bothwell

"Alias" To Dedicate Tonight's Show To Tricia Goken

I just learned that "Alias" will dedicate tonight's show to our friend Tricia Goken, who was killed in an auto accident on January 29 along with her fiance, LCDR Denis Tri.

Before moving to Maryland last year to be with Denis, Trish served as script supervisor on the TV show "Alias" for the last four years she lived in Los Angeles. Tonight's show airs at 9:00pm EST on ABC.

Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice

Mathias Dopfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, wrote an article in Die Welt, Germany's largest daily newspaper, that's almost too good to be true. Republished on Monday by FrontPageMag, Dopfner lays into Europe for its historic appeasement of evil and its collective castigation of the few who would confront it. This is a must-read.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. [...]

A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies.

We're not even talking about criticism of President Bush's controversial war with Iraq here. We're talking about ignoring and allowing specific incidents of barbaric murder by Islamic radicals, such as the mutilation of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch Moroccan in Amsterdam three months ago. According to Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, "Van Gogh, in the eyes of many Dutch Muslims, had blasphemed Islam — an offense that brought the death penalty."

Well, if Europe decides to "combat" Islamic terror by introducing a Muslim holiday, I suggest it be called "Neville Chamberlain Day." This way, maybe all the world would finally realize that appeasement in the face of evil brings about the death penalty much more readily than simply "blaspheming" Islam.

Is AOL Censoring Conservatives?

A reader of The Right Report who goes by the name "Dr E" (I have encouraged him to divulge his entire name) wrote me two days ago revealing a potentially troubling situation at AOL. I'll let him explain:

I am writing to alert you to the discriminatory practices of AOL against their non-Islamist accountholders. It is my hope that someone will consider this issue important enough to start investigating it.

I have been an AOL member with an unblemished record for the past ten years. Recently however, my account at AOL has recently been placed on probation because an Islamist complained of being offended about the following on my homepage, a published editorial written by Dr. Mike Adams, a writer for Townhall. AOL removed the homepage. I placed on my new homepage just the web addresses of Townhall.com, Jihadwatch, Frontpagemag, Anti-Cair, and Daniel Pipes, all news and editorial website sources providing the internet public with corrective information, scholarly opinion and research by published experts.  This morning I received another TOS [Terms of Service] violation and a warning my account may be discontinued if there is another violation. Meanwhile AOL continues to allow violent jihad-oriented Islamic profiles containing violent and inciteful rhetoric and pictures which would offend the senses of any rational human being.

What follows is the letter sent to "Dr E" from AOL regarding the content of the home page of his website:

Dear Member,

America Online has been notified of a Member Directory profile created by one of the screen names on your account which violates AOL's Terms of Service (TOS). A written warning has been entered on your account record along with the information below.

The sugarquub screen name created/edited a profile that contained the following inappropriate content:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040614.shtml?http://www.anti-cair-net.org/?http://frontpagemag.com/
Adverserly Targetted
Last Profile Change: Feb 3 2005 3:32:10:050PM

AOL has deleted this profile from the Member Directory. Feel free to create a new profile that does not include this kind of objectionable content.

When creating an AOL account, all members agree to abide by America Online's TOS. These guidelines prohibit the use of vulgar or sexually oriented language, sexually explicit images, harassment, discussion of illegal activities, and/or other activities that may impair the enjoyment of our members.

Please take a moment to be sure all users of this account are familiar with Keyword: TOS. Further violations by any screen name on this account within the next six months may result in termination of your account.

To learn more about how to protect your AOL account, we recommend you visit Keywords: Neighborhood Watch and Parental Controls.

If you have any comments or questions please send e-mail to the screen name: TOSGeneral.

Regards,

Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.

Interestingly, "Dr E" complained to AOL about its apparent allowance of this photo posted by someone with AOL screen name "Saifallah7uk." After "Dr E" wrote, "This profile has been repeatedly reported for being offensive and in violation of the TOS (terms of service)," AOL reportedly responded thusly:

Your Member Profile report has been sent to AOL's Community Action Team. Please note that this profile may fall under the rules of one of AOL's International Services, which are subject to a different Terms of Service agreement.

Properly infuriated, "Dr E" writes:

So AOL is saying they allow violent, anti-American, anti-Israel al qaeda type profiles to offend the sane world as long as the account is not based in the USA?

It sure looks that way. More to the point, it looks like AOL has found a convenient method for skirting complaints from Americans when inflammatory language condoning terrorist strikes against said Americans graces its network.

I'm awaiting an email response from "Dr E" after requesting his full name. If he's inclined to publish it, we should probably all be inclined to believe his complaints that one of the largest ISPs the world over just may be demonstrating why terrorism works.

Shameless Reporting

Today was one of the worst days of my life, as we laid to rest my good buddy Denis Tri, who, as readers of TRR likely know, was killed in an awful car accident in Maryland on January 29 along with his fiancee, Trish Goken.

Compounding already-trying times is a shameless bout of media sensationalism on the part of a local Maryland tabloid. Publisher Ken Rossignol has drawn the ire of many as the result of his decision not to mention that icy roads were the cause of Denis's accident. Of course, Rossignol implies we're outraged with him simply because Denis and Trish were our friends, and we're ostensibly looking for someone or something to blame as a means of soothing our pain.

As my latest column for Southern Maryland Online explains clearly, we're hardly outraged merely because Mother Nature is often unfair: we're appalled and infuriated that a so-called "reporter" would omit mention of the primary cause of an accident in his attempt to sex-up a story.

You didn't have to be friends with Denis and Trish to be pissed off at that.

More on Farm Subsidies

Does this make ANY sense to you?  From the liberal blog, Atrios:

At least on the face of it, it appears that Bush's proposals to cut farm subsidies are ones I can wholeheartedly support (note that I'm not actually against supporting rural areas/farmers in some ways, but our farm support system is nuts). And, I also wholeheartedly support all good Democratic politicians opposing the measure and wondering out loud why Republicans hate farmers at every opportunity.

Once he catches his contradiction (assuming it was a mistake), Atrios might change the above quote.  For the record, I accessed this quote from his website at 3:20pm on February 6th, 2005.

Time to Support Bush AND the Democrats

The NY Times is reporting that President Bush will ask for DEEP cuts in farm subsidies.  Specifically, it is believed that Bush will seek a subsidy cap of $250,000 per recipient, for an overall savings of $5.7 billion over the next decade.

This kind of news warms my heart.  The positive externalities of a subsidy cut are numerous.  Freer trade, less bureaucracy and waste in Washington DC, and a better allocation of tax dollars.  Just to name a few.

So with these kinds of benefits, you would think Republicans are the ones leading the charge.  Not so.

In fact, they are leading the opposition.  From the NY Times:

"The new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, [Republican] Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and more than 100 farm groups are gearing up to fight the White House proposal. The administration's willingness to push the proposal, despite such protests, suggests how tight the new budget will be."

This could shape up to be a battle royale between special interests and the taxpayers' money.  It pits the career politician hell-bent on staying in office against liberal groups who want to prevent the government from subsidizing agri-business.

Politics make for strange bedfellows because the Democrats are the ones to support in this fight (despite their motives not being perfectly aligned with ours).  Subsidies are bad on every level.  They waste tax dollars, they create commercial lethargy, they reduce innovation, and worst of all, they create the illusion that the government not only has the right, but the obligation to interfere with the free market system.

Let's hope the Democrats win this fight.  With all of these special interests arming themselves, it could be one nasty battle.

Interview with Art Laffer

Good morning to TRR readers. My name is Andy Roth.  At Trevor's request, I'm guest-blogging this weekend.  I work for a non-profit political organization in Washington DC called the Club for Growth.  We help elect candidates to Congress who promise to lower taxes and limit government (If you are a regular reader of Trevor's stuff, I suspect we're on the same page on these issues).  You can check out the blog I maintain for the Club as well as our new blog called SocialSecurityChoice.org.

With that, let's talk taxes!

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (my favorite newspaper besides the WSJ) published a great interview this morning of Art Laffer, the "Father of Supply Side Economics".  Here is an excerpt:

Q: How do you define your politics?

A: I'm pro-growth. I'm Democrat when Democrats are into pro-growth, and I'm Republican when they are. I vote the issues really hard-core, and they're all economic issues. That doesn't mean that I don't have strong views on social issues. That's just not where government is involved in my life.

Q: The biggest economic issue of the moment?

A: I like low, flat-rate taxes. I like sound money. I like free trade. And I like minimal regulation for serving social purposes. That's it.

Q: Is that a definition of supply-side economics?

A: (It's) the supply-side definition in each of the major areas of macroeconomics. There are four areas: fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy and a sort of catchall, incomes policy. Those are all the indirect ways government affects business -- regulations, restrictions, minimum wage, wage and prices, etc.

Q: What's something that's true about economics right now that every layperson should know about?

A: If you tax people who work and you pay people who don't work, do not be surprised if you find a lot of people choosing not to work.

Have questions about supply-side economics?  Lay them on me...

Rebels with a Cause

C-SPAN will broadcast the January Conservative Women's Network lunch (sponsored by my org, the Luce Policy Institute, and The Heritage Foundation) with actress Cheryl Felicia Rhoads. She gave a great speech on life on the Left coast and on how conservatives can take back Hollywood. In addition to acting, Cheryl has also been involved with several TV shows (segment producer for America's Funniest People), written for TV shows (like Doc Insider on PAX) and she is a much sought-after acting coach for children. She was also in a movie with Russell Crowe.... yum. (sorry, Trevor).

The program will air this Saturday, Feb. 5, at 9:30 p.m. eastern and again at 11:30 p.m. You can check the C-SPAN schedule here.

If you are a woman in the DC area interested in attending future CWN lunches, just send an email to cwn@cblpolicyinstitute.org. We have a great speaker each month and maybe you'll even see yourself on C-SPAN.

Update!
If you missed it, you can watch Cheryl's speech online at www.c-span.org.

Fems Anti-Choice on Financial Freedom

When it comes to giving women greater financial independence, feminists are anti-choice.  In a recent statement, NOW President Kim Gandy said, "Make no mistake about it, privatization of Social Security will disproportionately hurt women."  NOW and other feminist groups call the Bush Administration's goals to bring financial choice to Social Security a "bait and switch" scam.  However, it's radical feminists who are pulling a scam on American women.  Recent polls show that a majority of women and minorities are in favor of gaining greater financial freedom over their retirement funds.  Their statements indicate their long-held belief that government bureaucrats should continue making women's financial decisions.  Contrary to NOW's recent hysteria, Social Security privatization is pro-woman and pro-worker.  NOW's support of a failing program that takes away choice from all Americans is simply pro-government.  Their recent statement on privatization is testament to this organization’s dirty little secret.  They don’t support women and they don’t support minorities.  NOW supports a failing system and a socialist government.

Bush SOTU 2005 - Best Moments

I thought President Bush gave a powerful and moving State of the Union speech last night. And because I'm running a little short on time today, I'll leave it to the pros to offer comprehensive analysis (start here and here), but I do want to offer what I thought were the top three moments. In order:

  3. Embrace between Safia Taleb al-Suhail (whose name Bush pronounced correctly, by the way), an Iraqi woman who voted in a free election for the first time last weekend predominantly as a result of the sacrifices of American servicemen, and Janet Norwood, the mother of Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood, who made the ultimate sacrifice in Falluja last year. Such apprecation for humanity even in the wake of immeasurable grief and loss signifies the true value of freedom.

2. Bush's big smacker for Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman after the speech. On more than one occasion, Lieberman stood virtually alone to applaud with Republicans as Bush laid out his goals for the future. Lieberman and I differ quite significantly on social policy, but he is nonetheless a good, good man.

1. Best moment of the SOTU: Rare side camera angle catching Bush exhaling trying to keep his compose after introducing the parents of Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood and waiting for the massive applause to subside. Think what you will of the president, but accusations that he sends troops to battle for frivolous personal gain are simply sophomoric.

More Attention For 1stSgt Kasal

Power Line blog links to The Right Report's story about heroic Marine 1st Sergeant Brad Kasal.

Why We'll Win This War

Here’s an inspiring story you’re not liable to hear from mainstream media outlets like CBS’s 60 Minutes II, which spend too much time maligning the Bush administration and broadcasting the complaints of a handful of soldiers to bother focusing on the widespread heroism of America’s bravest patriots.

Meet Marine 1st Sergeant Brad Kasal (in the middle). This photo was taken of 1stSgt. Kasal, whose older brother is a former 82nd Airborne paratrooper serving in Iraq, after the most recent major offensive in Fallujah. 1stSgt. Kasal sacrificed his own safety to save a room full of fellow Marines. Though one cannot see from the photograph, 1stSgt. Kasal lost some of the bone in his lower right leg after taking several AK rounds.

During the encounter, 1stSgt. Kasal took rounds in the back, which were rendered virtually harmless due to his vest armor. However, he took one round through his buttocks, which passed through both cheeks, leaving four holes in him. And amazingly, he also took the brunt of a grenade blast after jumping on top of one of his younger Marine brothers to shield him from the fire.

1stSgt. Kasal battled the terrorist who did most of the damage to him and his men, and despite a massive loss of blood he never stopped fighting. Notice he is still holding his pistol.

1stSgt. Kasal, who has been recommended for a Medal of Honor for his heroism that day, is already the recipient of several Purple Hearts for previous battles throughout his career, and has turned down more so he could remain with his unit. While in the hospital, 1stSgt. Kasal has met President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and several other celebrities. He said that Bush came in by himself and had a very long, sincere, and friendly visit with him.

An Honest Democrat

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, a Democrat, has a good column today that asks, "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?" In a rational assessment of Bush's decisions over the past couple years that is most likely anathema to many Democrats -- and certainly most liberals -- Brown states:

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

It's hard to imagine that liberals like John Kerry would admit the Iraq war turned out to be a success even if we could magically turn the country into the Upper West Side of Manhattan by tomorrow evening. Indeed, even after Iraqis braved threats of assassination and turned out in higher percentages to vote this past weekend than Americans did in our November 2004 elections, Kerry dismissed this blatant exhibition of lust for freedom by claiming Sunday on Meet the Press that "No one in the United States should try to overhype this election."

Mr. Brown's thoughts were supported today by Thomas Sowell, who writes:

First and foremost, [the Iraqi election] was a great victory for the Iraqi people. It was also a great victory for the magnetic appeal of freedom, even in a country that has so long been denied it. What some of our own politicians and media pundits are obviously afraid of is that it will also be seen as a victory for President Bush.

In the eyes of some people, nothing that the Bush administration does can be right. If the President were to create a program that would end earthquakes and tsunamis tomorrow, critics would demand to know why he is allowing wildfires and lightning to continue killing people.

Thus the attitude of power-wielding liberals in America today. Certainly, President Bush has made mistakes, which to his own detriment he's often reluctant to admit. But sentiments like Kerry's following such a historic moment in the history of the Middle East indicate that Bush will never be given a fair shake in the eyes of those who hold him in contempt. (This might also reveal why he's been so unwilling to fuel his opponents' fire by admitting any missteps in the prosecution of this war.)

Mark Brown is in good company when sharing opinions with a man like Thomas Sowell. And considering he's willing to admit that he might have been wrong about Bush all along suggests there just might be more like him out there. Where are they?

Pals. Patriots. Positively Inspiring.

Anyone who knew Denis Tri and Trish Goken knew this is how they acted every hour of every day (Well, not necessarily belly-up to a bar in the British Virgin Islands!). Always smiling, always laughing, and more importantly, always helping to make you smile and laugh with them.

Denis and Trish died in a terribly tragic automobile accident Saturday night, January 29, 2005, after encountering black ice on the roadway and losing control of their vehicle. They will live on forever in our fondest memories. Denis and Trish, you will never be forgotten.

That Evil Wal-Mart!

Great article out of The Clarksdale Press Register. Shh! Don’t let the big-government advocates find out that private corporations actually have a vested interest in community philanthropy.

Everywhere Wal-Mart goes, the people are soon to follow. Customers are good to Wal-Mart and the store usually returns the favor.  […]

Mayor Henry Espy said the corporation has always been good to the city.

"Wal-Mart is a good corporate citizen," he said. "They work within the community they serve. They go arm in arm with the community." […]

The Chickasaw Council Boy Scouts were awarded $500 with the Zeta Phi Beta sorority receiving $1,000.

Sunflower Landing and Magnolia Club House, both of Region I Mental Health, also received a $1,000 donation.

Janie Gordon, Club House director, said the money will help with the day treatment program for the mentally ill.

"We plan to use it for our Club House Conference in the spring to help pay for rooms and registration. We do really appreciate it, " Gordon said.

Chapel Hill Missionary Baptist Church concluded the list with $774.55.

Only The Good Die Young

On Saturday, January 29, two of my very good friends, Lt. Commander Denis G. Tri, 37, and Tricia K. Goken, 35, were killed coming home from dinner in Leonardtown, Maryland. According to the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office, Denis hit an icy patch on Hollywood Road near Dorsey Park, lost control of his car, and crossed the center line where he was struck by an oncoming vehicle. Denis died instantly, and sadly, Trish shortly thereafter.

We hear a lot about media bias and inaccurate reporting every day, but one would think we could tone down our cynicism when it comes to reporting fatal accidents. Ken Rossignol, who is well-known in southern Maryland for publishing the "DWI Hit Parade" in his newspaper St. Mary’s Today, had this to say, in part, on the front page Sunday afternoon:

A US Naval Officer and his girlfriend were killed Saturday night on Rt. 235 just south of Hollywood when he was going too fast, lost control of his vehicle and crossed the center line of the highway into the path of a pickup truck which T-boned him at the driver's door, killing him on impact.

We can overlook the fact that the accident didn’t occur on Rte. 235. What’s a little tougher to swallow is the air of contempt resonating from Mr. Rossignol’s insinuation that Denis was somehow driving irresponsibly. Indeed, Southern Maryland Online reported accurately, "The primary cause of the accident was icy roads. Speed or alcohol was not a contributing factor in the accident."

I knew Denis Tri for almost six years. What many do not know is that Denis and Trish dated about 20 years ago in high school, after which time they went their separate ways to pursue their life goals. However, after all these years apart, fate and circumstance brought them back together again, and they decided to make Solomons, Maryland their new home. They were planning on getting married after they remodeled an old house Denis had bought last year.

Though I only knew Trish for a relatively short time, it didn’t take long to realize how personable and caring she was. Denis, who served his country in the Navy for years as a test pilot and later as a test pilot instructor, was currently aide to Admiral Walter "Wally" Massenburg at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. Suffice it to say you don’t achieve the success Denis did by living irresponsibly. Ken Rossignol should be ashamed for implying otherwise.

Denis and Trish, you will both be missed dearly. R.I.P.

Making Good People Bad

Well, my wife and I added a new member to the family over the weekend. Meet "Rummy," our new secretary of defense (okay, that was lame, but Rumsfeld's still my man).

My wife Amie has been bugging me for a puppy for a few months now, and in a fit of weakness last week I decided to check out the new animal welfare agency in Calvert County, Maryland, where we live.

On my visit I encountered something very interesting. On the literature explaining rules for adopting a pet, I noticed a mention of a new law proposed in Calvert County which would change the legal terminology for a pet "owner" to "guardian."

This might seem innocent enough, but I just can't shake the feeling that this is yet further prodding by animal rights activists to increasingly hold pet OWNERS legally liable for circumstances in their pets' lives. For instance, if our dog gets hit by a car accidentally, are we now looking at jail time for criminal negligence? What if my neighbor happens to think it's "mean" if I walk my dog in the snow? Do I have to teach Rummy to take a whiz in my toilet just to stave off potential complaints?

This might sound far-fetched, but I assure you it's not. In fact, it's downright scary. Proposed laws like the one I just mentioned are further indications of the growing acceptance of the relativity of life, where animals are paid the same accord as humans.

This blogger writes of an extreme case of intentional animal cruelty -- which is already punishable by law, I might add -- but note his views on the importance of animal life in relation to human life:

Causing harm to an animal is a horrible thing. The punishment for killing an animal should be that of the punishment for killing a fellow human being. A man who beheaded a German shepherd he had named for his girlfriend was sentenced Friday to 25 years to life under the state's three-strikes law. [emphasis added]

I beg to differ. I highly doubt anyone refutes that someone who beheads a dog should be severely punished, but 25 years to life? Granted, the man in this case had two priors, which means he would have faced about six years otherwise, but anyone who thinks someone should do 25 years for killing a dog is more insane than the person doing the killing.

This type of moral relativism is extremely dangerous, and if Calvert County, Maryland, passes a new law insinuating man does not have dominance over his own pet, the county will be contributing to the decline of humanity. It's one thing to advocate on behalf of pets -- after all, I just adopted a puppy that was a throwaway -- but treating them as if they have the same legal rights as human beings is not an attempt to increase the relevance of animals -- it's an attempt to decrease the relevance of humans.

Laws already exist to punish bad people, even those who mistreat animals. But if we pass enough of them, we'll certainly be able to turn even the good people bad.

The New Sniff Test

It isn't often that I agree with the legal rulings of Justices Souter and Ginsberg, but they seem to be the only Supreme Court justices with the foresight to realize how abusive it can be to allow police officers unlimited access to vehicle searches.

A friend of mine, whose name I'll withhold, is a DC police officer. One night after a softball game a couple summers ago we were shooting the breeze over a couple beers. He told me all about how some canine cops operate. The dog doesn't even need to detect anything (like we'd even know if it did or not) out of the ordinary because the cops have certain comm ands they can give inconspicuously to alert the dog to bark, "legitimizing" the commencement of a search whenever they're so inclined.

Jacob Sullum writes in Reason about a recent Court decision upholding the right of canine officers to search your vehicle as the result of a simple sniff from a drug-sniffing dog.

Here's a synopsis of the events preceding the court case:

The Supreme Court recently gave its approval to this sort of stop-and-switch in a case involving a man named Roy Caballes, who was pulled over on Interstate 80 by an Illinois state trooper for driving six miles an hour faster than the speed limit. Caballes happened to have 282 pounds of marijuana in his trunk, but even those of us who are not pot smugglers should worry that the Court saw nothing wrong with the circumstances that led to his arrest.

Trooper Daniel Gillette testified that he became suspicious because Caballes was well-dressed and seemed nervous, the car smelled of air freshener, and the only visible belongings were two sport coats, even though Caballes said he was moving from Las Vegas to Chicago. Gillette asked for permission to search the car, which Caballes, not surprisingly, declined to grant.

Gillette got permission from a dog instead. Trooper Craig Graham, upon hearing Gillette call in the stop, decided to swing by with a drug-sniffing canine, conveniently arriving just as Gillette was writing Caballes a warning ticket. For Caballes, one sniff by that dog was the difference between a warning and a 12-year prison sentence.

In the event you're compelled to agree with the Court's decision -- after all, Caballes was guilty of drug possession -- consider the widespread abuse that could -- and likely will -- arise as a result of "false alerts" by drug-sniffing canines. After all, dogs, like humans, make mistakes, no? But now consider circumstances where the dogs don't even make mistakes. Sounds honest enough, right? Read on.

A friend of mine, whose name I'll withhold, is a DC police officer. One night after a softball game a couple summers ago we were shooting the breeze over a couple beers. He told me all about how some canine cops operate. The dog doesn't even need to detect anything (like we'd even know if it did or not) out of the ordinary because the cops have certain commands they can give inconspicuously to alert the dog to bark, "legitimizing" the commencement of a search whenever they're so inclined.

I'm all for having cops; at least I thought I was until several months ago when I was hauled into court for allegedly "driving off" from a gas station without paying for gas. In a nutshell, the noble officer who responded to the call wrote in his report that he "attempted to contact" me, whatever that means (I have an answering machine and I'm in the book).

Suffice it to say I was never even questioned about the incident -- simply served papers indicating criminal charges brought against me. The officer likely performed a database search on a "silver truck" (which, mysteriously, later turned out to be "white") and one or two letters of the license plate of the car involved in the actual theft a left it at that. The case was obviously thrown out, but not after I had to spend money on a lawyer.

Restriction aren't placed upon officers of the law to protect criminals. They're placed upon them to protect those who aren't.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of cops are law-abiding, serving nobly to do their best to keep criminals from harassing the rest of us. And even when it comes to cops who try to game legal search protocal, they probably use more than a fair amount of discretion when finding no indication of unlawfulness. But that still doesn't justify the allowance of unjust behavior.

Thanks For Nothing, Rachel

A visit to my doctor yesterday reminded me of a recent article by Ryan Walsh, an excellent young writer who used to contribute to The Right Report before I turned it into a blog.

What was the purpose of my visit, you ask? Why, I had to get a prescription for chloroquine, a drug that treats and prevents malaria. You see, I'll be careening off to the Dominican Republic for vacation in a couple weeks (against my better judgment, but I won't expect any pity), and it turns out the CDC has issued a malaria advisory for Punta Cana and related areas. According to one report, I could suffer "high fevers, chills, night sweats, headaches and abdominal pain ... [and] severe respiratory problems and other complications [if] not promptly treated."

What, or rather, who, do we have to blame for this? If you're thinking those pesky little mosquitos which transmit the disease, you'd miss the point. Instead, as Walsh points out, we can point the finger at Rachel Carson and the environmental movement for fomenting the myth that DDT -- the pesticide that could practically eradicate the disease -- causes cancer in humans.

Writes Walsh:

After the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned DDT in 1972, Judge Edmund Sweeney, who was in charge of an EPA advisory body on DDT, concluded that such a ban was unnecessary: “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man...[the] use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”

So we’ve proven that DDT isn’t harmful, but what makes it so indispensable in combating malaria? Consider that before the DDT revolution of the 1950s, India experienced 800,000 deaths a year from malaria. In the later 60s, after India had relentlessly implemented the use of DDT, annual malaria cases were down to almost zero. According to the New York Times, “In Sri Lanka, then called Ceylon, 2.8 million cases of malaria per year fell to 17.” The Times further notes that this dramatic downturn in malaria cases worldwide even lead the National Academy of Sciences to proclaim that “to only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT.”

But by the early 70s, Rachel Carson had captured the hearts of the WHO and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and almost instantly the chemical viewed by scientists as a sort of Holy Water in the fight against worldly plague became a cancer-causing, bird-killing, humanity-threatening scourge. Simply astonishing.

Astonishing, indeed. That we'd subordinate millions of human beings to the pious claims of green bigots.

Send Kennedy To Iraq

Our U.S. Marines continue unabated in their quest to secure Iraq for Sunday's national elections.

Thankfully, they have Sen. Ted Kennedy's unquenchable support. From the AP:

"The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution," Kennedy said in a speech to Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces."

We're all ears, big guy! You're the senator, for Pete's sake. How about putting together a committee to design a "new plan" that sets "fair and realistic" goals? This from a career politician who has no idea what a "realistic" military plan would look like even if he was sober. The closest Big Ted's ever gotten to heroic service was his dive at Chappaquiddic Island attempting to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne...oh, wait a minute.

And don't you just love that whole "honorable homecoming" comment? Don't believe for a second that Kennedy cares a lick about either this war or the troops winning it.

Can Free Market Help School Reform?

Here's an excellent example of the flawed liberal argument against school choice programs. It neatly encapsulates liberals' gross misunderstanding of free market economics, and by consequence their rationale for subjecting kids to socialist public education policies.

Timothy Zessin's primary opposition to school choice and voucher programs stems from the realization that good schools could potentially put poor schools out of business. He attempts to support this claim with the faulty logic liberals always invoke about the "Wal-mart effect" -- the concept that it's somehow bad to provide people with more goods at lower prices.

Tim, my friend, we're talking about kids here, not toothbrushes. In reality (where most parents and their children live), the competitiveness that the free market -- and only the free market -- provides actually presents the most hope for bad schools if they want to get their act together before going out of business.

But if ineffective teachers have to lose their jobs so inner-city kids can learn to read, somehow I think I'll sleep just fine at night.

Liberals Don't Want Your Opinion

Good quote by Ann Coulter today indicating why liberals would never get their way if they had to rely on -- God forbid! -- the will of the people:

Abortion was not terribly popular when Roe v. Wade was first concocted in 1973 – by seven male justices and their mostly male law clerks. Abortion – like other liberal priorities over the years including forced busing, gay marriage and removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance – is an issue liberals believe is best voted on by groups of nine or fewer.

We know it wasn't popular with actual Americans back then because 46 states had outlawed it in a once-common procedure known as "representative democracy." Reflect on the fact that among the things more popular than abortion even back in 1973 were white-guy afros, lime-green leisure suits and earth shoes.

Two Orange Jumpsuits, X-Small

Unbelievable story out of Ocala, Fla.:

Two boys, ages 9 and 10, were charged with felonies and taken away from school in handcuffs, accused of making violent drawings of stick figures.

The boys were arrested Monday on charges of making a written threat to kill or harm another person, a second-degree felony.

The special education students used pencil and red crayon to draw primitive stick figure scenes on scrap paper that showed a 10-year-old classmate being stabbed and hung, police said.

It's really tough to figure out where to start with this one, but it sure smacks of school "zero tolerance" policies that usually turn out to be "zero intelligence" policies.

I don't know many people who oppose punishing students for inappropriate behavior, but this appears to be merely the latest incident on a long list of what has become a litany of public school asininity. In the attempt to implement one-size-fits-all disciplinary policies, schools have persecuted little boys as sexual deviants for kissing little Kindergarten girls on the cheek; teenage girls who try to cope with medical conditions have been treated like drug addicts; and only a couple years ago, 13-year-old Mitch Muller was expelled from a Colorado school for a year (!) for playing with a friend's laser pointer.

So much for expecting kids to share their "feelings." I guess we're just supposed to indulge in gratuitous televised murder trials, "adult" video games that replicate sex and violence once only known to the silver screen, and divorce rates that keep Gloria Steinem smiling -- yet continue to act like our kids never pick up on this crap.

First Armstrong, Now Maggie?

The Washington Post (reg. req.) reports today that conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher was paid by the Bush administration to promote the president’s initiative to strengthen families, and that Gallagher "failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal."

I’ll leave it to La Shawn Barber to describe why Gallagher’s refusal to disclose this information may be no different than Armstrong Williams’. And while I’m no expert on journalistic ethics, here’s my deal: I’d hate to think I’d reject 20 grand from a politician if all I had to do was inform my audience I was accepting it in order to endorse a position I agree with anyway. And for all I know, Williams and Gallagher had no idea they were ethically obligated to disclose to the public their contracts with the Bush administration. But this is beside the point, because there nonetheless exist potentially severe consequences for conservatism as an ideology if columnists give the impression they’re hired lackeys for a Republican president (not to mention, we’re the ones most likely to appear in the Washington Post under these circumstances).

Here’s why: To borrow a phrase from (I think) Jonah Goldberg, Bush brings conservatives to the dance, but in reality he's hardly an avid advocate of the conservative platform. For example, he's against gay marriage, for good reason, but his answer is to amend the Constitution to ban it -- a position that many conservatives -- including Goldberg -- oppose on federalist principles of limited government.

Bush also favors increasing standards in our public schools -- again, very noble -- but his actions nonetheless prove that he is committed to increasing the scope of the federal government in order to attempt to accomplish those ends. Indeed, there is to date absolutely no evidence indicating that increasing federal education spending correlates to meaningful academic improvement. However, as Ronald Reagan once said, whenever you extend a palm upward for federal handouts, you can expect to see strings attached that lead all the way back to Washington (or something like that).

Bush has kept conservatives satisfied more or less by pushing tax cuts, going on the offensive in the war on terror, and, recently, taking action to reform Social Security. But he has been equally fiscally irresponsible with regard to programs like the prescription drug benefit under Medicare, agricultural subsidies, and taxpayer-supported faith-based initiatives. Not to mention, it would be a shame to see national security progress lost as a result of Bush’s reluctance to crack down on illegal immigration -- in short, if we were to suffer another devastating domestic attack as a result of terrorists sneaking in through the colander we call the U.S.-Mexican border, any national security and economic improvements he's made would be immediately nullified.

So what does this have to do with conservative writers taking payola from Republican politicians? Put simply, there is a difference between Republicans and conservatives -- or at least there should be. The main reason I could never be a politician is because I am much more committed to preserving conservative ideals than Republican party lines (well, in theory, anyway; in reality, I have no money).

Conservatives have much to be thankful for in George W. Bush (especially considering the alternative) but it is a mistake to cast our lot with politicians on grounds of principle alone, namely because politicians will abandon their base overnight if it provides them short-term political gain. Like it or not, a politician’s job is to get elected, even if, as we might be witnessing, it comes at the expense of the reputation of his ideological teammates.

The very idea behind honest political commentary is to maintain the divide between strict ideology and political maneuvering, in order to preserve the integrity of both individual values and public office. In other words, we’re supposed to keep politicians honest, especially as it relates to representing our values in the public arena.

Openly supporting particular political strategies and proposals is normal. Obviously, political parties are organized around the constituents they represent. But giving the impression that pundits are secretly in cahoots with politicians blurs the lines of fair play by confusing political ideology with party platform, and it is a natural conflict because it could in so many ways eventually invalidate the concept that public officials serve at the pleasure of the people -- who, by the way, should know better.

UPDATE: Maggie Gallagher responds.

Bush Talks Social Security With Black Leaders

From the AP Wire (courtesy SunHerald.com):

President Bush told black leaders Tuesday that his plan to add private accounts to Social Security would benefit blacks since they tend to have shorter lives than some other Americans and end up paying in more than they get out.

Social Security was one of many issues that came up during Bush's private meeting with 14 clergy and 10 leaders from business and nonprofit groups.

...

Michelle Bernard, senior vice president at the Independent Women's Forum, a Washington-based group that opposes traditional feminist ideology, said Bush stressed that he does not want to abolish Social Security, only mend it.

"There was a lot of discussion about how the Social Security system as it stands today has a negative impact on African-Americans simply because, regardless of your education background or socio-economic level, African-Americans tend to have a shorter life expectancy than others," she said.

Democratic congressional leaders are united against Bush's idea to overhaul the system, and some Republicans have said they are reluctant to change a program that tens of millions of Americans rely on for retirement security. They are urging Bush to sell the idea to the public so they can get behind it politically, and the meeting with blacks was part of the White House effort to build support.

Smoked Out

A Michigan company is taking heat for a policy adopted at the outset of the new year, which allows it to fire any employees who smoke. From WRAL.com:

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

A WRAL online poll asks readers if an employer who is trying to keep health care costs down should "have the right to fire employees who smoke?" Of almost 90,000 respondents polled, 73% say "No" while 27% say "Yes."

Interesting results, considering the question we should really be asking is, "How else should we expect employers to react when Nanny-staters increasingly insist that taxpayers and private employers pay for ailments people willingly incur, namely from smoking and overeating?"

Today smoking and obesity are, unbelievably, considered "diseases," while true ailments like infertility, sadly, often are not. More and more, insurance companies cover things like gym memberships and smoking cessation programs, but you might just be out of luck if you're hoping to redeem a portion of your health insurance premiums on fertility tests and drugs. Alas, I'm not just blowing smoke.

A True American Idol

I never really paid much attention to FOX's American Idol until last season, and the main reason I even watched at all was because it seemed to represent one of the few vestiges of competition remaining in American youth culture (Well, that and the fact that I just love teenie-bopper music!).

We've been so wrapped up in the importance of children's "self-esteem" lately that we've just about systematically eroded kids' abilities to deal with failure (On the outside chance you have no idea what I'm talking about, rest assured you'd be hard-pressed to find a public school today that allows kids to play dodgeball in PE class, and keeping score during youth soccer games is virtually a thing of the past.).

Sadly, this year's new season of American Idol depicts perfectly the consequences of constantly mollycoddling and pampering children. The first couple episodes were a collection of tryouts held in 2004. As you'd expect, some of the "talent" left viewers more than a little wanting.

Making an ass of yourself on TV because you can't sing is one thing. It's even kind of admirable. But throwing a tempter tantrum and screaming profanity in front of a nationwide audience because a judge on a panel lets you know you might have a brighter future as a mime clearly suggests the ramifications of failing to prepare kids for the realities of life -- which quite often includes getting knocked down a rung or two.

I'd like to think FOX is broadcasting the antics of these spoiled brat wannabes as a service to those who can't quite seem to grapple with the fact that life's not fair. But I'd be willing to bet they're just doing it for ratings. Because, you know, kids today don't just know more than adults -- they know we expect them to act like them, too.

So I won't be watching too much more American Idol this year. As we muddle through this culture war we've been entagled in for far too long, I prefer to spend my time paying attention to true American idols like this Marine here at President Bush's Inauguration, who almost certainly wishes the worst thing in his life so far was that some record exec told him he couldn't carry a tune. Semper Fidelis.

V Is For Vulgar

Luce Policy Institute's Lisa De Pasquale explains how feminists began targeting high school girls in 2001 in the attempt to transform Valentine's Day from an innocent expression of friendship between men and women to a rather crude celebration of "Victory, Valentine, and Vagina."

More than a handful of colleges around the world have adopted this ridiculous campaign.

Cha-ching!

President Bush will reportedly seek another $80 billion this year for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This will undoubtedly be a popular topic of discussion in the coming weeks, but after you recover from sticker shock, pay attention to something: Of those who'll protest most loudly, keep track of how many have no problem with the tens of billions Bush will spend on public education this year -- something the federal government has no business sticking its nose into.

Jumping In Headfirst

Hey there. I'm Trevor Bothwell, host of The Right Report, a website dedicated to the promotion of conservative public policy, including a limited but effective government, a free market economy, individual freedoms, and a strong national defense dedicated to promoting peace through strength.

For the past three years, The Right Report was home to a variety of talented conservative writers, but its goal primarily was to seek out and provide an outlet for some of today's most talented young activists and writers. However, all the cool kids tell me this new "blogging" thing is the wave of the future, so effective today, The Right Report makes the transition from an ordinary old website to a web log.

This new format will allow (or force) me to write everyday, something I wasn't able to do with the former site's format. And I was also finding it pretty difficult stay on top of editing multiple columns, which have to be published regularly for a site to retain any type of credibility. Most importantly, however, a blog site will allow me to become much more independent and focus on current issues that are most interesting to me, namely education and economics. Of course, you'll still find a smattering of just about every policy issue you can name.

Anyhow, that's pretty much it. One final thing I should note is that from time to time you'll find commentary from Andy Roth (economist, Club for Growth) and Lisa De Pasquale (program director, Clare Boothe Luce), two friends/colleagues who are about as sharp as they come. They've both kindly offered to maintain the blog whenever I'm out of town or otherwise indisposed.

Column Archive

2/1/2005      Free Market the Key to School Reform
1/14/2005  Communism for Kids
1/7/2005      When Impressions Matter More Than Results
12/24/2004 I'm Offended
12/8/2004  Time For A McFight
11/18/2004 No Such Thing As Compulsory Respect
11/9/2004  Michael Moore Won't Slit His Wrists Anytime Soon
10/22/2004 The Liberal Art Of Public Education
9/22/2004  Calvert Commie Public Schools: Part II
9/3/2004   Politicians Aren't The Only Masters Of Political Deception
8/2/2004   "Friends Of Karl"
9/9/2004   Calvert Commie Public Schools
2/22/2004  Why George W. Bush Will Win In 2004
12/30/2003 A Legacy To Forget
12/10/2003 Jennings Stumps For Socialism
11/18/2003 Jessica Lynch, Col. West, And Common Sense