Dark Buzz

Natura non facit saltus
Debunking the Paradigm Shifters


Dark Buzz
RSS feed
Singular Values

About these blogs

Schlafly net

Powered by RogBlog


Wednesday, Sep 29, 2004
Lies about Bush v. Gore
John sends this TNR article about Bush v. Gore.

These legal article about Bush v. Gore are just packed with lies. Skipping down to one of its claims at random, it says:

Scalia wrote, the issues should be regarded as "political questions" to be regulated exclusively by legislatures, not courts. Of course, if Scalia applied the same standard in Bush v. Gore, he would have agreed with Justice Stephen Breyer that it, too, was a "political question" to be resolved by Congress rather than the Supreme Court
That is not what Breyer said in Bush v. Gore. Breyer not only wanted the Supreme Court to intervene in the election, he wanted to order the Florida judges to do an additional vote recount according to a peculiar scheme that he devised. He declared that the schemes proposed by Gore and by the Florida courts judges were unconstitutional.

It was Scalia and the other conservatives who opposed using a judge-concocted recount scheme to the presidential election.

A new Vanity Fair article on Bush v. Gore uses info from pro-Gore Supreme Court clerks, and reveals some previously unknown details. Eg, Justice Stevens had originally signed onto Breyer's opinion that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. But when Stevens found out that Kennedy noted that the Court was 8-1 against the constitutionality of the Florida court's recount, Stevens changed his vote.

The only one who denied constitutional equal-protection concerns was Ginsburg. Her opinion originally had a footnote explaining away the concerns based on a New York Times report that blacks had encountered trouble voting! Apparently she thinks that some racist hearsay from a left-wing newspaper is reason enough to ignore constitutional guarantees, and to allow court manipulation of a presidential election.

Monday, Sep 27, 2004
Larry Lessig, Bush-hater
I was just looking at Lessig's blog, and have some observations. Lessig seems very intelligent. Lessig is a hard-core Bush-hater. About 80% of Lessig's posts relate to intellectual property (IP) law. There is not a single post that says that Kerry would be better than Bush on IP law. A couple of posts suggest that Kerry would be worse. There are dozens of posts complaining about IP law policies of the Clinton administration, but none opposing Bush's IP law policies.

It is not clear why Lessig hates Bush so much. There is an occasional reference to opposing the Iraq War, but that is way outside his main interests.

So why is a smart prof. like Lessig so pro-Kerry?

Andy writes:

This is a superb question. There is a reason for it, and it is worth debating what that reason is. Lessig is particularly baffling because I think he comes from a Republican family.

Some possible answers:

Perhaps Lessig's wife is a Bush-hater, and that influences him.
Perhaps Lessig is currying favor with liberal Silicon Valley types and law firms by bashing Bush.
Perhaps Lessig is a media icon wannabee, and the media (except for Fox News) are Bush-hating.
Perhaps Lessig thinks Kerry would send some government money in his general direction.
Perhaps Lessig is simply following the mood of law school students, which is a very liberal group.

Actually, when you realize that Nobel prize winners are almost unanimously in favor of Kerry, Lessig's position is not so surprising.

Some persuasively argue that the Bush-hating phenomenon boils down to a hatred for born-again Christians. Lessig may not fall into that category himself, but he is in a law school culture that is markedly hostile to religion.

I don't buy the religion theory. GW Bush is a Methodist. He never calls himself "born again", as far as I know. Clinton is a Southern Baptist, and Kerry is a Catholic. Surely those religions are more disliked that Methodists.

Liza writes:

I definitely buy the religion theory. Large numbers of people are deeply suspicious of evangelicals in politics. It explains the intense hatred for Bush 43 as opposed to Bush 41, and the vilification of Ashcroft. Bush is considered an evangelical or born-again Christian. Many mainline Protestants, Jews and atheists think it's really dangerous when a politician thinks he's getting orders from God. I wish they would focus their animosity on the real religious threat - Islam - rather than evangelical Christianity, but there is no question their animosity is a real factor in U.S. politics.

I can confirm that Andy's characterization of Bush's religious outlook is correct. Bush may not be a "fundamentalist" (the type that believes in the literal truth of every word in the Bible), but he has been open about having a midlife experience of finding Jesus and giving up drinking. He uses evangelical lingo, talking about "love" and "heart" a lot. In a presidential debate, he named Jesus as his favorite philosopher. I recently read an anecdote describing Bush as praying effusively with clasped arms with some White House staffer or visitor who asked him to pray for a relative undergoing surgery for brain cancer. Moreover, evangelicals recognize and accept Bush as one of their own, as someone who "walks the walk" as well as talks the talk. Methodism and born-again evangelical Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

Gumma writes:
You all are missing the importance of body language. It's not what Bush says. It's his body language. That shows him to be Bible-believing sorta fundamentalist Christian.
Andy writes:
Roger wrote, "Can Liza or Andy document their views? Maybe I've missed it, but I've never heard Bush describe himself as someone who suddenly found Christ, or even talk like an evangelical. Quotes, please?"

Liza gave you one: at a key primary debate with John McCain, Bush said Jesus was the most important person in history to him. McCain said Teddy Roosevelt. A friend of mine who is a fallen-away Catholic complained to me about Bush's remark.

But it doesn't matter whether Bush really is a born-again Christian. All that matters is that the Bush-haters perceive him as one. And their hatred is not because they fear Bush will make a wrong decision (as Liza implied), but because they oppose recognizing the authority of religiously devout people, period. Using my analogy of Middle East hatred, you can bet that many Moslems don't care if Jewish politicians run the country better!

Liza writes:
Okay, Roger, check out the second article I found in a quick google search. This is loaded with actual Bush quotes about his religious views. If this doesn't convince you he's essentially evangelical or born-again, nothing will. He doesn't go out of his way to use those labels, but he doesn't disavow them either.

Of course, "evangelical" is a somewhat loose term, as Bush recognizes. It doesn't refer to a monolithic church like Catholicism, and one can belong to any of a big variety of Protestant sects and still be considered evangelical or born-again. But I suspect you have very little personal experience of evangelicals or you wouldn't be arguing what is common knowledge about Bush. The common thread is that they have a defining moment in their life when they accept Jesus Christ as their savior (the "born-again" moment) - even if they were already Christians before. That clearly happened with Bush. There is also a distinctive way of talking about one's faith and of praying that is nothing like, say, what typical Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans or Presbyterians do. It involves a more direct relationship with God and the Bible. Church hierarchy doesn't figure in the mix.

I don't think that Liza knows what an evangelical is. An evangelical Christian believes that it is his duty to preach the Gospels to nonbelievers, so that they may be saved.

Those quotes from Bush are expressing mainstream Christian beliefs.

No, I don't rely on "common knowledge about Bush". If I relied on common knowledge among academics, then I'd be voting for Kerry.

Snopes says that it is an urban legend that Bush is an evangelical.

Here, evangelicals say that Bush is "simply mistaken" when he said, "I believe we [Christians and Muslims] worship the same God."

Sunday, Sep 26, 2004
Prof Larry Tribe is a plagiarist
Andy writes:
After the plagiarism scandal among liberal icons has sullied three "scholars", it has now reached L. Tribe himself. Thanks to John for circulating this article.

Tribe's copying in his book GOD SAVE THIS HONORABLE COURT seems even worse than the other three scandals.

This doesn't surprise me. For years I've said that Tribe is an intellectual phony. Only the media followers seem to think otherwise.

The Weekly Standard lists Tribe's achievements:

1. He's argued thirty-six cases before the Supreme Court, an astonishing number, and they include such landmark cases as the 2000 Bush v. Gore.

There's nothing intellectual about arguing before the Supreme Court, nor is 36 a particularly "astonishing" number. Some have argued over 100 cases there. Also, Gore dumped Tribe in favor of David Boies for the key 2000 Bush v. Gore argument.

2. [Tribe] just represented the losing side before the Florida Supreme Court in John Kerry's effort to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot.

Wow, that's a real claim to fame! He loses a liberal argument before the most liberal court in America. And he then whined about it afterwards!

3. He's produced the bestselling textbook American Constitutional Law, now in its third edition.

Liberal professors promote this liberal book, which is a rat's nest of incoherence. The work reminds me of Michael Moore. There's nothing intellectual about it.

4. He's written such books as the 1985 Constitutional Choices and the 1991 Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes.

Nothing insightful here. I've never heard anyone even discuss these books, let alone praise them.

5. Tribe was recently named one of Harvard's rare "University Professors," replacing Archibald Cox, who died this spring.

What a laugher that "honor" is.

That's it, folks. Omitted was the fact that Tribe dropped out of a math graduate program and was initially passed over by the Law Review. No one can think of any insightful contribution by Tribe. Scores of professors and students at Harvard and elsewhere have contributed more.

The plagiarism was probably from Tribe's ghostwriter. Either way, there appears to be some academic misconduct.

Yes, Tribe is nothing but a partisan political hack, with no significant intellectual accomplishments. Some of his articles are idiotic. He charges $1 million for each Supreme Court oral argument, so he has gotten rich from his reputation.

Update: Tribe has now apologized. There is more info on the Harvard plagiarism blog.

John sends this NRO article which says:

A bright young man or woman could get tenure at Harvard Law School with a publishing record that would not even qualify him for a job interview at the Harvard History Department.

... Dershowitz is correct that most Harvard lawyers simply play by different rules than other academics do.

Yet this is not an excuse. It is a restatement of the problem.

I’ve often wondered whether American legal education is not a vast waste of time and money.

Yes, it is true that law schools like Harvard Law have appalling low academic standards compared to other departments at top universities. Usually, the law professors do not have doctoral degrees, and do not have any significant research accomplishments.

Friday, Sep 24, 2004
Dan Rather has a history of lies
Bob writes:
Ellen Forman's letter to the Boston Globe, linked above, beautifully illustrates the position liberals find themselves in. The media can no longer be counted on to save the day. Ten years ago Rather would have been able to make his story stick, at least through the election, now it was all over in 2 weeks. Rather may even be held accountable for a bogus story he did on Vietnam vets in 1988 as his web unravels.

The pathetic argument that the documents may be forgeries, but the contents are true won't fly. Journalists such as Ken Auletta say that it isn't a respectable argument.

When New Yorker writers and and Duke University journalism professors, formerly of Time magazine, appear on Lehrer and trash the liberal icon Dan Rather, it's game over. We have emerged from the dark days when network anchors told us how it is.

The transcript is from the biased Bush-haters at PBS. Auletta defended the CBS cover-up of the source of the Rather memos, and defended other aspects of CBS's anti-Bush bias. He said:
in fairness to CBS, they have Barnes' coming on, the former speaker of the House, saying that he got, he used political influence to get Bush in the National Guard, is a very compelling and important story. And CBS deserves credit for that, but there have been questions about their documents, and about whether they rushed to get that story on the air.
Barnes is a Democrat, a Kerry fund-raiser, and a crook. His story was a tired rehash of what he said in the 2000 campaign, and it was rebutted then. It was not news. It was anti-Bush propaganda.

Dan Rather's error was not that he rushed the story. The problem is not that there are questions about the documents. The documents have been proved to be forgeries. Rather and CBS knew that the memos were probably forgeries, but went with the story anyway because of partisan political reasons and because they thought that the White House was not going to question the memos. PBS and Auletta are trying to imply that Bush is at fault somehow, but they have nothing on Bush.

Thursday, Sep 23, 2004
The Florida judicial supremacists
The judicial supremacists on the Florida high court are at it again. See NY Times.

If judges want Terri Schiavo dead, they say it is unconstitutional for the governor or legislature to keep her alive.

Nobody complains when a governor intervenes to stop the execution of a murderer, so it is a little odd to hear judges complain about saving the life of an innocent woman.

Kerry's IP man
Lessig's blog says:
Word now is that Bruce Lehman, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and Commissioner of Patents, is spreading the word that he is running IP policy on the Kerry campaign. In the scheme of extremists, few are more extreme. Of all the government “Czars” in our form of government, he proved himself to be most to be feared.

Yet another bit of depressing news, if true, from this extraordinarily important campaign.

Lessig is depressed because he is a Bush-hater who is disappointed with Kerry's campaign.

Lehman was a terrible patent commissioner. He didn't even have a patent background. Clinton only appointed him because of his sexual preference, according to press reports.

Newt Gingrich against judicial supremacy
John sends this Wash Times op-ed, and says "Newt must have read The Supremacists!"

Gingrich says:

The truth is that the modern notion of judicial supremacy is an invention of the Warren court. In the 1958 case Cooper v. Aaron, the court claimed that Marbury had "declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution." But as Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer has noted, the notion of judicial supremacy is "just bluster and puff... the Justices in Cooper were not reporting a fact so much as trying to manufacture one."

The time to reassert the right of the American people to instruct the court through the Legislative and Executive branches has come. America is a free nation and it is the duty of those who would represent the American people to find mechanisms for our generation which block activist judges from stripping us of the freedoms and values we believe in. Sen. Jon Kyl and Rep. Todd Akin's bill to prevent federal courts from ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance accomplishes this task, and is in the spirit of the popular constitutionalism of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It should be passed immediately.

These points were all clearly made in Phyllis Schlafly's recent book.

Tuesday, Sep 21, 2004
Protect the Pledge from court meddling
Congress may strip Court jurisdiction over the Pledge of Allegiance. Good. I hope the Democrats are afraid to vote against it, with the election coming up.

John sends this PFAW propaganda, and writes:

The Akin bill does NOT "bar the federal courts from enforcing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1943 decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette." That's just a flat-out lie.
Update: Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said, "Protect the pledge from what?" Read the bill, Nancy. The House passed it.

Friday, Sep 17, 2004
Response to Supremacists criticism
Bruce Fein criticizes The Supremacists in a Wash. Times op-ed. Here is a response.

Fein argues that the Supreme Court would never rule against both popular opinion and the Constitution. But that has been false ever since the Warren Court activism of the 1950s.

As The Supremacists carefully documents, the Supreme Court has issued unpopular and unfounded decisions in the areas of criminal law, religion, taxes, abortion, school busing, etc. Fein seems to agree that many of those decisions were bad, but disagrees about what can be done about them.

In case the Supreme Court exceeds its jurisdiction, Fein says that amending the Constitution is the only legal remedy. But the Constitution already gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and Congress has used that power dozens of times. There is no need to amend the Constitution to give Congress a power that the Constitution already grants explicitly to Congress.

For example, most people are against same-sex marriage. Marriage has always been a matter of state law, and there is no good reason why the federal courts should have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. The Republic Party Platform endorses Congress limiting federal court jurisdiction so that the federal courts will not mandate same-sex marriage. That would allow the courts to have their traditional jurisdiction over federal cases and controversies, but limit their ability to meddle in certain particularly sensitive political questions.

The main point of the book is to attack judicial supremacy. We don't want nine unaccountable judges having the last say on controversial political policy issues of the day, like same-sex marriage and the pledge of allegiance. The book supports the separation of powers, and the checks and balances that are already in the Constitution.

I also couldn't figure out why Fein says, "Eight constitutional amendments have reversed Supreme Court decisions." I count Amendment 11, and maybe 14 and 15, but I don't see any way to get to eight.

Bob writes:

Here is another reason why judicial supremacists get us into trouble. Thomas Sowell has written a book, Affirmative Action Around the World which clearly shows the evil effects of affirmative action in the US and elsewhere. Sowell clearly shows that affirmative action would not be possible in the US without riding roughshod over the Constitution. This interview explains the argument clearly:

Peter Robinson: I'm going to quote you yet again, "The historical evolution of affirmative action in the Unites States would be difficult to understand without first realizing the first fact, the legal obstacles which such policies must overcome in order to be acceptable in American courts of law as well as in the political arena." Legal obstacles such as?

Thomas Sowell: The Fourteenth Amendment.

Peter Robinson: Fairly substantial legal obstacles.

Thomas Sowell: That's right. And politically you have to represent preferences and quotas as not being preferences and quotas. And you have to represent them as being temporary.

Peter Robinson: The Fourteenth Amendment says or guarantees?

Thomas Sowell: Equal treatment of all citizens.

Peter Robinson: But individual basis...

Thomas Sowell: That's right.

Peter Robinson: It is implicitly opposed to group...

Thomas Sowell: That's right. Every citizen, not every group of citizens or whatnot. And so you got to overcome that. And so you've got to pretend that this is really just an anti-discrimination policy. And that pretense gets pretty tense sometimes.

Peter Robinson: "The transparent dishonesty with which quotas and preferences have been instituted and maintained here in the United States," you write, "is a dishonesty reaching into the highest court in the land as the Weber case demonstrates." Take us through what took place in the Weber case.

Thomas Sowell: In the Weber case, Weber was a worker in a plant in Louisiana and he wanted to get into a training program which would qualify him for higher jobs, and he was turned down. And blacks who had lesser qualifications than him were admitted. And so he took this to the Supreme Court. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, "individuals," and Justice Brennan, someone with a great verbal sleight of hand, turned this around. Said, well, but the real intent of Congress, you see, was this or that and so he then ruled against Weber and then when the dissenting opinion of Rehnquist said that this reminded him of the great escapes of Houdini. That, you know, the language was so plain and clear, in the law itself. And it was also plain and clear if you got into legislative history where they talk about the possibility of quotas and Hubert Humphrey who was pushing the Civil Rights Act said, you know, I'll eat my hat if this thing turns out into quotas. Well, he wasn't there to eat his hat.

Sowell said:
Small in size but huge in importance, Phyllis Schlafly’s The Supremacists is must-reading for those who want to stop activist judges from taking away the people’s right to choose their own laws and policies.
This letter to the Wash Times editor was published:
Law from whole cloth

Bruce Fein gets it all wrong when critiquing Phyllis Schlafly's book "The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It" ("Courts run amok?" Op-Ed, Tuesday).

Mr. Fein scolds Mrs. Schlafly for not having sufficient fear of the majority, pointing out, correctly, that "the Founding Fathers most feared majority oppression." Amazingly, Mr. Fein then devotes almost the entirety of his commentary to proving that the Supreme Court is not to be overly feared because it has a better-than-200-year history of service to majority will, no matter how often that will undergoes massive changes. As Mr. Fein writes, "For more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has never persisted in affronting popular orthodoxies."

Mr. Fein then cites several examples, going back to 1896, of the Supremes siding with majority sentiment. One may quibble, as I do, with whether those examples point to the Supremes siding with the majority or with liberal elite opinion, but nobody, not even Mr. Fein in this piece, will tell you that the Supreme Court does what it is supposed to do: simply interpret the Constitution, with no bias toward majorities, minorities, elites or any other interest group. That's with good reason, for as any conservative worth his salt knows, the Supreme Court has been making up law out of whole cloth since at least 1937.

There are four constitutional methods for dealing with an arrogant Supreme Court. They are: amendments (which are rare and sometimes take decades to be enacted); new appointments (useless — no matter who appoints them, the justices ggenerally do as they please); impeachments (a real laugher — when was the last Supreme Court justice impeacched?); and amending the Supreme Court jurisdiction, a power granted to Congress in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. This step leaves no room for doubt and could be signed into law in days, as it takes just a simple majority vote in Congress and the President's signature.

Mr. Fein does not tell us, but I would love to know why he endorses the first three methods while being adamantly opposed to the fourth, even though all four methods are part of the original Constitution that came out of Philadelphia in 1787.

RICK LYNCH Purcellville, Va.

Yes, the Supreme Court issues rulings all the time that are based on neither the Constitution nor the majority. Sometimes, as Lynch says, the court sides with liberal elite opinion. For example, when the Supreme Court knocked out the death penalty in the 1960s, it was just siding with a liberal elite minority. The majority favored the death penalty, and the Constitution approves of it in several places.

Wednesday, Sep 15, 2004

The LA Times agrees that the CBS memos are faked, but it cannot resist an assortment of cheap shots at Bush. Eg, it says:
Bush gave a smirky speech Tuesday to the National Guard Assn., waxing on about the patriotic sacrifices of the Guard's men and women over the years. All of that is true, but not about him.
What does that mean? G.W. Bush served honorably for 4 years in the National Guard. There is some question about how he was excused from some duties during his 5th year, as there is some question about how Kerry was excused from his duties after serving 4 months in Vietnam. But there is no question that Bush flew F-102 fighter planes in the Texas National Guard.

The LA Times has another story on the CBS memos today, reporting that Killian's secretary says that the memos are forgeries. But the story tries to put an anti-Bush spin on it by using the headline, "Ex-Guard Typist Recalls Memos Criticizing Bush".

Another LA Times story today has the headline, Rather Rides Out Latest Partisan Storm. No, Dan Rather is not riding out the storm. This is the end of his career. He will never be taken seriously again. He has executed a partisan political hoax of the highest order, and he has been caught. For proof that they are fake, see the blogs, such as Peter Duncan.

Chris writes:

He received preferential treatment to be able to enlist. He enlisted for a six year term. There is no documentary record for his being excused for any of his fifth or sixth year. In fact the written record from the time is quite clear. He failed to meet his commitment. He was removed form flight service because he missed a flight physical he was ordered to complete. There is some evidence that he would have failed the physical but he failed to follow a direct order to complete the physical.

He cost the US Taxpayers over a million dollars to learn to fly and then blew off his commitment. He should have been ordered to active duty when he failed to complete his required training exercises that he committed to, he did not complete sufficient training exercises to receive his honorable discharge. It was because of his political connections that this was allowed to happen.

GW Bush was excused from his commitment when the Vietnam War ended, and 1000s of others were also being excused from their commitments. He was trained to fly F-102 fighter planes, but those were being phased out, and he wasn't needed anymore.

John Kerry was similar excused from his commitments. He was allowed to leave Vietnam after a mere 4 months, because he had 3 phony Purple Hearts. He was excused from additional commitments in 1970 so that he could run for Congress.

If you want to make the case that GW Bush benefitted in life from the accomplishments and political connections of his father, then I agree with you. He never would have become President otherwise. Whether he got preferential treatment getting into the National Guard or Harvard, I don't know and I don't care.

The Bush-haters at CBS News spent 4 years digging for dirt on Bush's military service, and the best smear that they could find was 4 forged memos. Kerry is crazy to base his presidential campaign on comparing Bush's military service record to his own. Bush served his country honorably, and went on to do bigger and better things. Kerry was a disgrace to his country during the Vietnam War, and hasn't accomplished much since. On election day, I believe that more people will vote against Kerry because of his Vietnam record, than those who vote for him because of that record.

Chris responds:

There is no way you can characterize John Kerry’s purple hearts, as well as his other medals, as “phony” without casting into doubt every medal awarded in Vietnam.

Active service personnel, such as my self, were indeed excused from active reserve and inactive reserve duty once the principal tour of duty was completed. There was no such excused absence for members of the National Guard, either implicit or explicit. In fact the requirements for completion of National Guard were explicit, Bush agreed to them and then failed to attend the required exercises as well as failing to complete any of the make-ups required for discharge. At the very least it is a disgraceful record for the Commander-in-Chief.

To try and make it appear that there is any comparison of Bush’s record of deception and deceit to someone who volunteered for Vietnam, volunteered for Swift Boat service, was wounded and decorated for his service is despicable.

Other vets with Purple Hearts needed more than a band-aid. Kerry never spent a day in the hospital, and got those awards based on his own self-serving and dishonest accounts. See the Swift Boat Vets for more info.

Chris responds:

Strange how otherwise intelligent people will listen to total crap and in the light of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” believe it.

Purple Hearts are awarded by the command structure. Any wound requiring medical attention is eligible for a purple heart if the injury is incurred in a combat situation. The submission is completely out of the control of the service person and in fact does not allow their input.

Your linking to the Swift Boat Vets in such a uncritical manner eliminates any need to take you seriously. A casual search of the web will invalidate every single allegation that they make. Furthermore, as I said before if what they say is taken at face value all medals awarded in the Vietnam war are completely suspect.

If Kerry's testimony is taken seriously, then those Vietnam Vets are mostly war criminals anyway.

If you don't believe the Swift Boat Vets, then try his treating physician, or his commanding officer:

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in questionand that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

Normally, I'd ignore what happened 35 years ago, except that the Kerry campaign treats it as his main qualification for Presidency. Kerry brags about his Vietnam experience, but refuses to answer any questions about what really happened.

Bob writes:

It is amazing that anyone can be so blinded by hatred and partisanship that they will accept forged documents as evidence and accuse the eye witnesses of lying. Bush signed a form 180 releasing all of his military records, Kerry has not. If Kerry signed the form 180 we might be able falsify or validate the swift boat veterans claims.
Chris writes:
Where in anything I have said am I referring to the recently released memos?

Once again people accept the Republican slander machine when it tells lies. Kerry has signed his form 180 and posted all of his military records I refer you to JohnKerry.com. Bush has on the other hand has been releasing his in drips and draps trying to explain away the missing records with a fiction that they were inadvertently lost and the miraculously found.

The testimony mentioned above is directly contradicted by the records from the time. Which to believe? The record as shown form the time in question or politically motivated hate speech of the present?

See also [this Wash Post story].

According to this Wash Times story, Kerry claims to have released all of his records, but has not signed a Form 180 for official release of records. Bush has.

Bob responds:

Thurlow adequately rebutted the charges in the Washington Post story. Thurlow said,
"I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates -- there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day."

Thurlow is corroborated by other eye witnesses and lack of battle damage reports.

There is absolutely nothing on Kerry's site that indicates that he has signed a form 180. If you have a citation which shows that Kerry has signed a form 180, bring it on. Kerry has made available the military records in his possession which he felt like making public. The form 180, which Bush signed, allows anyone who is interested to obtain all military records.

If Kerry makes his military records available, we can talk about what they say.

I don't get Chris's argument that challenging Kerry's awards means that "all medals awarded in the Vietnam war are completely suspect". If Kerry's Vietnam testimony is taken at face value, then not only are all medals suspect, but all those who served in Vietnam are suspected war criminals.

Chris responds:

Thurlow’s Bronze Star was awarded for the same action for which Kerry received a Bronze Star. If, as he now describes it was a benign rescue action of a boat that struck a mine it means that he is not worthy of the decoration he received since it was awarded for the same action and clearly describes all of the boats receiving fire from both shores. Are we now going to question every medal awarded in Vietnam. Certainly if we accept the Swift Boat Vet’s claims Kerry is not eligible for any of his awards. It seems to me that if the system was that bad in Kerry’s case it is quite reasonable to assume that the majority of other awards are equally suspect.

Rather I would offer [this Reuters story]:

The U.S. Navy has rejected a legal watchdog group’s request to open an investigation into military awards given to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry during the Vietnam War, saying his medals were properly approved.

If you watch the testimony that Kerry gave to the Congress you will see that he was relaying personal testimonials from other service men of atrocities they witnessed and sometime participated in. There are those who wish to pretend that not harm or wrong was committed by American Servicemen in Vietnam but those of us who were there know this was not true. Kerry simply spoke the truth about the acts of some servicemen. The fact that there are those who are uncomfortable with the truth or with their own actions does not change the direct experience and testimony of many vets from the time. At no time has Kerry or anyone that I am aware of suggested that all servicemen are war criminals.

This entire discussion is a perfect example of the Republican slime machine. We have taken a discussion based on facts and a paper trail of Bush’s failure to complete his National Guard service and it has morphed into a acceptance of patent lies about Kerry’s honorable volunteer service in Vietnam.

Will Rogers was right, “I’m not the member of any organized party, I’m a democrat.”

Nothing here involves any Republican slime machine. The Swift Boat Vets have hated John Kerry since the 1970s for reasons that have nothing to do with partisan politics. Dan Rather's libelous attacks on G.W. Bush was exposed by nonpartisan bloggers.

There is a Democrat slime machine that includes Dan Rather, CBS News, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and many others. They spread deliberate vicious lies. When exposed, they say that the evidence is faked but accurate. It is not accurate. Dan Rather should be facing a criminal investigation right now. I believe that it is a crime to forge govt documents, and Rather continues to lie about the authenticity of the letters.

It has been the central John Kerry campaign strategy to win the election by showing that Kerry's military service was somehow superior to Bush's. I don't think that the Republicans ever wanted to open that issue, because nearly everyone knew Kerry was a war hero, and assumed that Bush received privileges by virtue of his father's name. But now that Kerry has made an issue out of it, lets look at it. Bush has released his records, and they include 4 years of distinguished service and an honorable discharge. The evidence against him consists of forged memos.

As for Kerry, forget what the Republicans say. I don't even know what they say. Just listen to Kerry. He changes his story repeatedly. I cannot even tell whether he is proud of those medals, or if he is embarrassed by them. Did he want America or N. Vietnam to win the war? He talks about his Vietnam service in all his speeches, but he refuses to answer any questions about it. Does he think that the American soldiers were all war criminals or not? I can understand why the Swift Boat Vets despise him.

Bob writes:

If Kerry deserves his medals because they were properly approved regardless of what he did to earn them, then why doesn't Bush deserve his properly approved honorable discharge from the ANG?

A "discussion based on facts" should contain some references which support assertions about the "paper trail of Bush's failure to complete his National Guard service", the "patent lies about Kerry's honorable service", and that "Kerry has signed his form 180".

Chris writes:
Doesn't this directly corroborate my statement that all medals awarded in the Vietnam War are now suspect?

Here we have a person receiving a Bronze Star because another person filed a false report and Thurlow was awarded his medal because of it. He didn't, at the time he received his medal, question the award? He uncritically accepted the third highest award for valor awarded by this country for an event he now describes as not involving contact with the enemy?

Do you really believe this?

No matter whom I believe, it does appear that some medals were handed out cheaply in Vietnam.

Chris sends this "forgeries yet ... accurate" letter. The letter has some other canards about Bush, such as an unsupported accusation from a Kerry fund-raiser with a crooked past. See this story.

I think that all the coverage of Bush's National Guard service will help him, because he actually performed much better than most people think.

Explaining Bush quotes
Mike thinks that he has proof that Bush is irrational, and challenges me to find context for this quote:
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
That is an easy one. The context was the Oct 11, 2000 Presidential debate. The comment makes perfect sense in context. Bush was complaining about racial minorities not being taught to read properly in the public schools. He followed up with the No Child Left Behind law.

Tuesday, Sep 14, 2004
Supremacist judges may raise school taxes
John writes:
Andy did a good job rounding up the new wave of supremacist litigation over school funding. Good catch about the Bill Gates law firm.

This article published June 7 was apparently the first national report on the new type of supremacist school litigation. It confirms the column's claim that "half the states" are facing the threat of such suits.

This article says school funding suits have been filed in 15 states and threatened in 10 others, for a total of 25 states.

The WaPo article makes the interesting observation that "the funding lawsuits have led to a test of strength between the courts and state legislatures." Exactly our point.

These lawsuits are filed in state courts and rely on vague provisions about education in state constitutions. This table (in 3 formats) shows the relevant provision in each state constitution.

Andy writes:
According to John's articles, the price tag of this latest example of judicial supremacy does appear to be in the "billions" in many cases. For example, this is from CNN's story:
In New York, a State Supreme Court judge has ordered the state to revamp its funding system and come up with an additional $4 billion to $10 billion in school aid over the next three to five years. The judge on Aug. 3 named a panel of special 'referees' to come up with a plan.
I think that a column on this subject is in the works.
Smart people support Kerry
Andy writes:
Roger quoted the Daily Princetonian as saying, "To computer science professor Andrew Appel, who has given $4,000 to Kerry this year, the imbalance is not unexpected. 'Does it surprise me that smart people should be supporting Kerry?' Appel said. 'No.'"

I graduated the same year as Appel, who majored in physics. The smartest physicist in that class was a born-again Christian, who is unlikely to support Kerry.

It is funny how liberals pretend that they are smarter, and even go out of their way to praise the alleged "brilliance" of a fellow liberal. Clinton, who couldn't even earn a degree at Oxford, Bradley, Kissinger, Tribe, McNamara, etc., the list of phony liberal geniuses is too long to recount here. But if liberals are so smart, how come they don't produce anything intellectual? All the bona fide intellectual greats in history have been conservative (or religious zealots).

Not to pick on Appel, but his research papers and even the topic of his course have degraded over time. Typical liberal intellectual: unrealized potential.

John replies:
A bestselling book about 10 years ago was entitled "Smart Women, Foolish Choices"

I see no use in trying to argue that liberal professors at Princeton and elsewhere aren't really smart. Of course they are smart. But the question is why do such smart people tend to support the "mommy party" (with its emotion-driven, half-baked political agenda) instead of the "daddy party" which offers logical, rational arguments supported by the best social science research?

The fact that Clinton didn't complete his degree at Oxford doesn't mean he isn't smart. It simply means he had "other priorities" (to quote Dick Cheney's explanation for why he avoided military service).

I've listened to academic types tell me about their support for John Kerry, and for the most part, they give arguments that don't make any sense. They cite arguments that are too stupid for even Michael Moore. Eg, they'll say that Bush lies and he is against same-sex marriage. When I point out that Kerry says that he is also against same-sex marriage, then they say that Kerry is just saying that to get elected.

These academics are certainly smart in some ways, but they also lack basic critical thinking skills.

Volokh's blog points out that, on average, Republicans have more years of education that Democrats. Yes, there is no doubt that the Democrats are better at attracting low-IQ voters. The question is how they attract well-educated voters.

Mike, who has a Ph.D. in Math, cites this MSNBC story:

In June 2003, Mahmoud Abbas, then the Palestinian prime minister, said that in a conversation with Bush, the president told him: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida, and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to be president."

Mike writes:
There are only two possible explanations for this: the man is stupid, or the man is insane. Frankly, I think he displays more than a little of each characteristic.
I think that it is a little disturbing that Mike would cite an anti-American terrorist crackpot for his info on Pres. Bush. Here is more about Abbas:
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the number 2 official in the PLO and architect of the Oslo Accords, authored and has refused to retract a book claiming that "the Zionist movement was a partner in the slaughter of the Jews." The book is entitled The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement. The book also claims that the Nazis may have really killed less than one million Jews. (Jerusalem Post, Jan. 26,1995)
Mike sent his 2nd source, an article about the the Amish:
A member of the group told Bush that since most Amish do not vote, they would pray for him instead.

Bush had tears in his eyes when he replied, according to an Amishman who was present. Bush reportedly said he needs the prayers of the Amish and that having a strong belief in God is the only way he can do his job.

Most American presidents have said similar things. If Kerry is elected, it is a good bet that he will say that he relies on his faith in God to do his job.

Mike also forwards this Bush quote:

I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.
Mike may be interested to know that all 42 Presidents acknowledged God in their addresses upon assuming office.

Sunday, Sep 12, 2004
Utah banning Santa Claus
Currently, Utah allows Santa Claus an exception in its aviation code, but it is now considering changing the law. Santa won't be able to fly low over Salt Lake City.
Did all life evolve from a single cell?
A NY Times Science news story says:
Scientists analyzing the genomes of microbes believe that they have reconstructed the pivotal event that created the one-celled organism from which all animals and plants are descended, including people.
It sounds fantastic, but it was really just some wildly speculative computer simulation. The article also says:
In 1977, shortly after the first DNA sequences of genes became widely available, Dr. Carl R. Woese of the University of Illinois showed that all life originated from three basic types of cell, eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea, the last a kind of bacteria found in boiling geysers and around volcanic fissures in the ocean floor.

Dr. Woese's three cell kingdoms have become the accepted account, even though it was not entirely clear how the three might have evolved from the first cell.

"There's still a cloud down there at the root," Dr. Woese said in an interview.

I am skeptical that all 3 branches originated from a single cell. Evolutionists point to common genes as proof. But there are at least two other possibilities. One is that the genes evolved independently. We know that wings evolved independently several times, so why not genes?

Second, we now know that genes can leap from one species to another. So two species could have some common genes, not because of common ancestors, but because both got the genes from the same third species.

Bob writes:

So, it isn't evolution if ... what? Bacteria and archaae exchange genes by fusion, phage, and just picking up DNA across their membranes and then divide to produce "offspring". Evolution occurs in bacteria and archaae even though they pass around genes through means other than sex as we think of it.
Evolutionists would call it evolution no matter what happened!

Bob writes, "What do you call it?"

I think of Darwinian Evolution and Common Descent as two different theories. Common Descent says that all animals and plants are descended from a first one-celled organism, as described in the NY Times. I think that Common Descent is rather unlikely, based on current scientific knowledge. It certainly is not an established fact.

Bob writes:

You claimed that because cells swap genes between species that they may not have evolved from a common ancestor. If some of the genes of a cell of species A came from species B then species B is an "ancestor" of species A. It is possible for two species to be ancestors of each other. This does not in any way rule out the theory of a common ancestor. It makes the theory of a common ancestor more likely.
This is a good example of an evolutionist changing the definitions in order to imply that the theory was correct all along.

Bob replies: "You have a definition? Bring it on."

Saturday, Sep 11, 2004
Study shows excellence of Bush appointments
A new academic study has shown that Pres. Bush has appointed excellent judges, and that his re-election will help partially correct the left-wing bias of the federal courts in the last few decades.

No, that wasn't exactly the spin they tried to put on their study, but that's what the data show.

Dan Rather exposed
I believe that the Dan Rather memos have now been clearly established to be fakes. But Rather is digging in his heels, and refusing to apologize. Eg, see this blog, and its links.

Fox News had former CBS News executive Jonathan Klein on yesterday, and he defended Rather's show (in response to questions from Tony Snow on the O'Reilly Factor):

I have a lot of faith in the producer of this segment only because I worked with her for a long time, and she is absolutely peerless, I'd say, in the profession -- she is a crack journalist. She's the same producer who broke the Abu Ghraib story ...

In this case, she's worked on this story for four years. This is a multiple Emmy-winning producer.

Four years!! It seems very likely that CBS News and Dan Rather knew that the memo were faked, and held up the story for maximal political damage to President G.W. Bush. My guess is that CBS News and Rather were planning on releasing the story a couple of weeks before the election, but with Bush pulling ahead in the polls based in part on negative publicity about John Kerry's service record, they felt that they had to do some immediate damage to Bush's service record. Rather has no credibility left.

Yes, Fox News is a lot more fair and balanced than CBS News.

Klein is the same one who said:

Bloggers have no checks and balances . . . [it's] a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.

Thursday, Sep 09, 2004
New LA Seal
Los Angeles is trying for a politically correct change to its official seal.
Republican Platform attacks judicial supremacy
The good news is that the Republican Platform adopted by the Republican National Convention in New York City last week really faces up to the problem of the judges. Here is a direct quote from the Republican Platform in the section where it upholds marriage as the union of man and woman:
President Bush said, `We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try to remake America by court order.' The Republican House of Representatives responded to this challenge by passing H.R. 3313, a bill to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act. We urge Congress to use its Article III power to enact this into law so that activist federal judges cannot force 49 other states to approve and recognize Massachusetts' attempt to redefine marriage.
Here is another direct quote from the Republican Platform where it recognizes that the problem is exactly what I've been saying -- "judicial supremacy" -- and that we must stop this usurpation of power by the judges:
The Pledge of Allegiance has already been invalidated by the courts once, and the Supreme Court's ruling has left the Pledge in danger of being struck down again -- not because the American people have rejected it and the values that it embodies, but because a handful of activist judges threaten to overturn common sense and tradition. And while the vast majority of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion, this brutal and violent practice will likely continue by judicial fiat. We believe that the self-proclaimed supremacy of these judicial activists is antithetical to the democratic ideals on which our nation was founded.
Then the Platform spells out the remedy:
The sound principle of judicial review has turned into an intolerable presumption of judicial supremacy. A Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, will restore the separation of powers and re-establish a government of law. There are different ways to achieve that goal, such as using Article III of the Constitution to limit federal court jurisdiction; for example in instances where judges are abusing their poor by banning the use of `under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance or prohibiting depictions of the Ten Commandments, and potential actions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
For more, read the Judicial Supremacists book.

Wednesday, Sep 08, 2004
Kerry's gun photo-op was a flop
The Drudge Report revealed that the shotgun John Kerry used in his pro-gun photo-op had a pistol grip stock. Kerry co-sponsored a bill last year to ban such guns. Read about it here, where there is also reference to the question about whether Kerry lawfully acquired the gun.

I am not sure anyone will believe the Democratic Platform which says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms"!

Meanwhile, here is GW Bush saying something silly:

Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country. -- President George W. Bush, 9/6/04

Tuesday, Sep 07, 2004
So-called censored stories
A left-wing group gives its list of the most censored media stories. No. 3 is Bush Administration Manipulates Science and Censors Scientists. It claims that:
Twenty Nobel Prize winners have signed a letter to the President condemning the suppressing and distorting of federal science.
But here is the letter, and only 12 prizewinners signed it. And the complaint is about scientists in policymaking roles, not about doing science. I commented previously here.

Sunday, Sep 05, 2004
Bias at the LA Times
Patterico's Pontifications ridicules pro-Democrat bias at the LA Times. When Kerry failed to get a bounce from the Democrat Convention, they attributed it to a lack of swing voters. Now read how they explain the latest polls.

Ever since the Swift Boat Vets launched their attack about 5 weeks ago, Kerry has refused all questions from reporters. Kerry is turning out to be a worse candidate than Gore, and possibly as bad as Dukakis.

Saturday, Sep 04, 2004
How Bush remade the party
John sends this David Brooks column, and writes:
How Bush remade the party of Gingrich, Reagan, Goldwater and Taft into the party of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and T.Roosevelt.
Dumb letter of the day
The Si Valley Mercury News has this dopey letter today:
I am distressed by the effectiveness of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. It is causing me to lose faith in our democracy. Something must be done.

My suggestion may seem radical, but sometimes big problems require big changes. We should set up a special court of federal judges to determine the merit of accusations against any candidate running for national office before these charges can be leveled in television, print, or radio ads. Laws do not protect candidates from libel -- especially when the candidate is running for president. The prize is too great and the consequences too small.
-- Jennifer Zilliac, Palo Alto

She must have a very strange faith in democracy. The judges would have to first consider banning Fahrenheit 9/11.

The Swift Vets' book, Unfit for Command, is now No. 1 on both the Amazon and NY Times best sellers lists. Does she want to ban that book also?

Japanese-American whiners
On Eric L. Muller's blog, liberal japonicus writes:
Roger, you wrote: "It is axiomatic that if the alleged victim testifies that no crime occurred, and there is no other witness or physical evidence, then the defendant should go free"

Why was that axiom suspended for Japanese-American citizens [in the WWII internment program]?

The Japanese-Americans were not being punished; they were being temporarily relocated for the good of the country and for themselves.

I'll tell you what bugs me about the Japanese-American whining. During WWII, my father was drafted and shipped off to war. He had no choice. So were his brothers and friends. My mother was put to work in an ammunition factory. My grandparents needed ration stamps to buy food and necessities. They were all American citizens.

Millions of Americans suffered far worse during WWII. They were killed in battle, or crippled, or had their lives ruined. Most Americans suffered hardships (as did most of the rest of the world). And yet I have never heard any of them complain about it!

The only complaints I hear are from Japanese-Americans and their liberal sympathizers. From what I have read, the Japanese-Americans were treated quite well, and have been compensated 4 times. Why aren't they willing to accept this minor sacrifice, when others accepted much greater sacrifices to help win WWII?

I accept the argument that the relocation was not a military necessity, and that, in hindsight, it may have been a mistake. But so what? Most war-time decisions are not made out of military necessity. Our leaders made 100s of decisions every day, and some of those resulted in 1000s of deaths. Some were mistakes. Most were not necessary.

Michelle Malkin has done an excellent service by documenting the military rationale for the relocation. It was not just pure racism, as our schoolchildren are taught.

The Japanese internment continues to be cited today in political discussions about racial profiling, Guantanamo, etc., as if there were a universal consensus that the internment was evil. Malkin must have realized that some people would hate her for writing such a political incorrect book. The book exposes facts that undermine their favorite arguments.

Friday, Sep 03, 2004
Vaccine update
Kildare, over on the IsThatLegal blog, writes:
Malkin is touting your blog for its supposed insight on vaccination policy. I see your musings on the subject have not been updated in TWO years. In addition, Malkin is linking a speech critical of vaccination policy on your site. A speech from a Stanford prof. who has been DEAD FOR FOUR YEARS.

Immunization has indeed been a hot topic, new studies have just been released, but it appears you can't be bothered with the latest info, which might make your position remotely nuanced and responsible.

So, where did you get your M.D.?

I guess this anonymous poster also thinks that a degree is necessary to have an opinion. For the record, I have a Ph.D., not an M.D.

I haven't updated the vaccine pages because the subject is no longer a pressing concern for me. When I skipped the scheduled vaccines for my kids, I did a lot of research on the subject in order to try to be sure that I was doing the right thing. Now, most of the vaccines (that I was complaining about) have been taken off the market because of safety concerns. So for me, the case is closed.

Republican platform opposes judicial supremacy
Recognizing that judges are trying to replace self-government by "we the people" with the Rule of Supremacist Judges, the Republican Platform states:
The sound principle of judicial review has turned into an intolerable presumption of judicial supremacy. A Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, will restore the separation of powers and re-establish a government of law. There are different ways to achieve that goal, such as using Article III of the Constitution to limit federal court jurisdiction; for example, in instances where judges are abusing their power by banning the use of `under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance or prohibiting depictions of the Ten Commandments, and potential actions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Bush accepts
About the courts, G.W. Bush said in his acceptance speech:
And we must protect small-business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across our country. ...

As I have traveled our country I have met too many good doctors, especially OB-GYNS, who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. ...

Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.

Kerry's lame response to the Republican speeches was to whine about how V.P. Cheney was not drafted during the Vietnam War.

Kerry needs to learn that his Vietnam War experience is a net loser for him. He faked his medals and ribbons, he lied about his 4-month experience in Vietnam, he admitted to war crimes, and he disgraced his fellow soldiers. I'd rather vote for someone who never fought.

Wednesday, Sep 01, 2004
Defending the internment
A silly law prof, Eric L. Muller, is on the warpath against Michelle Malkin for defending the WWII Japanese internment. Her main point is that decrypted Japanese communications (code-named "MAGIC") and other considerations provided a military basis for the decision. It wasn't just racism.

Now Muller and some other nitwits are lobbying to have Malkin blackballed from radio and TV because she is not a professional historian! Muller himself is just a lawyer with no doctoral degree or relevant credentials.

He seems to think that Malkin conceded that she was wrong when she said:

Eric points out that once the decision was made to evacuate ethnic Japanese from the West Coast, many ancillary decisions were made -- and MAGIC doesn't explain all or even most of them. True, but beside the point. My book focuses primarily on the policies formed in early spring 1942, when the decision was made to evacuate all ethnic Japanese from the West Coast.
I say Malkin won that argument. Liberals like to cite the Japanese internment in order to argue against racial profiling, but they cannot even get their facts right.

Update: Muller defends himself here. He also complains that Malkin's book is selling very well and she is getting a lot of TV and radio interviews, while his book is not selling and he cannot get equal time on TV and radio. I think that the problem is that Muller has nothing new or different to say; he is just reciting the same myths that already permeate the textbooks.

Update: Muller keeps complaining. This time, he claims to have a smoking gun by evidence that FDR told Canada that the Japanese were foolish in thinking that the early 1942 attacks on the Pacific Coast would be effective. But FDR does not say anything about whether future attacks might be effective, or whether the existing security measures were necessary to blunt the effectiveness of possible attacks.

Update: Muller is now making Nazi analogies, as predicted by Godwin's Law.

Bush v Kerry polls
An excellent site summarizing presidential election polls is www.electoral-vote.com. It now shows the red states jumping into a lead for Bush. It is possible that Kerry will only win a few states in the Northeast and West coast, plus Illinois where the Republican party has been decimated by scandal.