Everything I Know Is Wrong

Newsweek admits Climate Change error.

Newsweek has finally admitted that they were wrong about Global Climate Change—in 1975 when they were predicting Global Cooling. Their thirty-years-late mea culpa is evidently supposed to convince us to trust their judgment about Global Warming in the present day. Their admission of error is somewhat strained—they include, in the first sentence of their article, a non sequitur swipe at American involvement in Vietnam, and refer to their 1975 piece as "a small back-page article" as if they can't understand why everyone paid so much attention to "that little story."

Newsweek
In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

Referring to a recent speech on the floor of the Senate by Republican Senator James Inhofe, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which cited their "little article," and which appears to have stung Newsweek, they attempt to paint a picture of Inhofe as a head-in-the-sand right-winger.

In fact, as Inhofe pointed out, for more than 100 years journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age. The implication he draws is that if you're not worried about being trampled by a stampede of woolly mammoths through downtown Chicago, you don't have to believe what the media is saying about global warming, either.

Newsweek's assertion of Inhofe's implication is utterly false, as can easily be seen from the closing sentences of his speech.

 epw.senate.gov
The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.

The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue.

Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific “consensus” of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.

Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells -- it’s very profitable. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.

There's not a woolly mammoth in sight: Inhofe's implication is, clearly, that the left-leaning media does not know what it's talking about, and should shut up until it does.

Inhofe's speech, unlike Newsweeks "admission", is a succinct distillation of the current state of Global Warming hype tactics, read the whole thing.

Inhofe criticizes Global Warming scare media.

Senator James Inhofe slammed the mainstream media on the floor of the Senate Monday. He says—and he's right—that they've jumped whole heartedly onto the  global warming alarmist bandwagon, and left objectivity deliberately behind.

It is an inconvenient truth that so far, 2006 has been a year in which major segments of the media have given up on any quest for journalistic balance, fairness and objectivity when it comes to climate change. The global warming alarmists and their friends in the media have attempted to smear scientists who dare question the premise of man-made catastrophic global warming, and as a result some scientists have seen their reputations and research funding dry up.

The media has so relentlessly promoted global warming fears that a British group called the Institute for Public Policy Research – and this from a left leaning group – issued a report in 2006 accusing media outlets of engaging in what they termed “climate porn” in order to attract the public’s attention.

Bob Carter, a Paleoclimate geologist from James Cook University in Australia has described how the media promotes climate fear:

“Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as ‘if’, ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘probably’, ‘perhaps’, ‘expected’, ‘projected’ or ‘modeled’ - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense,” professor Carter concluded in an op-ed in April of this year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Another example of this relentless hype is the reporting on the seemingly endless number of global warming impact studies which do not even address whether global warming is going to happen. They merely project the impact of potential temperature increases.

The media endlessly hypes studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile Virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, damage vineyards, and global food crops, to name just a few of the global warming linked calamities. Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures almost never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. Fortunately, the media’s addiction to so-called ‘climate porn’ has failed to seduce many Americans.

According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it’s from natural factors or not happening at all.

In addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise.

Yes -- it appears that alarmism has led to skepticism.    

The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.

The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue.

Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific “consensus” of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.

Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells -- it’s very profitable. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.

Senator Inhofe, with simple, direct style, destroys all of the most popular "arguments" that the climate change alarmists use to try to convince the public that their pet scare really exists. It's a great speech, read the whole thing.

Into the Lion's Den.

My friend—and blogger extrordinaire—Ed Morrissey took part in a panel discussion at Macalester College last night, the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Macalester is well known in Minnesota as a bastion of far left liberal ideology. The subject of the discussion was the Iraq war. Predictably, three of the four panelists were liberals opposed to the war. They ranged, in their leftism, from a relatively sensible, moderate, and charming former swiftboat veteran, Lou Ellingson, to the off the chart America-loathing of Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, University of St. Thomas Peace and Justice Studies professor (what the heck is a Peace and Justice Studies professor anyway?). The moderator, though not a part of the discussion proper, managed to make it known that he too was opposed to the war in Iraq, and to the Bush administration in general.

The composition of the audience was also predictable. Easily four fifths of the people in attendance were opposed to the war. I have seldom seen more bumper-stickers calling for America to "Say No to War" (a less realistic solution there never was). The alpaca-wearing, asymmetrical haircut sporting, itty-bitty-skinny-glasses crowd were only outnumbered by the geriatric communists, and up-and-coming beret and black t-shirt wearing Che Guevara lovers.

Into this arena our brave Mr. Morrissey walked of his own volition. In his own words:

In a larger sense, this seems the perfect way to honor our loss on 9/11. America is the home of honest and free political debate, and if we want to prevail against fascism secular or religious, we have to retain the courage to speak out even in potentially hostile climates.

Ed, to be sure, had supporters there, too. Family and friends were there, as well as readers of his blog, Captain's Quarters. Even so, because of the nature of the panel and the audience, my brother-in-law and I decided to stick around until the crowd thinned in case Ed needed help. None was needed. The crowd was polite and orderly, as were the panelists.

You may have noticed that I have not yet mentioned the arguments of the panelists. That is because, for the most part, they were boilerplate leftist arguments that you have heard before: confident, yet unfounded statements that the only reason for the war was to procure oil for the U.S. Well, except for the other reason, which was to further our imperial ambitions. Never mind that we haven't gotten any oil, and every single country which we have beaten in armed conflict is still free. It is startling to see in person, someone—several someones—espouse such outrageous insanity with a straight face. To hear people outline their conspiracies theories, accusing Halliburton-Rove-Cheney-Bush of planning the war in Iraq in a cold-blooded rush toward profit. To see the joy on their faces as they said things about their own country that would curdle your blood. It was surreal.

Ed said some things that made sense, but they were completely ignored by the majority of the audience. He had prepared a very good defense of the war as an opening statement (you can read it here, and I encourage you to) but he was not able to deliver it in full because of a five minute time limit imposed by the panel rules. The time limit, though frustrating to all of the panelists, was probably a good idea overall, as it helped limit the tag-team tactics used by two of Ed's opponents. Unfortunately, it also eliminated the only real chance Ed had of saying something that was not in response to a biased question.

I admire Ed for standing up for his beliefs in the face of an intellectually hostile audience. As always, he was a good spokesman for conservatism. By far the most gracious of the panelists, he put a human face on the right wing that even the left must agree was admirable. After it was over a very relieved Ed said to me, "Thanks for coming, I know it was a long way to drive." I laughed and answered, "Oh buddy, this was a lot harder on you than it was on me!"

Oh, yeah: my grand niece, and Ed's "Little Admiral", got in on the action by taking him a question card of her own, like she saw everyone else doing. She wanted to know, "What is your favorite color?"

Update: Ed, too, speaks of the Lion's den.

Pluto demoted; no longer dog.

Relax, Pluto is still a dog, but is no longer a planet.

Washington Post
After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930. The new definition of what is -- and isn't -- a planet fills a centuries-old black hole for scientists who have labored since Copernicus without one.

Just what are the new rules?

Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."

Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.

Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets," similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun -- "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other natural satellites.

This whole planet/not-a-planet thing has been debated ever since I was a kid. I'm not sure why it really matters; Pluto is still exactly the same thing it was when it was discovered in 1930, and it's still just as interesting to NASA. Unless we're in a competition with some other solar system over who has the most planets I don't get the hoopla.

Nader must pay: "deceitful and fraudulent"

2004 presidential running-mates, Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, must pay legal expenses in Pennsylvania rising from a lawsuit that kept them off the ballot in that state.

Associated Press
As a result of the lawsuit, the state Commonwealth Court found wide-ranging improprieties among Nader and Camejo's petition signatures and disqualified nearly two-thirds of the 51,000 signatures they submitted.

The Commonwealth Court opinion described the Nader-Camejo petitions as "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court."

Signatures were filed for "Mickey Mouse" and "Fred Flintstone," and thousands of names were created at random, the lower court found.

Five state Supreme Court justices said Nader and Camejo must pay the plaintiffs' transcription and stenography costs and handwriting expert fees.

"Given the magnitude of the fraud and deception implicated in (their) signature-gathering efforts, their claim that the Commonwealth Court acted in an unjust and unconstitutional fashion by assessing transcription and stenography costs does not pass the straight-face test," Justice Sandra Schultz Newman wrote for the majority.

Obviously unsafe at any speed.

Western diplomat gets tough.

Regarding Iran's likely rejection of UN "incentives" for ceasing uranium enrichment:

Reuters
"We are not treating (Tuesday) as a deadline because it is not the Security Council deadline," one Western diplomat said. "If Iran flatly refuses to suspend enrichment, then there will, fairly soon, be more talks in the Security Council."

Ooooo, more talks.

Fairly soon.

Scary.

Ahmadinejad must be quaking in his boots.

The AP has no shame.

The Associated press went with this headline: "Rockets Hit Lebanon Despite Cease-Fire." Read the second paragraph to find out whose rockets they were.

Nobel laureate would love to kill George Bush.

Proving once and for all that the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a leftist love-fest, and an oxymoronic waste of time, Betty Williams, a "laureate," told children in Brisbane Australia that she would love to kill George Bush.

"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64.

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.

Williams echoed my thoughts when she said, "I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief." Inexplicably she added, "It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life." How she reconciles the killing of President Bush and being a protector of human life—not to mention telling childred about her sick fantasy—is something best left to the twisted minds of Nobel laureates.

Jump to prevent global warming.

I realize that this is so silly that it is probably best ignored, but it is a good example of what people will do when they don't have any understanding of the science involved in a complex issue like global warming.

China Daily
Hans Peter Niesward, from the Department of Gravitationsphysik at the ISA in Munich, says we can stop global warming in one fell swoop - or, more accurately, in one big jump.

The slightly disheveled professor states his case on WorldJumpDay.org, an Internet site created to recruit 600,000,000 people to jump simultaneously on July 20 at 11:39:13 GMT in an effort to shift Earth's position.

Niesward claims that on this day "Earth occupies one of the most fragile positions in its orbits for the last 100 years." According to the site, the shift in orbit will "stop global warming, extend daytime hours and create a more homogeneous climate."

There's something you should know about Hans Peter Niesward:

Niesward's theory has at least one major flaw: Niesward doesn't really exist. He is a character created by Torsten Lauschmann, a German-born artist living in Scotland. Lauschmann - a live performer, filmmaker, DJ and photographer ¡ª may be best known for his work "Misshapen Pearl," described as a "phenomenological investigation of the streetlamp's function in our consumer society."

Though it seems to have been started almost as a joke it spread all over the world. There are even anti-jumpers who are afraid that changing the earth's orbit is dangerous.

The jump was yesterday. Did anyone notice? WorldJumpday.org is "calculating the results."

A denier accuses.

According to Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, "This man Ahmadinejad is crazy. He is the No. 1 Holocaust denier in the world yet, absurdly, says that there will be one—and he will do it." Yet The Jerusalem Post reports today that Ahmadinejad is accusing Israel of acting like his hero.

"The Zionists think that they are victims of Hitler, but they act like Hitler and behave worse than Genghis Khan," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday.

At the risk of violating Godwins Law—but with the firm conviction that I am fulling his reasons for proposing the law in the first place—as regards Ahmadinejad, I have to say that seldom have I seen someone for whom a comparison to Hitler is as apropos; on the level of personal behavior if not on the level of direct political analogy.

But, at the same time, we have to remember that the Iranians are playing this dangerous game with Israel while using layer upon layer of cats-paws. Hezbollah is a cats-paw of Iran and Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad in turn is a cats-paw for Ayatollah Khameinei. It's a shell game, cat and mouse, smoke and mirrors. We need to remember that just because Hezbollah is the direct actor in this play, it does not mean they are calling the shots; they are only a puppet. A puppet wearing shiny sequins and bells, to be sure, but only a puppet. We need to follow the strings back to Iran.

And beyond?

 

Rove Secretly Runs The New York Times

This is a hoot.

The LA Times empty attack on Lance Armstrong.

France has been living in the grip of "Lance envy" for a long time. When Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France too many times they changed the rules of the Tour to reduce his chances of winning it again. When he won it again, they changed the rules again. And again. Lance proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he could win the tour at will—which twisted the collective French nose particularly hard, as Armstrong is an American.

The LA Times showed us today just how badly it aspires to be French. In an empty hit piece on Lance Armstrong the Times has attacked the worlds best cyclist with an article that shoots only blanks. In this pathetic excuse for a "Times Investigation" they attempt—after describing his amazing rise to the top of the cycling world following a fight with cancer—to smear Armstrong with allegations of which he was completely cleared by Dutch investigators in May of this Year (Lance Armstrong cleared of doping charges-EIKIW).

Now, that feat of athletic domination has been called into question by allegations that performance-enhancing drugs may have played a role. Such rumors have long shadowed Armstrong's career, but the latest assertions are more troublesome — for the first time, they have been made under oath.

Called into question indeed. According to their own article "the case was settled before any action by the presiding three-judge panel, with SCA Promotions agreeing in February to pay the contested $5-million fee, plus interest and attorney costs."

In February.

Five months ago.

Despite this they go on for two full pages in the dead tree version, beginning on page one, and nine pages on the Internet.

Shameful.

Update: John Hinderaker quotes an interesting bit of Hugh Hewitt's post on the subject.

Powerline
So where's the story? There isn't one, unless the Times wanted to run an expose on SCA's business practices. I think Hugh's diagnosis is exactly right:

Big MSM has really lost its way, concluding that anything "secret" is in fact wrongfully hidden from public view, and that its function is to act as a conveyer belt to the front page for whatever a party or person doesn't want revealed.

A Liberal Vision for American Power

Peter Beinart's new book, The Good Fight : Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again, is excerpted in Real Clear Politics today. Beinart, a dedicated liberal whose writing truly strives for honesty, claims to trace an alternate history which he exhorts liberals to use as a narrative which will allow them to be proud of their liberalism. A narrative which will combat and neutralize the the story which he says conservatives use so successfully. A conservative story he relates thus:

Ask any junior- level conservative activist about the cold war, and she can recite the catechism: how liberals lost their nerve in Vietnam and America sank into self- doubt until Ronald Reagan restored America's confidence and overthrew the evil empire. Since September 11, conservatives have turned that storyline into a grand analogy: the Middle East is Eastern Europe, George W. Bush is Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair is Margaret Thatcher, the appeasing French are the appeasing French.

And running through this updated narrative is the same core principle that animated conservative foreign policy throughout the cold war: other countries are cynical and selfish, but the United States is inherently good. The more Americans believe in their own virtue, the stronger they will be.

It's an interesting story, the first part is even true; the part about liberals losing their nerve in Vietnam. But it falls short after that. Beinart's grand analogy is way off base—except for the part about the French. Oh, he may be able to dig up a few individuals who believe in his liberal view of the conservative mindset, but to say that conservatives believe that the Middle East is like Eastern Europe, or that George bush is the modern era's great communicator, or that Tony Blair—a liberal who happens to see the value of fighting terrorism somewhere besides his home town—is anything like the staunchly conservative Margaret Thatcher, shows a profound misunderstanding of conservatives.

Beinart believes that conservatives think "other countries are cynical and selfish, but the United States is inherently good." This is his most grevious mistake, and the foundation upon which his house of cards is built. Conservatives, you see, do not believe that the US is inherently good, they simply believe that it is not inherently evil. This is where they part ways with liberals.

Beinart defines liberalism as "the belief that government should intervene in society to solve problems that individuals cannot solve alone. It is an interesting definition, and one that many conservatives would use to describe conservativism. The difference would be in the list of problems that individuals cannot solve alone. Liberals would list all sorts of social inequities, while conservatives would list things like national defense and road-building. It is hardly definitive, which is never a good thing to say about a definition.

The narrative for Beinart's liberal vision for American power goes like this:

Its roots lie in an antique landscape, at the dawn of America's struggle against a totalitarian foe. And it begins not with America's need to believe in its own virtue, but with its need to make itself worthy of such belief. Around the world, the United States does that by accepting international constraints on its power. For conservatives--from John Foster Dulles to Dick Cheney--American exceptionalism means that we do not need such constraints. Our heart is pure. In the liberal vision, it is precisely our recognition that we are not angels that makes us exceptional. Because we recognize that we can be corrupted by unlimited power, we accept the restraints that empires refuse. That is why the Truman administration self-consciously shared power with America's democratic allies, although we comprised one-half of the world's GDP and they were on their knees.

Moral humility breeds international restraint. That restraint ensures that weaker countries welcome our preeminence, and thus, that our preeminence endures. It makes us a great nation, not a predatory one. At home, because America realizes that it does not embody goodness, it does not grow complacent. Rather than viewing American democracy as a settled accomplishment to which others aspire, we see ourselves as engaged in our own democratic struggle, which parallels the one we support abroad. It was not the celebration of American democracy that inspired the world in the 1950s and 1960s, but America's wrenching efforts--against McCarthyism and segregation--to give our democracy new meaning. Then, as now, the threat to national greatness stems not from self- doubt, but from self- satisfaction.

There are serious flaws in Beinart's narrative; he dances around them, even naming them, without being able to see them. He claims that the US attains virtue "by accepting international constraints on its power," but does not see that without that virtue preexisting, no restraint would be accepted.

Despite having said "liberals pride themselves on their empiricism," he maintains that "restraint ensures that weaker countries welcome our preeminence, and thus, that our preeminence endures." In truth, empiricism shows just the opposite. Weaker countries often hate stronger countries—for no other reason than that they are stronger—and resent the help they are forced by circumstances to accept. Weaker countries will never "welcome" the preeminence of stronger countries, no matter how benevolent.

Beinart's ideas are, however, not without merit. His assertion that modern liberals hide from being labeled as liberals in order to "cast off decades of disappointment and failure" is largely true, though he sees it largely as a political failure, rather than a practical failure of liberal ideas. His ideas about self restraint are worthy, also. He just has difficulty seeing where it already exists.

His concluding paragraph is laudable, and if liberals could embrace it they would take a giant step away from living in their fantasy land, and toward living in the real world.

Recognizing American fallibility means recognizing that the United States cannot wield power while remaining pure. From Henry Wallace in the late 1940s to Michael Moore after September 11, some liberals have preferred inaction to the tragic reality that America must shed its moral innocence to act meaningfully in the world. If the cold war liberal tradition parts company with the right in insisting that American power cannot be good unless we recognize that it can also be evil, it parts company with the purist left in insisting that if we demand that American power be perfect, it cannot be good.

The problem for level headed liberals is that the center of gravity in the Democratic party—the party of liberals and the left—is decidedly more leftist than liberal. Until that changes, liberals are stuck with a party which demands angelic perfection in its wielding of power—and therefore demands inaction.

Based on the excerpt, Peter Beinart's book is probably worth a read.

Terrorist Plot Foiled

The Daily News has an exclusive report on a terror plot foiled by the FBI.

New York Daily News
The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.

The terrorists sought to drown the Financial District as New Orleans was by Hurricane Katrina, sources said. They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

Officials are highlighting the difference between this plot, which they see as a serious threat, and the inept efforts of the Miami Seven. They also mention that the "loan wolf" terrorists had received pledges of financial support from "Jordanian associates of top terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before he was killed in Iraq."

Update: Glenn Reynolds wonders about the pledged finances: "Doesn't that mean they're not exactly lone wolves?"

Biden's Racial Slur

Senator Joe Biden (D, Delaware) is proving once again that Democrats have not left their racist roots behind.

PTI
Senator Biden during his recent trip to New Hampshire told an Indian American activist that "in Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 (a chain store) or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.I'm not joking." Slamming Biden for making "ridiculous comments" about the community, the Indian Americans Republican Council (IARC) said "Joe Biden has a history of making insensitive and inappropriate remarks.

"But even for him, this recent gaffe is clearly over the top. But this isn't the first time a Senate Democrat has insulted Indian Americans," IARC Chairman Dr Vijay said.

"In 2004, Senator John Kerry referred to Sikhs as terrorists and Senator Hillary Clinton jokingly referred to Mahatma Gandhi as a gas station owner. A clear double-standard in the mainstream media will likely ensure Senator Biden gets a pass over these comments that would get a Republican in deep trouble if he ever made a similar statement," he said.

Democrats like to pretend—to others as well as to themselves—that they are the party on the high road in the fight against racism. This despite having been the party of slavery, the party that the Republican anti-slavery party was founded to fight. Democrats have been on the wrong side of nearly every racism issue since.

Lots more here.

Texas Redistricting Upheld by Supreme Court.

The Texas redistricting plan, which was engineered by Tom Delay, and which was decried as unconstitutional by Democrats and those on the left who support them, was upheld today.

Reuters
In the lead opinion for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "We reject the statewide challenge to Texas' redistricting as an unconstitutional political gerrymander and the challenge to the redistricting in the Dallas area as a violation of the Voting Rights Act."

There was one district in West Texas that they found violated federal voting law. SCOTUSblog's analysis:

The District that the Court found legally wanting is a huge Latino-dominated district that the state created in an attempt to salvage the political fortunes of a Latino member of Congress, Republican Henry Bonilla. He had been losing strength among Latino voters, so the state legislature drew a new district by including a largely Anglo, Republican area in central Texas. That, a Court majority found, was the product of a "troubling blend of politics and race -- and the resulting vote dilution of a group that was beginning to achieve [the Voting Rights Act's] goal of overcoming prior electorial discrimination." It "cannot be sustained," the Court concluded.

Whether the state legislature can repair the problem found by the Court in that one District without redrawing the plan statewide is uncertain at this point. The Court majority found no legal flaw in any other part of the plan.

The Opinion.

Walter Mondale embraces doctrine of preemption.

Walter Mondale, former Vice President and one-time Democrat candidate for President, reversed himself by declaring support for a preemptive strike against North Korea.

KARE11
Mondale said on WCCO-AM Friday that the United States should tell North Korea "defuel that missile. It has three boosters. Dismantle it and put it back in the sheds. Because if you're getting ready to fire this, we'll take it out."

Mondale, who's also a former U.S. ambassador to Japan, calls the North Korean missile "one of the most dangerous developments" in recent history.

"Nuclear weapons can destroy hundreds of millions of people in one strike - destroy major cities -it is the danger of our time," Mondale said. "Here's this bizarre, hermit kingdom up there, with a paranoid leader getting ready to test a missile system that can hit us. We've got to stop it."

[...]

"This is such a legitimate thing for the United States to do," Mondale said. "The nature of the threat is so serious that I think we should knock it out right there if they won't stop."

I haven't given much thought to Mr. Mondale since he was soundly defeated, in a race to be Minnesota's second Senator, by Norm Coleman—after being put on the ballot in a quasi-legal manner, as a replacement for Paul Wellstone who had died in a plane crash.

I must admit to being a little non-plussed at agreeing with him.

Here is the Audio

Deadly hide and seek.

Israel National News says that Israel has found out the location of their kidnapped soldier.

INN
Diplomats living in Gaza have stated that they have located the whereabouts of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped yesterday during the terror attack on Kerem Shalom. The prime minister has stated that Israel will not agree to the release of Arab prisoners, and Israel has threatened to strike at senior Hamas figures, including members of the PA government, if Shalit is not released.

Additionally, Harretz is reporting on fears that another boy was kidnapped by Palestinians.

The Israel Defense Forces said Tuesday afternoon that there were growing fears that a teenager from the settlement of Itamar who has been missing since Sunday has been kidnapped as claimed by Palestinian militants.

Israelis claim to be uncertain about the credibility of the second kidnapping, but Palestinians are doing their best to convince them that they have the boy.

"The Palestinians claimed they would present documents belonging to the kidnapped settler. Then we will be able to judge whether the story is true," a senior Israel Defense Forces officer said earlier Tuesday.

Israel, meanwhile, is not standing around waiting for the Palestinians to exhibit ethical behavior.

Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas warned Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh that Israel will strike out at him if harm comes to the Israel Defense Forces soldier kidnapped by militants, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported Tuesday.

During a particularly tense and hasty meeting held Monday night in Gaza, Abbas told Haniyeh that Israel would also strike out at his fellow Hamas members Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud a-Zahar and Interior Minister Said Sayam if anything happens to Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

Violence begets violence?

James Taranto has this brilliant insight regarding those who offer up the "violence begets violence" excuse for terrorist atrocities.

This rhetoric about "cycles" appears to reflect a theory of moral equivalence, but in fact it is something else. After all, if the two sides were morally equivalent, one could apply this reasoning in reverse--excusing, for example, the alleged massacre at Haditha on the ground that it was "provoked" by a bombing that killed a U.S. serviceman--and hey, violence begets violence.

But America's critics never make this argument, and its defenders seldom do. That is because it is understood that America knows better. If it is true that U.S. Marines murdered civilians in cold blood at Haditha, the other side's brutality does not excuse it. Only the enemy's evil acts are thought to be explained away by ours.

Implicit in the "cycle" theory, then, is the premise that the enemy is innocent--not in the sense of having done nothing wrong, but in the sense of not knowing any better. The enemy lacks the knowledge of good and evil--or, to put it in theological terms, he is free of original sin.

Blaming America for the violence done to it is like blaming a rape victim of having brought it upon herself.

Ding, dong, Zarqawi is dead!

Iraqi prime minister reported this morning that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead! Unlike the many previous possible Zarqawi deaths, this one is said to be confirmed by matching scars and fingerprints.

Fox
Press reaction in the Middle East to the news that U.S. warplanes had killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was swift and restrained.

Iraqi TV broke the story, quoting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as saying that Zarqawi had been killed. The news was immediately picked up at 6:50 GMT by the pan-Arab TV network al-Jazeera.

Red banners with urgent tags immediately appeared on many Arab TV stations, as the region's major stations broke into regular programming to announce Zarqawi’s death.

Islamic extremist web sites also were quick to carry the news – and in their case, lament it.

A note posted on one web site – known as a clearinghouse for Al Qaeda in Iraq statements – lamented, "We hope this news is not true."

Omar, at Iraq the Model, seems, um... happy about Zarqawi's death. He sums up his feeling in all caps: "CONGRATULATIONS TO IRAQ, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WHOLE WORLD ON THIS VICTORY." He also has some information on Hibhib, the town where Zarqawi met his end.

Update: Captain Ed has a very thorough roundup.

Update: Pajamas Media also has good roundup and a podcast featuring Omar from Iraq The Model.

Update: Atrios can barely manage to be happy Zarqawi is dead. KOS manages to "cheer."

Update: Here is why it is a good thing Zarqawi is dead.