JON STEWART LIED -- STEPHEN COLBERT DIED!!!

On last night's "Daily Show" Jon Stewart's lead fake news items included a report about the graduation ceremonies of a battalion of Iraqi soldiers, 1000 Sunnis strong, who, upon learning that they were to be assigned to protect a Shia area, immediately began a full-tilt rebellion, hollering and stripping off their uniforms. The appropriate film footage was provided, first showing the men marching somewhat clumsily on parade, and then mid-riot-- with the clear implication that these were the same people, and their two behaviors were separated by mere minutes. [In the era of Michael Moore-style editing, one is wise not to trust one's lying eyes on these matters.]

I have been unable to verify from any other source that this event ever occurred, which is not to say that Stewart's show pretends to be a reliable source of true news. However, he normally doesn't have to stretch facts too far to find his fuel for mockery-- it's all about context.

And it's the context of his fake report that really irritated me. He juxtaposed the set-up piece about the troop rebellion with what he characterized as the sole available item of good news from Iraq: that there are plans for a water-park tourist attraction in Baghdad.

This he treated as if it were evidence of both insanity and stupidity. Yes indeed, what can one do but ridicule the very idea that anyone in Iraq is hopeful for the future, looking to transform their besieged surroundings into a place that will one day reflect the past greatness of this historic city, or at the very least to inject into its present insecurity some belief in the possibility of normalcy.

The truth is that even during the much-ballyhooed "shock and awe" of March 2003, Baghdad was a city where lights were on and traffic flowed day and night-- we saw it on CNN's stationary camera which remained after their reporters got evicted. And to this day, in most of the city commerce goes on at a great rate-- people eat in cafés, and purchase cars and electrical appliances (including once-forbidden communications technology) in unprecedented numbers.

Furthermore, those of us who believe in keeping an eye on reality instead of comforting ourselves with our set fantasies, have followed the periodic reports of Iraqi plans for the eventual return of tourism-- courageous and entrepreneurial Iraqis (yes-- you know-- those crazy brown A-rabs who live over there near that continent place) have been busy drawing up plans for hotels and civic improvements which they truly believe will be achievable sooner rather than later. And good for them. I suspect they will persevere, with or without Jon Stewart's approval. They have faith in their people. Jon Stewart craves acceptance from his.

So I'm prepared to buy that the "Daily Show" rebellion footage had its genesis in some episode of truth. But the context-- that nothing good ever happens, or ever will, in the vast pile of rubble that is Iraq-- falls into the category of malicious and manipulative LIE. It is a lie about, primarily, the day-to-day, person-to-person small victories being ground out by the American/coalition military in the field and their Iraqi allies. Stewart can do his thing and have great shows without resorting to insulting and condescending to these people. I wish he would. When he's on his game there's nobody better.

Stephen Colbert's game is of a different kind than Stewart's. I watched his opening show with great anticipation, but was disappointed. His usual schtick didn't seem sustainable for a full half-hour. But he found his groove, and mostly he's completely hilarious.

However, he got up in front of President Bush and the assembled Washington press corps, and DIED. Now, I don't envy anybody who had to follow the Bush-and-doppelganger (impersonator Steve Bridges) duo



who had completely disarmed what can only be described as a substantially hostile audience pretending to be civil for one night. But Colbert just misfired, and I think he would have done so with this material whether the President had upstaged him or not. Some of it is funny, but a lot of it just goes thud and lies there.



There was an overall real mean-spiritedness about the routine (even towards the press), which was a mistake, and is not typical of what he does on his television show. Worst of the night: the bit about keeping generals from retiring began on the taste borderline, and then crossed over into what can only be called shameful calumny with the closer: "If you're strong enough to go on one of those pundit shows, you can stand on a bank of computers and order men into battle." That one was truly disgusting.

He seemed to be falling in and out of his O'Reilly parody persona, when consistency as one or the other would have served him better. Mostly he just went on too long on a given theme-- like Bush's approval rating, for instance: again, borderline at best, and then he floggged it to death. It didn't help that the President(s) had pre-empted a lot of his jokes (and done them better). He paused and stared at his notes several times, as if jettisoning material that no longer looked promising-- at these times he seemed in danger of breaking into a Nixonian sweat.

A few of the bits were just too obscure, like the line on Scott McLellan, who was said to have retired because he "really felt like he needed to spend more time with Andrew Card's children." What was that about? Presumably McLellan doesn't have any children-- whether by choice or by fate, is that proper fodder for comedy? If it's a sterility problem, was the cruelty of the joke worth a laugh? Shades of Al Franken's "jokes" about Newt Gingrich's adolescent daughter and various people's ex-wives, back in '96.

The Colbert-as-press-secretary video was pretty good, and ended up, perhaps unintentionally, being a rather unflattering snapshot of some of the more prominent members of the White House press corps. Maybe that's why the reaction to it was tame-- or maybe the whole appearance had just gone on too long, with too many seconds of dead air.

It's not that the room was hostile to Colbert-- they erupted into laughter at the truly funny stuff. But the funny stuff was rare, and the mean parts were really mean, especially the slam at the generals-- that kind of thing can rob the routine of its oxygen.

In the cold light of day, Colbert's laugh-challenged performance has gone unmentioned by the media who couldn't bring themselves to gloss it up, and lauded beyond measure by those whose partisanship impairs their ability to discern what they're seeing. Some of the more myopic commentators have praised him for his courage. Daniel at Bloggledygook pours cold water all over that:

... it has become tiresome to hear talk of courage in this case, as if Colbert is in some fear for his life, but chose to stand against the fascist state and mock the president and media. Rubbish. The easiest place in the world to be snarky is Washington D.C. The Capitol virtually runs on snark. I pointed out that courage would be exemplified by an Iraqi mocking Saddam (when still in office) where speaking against the government carried very real danger.

The other point that begs to be made is that the shrieking about police states, etc. demonstrates just how humorless much of Colbert's audience is. There is less comedy being made than the fiction that Colbert and Jon Stewart "speak" for some voiceless mass. In the age of the ubiquitous opinion, screaming at the top of one's lungs that one's speech is being stolen is absurd and in itself, the best form of satire practiced today.

Collective IQ of Bush Administration Doubles Overnight!
TONY SNOW HIRED AS PRESS SECRETARY

Collective IQ of Universe Set to Multiply to the Tenth Power!
I'M HAVING A GRANDCHILD

WHAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT [and I mean it this time] (Part 2):
L’CHAIM – TO LIFE!

Backgrounder:
On the weekend of April 21 this set of Marine parents (me and the spousal unit) decided to attend the first annual conference sponsored by Marineparents.com, held in Houston, Texas.

We had absolutely no idea what to expect—what kind of cross-section of the American military family we would meet there. The experience and the people were impressive, tremendously informative, and deeply sobering.

The highest-profile (and busiest) speaker of the weekend was Colonel Bryan McCoy, whose 3rd Battalion of the 4th Marine Regiment pushed into Baghdad on April 7, 2003, and helped the locals topple Saddam’s statue in Firdos Square on April 9th. They also saw fierce fighting (and took numerous losses) in the first battle for Fallujah in 2004. He’s a tough, intelligent, commanding man, the sort whose troops would walk through burning coals and broken glass for him—something he would never ask of them unless he had first done it himself.

At the other extreme of the assembled Marine community was Chelsea B--, a very young mother of two whose husband is serving his second tour of Iraq. She would seem perfectly at home doing her nails with her high school girlfriends listening to Britney Spears and cooing over Orlando Bloom. Instead she manages a Marine wives’ internet message board with over 300 participants, helping them manage their affairs and keep their wits collected while their husbands patrol dusty streets in over 100º heat, ignoring their 60 lbs. of gear as their eyes dart in every direction.

In the middle ground was Steve S--, wearing full dress blues and shuffling tipsily with the aid of his mother’s arms and a four-foot staff. When he sits his right arm shakes uncontrollably, fingers pounding against his knee. Amid the brown hair on the right side of his head is a massive s-curve of scar tissue, hiding the shattered source of all that nerve damage.

Among those standing for Steve when he was introduced by his commanding officer, Col. McCoy, were the Gold Star Parents for whom we had all previously stood in tribute: the Norwoods, who had sat with Laura Bush in the congressional gallery during the 2005 State of the Union Address and were spontaneously hugged by an Iraqi woman with a voter’s purple finger (Byron Norwood, age 25, died in Fallujah in November 2004); the Starrs, whose son’s private final letter telling of his pride in the help he knew he was giving to Iraqis longing for freedom, became famous when it was selectively quoted by the New York Times so as to appear jaded and despairing (Cpl. Jeff Starr, age 22, died near Ar Ramadi in May 2005—); the Franks, who turned their grief into action by starting the Heart of a Marine Foundation to give moral and material support to military families in need (Phillip Frank, age 20, died in April 2004 near Fallujah). There were others.

“Gung ho” is usually a derogatory term used to describe those who plough into a project with mindless enthusiasm. Our time with these Marine parents taught us, among other things, that it is clearly possible combine being gung-ho with being wise, wary, compassionate, and realistic. Having been heavily dosed with realism at every turn, we nevertheless emerged from the encounter with even greater respect for the life our son has chosen, and the sense that there is much we can do for him and his new wife, and ourselves, to take us through the perils that may lie ahead.

Or should I say, “him, his wife, and his child.” Barely have we had a chance to digest the sights and experiences afforded to us as Marine parents, before we are informed as of today that we are to be (Marine) grandparents, come this December. I am not sure which part of this scenario I find more implausible—my son the Star Wars/ Lord of the Rings geek being a father, or me the perpetually goofy failed beatnik being a grandparent. But such we are. In the space of 14 months our immediate family will have seen three weddings and two babies—doomsday demographics be damned! We’re holding up our end, by God!

Let the baby madness begin! (VISA card now officially smokin'.)

Lesser news:
INSIDE THE BELTWAY
President Bush has announced what was no longer surprise news-- that he has replaced Defensive Doughboy Scott McLellan with FOX news and radio pundit Tony Snow to be his press secretary.

OOO-RAH.

AT LAST somebody there will have some idea of how the job is done. Kudos to the Snow-man. Lots and lots of stuff has gone horribly wrong under the Bush administration, but the relentless, exasperating, needless, suicidal inability and UNWILLINGNESS to communicate with a predominantly well-disposed American public has been by far its most egregious failing.

It's a desperately sad -- pathetic, really -- comment on this administration that, in a time of a shootin' war overseas and an ideological sectarian war within the walls of the United States Capitol, the mere replacement of a press spokesman can take on such profound importance. But this move addresses (and, we hope, dresses) the most festering wound in the Republican body politic. One waggish blog commenter proposed a White House press briefing room reality show, where Tony gets to decide whether to entertain a question from Helen Thomas or just "bitch slap" her on general principles. I think his first duty ought to be to bitch-slap the President into treating us like adults.

BARELY NOTICED: IRAQ FORMS UNITY GOVERNMENT

Democrats lose yet another stick for beating the bushes.

Mum's the word. If this gets out there is a risk people will start thinking that
(a) something good could be happening over there-- CAN'T HAVE THAT!
(b) brown-skinned foreign people might actually be capable of democratic self-rule, and our interest in making sacrifices to help them might be justified.

There are those who say that Republicans are spiralling into oblivion as they head towards the fall election.

Why am I sitting here feeling kind of sorry for the left? I'll deal with that later.

For now I'll just enjoy being in the grip of the warm-fuzzies, what with the stork on the horizon.

WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
FOX TV's PRISON BREAK is back on the air, after an inexplicable hiatus of several months, which has nevertheless failed to dim the fans' interest in the show. It continues to be preposterous in so many respects, but who cares? It's a new idea, about something other than doctors, lawyers, and cops. The cast is a great group of "types" (though they are perhaps becoming a bit too cuddly as they become the Great Escape team).

It's fun to keep watching Stacy Keach turn up in new avatars-- I've been a fan of his since he was a grad student doing Shakespeare in 1963, and have enjoyed his journey from Bad Bob the Albino to Barrabas to Frank James to Mike Hammer to Ken Titus (one of my all-time favorites), and now finally to "the Pope" of Fox River Penitentiary. (Lots of forgettable crap in between, but what actor hasn't done that?)

Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) is once again up to what I am begiinning to understand are his old tricks, immediately following PRISON BREAK. Our household has quite suddenly decided to become addicted to 24, and are in the process of catching up with DVD's of the first season while trying to follow the latest instalments. Again, it's all preposterous, but well put together and a new twist on cliff-hanging.


COUNTDOWN TO CALUMNY -- The Da Vinci Code (no I'm not linking, thank you very much) opens in one month
It will probably be an entertaining film, since Ron Howard actually has talent in inverse proportion to that so absent in the bland-faced, wide-eyed fake-o literato Dan Brown.

I hate to contribute my thirteen Canuckbucks (or whatever will be the new "blockbuster" price of admission) to this ignoble effort, but I suppose I'll have to do a consumer's test on it, in the public interest of course. I had vowed never to pay the ticket price for Michael Moore's lie-fest, Fahrenheit 911 (deadly serious, highly recommended critique found here, from the Ethics and Public Policy Center in D.C.), and had planned to theatre-hop at the cineplex and see it for free. Instead I ended up buying a previously viewed DVD so cheap that Moore couldn't possibly have made enough for a Mars bar out of it-- in fact, as a re-sale item, I expect he got nothing. Ah-- feels so good.

So I'll probably see the Da Vinci Fraud, perhaps de-frauding my way into it (I've never done that before-- it's unethical of course!-- but on a 1-to-10 scale of unethical acts it has to rate about a 2 when the film project itself rates at least a 12, and the book is up in the four-score-and-seven neighborhood.)

I am one of the least "thin-skinned Christians" I know, but I've taken the pledge [The Da Vinci Code Pledge for Thin-Skinned Christians] about this book/film, and have to see the business through. Salman Rushdie has apparently pronounced the Dan Brown book "a book so bad it makes bad books look good." Amen to that, as it were. Now we have to see if Ron Howard can make a silk burse out of a sow's ear. (heh-- a little church humor there)

POLITICS: IT WAS 2006 WHEN I WENT TO BED...
But I woke up and it was January 2005-- the date when a more politically astute President would have conducted a very normal, post-election "shuffle" (as they call it in the Parliamentary tradition) and pumped some new blood into his cabinet and administrative staff. The announcements over the past week or two of some personnel changes in the Bush administration are LONG overdue, and this cabinet shuffle now risks looking like the proverbial re-arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. It needn't be, but he's cut it awfully close.

FOR ONCE THE ARMCHAIR GENERALS ARE ACTUAL GENERALS
As one who has been advocating the replacement of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld since December of 2003, I'd like to welcome the Snippity Six-- the list of carping American generals now calling for Rumsfeld's blood-- aboard this particular Ship of State, now that it's listing badly and limping into port with chunks of ice on its deck.

It's too little (by which I mean small and petty) too late, gentlemen. Replacing Rumsfeld now would be suicidal for the current administration both at home and abroad, would cripple the effectiveness and security of our military in the field, and wouldn't bring back a single dead kid who shouldn't have been so vulnerable to cross-border jihadists and re-grouping insurgents.

As military careerists go, what the hell are you people thinking? and how did you get into positions of authority in the armed forces? Oh yeah-- there was that 12-year hiatus in sanity, when the elder (and wimpier) Bush and the flabby anti-military Clinton were in charge, and morons like Wesley (engage the enemy from 30,000 feet-- don't fire till you see the whites of their embassy roofs) Clark, or jittery dudes like Anthony Zinni (self-admitted screw-up responsible for the USS Cole bombing) were earning their stars.

Once upon a time soldiers who couldn't carry out their commanders' orders used to run on their swords-- today they can just resign, and should do so, silently, if they cannot in conscience obey their superiors. The danger to our troops posed by this plainly orchestrated revolt of the six generals is not so very far removed from a "fragging" incident-- where the rank and file turn on their officers and kill them. Fragging is traditionally a desperate measure taken to preserve troops from some pointless suicide mission ordered by an inexperienced or unfit officer. But we should recall that during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq there was a premeditated fragging multiple murder of officers by a Muslim-convert soldier with divided loyalties. So ideological fragging has its precedents too, as does fragging by envious or tetchy malcontents.

The editorial at OpinionJournal.com makes one of the more important points about the generals and their hastily-enthusiastic allies in the media:

The anti-Rumsfeld generals have a right to their opinion. But there's a reason the Founders provided for civilian control of the military, and a danger in military men using their presumed authority to push elected Administrations around. As for Democrats and their media allies, we can only admire their sudden new deference to the senior U.S. officer corps, which follows their strange new respect for the "intelligence community" they also once despised. U.S. military recruiters might not be welcome on Ivy League campuses, but they're heroes when they trash the Bush Administration.

'Nuff said.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has compiled a Rumsfeld-o-rama to discuss the situation -- typical of the good right-wing blogs, this is a place to chew on a variety of genuinely thoughtful and differing opinions on the subject. You won't find this kind of stuff too often on the left, nor will you find anyone on the left admitting that the right is the truly big-tent movement in politics. (There is one small stirring on the left, aiming to break out of the lunatic fringe's stranglehold on liberal public discourse-- if you can call the obscenity-laced blog-based spewings of Bush Derangement Syndrome "discourse" -- and we welcome and congratulate the founders of the Euston Manifesto site. But I digress.)

Having personally fumed and smoldered with frustration for about a year, I spent much of the 2004 election season sending (unanswered) emails to Mary Matalin, Mark Wallace, Ed Gillespie, Peggy Noonan, and whoever else I could think of involved in the Republican campaign, expressing, among other things, the vital need for the President to inform the nation in very specific terms about the genuine acocmplishments in Iraq, as well as the equally vital need to promise a cabinet shake-up upon re-election. If I may quote myself, I wrote to one of those people:

I don’t think it would hurt the President to hint that this [cabinet shuffle] is a possibility, the advantage to which is that it points toward dealing with the biggest liability of the current administration: like it or not, it’s Rumsfeld. He is partially a liability based on public perceptions, some of which may not be entirely fair. But in my opinion he has been a genuine liability in the prosecution of the war, and nothing – NOTHING – that anyone, including the President himself, could tell me would convince me otherwise.

He [Rumsfeld] has very identifiable theories about managing the military-- I stand with those...who think his theories are dead wrong—“dead” in the most literal and lethal sense: I believe they have cost us hundreds of unnecessary deaths among the under-trained reservists who occupied the most dangerous territory in Iraq between May 2003 and March 2004... I can also tell you, with all sincerity, that I would mark a ballot which said “Bush/Cheney but not Rumsfeld” with much more enthusiasm than the one which will read just “Bush/Cheney”—and I am not alone in this.

Obviously nobody took my advice (fools!), and Bush won by a fraction of the margin he should have, over an incompetent and repugnant (even to his fellow-Democrats) opponent.

Bush got on the "inform the people" bandwagon too late to undo the damage among a public brutally deceived by the mainstream press, and he still persists in ignoring his most powerful defense: the millions of captured Iraqi documents finally being circulated and translated. (Documents which clearly show, among other things, the active links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and Saddam's pre-9/11 plans for sending suicide bombers to the United States-- baffling! Nor has Bush seen fit to shine the glare of attention on the Oil-for-Food scam, the yellowcake lies of Joseph Wilson, and the treachery of our UN Security council "allies" every step of the way throughout his administration. Sometimes he seems almost as suicidal as the sweet-faced young bombers.)

As for the Rumsfeld problem, it is far too late to undo that at all. Much would be lost, and nothing would be gained-- at least Bush is apparently not THAT suicidal.

THE ULTIMATE WEDGIE FOR SCOTT MCLELLAN
I suspect Bush is dealing with the McLellan problem without having read my advice, but better late than never on that one. The pudgy press prefect (whom I have previously pounded on here), has been unspeakably horrible at his job from the moment he stepped nervously up to the podium, and will soon be mercifully gone. I guess the grown-ups finally got home and the babysitter had to take away his toys and send him to bed. Good riddance. I'd feel sorry for him if I thought he had any idea how humiliating both his performance and his exit have been, but I just don't think he gets it.

The footnote to all this is that Evil Genius Karl Rove has been re-assigned to what he does best, or better anyway, that is, working on elections. He had been a chief domestic policy advisor, and as I've said many a time, this is proof enough that he's no genius-- for years now Bush has been the recipient of some of the worst advice in the history of advice (and that's from the people he actually listens to). And Rove can't really be evil because evil tends to be clever, and he's not. Anyway, he got displaced from his policy portfolio, and that can only be to the good.

LATEST BUZZ FROM HOLLYWOOD:
ACTOR MARTIN SHEEN GOES TO COLLEGE

According to the Washington Times, actor Martin Sheen is trading his TV role as U.S. president on The West Wing for that of a real-life college student. An Irish citizen through his mother, Sheen plans to attend the National University of Ireland in Galway, to study English literature, philosophy and theology with special interest in oceanography. the BBC reports that Sheen, 65, has several honorary degrees but has been quoted as lamenting his lack of a "proper" education. (He flunked out of the University of Dayton, purposely, he claims, so he could become an actor against the wishes of his father. Others say he never got in at all-- who knows. Or cares?)

A long-time political activist (read: left-wing Hollywood moonbat gum-flapper-- but not the worst by any means), Sheen has been approached recently about running for elected office. He wisely declined, stating "I'm just not qualified. You're mistaking celebrity for credibility." (Brilliantly put, I must admit. I'm thinking of embroidering it on a small throw pillow.)

Apropos of which, Kathryn Jean Lopez relays this from one of her readers on National Review Online-- The Corner

THE SENATE GETS NO RESPECT!
From a reader, reacting to Martin Sheen saying he's not qualified:

Your point is well taken, but I think Sheen is quite wrong that he is unqualified for the Senate. Besides an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a tolerance for making cameo appearances at committee meetings, what are the qualifications for the U.S. Senate again?

Martin Sheen is the father of actor Charlie Sheen, the hobbyist structural engineer who has decreed the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on September 11 to have been the result of a conspiracy-based controlled demolition. Martin Sheen should give his son Charlie Sheen a good Irish boot upside the head.

The three most important factors in your REAL ESTATE decision:
"LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!"

Will it be Diwaniyeh (Iraq) or Dinuba (California)?







Historian Victor Davis Hanson does an unscientific analysis of his recent experiences at home and away, coming to the conclusion that security is a challenge everywhere, and on any given day California can feel like a war zone. Hanson wonders how Californians would feel if their dark side were publicized daily in a way comparable to mainstream reporting on Iraq. The statistics would be a little daunting if

...the world awoke each morning to be told that once again there were six more murders, 27 rapes, 38 arsons, 180 robberies, and 360 instances of assault in California — yesterday, today, tomorrow, and every day... Another $20 million spent today on housing our criminals... Another $100 million borrowed today — $3 billion more in red ink to pile up by month’s end!

And on and on and on. [California: Golden State or hellhole? Film at 11:00.....]

Hanson recently returned to California from a brief sojourn in the Sunni Triangle. Things had not been so peaceful in his absence:

While I was gone, a drug-addicted criminal with a long list of convictions broke into our kitchen at 4 a.m., was surprised by my wife and daughter, and fled with our credit cards, cash, keys, and cell phones.

Sometimes I wonder who really was safer that week.

I'm not picking on Dinuba, by the way -- it just pairs up euphoniously with the Iraqi reference. (However it does have a violent crime rate 25% higher than the national average, and property crime is about 35% higher. Ahem.)

IRAQ LIBERATION DAY -- APRIL 9

The Blogosphere is celebrating, as presumably are many Iraqis, quietly -- the major Iraqi blogs haven't weighed in yet, except at "Free Iraqi," which has changed its address to reflect the new perspective [now found at http://afreeiraqi.blogspot.com] and has maintained its motto, in place since December 24, 2004: "I was not living before the 9th of April and now I am, so let me speak!"



This is my favourite 2003 memory image from other posts of recent days (hat-tip: Winds of Change) because it's all about the future.

Michael Yon is back in Iraq ("speaking the truth to power!", as the saying goes!) and sends word of his new 'net initiative "Frontline Forum -- real soldiers with real stories"-- a forum for military people on the ground in the big sandbox, to tell first-hand about what they see and what they know the Mainstream/Drive-byMedia aren't interested in.

The April 9 entry, from Army Sergeant Tim Boggs (now on his second Iraq deployment) recounts his unit's relationship with a refugee family [refugees from an abusive marriage, not from war] made up of a mother and three children, who camped near, and eventually inside of, their base in sunny Umm Qasr -- 140 degrees and no shade. Sgt. Boggs ends with this observation:

My hope for Iraq lies in the next generation. Through the efforts of some amazing soldiers, I believe a seed has been planted that will one day bloom into a mass of young children raised on knowing the kindness and gentleness of American soldiers. When that time comes I believe we will finally enjoy the fruits of our labor in the Middle East.

If there are any parallels to be drawn between the Vietnam and Iraq wars (and there are a few-- only a few), Sgt. Boggs may have hit on the most important one. The American left, and their political confrères abroad, are still living Vietnam because it suits them to be immersed in American failure and self-loathing-- they live in the past, even as the Vietnamese people (the vast majority of whom were born after the war) live for the future. Knock yourselves out, Deaniacs and Kossacks-- you probably won't be able to get the Vietnamese to hate America as much as you do, and you're not likely to get most Iraqis to do so either. History will tell.

BACK AGAIN -- Family health crisis averted for the moment.

Nearly recovered from Total Exhaustion arising from Massive Lecture Prep on modern church architecture. (Weird, weirder, weirdissimi)



















REVELATION! MARK STEYN== TOO FOREIGN TO “PASS”!!

For the first time I listened in to an mp3 interview with my personal Household God of Journalism, global commentator, Mark Steyn conducted by Hugh Hewitt on his radio show. (I have only read transcripts previously.)

I associate Steyn with (1) his Montreal childhood, where (like my own spousal unit) he grew up an Anglophone in a largely Francophone society; (2) his long-time residence in rural New Hampshire, a landscape with which I became familiar over the four years that I had a kid in college there (who returned there to marry last December); and (3) his regular foothold in England, where he churned out regular columns for several publications (until recently, when two of them dropped him, probably out of genuine Islamofascisticophobia).

Now I have finally heard the Voice coming down from the Mountain, and he’s, like, a limey! I have always imagined his words issuing from a fairly ordinary Canajun hoser-hole, all “How’s aboat a donut, eh?” and “Go Habs, eh?”

Where in his bio is the part where he picks up this estuary twang? I must probe this question—it changes everything.

IMMIGRANTS: “ALL OVER THE MAP” IN EVERY RESPECT

Both major parties in the United States, as based in Washington D.C., tend to accuse their opposite number of stubbornly marching in lock-step on every issue, to the detriment of the people who sent them to the District to govern. I would maintain that the evidence, objectively sifted, could not do other than demonstrate that this lock-step mentality has overwhelmingly prevailed among the Democrats, and has been regularly absent among Republicans, for whom lock-step unity is something they can only dream of!

The President’s party has shown itself often in disarray and dissension (especially since Tom DeHammer DeLay was sent packing—and good riddance!). On occasion it has also been divided in ways that show independent, principled thinking, such as regards the manifest unfitness of Harriet Miers to waddle her way into the nation’s highest court. (Could there be any more potent evidence than the collapse of the Miers nomination that the religious right lacks anything resembling a stranglehold on Republicans or the conservative movement?)

On immigration, though, both parties are fractured into factions – with real solutions, partial solutions, and variable recipes for pandering to the ’06 electorate. There’s insight, courage, and sincerity to be found here and there, smatterings of genuine concern about real problems among the mushies on both sides, and the usual pockets of moral vacuum, all pretty evenly distributed. There are polls to show that the average American thinks immigration is the Number 1 priority issue for the next election—or the Number 2, or the Number 6, or anything you want.

However, on immigration as a security and law-and-order issue, it is more clear than ever that any suggestion of serious thinkers and commentators on the right being mere shills for the President is absolutely laughable. For some time now many on the left have refused to notice the amount of intelligent criticism to which right-wing bloggers and journalists have subjected the embattled Mr. Bush, but NO ONE could fail to see the irate conservative criticism of his ongoing handling (or non-handling) of the border problem.

Example? Click here and watch Michelle Malkin go absolutely POSTAL about the evidence of immigration corruption, cronyism, and incompetence she has been amassing for a considerable time. I suspect she doesn’t have much in common with CNN’s Lou Dobbs, whose “Broken Borders/Exporting America” has become television’s dripping-faucet water-torture on the subject, but I’d bet their respective readings on the Pissed-Off-O-Meter would be very close.

Speaking of pissed off, congratulations to whichever mob of geniuses encouraged their millions of companions to wave those Mexican flags at the pro-undocumented-illegal-immigrant-alien-wetback-whatever rallies held in the past month across the United States. No telling how many nice American folks with fuzzy sympathies for hard-working border-jumpers you have now, as it were, alienated. I believe that may have been what the pundits call a “tipping point.”

The sharpest divisions on this issue for many Americans are internal—we are the descendants of immigrants, and many of us have not forgotten how our families have benefited from entry into the Promised Land.

My little bio sketch at the right of the this site is the real thing: in addition to the old Greek who spoke so eloquently about the vision of Lady Liberty in New York Harbour and who throughout his life was American first, there were also the Bavarian farmers who settled in Minnesota and looked somewhat askance at the beautiful daughter who married the man from Greece; and on my other side were the Irish teachers and boarding-house keepers whose Celtic blood went undiluted from arrival in the 1840’s until a century later, when the post-war generation began to mix it up with the Croats and Germans and Greeks, made mobile by the upheavals of global war.

My family in Texas is well-disposed towards the Hispanic neighbours who have enriched their cosmopolitan city. (We have one in the family now.) But none of us can forget that we came from people who endured miserable sea-voyages and waited their turn in line; who were palpated and probed and whose eye-lids were lifted with button-hooks to be checked for signs of disease (early-stage trachoma, leading to blindness, reason enough for them to be turned back and sent home again, lest they become handicapped drains on the public purse).

The Irish Catholics entered into an American society where they occupied a lower social status than freed slaves, and who, excluded from participation in many aspects of American life, built a parallel social structure of schools, hospitals, colleges, and brotherhood associations, now long-since assimilated into the mainstream. As their heirs we have this kind of schizoid sense that we owe America everything, but we don’t owe nobody nuttin’.

America—the global terrorist, the greedy exploiter, the oil whore, the tyrannical empire, the materialistic plastic-action-figure of a nation—cannot keep up with the flood of people who want to live and work here, on the run from idealistic populists like Hugo Chavez, spiritual purists like the Saud family, enlightened planners like Hu Jintao and his gang of suits. We children of immigrants can relate to that, having the only “hyphenated” citizenship that means anything: “Mongrel-Americans”, and proud of it. Mutts.

At age 10, my Greek grandfather was shining shoes all day on the streets of St. Louis— for no pay, just tips. At night he and some other kids were taught English by an Irishwoman—no teaching degree, just a skill for sale. America will take much better care of its immigrants today—in return they should be ready to put up with such bureaucratic button-hooks as we think necessary, and take a cue from the old Greek,

After all the 36 days and nights on the ocean... I was very happy to see the Statue of Liberty, the light. That meant that we come to United States. And that was my ambition -- happiness -- to come to America.

HIATUS AGAIN

I regret that blogging is likely to be light to non-existent for a week, since I am called to deal with a family illness.

In the interim, cling as if your life depended on it to the following important concepts:

CHARLIE SHEEN: ACTOR, SWINGER, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
"9/11 looked like a controlled demolition to me."
This from a man so stupid he signed personal checks to pay for hookers.


CAN YOU SPELL "INGRATE"?
"Christian Peacemaker" hostages held for the past four months in Iraq were freed through a well-planned cooperative rescue effort carried out by American, Canadian, and British forces. The three hostages (a fourth was murdered) were quick to celebrate their liberation by denouncing these multinational forces as "the root cause of the insecurity which led to htis kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq."

The hostage-freeing team may have been heard to reply "You're welcome," but were probably drowned out by the sound of the Iraqi Ambassador to Canada, who had this to say about Christian peacemakers:

[They] practice the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism.
The Ambassador also called the peace-ninnies "phoney pacifists...willfully ignorant.. outrageous."

But what does he know? He's far too close to the situation to be objective.

LORD OF THE RINGING ENDORSEMENTS -- NOT
As I predicted here, the musical version of Lord of the Rings opened to mixed (at best) reviews, some of which were decidedly unkind. However, most people seem able to see past its flaws to its charms, so it may survive after all. Hard to tell at this point.


"THANK YOU FOR SMOKING Displays a Sense of Humor"
roars the headline from National Public Radio, an incredibly dessicated comment, which says a great deal more about NPR than about the pants-wettingly funny film that opened last Friday. Based on the Christopher Buckley novel of the same name, the movie's laughs are a little front-loaded-- you are cackling till your sides ache, non-stop for the first five to ten minutes, and never quite reach that fever-pitch again. But it's a delightful flick, skewering all types in all directions. A little raunchy, definitely for grown-ups, primarily because it's funny in a way that's over most kids' heads. Waste no time-- go see it.

THIRD ANNIVERSARY -- WAR: WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

Pioneering Iraqi blogger Mohammed at Iraq the Model gives his thoughts on three years of war, with his customary natural poetry. [read it all]

He concludes:

The green bud looks weak and is buried in the dirt and surrounded by a tough shell but it will break through this covering, pierce the dirt and stand on its feet to announce a new era.We will not be defeated and orphans of the dark past will get what they deserve and our sacrifices and the sacrifices of those who stand with us shall not go in vain, our sacrifices will pave an easier road for those [who] want to follow us when they decide it's time for them to change.

And yes…Iraq will be the model.

Ooh-rah.

We can't let these people down.

P.S. regarding "SPEAKING OF JOHN MCCAIN"
[See last item, previous post]

Use of the phrase "everything that has gone wrong in Iraq" is decidedly NOT the same thing as saying "everything in Iraq has gone wrong."

A Texan Crawford (as opposed to a Crawford Texan, the most famous of whom on his best day apparently doesn't know half of what is contained here) provides, in the Arthur Chrenkoff tradition, a dandy round-up of Good News from Iraq. (Thanks Bill Crawford, hat-tip NRO)

Read it and weep, John (Murtha, Kerry, take yer pick).

PLAYING CATCH-UP
Way behind on blogging (can we call this "blagging behind"?) due to ridiculously intensive preparation for teaching previously untried material on the Flemish Renaissance.

Top this, Michel[freaking]angelo!--





















MOVIE NEWS
Went to see Beowulf and Grendel. I'm not familiar enough with the poem anymore to say whether this was tribute or travesty, but we really liked it. The Icelandic landscape is absolutely breathtaking-- various in form, always both majestic and brutal. We found it a tale well-told, as only non-Hollywood film-makers could tell it. I have no doubt that some portion of purists will despise it. Well, goodie for them.

One outstandingly bad element was the token Canadian actress (this is a U.K./Iceland/Canadian-taxpayer-funded production) playing a witch with dyed dreadlocks and an otherwise vogue face with pink lipstick, which perfectly complemented her irritatingly flat accent. Even within Canada, Sarah Polley is pretty-much B-list (maybe even C), remembered most for her childhood TV role in the somewhat corny but cute "Chronicles of Avonlea," and seems a desparate choice to have cast in the film when there is a plethora of much better underemployed actresses floating around. (I could have found them a couple of Ryerson Theatre School grads of my acquaintance-- April Mullen and Chelsea O'Connor, call your agents.)

Anyway, it's the (roaring/whacking/pissing/baptizing/bardic) sleeper hit of the season. You could have nightmares just from the waves hitting the beach.

WAR AND REMEMBRANCE
Just me and some Iranian Communists –
hangin’ out on street corners
March 11, Stand Up For Denmark rally, Toronto

The crowd has been estimated at up to 150—it was certainly no more than that. We were overwhelmingly middle-aged, but the young were really young, like the two organizers, Nav Purewal and Daniel Dale, who looked about 20.

We had an Iranian communist on the bull-horn, passionately reciting the sufferings of his countrymen under an Islamic theocracy, followed by a young Hindu cataloguing the ongoing (for YEARS) massacres of his co-religionists by Indian Muslims, which continue to go unremarked in the Western press. Behind us on the steps, taking pictures, was a 60-ish man who was plainly too shy to take the microphone, but muttered an undercurrent of what had been done to him and his family in his Islamic homeland.

The secularists, the humorists, the true internationalists (those who support the anti-terrorist war, not those who jibber/blubber about paying fealty’n’homage to the UN), were gathered together in the shadow of a concrete curtain-wall of office buildings (holding back the tidal wave of crass modernity that looms threateningly over the corner Church of the Redeemer -- nothing has spared it from the tide of crass modernity which has devoured the Anglican communion from within, however!—but I digress…) within which is tucked the Danish Consulate. The day was perfect, bright and sunny with a hint of crispness in the air appropriately akin to that mini-snap heard when you break a Danish flatbread. (Truly the most tortured simile of my entire writing life. Ha-ha! I kill me!)

Met some nice people, with a willingness to strike up conversation, somewhat uncharacteristic of Torontonians as a whole (or so one of my seminary students has observed, previously a lifelong resident of wee Brantford). All in all, a good day—no low-grade insults, ranting, or hatemongering, just wise words from bitter experience, and the satisfaction of saying what needs saying. (That's me quoting Shakespeare on the right.)

Amusing, predictable sidelight, as quoted in Now Magazine:

Toronto Coalition to Stop the War member James Clark , on the other hand, wonders if those behind the Toronto Supports Denmark rally aren't trying "to use the cover of freedom of speech to spread intolerance, [which] undermines the freedom of speech of everyone."

Ow, ooch, don't hurt yourself dude, bending and twisting so far over to arrive at your pre-determined conclusion.

Some Cuban human rights advocates came forward to speak, and provided an interesting footnote as the event wound down, inviting one and all to another rally-- but they were not too adept with the bullhorn, so the details didn't come across. However, I saw their small group on the following Saturday, in front of a building quite close to my home. Had I but known! As it was, I could only honk the horn as I passed and give them thumbs up, which seemed to excite them no end. Have to keep an eye on developments from them.

COUP D'ÉTAT RESCHEDULED
The reported overthrow of the American government, originally scheduled for March 15, has apparently been moved back to tomorrow, March 20. Guess the kids were on spring break and couldn't tear themselves away from Myrtle Beach and Aruba long enough to get it together. We await with bated breath the first intiatives of the Amnesty International platform on Tuesday morning. Should be heaps of unusable ploughshares available on e-bay by week's end.

Department of You can't make this stuff up:
Quoting from a report on the well-attended anti-war march in Los Angeles yesterday:

A middle-aged woman carrying a picket sign for the demonstration said this was the first time she had ever gotten politically involved. She explained that she used to be one of those many who never questioned the government and couldn’t understand why people in other countries hated America. She said this was not her government, asking how America could be attacking a poor country like Iraq. After living 15 years in France, she returned to California to find the social conditions here absolutely appalling.

That's fifteen years in FWANCE, my fwiends. Their meat may be cooked to a delicate medium rare, but their grandparents get cooked well-done in the long hot summer. (Scroll down and see Speaking of myths, below)

LARGEST AIR ASSAULT
SINCE THE LAST REALLY LARGE ONE
This past week there was much ado about a massive air assault (Operation Swarmer) conducted in Iraq, based on intelligence gathered and plans formulated by the Iraqi army. Not sure what to make of this. I have a feeling it Is pretty much an exercise in political theatre, but if so I don't have too great an argument with it.

A couple thousand Iraqis participated in a serious, professional military manoevre where they performed everything they have learned, under pressure, ferried in by the most powerful military machine with the hottest equipment in human history, and they did so in the interest of bringing order to their own society. Now they'll all go home and tell many more thousand Iraqis how it all went down-- how well they did, how responsible they were, and most importantly how it feels to work as a team-- something which, according to knowledgeable people, could be a whole new concept within their culture.

It is unclear whether any significant military objectives, of the conventional kind, have been achieved by the raids (weapons caches have been found, and about 80 possible bad guys picked up), but that may never have been the point. If the point was to test the previously untested, and instill in them the pride and cohesiveness necessary for their long-term success, I suspect the campaign will prove a signal accomplishment.

The best eggs in one basket: JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
Every single day (amazingly) Jewish World Review will send you, for the asking, a round-up of the best current events commentators in the business (as well as the best cartoons, and a bunch of other stuff I'm too busy to allow myself to read). The mix of writers and points of view is different from day to day (only on rare occasions is the selection predominantly Jewish, despite the site name). Some days there's an overriding theme, usually dictated by events, but more often there's a wide spectrum of subjects that have piqued the commentators.

The March 16 issue featured a couple of juicy tidbits, the most sizzling touching on one of my favorite recent themes, "Mr. President, I can't take it anymore, you are such a damned DOOFUS." In more serious tones,Victor Davis Hansen, eminent classical historian, sticks it to an administration whose insistence on operating from a distant Olympus screwed up the Dubai ports deal beyond saving, despite the veracity of its conviction that the deal would be advantageous in a host of different ways (the LEAST important of which was financial). Actually, Hansen pretty much sticks it to EVERYBODY-- both major parties, the press, and the American public, all of whom are equally guilty of complacent ignorance about how the practical world works, even within the homeland. It's a concise and much-merited equal-opportunity spanking. Enjoy.

[BTW, JWR exists on donations -- those who benefit from the daily email should contribute.]

OSCAR THE GROUCH, part deux
In the same Jewish World Review issue, Max Boot, foreign relations expert and prominent author on the U.S. Marine Corps required reading list (betcha didn't know they had one), gives Way-Lefty Actor/ivist George Clooney the worst possible spanking by awarding him the statuette for "Best Supporting Neo-con." Boot demonstrates, rather handily, how the themes of some of Clooney's better film work score big geo-political points any neo-con would endorse. Neo-con movie of choice?: Three Kings, or How I Learned To Stop Abandoning The Iraqis And Embrace Regime Change. Check it out.

SPEAKING OF OSCARS, seems we had another (much less pivotal) Nixon-Kennedy Debate media moment regarding Jon Stewart's performance as emcee. Those of us who didn't watch the award broadcast but only read the text of the opening monologue had a much different view of the proceedings than those in the audience (live or TV). On paper, Stewart's material was hilarious, or at least wickedly funny. But the audience impression was that he bombed, because liberal Hollywood could not manage to have a sense of humor about itself when he repeatedly poked truth-based fun at its predominant ethos. (I believe that's the dictionary definition of satire.)

From what I've read, most of the attendees went glum and sat on their hands because Stewart dared to associate them with terminal self-importance and the Democratic Party, and dared to hint that the movie business has some Jews in it (gasp). IMHO, Stewart did great work-- which is why he'll never eat lunch in that town again.

P.S.: I heard, and I think it's true, that Chronicles of Narnia has made more money than all five Oscar Best Pic nominees COMBINED. Wish someone would 'splain to me how Tilda Swinton managed to escape nomination for Best Supporting White Witch-- she scared the bejeebers out of me, so evil she could make a thousand Orcs wet themselves with one withering look.

SPEAKING OF MYTHOLOGY
The March issue of that raving racist heartless extremist right-wing media rag, POPULAR MECHANICS, [!] carried a fascinating article on "Debunking Katrina Myths-- What really happened, what to do next time" (and there will be a next time). [full PM Katrina archive here]

Covers almost everything on offer as an indictment of the evil feds, and pretty much demolishes the notion that the Bush administration deserves the lion's share of blame for everything that went wrong-- noting that a lot of what people believe went wrong actually went right. Why aren't these Mechanics more Popular?!

I bet they wouldn't be so popular in France were they to do an analysis of how FIFTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE died in the heatwave of 2003. (Where was the tsunami of Hollywood hand-wringing then?) Not to mention (and how dare we) an audit of the 1995 heatwave in which ONE THOUSAND CHICAGOANS died WHILE A DEMOCRAT WAS PRESIDENT! (hat-tip, the Galvin Opinion) Unthinkable! Impossible! FEMA was PERFECT back then! (Hillary said so.) We had a fully-functioning Federal Department of Emergency COMPASSION back then! There's only one possible explanation!-- I guess nobody in Hollywood gave a flying fig-newton what happened to poor black people when Clinton was the first black president. Because he CARED-- and that's all that mattered.

BTW, that bit above about Popular Mechanics being a "right-wing rag" was intended to amuse for its total absurdity, but I have since discovered that there are those who believe it is precisely that, because it's published by Hearst Communications! Orson Welles, call your agent.

WHO LET THE DOCS OUT?
After due consideration (and a commission or two) the Bush administration, under the guidance of our Delegator-in-Chief, decided to claim error about Iraqi WMD, and to embrace the weenie fall-back position that they "never SAID Saddam had anything to do with September 11."

Now, at long last, the White House has finally gotten around to arranging for (by pleading where they should have compelled) the public release of millions (yes, millions) of documents seized in the course of the invasions of Afgahanistan and Iraq, many of which are likely to demonstrate that the original suspicions about WMD were substantially true, and that Saddam and Al Qaeda were thick as thieves (Saddam being a generous facilitator of, and therefore accessory to, any and all Al Qaeda undertakings including September 11). Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has been documenting all this as best he could for YEARS, even while agitating for the release of the rest of the files.

It has been unspeakably painful to watch the administration at first maintain pointless silence in the face of a flood of criticisms and slanders on these issues, instead of answering back with the known facts, such as they were-- and then finally respond by caving in with the concession that they must have been mistaken, when there is a barrow-load of evidence to the contrary.

Why, for instance, did they never draw anyone's attention to the massive April 2004 chemical weapon attack thwarted in Jordan, the only possible explanation for which was transport of Iraqi WMD into Syria (observed at the time by satellite, and now claimed by former Hussein regime officials)? Does no one in the Big House do their homework? Stupid question. (Nine men were sentenced to death for this plot last month, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This is one of the most heinously under-reported stories in western media.)

Republicans are now begging the administration to do a Vincent Van Gogh: "If you love me, cut off your ear." That is, the astonishingly tin ear this administration has about public perceptions and the persuasive power of facts-- not to mention good old American common sense, which is certainly not infallible (heh!) but does sometimes serve us well.

Common sense dictates that NSA wiretaps on international conversations reasonably suspected to involve Al Qaeda are a GOOD THING, and that the thoroughly unqualified Harriet Miers on the U.S. Supreme Court is a BAD THING. In the absence of the kind of specialized information which could sort out the role of port facility management, common sense told people that the Dubai ports deal smelled bad. This was perfectly justified skepticism, despite not being grounded in an explicit understanding of the facts.

The deal should have been tastefully scuttled at the earliest possible stage, back when the savvy businessmen of Dubai would likely have understood the "optics" problem and cheerfully agreed to back off the American portion of the purchase (which is a small part of the total operation). The administration's grandiose bungle was in failing to recognize this until so late in the process that the only possible political solution involved humiliating the Dubai-guys, in a wave of what looked like rank racism. And theirs has not been an Arab-machismo type humiliation, either-- the kind that gets young Muslim girls murdered for an ill-considered glance or conversation. In this case it's largely a professional humiliation, an offense to personal dignity of the "no-Irish-need-apply, no-pushy-little-Jews-in-our-club" sort.

Typically, the Democrats tried to sieze the ports issue to look like they were being stronger on national security than the administration-- Democrats who appear to have had no idea that a substantial proportion of American ports, plus the Panama canal, are now managed by the Chinese government-- Democrats who didn't know the difference between a cargo "manifest" and the "manifold" that makes your car go. (Chuck Schumer, to name names.)

Those in the know about the running of ports and 21st-century trade routes now say that the United States and the world in general may be substantially LESS SAFE than they would have been if the deal had gone through, and perhaps even less safe than we were before it was ever proposed. Peeving off the Dudes of Dubai could make them less co-operative about intelligence sharing than they have been hitherto-- whereas opening American port management to them might have given us access to more security information and a hand in inspection processes within Dubai Ports World's far-reaching global management purview.

Nice going, everybody.

I was totally befuddled as to what to think of the deal when I first heard about it-- in one ear was my mother (most often a barometer for dubious positions in desperate need of "nuance") saying, basically, all Arabs look alike to me; and in my other ear is Jimmy Carter (a barometer for positions to be dismissed out of hand as childish, spiteful, and dumber than dirt) saying it's a good deal, go for it. Somewhere in the middle was Charles Krauthammer (one of my oracles) saying this thing is questionable and ill-considered at best, and politically doomed. HELP! Krauthammer probably had a few things wrong in his assessment of the dangers, but he was spot-on about the doom.

SPEAKING OF "NO IRISH NEED APPLY"
Who says we don't learn anything from experience? Gerry Adams was back in the U.S. and hoisting Guinness (or something) at the White House on St. Paddy's Day, even though his name still turns up on the odd terrorist watch list (he missed his connection to Buffalo when detained at Reagan International Airport on his way out of town, where his luggage, if not the man himself, got the old anal probe). Adams' nosh companions at the D.C. reception were a few women who believe their brothers to have been murdered by the IRA-- awkward? I hope so.

Meanwhile the junior senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Broadbottom, joined the Arizona chameleon, Sen. John McCain, in a pander-fest to aid the FIFTY THOUSAND illegal IRISH aliens now in the United States, in their quest for the (appropriately seductive) Green Card. Now as someone whose forebears arrived Stateside from Ireland during the potato famine of the 1840's and got into the United States the old fashioned way-- shipping over in fetid steerage holds and standing in line to be poked, prodded, and pronounced legal-- let me say a hearty "sod off, eejits!" to those who now wish to jump the queue because they find the Emerald Isle, grown fat with the goods of the EU to which they sold out their independence for a mess of secularist pottage, no longer brassy and sassy enough for them. Jaysus, boyos-- think about it-- soggy Fr. Jack's mantra: "Drink, arse, feck!" Hillary?!

SPEAKING OF JOHN MCCAIN & common sense (or is that straight talk?)
He was my guy in the 2000 election primaries, and, like him, I've been all over the map in the interim, wondering if that was really such a good idea. I now think that the gas in his engine is predominantly self-interest, and I don't much trust him-- but there are days when the Delegator-in-Chief makes me wish for somebody in charge with just a soupçon of McCain's ruthless political instinct, instead of faith in the Rapture.

But the thing McCain and I will always agree on is that there has been one key factor in everything that has gone wrong in Iraq: the big fat hole where 30 to 50 thousand additional troops should have been. And still should be.

Notwithstanding the scoffing historical revisionism of the left, we WERE, in fact, welcomed as liberators. But blink and you missed it. What we lost in those four days of looting, April 2003 [primarily the confidence and good will of a hopeful Iraqi people, who reasonably expected that the fearsome American military machine would easily impose order on their Hussein-raped nation] we haven't entirely made up for since. That's my talking-points memo, and I'm sticking to it.