What's the trouble with Katie?

Let me count ...

For those that love Katie Couric, let me give you an example from those on the other side of the spectrum.

This morning, on Today, a friend of Martha Stewart was being interviewed by Couric about Stewart's release and her five month ordeal in 'prison'. In the course of this insightful conversation, Couric points out that she heard Martha formed some pretty strong relationships with some of her 'prison'-mates. In one case, going so far as helping the mate to mend a family rift. (wow, the miracle of potpourri?)

After building this picture of Martha, as a changed woman who has bonded with these 'criminals', Katie asked the friend a loaded question. It went something like this: "Do you think this experience will move Martha to embrace or continue advocating for prison reform?"

What? Prison reform? First, Martha was not in a real prison. She was basically under house arrest away from her penthouse and estate. I could almost see Katie's thought-bubble picturing Martha at the bottom of some human pyramid, ala Abhu Ghraib!

Second, Katie needs to get out of her ivory tower atop the liberal castle and realize that REAL prisons are needed to keep REAL criminals away from the society that the criminal CHOSE to assault. To equate Martha's 'prison' experience with anything remotely close to a real prison is completely disingenuous. No, it's a lie. Further, for Katie and others in the MSM to equate the actions of a few idiots at Abhu Ghraib to real prisons is also a lie.

Every person in prison has a mother and a sob-story. Too bad. There's an easy way to stay out of these terrible places. Don't commit the crime.

As for Martha, she didn't go to a real prison primarily because she isn't a real criminal. A few people feel good because "a big-wig got hers" and Elliot Spitzer feels good because we know his name now.

But what if it's working?

Here's a transcript of the Daily Show from James Tarranto and Best of the Web (lengthy cut, but there's more. Read it.) The interview is with a former Clinton aid and admitted big "D" Democrat:

Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole--
Stewart: This could be unbelievable!
Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's--
Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's--
Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.
Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, 'Reagan was nothing compared to this guy.' Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.
Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. {Is she serious?! Is she hoping that NK and/or Iran nuke us?}
Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.
Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--
Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!
Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is--"

This is vaguely familiar. Didn't they minimize Reagan's influence on the fall of the Soviet Union by suggesting that "other" factors and people had influence? We all know that Ronald Reagan didn't topple the USSR by himself. It took many years and countless people to win the cold war. But Ronald Reagan 'closed the deal'. We'll have to wait and see about peace and democracy in the middle east and George Bush's place in history.

Bush is what he is, and that's the problem

Apparently Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald is willing to admit that there are two world views when it comes to politics and leadership. One is 'nuanced': say one thing, but mean another; have a 'public' persona, but live a divergent private life, etc and one is direct: what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG). I prefer direct - which in my mind is open and honest. Pitts, and I assume others, seems to prefer the nuanced:

"Where famous people are concerned -- and few people are more famous than a president -- we are all armchair shrinks, peeling away layers of public artifice to reach private truth. But the Wead tapes suggest that, where this famous person is concerned, you can peel to your heart's content: For better or for worse, you will find only more of the same.

What you see is what you get. He is what he is.

With apologies to a certain sailor man, some of us don't find that comforting at all."

Perhaps (besides the premise of integrity) what Pitts finds uncomfortable, is the vision of Bush's policy. Ownership versus dependency. And even scarier to Pitts, Bush actually means it!

UN Double Standard?

Is this a statement about the 'insurgents' in Iraq?:

"'This group continues to loot, kill and rape these people, making life miserable,' said Nabaa. It's time to put an end to this militia.'"

No. It's a UN statement about their effort to eliminate the threat caused by the militia in the Congo.

This action is not coming under fire from the traditional 'peace' crowd. What makes it so different than the action the US and our Allies are taking in Iraq (besides size and scope) with regard to the terrorist insurgents who are "...killing, ...making life miserable, ..." for the people of Iraq? Apparently the Congo couldn't cough up enough cash to keep the UN out of their affairs.

I applaud this action and encourage similar action in Sudan. This is one of the functions the UN, and specifically the Security Council, was established for - controlling renegade terrorists, thugs and dictators from terrorizing innocent people.

A new record @ UW ~ barely!

JS Online: Tucker seizes the moment:

"The victory was Wisconsin's 87th in four years, a record for the program, but it nearly was a bitter defeat. The Badgers, who had just one basket during the final 10 minutes, staved off defeat because of Indiana's struggles from the line and some well-timed free throws from Wilkinson."

I caught the last 6 minutes on ESPN. We sure tried to give this one away! It's obvious we miss Devon Harris. Wilkinson is a nice player, but he isn't a go-to guy that can create a play when you need it, like Harris was. It could be a couple of short tournaments. GO Bucky!

One of the "little Eichmanns" remembered...

Ward Churchill speaks tonight at a University of Wisconsin campus in Whitewater. The following is an article remembering a local woman who was killed in the 9/11 attacks in New York. Read the whole thing and, please, do not validate Churchill's existence by attending his speech:

"A 25-year-old graduate of Kewaskum High School and St. Norbert College, she had moved to Chicago, was engaged to be married, had a great and productive job working for a futures brokerage and was spending the very first day of her very first business trip in New York when the terrorists attacked.

Nobody who knew her has forgotten."

For a 'professor' to refer to the victims of the attacks as "little Eichmanns" is beyond belief and completely irresponsible. For someone to attend his speech, and consider his opinion valid, is sickening.