"If (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein was not carrying out the UN instructions and resolutions... I will support them (the UN) without resignation, but what I condemn is one power with a president who can't think properly and wants to plant [sic] the world into holocaust."

"All Bush wants is Iraqi oil, because Iraq produces 64 percent of oil and he wants to get hold of it."

Mr. Estrada, a native of Honduras and graduate of Harvard Law School, has a strong legal résumé. But people who have worked with him over the years, at the solicitor general's office and elsewhere, report that his interpretation of the law is driven by an unusually conservative agenda. Paul Bender, a law professor and former deputy solicitor general, has called Mr. Estrada an ideologue, and said he "could not rely on his written work as a neutral statement of the law." In private practice, Mr. Estrada defended anti-loitering laws that civil rights and groups have attacked as racist.

Opponents point almost exclusively to the statements of one man: Paul Bender. Bender, who served as "political" deputy and as a supervisor to Estrada in the Solicitor General's office during the Clinton administration, has repeatedly stated that Estrada is "too much of an ideologue to be an appellate judge." Bender is alone among his colleagues at Justice in making this accusation. In fact, Seth Waxman, the Solicitor General for whom both Bender and Estrada worked, sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee expressly disagreeing with Bender's assessment, and lauding Estrada's professionalism and judgment. Because Bender provides no support for this statement, all we have to go on is his word. It's therefore worth getting to know Bender.

Because Bender was the "political" deputy, he was permitted to assume his high post without going through the pleasure that is Senate confirmation. This circumvention of Senate review was obviously no accident. From the earliest days of his tenure, Bender was referred to in the press as "not a popular pick," and "an unabashed liberal." His presence in the Solicitor General's office led to well-publicized friction with the career staff, who cited as their primary grievance not Bender's politics, but rather his lack of collegiality and his tendency to "impugn people's work and their motives and their integrity."

In contrast to his unfounded allegation that Estrada lacks the proper temperament to be a judge, Bender has actually demonstrated that he lacks the proper temperament to be even a neutral arbitrator. In 1999, the American Arbitration Association removed him from the position of arbitrator in an action between the Arizona Gaming Control Board and Indian tribes, citing "serious concerns regarding Bender's attitude and approach," which included "inappropriate communications" with one of the parties to the case. That Bender has failed at his one effort as impartial decision-maker casts grave doubts about his ability to stand in judgment of Estrada's impartiality.

Furthermore, for someone so quick to impugn the ideological motives of others, Bender's resume reveals a career remarkably influenced if not driven by ideology. He served as Chief Counsel for the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, which recommended the abolition of pornography laws, a position so outside the mainstream that it was rejected 95-5 by the Senate. His own views seem to go even farther, leading him to suggest that sexually explicit material should not be removed from public display "just because it's disgusting." It should come as no surprise then that while he was at the Solicitor General's office, that office reversed its position in a child-pornography case, arguing that depictions of children must be more explicit than the prevailing standard to constitute child pornography. This "mainstream" position was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 100-0.

Recently, Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy asked Estrada to give the committee copies of his personnel evaluations from his time at the Department. Estrada agreed, and the documents reveal that Estrada, according to his supervisors:

• "states the operative facts and applicable law completely and persuasively, with record citations, and in conformance with court and office rules, and with concern for fairness, clarity, simplicity, and conciseness."


• "[is] extremely knowledgeable of resource materials and uses them expertly; acting independently, goes directly to point of the matter and gives reliable, accurate, responsive information in communication position to others."


• "[all] dealings, oral, and written, with the courts, clients, and others are conducted in a diplomatic, cooperative, and candid manner."


• "[all] briefs, motions, or memoranda reviewed consistently reflect no policies at variance with Departmental or Governmental policies, or fails to discuss and analyze relevant authorities."


• [is] constantly sought for advice and counsel. Inspires co-workers by example."


Estrada's performance was consistently rated outstanding. And the man who wrote and signed those remarkably positive evaluations was none other than...Paul Bender.

Senators have a constitutional duty to weigh the qualifications of nominees for the federal judiciary. But they cannot perform this duty when the White House sends them candidates whose record is a black hole. Mr. Estrada's case is particularly troubling because the administration has more information about his views, in the form of his solicitor general memos, but is refusing to share it with the Senate.

In a letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, committee chairman and Vermont Democrat, the solicitors said they were "concerned" about the requests to turn over appeal recommendations, certiorari recommendations and amicus recommendations on which Mr. Estrada worked while employed by the Office of the Solicitor General.

"As former heads of the Office of the Solicitor General -- under presidents of both parties -- we can attest to the vital importance of candor and confidentiality in the solicitor general's decisionmaking process," said the letter obtained by The Washington Times.

The letter is signed by all seven living solicitors: Clinton appointees Seth P. Waxman, Walter Dellinger and Drew S. Days III; Bush appointee Kenneth W. Starr; Reagan appointee Charles Fried; Nixon appointee Robert H. Bork; and Kennedy appointee Archibald Cox, 94, a former Watergate special prosecutor.

"Any attempt to intrude into the office's highly privileged deliberations would come at the cost of the Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the United States' litigation interests, a cost that also would be borne by Congress itself," the letter said.

Gil Buckman (Steve Martin) to his son: What do we say when we see a pretty woman?
Son: Hubba, hubba.

A year ago he was, indeed, immensely popular; right now he's not significantly more popular than he was before Sept. 11.

Other polls suggest that the public is particularly disenchanted with Mr. Bush's economic policy. Most voters no longer believe that his tax cuts are effective at creating jobs, and many also believe that his policies favor the wealthy and large corporations, rather than people like themselves. (Class warfare!)

The administration's credibility problem is made worse by the high casualty rate among top economic officials, and the uninspiring quality of their replacements. Today is the first day of hearings for John Snow, the administration's choice for Treasury secretary. One official I spoke to was rueful: "I thought Paul O'Neill wasn't suited to being Treasury secretary; he'd have been better off running a railroad. Now they've picked a man who ran a railroad."

But that's not why he was chosen, according to CBS Market Watch: "He was picked because he's a lobbyist, a schmoozer, a master salesman" ? and a member of no less than nine country clubs.

Still, nobody razzle-dazzles 'em like Mr. Bush. Tonight we'll see if he's good enough to make us forget last year's promises.

I, for one, was not surprised "that surveys show that liberal professors vastly outnumber conservatives." After all, we hope and expect that our professors are bright, educated and thoughtful persons and thus unlikely to have been persuaded by the specious logic cranked out by our many conservative think tanks.

I object to the current practice of demonizing liberals. Liberals are committed to the well-being and progress of all citizens, not just small and privileged groups. They are willing to use the power of government to advance these causes, if necessary.

How these goals can best be accomplished is, of course, never obvious, and it is in this regard that our universites are essential. They must continue to promote the free exchange of ideas and not be muzzled by ideologues.

There was no light switch. There was no light in the cell. There was, in fact, nothing in the cell but a bucket. No bed, no toilet, no wash basin, no drain, nothing. Just the bucket. The cell was not a cell, actually, it was a hole, a raised dungeon perhaps five feet wide, five feet high and five feet deep, with a ceiling and door of steel and a floor and walls of stone.

...

I was not fed my first day in Perpignan's prison. I had been placed in my grim cell late in the afternoon. Several hours later, exhausted, cold, hungry, bewildered, frightened and desolate. I laid down on the hard floor and fell asleep. I slept curled in a ball, for I am six feet tall.

The screeching of the door awakened me. I sat up, wincing form the soreness and cramps caused by my uncomfortable sleeping position. The dim form of a guard loomed in the doorway. He was placing something on the steps inside my crypt....

I felt around and located the food the guard had brought. It was a quart container of water and a small loaf of bread. The simple breakfast had not even been brought on a tray. The guard had simple set the container of water on the top step and had dropped the bread beside it on the stone.

...

The menu in Perpignan prison never varied. For breakfast, I was served bread and water. Lunch consisted of a weak chicken soup and a loaf of bread. Supper was a cup of black coffee and a loaf of bread.

...

I never left the cell. Not once during my stay in the hoary jail was I permitted outside for exercise or recreation. ...

The bucket was my latrine. I was not given any toilet paper, nor was the bucket removed after use. I soon adapted to the stench, but after a few days the bucket overflowed and I had to move around and sleep in my own fecal matter. I was too numbed, in body and spirit, to be revolted. Eventually, however, the odor became too nauseating for even the guards to endure, apparently. One day, between meals, the door creaked open and another convict scurried in with the furtiveness and manner of a rat, grabbed the bucket and fled. It was returned, empty a few minutes later. On perhaps half a dozen other occasions during my time in the tiny tomb, the procedure was repeated. But only twice during my imprisonment were the feces cleaned from the floor of the cell.

...

I weighed 210 pounds when I was received at Perpignan. The tedious diet did not contain enough nutrients or calories to maintain me. My body began to feed upon itself, the muscles and tendons devouring the stored fats and oily tissues in order to fuel the pumps of my heart and my circulatory system. Within weeks I was able to encircle my biceps with my fingers.

In contrast to how all the networks featured soundbites from likable marchers in the anti-war protest over the weekend, the ABC, CBS, and NBC stories on Wednesday night did not include a syllable from any participant, on stage or in the crowd, at the massive March for Life, including President Bush. Despite tens of thousands of pro-lifers in Washington and just tens of pro- abortion protesters (a midday Planned Parenthood rally was estimated by Reuters at 150), Dan Rather misled viewers into assuming large crowds on both sides: "Tens of thousands of demonstrators on both sides of the issue filled the streets of Washington today."

We raised this issue several weeks ago, pointing out that the unceasing addition of exemptions, deductions and credits to the tax code was shrinking the tax-paying base. And, as more lower-income people saw tax liabilities fall to zero, more upper-income people shouldered a larger part of the tax burden. We did not, by the way, suggest that lower income people should pay higher taxes. We even went out of our way to flog our favorite horse that everybody should pay less in taxes.

I HATE interracial relationships. Why do white men feel that white women are inferior to those baloney smellin' black whores? And it's not only that, but it's as if white men HATE white women, the very people who gave birth to white men. I think that interracial relationships are very offensive. And I won't even get started about those kids they make.

Welcome to my blog...it still has the new blogg smell...mmmmmmmmmm. After posting in Salon's Table Talk for the past two years I thought it was time to take my show on the road and quit interrupting intelligent discussions about important subjects with snarky commentary and tasteless asides. That's what this blog is for. An early warning: I am prone to using bad words, making fun of others misfortune, and generally ridiculing anything that I can think of. If you have delicate sensibilities, or even average sensibilities, maybe this isn't the place for you. If you think the Bush is the duly elected President, Peggy Noonan is sane, Dick Cheney is not a death-bound souless jackal who would sell his lesbian daughter into a Saudi harem for a quart of thirty weight...well, I'm probably not your boy. This blog is for bad thoughts, cruel putdowns, and nasty hit-and-run attacks on the rightwingers, evangelicals, crappy popular culture, drunken First Daughters, and anything that comes to mind.


Enjoy.

Now, I don't really count Kristof's little jab as a serious slam against Christianity -- but it's one of those little things that I think is indicative of many in the liberal media. A little jab at the Christians is OK, and maybe even the Jews (those Israelis being so pesky and all), but a similar skewering of blacks, Latinos, gays, women? I seriously doubt would have made it past the Times copy editors -- if doing it had crossed Kristof's mind in the first place.

Are black Americans cannon fodder in the all-volunteer military?

Quite the contrary, actually.

Blacks constitute 21 percent of the enlisted force but only 15 percent of the combat arms ? infantry, armor and artillery. By contrast, African-Americans constitute 36 percent of functional support and administration and 27 percent of the military's medical and dental career fields.

Casualties in the 1991 Persian Gulf War reflected these military occupational proportions. Blacks constituted 23 percent of U.S. military personnel in the Persian Gulf conflict but only 17 percent of combat and non-combat deaths. Whites constituted 71 percent of the Desert Storm force and 76 percent of the U.S. deaths.

Even at the peak, most Americans disappointed pro-abortion ideologues by persisting in seeing abortion as a tragedy rather than a routine medical procedure. Parents do not dream of one day telling people about "my son the abortionist." Few men brag about pressuring their girlfriends or wives into having abortions. Unease about abortion is so widespread that the politicians most committed to keeping it legal rarely use the word, preferring to talk about "choice." Abortion is the right that dare not speak its name.

The economic effect of this 20-year extension--the longest blanket extension since the Nation's founding--is to make the copyright term not limited, but virtually perpetual. Its primary legal effect is to grant the extended term not to authors, but to their heirs, estates or corporate successors.

Artists naturally deserve to hold a property interest in their work, and so do the corporate owners of copyright. But the public has an equally strong interest in seeing copyright lapse after a time, returning works to the public domain ? the great democratic seedbed of artistic creation ? where they can be used without paying royalties.

In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright perpetuity. Public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful creative ferment.

So how can we undermine North Korean propaganda and totalitarianism? By imposing sanctions and increasing its isolation? Or by engaging it and tying it to the global economy?

The answer should be obvious, for there is no greater subversive in a Communist country than an American factory manager. People will hear stories from his housemaid's third cousin's neighbor's friend about how he has five pairs of blue jeans (!), a beer belly (!), blows his nose on tissues that he then throws away (!), and reads a Bible (!) and Playboy magazine (!!). Many a Communist will immediately begin dreaming of capitalism.

It's an act of stunning moral vanity. Ryan claims he's concerned that innocent people may have been on death row, and the Associated Press quotes him as saying that capital punishment is "arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral." But what's more arbitrary and capricious than sparing every convict on death row, even those about whose guilt there is no doubt? Ryan's successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, calls Ryan's act "a big mistake." He tells Reuters: "A blanket anything is usually wrong. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. We're talking about people who committed murder."

Even if there were innocents on death row, Ryan has done them no favor. Except for four inmates who got full pardons (Ryan said police had beaten and tortured them into making full confessions), all the erstwhile death-row denizens merely had their sentences reduced to life in prison. This means, as a USA Today editorial notes, that they "will lose access to the mandatory legal review of their sentences and to the legal experts who provide them extraordinary appellate help." USA Today seems to approve of this, but if there really are innocent people behind bars, why would anyone want to deny them "extraordinary appellate help"?

Ryan's decision harms the innocent, helps the guilty and is a slap in the face of the victims of violent crime and the jurors who made the difficult decision to sentence defendants to death. But as Sam Evans, Debra Evans's widower, tells ProDeathPenalty.com, "He is not very concerned with individuals, just with issues."

Thousands of Egyptian faithful went through their traditional prostrations and listened to the sermon by the sheik of Al Azhar, who spoke in measured tones about how God deals with "oppressors." At the end, he appealed to God to rescue the Palestinians. It was all very solemn and understated. And then the excitement started.

A split second after he finished, someone tossed in the air hundreds of political leaflets, and a young man was lifted onto the shoulders of the crowd and began denouncing "American tyranny." Hundreds of the faithful then marched around the mosque chanting behind him, while the silent majority shuffled out. It was as if you were seeing two services: first the state-run service and then the street-run service, where the real steam was let off. But here's what struck me most: While America came in for a lashing, no one in this crowd was chanting in support of Saddam Hussein.

Hundreds of the faithful then marched around the mosque chanting behind him, while the silent majority shuffled out.

Jon Van Schaik, a Chicago firefighter whose brother Roger was one of two police officers fatally shot on a South Side street in 1979, said he hoped Ryan would soon face charges in the corruption scandal and then "spend the rest of his life in prison."

"How can one person have all of this authority and power?" Van Schaik said. "It's making a mockery and a farce out of our legal system and our prison system."

My Muslim friends accept me, but if I was living in an Islamic country I would be killed for converting to Christianity.

My prayer is for the world to realise that the only way to solve conflicts is by talking to people and understanding their beliefs instead of resorting to war and violence.

"The first claim [of those who support tax cuts] is that the rich pay more in taxes in the first place. Well, yeah, they do--they have more money. The richest 1 percent have 18 percent of all the pretax income and they pay 36 percent of all personal income taxes."--Molly Ivins, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jan. 9

"The dirty little secret about taxes in this country is that rich people and corporations mostly don't pay them now--they have a whole system of shelters and offshore deals."--Molly Ivins, same column

When the only educated people you know hold identical views to yours, it's an easy step to assuming that all those other mysterious creatures out there who disagree with you are simply dumb anti-intellectual jingoists. The cocoon blinds Didion in other ways as well. Many times in the piece, she recounts going out into the country to talk to real people about 9/11. She doesn't seem to realize that the people Joan Didion might meet in bookstores -- the ones who have come explicitly to hear her speak, no less -- might not be completely representative of the country as a whole. Memo to Didion: Get out a little more.

Companies with losses or those that use various techniques that eliminate taxable income will find they have no tax-free dividends to hand out.

For the first time, in other words, companies that pay federal income taxes will seem more attractive to investors than those that find ways to avoid paying the taxes.

"There is less pressure on the company to shelter its income, because it will inhibit its ability to pay out dividends without tax," said Pam Olson, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy.

The president's plan also came up with a way for shareholders of profitable, tax-paying companies to get a break even if the companies decide to distribute little or no cash in dividend payments.

Companies that choose to reinvest in their businesses rather than pay dividends will pass on to their shareholders a tax break that will reduce the capital gain they report when they sell their stock.

That twist, not widely understood when the plan's details were first disclosed, means that the tax bill may benefit holders of new-economy companies such as Microsoft that pay no dividends, as well as owners of old-economy companies such as General Motors that do pay them.

The public figures who've fought cloning and the Brave New World of eugenics over the past few years insist that the biotechnological issues can be separated from abortion, and there are obvious ways in which they're right: If the abortion debate is really about "a woman's right to chose," then it has nothing to do with the question of creating life in laboratories.

But there are other ways in which the anti-cloning forces are wrong, for the prohibition against abortion is quickly proving to have been the key hedge against the disrespect for life. To offer a different metaphor, the Brave New World is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Each small piece of the puzzle is held up by its advocates as though it existed in isolation, as though it implied nothing about what is to come, as though it were bad faith on the part of its opponents to point out that it fits in a larger picture. Back in 2001, we were told that the use of embryonic stem cells doesn't require cloning embryos for research. In 2002, we were told that cloning embryos for research doesn't require bringing clones to birth. And now, in 2003, the Raelians claim to have brought a clone to birth, and we are told that this doesn't require the genetic redesign of our descendants.

But it does, of course. Don't look at the single jigsaw-puzzle piece they're holding up this time. Look at the picture they're filling in with it.

Rep. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, is attacking the president’s plan thus: “We stimulate the job market. The president’s plan stimulates the stock market.” Is this wise of the Ds? I would guess that more Americans have been hurt by the substantial decline in stocks than by the modest uptick in unemployment.

Of course, (Al) Gore is no racist, and it is not even remotely possible that he ever used racially offensive speech. But for a long time he has been the personification of a Democratic Party that has found it impossible to move off the racial dime, often staying silent or complicitous when others waved the bloody shirt of ol' time racism -- usually just to propel African Americans to the polls.

This is precisely what happened in the last presidential campaign when the NAACP all but placed the body of James Byrd Jr., the victim of a racial murder, at George W. Bush's doorstep. Byrd's daughter, Renee Mullins, narrated the commercial and said, "So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again."

This tasteless ad, run just before the presidential election, was not denounced by a single prominent Democrat. It tried to link Byrd's gruesome murder to Bush's opposition to hate-crime legislation. That was pretty close to, if not indistinguishable from, calling him soft on racism.

Gore was the presidential candidate and had an absolute obligation to denounce the ad. (So did Bill Clinton.) He did not, because in its own way the Democratic Party is just as likely to play the race card as the Republican Party. Take a principled stand against this or that civil rights program and you're going to be denounced as a racist.

Hate-crime legislation is an example. Why it is needed is beyond me. Byrd's killers were hardly going to be daunted by such legislation, as what they did -- murder -- was already a capital crime. (Two of the three killers have been sentenced to death and the third to life in prison.) The town of Jasper, Tex., where the murder occurred, hung its head in shame. Yet, the entire ugly incident -- an aberration, really -- was treated as if the era of lynchings was not over and something had to be done quickly. To think otherwise was somehow racist.

It's the same with affirmative action. Say you oppose it -- believing it is a worthy end but achieved by dubious means -- and you stand a fair chance of being accused of racism. Gore himself came pretty close to that when, in a 1998 speech, he likened opposition to affirmative action to a duck blind. "They hide behind the phrase ['a colorblind society'] and just hope that we, like the ducks, won't be able to see through it."

Yes, that is sometimes the case. But opponents of affirmative action include quite a few blacks, who cannot be reasonably accused of racism. No matter. The prospect of having to defend yourself against what amounts to the most powerful charge in American politics is enough to make anyone just shut his mouth and, if he is in Congress, vote the way of political correctness.

In a year in which Mr. Krugman generated lots of buzz and won an award, his 18:1 ratio of negative to positive Republican references and 99 columns without a single substantive deviation from the party line were unmatched in the Lying in Ponds portion of the punditocracy.

Customers who wear clothes also shop for:
Clean Underwear from Amazon's Target Store.

[W]hat game does the Bush administration think it's playing in Korea?

That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like "The Theory and Practice of Blackmail." The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.

I know, it sounds obvious. Yet the Bush administration's Korea policy has systematically violated that simple principle.

Let's be clear: North Korea's rulers are as nasty as they come.

But unless we have a plan to overthrow those rulers, we should ask ourselves what incentives we're giving them.

So put yourself in Kim Jong Il's shoes. The Bush administration has denounced you. It broke off negotiations as soon as it came into office. Last year, though you were no nastier than you had been the year before, George W. Bush declared you part of the "axis of evil." A few months later Mr. Bush called you a "pygmy," saying: "I loathe Kim Jong Il -- I've got a visceral reaction to this guy. . . . They tell me, well we may not need to move too fast, because the financial burdens on people will be so immense if this guy were to topple -- I just don't buy that."

Moreover, there's every reason to take Mr. Bush's viscera seriously. Under his doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. can attack countries it thinks might support terrorism, whether or not they have actually done so. And who decides whether we attack? Here's what Mr. Bush says: "You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you." L'état, c'est moi.

So Mr. Bush thinks you're a bad guy -- and that makes you a potential target, no matter what you do.

On the other hand, Mr. Bush hasn't gone after you yet, though you are much closer to developing weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. (You probably already have a couple.) And you ask yourself, why is Saddam Hussein first in line? He's no more a supporter of terrorism than you are: the Bush administration hasn't produced any evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Maybe the administration covets Iraq's oil reserves; but it's also notable that of the three members of the axis of evil, Iraq has by far the weakest military.

So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick?

Your own experience seems to confirm that conclusion. Last summer you were caught enriching uranium, which violates the spirit of your 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration. But the Bush administration, though ready to invade Iraq at the slightest hint of a nuclear weapons program, tried to play down the story, and its response -- cutting off shipments of fuel oil -- was no more than a rap on the knuckles. In fact, even now the Bush administration hasn't done what its predecessor did in 1994: send troops to the region and prepare for a military confrontation.

So here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang:

The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.