

I'm, uhhh, trying to win a bet with a friend.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, they're still cutthroat criminals and all, but is anyone besides me fascinated that there are still pirates operating in the South China Sea? Highwaymen went by the (ahem) wayside, but pirates are still lootin' & freebootin'.

Okay, they plundered a ship carrying tsunami relief aid... but that's what pirates do, after all. They are not socially well-adjusted nor particularly empathetic about the plight (or property rights) of others.

As Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow kept offering up as an explanation for his criminal behavior: "Pirate, remember?"

(Okay, I know he didn't say "remember," but that's one of those lines that conveys that notion when delivered but needs to be augmented by additional words on the page to get the same idea across.)

Easy Geek Trivia: What pulp hero dedicated his life to defeating piracy in particular?

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Corrected! See Update below.

Sorry, back to Tom Cruise/psychiatric drugs/Scientology. But briefly.

I don't seem to remember Lauer telling the Dixie Chicks they should keep their mouths shut. Nor Sarandon, Robbins, Sheen, Glover, etc.

But suddenly Lauer is all atwitter at the idea of celebrities using their charisma and ignorance to shape public opinion:

I can't believe I'm defending Tom Cruise.

But someone has to do it. Cruise has been criticized and ridiculed after a heated exchange with "Today" show co-host Matt Lauer the other day over a rather important topic: the possible overuse of prescription drugs that supposedly treat depression or other forms of mental illness.

It all started when Lauer came to the rescue of Brooke Shields, who — while promoting a book — disclosed that she had therapy and took antidepressant drugs to combat postpartum depression.

Cruise doesn't believe in psychiatry ("a pseudo science") or antidepressants ("mind-altering, antipsychotic drugs"), and he said as much after Shields made her remarks.

Lauer thought that Cruise was being judgmental, and that he should keep his opinions to himself. He also thought Cruise should stipulate that — while the actor didn't approve of taking antidepressants — those for whom the drugs had worked should be free to take them.

Why should Cruise keep his opinions to himself? Shields didn't keep her bout with mental illness to herself. She advertised it to sell books. Cruise is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else.

The problem isn't that celebrities have opinions. It's that the rest of society is quick to treat them as experts. They're not experts. They're movie stars with opinions. And they should be free to express their opinions, and the rest of us should be free to discount them if they don't hold up.

But Lauer seemed to be saying that Cruise didn't have a right to his opinion because many people — like the millions of Americans who use prescription drugs — might find it offensive.

Cruise held his ground. He didn't just give in to Lauer's brand of "I'm OK, you're OK" psychobabble. When asked if it was OK if drugs worked for Shields, Cruise said, no, it wasn't.

"I disagree with it," he told Lauer.

I'm not so much reversing fields myself here -- I actually do wish celebrities would zip it more; they have the right to speak out, of course, but they're dumb and undeservedly influential -- so much as questioning why Lauer approves of every other celebrity's pontificating but not Cruise's.

Could it be -- possibly? -- that Lauer approves of the rantings of Streisand & Co. whereas Tom Cruise's slam is against something the liberal elite hold dear-- the therapuetic culture?

Matt, either celebrities have the right to opine or they don't. It can't be the case they're to be praised for "bravery" when they opine in a manner you approve of but should shut up when they threaten you or your friends' easy access to mood elevators.

And I have to note here that I come down closer to Lauer's side of the argument than Cruise's. Yes, we are an overmedicated society, and yes, doctors are lobbied by drug companies to prescribe certain drugs, injecting an economic conflict of interest into the patient-doctor relationship, but Cruise is daft in claiming that the one part of the human body that cannot be healed through the effective administration of drugs is the brain.

The weak form of his argument ("let's take a closer look at all this") is strong; the strong form of his argument ("all psychotropic drugs are bad, bad, bad, and all you need is some Vitamin C") is weak.

Still, he has the right to be wrong.

And until Lauer tells Bono to zip it, he is no position to tell Cruise to keep his opinions to himself.

PS, here's an idea: how about bubble-headed morning chat-show hosts keeping their opinions to themselves? You know-- all that jouralistic code of ethics about reporting the news straight and with no editorializing.

Nah. What was I thinking? It's very important that the American public know where Katie and Matt stand on all complex political issues.

Fact-Checking My Ass: Zuke points out that the columnist cited above states, flat-out, that Lauer instructed Cruise that he should keep his opinions to himself. In fact, the transcript does not seem to contain such a clear statement, although some parts may be paraphrased or digested.

Reading the transcript-- Cruise feels that Lauer is suggesting he can't talk about these things, but Lauer says, "No you have that right," or words to that effect. Cruise actually suggests this multiple times, and Lauer's questioning is antagonistic. However, Lauer does say that Cruise has the right to speak out; to say Lauer clearly states that Cruise shouldn't say these things is incorrect.

There may be (at most) implication to zip it here, but no clear statement.

What Lauer does seem to be doing is aggressively questioning Cruise and arguing with him. Which is quite fine, I think. Particularly since what Cruise is saying is sci-fi-quasi-religious dogma.

I guess I have to retract my initial slam on Lauer. And perhaps reduce it to this: It sure would be nice if he questioned other celebrities as vigorously and as argumentatively.... celebrities (including Hillary!) who express views he agrees with.

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 910 words, total size 6 kb.

At least I hope it's a prank. He writes very stalker-ish letters of gushing praise, apparently fixated on Matthews' (admittedly dreamy) golden locks:

DEAR CHRISTOPHER -

I am so happy that you are back safely from your trip to South Africa. I am sure your many viewers missed you, as I did.

I hasten to point out, I was on the verge of contacting Andrew Lack over at NBC and telling him to "fill your shoes" with James Kramer of "America Now.” He, like you, looks like a big, healthy baby with beady little eyes. Too cute!!

While not as dignified and refined as you, James is colorful and fiery in his own right. The nice thing about James is, he doesn't have hair for me to "worry myself to death about."

Anyway, you are back, and your job is secure. Remember me to Andrew the next time you see him. Give him my kindest regards.

Cordially,

EDWARD EUGENE BASKETT

I love these kinds of letters. They're creepy and sneakily menacing, and yet, you can't go to jail for writing them.

Perfect.

Posted by: Ace at 08:30 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

If you can stand it.

Law professors -- like Eugene Volokh, appearing on O'Reilly last night -- continue insisting this is protected speech because there is no "clear and present danger" of actual incitement to criminal activity.

Ummm... well, I guess we'll have to see about that, won't we? That Muslim son-of-a-bitch fragged several officers just as the Iraq War began; I imagine there will be other incidences (not necessarily perpetrated by Muslims).

Just curious... after how many officers are fragged will Churchill's words be considered a potential "clear and present danger" to incite murder? This has always been a very vague standard; I just want to know what the bodycount has to be before law professors, even those on the right, begin to realize that exhortations to murder perhaps isn't protected by the First Amendment and isn't really the sort of true political speech it was designed to safeguard.

Posted by: Ace at 08:25 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Unbelievable. The campaign finance reformers want to make it illegal to blog more than one hour a week, four hours a month from a corporation's place of business.

More than that and you could be subject to a legal complaint -- the complaint being the coporation, through you, is making illegal in-kind donations to a political party, because, I guess, the coproration is faciliating your expression of your opinions by providing you with a job and a computer.

And maybe even legal pads and post-its, if you write longhand before posting.

Your employer will be forced to make blogging as carefully patrolled as trolling for child porn in order to keep themselves out of dutch with the FEC. And, of course, they'll have to fire you if they catch you, if only to prove they are not covertly supporting your danger-to-the-Republic opinionating.

Like I said: unbelivable.

The campaign finance "reformers" will simply not stop until as few people as possible -- only those with straight media jobs -- are granted those dangerous First Amendment rights.

Posted by: Ace at 07:54 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Max Boot examines the civilized Brits' response to the Mau Mau uprising and notes how different it was from our response to terrorism:

Look at how the United States' closest ally, Britain, handled an insurgency much smaller and much less threatening than the one we face today.

In Kenya during the early 1950s, a movement known as Mau Mau arose to challenge British colonial rule. Though Mau Mau became a byword for savagery, it was actually pretty restrained as far as guerrilla movements go. Its 20,000 adherents killed fewer than 100 Europeans and 2,000 African loyalists — fewer than the toll from 9/11 alone. Unlike the Iraqi rebels, the Mau Mau had no outside support and no sophisticated weapons. (They mainly killed with machetes.) Unlike Al Qaeda, they did not target the British homeland.

Yet the British used disturbingly harsh tactics against them, as revealed in two new books — "Histories of the Hanged" by David Anderson of Oxford University and "Imperial Reckoning" by Caroline Elkins of Harvard.

The British admitted killing 11,000 Mau Mau, but the real figure, these authors make clear, was much, much higher. Security forces held hundreds of thousands of suspects without trial in a system of penal camps known as the Pipeline. Unlike detainees at Gitmo, who receive three meals a day and all the medical care they need, prisoners in the Pipeline were half-starved, worked to the point of collapse, and sickened by the poor sanitation.

Torture was standard during interrogation, and was not what passes for "torture" in anti-American screeds today (e.g., stepping on a Koran). This was the real thing. According to Elkins, "the screening teams whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects." Some men were forcibly castrated or sodomized. Others were beaten to death or summarily executed.

Little distinction was drawn between guerrillas and civilians. The Mau Mau were primarily Kikuyu, Kenya's largest ethnic group, and the British detained nearly all 1.5 million of them.

Men, women and children were forced off their homesteads at gunpoint. Those not sent to the Pipeline were herded into villages surrounded by barbed wire where they had to endure forced labor while denied adequate food or medical care. Many women were gang-raped by guards. Has anything like this happened in Iraq? Of course not. If it had, you'd hear about it on "60 Minutes."

Mau Mau was defeated by the mid-1950s, but colonial rule did not long survive. In 1963, Kenya achieved independence under Jomo Kenyatta, who had spent eight years in prison after being falsely convicted of being the Mau Mau mastermind.

Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to make jackass and politically disastrous statements on the floor of the Senate.

Posted by: Ace at 07:47 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.