S.A. Express-News Watch

The New Blog Is Up

2005-05-20T03:46:00.000-07:00

The new blog is up and running today!

More On Newsweek

2005-05-19T14:01:00.000-07:00

I already mentioned that this would happen earlier this week, and now Yahoo! News reports that Muslims are skeptical of the retraction by Newsweek:

Across the Islamic world, many were unconvinced by Newsweek's retraction of the report. From Afghanistan to Egypt, some people believed the U.S. had pressured Newsweek to deny the story, using the magazine as a "scapegoat."

In many countries, politicians — skeptical of Newsweek's about-face — said the United States should make public the details of its investigation into the reported desecration.

The American media's handling of this situation is not helping matters.

Pics From Afghanistan

2005-05-19T13:55:00.000-07:00

Maj. Brian Ryder, Combined Joint Task Force 76 logistics maintenance chief, hands out school supplies to young Afghan girls during a humanitarian mission to an all-girl school and ophanage in Charikar village near Bagram Airfield, May 9. This is just another example of what the media here in America won't show.

The Media Continued

2005-05-19T12:05:00.000-07:00

Here is ABC's Terry Moran yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt show:

There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing its job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.

Thanks Terry, I will file that under things I already know.

2005-05-18T12:01:00.000-07:00

Ah, now this all makes perfect sense.

Getting It Right On Newsweek

2005-05-18T07:30:00.000-07:00

An editorial in today's SAEN discusses the recent kerfuffle involving Newsweek:

The United States is involved in a war unlike any other in its history. This is no time for irresponsibility whether from insensitive military members or sloppy reporters. The stakes are too high, and extremists are eager for propaganda coups.

Congratulations to the editorial board for getting it right. If you want to read more, check out the latest from Jonathan Gurwitz. You can see past SAEN Watch commentary on the Newsweek scandal here, here and here.

Update:

Paul Marshall has an excellent article on this over at National Review Online. Here is an excerpt:

The shakily sourced May 9 Newsweek report that interrogators had desecrated a Koran at Guantanamo Bay is likely to do more damage to the U.S. than the Abu Ghraib prison scandals. What is also deeply disturbing is that the journalists who put the report out seem somewhat clueless about this reality.

I have to admit to being amazed out how clueless some in the media have been about this event. Yesterday I pointed out that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann blames a White House conspiracy for Newsweek's troubles, and today the New York Times reports this quote from Marvin Kalb, a senior fellow at Harvard's Shorenstien Center:

"This is hardly the first time that the administration has sought to portray the American media as inadequately patriotic..."

Unbelievable. Mr. Kalb equates holding Newsweek accountable for a false story with calling the magazine unpatriotic. Sadly, the reactions of Olbermann and Kalb seem to be the norm and prove that most in the media have learned nothing from what Newsweek has done; preferring instead to deflect blame onto the White House of all places. This will happen again. The obstinacy of the MSM guarantees that it will.

Just Who Is The Commando?

2005-05-18T06:54:00.000-07:00

This post is just some housekeeping about the next few days. Our new blog, All Things Conservative, will open for business this Friday. In the meantime, don't expect too much blogging here at SAEN Watch as we are focusing on getting the new site locked and loaded. Not only will we be unveiling the new site, but we will be answering a question which for centuries has stumped some of the best minds ever produced: who is the Alamo City Commando? That's right folks, Kiss took off their makeup, and now by popular demand I, the Alamo City Commando, will reveal my real identity. You'll be able to tell your grandchildren you were there, back in the spring of 2005, when the Alamo City Commando's true identity was unveiled!

--Commando

That's Gratitude For You

2005-05-18T05:23:00.000-07:00

Garfield High School in Seattle is following the example of some colleges and attempting to ban military recruiting from campus:

The school is perhaps one of the first in the nation to debate and vote against military recruiting on high school campuses - a topic already simmering at the college level. In fact, the Supreme Court recently agreed to decide whether the federal government can withhold funds from colleges that bar military recruiters.

The left just loves free speech, as long as they agree with it. Do you think that statement is harsh? Chew on this: big-time lefty Bill Moyers recently said this about all you gullible saps who foolishly watch Fox News, via my good friend at Rhetoric & Rhythm:

Hear me: an unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.”

Let me translate: conservatives are stupid.

Grand Opening Soon!

2005-05-17T14:23:00.000-07:00

We at SAEN Watch are proud to announce that our new site is under construction. We will have new contributors and new topics of discussion. So stop on by All Things Conservative from time to time and watch the birth of a new blog!

Commando

Only women can discuss abortion?

2005-05-17T08:10:00.000-07:00

In an article on the bill passed in the Texas House strengthening constraints on abortion, SAEN writer Lomi Kriel brings up a non sequitur often used by abortion supporters.

The debate, which spanned five hours, saw many parliamentary attempts to block or kill the bill and involved few women. At one point, about a dozen male lawmakers crowded around the dais, discussing one parliamentary move.

First of all, is Ms. Kriel trying to imply that female legislators were denied the right to join in this discussion? If not, as seems obvious, then what exactly is her point regarding the gender of those discussing the bill?

This is clearly an instance of a purported news article containing the ideological opinion of the writer. Is there anyone who doubts Ms. Kriel holds a personal belief in favor of abortion?

Another irrelevant remark:

"Do you know how many gentlemen up there have given birth?" asked Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio.

Fine, Ms. McClendon. The next time a legislature discusses a bill relating to war and combat, we would appreciate it if all the women sit down and shut up. And if we talk about bills to register guns, are only gun owners to be included in the debate?

That would make just as much sense...or nonsense.

Thanks For Proving My Point

2005-05-17T06:44:00.000-07:00

Some of my liberal friends were upset at me yesterday when I made the comment that the Democrats never offer up policy alternatives of their own preferring to offer up only insults. And yesterday, Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler was kind enough to back up my contention(emphasis mine):

Rep. Robert Wexler, Florida Democrat, broke with his party leadership yesterday and introduced a plan to fix Social Security by raising taxes, saying it's time more Democrats join the dialogue by introducing plans of their own.

"I hope mine is the first of several Democratic plans that are offered," Mr. Wexler said. "I believe it's time Democrats offer an alternative to the president."

What is really funny though is that Democrats quickly distanced themselves from the plan:

Mr. Wexler said he talked to Mrs. Pelosi about his plan, and that "it's certainly fair to say Mrs. Pelosi did not encourage me to do this."

"This is not the Democratic plan," said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider. "When the Democratic caucus is ready to put their plan forth, they will."

When a Republican breaks ranks with the party on anything he or she is described as a maverick; an independent voice in a party of yes-men. The media run glowing puff pieces on them, but don't expect any of that for Wexler. In fact, even though this is the first alternative of any kind offered by a Democrat on Social Security, the SAEN doesn't even report it.

Newsweek Blows It, Media Blame White House

2005-05-17T06:23:00.000-07:00

This is so over the top it is almost hard to believe. Here is the opening paragraph of the front page story in today's SAEN about the Newsweek retraction:

Newsweek issued a formal retraction Monday...after the magazine came under increasingly sharp criticism from the White House, State Department and Pentagon.

That's right folks, the story wasn't retracted because it was false, but because the Administration forced it to. By choosing to report the story this way the MSM will only prevent the retraction from being excepted in the Muslim world. As AP is reporting, Pakistan is not accepting the retraction because it believes, and the American media is reporting, that it did so under pressure:

"Whatever magazine has done now is under pressure (from the U.S. government)," he said. "It has not denied what it has reported and many people freed from Guantanamo Bay have narrated the same thing."

You would have a hard time convincing me that the MSM didn't know this would happen when they chose this course of action.

Update:

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC goes one step further than just blaming the White House. He actually calls for the resignation of Scot McClellan because, you see, Newsweek was the victim of a big White House conspiracy:

The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet - or has its proxies do it for them.

That's beyond shameful. It's treasonous.

So Keith says that the White House acted treasonously because Newsweek reported a false story that got people killed. Huh? Only in America, people. Newsweek gets in trouble because it reports a rumor as fact, and Olbermann defends Newsweek with...a rumor.

The only real question left unanswered in my mind is: if photos exist of a Quran in a toilet would they qualify for an NEA grant?

Update #2:

Welcome NRO readers! We welcome comments.

Update #3:

Jonah Goldberg is getting a strong public reaction to Olbermann:

"Wow. I suppose this shouldn't be surprise, but people really dislike the guy. I mean really dislike. Getting lots of (unprintable) email from people who make long -- but expletive laced -- arguments that he's a hack, a moron, a jerk etc. I'd hate paying him the compliment of revealing that some folks care about him so much. It almost makes him sound like a leftwing O'Reilly. Of course, the big difference is that lots of people watch O'Reilly."

If you actually want to read more about Keith then check out Olbermann Watch.

Democrats Suffering From Foot In Mouth

2005-05-16T10:47:00.000-07:00

Who knew that Howard Dean was going to be so much fun as DNC Chairman? In a recent statement he said Tom DeLay needs to spend time in jail for being accused of ethics violations; however, back in 2003 Dean was keen on giving Osama bin Laden the benefit of the doubt. Here is Dean on Osama bin Laden in December of 2003:

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."

And here is Dean on Tom Delay from May 14th of this year:

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Party, said yesterday that the US House majority leader, Tom DeLay, ''ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence," referring to allegations of unethical conduct against the Republican leader.

Get that? If you kill more than 3,000 Americans you get the benefit of the doubt, but if you are accused of violating ethics rules you get to go straight to jail. What is it with Democrats lately? First we have Harry Reid calling the president a loser, now Dean sticks his foot in his mouth about Delay, and we have Reid at it again, revealing that he has seen the FBI files of one of President Bush's judicial nominees:

Minority Leader Harry Reid strayed from his prepared remarks on the Senate floor yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on "a problem" he said is in the nominee's "confidential report from the FBI."

According to the Washington Times story, not only should Reid not be mentioning the FBI files, but he shouldn't have access to them either because he isn't on the judiciary committee or from the nominees home state:

Furthermore, a "Memorandum of Understanding" covering the use of FBI background reports limits access to committee members and the nominee's home-state senators. Mr. Reid would fall into neither category.

Oddly enough, even the nominee is denied access to their FBI files:

Confidants of Judge Saad said yesterday that the judge would release the file but that he has never seen it, let alone obtained copies of it. Judge Saad is not permitted to see the file, Senate staffers said.

So what is missing from all of this incendiary talk? Ideas. The Democrats have no new ideas. Sure they tell us Bush's plan on this or that will destroy the ecosystem of starve old people, and they will tell us that a nominee of the president's is an angry guy or has a "blemish" in their FBI file, but they won't (or can't) propose any new ideas.

Why An Apology Is Not Enough

2005-05-16T09:00:00.000-07:00

Not surprisingly Aljazeera is not reporting that Newsweek has retracted it's false story about the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. Aljazeera did; however, report the initial story. The White House has commented on this story, via Reuters:

The White House said on Monday that a Newsweek report based on an anonymous source had damaged the U.S. image overseas by alleging that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay.

The report sparked violent protests across the Muslim world -- from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan, Indonesia and Gaza. In the past week the reported desecration was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.

McClellan complained that the story was "based on a single anonymous source who could not personally substantiate the allegation that was made."

"The report has had serious consequences," he said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

Newsweek has apologized, but I don't think that will be enough. In fact, it was more of a non-apology apology as Mark points out. As damagaing as the photos from Abu Ghraib were I think this will turn out to be far worse. In their zeal to make the Bush administration and the military look bad Newsweek ran a story that wasn't true, and it got people killed.

And I lament the founding of the PLO

2005-05-16T06:56:00.000-07:00

On page 9A this morning: an AP article, online here, whining about the Palestinians being removed by the UN nearly 60 years ago to make room for the survivors of Europe's holocaust.

The author: "Mohammad Daraghmeh". How's that for journalistic balance and objectivity?

Blacks profiling blacks

2005-05-16T06:32:00.000-07:00

Is it not ironic that in the SAEN's latest "racial profiling" story, the accompanying photos (not online) depict a black police officer "profiling" blacks?

This is an important point. The use of statistics to try to prove the existence of racial profiling leaves out the personal aspect of the charge: those who believe in racial profiling thereby believe that individual police officers deliberately and unfairly accost minority citizens based solely on the color of their skin. They believe, by definition, that our police officers are racists. Is that what our police officers deserve from the community they serve at the daily risk of their lives?

If there are individual police officers who are racist, then deal with them individually. But stop using the myth of racial profiling to taint the entire police department with unsubstantiated, dishonest charges of racism.

Newsweek murders innocent civilians

2005-05-15T14:37:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: It's even worse: the person who desecrated the Koran was not an infidel American...it was a Muslim detainee.

"They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and they cannot confirm yet that there were ever the case of the toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Koran and putting in the toilet to stop it up as a protest," he said. "But not where the U.S. did it."

[End update]

As you probably know, I normally restrain my posts to critique of the Express-News, but this is too disgusting to let go unremarked.

Newsweek magazine on Sunday said it erred in a May 9 report that said U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's latest issue, due to appear on U.S. newsstands on Monday.

Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Koran down the toilet.

Sixteen people were killed in Afghanistan during riots provoked by this slanderous Newsweek article. You will excuse me if I am somewhat less than civil in this post.

As Instapundit notes, "People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because -- let's be clear here -- Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad."

For once, I must say to those who, against all evidence, maintain the media is not biased against Bush: Kiss. My. Ass. To paraphrase the mindless idiotarian mantra: "Newsweek lied, people died." All just so Newsweek could try to discredit the War on Terrorism.

Newsweek has an accomplice in the murders...a foolish "human rights" lawyer credulous enough to believe his terrorist clients in Guantanamo.

Human rights lawyer Tom Wilner, who represents several Kuwaiti prisoners at Guantanamo, said in February that his clients told him their Korans were thrown on the floor, stepped on and thrown into toilets at Guantanamo.

Liar. Traitorous lying lawyer.

And here is the "vigorously critical free press" we keep hearing about:

The magazine said other news organizations had already aired charges of Koran desecration based "only on the testimony of detainees."

Based only on the testimony of detainees. They don't believe anything their own government tells them, but they believe everything terrorist detainees tell them.

That pretty much sums up today's "vigorously critical free press."

The only bright side is that now, hopefully, no matter WHAT horrible things are alleged to occur at Guantanamo, no one will believe it. We might even save on a few airline tickets.

The Press Should Be Embarrassed

2005-05-13T18:15:00.000-07:00

On page 4A of today's SAEN is a story about the nomination of John Bolton being voted out of committee, without recommendation. Considering that just a few weeks ago the media were saying the Bolton's nomination was on the verge of dying this has to be good news, right? Ha, don't bet on it:

The procedural move spared Bush outright defeat in the Republican-led panel but still represented an embarrassing set-back early in his second term.

Let' forget for the moment that calling the vote an "embarrassing set-back" is the reporter's opinion and does not belong in a news story. The fact is Bush won; no defeat and no embarrassment. The Bolton nomination will go to the floor and he will be confirmed, something left out of the SAEN's version of the story, but in the original:

It was not clear when Bolton's nomination would come to the Senate floor. Republicans hold a 55-44 majority, making confirmation likely.

In fact, considering everything the media and Senate Democrats did do torpedo the nomination I think you can say this is a win, albeit an ugly one, but a win nonetheless. Based on the way this story has been covered, the media are the ones who should be embarrassed.

An Iraqi Speaks The Truth

2005-05-13T17:56:00.000-07:00

Words the left and the media in this country should take to heart, from Husayn at Democracy in Iraq(is here!) blog:

So you ask me, Husayn, was it worth it. What have you gotten? What has Iraq achieved? These are questions I get a lot.

To may outsiders, like those who protested last year, who will protest today. This was a fools errand, it brought nothing but death and destruction. I am sheltered in Iraq, but I know how the world feels, how people have come to either love or hate Bush, as though he's the embodiment of this war. As though this war is part of Bush, they forget the over twenty million Iraqis, they forget the Middle Easterners, they forget the average person on the street, the average man with the average dream.

Ask him if it was worth it. Ask him what is different. Ask him if he would go through it again, go ahead ask him, ask me, many of you have.

Now I answer you, I answer you on behalf of myself, and my countrymen. I don't care what your news tells you, what your television and newspapers say, this is how we feel. Despite all that has happened. Despite all the hurt, the pain, blood, sweat and tears. These two years have given us hope we never had.
Before March 20, 2003, we were in a dungeon. We did not see the light. Saddam Hussein was crushing Iraq's spirit slowly, we longed for his end, but knew we could not challenge him, or his diabolical seed who would no doubt follow him and continue his generation of hell on Earth.

Since then, we now have hope. Hope is not a tangible thing, but it is something, it is more than being blinded by darkness, by being stuck in a mental pit without any future.

Hope has been the greatest product of the last two years. No doubt, many have died, many have died by accident or due to crimes. But their sacrifices are not, and will not be for nothing. I refuse to let it be, and my countrymen stand with me.

Our cities are smoking, our graveyards full, and terrorists in our midst. But we are not defeated. We are not down, we are not regretful. We are not going to surrender. For all that the two years have brought, the greatest thing they have given us is a future, and a view of the finish line[emphasis mine].

***

And be sure you check out Arthur Chrenkoff's chart of good news from Iraq for the month of April that appeared in today's NY Times (hat tip: Mike Thomas!).

A New Script For Michael Moore

2005-05-13T17:39:00.000-07:00

Looks like Michael Moore will have a new script to work with soon:

Ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has decided to write his memoirs from an Iraqi jail where he is awaiting trial for more than 20 years of abuses, a British newspaper reported, quoting one of his lawyers.

Giovanni di Stefano, a member of Hussein's legal team, said Saddam decided recently to start writing about his childhood in Iraq, his early exile to Egypt and his military adventures in Iran and Kuwait, the Financial Times reported.

He will try to embarrass the great powers that once saw him as a useful buffer against the expansionist ambitions of Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution, di Stefano was quoted as saying.

If anyone can help Saddam "embarrass" the great powers and turn him into a victim it's Michael Moore:

To describe this film (Farenhiet 9/11) as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Or maybe this director is the best guy for the job since he has experience sugar-coating the life of a brutal, murderous thug.

Friday Funnies

2005-05-13T10:09:00.000-07:00

It is Friday so how about a few laughs? Mucho thanks to Bountyhunter for this picture.

The Tyranny Of Academic Freedom

2005-05-13T00:09:00.000-07:00

Back on April 8 Dr. Mansour El-Kikhia wrote about the repression in academia of those who are suspected of not supporting Israel (see previous comments about this column here):

A move to muzzle academics is well under way. Tenure, the only barrier preventing recrimination against faculty who teach and express their views on controversial issues, is also under attack.

The purpose of this insidious movement is clear:

One of the revisions mandates that in the classroom, faculty members are "expected not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter that has no relation to his or her subject."

This isn't quite the gag that El-Kikhia makes it out to be. This is an excerpt from as American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statement on controversy in the classroom:

Controversy is often at the heart of instruction; good teaching is often served by referring to contemporary controversies even if only to stimulate student interest and debate. If these watchdogs have their way, a professor of classics, history, ethics, or even museum administration could make no reference to the Iraq conflict or to George Bush—in their courses on the Roman Empire, colonialism, the morality of war, or trade in the artifacts of ancient civilizations—because the "subject" of these courses is not this war or this president.

Far from banning controversial subject matter in the classroom, this statement makes it clear that the AAUP believes that controversy is an important element of an education even if the subject has nothing to do with the class being taught. Furthermore, El-Kikhia feels that those who voice opposition to Israel are being targeted by the new rules:

Middle Eastern scholars are finding it very difficult to teach, write or lecture on U.S. foreign policy or Israeli politics. They are accused by those on the extreme right of "anti-Americanism" for criticizing U.S. foreign policy and by the supporters of Israel with "anti-Semitism" for criticizing Israel.

Honestly people, does anyone believe that El-Kikhia has changed the content of the courses he teaches simply because he believes the "extreme right" doesn't approve? Sorry, but I don't buy it for a second. The results of this jihad against free speech; nothing:

An independent university committee set up to investigate the charges against the four professors exonerated three of them of wrongdoing and found no evidence of any of the charges leveled against them. The committee found the fourth guilty of one instance of "inappropriate conduct." He is disputing the report. The committee also accused the small but vocal supporters of Israel with lack of civility and disruption of classes.

The reality of course is far different (as any of El-Kikhia's former students like me can attest) as Tom Friedman recently said:

In the West [the absence of democracy in the Middle East] was avoided because a toxic political correctness infected the academic field of Middle Eastern studies - to such a degree that anyone focusing on the absence of freedom in the Arab world ran the risk of being labeled an "Orientalist" or an "essentialist."

Well, more info has come to light about this horrible situation in academia since my original post, and El-Kikhia was right, there is repression of certain ideas in the hallowed halls of our universities, but it is directed at those scholars foolish enough to support Israel and it is happening right now in Britain where hatred of Israel has been intitutionalized. Can the American university system be far behind? Via The Guardian:

The Association of University Teachers today voted to boycott two Israeli universities over their failure to speak out against their government.

Delegates at a conference in Eastbourne voted, against the wishes of the executive, for an immediate boycott of Haifa University, which they accuse of restricting the academic freedom of staff members who are critical of the government, and of Bar Ilans University, which has a college in the disputed settlement Ariel.

The boycott, which is now official union policy, will follow a plan prescribed by a group of 60 Palestinian academic and cultural bodies and non-governmental organisations, which calls for British academics to severe links with Israeli institutions but to exempt Israelis who speak out against their government's policies towards the Palestinians.

This sounds far more insidious than the consequence-free "repression" that has El-Kikhia so worked up. It is almost hard to believe that two Israeli universities are being boycotted for not speaking out against...wait for it...Israel! In approving the boycott the Association of University Teachers are doing the bidding of their Palestinian masters:

Council delegates also agreed to circulate to all local associations a statement from Palestinian organisations calling for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions.

Interestingly, the boycott isn't just against Israeli academics in general, but applies only to those who support their government:

There is yet another twist to this resuscitated campaign. For the boycott would not be extended to all Israeli academics -- only to those who refuse to denounce their government's policies in the occupied territories. The motion would generously exclude "conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies"[emphasis mine].

This requirement to denounce Israel as the price of continued social acceptance is doubly disgusting. First, it is of course a monstrous inversion which turns Israel, the victim of unbroken annihilatory Arab terror for the past half century, into the regional bully while sanitising Palestinian aggression.

Second, it represents a profound betrayal of the cardinal principle of intellectual endeavour, which is freedom of speech and debate. If anyone had ever told British academics that there would come a time when they would punish colleagues because of the views they held, and would treat them as pariahs and try to destroy their livelihoods in order to intimidate others into toeing the sole approved political line, they would have been incredulous. In the western tradition the universities are, after all, the historic custodians of free intellectual inquiry and open debate. Censorship, suppression of ideas and intellectual intimidation are associated with totalitarian regimes which attempt to coerce people into the approved way of thinking.

Did you get that? If you aren't a supporter of the colonial and racist Israeli state then you are generously excluded from the boycott. How wonderful! I guess free speech doesn't apply to Israelis. And as this letter to the AUT from the University of Haifa shows, Arab professors are also being hurt by the boycott:

The University of Haifa is saddened and not a little outraged by the utterly unjust and unjustifiable decision of the AUT and by its attempt to erect barriers and obstruct the flow of ideas within the international academic community.

In lieu of evidence to support the singling out of Israeli academia, the authors of this campaign have chosen to adopt a three-year old urban legend. We are astounded by the fact that the AUT never requested our response prior to adopting their resolution, and did not allow our position to be presented by members of the AUT who are familiar with the facts. The case against Israeli academia, in general, and the University of Haifa in particular, is devoid of empirical evidence and violates the principle of due process. Driven by a prior and prejudicial assumption of guilt, the AUT has refused to confuse itself with facts.

The silence of the American Association of University Professors in deafening. According to their academic freedom "Alert" page this boycott never happened. In fact, the AAUP and their British couterparts in the AUT have a "Reciprocating Agreement" regarding teaching privileges. Want more proof that the AAUP is sitting on it's hands? The Scholars at Risk Network recently held a conference to discuss the protection of academic freedom, and you will note no mention of the boycott against Israel is made:

Scholars at Risk held its network meeting and conference themed "Global Strategies for Defending Academic Freedom" on April 28-29th at New York University. More than 80 faculty, administrators, human rights advocates, higher education experts and other guests participated in the two-day event, including scholars from Belarus, Iran, Liberia, Pakistan, Rwanda, Ukraine, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

So what does all of this have to do with the San Antonio Express-News? Well, first and foremost, if the SAEN editorial board wants to let Dr. El-Kikhia use his weekly column as a soap box to whine about his personal life they can, but they should insist that he get his facts straight. Secondly, I bet most of you never heard about the AUT boycott before today, and it seems to me that the SAEN could have put a few sentences in somewhere to report that this boycott against free speech was occurring. And finally, very soon SAEN Watch will be growing into something bigger and better. Our new blog will cover everything from politics to the culture wars to topics like this, academic freedom and the move to muzzle support for Israel. You can expect a formal announcement soon, but don't you worry, pointing out the liberal bias of the Express-News will still be a big part of what we do.

"The time has come for someone to put their foot down on liberalism. That foot is us." --Alamo City Commando(not really)

Update

As Gregg's comment points out the AAUP issued a statement calling for a repeal of the boycott. In fairness to me the statement went out on May 3rd, over 3 weeks after I started this commentary. That said, in my mind it changes nothing. So they issued a statement...wow. That is what they call "passive" action. They have not severed links with the AUT until the boycott is repealed. Moreover, the statement makes it clear that the repression that El-Kikhia talks about won't be tolerated by the AAUP:

Excluded from the ban are "conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies," an exclusion which, because it requires compliance with a political or ideological test in order for an academic relationship to continue, deepens the injury to academic freedom rather than mitigates it.

My amazement that something like this can even become reality, and the subject matter it references still holds. The recent conference held by the Scholars at Risk Network that I reference above makes no mention of the boycott. The boycott was approved almost a week before the Risk Network's conference, and they ignored it. So the AAUP issues a statement and that is it; they washed their hands of the entire incident after issuing their statement. That said, my thanks to Gregg for pointing out the existence of the statement.

Condi On 2nd Amendment

2005-05-12T11:59:00.000-07:00

I figure I have posted enough controversial stuff for the week; ticked off/alienated enough people so how about a harmless story about Condi Rice? Secretary of State Condi Rice explains why we need a Second Amendment:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.

In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.

Any liberals want to argue with her?

Does SAEN even "cair" about the truth?

2005-05-12T11:57:00.000-07:00

A new low, even for the San Antonio Expressed-Views: an article mindlessly regurgitating propaganda from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); claiming, in essence, that Muslims in America are now afraid to come out of their homes because of all us vicious, hate-filled American bigots.

The article is presented without any sort of critical assessment of the source whatsoever. It goes without saying that any counter argument to the outrageous claims made by CAIR is absent.

Let's start with CAIR. Rather than spend an hour linking all of the documented instances of CAIR's fraudulent hate crime claims and their shameless suppression of any criticism of Islam whatsoever, it's better to just Google up "CAIR jihad". The resulting plethora of documentation of CAIR's bias and support of terrorist organizations should make it obvious that SAEN writer Lisa Marie Gómez is either consciously acting as their spokesman or she has no access to the Internet.

Check out some of those links and then return to the SAEN article, where they describe CAIR:

CAIR is a non-profit civil rights and advocacy organization aimed at enhancing a general understanding of the Islamic perspective on issues to the American public.

Well, the SAEN certainly got that "Islamic perspective" part right!

Now that we've established the lack of credibility for CAIR, what about the claims in the article?

the number of reported cases last year spiked to 1,522 — a 49 percent increase over 2003. In 2002, 602 cases were reported... The report documented 141 instances of violence last year...compared to 93 cases in 2003 and 42 in 2002.

Statistics alert! "Reported cases"? 1,522 of them...but only 141 instances of violence. I suppose the other 1,381 reports were of non-Muslims cutting them off in traffic or something? Giving them a weird look on the street? Or, perhaps the 90% of reports which were nonviolent included a few of the fraudulent hate crimes so often claimed by groups such as CAIR?

There is an even bigger problem with the numbers themselves. According to the FBI's most recent (2003) hate crimes statistics,

The number of reported anti-Islamic crimes decreased from 155 in 2002 to 149 in 2003, a decrease of 0.4%.

So the numbers from CAIR are going up, and the numbers from the FBI are going down. Which do you believe? Before answering, be sure to check out the convenient online Hate Crime incident submission available at the CAIR web site.

The numbers spouted by CAIR and accepted by the SAEN in this article are about as valid as an online opinion poll. If the Express-News is going to paint their fellow Americans as ugly hate-filled bigots, can they at least get their numbers from a credible source?

Both Parties Guilty On Deficit

2005-05-12T05:27:00.000-07:00

How many times have we heard a Democrat blame the president or the Republicans for the deficit? The fact is both parties are responsible for deficit spending, and the ensuing national debt, as a story on page 8A of today's SAEN shows. Yesterday the Senate held a vote on a six-year highway and mass transit funding bill. At issue was a ceiling set by the White House for the bill, amounting to $284 billion. The president has promised to veto any bill over that amount. As the vote shows, both Democrats and Republicans voted to defeat any attempt to decrease the bill's funding:

The Senate voted 76-22 Wednesday to defeat an attempt to rule that the $295 billion bill added to the federal deficit and thus violated budget rules.

This is not a "gotcha" post. Personally, I think the current deficit levels are irresponsible, but just as irresponsible are the claims by some that only Republicans are to blame. If the left won't hold the Democrats responsible for their actions regarding spending then the Democrats have no reason to stop spending. Can anyone on the left actually throw partisanship aside and condemn the vote of Democrats yesterday?

Another Day, More Dismal Iraq Coverage

2005-05-12T05:06:00.000-07:00

Here is the above the fold headline for the SAEN's Iraq coverage today" "Iraq violence seems to have no end." Ah, nothing like a little editorializing passed off as news to really get the juices flowing! What I really found interesting about the story that follow (and continues on 7A) is that it barely touches on Operation Matador. Isn't that odd that the story drones on and on about what the terrorists have done, but pretty much ignores what our Marines our doing? So I feel it is my duty to direct my readers to some of the best info on the web about Operation Matador. You can find it over at Bill Roggio's The Fourth Rail. Bill is writing some of the best reports and commentary around about the a**-kicking we are giving the terrorists along the Syrian border. So what is Operation Matador? I am glad you asked:

The Coalition effort to interdict, deny and destroy the insurgent's capabilities in the Western regions of Iraq bordering Syria is dubbed Operation Matador. Colonel Bob Chase, the chief of operations for the Second Marine Division, reports that insurgents are standing their ground and fighting, and all the better:
"When we get there, they are deciding to fight, and as such they are dying." As marines we'd rather engage them that way than through an I.E.D. The enemy honestly felt that they had a sense of security up there. It had been a safe haven, and a lot of folks up there were former Baathists. Now it is no longer a safe haven, and it will never be a safe haven again. We are going to continue this for a number of days. The objective is to totally disrupt the safe havens and rat lines that have allowed them to bring those materials across the border. This had been a very secure area for the insurgents."

The importance of these enemy strongholds leaves the insurgents little choice but to stand and fight, as this is the rear area and critical supply line of the insurgency, without which their effectiveness would be diminished.

Operation Matador in the Western desert is the natural progression of operations designed to sweep through Iraq to engage the insurgency region by region. The operations began late last summer in the Southern Shiites areas surrounding Najaf, then moved to Fallujah and the Sunni Triangle in the fall, and to Mosul in the North, the Triangle of Death south of Baghdad and along the Euphrates River west of Baghdad throughout the winter.

Here is an excerpt from the May 11th update on Matador:

The Marines are methodically pushing westward, conducting detailed searches in the towns along the Euphrates. The Marines are driving the insurgents and terrorists towards the blocking force of the Marines in the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Regiment in Qaim and the platoon(s) providing over watch along the ridge overlooking Rabit. Col. Bob Chase reports the local population is proving helpful; "We are getting a lot of information from the locals in the area and a very positive reception. They are giving up locations of where these people are hiding out, and each one drives another operation."

Notice that local Iraqis are providing information to our troops. Also, many of the terrorists being killed aren't even Iraqis:

Davis said his assessment was based on the examination of dead insurgents as well as the interrogations of captured fighters. Some, he said, wore white clothes favored by Yemeni or Saudi men, contrasted with the colorful garb favored by local Iraqis. One dead man wore a beard trimmed in a manner common to Saudi Arabia, compared to the Saddam Hussein-style mustaches seen among Iraqis.

During interrogations, many prisoners speak with foreign accents or use foreign phrases, said an interpreter who asked not to be identified. And some prisoners "just flat out admit" that they were from other countries, Davis said, without identifying the countries.

Qaim is considered to be the backbone of the terrorists infrastructure in Iraq, but apparently that isn't very important to the editors at the SAEN:

Military officials think that foreign fighters have been using the region as a sanctuary on their way from the porous Syrian border to cities such as Mosul, Ramadi and Baghdad, where they have carried out kidnappings, assassinations and suicide bombings aimed at destabilizing Iraq's nascent government.

Some U.S. commanders believe the area contains insurgent training camps and high-ranking members of the Iraq arm of the Al Qaeda terrorist network, including its leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi. As of early today, no camps or Al Qaeda leaders had been found.

Please visit The Fourth Rail for more information on Operation Matador. Information the SAEN won't report.

Update:

Mike Thomas writes the following comment to this post:

Sorry, but the news sounds pretty dismal to me. And never ending.

Mike has unwittingly bolstered my argument that the SAEN's coverage of Iraq is just short of criminal. Bob Rivard has forced his paper to color the news from Iraq to conform to his personal views about the situation. I don't know if he just doesn't like President Bush or doesn't believe freedom in the Middle East is worth fighting for, or both, but he has forsaken his journalistic integrity in pursuit of partisan goals, and he is dragging everyone at the paper down with him. So, Mike, this is just for you. When you get done reading all the links I am supplying, come back here and tell me you honestly don't think progress is being made in Iraq and that the SAEN's biased coverage of Iraq is justified. If you can honestly tell me that nothing good happens in Iraq then go for it. Please follow these links to Arthur Chrenkoff's "Good News from Iraq" series:
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7
part 8
part 9
part 10
part 11
part 12
part 13
part 14
part 15
part 16
part 17
part 18
part 19
part 20
part 21
part 22
part 23
I have never said that there aren't bad things happening in Iraq, and the SAEN should report them. What I have said, and proven, is that there are good things going on in Iraq and the SAEN should, but won't report them, and anybody who can't admit that positive things are happening in Iraq isn't being honest. It's that simple.

You can read about the hope that Iraqis have for their country over at Free Iraqi. Somehow I am guessing he knows more about it than us.

Alamo City Blogfest 2005

2005-05-11T17:47:00.000-07:00

Attention all San Antonio bloggers: on June 25th we will be holding a politics-free BBQ for all local bloggers. You can get more info at the Ranten N. Raven's blog, View from the Nest, you just have to scroll down the page. Please spread the word, and if you have a local blog, but don't see it listed in the link section of SAEN Watch, please e-mail me and let me know so that I can add it. And mucho thanks to the Mighty Raven for organizing this shindig.

Thanks,

--Commando

The Liberal Bias Of Your...Thesaurus!

2005-05-11T06:43:00.000-07:00

Parrot Check has an excellent discussion of the liberal bias of Roget's Thesaurus. If you don't believe it check it out for yourself.

SAEN Won't Report Reid Story

2005-05-11T05:35:00.000-07:00

Despite appearing on the SAEN's website, the story about Senator Reid's ill-advised words has failed to make the cut into the print edition:

After accusing President Bush of lying about his role in a fight over judicial filibusters, Sen. Harry Reid last week called the president a "loser." And Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan? He's a "political hack," according to the formerly soft-spoken Nevada Democrat.

Reid returned to the Senate floor Monday with a more conciliatory tone and what he called "a gesture of goodwill," calling for the first time for the confirmation of one of Bush's appeals court nominees that Democrats blocked in the last Congress.

"Let's try cooperation, rather than confrontation," Reid said on the Senate floor. "I would hope that we can let bygones be bygones."

Commando: "Gee, could there be any reason the SAEN wouldn't want to report this?

You: "Gosh, maybe if Reid was Tom DeLay they'd run with it."

Commando: "Yep, that sounds about right."

Update:

Mike Thomas asks what stories should the SAEN taken out of the A section of the paper in order to make room for this important story. First let me just say: "Geesh Mike, you don't have to be so mean about it. All you have to do is ask." Second, here are my picks for stories that don't need to be in the front page section of today's paper:

1. On page 4A of today's paper is yet another update about the Michael Jackson trial. I am not sure that this belongs in the paper at all, but perhaps they could move it to the S.A. Life section of the paper where it belongs.

2. The next story that can be cut from the A section of today's paper is on page 10A "Spamalot spoof takes the cake on Tony nominations." Again, perhaps this more properly belongs in the SA Life.

Satisfied?

SAEN Won't Report Both Sides Of Filibuster Debate

2005-05-11T04:05:00.000-07:00

Mark has already addressed the ridiculous illustration on page 3A of Tuesday's SAEN so now I want to address the article that accompanies it by SAEN reporter Gary Martin. The article is about the fight over judicial nominations and the filibuster. Much of the article is spent talking about Priscilla Owens:

Owen was nominated by Bush to serve on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Her nomination was blocked in the 108th Congress when Republicans were unable to end a Democratic filibuster.

Earlier this year, Bush again nominated Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice and Austin Sunday school teacher.

Mr. Martin spends much of the remainder of his report telling us how bad Democrats and various interest groups think Ms. Owens is. A quote from Senator Schumer:

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said "there is no question that when you look up judicial activist in the dictionary, you see a picture of Priscilla Owen."

She must be an extremist, she teaches Sunday school! Next we get a quote from Texans for Public Justice:

"The opposition to Owen came straight out of the heart of Texas," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice.

McDonald said Owen is "uniquely extreme and uniquely activist" in her opinions that favor big business and anti-abortion and anti-consumer ideologies.

Owen has a penchant to write law from the bench, McDonald charged, "usually on behalf of the powerful and at the expense of the powerless."

Hmmm, still no quotes in support of Ms. Owens. Texans for Public Justice bills itself as non-partisan, but one look at their web site and you can see just how silly that claim is. Among the typical rants about Halliburton and big money donors to Bush (and only Bush, so much for non-partisan) is this quote about Owens:

But the recent nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals better echoes Bush's statement on the campaign-trail that his favorite jurists are right-wing Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Next Mr. Martin tells us that Texans for Public Justice are working with the Texas Abortion Rights Action League (TARAL) in opposing Owens:

Texans for Public Justice and the Texas Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League took part in a news conference to draw attention to Owen's judicial rulings.

I don't think I even have to go to the TARAL web site to prove what side of the aisle they are on, but I will, for your sake. TARAL wants you to oppose a change in Senate rules to end the filibuster against judicial nominees because:

This abuse of power clears the deck for President Bush's ideologically out-of-touch nominees.

Another liberal group and still nothing in support of Ms. Owens. So what is the truth, is Owens an extremist? Do her rulings show her to be "Anti-abortion" as so many claim? Would it surprise you if I told you no? Here is what Powerline had to say about her dissent in In re Jane Doe:

Justice Owen's dissent was quite different. What she objected to was the majority's failure to follow the elementary rules of appellate practice. Appellate courts do not conduct de novo fact finding. They accept the facts as found by the trial court, assuming that there is evidence in the record to support them. Owen's complaint was that the majority disregarded the trial court's express and implied findings of fact, even though those findings were supported in the record. She wrote:

The question in this case is not whether the Court would have ruled differently when confronted with all the evidence that the trial court heard. The question is whether legally sufficient evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The answer to this latter question is yes. Longstanding principles of appellate review and our Texas Constitution do not permit this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court or to ignore the evidence, as it has done.

Justice Owen's dissent also criticized what she considered the undue and unnecessary haste with which the Supreme Court acted. However, unlike Justices Hecht and Abbott, Owen did not address issues of statutory interpretation, and said nothing about bypasses being "rare" or about the burden of proof to which they are subject. Thus, on its face, Gonzales' criticism of "judicial activism" did not apply to Owen's dissent.

More importantly, no one trained in the law would argue that the principles relied on by Justice Owen constitute "judicial activism." On the contrary, showing appropriate deference to the fact findings done by the trial court is fundamental to the appellate process and is a basic component of judicial restraint, not judicial activism. It is deeply ironic that the one case relied on by Justice Owen's critics for the proposition that she is an "activist" is a case in which she voted to affirm the trial court and the Texas Court of Appeals, and deferred to the fact findings made by the trial court.

It is hard to be balanced when you only report the objections of the opposition and fail to include any statements in support from the Republicans. I don't mind having a debate about this Mr. Martin, but let's have a fair one and hear both sides. Is that asking too much?

Note to the SAEN: I'd be happy to put together a report on the fight over filibusters in the Senate that discusses both sides of the issue, fairly, and I won't even charge you for it!

Good News From Iraq

2005-05-10T13:42:00.000-07:00

The good news from Iraq continues to come, and continues to be ignored by the S.A. Express-News:

"Iraqi Arab Sunnis head towards Army enlisting posts in spite of explosions"

After the Iraqi government confirmed the appointment of a Sunni in the position of defense minister. Iraqi Arab Sunnis started heading for the army enlisting centers to join the new Iraqi Army. This was evident by the long lines and large crowds of young men outside these centers in the largely Sunni area of Baghdad. This is the main reason for the increase in the terrorist activities in and around these centers.

The high unemployment amongst the Sunnis is due to non-participation in the electoral and governmental process. This is due to their religious leaders forbidding them from joining the government and the security forces in the past. This situation has now changed. We witnessed thousands of Iraqi Arab Sunnis coming from different provinces to military enlisting station in Baghdad.

The editors of the SAEN continue to ignore reality, why?

Case Dismissed!

2005-05-10T11:10:00.000-07:00

A U.S. District Court of Appeals has dismissed the case against V.P. Cheney brought by the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch regarding records pertaining to meetings of the National Energy Policy Development Group. Here is how Shannen Coffin describes what happened:

In its decision today in In re Cheney, the entire D.C. Circuit concluded that "severe separation-of-powers" problems prevented the court from applying the Federal Advisory Committee Act to require the Vice President to disclose the details of his meetings within and without the government in formulating the President's 2001 National Energy Policy (still not enacted into law, by the way). This was a case that a host of highly talented government lawyers sweated blood for over a period of three years and did a marvelous job. From the outset, it was a specious lawsuit brought for political purposes, and it finally dies a well deserved death.

You can read the entire decision here.

SAEN publishes editorial cartoon...on page 3A

2005-05-10T08:07:00.000-07:00

Not, online, so far as I can find, but on today's page 3A - the purported "news" section - an amazing graphic accompanies an article on the judicial filibuster situation.

It shows drawings of the seven judges being filibustered (can you tell Janice Rogers Brown is black?). The text under each judge provides the Democrats' rationale for opposing their nomination to the bench.

That's all.

No rebuttal. No response to the partisan assertions of Harry "Bush is a loser" Reid and friends. Not even a reminder that each of the judges has been deemed fully qualified by the American Bar Association.

There are times when the liberal bias of the SAEN is so transparent as to leave me slack-jawed. This is one of those times.

Surprise: Dowd gets it backward

2005-05-10T07:59:00.000-07:00

This was covered in an earlier post, but rather than get lost in the evolution debate in the comment thread, I thought I would post it here.

Maureen Dowd, the poster child for Cafeteria Catholics, in her latest rant against religion states:

But exploiting God for political ends has set off powerful, scary forces in America:...fights over sex education, even in the blue states and blue suburbs of Maryland

If you are not familiar with Dowd's technique of deliberate distortion, you would assume that some conservatives in Maryland were violating the secular idol of church/state separation by opposing sex education or something. In fact, as Constitutional Law professor Eugene Volokh points out, the opposite is true: liberals are using public schools to endorse certain religious teachings on homosexuality, to the exclusion of others. In extolling a judicial decision that, amazingly enough, thwarted the liberals, Volokh explains:

This material, which the school would apparently be conveying as its own views,

1. Describes one interpretation of the Bible as "myth."

2. Suggests that the most important question in interpreting the Bible is what Jesus said, and that the Bible's use of "abomination" in different contexts should lead us to think that the items thus labeled are morally equivalent — not implausible claims about Scriptural interpretation, but nonetheless claims about Scriptural interpretation.

3. Implicitly — but I think quite strongly — suggests a particular reading of the Bible is theologically correct.

4. Condemns particular religious groups by name, not just as part of a discussion of history, but in an attempt to discredit the present religious teachings of at least some religious groups (quite possibly the same ones).

5. Specifically praises by name certain denominations — again, not just in a context which seems to be describing the facts, but one which suggests that their theology is more sound.

So, it seems that religion in public schools is perfectly fine with hypocritical liberals...as long as the religion discussed is in lockstep with their own ideology. "Scary forces", indeed.

Dirty Politics

2005-05-10T07:01:00.000-07:00

The Democrats love to say that Republicans are mean-spirited, and the press is more than happy to pass this along to the public. The next time you hear that Republicans are mean-spirited remember this:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush "a loser" during a civics discussion with a group of teenagers at a high school on Friday.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president's policies. "I think this guy is a loser."

Shortly after the event Reid called the White House to apologize, his spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. Reid spoke with Bush adviser Karl Rove, asking him to convey the apology to Bush, who was traveling in Europe.

Talk about spineless! Reid talks tough about the president, but the president just happened to be out of the country at the time. And when he apologizes he does not even have the guts to call President Bush personally, but calls his aid and asks him to tell him he is sorry.

The U.S. Is Loved By The Right People

2005-05-10T06:38:00.000-07:00

President Bush waves to the crowd at a speech in Tbilisi, Georgia. How many times have we heard the left tell us that we are hated around the world? The truth is that countries who experienced the horror of Soviet Occupation know that freedom is worth fighting for. And then you have lazy appeasers like France and Germany who might just hate us, but then who cares what they think? I would take the support of one freedom-loving country like Georgia over the support of 100 Frances. The media tries to drum it into our heads that everyone hates us. Don't believe them. Our allies in the war on terror prove that we are in the right.

Darn Those Dirty Insurgents

2005-05-10T05:20:00.000-07:00

We probably all know about the new offensive against terrorists in Iraq that our butt-kicking Marines have undertaken near the small city of Qaim, and you can read all about it on page 4A of today's SAEN. Here we have a bunch of bad guys from other countries, who terrorize the civilian population and don't mind killing civilians during their attacks, and the SAEN calls them "insurgents." The "t" word is used in the first paragraph, but only because that is who the U.S. Military said they were going after. The story, compiled from wire reports, kindly informs is that the Muslim Scholars Association (MSA) is ticked off about the offensive, calling it "American state-sponsored terrorism..." Oh wait, there is the word "terrorist" a second time, only the Express-News is using it to describe our soldiers. You know, debate if fine, we can disagree on Iraq, but putting a quote from the MSA into this story is obnoxious and cowardly. The editors want you to feel ashamed at what we are doing in Iraq. They don't think that Iraqis deserve our help in being free. Don't fall for it. The men and women of our armed forces have earned our support and our prayers, and they are doing wonderful things in Iraq. Why is that so hard for the editors over at the SAEN to understand?

Suckers!

2005-05-10T05:10:00.000-07:00

Here is what passes for intelligent commentary these days on the SAEN op/ed pages, and the worst of it is that they paid for it, via the always hysterical, never intelligent Maureen Dowd:

But exploiting God for political ends has set off powerful, scary forces in America: a retreat on teaching evolution, most recently in Kansas; fights over sex education, even in the blue states and blue suburbs of Maryland; a demonizing of gays; and a fear of stem cell research, which could lead to more of a "culture of life" than keeping one vegetative woman hooked up to a feeding tube.

Even as scientists issue rules on chimeras in labs, a spine-tingling he-monster with the power to drag us back into the pre-Darwinian dark ages is slouching around Washington. It's a fire-breathing creature with the head of W., the body of Bill Frist and the serpent tail of Tom DeLay.

This has nothing to do with the point I am making really, but do you notice that Dowd fails to point out the evolution is still a theory? That's right, it is an unproven theory (missing link anyone?) and yet the left expects us to teach it in schools as if it is a fact. Interesting mention of Terry Schiavo there at the end; who's using her for politics now Ms. Dowd?

Now back to my point: in a perfect world the SAEN editorial board would consider giving Dowd's space over to a columnist who actually adds to the national debate.

Rivard: Anyone opposed to Castro is racist

2005-05-08T08:14:00.000-07:00

I don't presume to have any special aptitude for local political analysis. But I will say that Carroll Schubert failed miserably. In the election, Schubert was far and away the only mayoral candidate to have any sort of credibility in regard to fiscal constraint. An anti-tax proposal passed by an astonishing 82%, yet Schubert was unable, somehow, to convince those voting in favor of that proposal that he was the best candidate for fiscal responsibility at City Hall. Pathetic.

So now we face a runoff featuring an immature creature of the unions and social activists against an elderly personal injury lawyer...both of them long time, hard core Democrats.

Thank God for term limits.

This morning's SAEN coverage would not have been complete without an offensive swipe from Bob Rivard.

Throughout the campaign there was talk in the Anglo community about how important it was to avoid another young Hispanic mayor, as if it were a new flu strain. There have been plenty of Anglo officeholders who came up short, yet who ever argues that the city needs to avoid electing another Anglo?

This claim that Anglos who opposed Castro are racists is as ignorant as it is insulting. The operative term is "young". If there had been a succession of young Anglo failures as mayors, as there has been with Cisneros and Garza, the same opposition would have developed against the possibility of yet another immature mayor. Similarly, if a young Anglo had been running for mayor, the same "Anglo community" would have been just as concerned with that candidate as they were with Castro.

Rivard's racemongering is contemptible. To imagine that such a person is the editor of the only major newspaper in San Antonio...

That depends on the definition of "illegal"...

2005-05-06T11:27:00.000-07:00

In its latest Minuteman-bashing news article, the SAEN engages in unbounded fear-mongering...all while insisting that the Minuteman Project volunteers are the real fear-mongers.

The headline? "Minutemen bordering on chaos". First of all, they have to try to delegitimize the movement by pointing to some internal discord over its direction...as if that is unusual in this sort of ad hoc, volunteer organization. Been to a PTA meeting lately, Hernán Rozemberg?

"Hundreds, possibly thousands, of activists..." Goodness, if we don't stop this scary movement, there may be as many of them on the border as there are illegal aliens!

"civil rights groups pledged to continue monitoring the activities for possible legal violations." Psst, civil rights groups! You want to see "possible legal violations"? Check out these illegal aliens jumping the border!

"The Border Patrol remains steadfast in its disapproval of civilian border patrols." Hmmm. The apparent corruption and bureaucratic incompetence of the Border Patrol has been proved by our porous border with Mexico. Is it any wonder that they disapprove of citizens becoming so enraged at this that they volunteer to do the job themselves? Especially when the volunteers do a better job of it than the well-paid Border Patrol?

It's disappointing that the Express-News slants its reporting against such a grassroots citizen initiative, even after it has shown itself effective and by no means a "vigilante group."*

* Yes, I know that term was used by President Bush to describe the group, and shame on him for doing so.

SAEN Trend: Good Times for Liberals?

2005-05-06T10:54:00.000-07:00

The SAEN seems to obtain the majority of its national and international news from the Associated Press. I suppose AP is about as objective a source as we can hope for from the mainstream media (I know, I know, but it could be worse: it could be Reuters!) That's not to say that this blog has not documented the means by which the Express-News selectively distorts, positions and edits the AP text to slant the news to meet its agenda.

But now we are seeing a more disturbing trend. The latest Bob Rivard editorial attack against our effort in Iraq, critiqued here by Commando this morning, has a most disturbing byline: "NEW YORK TIMES". So now, we are seeing front page articles in our local newspaper from one of the most liberal media sources in the nation. Does anyone really expect Rivard to run an article straight from, say, the Washington Times some day?

Speaking of Times, there is an even more disturbing byline on today's page 3A: "LOS ANGELES TIMES". If the New York Times still pretends to objectivity, the LA Times is completely unabashed in its advocacy of the liberal agenda. Just look at the headline on that article: "Ex-DeLay cronies made millions on Pacific deal". "Cronies"? Is it possible for Bob Rivard to be ignorant of the negative connotation behind such a term? It's almost superfluous to point out that the article discusses only DeLay's alleged second-hand association with the "deal", and makes no mention of the two Democratic Congressmen who personally visited the islands around the same time, at the expense of the same people - they didn't even send their "cronies"!

This new trend of regurgitating "news" articles from biased sources seems to signal a new and even deeper disregard by the SAEN for the views of the majority of its San Antonio readers.

El-Kikhia Supports Bolton Nomination!

2005-05-06T09:22:00.000-07:00

No, really, he does...although for sarcastic reasons.

When you finish reading his contemptuous column, bask in awe at El-Kikhia's ability to speak of the United Nations as under threat from the US without once mentioning how deeply corrupt it has become under Kofi Annan. Gosh, do you think that's why Bush might be interested in challenging the status quo on Turtle Bay? MEK's column is an astonishing display of either self-delusion or disdain for his audience.

Was The Arrest Of al Liby Important?

2005-05-06T05:08:00.000-07:00

You bet your a** it was. The SAEN's report on his arrest included the possibility that the importance of his arrest was being overblown for PR reasons, but the SAEN was wrong again. From Reuters:

Pakistani security forces have rounded up some two dozen suspects around the country in raids using information from the senior al Qaeda leader arrested early this week, intelligence officials said on Thursday.

Moreover, al Liby may be able to help is catch the big fish:

Officials told Reuters that Abu Faraj Farj al Liby, who U.S. counter-terrorism agents say became al Qaeda operations chief and third in command two years ago, was in a good position to disclose the whereabouts of leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri.

Bill Roggio has more on our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda over at The Fourth Rail.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Loves The SAEN

2005-05-06T05:06:00.000-07:00

The Express-News is dangerous. It's dangerous because the views of the editor, Bob Rivard, are helping the terrorists by turning American opinion against our involvement in Iraq. Here is the headline from a story on the front page of today's paper: "Iraq life: Eating, sleeping, bombing," and the sub-headline is "Nonstop violence means every day is a horror day." Gee, that's not over the top! Apparently Bob Rivard hasn't considered that by reporting only negative news from that country he has become the terrorists' best friend. Here is what a recent poll in Iraq revealed:

"Has the security situation improved since the start of the new government?

"Yes - 55%

"No - 35%

"No change - 10%"

Are things going smoothly in Iraq? No, but they certainly are not as bad as the SAEN would have you believe. We have Americans dying over there to help the Iraqis build a free nation and the SAEN is reporting as if they already failed. Shame on them and shame on the editors of the SAEN. In March, Iraqis rallied against terrorists in their country:

"As expected, angry and sad Iraqis have started protests against the sickening behavior of the family and tribe of the Jordanian terrorist who committed the bloody massacre of Hilla a few weeks ago.

"Crowds gathered outside the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad on Sunday shouting: 'No, no to Jordan, close your embassy, we do not want to see you here.'

The biggest problem in Iraq, obviously, are the terrorist, but the second biggest problem is the coverage that news outlets like the San Antonio Express-News are providing Americans. And let's not forget what we are fighting for there:

Eye witnesses from the area said that back in the middle of 1980s, buses and bulldozers used to come to this valley twice a week but no one dared to question what was happening.

This woman after she somehow managed to escape got lost in the desert for 5 days until some shepherd found her and kept her safe away from the eyes of the security services that kept searching for her for years until they knew that she had officially lost her mind.

The woman expressed her gratitude for the locals who were kind to her and allowed her to live in a room attached to a mosque for the past 21 years after she lost all her family and had nowhere else to go.

Al-Witwity had also talked to the chief of the "Humanitarian association for defending the rights of the mass graves' martyrs" who confirmed that there are 19 other mass graves to be revealed soon, each one is supposed to contain the remains of approximately 2000 Iraqis.

All I am asking for is some balance in the SAEN's coverage of Iraq. Apparently I am asking too much. Congratulations Bob, you are a big hit with the terrorists!

A New San Antonio Blog

2005-05-05T17:01:00.000-07:00

I checked out a new blog today called Parrot Check. The blogger is named Duncan Avatar and he is currently stationed at Lackland AFB where he recently completed his training. He and his family will be moving to Oklahoma soon, but in the meantime Duncan is a proud member of the San Antonio blogging community. SAEN Watch thanks Duncan for his service to our country and wishes him all the best. Please take a little time and check out Parrot Talk for yourself, and be sure to view the powerful photo accompanying this post. I especially enjoyed his comments filed under "Terrorist Scum."

--Commando

Bashing Bolton

2005-05-05T14:33:00.000-07:00

I was saddened to see that my predictions regarding today's SAEN were true. I want to specifically address the SAEN's reporting and commentary regarding John Bolton, where the paper is doing exactly what they have done with DeLay; bashing him for actions others participate in. Also, let's remember that Bolton has already been confirmed by the Senate on several occasions. The most recent example of the SAEN bashing Bolton is today's column by Ellen Goodman. Here is what she has to say about him:

A lot of those whom Bolton apparently "kicked down" have kicked back. We heard from intelligence agents who claim he tried to dump them for disagreeing. We heard from a foreign aid worker who said Bolton chased her down the halls of a Russian hotel, not out of lust but anger, "Throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and generally behaving like a madman."

This elicited a defense from President Bush who described Bolton as "a blunt guy" who "isn't afraid to speak his mind." Around Boston, we call this the Larry Summers Defense in honor of those conservatives who recast the Harvard president as a defender of "free speech." But the question is less about being outspoken than about silencing any opposition.

I grant you that the Bush administration does not belong to the "Getting to Yes" school of foreign policy. But after giving savvy spinmistress Karen Hughes the job of public diplomacy, why give John Bolton the job of publicly unraveling that diplomacy?

Now let's take a look at some of the Democrats that she let's off the hook:

1. Senator Kennedy
Sen. Ted Kennedy once blew up at his staff after finding out they hadn't completed work on a bioterrorism bill he favored. As stunned witnesses looked on, Kennedy turned on his aides and barked: "You bastards - get it done!"

2. Senator Biden
Just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, a group of pilots and flight attendants met with Sen. Joe Biden in hopes of getting him to support emergency benefits for laid off airline employees. Biden listened for a few minutes, then shot back:

"I hope you will support my work on Amtrak as much as I have supported you. If not, I will screw you badly."

3. Senator Clinton
After keeping the lobbyist and several health company executives waiting for an hour, Hillary finally walked into the conference room, slammed some papers on the table and then erupted:

"Gentlemen, I have looked at your proposal, and it's pure bulls - - t. You've had your meeting - now get out!"

I am not trying to excuse rude behavior, but the left is being selective if they claim Bolton is unqualified because of alleged bad behavior, and then not applying it to those on their own side. What this really boils down to is that the left cannot attack Bolton's qualifications, so they are attacking his character. Here is an excerpt from a letter of support for Bolton that the SAEN doesn't seem to find newsworthy:
Each of us have worked with Mr. Bolton. We know him to me a man of personal and intellectual integrity, deeply devoted to the service of this country and promotion of our foreign policy interests as established by this President and the Congress. Not one of us has ever witnessed conduct on his part that resembles that which has been alleged. We that out collective knowledge of him and what he stands for, combined with our own experiences in government and in the private sector, more than counterbalances the credibility of those who have tried to destroy the distinguished achievements of a lifetime.

And from another letter of support for Bolton:
We, the undersigned, have been appalled by the charges that have been leveled at John Bolton during the course of his nomination hearing to be this countrys ambassador to the United Nations. Rather than a rational, mature discussion about the future course American policy should take with respect to the United Nations, and to whether and to what extent John Bolton's extensive knowledge with the UN further that course, what we have witnessed has been a character assassination masquerading as a nomination hearing. Mr. Bolton spent a full day before your Committee prepared to delve deeply into issues of foreign policy, and yet all but a sliver of the Committee's time was devoted to unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct.

The "undersigned" in the above letter are twenty former colleagues of John Bolton.

Above the Fold

2005-05-05T07:24:00.000-07:00

Since Commando was unable to stomach the SAEN today, let's let him know that each of his predictions were accurate regarding the biased content. What a surprise.

Oh, and Commando: you thought the subhead would read "Blood flows like a river", but they actually got much more creatively graphic: "Blood coats the streets".

But let's talk placement. An article on the latest in a long string of suicide bombings of Iraqi civilians is on the left side of the front page, covering space eight inches long and two inches wide. An article on the capture of the third ranking al-Qaida terrorist - a much more important and newsworthy event - is on the right side of the front page, with a lead measuring 6 1/2 x 2 1/2 inches. The lead portions of the two articles are roughly the same area. So, does that mean they have treated the stories equally?

Of course not. The negative headline "Carnage continues across Iraq" is "above the fold" and the positive headline "Al-Qaida's No. 3 Bagged in Pakistan" is "below the fold".

The phrase "above the fold" refers to the location of an important news story or photograph on the front page of a newspaper. Most papers are delivered and displayed to customers folded up, meaning that only the top half of the front page is visible. Thus, an item that is "above the fold" is usually one that the editor feels will entice people to buy the paper.

So, here we have documentation of SAEN bias in their reporting on the war on terrorism. Two articles, filling the same space, one positive and one negative. Given a completely free editing choice, which one did the editor decide to place "above the fold"? Do you agree that the reporting of yet another suicide bombing in Iraq is more newsworthy than the capture of the 3rd-ranked member of Al-Qaida?

If so, Bob Rivard has a job for you.

The Horror Of A Qaugmire

2005-05-05T07:08:00.000-07:00

An Iraqi boy expresses his gratitude after receiving a Frisbee from Soldiers with the 2nd Battalion, 198th Armor Regiment, assigned as the Quick Response Force (QRF), after they conducted several proficiency drills near Forward Operating Base (FOB) Hotel.U.S. Armed Forces are helping establish a stronger relationship with the citizens of Iraq. The QRF will respond to any potential attack or suspicious activity on or near the FOB that could threaten the lives and equipment of coalition forces. Yes, there are happy people in Iraq as this boy shows. This is exactly the kind of stuff the SAEN doesn't want you to see in their pages.

You Can't Make Me Read It...

2005-05-05T06:25:00.000-07:00

So this morning I left my SAEN lying in the yard. I just could not bring myself to read it this morning; however, I shall look into my crystal ball and tell you what is in it because the SAEN is so predictable I don't even have to look at it! I will know how right I am when I get home from work and actually read it. Hmmm, there were lots of important news stories in the world yesterday, but I know Bob Rivard so no doubt the lead story is about Lynddie England. Boring! Oh yeah, with our help Pakistan caught the No. 3 man in al Qaida so I am sure that is on the front page somewhere. I am also sure that the story in the SAEN will have an "expert" to explain to us that his capture isn't as important as we think. Okay, let's see here, there were several large terrorist attacks in Iraq. This will of course be on the front page and no where in the story will the word "terrorist" be used. In addition, the headline will read something like "Blood flows like a river" or something along those gory lines. I see one last thing in my crystal ball, somewhere in the paper will have to be the daily "bash Bolton" piece in which we read how John Bolton is a big, fat bully. I promise I will actually read the paper tomorrow. In the meantime, how did I do?

Global Freezing Is Coming!

2005-05-05T06:20:00.000-07:00

Liberals often laugh because conservatives don't buy into all the hysteria over global warming. They are right, we don't, and here is a good reason why:

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

It seems pretty obvious that we haven't heard all sides on this issue, and that is why many conservatives don't buy into the idea of global warming. Liberals also have not heard all sides, but they have already made up their minds...what does that say about liberals?

Support For Iraq Slips

2005-05-05T05:40:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the SAEN reported on a letter sent to Zarqawi that the US intercepted. This letter is news, huge news, because it reveals that things are not going so well for "Al Qaida in Mesopotamia," via the Washington Times:

A letter to terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi from a key lieutenant complains of low morale and incompetent leaders in waging war against American and Iraqi government troops in Iraq.

We also learned that morale is low among some Americans in regards to the Iraq war. The continued negativity of the press, as evidenced by our own SAEN, is no doubt convincing some Americans that nothing good ever happens in Iraq, but we all know that isn't true (and the press knows it too). Fine Mr. Rivard, we get it, you want us to leave Iraq and you color the news according to your own bias. Think about this for a second: a letter sent to one of our top enemies in the war on terror reveals that the enemy is demoralized and having trouble finding recruits, and the SAEN buries it on page 14A. It's almost unbelievable. The letter shows that morale is low in the terrorist organization and trust is in short supply:

"The morale has weakened and lines of the mujahidin have become separated due to some leaders' action," Yemeni wrote. "God does not accept such actions and that will delay victory. We do have big mistakes where some of us have been discarded."

Yemeni quoted one leader as telling recruits "you carry out a martyr [suicide] operation or go back to your family." He said he wanted a meeting to verify whether that order came from Zarqawi.

In addition, good leaders for the movement are also in short supply:

"We have leaders that are not capable of being good leaders," Yemeni wrote. "We are not accusing them without reason, but we have tested them and found them incapable."

Clearly we are winning in Iraq, and the terrorists know it, but the SAEN doesn't report it that way. What does that tell you about the editors over at the Express-News? You know who couldn't be happier about how the SAEN, and the MSM, are reporting on Iraq? That's right, al Qaida. They love it, and they couldn't be happier about the weakening of support for our troops in Iraq.

It is time for those of us who know how important it is to stay the course in Iraq to stand up and speak the truth. The is no denying that every time some liberal says we need to leave Iraq, or says we are stuck in a quagmire, al-Zarqawi smiles because if the left has it's way, and we tuck tail and run from Iraq, he will have won (and won't France be happy). The press keeps telling us that our presence in Iraq is helping al Qaida recruit new members (the terrorists own letters disavow this theory), but nothing could be better for their recruitment than to be able to say they caused the U.S. to run out of Iraq, and with us out of Iraq al Qaida can return it's attention to more meaningful things like planning attacks on U.S. soil.

Congratulations To Us, Kudos To Them!

2005-05-04T05:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday at SAEN Watch we commented on the SAEN's continued failure to report on both sides of the ethics battle in the Congress. Well, congratulations to us, and kudos to them, because today on page 3A the SAEN reports that DeLay isn't the only one who has taken trips paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As we reported yesterday, aides to Tom Delay and two Democratic congressmen took a trip to the Mariana Islands paid for by Abramoff:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's office says a U.S. territorial government was supposed to pay for travel by two of his staff aides to the Pacific island. Two Democratic congressmen filed disclosure forms saying a nonprofit group paid their expenses to the same place.

They all were at least partially wrong, according to lobbying firm records obtained by The Associated Press. The expenses were paid initially by lobbyist Jack Abramoff or his former firm, despite House rules prohibiting lobbyists from paying for the travel of lawmakers or their aides.

It's not clear to this day whether the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands partially or fully reimbursed Abramoff or the Preston Gates law and lobbying firm that hired him. The nonprofit group says it never paid a dime.

Welcome to the party guys!

The Unreported Side Of The Ethics Battle

2005-05-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

What comes around goes around. After months of being told by the media (see the SAEN's contributions here, here, and here) that it was sleazy for Tom DeLay to take trips paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Washington Post reports today that two Democratic congressmen took tips on Abramoff's dime:

Records show that lobbyist Jack Abramoff initially paid travel expenses for trips to the Northern Mariana Islands for two Democratic congressmen and at least two aides to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Take note: only aides to DeLay took the trips, but on the Democratic side of the coin, the Congressmen themsleves actually took the trips. But don't take my word for it that what they did was wrong. Here is how the problem is explained over at local blog Rhetoric & Rhythm:

No, the problem is he took trips paid for by corporate lobbyists which is not allowed under House rules. As the Washington Post reported this weekend, DeLay's plane trip to London and Scotland in 2000 was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff.

Notice that Mike is quoting from the same source as I am now using, the Washington Post. This is no mere case of playing "gotcha." The truth is that all of the charges against DeLay are typical of the abuses by many serving in Congress, on both sides of the aisle. While such abuses of power are regrettable in themselves, the more important point is that the mainstream media’s sole focus on DeLay reveals their bias and the concerted campaign to “get” DeLay because of his effectiveness as a floor leader for the Republican agenda. Furthermore, those on the left who have chosen to focus on DeLay and ignore members of their own party wipe out any chances at passing meaningful reform in the Congress to cover such actions, and virtually guarantee that we are headed for an ethics war in the Congress. It would be nice if the SAEN would report both sides of this important issue.

[Mark contributed to this post]

Mahmoud Abbas, "Moderate"

2005-05-03T06:23:00.000-07:00

The American press would have you believe that Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate that we can do business with. They want you to believe that the Israelis are the problem. Here is what the SAEN editorial board had to say back in January of this year:

Sharon can help Abbas by refraining from actions that provide militants with an excuse to challenge his authority and carry out terrorist operations.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the Sharon government is considering enforcing a 1950 law that would allow for the large-scale confiscation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem.

That move would be a tragic error, ensuring more terrorism and making the prospects for a peace agreement even more distant.

And here is what our favorite columnist, Mansour El-Kikhia had to say about Sharon and the peace process:

He will not willingly relinquish chunks of the West Bank and Jerusalem or accept a viable Palestinian state. After all, he instigated the second Palestinian uprising by going to the Haram Al-Sharif, known as the Temple Mount to Jews. The resulting turmoil gave him the cover he needed to engage in settlement building.

Unsurprisingly, not a whiff of blame for the PA or Palestinian terrorists, but Abbas is clearly not blameless. Here is what passes for news at the Palestinian Authority's official news agency:

The PA's state television has been accusing Israel of poisoning Palestinians with radiation. Gaza TV reported on Saturday, April 30, that Israeli machines killed a 55-year-old Palestinian woman who apparently died of a heart attack after being searched with an American-made device.

That story was depicted in the print media with a cartoon that in western countries would be condemned as anti-Semitic propaganda: A hand with a Star of David on its sleeve holds up a red colored machine called "Rafah crossing", emitting waves that are called "death and illness".

The cartoon appeared in a newspaper, Al-Hayat-Al-Jadeeda, a paper owned and controlled by the Fatah faction of the PLO, headed by Mahmoud Abbas.

Moreover, the official news agency of the PA, claimed on Thursday that Israel deliberately killed "an aged woman" with an American made "radiation machine". The Palestinian Authority itself, announced last Tuesday that it was closing the Rafah (Rafiah) crossing to protect Palestinians against "Israeli use of a radiation device for searching Palestinian travelers."

In fact, things have gotten worse in some respects on the watch of the "moderate" Abbas:

Widlansky asserts that under Abbas, the Palestinian media have actually stepped up the use of incendiary mosque speeches broadcast on Palestinian radio and television where both Israel and America are regularly attacked as well as increased use of code words in Arabic such as "resistance operations" to describe attacks on Israelis.

Incitement against Israel is not the sole prerogative of the PA media, however. Abbas' administration has also done virtually nothing to stem an alarming rise in anti-Israel hatred spewing out of campuses in the PA administered areas of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

And to be fair, hope in Abbas' moderation wasn't confined to the left. Here is what Senator Hutchison had to say in November of 2004:

"I think we have a better chance to succeed than we ever had before," said Hutchison, R-Texas, who spoke at a World Affairs Council luncheon at the University of the Incarnate Word on Thursday.

Hutchison said she met with "moderate Palestinian leaders," including then-Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, last year.

The experience persuaded her that Palestinians want peace as much as everyone else, she said.

It is time for the SAEN to report the whole story on the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas.

More Dowd Drivel

2005-05-03T05:41:00.000-07:00

Another pointless column by Maureen Dowd in today's SAEN. Once again she claims that the U.S. is slipping towards theocracy:

Mr. Bush wanted Iraq to have a democracy like ours. It's on its way, nearing an ethics-free zone where a corrupt official can hold sway and a theocracy can curb women's rights.

And once again she fails to offer any proof. If we truly are slipping into theocracy why can't she offer up proof? Could that be because it's simply not true? But Dowd does not stop there. She goes on to claim that the Bush administration is curbing women's rights, and once again she offers no proof. Could that be because it simply isn't true? Whatever side of the argument you are on regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq you can't honestly claim that women in those two countries aren't experiencing more freedom they have in generations:

Since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, many would agree that the political and cultural position of Afghan women has improved substantially. The recently adopted Afghan constitution states that "the citizens of Afghanistan - whether man or woman- have equal rights and duties before the law". So far, women have been allowed to return back to work, the government no longer forces them to wear the all covering burqa, and they even have been appointed to prominent positions in the government.

A good opinion columnist should bring to the attention of the reader something they have not thought of before; they should make us think, but Maureen Dowd fails on both counts, and for the life of me I can't understand why the SAEN editorial board wastes space on her.

Our Troops In Action: Afghanistan

2005-05-03T05:40:00.000-07:00

U.S. Army Spc. Matthew Hamilton from 3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C., organize medical supplies before participating in a coalition medical exchange in the Kandahar Province of Afghanistan, on April 28, 2005. The 3rd Battalion 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment are deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Just another example of the great work our troops are doing arouns the world that the SAEN doesn't see fit to report.

Those Dirty Dogs!

2005-05-03T05:33:00.000-07:00

The SAEN often reports of the horrible "abuses" perpetrated on the Palestinians by the Israelis, and columnist like El-Kikhia complain about it incessantly, so I hope that we can expect to hear some denunciations of the recent bulldozing of several Palestinian homes (from page 9A):

A Palestinian bulldozer on Monday demolished the seaside homes of three senior officers who built illegally on public land in Gaza, the start of what the Palestinian government promises will be a relentless campaign against corruption.

How dare they! We need a UN resolution condemning these actions! You can read the rest here, but I hope you don't really expect anyone at the SAEN to complain about this!

They Can Run, But They Can't Hide

2005-05-02T09:04:00.000-07:00

Great news via the BBC:

On Sunday, three men were among a group detained when Iraqi and US forces raided homes south-east of Baghdad.

Police said they found ID, clothing and a handbag belonging to Dublin-born Mrs Hassan, who was abducted on 19 October.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that four people are in Iraqi custody in connection with the Hassan case.

"The arrests were made after articles were found that established a direct connection with Margaret Hassan."

You can read there rest of the story here.

"Imposing" our morality? Or living it?

2005-05-02T07:27:00.000-07:00

SAEN columnist Maria Anglin explains why pharmacists should shut up and check their moral qualms at the door. No surprise: it's all about her.

Add to that individual hang-ups about the responsibility of motherhood, a woman's own handle on her biological clock and society's need to guilt the childless and you've got enough issues to fill even the largest pharmacy waiting room.

Considering all this, going on the pill — or taking steps needed for emergency contraception — is pretty brave.

Got that? It's not brave for a pharmacist to stand on moral principle and possibly endanger his livelihood by refusing to fill a prescription...the brave one is the woman daring to take The Pill!

It's interesting to analyze the arguments being made on this issue by people such as Anglin and Leonard Pitts. First, watch them work as hard as they can to focus on birth control pills and not the morning-after abortion pills which are now coming on the market. Note the subtle phrase inserted above, "or taking steps needed for emergency contraception". While a case can be made for moral objection to both, it is obvious that abortion pills are an order of magnitude more objectionable than birth control pills. So, to obscure that, they will refer whenever possible to birth control pills. Once they get activist judges to enshrine the right to force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills, they count on abortion pills to fall down the slippery slope as well.

Second, they have a need to address the obvious free market solution for people who find their prescription turned down for moral reasons: go to another drug store!

That might not be such a big deal in a large city where one can throw a fit and take one's business elsewhere, but it's definitely a big deal in a small town where pharmacy competition is nonexistent and throwing a fit will only get a woman thrown out of the store.

How small does a town have to be to have only one pharmacy? And how many Americans seeking birth control pills find themselves in that situation? Is it not obvious that the vast, overwhelming majority of women who find a birth control prescription turned down can quite easily go down the block and find a pharmacy which will fill it?

This issue is not about "brave" women being unable to fill birth control prescriptions. It is about suppressing the right of Americans to live out their morality in their everyday lives...including their jobs.

It's Time To Move On...

2005-05-02T04:59:00.000-07:00

Oy, another day, another story about Abu Ghraib in the SAEN. Today's story, on page 5A, reports that Lynndie England is going to plead guilty to some of the charges against her. A story about that actually wouldn't bother me because it is news, but the SAEN uses the opportunity like any good liberal attack dog to complain that no officers have been charged and that perhaps England did what she did because White House counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo. Please, somebody want to try and convince me that Lynddie England actually read a memo written by the White House counsel? Indeed the SAEN reports that there are unnamed, unidentified "skeptics" that don't believe that the abuse at Abu Ghraib could have happened without higher-ups knowing. I see, so using unidentified, unnamed "skeptics" is what passes for good journalism these days? As the SAEN's own story goes on to point out, several investigations have found "no fault" with Rumsfeld or Lt. General Sanchez. If that is the case, the SAEN should report that and leave the mysterious "skeptics" out of the story.

Son Of A &*%@$

2005-05-02T04:08:00.000-07:00

Excuse my language, but I don't know what else to say to this headline on page 5A:

Militants release video showing U.S. hostage

The video shows an American with two gunmen standing next to him; no doubt he will be beheaded soon, and the SAEN can't bring themselves to use the word "terrorist." This is ridiculous. You know what, by refusing to takes sides on this in some bogus effort to retain their "journalistic integrity," the SAEN has chosen sides. I will leave it up to you to decide which side they are on.

SAEN, Democrat Mouthpiece

2005-04-29T16:29:00.000-07:00

On page 4A of Friday's SAEN is a story about the federal budget headlined "$2.6 trillion budget that cuts Medicaid approved." The report tells us that:

Medicaid gets marked for a $10 billion reduction over four years.

But as I will show you, that isn't entirely true (or true at all), and strangely the SAEN is echoing exactly what Democrats are saying; curious, yes? The $10 billion "cut" in Medicaid is actually only a reduction in the rate of growth. Over the next four years spending on Medicaid increases significantly as the CBO shows in projections of mandatory, I said mandatory, spending on Medicaid:

FY 2005 - $327.5 billion
FY 2006 - $378.6 billion
FY 2007 - $428.0 billion
FY 2008 - $456.2 billion

That is an increase of $77.6 billion over the four years that the SAEN reports a decrease; however, the SAEN story fails to point this out preferring instead to leave readers with the impression that the nasty old Republicans are taking money out of healthcare for the poor and giving it to rich people in the form of tax cuts. Here is how one local blogger put it:

So the Republican budget calls for $10 billion in cuts to healthcare services for the poor while turning around and showering the wealthiest folks with $106 billion in tax cuts.

So, somebody want to explain to me why the SAEN decided to leave this important fact out of it's reporting on the budget?

Iraq In Pictures

2005-04-29T12:25:00.000-07:00

COL Polik from the Polish CIMIC(civilian military corporation) unit, greets two grils during a cermony commemorating the completion of a new Medical Clinic on April 27th 2005, in AL Diwaniyah, Iraq. The CIMIC conducts various projects that aid the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrstructure. That's right folks, the US isn't the only country with troops in Iraq!

Victory For The Cedar Revolution?

2005-04-29T10:51:00.000-07:00

Michael Totten of the Spirit of America blog declares victory for the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon (hat tip Instapundit):

Chalk up another, final, victory for the Cedar Revolution.

The Lebanese government formally announced the election will be held on time - on May 29th 2005.

The million-person demonstration, the two-month sleep-in at the tent-city, the countdown campaign, the village campaign, the media pressure, the international pressure - it all came together. It's a new era in Lebanon now. The time of post-war occupation and oppression is over. The Cedar Revolution is now over, too.

I am little more skeptical of declaring a final victory, but this is still good news: freedom continues to march on in the Middle East. He also writes that the importance of the evacuation of Syrian forces cannot be understated:

The Syrian military has now withdrawn to their side of the border. The secret police are almost certainly still around, but they're a lot less scary when they can't back up their agenda by force of arms. Syrian intelligence agents can still operate as terrorists and spies, but without an army they can't control what happens on the ground. The pall of fear over Lebanon has largely been broken. The democracy activists feel the difference. I feel it, too. I wouldn't quite call this a free country yet - not while Hezbollahland still exists as its own entity - but it feels like one now. The air is different. It's lighter.

And I don't think you can underestimate the importance of the Bush Doctrine in making this happen. President Bush has never wavered in his belief that all people want to be free, even in the face of withering denunciations from Democrats, and Lebanon is just another example proving the president right. I would like to welcome the Lebanese back into the community of free nations!

El-Kikhia: Off The Deep End

2005-04-29T06:28:00.000-07:00

I could barely read the latest from El-Kikhia today, but I did it for you guys. He starts out with a story about a friend of his who was tortured by Qaddafi, and of course this reminds him of the people at Guantanamo Bay. But before you shed a tear for the folks down at Club Gitmo, please check out what I wrote back on April 20th in a post titled "Let's Talk About Gitmo," and you will see the folly of El-Kikhia's latest screed. Here is the more important parts of that post:

From the Washington Times:

Detainees at Guantanamo Bay are providing the U.S. military with its best information on America's No. 1 enemy, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terror group, says a new Pentagon report.

More than three years after many of the al Qaeda and Taliban fighters were captured in Afghanistan, the 550 prisoners continue to divulge new information on recently nabbed bin Laden operatives and on remotely detonated bombs killing U.S. troops in Iraq.

Dropping $occer

2005-04-29T06:14:00.000-07:00

Kudos to the SAEN Editorial Board for ripping the plan by Mayor Garza, who just happens to play soccer, to bring Major League Soccer to San Antonio. From today's editorial:

The deal the City Council has approved to bring Major League Soccer to San Antonio requires greater scrutiny.

Mayor Ed Garza and other proponents have failed to justify it adequately. The City Council should think again and hit the brakes on what appears to be a terrible deal.

Among the many questionable aspects of the plan, perhaps the most objectionable is that it would give the franchise 70 percent or more from the corporate naming rights for the Alamodome. Why allow this city landmark to become an advertisement when the city is not even the major benefactor?

It shouldn't cost the taxpayers of this City $22 million just because Garza likes soccer, and wants to be able to go to MLS games and play on nicer fields. This "deal" stinks anyway you look at it, and the sooner the City drops it, the better. Hey Garza, I have a stupid idea, lets take the $22 million that you want to blow on soccer, and fix the many potholes around my house.

They Finally Did It

2005-04-29T06:03:00.000-07:00

After days of anxious waiting on my part, the SAEN has finally reported the results of a recent less-than-reliable Washington Post/ABC News poll. From page 5A of today's SAEN:

A Washington Post poll published this week found 66 percent of Americans oppose changing Senate filibuster rules to make it easier for the Republican majority to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees.

Really? Are you sure? Here is what Best of the Web had to say about the poll:

The poll not only doesn't use the word filibuster; it doesn't even describe the procedure. The way the question is worded, the Democrats could have "blocked" the nominations by the normal method of voting them down--and there is no reason to think that "randomly selected adults" would have been paying enough attention to know the difference.

And not only did the poll never specifically ask about filibusters, but many more Democrats than Republicans were polled, and the questions were misleading at best. For some serious destruction of this poll check out AnkleBitingPundits.

SAEN Editorializes Another News Story

2005-04-28T05:17:00.000-07:00

On the front page of today's SAEN is a story headlined "House OKs bill aimed at abortions." The story is available online, but the headline there is "House OKs bill toughening abortion consent." The bill simply requires that parents be notified when their child is going to have an abortion. Here is how the bill is described:

After an easy House victory, the latest push to curb abortions moves to the Senate where Republican gains increase the likelihood of making it harder for minors to cross state lines to end pregnancies without telling a parent[emphasis mine].

I just love the part that says "...latest push to curb abortions..." How is that for unbiased reporting? The bill that was passed has exemptions for when the procedure would save the life of the mother, when a judge has signed off on the procedure, and when the minor has been the victim of sexual abuse by a parent, so what are abortion advocates complaining about? It gets better. The online story reports that four bills "aimed at reducing the number of abortions" have been passed while Bush is in office (oh the horror!). Here is an example of one of those bills:

Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

Huh? The paper edition simply mentions this bill without giving a reason why, as if everyone automatically agrees with the liberal view that this bill was somehow secretly aimed at curbing abortions. Let me get this straight, Congress passes a law making it a crime to harm an unborn baby during an assault and it was really a stealth attack on abortion rights? All of these assertions being made in this news story rightfully belong on the op/ed pages, not on the front page.

Update
It looks like Best of the Web agrees with me:

"The House passed a bill Wednesday that would make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions, the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections," reports the Associated Press.

"Chip away at abortion rights"? That's editorializing, isn't it? Since a pregnant minor is, by definition, a victim of statutory rape, one could just as easily characterize this as an effort to prevent the destruction of criminal evidence.

Then there's this, from another AP dispatch on the same subject:

Four bills aimed at reducing the number of abortion [sic] have been enacted since Bush won the White House in 2001:

Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. . . .

So according to the AP, assaulting a pregnant woman and harming her "fetus" constitutes abortion. Do "pro-choice" advocates want to keep violence against pregnant women safe and legal?

"Air America" wants President Bush dead?

2005-04-27T07:51:00.000-07:00

Recently, Commando pointed out the pathetic ratings of liberal talk radio show "Air America". Perhaps the ratings are due to the hate speech spewed by the show's hosts.

The skit this week by Air America host Randi Rhodes featuring simulated gunshots fired at President Bush is at least the second time Rhodes has used her program to discuss the idea of killing the president.

On her May 10, 2004, Air America program, Rhodes compared Bush to Fredo Corleone, the weak son in the Godfather movies, who was, on his brother Michael's orders, taken on a fishing trip during which he was murdered with a gunshot to the head. "They are the Corleones," Rhodes said of the Bush family. "The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn't his father take him, or his brother, one of them, take him out for a little, uh, fishing? You know, let him say some Hail Marys, he loves God so much. Yeah, take him out, you know, 'Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee' -- POW!" Rhodes paused briefly before adding, "Works for me."

Can you imagine the outrage if Rush Limbaugh had said something like that about Slick Willy? I'm thankful no stations in San Antonio air this tripe.

Jonathan Gurwitz Responds

2005-04-27T06:13:00.000-07:00

Last week I commented on a column by Jonathan Gurwitz in a post called "A Gurwitz Puzzler." Reinforcing why he is one of our favorites SAEN columnists, Mr. Gurwitz has taken the time to respond to our commentary. Most folks over at the SAEN will not take the time to respond to our commentary (especially publicly) and we appreciate Mr. Gurwitz's efforts. If you want to see my original comment then follow the link above. Here is Mr. Gurwitz's response:

The strategy of Zarqawi and the Baathists has always been to plunge Iraq into civil war. By committing atrocities against the Shiite majority, the objective has been to provoke a violent response. Thus far, the Shiite leadership hasn't -- to their credit -- taken the bait.

Two things have changed in recent months. U.S. forces have severely undermined the fighting capability of the insurgents. Hitting hard targets is a decreasingly attractive option for the insurgents, who have taken significant losses in recent ambushes. As attacks on U.S. troops have declined, they have risen against soft targets -- Iraqi, namely Shiite, civilians.

This is occurring as the new government is struggling with sectarian power sharing. In other words, the insurgents have stepped up the Zarqawi strategy just as the sentiments and stakes are highest for the different political and ethnic groups and their leaders.

I'm not suggesting things are about to unravel. I am suggesting that the danger to Iraqi democrats is significantly greater. If a bomb takes out Jafari, I don't think you'll see the equivalent of the Cedar Revolution in Iraq.

In retrospect, it might have been better to write, "The forces seeking to plunge Iraq into sectarian conflict have intensified their efforts at a critical moment." But then I'd have to spend some space explaining the critical moment, as above. With only 140 lines, I wanted to move to the more meaningful -- to my mind -- development: Iraqis taking an increasing role in their own destiny.

Out To Lunch

2005-04-27T06:08:00.000-07:00

I will be out taking care of some family business for most of the day and probably won't be able to post until later this evening. Sorry for the inconvenience.

--Commando

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling...

2005-04-26T06:38:00.000-07:00

Okay, the sky isn't falling, but it might as well be because today I find that I actually agree with an editorial in the **GASP!** super-liberal Los Angeles Times. After reading about the L.A. Times editorial be sure to keep reading for lots of info on the filibuster fight. Okay, here is what the LA Times had to say:

At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster. The so-called nuclear option entails a finding by a straight majority that filibusters are inappropriate in judicial confirmation battles.

So the next time you hear somebody say that only conservative Christian right-wing zealots want to end the filibuster over judges you can tell them that isn't exactly the case any more. But of course one editorial in the L.A. Times won't convince many of my liberal friends that the filibuster on judges should be ended, so let's take a look at what some prominent Democrats had to say about judicial filibusters:

Senator Leahy, D-VT (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)

"I would object and fight any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported..."

Senator Kennedy, D-MA (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)

"We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote."

Senator Shumer, D-NY (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)

"The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees."

All three of these Senators now support the filibuster of judicial nominees. Can you say hypocrite? Oh, by the way, the Democrats don't want you to know this, but there already are rules preventing the filibuster in certain situations:

1. You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution;
2. You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force;
3. You cannot filibuster international trade agreements; and
4. You cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Amazing that the SAEN sort of "forgets" to report this in their stories or editorials on the current fight over judicial nominations.

Defying Laws of Physics, Air America Sinks Lower

2005-04-26T06:21:00.000-07:00

The latest radio ratings have been released by Arbitron and it does not look good for Air America. Many liberal complain loudly that there aren't enough liberals on talk radio, but as Air America shows, there is no market for liberal radio beyond government-funded NPR. From The Radio Equalizer:

It's been a full year for Air America's flagship station, WLIB, in New York City. Month after month, it has gone nowhere in the ratings.

This month is no exception, as the full Winter 2005 ratings book is released tonight for New York City.

WLIB's tiny 1.2 audience share, for all listeners 12 and older, is the same as for Fall 2004. The audience is actually smaller now than when the station first flipped to the liberal talk format from Caribbean programming.

And the station ranks a whopping 24th place overall.

On Long Island, a distinct radio market, Air America's WLIB dropped again, to take 31st place overall.

Don't believe any of the leftist spin, there's no way to dispute this factual information. If I seem irritated here, it's because the dishonesty from the Air America supporters has just become tiresome.

KTLK's general manager wrote to the LA Times, insisting more time was needed to see where his station was headed. But so far, still no growth for the station: it held a flat, miniscule 0.3 share of all listeners 12 and older in the Los Angeles market.

Drop any lower than that and a station becomes too small to show up in the ratings at all.

With no sign of growth, KTLK ranked, are you ready for this, 44th overall in Los Angeles.

That was tied for last place in the Southland. In the initial months, with all of the publicity, KTLK should have had a huge tune-in factor, as people check out the new station in town because they're curious about it.

Keep in mind, New York City and Los Angeles should be hotbeds for liberal talk radio, yet nothing is happening.

If interested, you can check out the ratings for San Antonio here.

He's A Terrorist.

2005-04-26T06:15:00.000-07:00

I was wandering through the pages of ABC News online and came upon this interesting story about the near capture of al-Zarqawi:

Jordanian rebel Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — Iraq's most wanted fugitive — recently eluded capture by American troops, but left behind a treasure trove of information, a senior military official told ABC News.

On Feb. 20, the alleged terror mastermind was heading to a secret meeting in Ramadi, just west of Fallujah, where he used to base his operations, the official said.

What is it with the press in this country? ABC News calls him a "Jordanian rebel" and an "accused terror mastermind;" who are they kidding? He's a stone-cold killer, period. I wonder if the press realizes how foolish they look playing word games in their descriptions of murderers like Zarqawi? As long-time readers of this blog know, we have continually criticized the SAEN for refusing to call a terrorist a terrorist (see here, here, here and here).

Update: Bill Roggio has more news on the near-miss capture of al-Zarqawi, as well as analysis of where the information on his whereabouts came from over at The Fourth Rail. If you are interested in the war on terror you can't afford to miss this.

Filibuster Not A "Check & Balance"

2005-04-25T06:31:00.000-07:00

From a front page story in today's SAEN headlines "Christians step into filibuster fray:"

The rally's critics...warned that its sponsors wanted to remove one of this nation's Democratic checks and balances---the filibuster---all in the name of imposing their religious ideals on America."

I just wanted to point out to the SAEN reporter, Maro Robbins, that the filibuster is not part the government's system of checks and balances. It is a Senate rule, and changing it in no way affects the constitution. One last, tiny point, "democratic" should not be capitalized.

Note: the quote above does not appear in the online version of this story.

Mark adds:

Another classic example of bias:

Roughly 500 participants crammed into a downtown Presbyterian church for what was called a "Freedom and Faith" rally. (It was arguably a stout turnout in a city already absorbed by festivities leading up to the Kentucky Derby in two weeks.)

OK, so if 500 people was a stout turnout, then I suppose the 2,000 who turned out at the actual event means they were FOUR TIMES as "stout"?

Christians Need Not Apply

2005-04-25T05:12:00.000-07:00

Bob Rivard may have "apologized" yesterday for the SAEN's headline announcing the new Pope, but don't think that means a shift in attitudes at the paper. Check this out from today's column by Leonard Pitts:

Though no one seems to have hard numbers, published reports suggest a widespread pattern of "Christian" pharmacist refusing to fill prescriptions with which they disagree. And a chilling report last month in the Washington Post suggests that some have gone even further. It told of pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth-control pills to unmarried women, of those who will not sell contraceptive devices to anybody, period, and of those who not only won't fill morning-after prescriptions, but who hold the prescriptions hostage...[emphasis added]"

More and more these days Christians are the only group of people not allowed to follow their convictions. Those scare quotes around Christian are Mr. Pitts' by the way. Second, check out the language he uses in his column, words like "chilling" and "hostage." In fact, later on in the column he calls such acts "lunacy." And did you notice the Pitts does not mention the source of the "published report" that suggest the widespread pattern he talks about? No doubt it is from an advocacy group with an agenda because in the next sentence he gives the Washington Post as the source of another study he cites. Interesting. So folks, you can add pharmacist to the list of jobs the MSM doesn't want Christians to have, along with appellate court judge and president. Indeed, Mr. Pitts offers some advice to "Christian" pharmacists who are indecent enough to hold to their beliefs:

Get another job.

Victor Landa is a terrorist organization

2005-04-24T11:21:00.000-07:00

Well, not really, but if he can say that to unfairly make a point, so can I, right?

The National Education Association, a teacher's union referred to as a "terrorist organization" by former Education Secretary Rod Paige...

Oy. This is a half-truth almost as insidious as the slander about John Ashcroft supposedly covering up nude statues in the Justice Department during his tenure as Attorney General.

But before we quote the full context of Secretary Paige's comment, just consider the tendentiousness of Landa's claim, on its face. The Secretary of Education of the United States refers to the National teacher's union as a "terrorist organization". What, did he claim they blew up schoolbuses filled with Israeli children? Was he referring to teachers being involved in the 9/11 attacks? Perhaps they just issued press releases supporting jihad?

Well, not...exactly.

Education Secretary Rod Paige said the National Education Association, one of the nation's largest labor unions, was like "a terrorist organization" because of the way it was resisting many provisions of a school- improvement law pushed through Congress by President Bush.

Specifically, the teacher's union holds our children hostage to their political agenda. Now, granted, the words were poorly chosen, and Paige almost immediately made numerous abject apologies for the remark. I'm sure what he regretted most of all was the certainty that it would be used against him for eternity by partisan columnists such as Landa.

But still, what sort of person reads such a completely out of context assertion, nods their head in agreement, and moves on to the rest of Landa's NEA press release...er, I mean column. And what sort of columnist is so bitterly partisan as to willfully inject misunderstanding such as this into his writing?

Rigid editor apologizes

2005-04-24T11:14:00.000-07:00

Kudos to Bob Rivard for apologizing for the offensive headline his newspaper printed upon the selection of Pope Benedict XVI.

There is a fine line between subjective judgment and bias on the one hand and objective, independent reporting about Pope Benedict XVI and the state of the Catholic Church on the other hand.

The uninspiring Wednesday headline, "Rigid theologian selected" crossed that line. Some within the church would use such wording to describe the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, but others would not.

The right place for such a description is within a well-balanced analysis, not across the top of Page One over the story reporting the election of the new pope. For those offended, we apologize.

But: the "uninspiring" headline? What's that supposed to mean? Is that a euphemism for "biased"?

The Story The SAEN Won't Report

2005-04-22T13:36:00.000-07:00

More info out today on the investigation into fund raising irregularities involving Senator Clinton. I think it is fair to say that the SAEN is showing it's bias by not reporting a story this important. Senator Clinton is a major player in American politics, and the SAEN's refusal to report this story is downright absurd. Moreover, the case also involves the brother-in-law of Senator Kennedy, and still the SAEN ignores it. Read on:

A New Orleans political consultant who is Senator Kennedy's brother-in-law, Raymond Reggie, has been operating in Democratic circles for the last three years as an undercover informant for the FBI, sources close to the matter said yesterday.

At a federal court hearing yesterday morning, Reggie, 43, who organized fund-raisers for President and Mrs. Clinton, pleaded guilty to two felony charges, bank fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors described check-kiting and loan fraud schemes he operated involving three Louisiana banks, but they did not publicly detail his cooperation with the government.

The New York Sun reported yesterday that an unnamed witness with ties to a prominent political figure has been involved in recent federal investigations of campaign fund-raising violations, including a probe into alleged financial misreporting in Mrs. Clinton's bid for the Senate in 2000. The informant, described in court papers only as a "confidential witness," was part of an FBI plan to secretly audiotape conversations with political operatives, including a well-known person who prosecutors said was seeking to funnel donations from foreigners to federal campaigns.

We know now that Reggie was involved in Senator Clinton's campaign:

The disclosure that Reggie was surreptitiously recording conversations for the FBI may have caused some heartburn yesterday for Democrats who have had contact with him since 2002.

Reggie was a regular presence at Mr. Clinton's side when he visited New Orleans during his presidency and thereafter. Just last September, Mr. Clinton had lunch in that city with Reggie, as the former president swung through town to sign his autobiography and attend a $10,000-a-head Democratic Party fund-raiser, the Times-Picayune newspaper reported. A former congresswoman and ambassador to the Vatican, Lindy Boggs, joined Reggie and Mr. Clinton at the lunch, as did two federal judges whom Mr. Clinton appointed.

When Mrs. Clinton traveled to New Orleans in May 2000 to raise $100,000 for her Senate campaign, Reggie was on the host committee.

I guarantee that if this case involved a person close to Tom Delay, who was also a relative of a Republican Senator, this story would be front page fodder for the SAEN. You can read more about it here.

Pic Of The Day: Iraq

2005-04-22T13:27:00.000-07:00

Soldiers from 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 155th Brigade Combat Team, attached to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, conduct a raid on the insurgent's Hateen Weapons Complex in Babil, Iraq.

What Exactly Is El-Kikhia Smoking?

2005-04-22T05:11:00.000-07:00

Why do I do it, why do I even bother? El-Kikhia's columns have gone so far off the deep end, and are so predictable that I don't know why I even take the time to point it out anymore. The title of today's columns is "America spending won't sway Arabs." Fine, and terrorists flying planes into our buildings or blowing us up won't sway us. I have a hard time taking any analysis seriously that compares the president to a pharaoh and calls Republicans in Congress minions:

The American president is not a dictator, but his administration's policies are beginning to resemble those of a 12th-dynasty Pharaoh from ancient Egypt.

His minions in Congress are on a rampage, modifying in the name of security and family values America's modern social and political topography. Their goal is a permanent myopic vision of the world and life. No segment of American society is immune. Judges notorious for wanting to turn back the clock are being appointed to all levels of the judiciary to ensure the longevity of their agenda. It is rather odd that a party that prides itself on cherishing individual freedoms should be the one that takes so many of them away.

I especially love that last sentence about Republicans taking away freedoms, but you will notice El-Kikhia leaves it there, he doesn't cite examples. But if you think that is over the top, you will love this:

My major fear is of this administration's foreign policy, particularly toward the Middle East and Islam. It is embarking on a ideological war that will make the Crusades appear like child's play.

I see, so America is now the Crusader in El-Kikhia's mind. Come on, is this what passes as intelligent debate at the SAEN. I don't agree with much of what comes off the SAEN op/ed pages, but most of it is at least reasoned which is way more than I can say about today's offering from El-Kikhia. He says the same things week after week (America and/or Israel Bad, President Bush stupid). He runs a dog and pony show without the pony. El-Kikhia goes on to explain what the U.S. is planning to do:

The major emphasis is on infiltrating Islamic organizations and countering Islamic teaching perceived as incompatible with Western thought.

To make it more palatable to Muslims, the U.S. government is funding the rebuilding of mosques, gathering of ancient Korans and arranging for conferences to discuss the benefits of Western thought and a new version of Islam.

El-Kikhia claims that money won't sway Arabs, but is sure has worked for the Saudis hasn't it? Where does he think we got the idea about rebuilding Mosques from? The Saudis have spread Wahhabism around the world with nothing but money. I don't want to get to deep into El-Kikhia's ranting so I will leave you with one last thought and you can read his column if you want to. He takes a not-so-veiled stab at Christians, and what nincompoops we are:

It is not surprising that such initiatives should emanate from an individual who is convinced that God put him in office. However, the nincompoops who advise him on these outlandish policies need to make two things clear to him.

It is certainly hard not to take seriously any argument using the word nincompoop, and his references to Bush's religion in combination with his use of the word Crusade are pretty obvious aren't they. Why the SAEN editorial board wants to associate itself with this guy is beyond me.

You know, El-Kikhia teaches political science and so you would think he'd get it. We don't want the Middle East to become America on the Persian Gulf. We don't want to stick around for decades like we have in Europe. We want Arabs to be free and democratic, and I can guarantee we want to leave as soon as possible. El-Kikhia offers nothing constructive to the debate that I can't read on one of the myriad jihadist sites on the internet.

Update: If you want to read more about this please check out this post by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.

So What's The Problem

2005-04-22T05:05:00.000-07:00

On page 5A there is a report about the latest "allegations" against John Bolton. Apparently the Democrats are still upset about Bolton calling North Korea a "hellish nightmare" and Kim Jong Il a "tyrannical dictator." I ask again, what's the problem? Life in North Korea is a hellish nightmare and Kim Jong Il is a tyrannical dictator. You know a guy like Bolton is qualified when the Democrats don't attack his work, but choose to go after his character. The SAEN has been a willing accomplice in this. The Dems complain he is quick to anger or he tells the truth when he shouldn't and that is the reason they won't confirm him.

$occer Plan Now At $22 Million

2005-04-21T14:01:00.000-07:00

WOAI is reporting that the council will now vote on a package worth $22 million to bring soccer to San Antonio; more than three times the $6.2 million originally proposed:

The proposal to bring Major League Soccer to San Antonio continues to balloon, with the price tag of the proposal San Antonio City Council is set to vote on today in excess of $22 million, 1200 WOAI news reported today.

That's three times higher than the $6.2 million dollar price tag which was placed on the deal just one week ago.

When the soccer deal was first proposed, the cost of the soccer fields was set to be $3.5 million. But city council today will vote on a proposal to spend $3.7 million on a practice facility, and $10.6 million on thirteen 'tournament quality' soccer fields, all constructed at Brooks City Base.

Driving all of this is Mayor Garza of course. Why is it the tax payers of this city always get screwed because of the hobbies of whoever is the current mayor?

Call a spade a spade, and a union a union

2005-04-21T10:47:00.000-07:00

So, a lawsuit has been filed against the No Child Left Behind educational reform law. And who are the plaintiffs, according to the Express-News?

The Texas State Teachers Association...the Texas teachers group...TSTA

Teachers? Hold on...let's see what we get when we Google up "Texas State Teachers Association".

Texas State Teachers Association - Union representing teachers who are affiliated with the National Education Association.

Ah: a union. Well, that explains why this "group of teachers" wants more money and less accountability. What it doesn't explain is why the Express-News fails to properly identify their sources when they have a vested interest in the issue under discussion. You'll also note the article fails to include a single source defending the No Child Left Behind Act.

Dear SAEN: can we occasionally hear from both sides of a "news" story, instead of only from the people who support your ideological position? It would be a refreshing change, thank you.

Double The Trouble

2005-04-21T10:37:00.000-07:00

You can follow all the action regarding the Castro twins posing as each other at public events over at the Jeffersonian.

Hillary Must Resign! Hillary Must Resign!

2005-04-21T10:13:00.000-07:00

I am sure all my good liberal friends will agree with me when I say that, based on the following story in the New York Sun, Senator Clinton must resign:

A Democratic fund-raiser involved in Senator Clinton's 2000 campaign has offered a guilty plea to bank fraud charges and is likely to become a government witness at the upcoming federal trial of a top finance aide to Mrs. Clinton, David Rosen, court records obtained by The New York Sun show.

As part of an FBI investigation into alleged campaign finance reporting violations by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, the mystery witness secretly taped a conversation with Mr. Rosen in September 2002 and apparently tried to elicit statements from the former Clinton staffer about financial irregularities involving an August 2000 Hollywood fund-raising event.

This case involves some serious charges:

While the informant's work for the FBI on Mr. Rosen's case dates back to 2002, the agency continued to work closely with the witness through the end of 2004, court documents indicate. The November 2004 filing indicates the FBI was planning to use the informant in an investigation of "a prominent political figure who may be involved in illegally soliciting foreign nationals to contribute to national political campaigns." The target of the inquiry was suspected of "funneling illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals to individuals running for federal office."

Don't be ashamed if you have not heard about this story because the SAEN is so busy hammering DeLay that they aren't reporting it. I guess by now some of my more liberal readers are thinking that this is absurd. Maybe it is, but it is no more absurd than calling on DeLay to resign because somebody he worked with has been indicted. What's good for DeLay is good for Hillary, right?

You can read more about it here.

Mocking Terri Schiavo

2005-04-21T07:37:00.000-07:00

No matter what your position on the Schiavo situation, all decent people agree that her disability and death was a tragedy...except for Garry Trudeau.

In his Doonesbury strip today, Trudeau continues a juvenile "Tom DeLay Political Death Watch". In one of the panels, a news reporter states, "The only thing that might save him is if Congress passed a law affirming his continuing viability." In the final panel, responding to the question of whether Bush would sign the law, the reporter states, "Oh, yes. He supports the culture of persistent vegetative state."

Shame on Trudeau, and shame on the Express-News for publishing this insensitive, repulsive garbage.

A Gurwitz Puzzler

2005-04-21T05:26:00.000-07:00

I enjoyed Jonathan Gurwitz's insights as usual yesterday, but I was troubled by the opening sentence of his column:

Iraq sits on the precipice of a sectarian conflict.

It seems to me that if you read the rest of his column he directly contradicts this idea because there is hope in Iraq:

Some Sunnis had already come to the realization that the train of Iraqi democracy is leaving the station without them. Earlier this month, a group of 64 Sunni clerics and scholars issued an edict urging followers to join the Iraqi security forces and help protect the country.

And although Sunni voters largely sat out the Jan. 30 elections and hold only 20 of 275 seats in the National Assembly, a group of Sunni leaders has banded with Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer to negotiate for Cabinet positions in the new government.

The perils for Iraqis, and for the 142,000 Americans helping secure their country, are still great, the outcome of the democratic experiment in Iraq unknown. But Iraqis are finally claiming for themselves a greater stake in that experiment.

A society Iraqis are willing to risk their lives to build and defend is an Iraqi society that has taken on a life of its own.

And it's not just that he contradicts his opening line, but I am just not sure the premise is even correct. As he says, many Sunnis are starting to participate in the democratic process, and the Shiites have held back from reprisals for violence against them by the Sunnis for over two years now, so what makes it so likely that now is the time for this to all unravel?

We Love Taxes!

2005-04-21T05:16:00.000-07:00

Posting by me will be light today, but before I go I wanted to point out that the SAEN editorial board continues it's "We've never seen a tax we don't like" attitude in all three of today's editorials. First, they come out in favor of raising sales taxes to buy land. Great idea, but the city always ends up paying two to three times more than the value of the land. In today's second editorial the SAEN throws it's support behind a tax increase to buy park land. Again, great idea but not in the hands of City Hall. And to top it all off the editorial board is against freezing property taxes for senior citizens. Clearly this editorial board wants as much of your money in the coffers of City Hall as possible.

Pic Of The Day: Iraq

2005-04-20T08:58:00.000-07:00

Lt. Col. Mark Martinez from Task Force Victory's Surgeon Cell, administers deworming medicine to local Afghan animals during a Civilian and Veterinarian Medical Assistance (CMA/VMA) mission in the village of Babrak Tana, Afghanistan, on April 14, 2005. Just another example of what the SAEN won't show you.

"Rigid theologian selected"

2005-04-20T07:20:00.000-07:00

That's the headline in today's SAE-N. I suppose we should be thankful Bob Rivard and company refrained from the "Nazi Pope!" headlines spewed by the London press.

The irony is that, while the intent is to paint Ratzinger as some sort of intolerant, out of touch academic, faithful Catholics applaud his stance in support of church doctrine. For them, the headline is a compliment to the new Pope.

When you read this week the incessant griping about the church's "failure to embrace modernity" (coming, I suppose from all those frustrated women whose only goal in life is to become a Catholic priest), please consider this perspective:

The media have kept noting that many Catholics, especially in the West, have flouted the Church's teachings on abortion, birth control, and sexual morality. This is true; but it should be put in context. Even more Catholics have flouted Church teaching on, say, the universal obligation to love one another and the immorality of lying. The odds that the Church will change its teaching on love or lying are approximately as great as the odds it will bless abortion and non-marital sex - regardless of what the church of the television anchors may want.

[National Review, April 25, 2005, page 16]

Those who have failed to live up to the teachings of the Church need to conform themselves to God...not the other way around.

Poking Fun At Democrats

2005-04-20T07:15:00.000-07:00

Let's lighten things up a bit. Dave over at Dead Can't Rant has an excellent joke up at his blog today. Mike, this one is for you!

Let's Talk About Gitmo

2005-04-20T05:15:00.000-07:00

Two stories on page 15A of today's SAEN regarding the detention center at Gitmo. First, the SAEN happily reports on baseless claims of torture by some recently released prisoners. Second, a story reporting that the AP is suing the DoD for access to documents relating to military hearings for Gitmo detainees. What the SAEN does not tell you is that many detainees at Gitmo are still providing valuable intelligence on al Qaeda. From the Washington Times:

Detainees at Guantanamo Bay are providing the U.S. military with its best information on America's No. 1 enemy, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terror group, says a new Pentagon report.

More than three years after many of the al Qaeda and Taliban fighters were captured in Afghanistan, the 550 prisoners continue to divulge new information on recently nabbed bin Laden operatives and on remotely detonated bombs killing U.S. troops in Iraq.

I have to say that knowing this I think the AP could perhaps find something better top do than tie up the DoD with another law suit. The SAEN story about released prisoners goes on to say that "Some freed detainees have charged they were mistreated and tortured..." Well, boo-freaking-hoo. Why do I appear so callous? Here is what happens sometimes when we release folks from Gitmo:

The report said that at least 10 former detainees the Pentagon knows by name have rejoined the war against coalition forces.

One of them, Abdullah Mahsud, had denied links to al Qaeda and said he was forced to join the Taliban army. Today, Mahsud is back in Afghanistan leading a gang of kidnappers.

Perhaps it is time for the SAEN to rethink it's stance on Gitmo. Today's story on page 15A has plenty of accusation against Americans, but not once does it mention the value of the information were are getting there or that some of those released from Gitmo have rejoined the fight. In fact, some of the info learned at Gitmo is helping in Iraq:

The bomb makers picked up in Afghanistan are experts in the same types of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have killed hundreds of coalition troops, including Americans in Iraq.

"One detainee also detailed how pagers and cellular telephones are used to initiate detonations," said the Pentagon report. "Another detainee has been cooperative enough to draw schematic diagrams of the bombs he designed and built. In addition, he has provided his critiques of the design of IEDs being constructed by terrorists in Iraq."

And in another blow to the left's crazy notion that poverty breeds terrorism:

More than 50 detainees hold college degrees or obtained other higher education. Among the educated are doctors, pilots, engineers, translators, lawyers and computer experts.

A detainee who attended Texas A&M for 18 months "has threatened guards and admits enjoying terrorizing Americans." Others obtained degrees in aviation management and petroleum engineering.

Let's look at the the kind of person that the SAEN and other media appears to be championing:

"A detainee who has assaulted [Guantanamo] guards on numerous occasions and crafted a weapon in his cell stated that he can either go back home and kill as many Americans as he possibly can, or he can leave here in a box," the report said. "Either way, it's the same to him."

Finally, and perhaps most important, the continued detention of these terrorists at Gitmo is a vital strategy in the war on terror:

The capture of these terrorists and others likely deprived al Qaeda of new leaders[emphasis added]. "It is likely that many Guantanamo detainees would have risen to positions of prominence in the leadership ranks of al Qaeda and its associated groups," the Guantanamo report said.

More News The SAEN Forgot

2005-04-20T05:12:00.000-07:00

In Afghanistan, American and Afghan forces killed eight Taliban terrorists:

U.S. and Afghan forces conducting a sweep in a mountainous area south of the capital exchanged fierce fire with suspected Taliban rebels, killing eight and capturing 16 in some of the heaviest fighting in months, officials said Tuesday.

You can read the rest here.

Terrorists Surrender In Mosul

2005-04-20T05:04:00.000-07:00

I have not seen this in the SAEN so I guess I have scooped them again:

Four senior leaders of the ongoing insurgency in the northern city of Mosul are said to have surrendered.

Iraqi army officers, refusing to be named, said the four gave themselves up to the authorities after several days of negotiations.

One of the insurgent leaders, called Abu Kifah, had a bounty of millions of dollars on his head.

Two others were reported to have occupied senior positions in the former army and intelligence.

The authorities have revealed very little about the identity of the fourth.

Mosul is scene of almost daily attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops. Insurgents overrun the city lat year, but the troops regained control following fierce street fighting.

There are still mounting security problems in the city and its suburbs.

The insurgents are active in certain headquarters and outlying districts like Tel Affar.

The suspects, who were reported to have surrendered, led operations in Sillamiya, a restive district south of Mosul.

Meantime, the Mosul police contingent has freed 15 detainees who were found not to have been involved in “armed operations against the security forces and villains,” a police statement said.

Using Terri: Why Is The SAEN Silent?

2005-04-19T12:37:00.000-07:00

Back on March 30th the SAEN editorial board (and newsroom) made clear their disdain for those they felt were attempting to capitalize on the Terri Schiavo case for political gain, Republicans specifically in this case:

Decent people may disagree on important issues, but when public officials use a tragedy as a forum for their own political goals, it is reprehensible.

So where are they now that DNC Chairman Howard Dean had this to say, via the LA Times:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Friday that his party would wield the Terri Schiavo case against Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections, but for now needed to stay focused battling President Bush on Social Security.

"We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on," Dean said of the brain-damaged Floridian who died last month after her feeding tube was removed amid a swarm of political controversy[emphasis added].

Where is the front page news story? Where is the angry editorial?

Perhaps the editorial board, and the newsroom, save their indignation for Republicans only? Can somebody please explain to me how this is economics and not liberal bias?

A model for San Antonio?

2005-04-19T10:55:00.000-07:00

Let's hope not. For L.A. homeless: a gym, movies, and hair salon.

Now, I suppose Patti Radle, Susan Ives and company will jack up their estimate for our own Homeless Resort to match.

One nice thing is that the article includes a lot of negative comment from people who realize building such monstrosities is not about helping the homeless in the long term.

"Since the late 1980s, America has built a mammoth infrastructure of shelters and the number of homeless has gone up, not down. It's a bit of the if-you-build-it-they-will-come phenomenon at work," says Nan Roman, president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. As Ms. Roman and other national officials see it, the lack of affordable housing is what needs to be addressed.

And note the population count for the homeless in Los Angeles:

The shelter is the city's latest effort to address one of its most visible and resistant social problems: the more than 6,000 people who live on the streets.

Is there anything more ridiculous than the estimate of 25,169 homeless in San Antonio? Any sane person knows there aren't even that many tourists downtown on a given night. But it allows the usual suspects to piously pontificate about how miserly the taxpayers of San Antonio are, in terms of funding per homeless person.

Tan, Rested & Ready

2005-04-19T05:07:00.000-07:00

Well folks I am back. I want to thank my good friend Mike Thomas for guest blogging with Mark while I was away. Posting from me will be light today as I catch up on some things, but I do want to leave you with this: we all know that the SAEN is all over Tom DeLay. Mike has spent the last few days trying to convince you that there is no liberal bias at the SAEN. Well, I have proof positive that there is bias. The SAEN recently ran a story reporting a "split" in the Republican party because one congressman from Connecticut called on DeLay to resign; however, when a Democratic congressman defended DeLay the SAEN not only didn't report on a split in the Democratic party, it didn't report the event at all:

Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel said Thursday that GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay did nothing wrong by taking several trips abroad and having the costs picked up by lobbyists, and even praised the top Republican - after he was confronted with NewsMax's report detailing his own congressional junkets.

He went on to note that that he has no problems with the travel DeLay has taken:

The Bronx Democrat said that unless members of Congress are allowed to have their travel expenses picked up either by the taxpayers or private groups, only wealthy members who can afford to travel will be able to go on fact finding missions.

So where is the story about a split in the Democratic party? What about just a story reporting that a Democrat is supporting DeLay; surely that is news?

Swindlers and cheats

2005-04-18T20:45:00.000-07:00

John MacCormack, one of my favorite reporters at the SAEN, had an informative article on Saturday detailing one of the smarmiest episodes among all the scandals currently swirling around Republican Leader Tom DeLay.

The story of how one of DeLay's top political fundraisers swindled the Tigua Indians out of $4.2 million will give readers a good idea of where the term sleazo-con came from. Jack Abramoff and his partner Mike Scanlon, a former spokesman for Tom DeLay, pitted one Indian tribe against another while taking money from both sides as they fought to keep their casino operations alive.
In a three-year period, Abramoff and Scanlon raked in more than $66 million from tribal casino interests. Now federal prosecutors are investigating "how tribal money funneled through Abramoff may have illegally benefited the political operations of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay..."

People wondering what all the fuss is about Tom DeLay's ethics troubles should read this story and realize this is just one of the many examples of the corruption that is rampant throughout DeLay's Washington power network.

Another good Gurwitz column

2005-04-18T12:33:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Gurwitz has another good column in Sunday’s paper taking the City Council to task for the fiasco surrounding the decision by Sheryl Sculley to pass up a job offer to be city manager in San Antonio.
He hits all the key points in the City Council’s sad tale:

* Trying to rush this process through right before a mayoral election
* Narrowing the field to one before starting salary negotiations
* And further weakening their bargaining power by announcing a salary range in advance

As Cincinnatus notes at The Jeffersonian, Gurwitz makes an excellent point about getting what you pay for - whether its $265,000 for a talented city manager who could save the city millions through efficient management over the years, or $20 per week for a City Council that can’t seem to get its act together.
And unless I’m mistaken, it would seem that Gurwitz may even share my disdain for San Antonio’s idiotic term limits law. If you are going to throw council members out after just two two-year terms it hardly gives them time to acquire any institutional knowledge or to learn from their mistakes.