BROADSIDES

March 22, 2004

Classified Ad
FOR SALE: Used wheelchair. Needs some work. $25 OBO.

March 21, 2004

The Dangers Of Comestic Surgery
Do botox injections cause brain damage? Consider:

"John Kerry, defending 'gay rights' before a black audience, explained that when 'Mr. King gets dragged behind a truck down [in] Texas by chains and his body is mutilated only because he's gay, I think that's a matter of rights in the United States of America.' James Byrd was dragged behind a truck and murdered in Texas. Rodney King was beaten by police in Los Angeles. Neither man was gay." -- A National Review editorial, as reported in the New York Post

The FDA should investigate.

Preferably after the November election.

B. Sides @ 11:49 AM

March 19, 2004

One Year Later
The battle for Iraq's liberation began one year ago today. A fitting commemoration is to consider the insights of two men at the opposite ends of the chain of command in that battle--an American soldier and his commander-in-chief:

We are representing 84 countries united against a common danger, and joined in a common purpose. We are the nations that have recognized the threat of terrorism, and we are the nations that will defeat that threat. Each of us has pledged before the world: We will never bow to the violence of a few. We will face this mortal danger, and we will overcome it together . . . Many countries represented here today also acted to liberate the people of Iraq. One year ago, military forces of a strong coalition entered Iraq to enforce United Nations demands, to defend our security, and to liberate that country from the rule of a tyrant. For Iraq, it was a day of deliverance. For the nations of our coalition, it was the moment when years of demands and pledges turned to decisive action. Today, as Iraqis join the free peoples of the world, we mark a turning point for the Middle East, and a crucial advance for human liberty . . . The establishment of a free Iraq is our fight. The success of a free Afghanistan is our fight. The war on terror is our fight. All of us are called to share the blessings of liberty, and to be strong and steady in freedom's defense. It will surely be said of our times that we lived with great challenges. Let it also be said of our times that we understood our great duties, and met them in full.
-- President Bush, speaking to an international delegation at the White House, March 19, 2004

This last year taught me that the United States made millions of people's lives better. And I was a part of it.
-- An American soldier, quoted on The History Channel

B. Sides @ 9:59 PM

Cheney At The Reagan Library
Unless embarassingly awful -- as with Dan Quayle's "What A Waste It Is To Lose One's Mind" oration and everything Spiro Agnew ever said -- vice presidential speeches are usually relegated to history's behind-the-mall metal dumpster.

Not so with Dick Cheney's speech at the Reagan Library last Wednesday.

Appropriately, the veep opened with a tip o' the hat to President Reagan. Ronald Reagan, he said, "had a basic awareness of good and evil that made him a champion of human freedom, and the greatest foe of the greatest tyranny of his time. The Cold War ended as it did, not by chance, not by some inevitable progression of events: It ended because Ronald Reagan was President of the United States."

Just a moment while I applaud.

Then, after touting America's successes in the war on terrorism, the vice president turned his attention to John Kerry's fondness for waffles. And, yowza!, it was a good ol' fashioned skewering.

It's tough to pick just one excerpt, but here goes:

Senator Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the Senator that last November, at the President's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87 to 12. Senator Kerry voted no. I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Senator Kerry said, quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Laughter.) It's a true fact. (Laughter.)

And that's just a tiny sampling. Read the entire speech on the veep's website.

B. Sides @ 9:27 AM

March 17, 2004

False Advertising
Turns out that what happens in Vegas doesn't necessarily stay in Vegas.

B. Sides @ 12:33 PM

Censor The FCC
If you pronounce the acronym FCC, it sounds just like the most forbidden word in network broadcasting.

Oh, the irony.

It turns out that free speech opponent Michael Powell (who, contrary to popular belief, was appointed to the FCC by Bill Clinton) and some of his fellow FCC inquisitors aren't content with just violating the First Amendment rights of on-air broadcasters.

Of course, Powell would deny that his Star Chamber-ish persecution of various broadcasters and imposition of grossly vague speech regulations and massive fines violates the First Amendment. He would claim that what he and his fellow speech commissars are doing amounts to cleaning up the airwaves, blah, blah, blah, protecting our children, blah blah blah, helping parents, blah blah blah, upholding decency, blah blah, blah ...

But if choosing the words someone can legally say is not a violation of the constitutional mandate prohibiting Congress from choosing the words someone can legally say, what is??

Now Powell is seizing upon the very controversy that he himself ginned up -- Janet Jackson's costume "malfunction" -- as an excuse to open a new front in the government's war on free speech: cable television. Powell wants Congress to give the FCC authority to censor cable content.

Currently the FCC lacks the power to regulate cable programming content because it's a subscription service and it's not transmitted over airwaves. In other words, where cable content is concerned, Powell and his fellow commissars can't protect our children, blah blah blah, help parents, blah blah blah, and uphold decency, blah blah, blah ...

So, then, since there's no government agency censoring cable programming . . .

. . . why doesn't CNN use topless anchorettes to read the news?

. . . why doesn't CSPAN's Brian Lamb say "Eat shit and die!" to annoying callers?

. . . why does MTV bleep drug references in music videos?

. . . why does the E! channel bleep words that even the FCC allows on the air?

. . . why doesn't the Cartoon Network show Fritz the Cat or those creepy Japanese porn cartoons?

. . . why doesn't Chef Emril Lagasse hump women in the audience and repeatedly yell "BAM!" while waiting on his soufflé to rise?

Why? The answer is the free market.

Basic cable is packed with channels programmed by companies keenly aware that they are ultimately accountable to their viewers. To put it another way, cable programmers' standards and practices are a reflection of their viewers demands and expectations. The result is thousands of hours of programming that's relatively sedate -- all without government censorship and regulation.

Someone should remind the FCC and Congress that the revelation of Janet Jackson's breast originated not on unregulated cable but on FCC-regulated airwaves.

Not only should Congress refuse to expand the FCC's authority over cable content, it should abolish the FCC's authority to censor anything.

In other words, fcc the FCC.

B. Sides @ 10:12 AM

Disney World Dodges Bullet
Hey, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, you've just won the Spanish election with the homicidal help of your al-Qaeda terrorist pals!!!

NOW what are ya gonna do??

"The first thing I will do when I am elected is to go to the United States and support John Kerry."
(As quoted in The Majorca Daily Bulletin, via Opinion Journal.

B. Sides @ 9:16 AM

March 15, 2004

A Murderous Campaign Endorsement
You don't have to be a political scientist to understand why terrorist nations bombed Madrid just before Spain's parliamentary elections. It was their deadly way of endorsing Spanish Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. (And let's be clear: "socialist" is a pleasant-sounding euphemism for "communist.")

During his campaign to oust Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Conservative Popular Party, Zapatero repeatedly opposed the liberation of Iraq and the war on terrorism, and vowed that he would withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. With reckless anti-U.S. rhetoric that sounded as if it had been written by bin Laden himself, Zapatero gave the terrorists every incentive to undermine Aznar's reelection.

And undermine it, they did. To the tune of 200 lives.

With the help of terrorists, Zapatero defeated Aznar's Conservatives. And what was Zapatero's reward to those who ensured his election by murdering and maiming over a thousand of his countrymen? A prompt announcement that he would reverse Aznar's terrorism policy and order the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq.

There's no indication that Zaptero or his surrogates conspired with terrorists, though I wouldn't put anything past a communist. However, there can be no doubt that his policy positions encouraged terrorists and their patrons to fatally intervene in the Spanish elections and ensure the defeat of Prime Minister Aznar.

This is a presidential election year in the United States and, when addressing the liberation of Iraq and the war on terrorism, the Democrat challenger to President Bush is sounding much like Zapatero. John Kerry has carelessly crafted his candidacy in a such a way that his success in November is predicated upon something so awful and so adverse happening to the U.S. that voters will be moved to oust the incumbent.

And America's terrorist enemies are surely taking note.

So the question must be asked: having successfully twisted the outcome of the Spanish elections to their advantage by murdering scores of people, might Islamovermin attempt to undermine Bush's reelection effort with a strategically-timed, major attack on the United States?

Well, why wait for an answer which may result in another major loss of life?

Instead, the United States should move quickly to destroy the two remaining major patrons of Islamist terrorism: the terrorist regimes of Iran and Syria. Without the Iranian ruling mullahs and the Syrian Baathists, Islamist mercenaries will not have the financial and logistical support essential to their operations.

As long as the Iranian and Syrian regimes remain intact, terrorist efforts to violate the integrity of elections in free nations will continue. But if those regimes are toppled--and soon--President Bush can bolster the safety of American lives and ensure that the outcome of the November election is determined by American voters rather than Islamist thugs.

B. Sides @ 9:04 AM

March 12, 2004

The Spy Who Loved Saddam
No, no...Peter Arnett is not under arrest for espionage. But Susan Lindauer is! Uncle Sam arrested her yesterday on charges that she spied for Saddam from 1999 through 2002.

According to the AP, a federal grand jury indictment charges that Lindauer "accepted $10,000 for working for the Iraqi Intelligence Service from 1999 to 2002, including payments for lodging at the Al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad and expenses during meetings in New York City with Iraqi agents." The Feds mantain that Lindauer was being paid to influence her distant cousin, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, in matters involving Saddam. She denies the charge of course, though Card reportedly confirmed to the FBI that his Mata Hari of a cousin did try to contact him several times.

Considering the course of events over the last 12 months, Saddam should demand a refund.

Lindauer, a former journalist, has served as the press secretary for four members of Congress.

Not surprisingly, all four members -- Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Peter DeFazio, Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, and then Rep. Ron Wyden -- are Democrats.

B. Sides @ 8:25 AM

March 11, 2004

Speaking of Term Limits . . .
I'm opposed to term limits but term limiting the executive and not the legislative flies in the face of checks and balance.

If term limits are necessary for the the president then they are equally necessary for Congress. Either the Constitution should be amended to term limit members of Congress or the 22nd Amendment limiting the president to two terms should be repealed.

B. Sides @ 4:17 PM

Worst Law Professor Ever
Stephen Gillers is a law professor at New York University and any students unfortunate enough to find themselves under his tutelage should transfer. Fast.

Earlier this month, the New York Times and several other newspapers ran an op-ed column in which Gillers touted Bill Clinton as the ideal running mate for John Kerry. In a constitutional limbo dance, Gillers claims that even though Clinton is prevented by the 22nd Amendment from being elected president again, he is still eligible to be elected vice president. Insists Gillers:

The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice." No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president. True, if Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Clinton would succeed Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession. So much for the constitutional obstacles.

The smug Gillers is obviously proud of himself. But his fetish for Bill Clinton has blinded him to the 12th Amendment.

Adopted in the aftermath of Aaron Burr's brazen attempt to steal the 1800 presidential election, the 12th Amendment establishes the electoral process by which a presidential candidate runs with a vice presidential candidate. It also defines the conditions under which the House of Representatives may choose the president.

But it's the last sentence of the 12th Amendment that rains on "Professor" Gillers' parade. It mandates that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." In case Gillers doesn't understand that, it means that if you're not eligible to be president then you're not eligble to be vice president.

Because of the 22nd Amendment, Bill Clinton is ineligible to the office of president. And because of the 12th Amendment, Bill Clinton is ineligible to the office of vice president.

Oops, Professor!

The 12th Amendment was written to prevent sneaks from undermining the Constitution.

Sneaks like Aaron Burr. And Stephen Gillers.

B. Sides @ 12:28 PM

March 10, 2004

Asses and Buttons
According to a Kerry campaign blog, Teresa Heinz--the Leona Helmsley of ketchup--is handing out buttons which bear the photographs of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld below the title "Asses of Evil". This isn't a good sign for the Kerry campaign. If the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee had an issue on which to campaign against Bush, it's doubtful that his wife, of all people, would employ such a petty tactic.

Besides, can't Teresa find something more productive to do with her first husband's blood money?

James Lileks thinks the Asses of Evil button is a worthy debate topic:

So Teresa Heinz-Kerry passes out buttons that say “Asses of Evil,” with pictures of Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Ashcroft on them. There you have it: the President of the United States is an Evil Ass. I’d love for someone to put this question to Kerry in the debate: Senator Kerry, your wife handed out buttons that called the President an Evil Ass. Do you believe he is Evil, an Ass, or both? And if I may follow up, I’d like to ask if you can possibly imagine Laura Bush doing that. Thank you.

B. Sides @ 11:10 AM

Googling History
Every Google search yields at least one oddball hit that's seemingly unrelated to the keywords. Such was the case this morning when I Googled Dave "I'm rich, bitch!" Chapelle. Since the mayor of a French city shares the same surname, Google hit this CNN report from June 27, 1996:

PEROUGES, France (CNN) -- With the bombing in Saudi Arabia on his mind, President Clinton said Thursday he expected G-7 participants to approve "40 very specific" U.S.-proposed measures to track, capture and punish terrorists.

The leaders from the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, Italy, Canada and France -- the group of seven -- were to open an economic summit later in the day in Lyon, France.

Addressing a crowd in the rural village of Perouges, northeast of Lyon, Clinton repeated his pledge that the United States "will not rest in our efforts to discover who is responsible (for Tuesday's bombing that killed 19 servicemen), to track them down and bring them to justice ..."

"... Fifty-two years ago, the French resistance worked here in common cause with American GIs to win your freedom back. Now, we must join together to face down a new threat to our freedom," Clinton said.

Perogues Mayor Guy Passarat de la Chapelle welcomed the president and Hillary Rodham Clinton and introduced them to an audience that included World War II veterans. The mayor presented Clinton with an honorary medal and called for a moment of silence for the victims of the Saudi bombing ...

... Surrounded by American flags, the president declared, "We must rally the forces of tolerance and freedom everywhere to work against terrorism."

Rallying the forces of tolerance? Asking allies to approve a checklist of 40 proposed measures to fight terrorism? Throughout the Clinton Administration foreign policy was set by a gaggle of glorified social workers who addressed acts of war against the United States much like Maury Povich mediating a paternity dispute.

And so the forces of tolerance and Clinton's 40-point checklist were unleased in 1996--and nearly 3,000 people were murdered five years later on September 11, 2001.

This is what happens when U.S. foreign policy is conducted by a kiss-ass rather than a leader. Does anyone seriously believe a Kerry Administration would be any different?

B. Sides @ 9:57 AM