Considerettes

More evidence that Saddam may have only thought he had a nuclear weapons program:

Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say.

I talked about this back in May, highlighting a National Review article by Jim Lacey, and later in September, highlighting a TIME magazine article (requires payment to view, as it’s more than 2 issues old). The notable thing about all this is that our intelligence may have picked up this same misinformation, and if so can you really say Bush “lied” about it? Not really.

Intellectual honesty among conservatives:

Sean Spicer, spokesman for Rep. Jim Nussle, Iowa Republican and the conservative chairman of the House Budget Committee, said the spending increases appear worse when lumping in the annual late-year “emergency” congressional expenditures that he said are little more than thinly veiled pork projects.

“Even without the emergencies, we’re looking at [spending] numbers well above inflation, and that’s definitely a concern,” Mr. Spicer said.

This is in regards to the Medicare bill in particular, but overall spending in general. Some might call this “infighting”, but I call it honest debate in a party that doesn’t blindly follow the leader.

Here’s some more honest debate from Sen. Chuck Hagel, senior senator from Nebraska.

How does Europe see America?

American society is entirely ruled by money. No other value, whether familial, moral, religious, civic, cultural, professional, or ethical has any potency in itself. Everything in America is a commodity, regarded and used exclusively for its material value. A person is judged solely by the worth of his bank account.
…
Poverty and inequality like this should cause Europeans to cringe in horror, especially since (we have it on good authority) there is no safety net in America, no unemployment benefits, no retirement, no assistance for the destitute–not the slightest bit of social solidarity.
…
Everywhere you go, violence reigns, with uniquely high levels of delinquency and criminality and a feverish state of near-open revolt in the ghettos. This last is the inevitable result of the deep-rooted racism of American society, which sets ethnic “communities” against one another, and ethnic minorities as a whole against the oppressive white majority.

An on it goes. Actually, this article entitled “Europe’s Anti-American Obsession”, written by Jean-Fracois Revel, a Parisian, is a deconstruction of the prejudices and misconceptions that are not only thought by many in Europe but are also fed to them daily by their media. The web page also has an article by Fouad Ajami called “The Falseness of Anti-Americanism”, which is also worth a read.

When CBS chairman Les Moonves decided not to show the miniseries “The Reagans”, his reasoning what that he had determined it was biased. One might think that this would be the death knell for those who thought that the media was liberal, when in fact it made a supposedly principled decision to remove a one-sided look at a political figure.

However, the president of Showtime, where the miniseries will eventually run and which is owned by CBS, doesn’t think it’s that simple:

“If [CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves] didn’t know what movie he was getting, that’s not the fault of the producers, the director or anyone associated with the film,” said Robert Greenblatt, president of entertainment for Showtime Networks, in a telephone news conference yesterday with TV critics.

“Anybody that knows anything about networks and the making of movies . . . [knows] all scripts are approved, all dailies are seen, so, therefore, there were no surprises.

“[Moonves] is the chairman of CBS and the scripts, the casting, every single day of dailies [were] available to him,” said Greenblatt, who was not associated with “The Reagans” until Nov. 4.

So Moonves knew, or should have known, how slanted this show was far earlier than when he feigned surprise over it. So no, principle hasn’t come to CBS. It’s just that this bit of bias was finally, successfully, fought back against.

Next time, Les will just be less obvious about it.

Every time there’s a high-profile personality accused of something, as with the recent accusations against singer Michael Jackson, inevitably people start to form opinions. And, just as inevitably, other complain “What about ‘innocent until proven guilty’?” I saw that sentiment on Fox & Friends this morning (a viewer E-mail), as well as from Elizabeth Taylor, and I thought I’d weigh in on why I think that’s a non-sequiter (somewhat akin to asking, “But what about the price of tea in China?”). I’ll start with the standard disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, but this is not so much a legal brief as it is an opinion as to why this isn’t so much a legal issue.

Let’s start with a hypothetical situation. A burglar comes into your house to steal something. While doing this, you catch him in action and get a clear look at him. He escapes with something of yours, but at some point he is arrested. He goes to trial, and during the trial his defense attorney presents a convincing argument to the jury that this fellow actually has an airtight alibi for the time of the burglary. You know this is the guy, and you know for sure that he’s guilty. He did come into your house and steal your things. However, the jury returns a “not guilty” verdict.

The question now is; is this man guilty or not? The legal system has said he isn’t, but what about reality? I believe our legal system gets it right far more often than it gets it wrong, but nonetheless the verdict of that system does not always reflect reality. Is this man guilty? Yes, he is, even though the legal system has said he is innocent. So the distinction here is that legally he is innocent, while in reality he is guilty.

And that is why asking “What about ‘innocent until proven guilty'” is not applicable to people’s opinions. That tenet is a legal policy. The legal system must treat the accused as innocent unless there is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to declare the person guilty (as opposed to assuming the accused is guilty and must prove his innocence). This obviously does not mean that the person really is innocent of the crime until a verdict is reached, only that the legal system starts from the position that they must be treated as such until the evidence says otherwise.

People’s opinions are not subject to this tenet unless they happen to be serving on a jury. Otherwise, we can form our own opinions about someone’s guilt or innocence with as much (or as little) information as we like. Telling someone that they can’t form an opinion because the verdict hasn’t come in yet is really an apples-to-oranges comparison. Suggesting that people must apply that legal tenet to their own opinions is like saying that I’m not allowed to insist my 3-year-old tell me if he broke his brother’s toy because that would violate the legal tenet of not incriminating oneself. Legal policy is for the legal system.

It seems rather silly to me that this even has to be explained, but as I said I see this every time there’s a celebrity or some other high-profile person accused of something. I’m sure this thought will continue to come up in the future, but maybe, just maybe, some will find this entry in their favorite web search engine (Liz, are you reading this?) and we can put this idea to rest, one page hit at a time.

When the results don’t meet your preconceived notions, chuck the report. That’s what the European Union has done with a report on anti-Semitism.

A European Union study conducted amid an upsurge in anti-Semitic violence was blocked from publication because it concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were responsible for many of the incidents.
…
The anti-Semitism report’s focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian perpetrators, however, raised objections with the Berlin center’s staff and management board.

The center also did not like the authors’ definition of anti-Semitism, which included anti-Israel acts.
…
Some of the EUMC board members also did not like left-leaning and anti-globalization groups portrayed as harboring anti-Semitic motivations.

“The decision not to publish was a political decision,” said the person familiar with the report.

And to seal the fact that the UN is not only extremely liberal, but extremely unfair…

The EUMC has published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Financial Times said.

This ought to shatter any illusions UN supporters still have about the validity and moral authority of the organization, but of course it won’t.

Update to the update to my fisking of Robert Kuttner’s dissing of the Bush economy: The 3rd quarter number for economic growth has been adjusted from 7.2%…adjusted up, that is. If 7.2 was “blistering”, what’s 8.2%?

Requiring firearms in the home:

GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. — Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

Of course, this ordinance won’t be proactively enforced, hence the minimal fine. The point is that the bad guys now know that it’s more likely that a home they invade will have a gun ready to be pointed at them.

For those who think this won’t solve anything, first read the gun law ordinances for Kennesaw, Georgia which were passed in 1982 (and which read very much like Geuda Springs ordinance). Then read this article by Chuck Baldwin, written back in 1999, which quotes The New American Magazine, showing that crimes against persons dropped 74% in 1982 and another 45% in 1983. Baldwin correctly notes:

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn’t. The fact is I can’t remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story.

A mention in the newsletter The Federalist by Brian Janiskee of The Claremont Institute brought to my attention the article “The Legend of the Social Liberal-Fiscal Conservative“. In it, Janiskee makes this statement:

The more socially liberal the politician, the more fiscally liberal is the politician. For the most part, a conservative is a conservative and a liberal is a liberal. This is the hard truth.

He backs this up with a comparison of the ratings members of Congress get from the National Right to Life Committee (what he calls a “proxy measure of social conservatism”) with ratings from the National Tax Payers Union (“a proxy measure of fiscal conservatism”). He’s wondering out loud how Arnold Schwartzenegger will govern, since Arnold claims to be this social-liberal-fiscal-conservative animal, but in general I think this is very instructive when it comes to those who claim to be “moderates”.

Added a new reciprocal link to the blog deskmerc. He’s added a link to “Considerable Quotes”, so back atcha. 🙂