Even an act from Congress couldn't keep Terri alive

Spanish fatwa ripples

There's increasing grumbles coming from moderate Islam.

Strange decision by our former ambassador in Pakistan

restricting the distribution of "wanted" material in Pakistan.

Conservative critiques of Republican maneuvering on Schiavo

In the past, conservatives have been for less, not more government. As far as the right to live, the legal precedent has been that in the absence of a living will, it is up to the next of kin, in this case, her husband, to decide what the affected person would have wanted. But as we all know by now, Tom DeLay doesn't give a damn about what her husband has to say about it.

Here are critiques by Wiliam F. Buckley and Andrew Sullivan about all of this brouhaha, though Sullivan's critique of American conservatism is a little broader.

Here's the Reagan quote I like from Sullivan's column:

“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less
centralised authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general
description also of what libertarianism is.”

So if you think Congress knows what Terry Shiavo would have wanted better than her husband, than you are aruging for a paternalistic government, one that knows what you want and need better than you do. There was a time when liberalism, the New Deal and the Great Society were criticized for such thinking.

Dowd on Schiavo

Maureen Dowd made a couple of points that have cropped up elsewhere that seem to capsulate the core response from the left regarding the Schiavo case:

Republicans easily abandon their cherished principles of individual privacy and
states rights when their personal ambitions come into play.

What would the left do without the hypocrisy card? Would they be able to form an argument? Hypocrisy is not the end all be all to me. While it’s a weakness that can rightly be exploited – as Jonah Goldberg points out here – it’s not the worst thing that a politician can display, especially in a open democracy like ours where leaders have to pacify constituents by compromises and shifts.

So if a politician has two stances – one for the right to life and another for state’s rights – and those two positions come in conflict, should that politician avoid choosing between them because doing so would be hypocrisy? And as much as Republicans believe in state’s rights, they also believe in the 14th Amendment. So, if the politician believes that Terri Schiavo is being unduly denied her right to life, and the Florida supreme court is not adequately protecting her, then would it not stand to reason that the Senate should act within its powers to protect her?

As for Terri being denied her right to life – that point is admittedly not a proven fact. But there are questions, which is why Congress wanted more appeals on the case. As a friend of mine said, perhaps Terri would have a better chance if she was on death row. Krauthammer made a pretty good assessment when he described the issue as a choice between a legal travesty and a moral tragedy.

And where Dowd thinks that Republicans are advancing there own ambitions, I think it’s more a case of Republicans putting their money where their mouth is.

Dowd quoting Republican House Rep. Christopher Shays:

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy. There are
going to be repercussions from this vote."

We will dismiss the assertion that having a Christian element in the party that actually influences party platforms equates a theocracy. At the time of this post (and Dowd’s column) it is appearing less and less likely that the tube will be reinserted into Terri. With Terri’s death dies the argument of Congressional overreach, because it is hard to make such an argument for something that failed. There may very well be repercussions from this issue, but it will hurt the (mostly silent) Democrats more than the Republicans. Why? Because it will fuel Bush’s argument about an out of control judiciary, which has stonewalled any attempts at further deliberation. The more people think about that, the more they won’t understand why Terri had to be starved to death now. And it appears that Congress was no match for the courts. All the while, the left has ridiculed the Republicans for refusing to accept decisions that they (the Republicans) disagree with. In other words, to listen to the left, the Supreme Court is the one branch of government that should be above checks and balances. And, by proxy, it certainly won’t help the Democrats filibustering Bush’s nominees of strict constitutionalists. In a cold political sense, Terri’s death is the worst thing that can happen to Democrats.

Finally, when Dowd charges Bush with packing the courts, she should probably learn what “packing the courts” actually means. It’s not replacing retiring judges with conservative nominees. It is creating new seats to fill with judges of your own liking. The last president to do that was FDR, who was frustrated with the judicial opposition to New Deal programs.

Powerline has questions about the GOP Senate memo that was leaked

Personally, it didn't bother me when I first heard about the memo. I mean, generally speaking, Senators don't do anything unless it's to their political advantage. For instance, watch the dog pile on Social Security - or the lack thereof - even though it's obviously an issue that needs to be tackled for the good of the country.

Some encouraging news on the propoganda front

Dean is going to be a fun DNC chairman to watch

the South is his sphinx. The more he says how Democrats need to respect the South, values and faith - the more it appears that Democrats don't and that's got to be frustrating for the Dems that do.

80 + 25 Vermin killed over past few days

A heartening story of Iraqis taking care of terrorists themselves

A critical look at George Kennan

Big stick is enroute to the Middle East

Opposition candidate in Egypt is charged with forging signatures

This may be too much to hope for, but

the Europeans are rethinking lifting the ban on arms to China.

French support for the EU constitution is down

The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, is upset and "demanded the political leaders of France 'do their job' and 'make an effort to explain the constitution' to French voters, who are turning against the treaty. "

Maybe they can have public readings where they go through the colossal document like it was storytime in the class room. When I first heard of French opposition to the constitution, I thought it may have been fueled by a French desire to have more control over the size of bananas being imported, etc., but apparently that's not the case. This story goes on to say that the French oppose cutting red tape for service industries moving across borders because they see it as a threat to their nanny state.

My 1 cent worth on Terri Schiavo

Since it was the focus of news saturation over the weekend, I figured I’d chime in, though my opinion is lukewarm at best. Obviously I’m not a legal or medical expert – and it appears that the husband has Florida law on his side – but I must side with Terri’s parents on this one (as well as Bush and Delay, etc.) I can’t figure out the husband’s motives on the issue. Something about it is fishy. I don’t think it is a money thing, & I’m not sure if it is necessary for her to die for him to remarry. From what I understand Terri has never had an MRI (she had a catscan in the early nineties). Why is that? She seems responsive enough (more than a vegetable, at least) based on the videos of her that I’ve seen and (assuming it is real) a recently released audio clip. The husband apparently has a new life, complete with fiance and kids, so why not hand over his rights to the parents? I admit that simply can not imagine keeping my future in-laws out of that decision. His attorney seems to be nothing more than a right-to-die advocate whose remarks about the Stalinist nature of Congress and Bush is absurd. This issue has been politicized by right and left – make no mistake.

Incidentally, my friend Jay over at Nonfamous has a penchant for painting Bush and Republicans as fascists. But what fascist errs on the side of life? If I recall, Hitler wanted to kill people like Schiavo for the benefit of the species.

Jay’s post also serves as a sort’ve living will, itself:

Let me say this very clearly to my friends and family. If anything like thisever
happens to me and somehow my wishes aren't followed, I don't want you just to
stop feeding me. And don't wait 13 years to do something, either! I want 80ccof
morphine, a bullet to the head, or whatever it takes--and wherever I end up,I'm
sure I'll see some of you there. OK? Thanks!

I’m sure that can be arranged, Jay.

Finally, Dude’s post with the MSNBC link makes a pretty good point regarding Congress passing a bill for one person. While I don’t have a good argument to the contrary (though I guess that’s the difference between a conservative and a libertarian) I applaud Congress for clever maneuvering to keep Terri alive. So far as I know, the issue has not gone to Congress to decide, but is still up to the courts.

UPDATE: In answer to my question, Schiavo hasn't had an MRI because of some implants that were added to her some time ago. However, she could have a PET scan, which would make a clearer image of the brain than a CAT scan.

Gays in Saudi Arabia have it rough

I know, I know, no surprise, but I thought this story was worth posting.

A direct Secretary of State

Nothing against Powell, but I’m comforted by Rice’s resolve to maintain a strong message against the proposed ban lifting on arms to China right before her trip to Beijing. Her visit to the Presbyterian Church in Beijing – just blocks away from Tinnamen Square and all the Party and government buildings – was a nice touch.

2 Years since the invasion

While we await pictures of this weekend's anti-war protests in Chicago, an Iraqi blogger says what the war means to him. It's never cheap.

Stifling debate in the House

Here's an article on how the Republicans are going back on their word to open up debate since having taken control of the House. It seems that consolidation of power is more central to Republican rule than gathering all points of view when legislating.

"The number of bills the Rules Committee allows to go to the floor under 'open rules,' that is, bills to which any member may offer amendments, has dropped steadily. By the count of the then-minority Republicans in the 95th Congress in 1977-78, 85 percent of nonappropriations legislation in the House were offered under open rules.

But the number of bills open to revision dwindled to 57 percent overall and to 30 percent for nonappropriations bills in 1993-94, the last Congress controlled by Democrats, a denial of process so serious that it led the late Representative Gerald Solomon, a New York Republican, to pledge that the incoming Republicans would make the vast majority of bills open. But the opposite happened.

In the current Republican-led Congress, according to statistics offered by both parties, the percentage of nonappropriations bills open to revision has dropped to 15 percent. "

Even more troubling...

The Senate failed to pass spending cuts, thanks to the help of 7 Republicans.

There was a time.....

when Republicans would have been against creating a law for one person. Bill Clinton declared the Era of Big Government over, and the Republicans have been bringing it back from the dead over the last 4 years.

Blogspot

I've noticed that over the past month or so Blogger has been less and less reliable, and it's been harder to post on it. You fellow members may have noticed the same thing. Therefore, I'm thinking to move Liverputty somewhere else - possibly making it a complete site to itself. I'm not yet sure when that change will be, but I'll keep you.....posted.

Cool airplane art site

These pictures remind me of the painting of planes that graced the model boxes I had as a kid. They fueled my imagination, no end.

Dispute over islands making some Koreans nuts

A recent row (no pun intended) between Japan and S. Korea over two tiny islands begs the question: does S. Korea need a timeout? They scrambled jets to intercept a Japanese civilian aircraft with a news crew, some Korean protesters have chopped off fingers in front of the Japanese embassy to protest Japanese claims to the two islands, and a cabinet minister questioned whether Japan has an intent to live peacefully with their neighbor. In short, S. Korea sounds more like a psycho girlfriend than the responsible democracy they are. This is no way for two allies in an increasingly tense part of the world to act. To quote my parents whenever I was throwing a tantrum - "Someone needs a nap." And get over WWII already.

Why is this a government issue?

I realize the president brought up drugs in sports last year, something I thought was slightly bizarre, but that doesn't explain the whole congressional committee/major league sports relationship.

Biden supports Wolfowitz nomination at world bank

Kudos to Biden.

More on spreading democracy as a foreign policy

Victor Davis Hanson lays it out:

The foreign policy Realists want nothing to do with George Bush's idealism. They
rely exclusively on deterrence and balance of power to adjudicate relations
abroad: We must deal with the world as it is, they say, rather than as we
think it should be. Isolationists likewise bristle at the idea of expending blood or
treasure in an open-ended commitment to spread our values. And don't expect
liberals to applaud the new idealism, as if their 1960s vision of an ethical foreign policy has at last arrived. The Left's attachment to "multiculturalism" long ago ended the idea that the U.S. had any right to place Western ideas of politics over indigenous practices. Other "progressives" are de facto pacifists; for them, any use of U.S. force is a betrayal of global diplomacy....

and then:

....Despite these many reservations and pitfalls, George Bush's new idealism may
eventually make America's foreign initiatives more consistent and predictable to
friend and enemy alike. Personalities and crises of the day may nuance the
stance of the United States, but illiberal regimes will ultimately realize there
will be no real friendship with the U.S. unless they reform their governments
and free their peoples.

In response to Mat's comments on a previous post, I'm not sure I can explain why the left has refused to embrace the Bush doctrine if their burning disdain of Bush, the man, is not a factor.

free bernie ebbers!!!

free andy fastow!!!

Freedom on the march

Making headway in Bahrain.

Worldcom's Bernard Ebbers found guilty

A big fish is nabbed.

I must unlearn what I have learned

I always thought that cats and toons did not have bones - but I'm apparently wrong. (via the Corner)

The babe theory

via Instapundit. I'll buy that for a dollar. Check out the Iranian female swat team pictures (also on LGF). They are disturbing - I wonder if they goose step.

Amir Taheri: Pests in freedom's way

Why doesn't the left want to support freedom for arabs?:

Over the past two weeks several Western capitals, including London and
Paris, have witnessed feverish activity by more than two dozen groups
organising meetings and marches to mark the second anniversary of the
liberation of Iraq. The aim is not to celebrate the event and express
solidarity with the emerging Iraqi democracy, but to vilify George W. Bush
and Tony Blair, thus lamenting the demise of Saddam Hussein.

I like it, I like it

The US and Japan start to put muscle into their new alliance

If all goes well, those efforts will produce a joint declaration by US
President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi next
autumn that will reflect the most fundamental and far-reaching revision of
the alliance since the US-Japan Security Treaty was rewritten in 1960.

It's like watching dueling banjos

In contrast to the all men-some-trucked-in-from-Syria bunch last week who supported Syrian puppetmasters, this march was different:

The most notable element in the rally was that it did represent a broad
cross section of Lebanese from all around the country.

Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says

Two thoughts: 1) Why was this story on the frontpage of the NYTimes? It isn't really news. 2) How can so much WMD-making material be missing from a country that didn't have WMDs?

1,000 gone, 18,000 left

Hopefully, Bush will keep the focus on the Syrian pullout and not chase after the more important, though more elusive, threat of Hizbollah. After listening to Rice on "Meet the Press" this morning, it seems like that is where they are focused. Syria has falling away from the herd (or as Bush would say, is out of step with the region) and, if things go well, Boy Assad won't be around too much longer. If a Syria emerges that won't provide resources to Hizbollah, then Hizbollah will be left with only one sugar daddy, Iran. And that will bode well for the Lebanese. However, if we get caught up trying to defeat Hizbollah in Lebanon, and they are still getting help from Syria and Iran, then that isn't good.

Larry "Spiggots" Kudlow thinks $55 a barrel won't long be sustained

N. Korea launches harsh crackdown

via Drudge

Right-Wing Bloggers' Fake Sgrena Car Photo

A fascinating account of how, Rightwing bloggers (specifically LGF) handled the Sgrena car incident. Unless this post is meant to confirm how LGF quickly corrects errors and accounts for them in a transparent manner, then I'm not quite sure what the point is. LGF faked nothing. (hat tip: LGF)

The freedom girls aren't going to like this

Thought on the Hezbollah demonstration

Words can't express how much of a mistake I think it was for Hezbollah to come out in support of Syria. Their numbers were impressive, but I don't think they will recover from this mistake. I guess terrorism is as terrorism does. One of the best developments that's happened over the past couple of months has been repeated warnings from various terrorist groups against democracy. There is no doubt that they do not stand with the people. By fielding hundreds of thousands of foreigners with signs praising the occupiers leader, they've undone any goodwill generated by their hospitals or water services, etc. I'm not sure how ugly Lebanon will get, but I doubt Hezbollah will come out on top.

Something missing

My movie watching enthusiasm was riding high after a recent gander at King Solomon’s Mines. Since then I’ve been in the mood for other exotic adventures with good location shots, which is why I rented The Naked Jungle. The DVD had a few things going for it: the screenplay was based on a story I read in jr. high English (Lenigen versus the Ants) that I always liked and felt would adapt well to film; it was nicely packaged, indicating a vibrant print; and it starred Charlton Heston, always a plus. All that set my expectations pretty high, and although the film certainly wasn’t bad, it lacked something.

I’m a sucker for movies about Americans running a business or plantation or otherwise plying a trade in far off locales – like John Wayne’s operation in Hitari or Clarke Gable’s rubber plantation in Red Dust, and The Naked Jungle did not short change me on that score, but Lenigen’s hacienda was larger and certainly more majestic than what I pictured it in the story. To stretch it out into a feature film, the first two thirds of the movie implanted a mail-order bride love story that was a bit long and dull. But once the ants started getting close, the movie got better. After some sure fire scenes of Leningen’s men preparing for battle, building defenses – the drama kicks off with the first casualty, the drunk Mexican lookout. And it ends with a desperate run by Charlton through the ants to the dam. Good stuff, but the preceding impertinent subplot made the overall film a bit stiff. They can’t all be King Solomon’s Mines.

BTW – When is the African Queen going to be released on DVD? Somebody is slacking.

Hizbollah has made its bed

UPDATE: Looks like Hizbollah put out some big numbers, though I imagine al Jazeera’s 1 million estimate is a tad high. But did you see all those sour pusses? No cute girls at that rally at all, as Astute Blogger notices. They must be feeling the pinch. Ralph Bennett at TCS:

But if you want to get some perspective on Hezbollah as a political party (or
"Lebanese faction" as the New York Times called it), think Nazi party in the
German Reichstag in the early 1930s.

Finally, an appropriate place for a Nazi analogy. While watching the news the other night I noticed that both Hizbollah militants and the Syrians are goose-steppers, a sure sign of evil.

It seems like there’s been lots of rallies and protests everywhere, whether its in Turkey or Togo or Nepal or Kuwait, its getting harder to sling a dead cat with out hitting a protest, unless, of course, your in Tinnamen Square, where protest are cleared away.

PS - Austin Bay predicted these past few weeks back in December:

"Mark it on your calendar: Next month, the Arab Middle East will
revolt."

AHH! SEND IT BACK TO HELL!!!

AUSTIN, Texas -- It was something of a curiosity back in December when a California company announced the delivery of the world's first kitten cloned for a customer bereaved enough over the loss of a pet cat to pay $50,000 to have it duplicated.

Troops Shoot Italian Hostage's Car Despite E-ZPass

Mark Steyn: one man, one gloat

Requires a free sign-in, but it is definitely worth reading, particularly the parts regarding Wolfowitz and, towards the end, the FREE TIBET bumper sticker set. In my estimation (and many others), Steyn is the best columnist out there. And he's never one to shy away from bold predictions. He's earned this gloat.

And then there's this comical Best of the Web piece in the WSJ with the following excerpt:

The editorialists at the Orange County (Calif.) Register think something
may be going on here:

It is fairly easy to see that something important is happening in
Lebanon, a move in the direction of independence and the idea of a civil
society with democratic underpinnings that is reflected elsewhere in the Middle East. It is more difficult to figure out why it is happening just
now, what forces have converged at this moment.

Man, this is a tough one! We're racking our brain trying to remember if
anything happened recently that might have given a push to proponents of
democracy in the Middle East. Hmm, nope! Still can't think of
anything.

Finally, regarding the same Taranto piece, he quotes Daniel Schorr:

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that "a
liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital
region."

He may have had it right.

Apparently Mr Schorr was aware of the liberation line Bush used prior to the invasion.

Still boundaries to break in aviation

Too cool.

In need of a Baath

Chemical Ali is wetting his pants. (via Iraq the Model)

Cognitive dissonance on display at Comedy Central

I had my “I told you so moment” last night while watching John Stewart interview Nancy Soderberg. She came on to promote her book, The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might. Her intention was to point out faults in Bush’s handling of foreign policy, but instead, she squirmed and looked uncomfortable as John imploded on camera. She did her best to poo-poo any credit to Bush, but it just wasn’t happening. At a couple of points during the interview she even begrudgingly admitted that things appear to be going in the right direction. The audience was pretty quiet, not knowing how to react while John wondered allowed if Bush was right all along – rubbing his eyes as if he didn’t know the world anymore. Soderberg’s book came across as bunk and Mr. Stewart finally found a way to be funny and behind the curve at the same time, though I’m not sure that was his intention.

Update: a letter to Jonah I found on the Corner reads:

From a reader:
Jonah,
The common complaint of Stewart and the anti-hygiene anti-war crowd seems to be that the freedom of Iraqis was an after the fact rationalization for the war. It got me thinking, so I did some heavy research and was quite surprised to learn that the military operation was not named “Operation Iraqi WMD”! Apparently it was called—get this!—Operation Iraqi Freedom.

…And the argument continues.

First, I will say that I agree with Dude in regards to Homeland Security. I was never for creating a new department and felt that it was done for political reasons. Such things happen in a democracy. It happened again with the creation of an intelligence czar, another measure that I do not support.

However, I disagree that a bait and switch took place upon the lead up to the war. Certainly the WMD case got the most attention from the people and the press and became a focal point from the administration, but the other reasons, including the freedom of the Iraqi people were stated beforehand as well, as his 2002 speech to the U.N. shows. I also maintain that the president was careful to distinguish between a grave and gathering threat and an imminent threat. If an administration official painted the threat as imminent, such a depiction was the exception, not the rule. In his 2003 SOTU Bush stated:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have
terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice
before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge,
all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in
the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an
option.

I recognize that rehashing this argument will not bring about any reconciliation. One side feels that the president was essentially honest with the people (though I’ll admit that there was a selling job to garner support for the war) and the other side feels that the president lied and manipulated evidence to go to war. Neither can prove, with any certainty, its case.

That said, I would no sooner condemn Bush for focusing on the liberation aspect after the WMD argument didn’t pan out as I would condemn Lincoln for freeing the slaves after his 1860 campaign tried to convince nervous slaveholders that he wasn’t an abolitionist.

A couple of excerpts from that UN speech:

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime
cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic
repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international
peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise.

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and
support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and
Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993,
Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American
President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th.
And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.
...

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when
inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?
The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's
regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against
the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions
and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not
take.
...

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally
forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction,
long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian
population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as
required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government
that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights,
economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
...

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic
goal.

Lebanon effect is rippling into Syria

Why?

We should be working to eliminate the FCC, or at least limiting its authority, not expanding it like this republican senator wants to do.

Male escort quips ad nauseum

Clinton supports are still putting up with intern jokes, so suck it up.

More importantly, isn't it a bit disconcerting from a security standpoint that someone can attend the White House briefings without submitting to the full FBI background check?

Thomas Friedman disclaimer

I don’t wish to leave a wrong impression and I noticed that my comments have been targeting Mr. Friedman of late. While I won’t think twice in poking fun at Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman, I do have respect for Mr. Friedman and think of him as a very knowledgeable fellow, especially in regards to the Middle East. That said, I admit to being regular frustrated by his columns.