Where Do Your Taxes Go?

Brian Riedl provides a detailed breakdown for a typical American household.

If You Ask Me, I Blame the Telemarketers

The L.A. Times' circulation plummets 5.5%:

Though executives declined to break out individual paper's Fas-Fax numbers, which are due out in May, Smith acknowledged the Times will drop slightly more than 5.5%.

Smith said that for the entire group, home-delivered copies are down about 4% while the drop in single-copy sales is even greater.

Q1 circulation revenue for the company was down 9% due to "volume discounts." The largest revenue drops occurred at the Los Angeles Times and Newsday. Excluding the two papers, circulation revenue for the company would have been down 4%.

This piece of information didn't keep analysts from circling around the L.A. Times. When asked why the paper is experiencing such steep circ losses compared to the competition's -- the Los Angeles Daily News, for example, was flat last period -- Smith explained the Times relied too heavily on telemarketing. That, along with the implementation of tighter controls on field sales, contributed to the drop-off.

Which is another way of saying that with so many other big papers getting caught red-handed inflating circulation numbers to rip off advertisers, we had to start telling the truth.

Of course, I have another potential cause of the circulation decline to throw in---the Times' disastrous, sleazy, and completely political campaign to save Gray Davis' hindquarters by scandal-mongering against Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the paper's disastrous, sleazy, and completely political campaign to prop up John Kerry during the past presidential election.

I know of a lot of folks who gave the Times' telemarketers some pretty choice feedback over these two outrages when they called attempting to prop up circulation.

They blame their own telemarketers, I blame their naked bias. You decide which of these propositions is closer to the truth.

Jimmy of Mayberry

Ned Rice channels Ann Coulter with a splash of H.L. Mencken as he eviscerates eminently feckless Jimmy Carter and his adoring MSM entourage in the snarkiest piece of the week:

Not being an etiquette expert I'm not even sure what all the fuss was about. Air Force One was obviously overbooked, as so often happens since they added those extra-wide seats in business class, and Mr. Carter was undoubtedly at the top of the standby list the White House always maintains for people who call the current president a lying warmonger. Also, as I understand it, Carter may have been asked to be the U.S. government's representative to Johnny Cochran's funeral (also last week) instead, an opportunity he seems to have declined. But this wasn't enough for the 39th president's faithful who apparently go into full-attack mode whenever his name is mentioned in the Washington Post just out of sheer habit.

"I think it's an outrage," said Carter's national-security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski — who, considering that the expression "Jimmy Carter's national security" is oxymoronic, is a generally reasonable, amiable fellow. "It's scandalous," Brzezinski added. "He (Carter) should have been included in the official party." Brzezinski offers no insights as to why President Carter passed on two opportunities to attend the funeral of a pope back in 1978. Perhaps negotiations to restore the White House tennis courts had reached a sensitive stage and he was unable to get away; some secrets are lost to history.

Even better, a liberal blogger wrote last week that Condoleezza Rice should have given her seat on Air Force One to Carter. The Democrats wisely passed on this chance to return to their original position on civil rights: that black women using mass transit be required to give up their seats to white men.

They'd Be Better Off Reading Entrails

Victor Davis Hanson absolutely destroys the punditocracy and their sillly prognostications on the Iraq War:

For the last year, such well-meaning former "wise people" have pretty much assured us that the Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.

But too often we discuss the present risky policy without thought of what preceded it or what might have substituted for it. Have we forgotten that the messy business of democracy was the successor, not the precursor, to a litany of other failed prescriptions? Or that there were never perfect solutions for a place like the Middle East — awash as it is in oil, autocracy, fundamentalism, poverty, and tribalism — only choices between awful and even more awful? Or that September 11 was not a sudden impulse on the part of Mohammed Atta, but the logical culmination of a long simmering pathology? Or that the present loudest critics had plenty of chances to leave something better than the mess that confronted the United States on September 12? Or that at a time of war, it is not very ethical to be sorta for, sorta against, kinda supportive, kinda critical of the mission — all depending on the latest sound bite from Iraq?

Read the whole thing, and save it.

The Latter-Day Whittaker Chambers

Catherine Seipp on my favorite conservative radical, David Horowitz.

No Asians Need Apply

That's exactly what "diversity" and "affirmative action" programs are saying to kids whose gene pool is closer to the China Sea than the Gulf of Mexico:

Today, the debate over diversity is driven largely by the unavoidable fact that, on average, African Americans and Hispanics are less academically qualified than whites and various other demographic groups. This was highlighted a few years ago during arguments over the University of Michigan Law School’s quota system. Justice Antonin Scalia noted during oral arguments before the Supreme Court that the easiest way to increase diversity would be to lower the law school’s standards. If diversity is “important enough to override the Constitution’s prohibition of racial distribution, it seems to me it’s important enough to override Michigan’s desire to have a super-duper law school.”

This is where the Orwellian savoir-faire tends to kick in. The school’s lawyers, along with columnists such as the Washington Post’s David Broder and countless others, insisted that increasing diversity never comes at the expense of quality.

Well, if the trade-off didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be having this debate. If there were a surplus of high SAT-scoring, straight-A blacks and Hispanics, no one would sue because they lost their slot to a less-qualified minority. The entire affirmative-action controversy is predicated on the unavoidable fact that there is a greater demand for well-qualified blacks than there is a supply. Period.

It's not the genes, it's the culture. If there were a real-life "Diff'rent Strokes" where a white kid were raised by an Indian family, that kid would have a greater chance of being a doctor than if he were raised by your typical 3rd generation American family. If your family pushes you to succeed, and sacrifices for your success, you'll likely succeed.

So why are we trying to bar these kids from entry into our top schools? Are the liberal academics in fact worried that the campus will become "too" Asian in nature?

Meritocracy works every time it's tried. I don't care how you pronounce my doctor's surname, but I care very much that he's a very knowledgeable clinician.

Happy Birthday, Ronald!

McDonald's turns 50 today.

Well, Why Not Make A Democrat Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Then?

Sure wish we could have the pre-Keating Five McCain back:

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, delivered some bad news to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist last night when he announced on MSNBC's "Hardball" that he would vote against the so-called "nuclear option" to end Democratic filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.
"Look, we won't always be in the majority," Mr. McCain told host Chris Matthews. "I say to my conservative friends, some day there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress. Why? Because history shows it goes back and forth. I don't know if it's a hundred years from now, but it will happen. And do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are in the majority?"

Next thing you know he'll be sucking up to Hanoi Jane.

Surprise! Socialists Don't Like Scrutiny

Bernie Sanders' hometown newspaper finds some intestinal fortitude:

Of course, just because something is common practice and doesn't break the law, doesn't mean it's totally kosher. Watchdog groups are rightly concerned. Even if family members earn their pay, there still remains the appearance of impropriety. Given the power that elected officials wield and the fact that they serve at the pleasure of their taxpaying constituents, there's nothing wrong with holding them to higher standards. We're not talking about a small contractor who hires his son over summer vacation and doesn't mind paying him a little extra.

The way Rep. Sanders has reacted to the revelatons, we think, indicates that he realizes how the situation looks. He claims the story was a lie, although the information came from public government records and was confirmed by his own staff, and he does not refute any of the facts in our report.

If Rep. Sanders believes the payments are on the up and up, a completely acceptable practice, he should come out and say so, instead of threatening not to speak with the media.

There'll be more of this to come as the MSM filter wears away.

Why Do Bad Things Always Happen in Trailer Parks?

Looks like he's not going to be going to the 2009 Prom:

Police have arrested a 28-year-old man they say shot his 14-year-old girlfriend Wednesday evening in Blacksburg.

Michael Paul Collins was arrested shortly before noon today at an apartment in the Cedar Hill complex, across Blacksburg from the Clayton Estates mobile home park where he is accused of shooting the 14-year-old. Collins was charged with aggravated malicious wounding, a class II felony.

Now if he'd been her gym teacher, this relationship would have been a problem.

Let Them Eat Pie

Ann Coulter vaporizes the self-important Left, again:

Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in The New Republic: Bush is an "instinctive anti-intellectual" and his administration hostile to "fact-driven debate." In a favorable contrast, Clinton is "the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates." Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, The New York Times' Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research."

I'm not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food. (Remember the good old days when liberals' "fact-driven" ideas only meant throwing money at their problems?)

Last October, two liberals responded to my speech at the University of Arizona — during question and answer, no less — by charging the stage and throwing two pies at me from a few yards away. Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls. (Apologies in advance to the Harvard biology professors who walked out on Larry Summers in a demonstration of their admiration of "research," not "revelation" — but this may account for the dearth of female pitchers in Major League Baseball.)

Unfortunately for them, Republican men don't react favorably to two "Deliverance" boys trying to sucker-punch a 110-pound female in a skirt and heels. The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones.

It's really outrageous how conservatives respond to liberals who are just trying to engage in a "fact-driven debate." How typical of Republicans to go on the offensive just because a female has been physically attacked. Instead of capturing and subduing my attackers, those strong Republican men should have been trying to understand why they threw the pies.

Jimmy Carter, Putting the "Nit" In "Humanitarian"

Gotta love the MSM's ongoing infatuation with America's worst ex-president:

Diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell was trotted in to fret about the poor, deprived Nobel-winning statesman: "You have to wonder why the White House couldn't have asked the Vatican to permit one more person in the Basilica, particularly a Nobel laureate who actually worked on Third World issues with John Paul II. And it seems as though this snub may have had something to do with Carter's strong criticism of the President at last summer's Democratic convention." (That would be the gut-punching speech in which Carter suggested Bush was an extremist and a liar.) Matt Lauer insisted that someone needed to make room for Jimmy: "Why doesn't Secretary of State Rice step aside and say, 'You take my spot...former President Carter?'"

Why does NBC love Jimmy Carter so? Neither ABC nor CBS led their show with this non-story. They didn’t even do a story. As National Review’s Kate O’Beirne pointed out, President Carter could have attended either one of the two papal funerals in 1978, but sent other family members in his place. You would think NBC could mention that fact to balance out their story. They didn’t.

And for all of Andrea Mitchell’s claims about all the joint Third World projects Carter and the Pope jointly worked on, try and find NBC News reporting on them. There isn’t any. A quick glance at the search engine of the former president’s Carter Center website offers only two mentions of Pope John Paul: when both men were honored by the Rotarians in 1994, and Carter’s press statement on the Pope’s death. Not even Carter finds whatever he did with the pontiff to be noteworthy.

Funny, I don't recall Andrea Mitchell urging Warren Christopher to step aside so Carter could meddle in Clinton Administration foreign policy....

The Taxman Cometh

For the first time in my life, I had to file an extension for my taxes this year. My taxes have simply gotten too complicated for me, a college-educated engineer, to figure out. Last year, with a tax preparer doing them for me, my refund wound up far less than expected. In other words, the no-interest loan I give the United States and my state government every year had less principle than one would think, given the exorbitant proportion of my income deducted from every paycheck.

This year, I paid more in taxes than my father grossed each year for most of my childhood. I do not live in a substantially bigger home than he did, nor do I drive a better car than he did, nor do I have as much in savings as he did. I do not have any children. Yet the federal government took his wages from me.

Tax Day has a great way of focusing one's thoughts on how big, how intrusive, and how abusive the government at all levels has become. Every time somebody's labor is transformed into cash, the government gets a taste, like Tony Soprano.

We're protecting Europe militarily so they can use their tax and tariff revenue to give themselves 35-hour work weeks and full retirement benefits. Uncle Sam doesn't get a taste of that.

We're liberating countries across the globe swimming in oil revenues. Yet we're paying more than ever at the pump, of which Uncle Sam gets a taste. The Iraqis, beneficiaries of our military service, aren't giving us a taste, however.

Politicians routinely reward themselves with tax revenue. We don't get a taste.

At the end of our working lives, if we're lucky, all the Social Security money my generation has invested, we might get a taste of it. We surely won't get the whole pie, as most Boomers will, or even somebody else's pie, as the Greatest Generation did. Reforming Social Security is the only way we and those who come after us will get more than a taste.

Meanwhile, we keep preparing food with the sweat of our brow for our government to devour. It gets fatter and fatter every year, and demands more and more to consume.

It succeeds because it gives enough Americans a taste of other Americans' dinner to ensure those who've put their lifeblood into preparing a decent meal continue to let those who haven't eat off their plates, for fear of what would happen if they asked them to stop.

My church is asking me to give them a taste as well. I'm not going to give them as big a taste as they've asked for, as they're already getting fat, and the government's taking so much meat off the plate I wonder if I'll have any left for the years when my teeth aren't very good.

When it comes to taxes, everybody's getting a taste. Everybody except for the person whose toil, sweat, and brainpower grew the food which provided the meal in the first place.

Something to think about this Tax Day.

Don't Know Much About Originalism

But Edward Whelan does:

Stated somewhat differently, if Justice Scalia were in fact to read into the Constitution his own (presumed) substantive views on abortion, he would conclude that permissive abortion laws were themselves unconstitutional. Likewise, he would conclude that legislators could not abolish capital punishment and could not create same-sex marriage. His clear rejection of these positions demonstrates that on these issues Justice Scalia's originalism is in fact politically neutral. In other words, originalism will lead to "conservative results" on these issues only if, and to the extent that, elected legislators enact conservative positions into law. Conversely, originalism will lead to liberal results when elected legislators enact liberal laws. And, of course, the free play that originalism gives to the political process on these issues will allow the electorate the flexibility to change its collective position over time.

Talbot's misunderstanding also badly infects her discussion of Justice Scalia's dissent from the Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which invented a constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy. Talbot charges that his dissent's invocation of the moral opposition of many Americans to homosexual conduct "leave[s] the unavoidable impression that he is speaking not only for originalism but also for his own selective notion of the vox populi." But Justice Scalia was not selecting who should speak for the people of Texas. The vox populi of Texas had spoken through the statute that Texas enacted, and Justice Scalia was merely explaining that the Court was wrongly taking sides in the ongoing culture war by quashing that statute.

Over the last several decades the courts have engaged in a massive judicial power grab committed in the name of the "living Constitution" — the vapid euphemism that liberal activists have used to pretend that the Constitution has somehow "grown" to entrench forever their own policy preferences. What Justice Scalia places squarely at issue is whether this power grab has any serious claim to be regarded as legitimate by the American citizens whose ability to govern themselves through their legislators has thereby been radically diminished. This is the question that should be front and center in the ongoing debate over the judiciary.

This is why the complete fools like Ginsberg and Breyer really bug me. For all the study of law over decades of legal practice, do you think they might have bothered to read the bloody Federalist Papers and understand what the proper role of the judiciary is in our well-balanced system of government?

Where in plain English in the U.S. Constitution does it say the Supreme Court makes laws, as they did in Roe v. Wade and countless decisions since?

Where does it say that international law is the law of this land?

If the Constitution's a living document, why can't the Republican Congress rewrite it to throw these idiots off the bench?

When Soldiers Push Back

When and how should America's armed forces challenge political leaders?

Mackubin Owens has some interesting things to say on the matter:

The military is right,” concludes Ignatius. “The next chairman of the JCS must be someone who can push back.” But what does “pushing back” by the uniformed military mean for civilian control of the military?

The cornerstone of U.S. civil-military relations is civilian control of the military, a principle that goes back to the American Revolution. Since that time, soldiers have, for the most part, acted on the basis of the precedent established by George Washington. As my Naval War College colleague, Bill Calhoun, relates on the Claremont Institute's website, “Washington's willing subordination, of himself and the army he commanded, to civilian authority established the essential tenet of that service's professional ethos. His extraordinary understanding of the fundamental importance of civil preeminence allowed a professional military force to begin to flourish in a democratic society. All of our military services are heir to that legacy.”

Ignatius concludes his column with this observation: “When Bush thinks about picking the next Joint Chiefs chairman, he might recall an unusual gesture by Myers's predecessor, Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, who told his service chiefs to read a book called Dereliction of Duty. Its subject was how the Joint Chiefs failed to challenge Defense Secretary Robert McNamara adequately during the Vietnam War. It took the Army decades to recover fully from Vietnam; that's a history the next JCS chairman must not repeat.”

My own rather informed opinion is that officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not support a given Commander-in-Chief or his administration, nor Congress. This obligation requires one to frankly point out to civilian leadership where the conflict with the founding document lies, and, if the policy isn't changed, to resign one's commission.

During the Clinton years, the issue wasn't merely loathing of Clinton, it was his policies which ran afoul of the Constitution which created the most difficulty. Placing U.S. soldiers under foreign command and barring them from wearing their American insignia, while not directly a Constitutional issue, was a complete slap to centuries of tradition, as was the push for gays in the military, women in combat, command interference in promotion boards, etc. Clinton seemed predisposed for using the military for every silly notion which came to mind, without Congressional support.

He of course was not the only President to do so, but his manifest hatred of the military, his outrageous conduct while sending men to risk their lives for his schemes, and his constant tinkering with national defense through social engineering of the military made him easily the most unpopular C-in-C since Carter.

That said, the military should obey, and officers who are worth something will resign rather than carry out policies detrimental to good order and discipline. That so few did so (Air Force General Ron Fogleman comes right to mind)speaks volumes about the careerism of the Pentagon brass.

Yet Another Reason to Dislike Colin Powell

His flunky Dick Armitage strengthened the hand of Iranian mullahs:

In a much-noted 2003 speech, President Bush said, "In Iran the demand for democracy is strong and broad ... The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."

But the whole Bush team has not been reading from the same talking points. It was a senior State Department diplomat, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who in the same year bizarrely called the Iranian regime "a democracy."

Rubin says Armitage's remark "set back the reform movement by two or three years. It really deflated morale."

If Powell runs for President, I'm going to vote for a Democrat for the first time in my life. At least the GOP Congress will keep a Democrat president from damaging foreign policy or the military too badly.

How Come They're Not Called "Insurgents"?

The New York Times deems Chinese people tired enough of being poisoned to death by their government to take control of their own town "rioters":

Rioters control Chinese village
The New York Times
Thursday, April 14, 2005


BEIJING After antipollution riots broke out in a village in the eastern province of Zhejiang earlier this week, witnesses said Wednesday that the local people had taken control of the scene and had no intention of surrendering to the police.

Thousand took part in the rioting last Sunday, overturning police cars and driving away officers who were trying to stop elderly villagers from protesting against pollution from nearby factories.

Police officers outside the village were reportedly blocking reporters from entering the scene, but local people reached by telephone said villagers controlled the riot area.

"The villagers will not give up if there is no concrete action to move the factories away," said a villager named Lu, who witnessed part of the confrontation and refused to give his full name. "The crowd is growing. There are at least 50,000 or 60,000 people." Lu said two elderly women had been wounded when a police vehicle ran them over.

Villagers said they had tried in vain for two years to curb pollution from chemical plants in a nearby industrial park, and had sent representatives to both Beijing and the provincial capital.

The state-controlled media blamed local agitators for the riot.

They haven't killed anybody, yet they get a more negative label than Zarqawi's bunch.

Not that The Times is biased or anything.

Plugola: NetFlix

We recently joined NetFlix, the mail order DVD rental house, in an effort to save money and keep the shelves from collapsing with DVDs we watch once and sit on a shelf until it's time to alphabetize once again.

For $17.99 per month, we get to take 3 movies out at a time, and when we return these, get 3 more. The turnaround is very quick---2 to 3 days. Thus we could conceivably watch 30 movies a month for about 67 cents per. Not a bad deal.

With over 38,000 DVDs in inventory, it's not a problem to get movies you want to see.

Last week, we watched:

- Ran (Akira Kurosawa)
- The Killing Fields
- Rushmore

This week, we'll be watching:

- The Iron Giant
- The Station Agent
- The Eyes of Tammy Faye

Since we tend to enjoy older and independent films, availability has not been an issue at all.

Best of all, postage and return envelopes are included---you just drop the movie back in its original envelope, seal it, and drop it in the mail. NetFlix takes care of the rest.

There's also a free trial period if you'd like to try before you buy.

At our movie consumption rate, we should save $200 - $300 a month through this service, and still see lots of movies.

Compelling Evidence Darwin Was Wrong

Britney Spears and Kevin Federline are having a baby:

Britney Spears has revealed what might be Hollywood's worst-kept secret: She's pregnant. In a posting on her Web site, Spears told fans that she and husband, Kevin Federline, were expecting their first child together. The couple were married in September.

"There are reports that I was in the hospital this weekend, and Kevin and I just want everyone to know that all is well. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers."

Magazines have speculated for weeks that the 23-year-old singer was pregnant, noting her expanding waistline. She's previously expressed a desire to start a family.

Federline has two children with ex-girlfriend actress Shar Jackson.

Federline is the Johnny Appleseed of pop culture today.

Cultist Update: This Week's iTunes Downloads (2nd and 3rd Weeks in April)

Two weeks' worth, probably the last for awhile:

Robert Cray Band - Strong Persuader
Robert Cray Band - I Was Warned
Robben Ford & The Blue Line - Handful of Blues
Robben Ford & The Blue Line - Robben Ford & The Blue Line
Albert King and Otis Rush - Door to Door
L'il Ed & The Blues Imperials - Chicken, Gravy, & Biscuits
L'il Ed & The Blues Imperials - ...What You See Is What You Get
Johnny Winter - Second Winter
Jeff Beck - Beck-ola
Jeff Beck Group - Jeff Beck Group
Jeff Beck - Blow By Blow
Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup - RCA Heritage Series
Boz Skaggs - "Lido Shuffle"
Alvin Youngblood Hart - Start With Soul
Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness

Another Tuesday Morning Pick-Me-up

Once again, Blue Eyed Infidel (one of our blogrollers) has delivered the goods, with a dissertation entitled, "I Disapprove of Cats."
I laughed so hard I snorted. Check it out.

Royal Watch: The Hats That Ate Great Britain

Again, the girls at Go Fug Yourself have coverage of this unnatural disaster.

Aw, the Mad Hatter's mistress showed up at Camilla's wedding:

Sophie, Sophie, Sophie. C'mon, honey -- what's hidden up in there? Your stash? The Dormouse?

And again:

I'm not sure what that is on her head -- it's a hat; it's a gold-painted model of an atom; it's a hidden weapon that, when thrown, decapitates your foe; it's the world's most untimely bubble-gum accident and there wasn't a nearby pair of scissors with which to cut out the tangle... The list goes on.

What the had isn't, is attractive. Everyone around her needs to watch out -- that thing could severely injure someone's precious, precious eyes. Don't get too close, for the love of God.

Love these girls! They bring the full-on snark-fest every time. But they are not completely perfect pitched -- they DO applaud the folks who make good common sense fashion choices. Enjoy, readers. Enjoy.

Two Cardinals, Two Pedophile Priest Protectors, Two Different MSM Reactions

Hint: the difference lies within the Cardinals' politics:

The same media outlets that report with outrage Cardinal Bernard Law's presence in Vatican City approach the equally disgraceful Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony with hushed attention. Among other staggering details of the abuse scandal under him is that Cardinal Mahony housed a pedophile priest in his own rectory, a move Law never even tried. Yet the mainstream media over the last few weeks have been treating Mahony as an unimpeachable source, using him as ecclesiastical cover for their now-rote liberal solutions to problems in the Church that he helped create.

Recall that Mahony, dipping into the faithful's pockets, hired Sitrick and Company (a public relations firm Enron used) to help him spin his complicity in the scandal. Not fooled, former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, who investigated the scandal until Mahony and other bishops blackballed him into resigning, likened Mahony's conduct to "La Cosa Nostra."

The con job goes on. Indeed, Mahony looked downright excited at the chance to reappear on the scene as a voice for "change." Before the Pope had even died, Mahony rushed over to Rome on a first-class flight (it came out), so eager was he to wedge his finger into the Conclave pie as quickly as possible. Once in Vatican City, he immediately turned up on numerous talk shows to mourn a pope he never paid the slightest attention to on doctrinal matters. (Pope John Paul II would from time to time look over at Mahony and say "Hollywood," not exactly a compliment, though Mahony tells the story as if it were.) At one televised mass last week I noticed Mahony checking his watch: Where did he have to go? What, had Hardball called?

What's the difference between the fate of Cardinal Law and Cardinal Mahony? The Boston Globe. Mahony has Los Angeles Times religion reporter Larry Stammer in his pocket, as was revealed in 2002 by a leaked e-mail from the Los Angeles chancery in which Mahony promised a colleague that "Larry Stammer" would whip up a positive story for them ("he stands ready to help if we have a story we want to get out," the e-mail said). Unlike Law who had serious reporters on his heels, Mahony has long benefited from the somnolent coverage of West Coast media liberals willing to excuse his protection of pedophiles in gratitude for his political and doctrinal liberalism.

Get it?

If you're a liberal theologian willing to harshly criticize the teaching of the Catholic Church, you're covered under the MSM's Endangered Liberals Act. If you're a (relatively) conservative theologian not known for attacking your church, you're the spawn of Satan.

Fact is, the Catholic Church and these two cardinals have acted disgracefully and betrayed the trust of their flock by not defrocking pedophile priests and taking swift and stern action to ensure such priests do not remain within the fold of the church.

So why does the MSM view one as a criminal and the other as a saint?

What Is Thy Bidding, My Master?

Howard Kurtz, Mouth of Sauron, strikes again:

Talking Points Fallout

Conservative critics had a fine time kicking around ABC's Linda Douglass and The Washington Post's Mike Allen for reporting on a mysterious strategy memo about the Terri Schiavo case that the reporters said was distributed to Republican senators.

Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes, after checking with the office of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), said the stories were evidence of "crude liberal bias. . . . The offensive part -- it didn't come from Martinez -- left the strong impression that Republicans are callous and cynical in their attempt to save Schiavo's life."

But after The Post reported that a Martinez aide had fessed up as the author and resigned, reactions have been mixed. One critical blogger, Josh Claybourn, apologized to ABC News. Powerline blogger John Hinderaker says he "made a mistake" in concluding it was "an inauthentic document," but still quarrels with the two news organizations' descriptions: "The memo was not a 'GOP talking points memo' prepared by party leaders or distributed only to Republican senators." Barnes says he was "wrong about its origin" but that if a similar strategy memo from a Democratic aide had leaked, "it wouldn't have been paid any attention to by the media."

ABC spokesman Jeffrey Schneider says "we obviously took a lot of heat on this story from many quarters" and that the Martinez disclosure "vindicates Linda Douglass, who is an outstanding reporter who was dragged through the mud."

Of course, the American Spectator has the rest of the story, which the WashPo's "media critic" isn't very interested in:

The Prowler reported two weeks ago that Senate Republican leadership staffers had traced the memo to the opposition research office of Democratic Senate leaders Harry Reid, where they believed Democratic staffers had taken a set of talking points posted on the website of the Traditional Values Coalition and created the memo from those talking points. It appeared that the TVC had shaped those talking points from a March 8 press release from the office of Sen. Martinez.

Now, it appears the Martinez staffer used the March 8 press release (which remains posted on the Senator's website), as the basis for the talking points memo that Martinez handed off to Senator Harkin. Martinez claims he did so unaware of the political strategy in the memo, and because he'd been working with Harkin on saving Schiavo.

Harkin has been silent about his role in the "talking points memo" controversy, though a staffer in his Washington office late Friday denied that his boss could have been the source for the Washington Post and ABC News. "He hasn't said anything, but he wasn't working against Senator Martinez on this one. I can't believe he would leak the memo, particularly at the stage of the debate when he got the memo, which would have been before the floor vote."

He may not have leaked the memo, but he at least went to Sen. Harry Reid about it. According to a Reid leadership source, Harkin gave Reid a heads-up about the memo, telling him about the language, as well as the ham-handed language about how the Schiavo controversy could be a political boon to Republicans. It isn't clear that Harkin gave Reid a copy.

"Reid knew about the memo. He talked about its existence with staff," says the Democratic leadership staffer. "I don't know that he had a copy on March 18th, when this thing started erupting, but Reid was consulted about it."

Some Republicans now believe that it was Reid who tipped off the media about the memo's existence, and that the media went to Harkin and his staff. At one point, the Washington Post could not provide an original copy of the memo, perhaps because while it had been told about it, it had not yet received a copy.

While it is clear that the Martinez office was the source of the memo, questions remain. For example, Why, when it now is clear that the Washington Post and ABC News both got tipped to the memo by Democrats, did both initially report that the memo was being handed out by Republican leaders to Republicans?

"By now, the press ought to know that Reid will say just about anything to get what he wants, and Harkin is no better," says a Republican leadership staffer. "People forget that Harkin might have been right on Schiavo, but he is not above getting down in the trenches and playing dirty for his party."

The point is lost on "Hungry" Howie Kurtz, who sees his role more as the Baghdad Bob of the dying MSM propaganda machine.

Columbia, The Slum of Academia

Part-time ombudsman and Pinch Sulzberger henchman Daniel Okrent on The New York Times' decision to publish a "scoop" on Columbia University's whitewashing of faculty anti-Semitism without seeking reaction from opponents:

Last Wednesday, a lengthy Editors' Note on Page A2 scooped a scoop I had planned on the toxicity of scoops. The note addressed irregularities in a March 31 front-page article by Karen W. Arenson, "Columbia Panel Clears Professors of Anti-Semitism." The Times, the note explained, had been given a one-day jump on other media in exchange for its agreement not to "seek reaction from other interested parties." While acknowledging that this was in violation of Times policy, the note said "editors and the writer did not recall the policy and agreed to delay additional reporting until the document had become public." It concluded, "Without a response from the complainants" - the students who had brought the anti-Semitism charges - "the article was incomplete; it should not have appeared in that form."

Samuel Glasser, a reader in Port Washington, N.Y., who identifies himself as a former reporter and editor with three major newspaper chains, spoke for many: "The idea that editors and reporters would even have to be told not to do such a thing in the first place, let alone that they would 'forget' the policy, defies belief."

So when an offer is made by a left-wing bunch of terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic academic hacks to aid and abet their sham "investigation" by simply not asking the students who brought the complaint for their reaction, The New York Times editors saw nothing wrong with that at all.

Not that The Times is biased, or anything.

The New York Times Even Hates Bush's iPod

This tidbit, from a New York Times "news" story on the President's iPod:

Nonetheless, Mr. McKinnon said that Mr. Bush had not gone so far as to include on his playlist "Fortunate Son," the angry anti-Vietnam war song about who has to go to war that Mr. Fogerty sang when he was with Creedence Clearwater Revival. ("I ain't no senator's son ... Some folks are born silver spoon in hand.") As the son of a two-term congressman and a United States Senate candidate, Mr. Bush won a coveted spot with the Texas Air National Guard to avoid combat in Vietnam.

Of course, the Times failes to note that Mr. Bush joined a unit which rotated to Vietnam, and specifically requested to go, a request nixed by the operational reality that his particular aircraft was obsolete and the war was winding down.

No word on Vietnam draft-dodger Bill Clinton's iPod selection, thought to contain old chestnuts like "Your Cheatin' Heart" and "Would I Lie To You?"

Not that The Times is biased or anything.

Without Delay

The New York Times gets caught red-handed trying to talk Republicans into bad-mouthing Tom Delay:

On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party.

Livingston in effect declined by responding that if he wrote anything for the Times, it would be pro-DeLay. But this remarkable case of that august newspaper fishing for an op-ed piece makes it appear part of a calculated campaign to bring down the single most powerful Republican in Congress. The Democratic establishment and left-wing activists have targeted DeLay as the way to end a decade of Republican control of the House.

Not that they're biased or anything.

The Robble Robble Act

What to do about Sandy McBurglar?

Is there anyone who honestly thinks the coverage of Sandy Berger’s theft of classified documents wouldn’t be dramatically different if he were a conservative Republican?


Imagine for a second what would happen if Condoleezza Rice were caught by the good folks at the National Archives stealing sensitive documents by hiding them on her person. Would that story generate the same minimal play the Berger theft has? No — it would be a firestorm.

So, what ought Republicans do about Berger and his purloined documents?

Here’s an idea: House Republicans should force a vote on increasing the criminal penalties for removing classified material from a government archive. The maximum penalty for this crime, a misdemeanor, is currently one year of jail time and $100,000 fine. House Republicans should move a simple bill making it (1) a felony, with (2) a maximum prison sentence of five years, (3) a maximum fine of $500,000, and (4) a lifetime revocation of all security clearances.

Yeah, those ex post facto laws really sting.

How about this, instead?

Why don't the Republicans simply pass a law that no one goes into the Archives to inspect classified material without a body cavity search on the way out?

How about putting a security camera in the room, and releasing the footage of anyone caught stuffing classified material into their socks? (Yes, I know that allegation is in doubt).

How about the Republicans plaster the bandwidth with ads asking what Sandy knew and why he purged it?

Seems a better plan than passing yet another empty law DOJ and the federal bench will ignore whenever a connected party bigwig breaks it.

When We Wuz Supreme

The Supreme Court, as originally conceived:

Instead, the Supreme Court was supposed to give American democracy a power it would desperately need, the power to use its common-sense judgment in a reflective way. By looking at a particular law, judges would decide whether it fit into the essential framework of the constitution, or not. This power of judging what is or is not constitutional was not something reserved for legal experts: It belonged to any ordinary citizen. Being a "judge" was for Wilson something more than just a legal or professional title. He had learned from Reid that all human beings are by their nature judging animals, who sift and evaluate the facts of experience with their common sense, and then decide and act accordingly.

From that point of view, Wilson saw no essential distinction between judge and jury: In fact, under Scottish law they were virtual partners. In Scotland, the judge's job was not to act as some neutral legal referee but to help the jury find out the facts of the case and to reach the right decision. This is what Wilson's Supreme Court was supposed to do. As "the jury of the country," its decisions were not supposed to reflect judicial authority, but the good sense and judgment of the community as a whole. As Wilson himself put it, "a judge is the blessing, or he is the curse of society." It all depended on whether he or she was going to be guided by common sense, or by professional vanity and ambition.

So what went wrong? How did we get from Wilson's Supreme Court to judges who behave like Plato's philosopher kings? The answer is not easy, but it may go beyond specific decisions like Marbury v. Madison which expanded the power of the judiciary in ways Wilson never imagined, or even specific activist courts or judges. We have today a legal climate in which lawyers more and more see themselves as an elite, breathing the rarified atmosphere of juridical technicalities and legal jargon — precisely what Wilson and Reid most despised in academic philosophers of their day. Like teachers at today's college and universities, lawyers and judges have to come see themselves as professionally equipped to understand the world better than ordinary people, when it is in fact the other way around — as Wilson knew only too well.

Ahh, the quaintness of the notion that a bulwark of democracy might be founded upon simple literacy.

Instead we get a bunch of black-robed buffoons trying to justify their prejudices by torturing plainly-written English.

Next Up: My Jet-pack

Scientists Create Remote-Controlled Flies
Yale University researchers say their study that used lasers to create remote-controlled fruit flies could lead to a better understanding of overeating and violence in humans.

Using the lasers to stimulate specific brain cells, researchers say they were able to make the flies jump, walk, flap their wings and fly.

Why Fox News Will ALWAYS Whip CNN

Check out these clueless comments from incoming CNN president Jonathan Klein, who apparently has never spent any time outside LA and New York:

'Rabid' Fox
CNN has another new network president, its fifth in four years. Jonathan Klein's mission: take back the million-plus viewers CNN has lost to Fox News Channel in fewer than four years.
Take ever-important prime-time numbers (7 to 11 p.m.), as examined by Nielsen Media Research -- CNN: 775,000 viewers (Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Paula Zahn, Aaron Brown); Fox: 2 million viewers (Shephard Smith, Sean Hannity & Alan Colmes, Bill O'Reilly).
Mr. Klein's assessment of his competition?
"They've tapped into an outrage that's lurking among a certain small segment of the population, mostly angry white men, and those men tend to be rabid," the new CNN chief tells Charlie Rose of PBS. "They tend to be habitual. They tend to like to have their points of view reinforced."
And CNN?
"And a, quote-unquote, 'progressive' or 'liberal' network probably couldn't reach the same sort of an audience, because liberals tend to like to sample a lot of opinions," Mr. Klein continues. "They pride themselves on that. And you know, they don't get too worked up about anything. And they're pretty morally relativistic. And so, you know, they allow for a lot of that stuff. You know, Fox is very appealing to people who like to get worked up over things."

Yeah, that's right. It's only the knuckledraggers watching Fox. That's why you're getting your butt handed to you, night after night.

But even if your reasoning were sound, wouldn't that argue for more conservatives on CNN, so as to give liberals the diversity of opinion you think they crave?

What It Means To Be a Child of God

Matthew 10
8 "...Freely you have received, freely give. 9 Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10 take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

11 "Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

17 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another...

24 "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household! 26 So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law.' 36 'A man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.

41 "Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

If you have been with MoltenThought for very long, you know that I come from a rather interesting religious background. (See: Heroes Aren't Hard To Find: Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.)

The long and short of it is basically, I grew up in a tiny rural Presbyterian church and never really paid much attention. But I knew I wanted to please God. I asked Him into my heart when I was 8, actually. I didn't really grasp what that meant, I just knew I wanted it. But since no one at home read the Bible to me, talked to me about Jesus, or made much mention of Him at all, (unless you count extremely brief prayers at suppertime, with extensions on major holidays) I grew up a bit foggy about Who God is and what He's all about.

But in 1998 my "knowledge" crystallized. Someone met me where I was and told me about Jesus. They didn't try to change me, they didn't come to me yelling and screaming, they simply pointed me in the right direction and let me figure things out for myself. And when I made the decision to become one of God's kids, it wasn't in a church or in the presence of anyone. No one prayed with me, no one blessed me, no one helped me along except the One True God. I told Him I was sorry, that I believed in Him, that the Bible was the truest thing ever written and that I would really like to come home. And bam! It was like lights went on, the fog cleared and I was truly awake for the first time in my life. Although I was a "new creation" I fumbled along at first, trying to know what to do, but then began to pick up steam as God re-invented my external life.

I then began attending a charismatic church. *Sigh* (See the above post archives for further information... I just don't have the energy.) But briefly, I left that church because it was a Mafia in miniature. The code? Don't question, don't buck the system, don't challenge authority -- even if it seems corrupt. You will be taken down. This church demanded my total allegiance, mocked anything Catholic, Presbyterian, or worldly. We were sinners if we missed a service. Sinners if we failed to participate. Sinners if we chose our family's needs over church obligation. Sinners if we bled.

And so I took the quiet route, and ended up in a church that is decidedly more gentle. The liturgy is beautiful and imparts meaning -- contrary to what I was taught -- and I even participated in Lent this year, something I would have been excoriated for previously. I began to decompress. To breathe. To appreciate what was available to me. And to love the person God loves, while still acknowledging and repenting of my sinfulness. Two remarkable things came about.

First, I began to understand that it was God Who was keeping me in right relationship with Him -- not me. There was no church that could threaten me into deeper understanding and thirst for the Lord unless He was already there, tugging at my heart. The militant adherence to the Law (don't let them fool you, it still runs rampant in the modern church) gave way to walking in Grace. A scary proposition. There are no boxes to check, no lists to tick off, simply a bending to the whispers of the Holy Spirit. It has been incredibly freeing, but at the same time, terrifying. I can see why people hold on so tightly to the Law. Grace is a gray place. Unable to be contained by writ.

Secondly, I saw that the Pastor at my old church was wrong. His church was not the only one. There were hundreds, THOUSANDS of faithful churches out there, serving people and helping humanity. That was a REAL eye-opener. WOW. They may not have raised their hands and hollered, but they loved the Lord and served Him well. Jesus was everywhere. And He wasn't yelling. And even more strangely, He looked different. He wasn't a fundamentalist tongue-speaker anymore. He was Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, and yes, even Catholic. So many children at one table. So many hands and feet. My community went from a bucket to an ocean overnight.

And I started reading forbidden things -- mythology, philosophy, history, theology, Biblical studies, writings about St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther King, Jr. (my old church sincerely thinks that King is in hell for adultery), Gandhi, Tolstoy, Chesterton, Dillard. It opened the shutters on my mind and mysterious light broke in. That, coupled with conversations I've had with pro and anti-Catholics surrounding the death of the Pope, has left me somewhere in the wilderness. I started asking deeper questions; Pondering things I had never thought of before. And while my faith is still in Christ, and my foremost goal is to do His work, I have begun to wonder what that work is, who it benefits, what it all means, and why.

I wouldn't say I'm disillusioned exactly, just humbled. When the Biblical debate begins to rage, and camps settle along clearly defined boundaries, I find myself with nothing to say. I feel like a tiny missionary handing out cups of water to passersby and saying, "God bless you," then shrugging. I don't know what that means exactly, I just know I must be a part of it. Not because someone is forcing me to, because I can't live with peace in my soul if I am not serving others and representing Jesus to the weary.

But it's become a very quiet mission. Where there used to be shouting and wailing, now there is a quiet greeting on the road. "How'ya doin'? What can I help you with today?" Is that enough? Does that please God? Sometimes I wonder. Is He pleased when I serve without knowing why? When I serve imperfectly? When I serve without speaking? When I serve and get no response? When I try to baptize and am cursed for spilling water on the ungrateful? When I serve not representing a church, denomination or doctrine but simply a Person -- even when I am unsure about the particulars of Who that Person is?

Growing up, my Christian example was my grandmother, the only woman I knew who truly lived the Gospel out. We spent weekends and summers with her and loved every minute. She read Bible stories to my sister and me at bedtime and never failed to show us what love in action was. And she made it look effortless, like the most natural thing in the world. It was part of her nature to love because a new nature had been imparted to her. She wasn't perfect. Every word was not godly. Every action was not Christlike. But she never failed to love, even in her final days. And though she has been gone since Christmas 2003, I still look to her guiding example.

So while the bombs are flying past my head and people are taking offense, plotting schemes, rearing gossip, hurling accusations, and trying to make their own ways, I will stay crouched, pouring water. It's all I can do. I don't know why I