Light Blogging Ahead

I'll be at a client meeing in the Tehachapi Mountains tomorrow, and my trusty Verizon internet-anywhere card is not yet configured for my new laptop, so I probably won't be posting anything until Thursday.

Stay safe 'til then!

Write Your Own Caption

Between her stellar Katrinablogging, Michelle Malkin found time to post this photo. Post your captions in my comments, and I'll forward them over. Or just post them there. Here's one:

Sheehan: (COUGH!) I seem to have swallowed a feather.
Chief: Don't worry, I can perform a traecheotomy with this little piece of flint here.

Leftist Rantings About Looting

How about this from a person (?) who's posted 1,000+ posts on DemocraticUnderground:

The fact the national guard is keeping people from FOOD shows we are NOT living in a democracy,the Rich people's THINGS must be protected from starving people!! Remember the french revolution,the rich make sure the lower class suffers and is desperate,the middle class is scared of poor people,the soldiers are bribed obedient and loyal,. That is how they say rich and on our backs.
**** all the corporate pigs. ****ing ********!
Disaster shows us the true use of our military is to PROTECT PROPERTY of corporations above human life, to keep the rich secure people DIE.

I say Eat the rich people if they will not let you get food.
Roast them on a spit and share the bounty.They have been fed on the finest organic foods.*sarcasm*

**** I am pissed. Let the people EAT..What happened soldier to defending life? Life comes before property IF you are not a sociopath scum bag.
Don't obey wealthy scumbags posing as"leaders".Sheesh.

Someone should rob this guy blind, so he can call the "pigs" for help.

h/t Michelle Malkin

Sheehan Media Update

Cindy's back in full form, thanks to the anti-war sentiments of most reporters and a few bucks from Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's fame. Ben's funding the big PR operation behind Sheehan, according to Laura Ingraham.

Here's an interesting piece from today's Nexis search of Cindy Sheehan hits, from Japan's biggest MSM, the Asahi Shimbun:

BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ: THE MOMENT HAS COME TO DECIDE WHETHER TO WITHDRAW (translated from the Japanese-language Asahi Shimbun's editorial published Aug. 26)

''Why did my son have to die?'' This simple question from a bereaved mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq is fueling growing war-weariness across the United States.

Already, three weeks have passed since the mother, Cindy Sheehan, 48, set up camp near President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he is spending his summer vacation.

Last April, Sheehan lost her son, a 24-year-old army specialist, in Iraq. Since early August, she has been asking to meet the president in person and calling for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.

Once the national media started covering the story, Sheehan began picking up supporters who pitched tents alongside hers.

Waves of anti-war demonstrations have spread across the country.

The last line, of course, is simply made up -- but how would the Japanese who read this paper ever know that? Sheehan is indeed having great success in her primary objective: demeaning America.

Aug. 29: 186 hits
Aug. 28: 132 hits
Aug. 27: 96 hits
Aug. 26: 183 hits
Aug. 25: 220 hits
Aug. 24: 208 hits (She's back)
Aug. 23: 249 hits
Aug. 22: 202 hits
Aug. 21: 120 hits
Aug. 20: 103 hits
Aug. 19: 232 hits
Aug. 18: 306 hits
Aug. 17: 295 hits (Off to California)
Aug. 16: 215 hits
Aug. 15: 136 hits
Aug. 14: 93 hits
Aug. 13: 107 hits
Aug. 12: 167 hits
Aug. 11: 113 hits
Aug. 10: 46 hits
Aug. 09: 32 hits
Aug. 08: 36 hits
Aug. 07: 39 hits
Aug. 06: 7 hits (6 AP, 1 CBS, natch)
Aug. 05: 3 hits (all Dallas Morning News, pre-arrival)
Aug. 04: 0 hits

And here's an update in the Sheehan/Roberts comparo:

Aug. 26 -- Sheehan: 186 ...... Roberts: 95

Note: Nexis does not provide a complete count. Video Monitoring Service had tracked over 20,000 Sheehan mentionsby Aug. 17. Nexis is, however, a good indicator of how heaviliy the media is covering a story, and it focuses more on larger papers and network shows that more people read and view. CBS News hits deleted from Sheehan/Roberts count because they mention correspondent John Roberts, not the Supreme Court nominee.

Paper Jam? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Paper Jam!

From Sacramento's Capitol Morning Report:

A memo to staffers in the Capitol: if you're photocopying a sensitive document--especially one that may be political in nature (and not official government work)-- you might want to remove any paper jam and take the crumpled copy with you when you leave.

That would have been good advice to follow for the staffer yesterday who was making a copy of what appears to be a political strategy memo from the Latino Legislative Caucus, a caucus of Democratic Latino lawmakers.

Three pages were reportedly found jammed in the machine, and made their ways into the hands of the California Republican Party, who then distributed them to reporters.

Oops.

While some of the printing fell victim to a lack of toner, you can clearly read passages about the caucus' efforts to defeat the initiatives of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That includes spending more than $2.7 million on everything from a campaign to encourage Latinos to vote absentee to a phone bank to call Latino voters.

The memo's summary says "the Schwarzenegger initiatives to cut programs, control legislative redistricting, and to rob teachers of the needed benefits of tenure along with the right-wing initiatives to attack working families are the greatest threat to progressive politics in the history of politics."

The issue, say Republicans, is that the memo seems to be political work being promoted (or copied, to be accurate) on the taxpayer's dime. The chief of staff to Latino Caucus chair Senator Martha Escutia (D-Whittier) says the senator has never even seen the memo, but admits that the mystery staffer clearly made a "mistake" by using a government copier-- one she says won't happen again.

A while back a top Dem strategy session went out over a speaker phone to Repubs. They never learn, but they keep holding onto the California legislature.

See Ya, Cindy.

Pres. Bush is heading back to Washington, nipping the last bit off his vacation, and putting Camp Casey out of business.

His first move once back may be to open the strategic oil reserves, in response to Katrina's disruption of Gulf oil -- hopefully a precursor to an imminent opening of ANWR.

In Full Agreement With WaPo

[I]t's worth noting that the Weekly Standard is
a truly excellent right-wing warmongering magazine,
no matter what your political persuasion might be.

The quote is from a complimentary review of one of my favorite magazines on its tenth anniversary, by WaPo's Peter Carlson.

TV Smut Peddlers Days Numbered?

From Salon, and not suitable for family reading (unless you're a Clinton appointee):

A 2003 episode of the short-lived Fox comedy "Keen Eddie" features a woman described as a "filthy slut" who is hired to "extract" semen from a prize thoroughbred. "That's not natural," the prostitute protests. "Think of it as science," says the man offering to pay. Though the episode featured no actual extraction -- off-camera the woman lifts her shirt and the horse suddenly drops dead -- some Americans complained, finding the scene inappropriate for prime-time television.

The Federal Communications Commission disagreed. In the majority opinion, the commission decided the sequence was not intended to "pander, shock, or titillate." The decision, however, was not unanimous. Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, whom President Bush has since appointed FCC chairman, thought Fox stations should be fined. "Despite my colleagues' assurance that there appeared to be a safe distance between the prostitute and the horse, I remain uncomfortable," Martin wrote at the time.

As well he should. Fortunately, Martin held on after losing this battle and now appears likely to win the war, as the FCC will begin clamping down on basic cable and network offerings (panderings?), and provide parents the opportunity to break up basic cable packages so we don't have to let the discover-all-about-sex channels in with the Discovery Channel.

Look for legislation soon.

h/t Media Bistro

Global Fund Denies Bias

Rosie Vanek of the Global Fund promptly and not altogether satisfactorily responded to the nine questions I posed to her yesterday. I could excerpt portions like an MSM journalist do, but in the interest of fairness, I have copied in her entire response ... with my commentary in red.

Before getting to that, I want to make it clear that I am not against the Global Fund and its efforts to cure these horrible diseases. In fact, I'm a bit in awe of all they do, and the funding they are able to solicit and apply under sometimes extremely adverse conditions. God bless them and multiply their efforts.

What I am against is PC and anti-Christian attidues putting people's lives at risk. Those who relate abstinence with God and free-sex-and-rubbers with Reason have been extremely critical of the effort in Uganda, despite its success. They do not want to see that effort replicated elsewhere.

I am not convinced, despite Ms. Vanek's denial that the Condomites had anything to do with this decision, that Global Fund is above political pressure from the likes of George Soros and Bill Clinton (understandably a condom man).

There is good news in her response: That the Global Fund hopes to have the grants re-established within two months or less.

Now, to my questions and her responses:

1. In reviewing the 122 releases posted on your site, I have found no examples where multiple grants to a country were suspended in this manner. The only two relevant cases, Myanmar and Senegal, did not involve charges of corruption. Have no other grants been suspended for corruption?

In fact, the decision to suspend grants to Uganda was also not based on evidence of corruption but rather on clear evidence of mismanagement, such as inappropriate or poorly documented expenditures, and improper accounting. [That's a rather fine line, and it conflicts with Dr. Miller's statement that Uganda's controls are better than others.] Given these findings, the Global Fund was no longer comfortable with the Project Management Unit (PMU) as a conduit for program funds. The PMU is the organization in Uganda which has overseen grant implementation to date, but which will not play a role in the restructured management of grants after reinstatement of the grants (pending approval).

The Local Fund Agent (auditing body in Uganda; PricewaterhouseCoopers) did not pursued [sic] the review of the Round 1 HIV/AIDS grant to the level of a full audit (which would require that confidential documentation such as private bank records and other personal information be turned over to the LFA), and there is therefore no concrete evidence of corruption or fraud. [I could make a headline of that statement.]

In January of 2004, Grants to Ukraine were suspended because of concerns about the ability of the initial Principal Recipient to manage the grant. After a new Principal Recipient was chosen, the grants were able to go forward. I will include the press release issued by the Global Fund at the time the grants were relaunched for your reference. [The release was not on the Global Fund site. It is dated Feb. 2003 and is about a program set to expire in Jan. 2004, so this is apparently not a case of immediate cancellation. That in itself raises questions -- why the long notice in Ukraine and the immediate cancellation in Uganda. The release may just be dated wrong; if so, the fast fix of the problem is hopefully an example of what is to come in Uganda.]

The malaria grant to Senegal was not renewed for a second phase of funding, because it fell significantly short of the targets laid out in the grant agreement, as proposed by the grant recipient for the first two years. Each of the Global Fund’s more than three hundred grants is evaluated after 18 months for results achieved through support of Global Fund resources, and a second phase of funding is always contingent upon performance during the first phase.

The Global Fund operates as a funding mechanism to combat the three diseases on the basis that funds should be put to rapid, effective use, and where they are not demonstrably doing so, further resources should not be allocated. As the press release about Senegal points out, countries where grants are not renewed are encouraged to submit new proposals in future rounds, which demonstrate that obstacles to achieving results have been corrected.

For an illustration of how grants are evaluated, you may want to look at the grant scorecards for those grants which have already gone through this process, at the following link: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/funds_raised/gsc/

The decision to cancel the grant to Myanmar was based on new restrictions put in place by the government of Myanmar, which made grant implementation impossible. I will also attach the Myanmar fact sheet which gives thorough background information about this decision. [An entirely different example not pertinent to the discussion.]

2. If the problem was allegedly with the AIDS/HIV program, why did you also suspend tuberculosis and malaria programs, which appears to be an action that needlessly puts lives at risk?

While efforts are in progress to correct the management issues with the grants to Uganda, Global Fund Southern and Eastern Africa grant management team has traveled to the country to actively engage with the Principal Recipient to identify the elements of funded programs involving life-saving treatment and prevention activity not implicated in the findings of mismanagement, and to ensure that funding continues to reach those program areas. [Good!]

The Global Fund decided to suspend all five grants to Uganda because there was evidence of serious mismanagement by the Project Management Unit (PMU) for all Global Fund grants in Uganda. Although the review carried out by the LFA centered on only the Round 1 HIV/AIDS grant, the same PMU manages all five grants, and to minimize risk, all five have been suspended. [This was stated in the news release on the matter.]

Steps taken to correct mismanagement issues are in fact meant to safeguard the delivery of lifesaving treatment to those who are either infected or vulnerable to HIV/AIDS malaria and TB, so that funds will be put to best use, precisely to protect as many lives at risk as possible. The Global Fund is hopeful that the Principal Recipient, in collaboration with Global Fund staff and the Country Coordinating mechanism will be able to devise new management structures rapidly so that pending disbursements of the grants will not be overly delayed. The outside window for completion of this process is less than two months, and the Principal Recipient of Uganda has indicated that it will make every effort to propose new management structures as quickly as possible. [The two-month window is good news. It will be interesting to see if forced restructuring of the program is a part of the new structure.]

3. Releases on your site indicate that for a period of at least two years, Global Fund has been working with South Africa regarding problems with its grants. Why did you immediately suspend the Uganda grant, when it is evident that you are willing to work long-term with a country that is having trouble meeting your expectations?

4. What is the nature of the problem you experienced, or are experiencing, with South Africa?

The Global Fund currently has five grants to South Africa. Could you clarify which grant or event you are referring to? [I will do this. There were only two releases on the site referring to the matter, so I thought it was pretty clear.]

To speak generally about problems with grants to a country would not be very meaningful, as typically grants each have their own weaknesses and successes which evolve and change over time. Whereas the Global Fund’s decision to suspend grants to Uganda, with a view to reinstating these grants pending correction of management issues, no similar grounds for concern about the management of South Africa’s grants apply.

5. Are you currently monitoring, or have you previously monitored, any other grant recipients as you monitored Uganda, i.e., with an outside firm like Pricewaterhousecooper?

Uganda is not at all unique in having an external monitoring body of this kind. Every country receiving Global Fund money has a Local Fund Agent (LFA), which provides an initial assessment of financial and management capacity of the Principal Recipient, and then provides ongoing verification of program results during the grant lifespan. The LFA is an in-country accountability mechanism providing appropriate oversight of grant performance. The LFA for each country is publicly listed on our website (www.theglobalfund.org) under the searchable country database of grants by country. You’ll find this information in the text box at the top of each country’s webpage. [If this is the case, it is astonishing to me that so few grants are suspended. Could the LFAs in Zimbabwe and Congo really find nothing wrong? The juxtaposition of a singled-out Uganda and criticism from the free-sex-and-rubbers crowd remains suspicious.]

6. Given the countries you lend to, it is evident that many governments with long histories of corruption receive funds. Why hasn’t the Global Fund seen it necessary to take similar actions against other countries? Is the Global Fund saying by its action against Uganda that problems encountered there were much greater than what you deal with regularly?

Firstly, the Global Fund does not lend funds, but rather approves grants to countries (without expectation of return), based on approval of technically sound work-plans and targets, laying out how the country will use grant resources to combat and prevent disease. [Mea culpa. Sometimes an editor would come in handy.]

The Fund strives to take a politics-neutral approach to funding efforts to combat the pandemics, and generally speaking Global Fund-financed programs can function in any country, as long as the government doesn’t actively try to obstruct them. In addition, the Country Coordinating Mechanism within each country is required by Global Fund guidelines to include a broad spectrum of sectors represented. Though government is often one participant, Civil Society, NGOs and the private sector in countries also take part in proposing and implementing grants, as these stakeholders collectively see it in the countries best interest. [This was a pivotal question, and it was completely dodged. She did not say whether Uganda was markedly more corrupt (or mismanaged).]

What part did Uganda’s emphasis on monogamy and abstinence have on your decision to suspend its grants?

No part at all.

What is Global Fund’s position on monogamy and abstinence programs?

As stated above, the Global Fund does not take a position on specific strategies used to combat the pandemics. Grants are country driven and implemented, and the Global Fund is flexible when it comes to strategies chosen by each country as that which best suits their needs. In short, if a country proposes a strategy which is found to be technically sound by the independent Technical Review Panel which the Global Fund relies upon for this evaluation, the Global Fund will approve funding. [One would hope this is not the policy. One would hope that policies that are not working well, like the free-sex-and-rubbers approach, would be discouraged and programs with an ABC (abstinence before condoms) approach would be encouraged since they are shown to work. I am requesting from Ms. Vanek the Technical Review Panel's findings on Uganda.]

What is Global Fund’s position on “safe sex” and condom programs without a monogamy and abstinence element?

See above.

As a public relations person, it is often my job to develop responses to tough questions received from the media. Ms. Vanek did a good job, all in all, by flooding me with information while remaining unresponsive in one key area (Is the Ugandan program that much worse than anyone elses?), and providing no support for the key statement that it has no position on ABC vs. safe sex programs.

See also:
I Get An E-Mail From Michael Moore!
Abstinence Effort Predates Bush
Nine Questions For The Global Fund
Condomites In UN Attack Uganda
Finger-Pointing In Uganda
Ugandan AIDS Cut Unprecedented
Uganda AIDS Cut More Suspicious
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?

Excellent Review Of Jihad And Islam

The dogs just raced in 5 minutes before I have to leave for work, little balls of mud that needed a quick bath.

So I didn't finish Jihadism's Roots in Political Islam by Bassam Tibi in today's International Herald Tribune. (h/t Real Clear Politics) It's a very good piece, worth reading. Excerpt:

After the Sept. 11 attacks, some commentators said that jihadists were now targeting the West because they were "fighting somebody else's war." This is utterly wrong. The intellectual father of jihadist Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, who was executed in Cairo in 1966, made the message crystal clear: Jihadism is a "permanent Islamic world revolution" aimed at decentering the West in order to establish "Hakimiyyat Allah," or God's rule, on a global scale.

I get an e-mail from Michael Moore!

No, not that Michael Moore! This one's from Michael Moore, MD, about the Global Fund's PC cutting of Ugandan aid:

Saw this linked by HH.

As shown in the graph, Uganda had a prevelance rate of 30% long before anyone heard about "AIDS in Africa", because it was still a poorly treated condition in the US. By the time it was treatable in the US and "Africa had an AIDS Crisis", Uganda's prevalence was declining. It is documented by an-exHarvard PhD named Green, I believe. The program was indigenous to the Ugandan people, even if some of them are, (cover your ears....Christians...aaahhh!!).

In addition, I know several families that have been working in Uganda since the early 90's. From what I hear from them, if there is a problem in Uganda's administration of the program it was selected out from the others because the program was run well enough to find the irregularities!!

In addition to the data above, they have shown a rise in the age of first sexual experience, and a decrease in the number of sexual partners.

Revolting and disgusting. I could have seen a decrease in AIDS funding under the "they don't need it as much because they are doing well", but aarrghh!!!
Michael M. Moore, MD

Better said than anything I've heard that other Michael Moore say.

See also:
Abstinence Effort Predates Bush
Nine Questions For The Global Fund
Condomites In UN Attack Uganda
Finger-Pointing In Uganda
Ugandan AIDS Cut Unprecedented
Uganda AIDS Cut More Suspicious
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?

The High Cost Of Sparing Lives

Christian Science Monitor

You will no doubt begin hearing this study quoted time and again, with the headline from the Christian Science Monitor as the sound bite: "More costly than the war to end all wars!" Especially since probably half of America thinks that's a reference to World War II, not I.

File this under "Bread buttering/Both sides." The Left will attack the costs and they will attack the number of civilian deaths. Of course, the high costs are directly related to the low civilian deaths, and military deaths.

We're not asking doughboys to charge out of trenches into machine gun fire any more. We're not flying relatively low-cost B-52's with low-cost dumb bombs over cities any more. We're using expensive technology to target insurgents and spare civilians.

It's good; it makes sense. So just watch, Liberals will attack.

Abstinence Effort Predates Bush

George Soro-funded Human Rights Watch's allegation that the Ugandan AIDS program is "falling under the influence of US Christian conservatives" is a deceit designed to push a PC "free sex and rubbers" approach to AIDS/HIV treatment.

Blogger Mightcan commented on a Hedgehog Blog post about my posts on Uganda and set matters straight: Uganda has been pushing abstinence first, monogamy second and condoms third since at least 1986 -- just a tad between Bush and his right wing conservative Christians took over the White House.

I'm not sure that I understand what you understand. The Ugandan program has always been ABC - abstinence, be faithful, use condoms. Its always been a three legged stool, not one above the other. But, I could be wrong...

from http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm:
Why was Uganda's response so effective?

The approach used in Uganda has been named the ABC approach - firstly, encouraging sexual Abstinence until marriage; secondly, advising those who are sexually active to Be faithful to a single partner or to reduce their number of partners; and finally, especially if you have more than one sexual partner, always use a Condom. A number of factors helped to encourage people to take up these strategies.

Communication

It seems that the message about HIV and AIDS has been effectively communicated to a diverse population by the government and by word of mouth. Ugandan people have themselves to thank, in part, for the reduction in the HIV prevalence rate. Much of the prevention work that has been done in Uganda has occurred at grass-roots level, with a multitude of tiny organisations educating their peers, mainly made up of people who are themselves HIV+. There was considerable effort made towards breaking down the stigma associated with AIDS, and frank and honest discussion of sexual subjects that had previously been taboo was encouraged. There is a high level of AIDS-awareness amongst people generally.

Community action

Very early in the course of the epidemic, the government recruited the Ugandan people to help themselves in the fight against HIV/AIDS. One of the first community-based organisations to be formed was TASO, the AIDS Support Organization founded in 1987, a time when there was still a great deal of stigmatisation of people with HIV.

"The founders met informally in each other's homes or offices to provide mutual psychological and social support. Cohesion among these individuals was strengthened by the fact that they were either directly infected with HIV or implicitly affected because their very close familial associates were infected".

TASO now provides emotional and medical support to people who are HIV positive and their families. It also works with other smaller organisations to educate the public about discrimination and about the dangers of HIV/AIDS.
Fear

A Cambridge University study in 1995 showed that 91.5% of Ugandan men and 86.4% of women knew someone who was HIV positive, and that word of mouth was the method by which most people were informed about HIV prevention. This indicates that one of the main reasons for people's behaviour change was their alarm about the risks and the extent of the epidemic. Many villages are experiencing several deaths each month, houses stand empty, and grandparents are looking after their orphaned grandchildren. Put simply, people are more likely to avoid risky behaviour if they know people who have died of AIDS-related illnesses.

Simple messages

In the early stages of the epidemic, the government responded swiftly, giving out simple messages about abstaining from sex until marriage, staying faithful to one's spouse, and using condoms. The key message was "Zero Grazing", which instructed people to avoid casual sex. More complicated messages about risky behaviour and safer sex were not spread until later, when there had already begun to be a decline in HIV figures.

Political openness

Since 1986, when Uganda's health Minister announced that there was HIV in the country, there has always been political openness and honesty about the epidemic, the risks, and how they might best be avoided. In that same year, the President toured the country, telling people that it was their patriotic duty to avoid contact with HIV. This was a brave approach, as many politicians are reluctant to talk openly about sexual issues, but the openness paid off.

The president encouraged input from numerous government ministries, NGOs and faith-based organisations. He relaxed controls on the media and a diversity of prevention messages - including 'zero-grazing' - spread through Uganda's churches, schools and villages. This frank and honest discussion of the causes of HIV infection seems to have been a very important factor behind the changes in people's behaviour that allowed prevalence levels to decline.

This contrasts sharply with countries like South Africa, which have lacked this political leadership in the fight against the epidemic. Uganda's entire population was mobilised in the fight against HIV and were made aware of the consequences that risky behaviour could have for their country. It is largely due to the Ugandan people, motivated by their leaders, that the epidemic appears to have been so well addressed.

The post is particularly interesting because it underscores the deep roots of Uganda's formula for success -- success the Global Fund is jeopardizing by suspending the country's $201 million in AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria grants.

See also:
Nine Questions For The Global Fund
Condomites In UN Attack Uganda
Finger-Pointing In Uganda
Ugandan AIDS Cut Unprecedented
Uganda AIDS Cut More Suspicious
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?

Chavez To Offer Cheap Oil To US Poor

From Reuters:

CARACAS, Venezuela, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Monday his government plans to sell as much as 66,000 barrels per day of heating fuel from its U.S. Citgo refinery to poor communities in the United States.

The offer, made after populist Chavez held talks with U.S. civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, would represent 10 percent of the 660,000 bpd of refined products processed by Citgo. The deals would cut consumer costs by direct sales.

Venezuela's Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said officials were still working on the details on how the oil would be sold from Citgo, a unit of the state oil firm PDVSA.

"We are going to direct as much as 10 percent of the production, that means 66,000 barrels, without intermediaries, to poor communities, hospitals, religious communities, schools," Chavez told reporters at a press conference.

My bet is that regulation and restrictions kill this bright idea, that Chavez and Jackson are well aware that this will happen, and it's all a set up for them to turn the poor against the Republicans and Bush.

By the way, when does charity begin? Ten percent of his production from one plant? Or something a little higher? File this under political grandstanding.

Nine Questions For The Global Fund

I sent this e-mail to Rosie Vanek at The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria:

I have been covering the Global Fund’s curious suspension of all grants to Uganda on my blog, Cheat-Seeking Missiles. My posts are being picked up by a number of prominent bloggers, so thousands are reading the questions I am raising about your action.

I have raised a number of questions about the suspension, would appreciate your comments on them.

1. In reviewing the 122 releases posted on your site, I have found no examples where multiple grants to a country were suspended in this manner. The only two relevant cases, Myanmar and Senegal,did not involve charges of corruption. Have no other grants been suspended for corruption?
2. If the problem was allegedly with the AIDS/HIV program, why did you also suspend tuberculosis and malaria programs, which appears to be an action that needlessly puts lives at risk?
3. Releases on your site indicate that for a period of at least two years, Global Fund has been working with South Africa regarding problems with its grants. Why did you immediately suspend the Uganda grant, when it is evident that you are willing to work long-term with a country that is having trouble meeting your expectations?
4. What is the nature of the problem you experienced, or are experiencing, with South Africa?
5. Are you currently monitoring, or have you previously monitored, any other grant recipients as you monitored Uganda, i.e., with an outside firm like Pricewaterhousecooper?
6. Given the countries you lend to, it is evident that many governments with long histories of corruption receive funds. Why hasn’t the Global Fund seen it necessary to take similar actions against other countries? Is the Global Fund saying by its action against Uganda that problems encountered there were much greater than what you deal with regularly?
7. What part did Uganda’s emphasis on monogamy and abstinence have on your decision to suspend its grants?
8. What is Global Fund’s position on monogamy and abstinence programs?
9. What is Global Fund’s position on “safe sex” and condom programs without a monogamy and abstinence element?

I very much look forward to your prompt response.

I will share with you what I hear when I hear it.

If you would like to reach Ms. Vanek with your own questions or comments, she can be reached at rosie.vanek@theglobalfund.org, or at 41 (0) 22 791 5951.

See also:
Condomites In UN Attack Uganda
Finger-Pointing In Uganda
Ugandan AIDS Cut Unprecedented
Uganda AIDS Cut More Suspicious
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?

Condomites In UN Attack Uganda

The anticipated attack over Uganda's pro-monogamous, pro-abstinence AIDS/HIV program is growing ... evidence of a concerted effort behind Global Fund, which recently suspened that country's $210 million in grants.

The UN chimed in today, blaming "abstinence-only" programs foisted by the "fundamentalist Christian ideology [that is] driving Washington's AIDS assistance program ... with disasterous results, including condom shortages in Uganda."

The UN should know this, but:

The U.S. program is not "abstinence-only;" it is "abstinence-emphasizing." From a White House news release:

Emphasizing Abstinence: Abstinence is the only sure way to prevent sexual transmission of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the President's 2004 State of the Union Address, he called for a new emphasis on abstinence-only education, and doubling the funding for abstinence-only programs.

Note: Reader Steve points out the subhead says "Emphasizing Abstinence," while the text says "abstinence only." I apologize for the confusion. However, the Uganda program is an "ABC" program -- Abstinence Before Condoms. It emphasizes abstinence, but clearly supports condom use as superior to no protection, as the recent order for 145 million condoms by the Ugandan government makes clear.

The results are not disasterous. Uganda has the lowest AIDS infection rates in sub-Saharan Africa.

There may be a shortage of condoms in Uganda, but it is not for lack of ordering. As Iposted earlier today, Ugandan State Minister for Health Mike Makala said yesterday:

We have enough condoms. We just procured 65 million condoms about two months ago and another 80 million is on the way, so there is no shortage of condoms in the country.

Reuters counters this:

But Jodi Jacobson of the U.S.-based Center for Health and Gender Equity said the about-turn in Uganda's previous policy to promote condoms was having a real impact -- reducing availability of condoms and cutting consumer confidence in them.

"They are kow-towing to the (U.S.) fundamentalist right on this issue," Jacobson said.

Jacobson's employer is a South African NGO which has few mentions of Uganda on its Web site, and none that are critical of the country's programs. It is funded by a number of national and private sources, including noted US liberal foundations Ford and Rockefeller.

Just so we know, here's what the Bush administration is doing, besides being far and away the #1 supporter of Global Fund's programming:

• Immediate availability of $20 million in new funding to deliver life-saving drugs to the men and women in the United States living with HIV/AIDS who are waiting today for HIV-related medication;
  
• Support for the reauthorization of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act based upon the principles of focusing Federal resources on life-extending care;ensuring flexibility to target resources to address areas of greatest need; and ensuring results;
  
• Second distribution of available funding for the focus countries of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- $500 million -- will soon be on its way to organizations working in the field to provide antiretroviral therapy, promote prevention, care for orphans, and build the health system capacity in Africa and the Caribbean.

I've stated from the outset of this series that the PC world leadership is attacking Uganda for straying from their failed "free love and rubbers" approach to AIDS/HIV. With the UN's news release, it is evident that the attack is well planned and coordinated.

See also:
Finger-Pointing In Uganda
Ugandan AIDS Cut Unprecedented
Uganda AIDS Cut More Suspicious
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?

Maybe Now More Gays Will Be Pro-War

The photo above allegedly shows Mahmoud Asgari, 16, an dAyaz Marhoni, 18, about to be hanged for having homosexual sex in Iran.

"Iran is a fascist-style tyranny based on a fundamentalist version of Islam. We join with progressive Muslims to denounce the fundamentalists and to support democratic and left Iranians striving to topple the Ayatollahs."

"Without an end to the fundamentalist regime, there can never be justice for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transexual) people, women, trade unionists and minority religions and nationalities in Iran."

"The lack of liberal and left support for the victims of the Iranian tyranny is truly shocking. We deplore the absence of international solidarity with Iranians fighting for freedom," concluded Mr Lock.

I'm not sure who Mr. Lock is, or what LGBT is, but it's good to see that at least some in the gay community are realizing what's at stake in the war on terror -- not just stopping terrorist attacks, but reforming a hateful, harmful, bruttal application of Islam.

The source for this is a gay website. A h/t to Jim, who explains, "OH... I'd better explain how I got here... Last night at the opening reception for the new REI store in Huntington Beach, I met a lady(?) from a group called "Bike Out"... they are looking for bikes to fix up for GLT youth or some such... Strange folks, for sure!"

Jackson Kissy-Faces With Chavez

During a speech to the Venezuelan National Assembly, Jesse Jackson, noted diarrhea-mouth sufferer, acted as if there was some legitimacy to Pat Robertson's comments regarding assassinating Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

Jackson must have thought Robertson lived in a Socialist dictatorship like Venezuela because he called the televangelist's comments "illegal." They may have been stupid and poorly thought out, but last time I checked, political speech is not illegal in this country.

Jackson foamed that the US must choose "diplomacy over any threats of sabotage or isolation or assassination." (source) In so doing, he further legitimized Chavez' efforts to tie Robertson's comments to US foreign policy which is, of course, absurd.

Sheehan Media Update

Sharpton and Sheen visited Cindy Sheehan on Saturday, so Cindy got a bump in coverage on Sunday. The duelling demonstrations in Crawford also got coverage.

All in all, she's becoming institutionalized as a contraction. You could say "those who oppose the war for old and disproved reasons," but it's just easier to say "Peace Mom."

Aug. 28: 132 hits
Aug. 27: 96 hits
Aug. 26: 183 hits
Aug. 25: 220 hits
Aug. 24: 208 hits (She's back)
Aug. 23: 249 hits
Aug. 22: 202 hits
Aug. 21: 120 hits
Aug. 20: 103 hits
Aug. 19: 232 hits
Aug. 18: 306 hits
Aug. 17: 295 hits (Off to California)
Aug. 16: 215 hits
Aug. 15: 136 hits
Aug. 14: 93 hits
Aug. 13: 107 hits
Aug. 12: 167 hits
Aug. 11: 113 hits
Aug. 10: 46 hits
Aug. 09: 32 hits
Aug. 08: 36 hits
Aug. 07: 39 hits
Aug. 06: 7 hits (6 AP, 1 CBS, natch)
Aug. 05: 3 hits (all Dallas Morning News, pre-arrival)
Aug. 04: 0 hits

And here's an update in the Sheehan/Roberts comparo:

Aug. 26 -- Sheehan: 132 ...... Roberts: 36

Note: Nexis does not provide a complete count. Video Monitoring Service had tracked over 20,000 Sheehan mentionsby Aug. 17. Nexis is, however, a good indicator of how heaviliy the media is covering a story, and it focuses more on larger papers and network shows that more people read and view. CBS News hits deleted from Sheehan/Roberts count because they mention correspondent John Roberts, not the Supreme Court nominee.

Starbucks Dodges The Question

I have been trying to get a response from Starbucks to a very basic question:

What is Starbucks’ position on putting material with sexual content on cups that could, quite literally, be in the hands of minors?

I raised the question because of this quote on the side of one of their cups, from the gay author Armistead Maupin:

"My only regret about being gay
is that I repressed it for so long.
I surrendered my youth to the
people I feared when I could have
been out there loving someone.
Don't make that mistake yourself.
Life's too damn short."

I asked Starbucks where I could see all the quotes, and also for the answer to the basic question above. Here's the reponse I received today:

Thanks for your interest in "The Way I See It." To answer your question, the best place you can find the other quotes is in the stores.

At this time, we can't post all of the quotes on our website. The reason is that, as we negotiated usage rights with the various authors, not everybody has given us permission to use their quote online.

Some of the other quotes do appear on our website in the "letters to the editor" and "featured author" sections. But for the most part, we have to keep this as an in-store experience. I hope that answers your question. If not, feel free to call us at (800) 23-LATTE. Thanks again!

All regards,
Jessica
Starbucks Customer Relations

I responded:

Thank you for answering the first half of my question. I certainly understand the complexities of licensing … plus its fun to see what quote you get on your cup.

You did not, however, answer my second question: What is Starbucks’ position on putting material with sexual content on cups that could, quite literally, be in the hands of minors? I raise this because of the Maupin quote about homosexuality, but would be just as concerned about a heterosexual message going out to little hot chocolate drinkers.

Thank you.
Laer

We shall see.

Finger Pointing In Uganda

In the wake of the loss of $201 million in grants to fight AIDS/HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, fingers are pointing everywhere in Kampala, Uganda's captial.

The Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda (ACCU) called for the government to force Minister of Health Jim Muhwezi and his Permanent Secretary Mohammed Kezaala to resign, saying mismanagement and favortism were involved in setting up the Project Management Unit (PMU) that runs the grants.

Muhwezi says the Finance Ministry is the culprit, because it received the funds,w hich his PMU only distributed to support the various health programs.

Muhwezi also said the Global Fund's decision caught his team completely by surprize, underscoring Cheat-Seeking Missile's contention that Uganda is being singled out for its approach of pushing abstinence and monogamy over free sex and rubbers. Other countries, notably South Africa, have been given years to work out problems.

South Africa, which has an infection rate five times greater than Uganda's, follows the PC free sex and rubbers approach.

The issue is highly politicized in Uganda, with some Kampali op/ed columns blaming Bush and calling for a reinstitution of condom-first AIDS fighting. In fact, these forces are going to stage a demonstration at Uganda House in New York tomorrow as part of their "Release the Condoms" campaign.

Condom Shortage

In this march and in coverage like this article, from Guardian Unlimited, you will hear the Ugandan campaign described as if it did not allow condoms at all. This is not true. State Minister for Health Mike Makala said yesterday:

We have enough condoms. We just procured 65 million condoms about two months ago and another 80 million is on the way, so there is no shortage of condoms in the country.

Bottom line for this morning:

I'm trying to get a read on a country that is a world away from me. I'm only beginning to get a feel for the limited media that are available to me, and I'm not yet sure what kind of controls, if any, the government has at its disposal. Even so, it is evident that the punishment exceeded the crime here.

If the Global Fund's worst fears of mismanagement do prove to be true, they still cannot ignore Uganda's success in cutting infection rates. They cannot ignore the corruption that abounds in many of the countries they serve.

Normally, it appears they work hard to find a balance between providing funds and demanding more accountability. In this case, and only in this case, they did not. I remain convinced opposition to Christian morality remains at the bottom of this issue.

Here's a question the Global Fund could answer that would help clarify this issue: Is the Fund investigating any other governments the way they investigated Uganda?

See also:
Ugandan AIDS Cut Unprecedented
Uganda AIDS Cut More Suspicious
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?

Katrina: Something To Pray About

The photo on the right was taken about three hours ago, at 5 EDT. Looking at those color-enhanced red arms stretching all the way to South Carolina and Missouri, and the well-defined eye close to New Orleans, it reminds me to pray for those who will suffer because of Katrina.

When I was about 10, we were in a typhoon in Japan that was so strong it blew the panes of glass out of windows, sending putty flying across the room. We were at a lake in the mountains, and the sailboats were capsized by the force of the wind against their skinny masts. These storms are just unbelievably powerful.

In addition to the residents who are at risk, be sure to remember the emergency personnel and utility workers in your prayers. They have some hard days ahead of them.

Ugandan AIDS Cut Unprecedented

A review of 122 news releases issued by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria dating back to the beginning of that organization in 2001 reveals that no country except Uganda has had its grant funds suspended due to concerns about financial mismanagement -- even though the fund gives money to a rogue's gallery of corrupt governments.

The Global Fund announced last week it was suspending all its aid to Uganda, citing a PricewaterhouseCoopers report alleging financial improprieties in the implementation of Uganda's Round 1 HIV/AIDS grant. The Global Fund cut all five grants -- suspending care for tuberculosis and malaria, putting innocents at risk for no apparent reason, even though no allegations have been made regarding mismanagement of those grants. (The Global Fund explains the across the board cuts by saying all are managed by the same unit of the Ugandan government.)

The cuts follow sharp criticism of Uganda's program -- not because it is failing; it is one of Africa's most successful -- but because it puts morality (monogamy and abstinence) first and condoms second.

No other country has ever been sanctioned by Global Fund in this manner for financial mismanagement. And in the only case where problems with a grant led to its cancellation -- a malaria grant in Senegal that was not meeting performance expectations -- the other grants to that country remained in place.

This underscores the harshness of the Global Fund action. If there are alleged problems with the HIV/AIDS grant, why should grants for malaria -- which is also a huge killer in sub-Saharan Africa -- and tuberculosis also be cut prior to proof of misdeeds? There is no precedence for so irresponsible and inhumane an action.

Only One Corrupt Nation?

While it is possible that corruption exists in the Uganda program, it is even more likely that it is just as rampant elsewhere in less successful programs, given the host of corrupt countries receiving grants: Congo, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Vietnam and many more.

That is why I've theorized that the true cause for the suspension is pressure from anti-abstinence, morality and monogamy groups like George Soros' Human Rights Watch, which said:

Human Rights Watch accused[Ugandan] President Yoweri Museveni and his wife, Janet Museveni, of falling under the influence of U.S. Christian conservatives and placing millions of young Ugandans at risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Christian-influenced or not, the results of Uganda's AIDS/HIV program are hard to ignore:

Incidence of AIDS/HIV in Uganda. Source: avert.org

Global Watch itself acknowledged this success in a February 2003 news release announcing its original grants to Uganda.

Uganda, one of first countries in Africa to experience the impact of HIV/AIDS and still one of the countries most affected by the virus, is also one of the continent’s great success stories in terms of reducing high HIV infection rates. HIV prevalence among pregnant women in urban areas has declined from a peak of 30 per cent in 1992 to 6 per cent in 2001. This and other successes in the field are widely acknowledged to be the result of high-level political commitment to HIV prevention and care, involving a wide range of partners and effected through an aggressive anti-HIV/AIDS campaign involving virtually all sections of society. Nevertheless, Uganda is still confronted with a serious HIV/AIDS epidemic, including rising numbers of people needing care and support.

The release seems to acknowledge the different approach Uganda was taking, even then.

Compare Uganda's success performance with what is going on in many of Uganda's neighbors which follow the UN/Global Fund protocols of "safe sex" education:

Very high HIV prevalence—often exceeding 30% among pregnant women—is still being recorded in four other countries in the region, all with small populations: Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. There, comparisons of prevalence levels at selected antenatal clinics have shown no evidence of a decline. In Swaziland, for example, HIV prevalence among pregnant women was 39% in 2002, up from 34% in 2000 and only 4% in 1992. Elsewhere in the subregion, HIV infections in pregnant women appear to be stabilizing at lower levels—around 18% in Malawi (2003), 16% in Zambia (2003), and 25% in Zimbabwe (2003)—but there is little evidence of an impending decline. (source)

No Comparable Actions

A review of the 122 news releases posted by Global Fund reveals only two other cases of grants being phased out or not renewed (not supspended), and one case where it appears grants were in jeopardy, but were not suspended.

• On August 19 this year, Global Fund issued a news release stating that three grants to Myanmar totalling $35.7 million for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria will be phased out by the end of the year. The action followed new travel and medical import review proceedures that, in the Global Fund's view, made it impossible to adequately implement the grants. The grants' termination wasn't immediate; they will be phased out.
  
  
• In March of this year, a five-year, $7.1 million malaria grant to Senegal was not extended into a new year because of "systemic issues that resulted in poor performance." This is only an allegation of poor performance, however, not corruption -- a word that did not appear in the news release. Further, Global Fund left in place other grants and made it clear that the action "in no way reflects a rejection of this country’s future resource needs, or of ongoing support for other grants in Senegal." (news release)
  
  
• Last May, a cryptic news releasewas issued to "clarify" the Global Fund's position on South Africa, "given substantial media attention around comments made by the Global Fund Executive Director Richard Feachem...." The release said that speculation about a threat to South Africa's $234 million in Global Fund grants was not true.
  

The May news release came nearly two years after a June, 2002 statement clarifying negotiations with South Africa.

Both parties were satisfied with the outcome of the meeting and agreed to keep the public and all relevant stakeholders informed regarding progress on the issues, and to work tirelessly to find quick and lasting solutions to these challenges, but not to conduct these discussions via the media.

Obviously, things have been sour between the Global Fund and South Africa for some time. Yet despite South Africa's poorer performance, its grants remain in place while Uganda's were cancelled. (South Africa's infection rate is about five times higher than Uganda's.)

The Ugandan cancellation came immediately upon publication of the Pricewaterhouse report, whereas Global Fund has seen fit to negotiate for at least three years with South Africa to work out problems there. This is strong evidence that PC politics, not corruption, is behind the Ugandan grant cancellation.

The first link below shows that the US is by far the largest contributor to the Global Fund. The Bush Administration should use its clout to force the Fund to drop the suspension until an independent review of the situation can be completed.

See also:
Uganda AIDS Cut More Suspicious
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?

Depends On When You're Asking

Ted Kennedy in 1981, speaking of challenges to Sandra Day O'Connor by pro-life activists, said it was "offensive to suggest that a potential justice of the Supreme Court must pass some presumed test of judicial philosophy."

People for the American Way in 2005 says it is "preposterous" to suggest it would be inappropriate to question Roberts about his judicial philosophy.

Sheehan Media Update: She's Falling

Is it media fatigue or just thin Saturday newspapers with small news holes? More likely the latter, but Saturday's 96 Sheehan hits on Nexis is the lowest count since August 14, a Sunday.

In either case, there's an indication here that Sheehan has become a secondary story in the eyes of the media. The number of hits have fallen by well over 50 percent in just two days because Sheehan has nothing new to say, no news to generate. She can create new events, but she can't create new news as long as her raison d'etre is to have a second session with the President and parrot hard-left commentary.

Aug. 27: 96 hits
Aug. 26: 183 hits
Aug. 25: 220 hits
Aug. 24: 208 hits (She's back)
Aug. 23: 249 hits
Aug. 22: 202 hits
Aug. 21: 120 hits
Aug. 20: 103 hits
Aug. 19: 232 hits
Aug. 18: 306 hits
Aug. 17: 295 hits (Off to California)
Aug. 16: 215 hits
Aug. 15: 136 hits
Aug. 14: 93 hits
Aug. 13: 107 hits
Aug. 12: 167 hits
Aug. 11: 113 hits
Aug. 10: 46 hits
Aug. 09: 32 hits
Aug. 08: 36 hits
Aug. 07: 39 hits
Aug. 06: 7 hits (6 AP, 1 CBS, natch)
Aug. 05: 3 hits (all Dallas Morning News, pre-arrival)
Aug. 04: 0 hits

And here's an update in the Sheehan/Roberts comparo:

Aug. 26 -- Sheehan: 183 ...... Roberts: 74
Aug. 27 -- Sheehan: 96 ...... Roberts: 42

Note: Nexis does not provide a complete count. Video Monitoring Service had tracked over 20,000 Sheehan mentionsby Aug. 17. Nexis is, however, a good indicator of how heaviliy the media is covering a story, and it focuses more on larger papers and network shows that more people read and view. CBS News hits deleted from Sheehan/Roberts count because they mention correspondent John Roberts, not the Supreme Court nominee.

Hitchens Lays Out The Case For War

Starting with the fact that conditions in Abu Ghraib have improved immensely since the prison was taken out of Saddam Hussein's hands, and ending with 10 great gains the U.S. and its allies have achieved already from the war on terror, Christopher Hitchen's Weekly Standard piece, "A War To Be Proud Of" is a must read.

Like this, for example:

"You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire." I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.

Terror As Usual In Israel

Not even a week following the largest display of good will and bad judgment to date by the Israelis, a suicide bomber has killed 21 in a Beersheeba bus station. The bombing occured even as Israel's government voted to allow troops from their former enemy, Egypt, to patrol the Gaza/Israel border. (source)

The bombing is thought to be retribution for Israel's shooting of five Palestinians suspected of being involved in a July 12 suicide bomb attack.

So it's business as usual with Hamas, a clear indication that the group -- an odds-on favorite to win upcoming Palestinian Authority elections -- wants no Israelis in the middle east -- or on the planet, probably.

Rainforest Eco-Hysteria

BBC reports Brazil's Amazon rainforest deforestation figures: A drop of 50 percent in the last year -- 3,475 sq miles in the last year vs.6,950 sq miles in 2003 to 2004.

That seems like a lot, but there are 2.5 million sq miles of rainforest down there, so last year, only .00139 of the Brazilian forest, a bit over one-tenth of one percent of the forest was converted. Of this, a portion was converted to agriculture or development, but much was logged and will grow back.

Brazilian environment minister Marina de Silva attributed the drop to greater government control and more emphasis on sustainable development projects.

Environmentalists, of course, don't take good news well. BBC quotes Greenpeace saying it is too soon to talk about a long-term slowing of the destruction of the forest. They warn that illegal loggers may just be biding their time.

Greenpeace also warns that a new economic initiative by the Brazilian government is bad news for the rainforests:

In January 2001 the Brazilian government announced its plans for "Avança Brasil" (Advance Brazil). This is a US$40 billion plan to cover much of the Amazon rainforest with 10,000 km of highways, hydroelectric dams, power lines, mines, gas and oilfields, canals, ports, logging concessions and other industrial developments.

Scientists predict that these planned developments will lead to the damage or loss of between 33-42 percent of Brazil's remaining Amazon forest.

In other words, they want us to believe that Brazil intends to wipe out up to 1,050,000 square miles of rainforest!

Really?!

The United States is not quite three times bigger than the Amazon rainforest, covering 3,537,441 square miles. Of this, almost 1.7 million square miles is either developed or in agriculture. Adusting for the size disparity, if the U.S. were the size of the Amazon rainforest, it would have 1.2 million developed square miles.

We are a heavily industrialized country that's been hard at work at conquering the wilderness for 500 years -- 150 in mechanized earnestness -- and we've just barely accomplished on our entire subcontinent what Greenpeace says may happen to the Brazilian rainforest.

The claim isn't merely mathematically ridiculous. Brazil has a lot of much more developable land outside the rainforest, so whatever resources are poured into developing that country will be spread around, leaving only a portion for the rainforest. We didn't concentrate our development in the Louisianna bayous; the Brazilians won't concentrate it in the rainforest.

Like so many environmentalists fears, this is another that is nothing more than eco-hysteria.

Anti-Chavez Demonstrations

Demonstrations today against Castro wannabe Hugo Chavez turned into violent skirmishes between supporters and opponents of the Venezuelan president.

It went something like this: Opponents, fearful that Chavez's stacking of the election committee and courts means he will continue to move the country towards a Cuban style communist state, demonstrated for reforms before the next election.

Supporters started throwing rocks and beating with sticks.

Cops stood by.

Chavez is a thug with a lot of power accumulated around him, so the opposition has a long way to go; probably too far.

Photo and source: Reuters

Sheehan Media Update

It's nice to know that Al Sharpton's announcement that he'll be visiting Sheehan was not the cause for yesterdays modest spike in Sheehan hits. The stories are falling into a pattern: Dems and Libs using the "Peace Mom" to get their point across, often in stories about what Bush has said or done on a particular day, and conservatives using the "Piece of Work Mom" to ridicule the hard-left position.

Aug. 25: 220 hits
Aug. 24: 208 hits (She's back)
Aug. 23: 249 hits
Aug. 22: 202 hits
Aug. 21: 120 hits
Aug. 20: 103 hits
Aug. 19: 232 hits
Aug. 18: 306 hits
Aug. 17: 295 hits (Off to California)
Aug. 16: 215 hits
Aug. 15: 136 hits
Aug. 14: 93 hits
Aug. 13: 107 hits
Aug. 12: 167 hits
Aug. 11: 113 hits
Aug. 10: 46 hits
Aug. 09: 32 hits
Aug. 08: 36 hits
Aug. 07: 39 hits
Aug. 06: 7 hits (6 AP, 1 CBS, natch)
Aug. 05: 3 hits (all Dallas Morning News, pre-arrival)
Aug. 04: 0 hits

And here's an update in the Sheehan/Roberts comparo:

Sheehan: 220 ...... Roberts: 107

Note: Nexis does not provide a complete count. Video Monitoring Service had tracked over 20,000 Sheehan mentionsby Aug. 17. Nexis is, however, a good indicator of how heaviliy the media is covering a story, and it focuses more on larger papers and network shows that more people read and view. CBS News hits deleted from Sheehan/Roberts count because they mention correspondent John Roberts, not the Supreme Court nominee.

Jerusalem Not Holy To Arabs?

From WND's Joseph Farah in Whistleblower:

What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem.

Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct.

What about the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerulasem? Don't they represent Islam's third most holy sites?

No. In fact, the Quran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem -- with good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem.

So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Quran, the seventeenth Sura, titled, "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.

UN's Rights Group After US, UK

Just when you thought the UN's Commission on Human Rights could get no worse, along comes this.

h/t Real Clear Politics

"Wonderful Time To Be A Soldier"

The "thank you for your service" extended to Joe Rache goes beyond the profound thanks for putting his life on the line in the war on terror; it's also for writing a stirring op/ed in today's WashTimes. Here's an excerpt, but it's worth reading in its entirety:

Before September 11, a lot of soldiers were happy to just enjoy the benefits. Since that day, those soldiers have left. That is fine and not the disaster that defeatist reports are making it seem. Such soldiers were never the types to want to go on long deployments and face combat. Yes, they were heroes for signing up and being in a job that could go that direction, but they had other priorities that made their service contingent on enjoying the benefits rather than serving in war.

That changed on September 11. Now, just as we are told to expect when joining, we are going to combat and many soldiers are getting injured and killed. This is our job, and it is what we know can happen. I don't know why the media insists on trumpeting the idea that all of us are tired and worn out and just want to stop fighting. I don't, and I am not alone.

The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.

From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan each year. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat

It's too bad this ran in the WashTimes instead of WaPo the NYT..

h/t Real Clear Politics

Ugandan AIDS Cut More Suspicious

A follow-up on Tuesday's report on the decision by the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria's to cut grants to that Uganda's successful anti-AIDS program.

The reason cited by BBC for the grant cut is suspicious:

An investigation carried out for the Global Fund said it found a shortfall when grants in dollars were converted into Ugandan shillings.

Certainly, suspicion is always in order in matters like this, but no details have been released regarding what the investigation by Price, Waterhouse Coooper found about about the $41 million Uganda has received so far on the grant. The UN has not posted a promised news release on the matter on its Web site. I requested it tonight, but am not holding out hope.

Cutting all the grants makes no sense, as it will certainly lead to the cessation of Uganda's successful AIDS programs, which have dropped infection rates from 15% for 5% -- largely by changing Uganda's culture to reject promiscuity.

So why cut it? Here's a smoking gun, again from the BBC report:

A spokesman for the Global Fund said it still wanted to continue working with Uganda's National Aids Commission directly, so the provision of condoms and anti-retroviral drugs would not be interrupted.

Reworded, the Global Fund wants to keep pressuring Uganda to drop its morality based program, which it blames on "American Christian conservatives," and replace it with the Global Fund's desperately failing, but PC, sex and condoms approach. No country following the Global Fund's approach has an HIV infection rate anywhere near as low as Uganda's 5%.

The US is far and away the Global Fund's biggest financier -- giving over $1 billion while the #2 nation contributor (UK) has given only one-quarter that amount. We should stop our contributions, which we use to influence support for Uganda-like programs, until an independent review of the matter can be conducted.

See also:
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?

Supreme Bias: #1-30

Here's the start of the compilation of examples of media bias in MSM coverage of John Roberts' journey through the nomination/confirmation process:

1. In its July 3 cover story, The Tipping Point?, Time detailed the multi-million-dollar finances of conservative groups seeking to sway the choice, but when it came to Ralph Neas' Alliance for Justice (not mentioning that Neas heads the uber-leftist People for the American Way), it did not detail the group's budget; instead, Time just described their Web site: "CLICK HERE to donate $ 10 and sign up 10 friends for the likely battle!" -- implying that unlike the Conservative campaign machines, Neas' little venture is a grassroots effort, which it is not.
   
   
2. In the same story, Time ranked the current Supremes as follows:
   

   RUTH BADER GINSBURG [Liberal-Moderate]
   DAVID H. SOUTER [Liberal-Moderate]
   ANTONIN SCALIA [Conservative-Staunch]
   JOHN PAUL STEVENS [Liberal-Moderate]
   CLARENCE THOMAS [Conservative-Staunch]
   STEPHEN G. BREYER [Liberal-Moderate]
   WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST [Conservative-Staunch]
   ANTHONY KENNEDY [Conservative-Moderate]

   What? No "staunch liberals?" All moderate liberals? Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
   
   
3. In an editorial, the Bradenton (FL) Herald wrote, "Indeed, in analyzing the decisions that preceded Roe vs. Wade, those [abortion] advocates warn that access to birth control could be limited or cut off with a new court balance." Don't they mean "access to abortion?"
   
   
4. The Washington Post has come up with a "gravitas gap," that supposedly would give Dems an advantage in the Senate hearings:
   
   But Democrats have an edge that may loom large in the highly visible, keenly politicized struggle: Their committee members are considerably more experienced and unified than the Republicans. All but two have participated in Supreme Court confirmations, and those two -- Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) -- are glib, media-savvy lawyers.
   
   By contrast, only three of the 10 Republicans have handled a Supreme Court nomination. Party veterans who oversaw past Supreme Court confirmations, such as Strom Thurmond (S.C.) and Alan K. Simpson (Wyo.), have been replaced by greener members. "The gravitas gap will be an issue if Democrats decide to go to the mat about somebody," said Howard M. Wasserman, a law professor at Florida International University in Miami.
   
   Well, as Betsy put it, "The Dems have Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, and Schumer and this guy thinks that there is a gravitas gap! Give me a break!"
   
   
5. Watch out for "conservative judicial activism." Here's Michael Kinsley:
   
   "it would be fair to say that the takings clause is the conservatives' recipe for judicial activism -- imposing their agenda through the courts rather than bothering with democracy..."
   
   Conservative judicial activism? What's "activist" about wanting the Constitution interpreted as it was written? This gem appeared in an op/ed, where opinion is fair game -- but Kinsley is also the editorial editor of the LATimes, so will he stop this particular prejudice from entering the news stream there? (h/t Villainous Company)
   
   Indeed, the very same issue of WaPo includes the following: "the [Left's SCOTUS) coalition has mounted a huge public relations and grass-roots mobilization campaign to prevent jurists it regards as right-wing judicial activists from ascending to the high court."
   
   
6. Miscasting what "conservative" means is a close relative to number 5's "conservative judicial activism." In this case, it's painting liberal judicial philosophy with a conservative brush, a la this, from the LATimes:
   
   But "conservative" can mean several things in a Supreme Court justice. It can mean one who believes strongly in stare decisis, the legal principle of not overturning established doctrines. Liberal enthusiasm for stare decisis in a conservative era is suspiciously convenient. If Earl Warren had embraced stare decisis, we wouldn't have had Brown vs. Board of Education.
   
   Of course, we wouldn't have Roe if stare decisis had ruled.
   
   
7. The Constitution-In-Excile: This phrase is beginning to crop up today (7/20) with mentions by Volokh of it appearing in the New Republic and PowerLine of it appearing in the reviled Strib. It refers to the pre-New Deal Hooverian Constitution, and the desire among some Conservative jurists to return to it. Trouble is, only one Conservative judge has every made even a passive mention of it -- and that judge's name was not Roberts, Scalia or Thomas.
   
   
8. French Fries: A Nexis search the day after the nomination turned up 74 hits for the words "Roberts" and "french fry." Typical is this, from Agence France Presse:
   
   And in another unanimous ruling last October, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl arrested inside a commuter train station in Washington for eating a french fry.
   
   In that context, it makes Roberts sound like a harsh law and order guy. But as Hugh Hewitt points out, Roberts thought little of the action of arresting the girl, but ruled according to the law:
   
   "The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm."
   
   
9. Arroyo Toads: This one's close to home because many of my clients are struggling with the impacts of having this endangered toad on their lands. The NYTimes cited a Roberts action on the toad and concluded that Roberts ""dissented in an Endangered Species Act case in such a way that suggested he might hold an array of environmental laws, and other important federal protections, to be unconstitutional." Hugh said the quote "means that either the writers know zero about the law, or don't mind distorting facts to achieve their political ends." Why? Because, he points out:
   
   Judge Roberts wanted the entire D.C. Circuit to hear the case because of the conflict that was apparent between the three judge panel's ruling and the approach taken by the 5th Circuit in a similar case. It was not a substantive decision in any way, and representing it as such is simply wrong.
   
   
10. Roberts as Administration Stooge: AP headlined one of its day-after-the-nomination stories, "Roberts Has Backed Administration Policies."
    
    There follows an already familiar list: His ruling on the status of Gitmo prisoners, keeping Cheney's energy task force procedings confidential. The District Court sided with Roberts unanimously on Gitmo and 7-2 on Cheney; he's hardly a renegade stooge. As PowerLine points out, "Of course, some observers would say that the AP's headline could more accurately have read, "Administration's Policies Generally Upheld In the Courts."
    

11. Dissing the Framers: The NYTimes leads the pack in deriding judges who don't share their fondness for activist liberal judges. Here's their Linda Greenhouse:

Now the question is whether Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will, like those two justices, commit himself to recapturing a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers or whether, like the justice he would succeed, he finds himself comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin.

As Betsy puts it, "Omigosh! How amazingly terrible for a judge to want to be faithful to the 'original intent of the framers' rather than reflect currents of 'modern legal thought.' Her derision for the originalist view is so clear yet there is no reason given why this is so.

12. Roving Logic: On nomination night, Leftyblogs were already full of comments speculating that Bush rushed the announcement to provide cover to the "growing" (but not for long) Rove "scandal." In no time, the media chimed in, like this from the NYTimes:

Both Republicans and Democrats said that the speeded-up timing - administration officials had at one point told reporters to expect an announcement in the last week of July - would have the effect of pushing news of Karl Rove and a federal investigation into who leaked the identity of a C.I.A. officer off the front pages, at least for a time.

Today on Michael Medved, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card detailed how the announcement timing was worked out with Dem and GOP Senators to ensure confirmation before October. As the Captain (who gets a hat tip for this entry) said of people who think the Senate has plenty of time to confirm Roberts: "[T]hose people obviously did not watch Senator Pat Leahy speak with the press last night, along with his colleague Chuck Schumer. The two Judiciary Committee members made it clear that they will not allow this nomination to move forward expeditiously at all; both insisted that his earlier and overwhelming approval to the DC Circuit appellate bench made no difference at all."

13. The "issues list." This position, nicely stated by E.J. Dionne, Jr. in WaPo, is that fairness and talent aside, confirmation must be based on his "principles," and they must be "mainstream." What principles? Here's the list:

"The issues at stake are not abstract. They have to do with the government's power to protect the environment, to safeguard civil rights, including the rights of the disabled, and to provide protections for employees and consumers."

It's the same list every time, and it's alway "government's power to protect." It's never "government's power to overstep." And the positions of the Souter's and Ginsberg's of the Court are always "mainstream."

14. The Dems are being nice. MSM reports, like this 7/21 LATimes piece, show how nice the Dems are being towards Roberts, with the headline "Democrats Forgo Discord on Court Pick, at Least for Now." Nice, nice Democrats. Patterico points out how wrong the characterization is:

... the entire theme of the story, as indicated by the headline, is that Senate Democrats have not been critical of Roberts. But the story does not quote Dick Durbin, who sounded a bit critical in this Fox News story:

“The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts’ name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who was one of three Democrats who voted against Roberts in 2003.

I guess not all Democrats have chosen to "forgo discord.”

15. O'Connor endorsement quoted out of context. Patterico caught this in the 7/21 LATimes. Here's the original quote from O'Connor on hearing of the nomination:

Her first words were unequivocal: “That’s fabulous!” she said. She immediately described John G. Roberts as a “brilliant legal mind, a straight shooter, articulate, and he should not have trouble being confirmed by October. He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”

And here's the LAT take:

Some women’s groups said they were disappointed Bush had not named a woman to replace O’Connor.

Even O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, expressed some discontent on that point.

On a fishing trip in Idaho, she told the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review: “He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”

16. Federalist Society ... Not: Here's a partial list of the MSM outlets that incorrectly reported that Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society: AP, CNN, WaPo, Salon, BaltSun, SFChron, USAToday and this from BosGlobe, which is typical:

Roberts is also a member of the Federalist Society, a fraternity of legal conservatives whose members often espouse the view that the Constitution should be interpreted literally and oppose "activist" judicial decisions that find implicit but unwritten rights in the document including the unwritten right to privacy from which abortion rights are derived.

Why the interest in his alleged membership in the Federalist Society? Oh, sure, it might be a legit quest for information to flesh out his thin record. But if that were all there is to this little mistake, ask yourself if the media made such a big deal of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's true ACLU affiliation? And would they have written it up like this:

Ginsberg is also a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, a fraternity/sorority of liberals, mostly attorneys, whose members often espouse the view that the Constitution should not be interpreted literally and support "activist" judicial decisions that find implicit but unwritten rights in the document including the unwritten right to privacy from which abortion rights are derived.

Update: This issue continues to capture MSM's attention with this 7/25 report that maybe he was a member of the Federalist Society.

17. Fashion Snarking: Bias isn't limited to the news pages; the fashion pages, especially with Robin Givhen at WaPo, are also rife with it, as Michelle Malkin so effectively points out. First a sampling of Givhen's snark attack:

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers...

That's a nasty way to say they weren't all dressed in NARAL rally black, isn't it? (h/t Betsy)

18. Sexuality Snarking: Related to #17 but so much worse is the Left's effort to read homosexuality into Roberts' resume. Granted, I haven't found this stated so vividly in the old media yet, but Wonkette is something of an MSM blog, and here she goes:

Wonkette operatives have alerted us to some details in John G. Roberts background. We're not making any conclusions here -- we wouldn't want to comment on an ongoing investigation -- we're just laying out the facts: He is a graduate of an all-boys Catholic school where, as a member of the wrestling team, he regularly grappled with other sweaty, repressed boys. That is when he wasn't the drama club playing Peppermint Patty, for God's sake. He was also an editor of the school newspaper, "The Torch."

And yet the Right still asserts that "he's no flame-thrower."

We like him more and more.

Why are Catholics always "repressed?" Hmmm. Well, it is interesting that her source's source was the NYT, which deliberately chose to put these paragraphs in its profile, butsmartly left them without Wonkettish commentary:

Besides being an academic star, he was a scrappy athlete, a captain of the football team despite his mediocre play, and competed in wrestling and track. In a small school of about 125 students, John Roberts was also on the student council executive committee (he lost the race for senior class president to his best friend), the student activities committee, the editorial board of The Torch student newspaper and the drama club.

The school yearbook from 1972, his junior year, shows he played Peppermint Patty in the production of "You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown."

h/t Betsy

19. Inventing Interest: The NYTimes ran a story on Roberts' wife's previous involvement with a pro-Life group under the headline: "Anti-Abortion Advocacy of Wife of Court Nominee Draws Interest." As Betsy, always the school teacher, puts it in finding the bias in this gem:

Note the indefinite modifiers. They don't even have anyone on record whose interest is being drawn. This is just a totally made up story so that the New York Times can talk about his wife on the front page. What shoddy journalism.

20. Dems Were Surprised: WaPo picked up without criticism or illumination the official Dem line that they must be neutral because they the GOP did such a good job of keeping Roberts' nomination under the veil of secrecy:

Many Democratic strategists concede that Bush won the opening round of the confirmation battle, through his choice of a nominee who has been praised for his intellect and temperament and by a skillful unveiling that kept everyone guessing about the nominee's identity until an hour or so before Bush and Roberts appeared in the East Room of the White House.

"We were playing basketball blindfolded," said an aide to a senior Senate Democrat, who asked not to be identified to speak freely about internal planning. "The other side knew what moves they were making and we were necessarily reacting. . . . "

By not reporting the obvious -- that Roberts was on highly publicized speculation short lists since even before O'Connor retired, WaPo is complicit in the Dem strategy: Appear reasoned for a moment, then be vicious.

21. Giving The Last Word: Often a reporter will patch together a perfectly objective, fair-enough story, balancing Dem and Repub quote-for-quote paragraph after paragraph, waving the banner of reportorial objectivity -- only to let the true colors show in the last paragraph. Check out this stand-alone, biased close by AP reporter Jesse J. Holland, following 26 paragraphs of objectivity:

"Now, I hope Senator Leahy is not trying to demand documents that the president has not even seen as part of their lines of attack against the president," McClellan said.

"That's a big mistake," Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said of the White House position. "There's precedent for these kinds of documents being released in the past.

"And why are they always looking for a fight?"

Excuse me? EXCUSE ME??

22. 4,000 Pages And You Get What?!: The NYT sent John Broder and Carolyn Marshall all the way to Simi Valley, CA, where they read through 4,000 pages of Roberts' decisions to give us insight into him. What do they come up with? In Reagan's White House, A Clever, Sometimes Cocky John Roberts. Instead of being enlightened, we are en-snide-d:

There was also the time he offered a snide analysis, in an internal White House memorandum, of a proposal from a member of the House, Elliott H. Levitas. After the Supreme Court struck down efforts by Congress to veto actions taken by the executive branch, Mr. Levitas, a Democrat from Georgia, proposed that the White House and Congress convene a "conference on power-sharing" to codify the duties of each branch of government.

Asked to comment on the congressman's proposal, Mr. Roberts mocked the idea, and him. "There already has, of course, been a 'Conference on Power Sharing,' " Mr. Roberts wrote in a memo to Mr. Fielding. "It took place in Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell Levitas about it and the 'report' it issued."

The article also takes Roberts to task for misspelling "Marielitos." Oh, my. A hat tip to Betsy, who commented, "Well, stop the confirmation hearings right now."

23. Croaking About Toads: In a SFChron article about Roberts' decision in the Rancho Mission Viejo arroyo toad case, reporter Bob Egelko led with overstatement, topping off his story with a couple quotes:

"This case calls into serious question his views on the scope of the (Constitution's) commerce clause ... which might have serious implications for other environmental laws and health and worker protection, civil rights and consumer laws,'' said Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer with the environmental advocacy
firm Earthjustice.

The issue Roberts raised is "huge in the broader context of all environmental laws,'' said John Leshy, a law professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. If the federal power over interstate commerce doesn't extend to protecting an isolated species within a single state, he said, then other questions arise: "Can the national government protect air in local communities or protect water in isolated rivers?''

It wasn't until the very bottom of the article, 20 paragraphs later, that Egelco allowed any balancing to occur:

Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor and a leading property rights theorist, said the case was being overblown.

Even if Roberts forms part of a Supreme Court majority to limit the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws, Epstein said, that would mean only that "some fraction of (environmental regulation) would be left to the states.''

24. Wishful thinking. When the press reported John Kerry's call for the White House to release all Roberts-related documents because "we cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record," don't you think some mainstream reporter might have mentioned the repeated unanswered calls for candidate Kerry to release his military records?

25. Making an mockery of objectivity. How's this for a summation of Roberts' history in the solicitor's office? From an 8/2/05 story by AP:

Many of the memos paint a portrait of a politically savvy attorney who encouraged his bosses to restrict affirmative action, Title IX sex discrimination lawsuits and prisoner appeals in federal court, which he said "made a mockery of the entire criminal justice system."

26. Where are the Roberts supporters? This AP story, also cited in #25, was headlined in the SacBee as, "Groups take Roberts campaign to voters." OK, that's fair enough; it should present what groups for and against the Roberts nomination are up to, right? Nope. Eleven of the 22 paragraphs in the story tell what MoveOn.org, NARAL, and People for the American Way are up to, comlete with quotes negatively characterizing Roberts. Four paragraphs, including the last two, cite the activities of supporting groups -- and their quotes are process oriented, not directed to the nominee's credentials.

27. When you don't like the evidence, ignore it. Eager to paint John Roberts in a negative light, papers like the WashPost are filing Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for papers that might allow them to show him as an idealogue.

But when memos come out showing Roberts represented gay issues, minority issues and was critical of anti-abortion extremists, here's what WaPo had to say of his record: "Pay it no mind. ... hardly surprising ... neither side seems to attach much importance to his diverse practice." You can't win with these guys.

28. Nothing is out of bounds. News that the NYT was researching the Roberts adoption records set of a blog tsunami, for good reason. There is absolutely nothing that could be found in such research that could possibly reflect on how he would perform as a judge. All I can think of is they are looking for favoratism, or evidence of marital weirdness, neither of which have any applicability. Here's the original Drudge report and great, link-rich posts on the subject from Hugh and Michelle.

29. The Starr Chamber. Patterico points out an interesting but unsurprising LATimes bias:

By the way, [David] Savage’s story appears to be an exercise in linking Roberts to [Kenneth] Starr, whom Savage clearly believes is hugely unpopular due to his involvement in President Clinton’s impeachment. If you want a good drinking game, read the article and drink a beer every time Savage uses the words “Roberts” and “Starr” in the same sentence. If you count the headline, you’ll blow through a twelve-pack before you’re done.

30. Setting up the "good cop." So Kennedy and Schumer will be the bad cops and Leahy will be the "good cop." In a profile of the particularly nasty Sen. from New Hampshire, the NYT said:

Just before Congress adjourned for August recess, two Democrats on the judiciary panel, Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenged Senator Leahy after he made concessions to Republicans in exchange for a September hearing date.

"Pat is not a person that puts confrontation up front," Mr. Kennedy said in an interview.

Mr. Schumer put it this way: "At his core, Patrick is just a very decent, honorable man who wishes everybody could get along, and he tries to make that happen as best he can."

Who does the NYT think it's kidding? There are so many Nasty Leahy stories, it's hard to pick just one. How about this one, from NRO:

[Judge] Saad was nominated on November 8, 2001. He received a confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee on July 30, 2003. Democrats boycotted the hearing — and made no public reference made to any background problems. The committee approved Saad in a straight party-line vote on June 17, 2004.

Before the vote, on June 3, 2004, Sen. Patrick Leahy, who was angry that then-chairman Orrin Hatch was pushing the Saad nomination through the committee, and who had access to FBI material on Saad in his role as ranking Democrat on the committee, made a public reference to Saad's background check, saying it contained allegations of a "very serious nature." Leahy did not elaborate.

Leaking confidential FBI files. What a gentleman.

See also Scoundrel Chronicles, Cheat-Seeking Missile's list of 139 examples of media bias in MSM coverage 2004 election.