Irony from CJR

From a Columbia Journalism Review fund raising letter by executive editor Mike Hoyt:

Honest journalism is a beacon in a great fog of facts, and that beacon maybe more essential to America's future than in any time in her history. Yet honest journalism is in trouble.

... Honest journalism, in short, needs allies. With your help, Columbia Journalism Revew can be the kind of ally that makes a difference.

Ha. The irony is palpable.

Inventing zero was kind of cool, but what have you done lately?

Saudi physician Faisal Sanai writes of "The Arab Drift Into Scientific Obscurity" in the Arab News:

While the rest of the world’s scientific community has climbed to dizzying heights, Arab contribution to civilization has fallen into oblivion.... For far too long we have rested on the laurels of past achievements. The Arab contribution to civilization is perpetually held hostage by thousand-year old achievements like the innovation of algebra by Al-Khwarizmi; the articulation of the Canon of Medicine by Ibn Sina; the extensive study in astronomy by Al-Farghani, or by the mathematical and astronomical genius of Omar Al-Khayyam. And since then our contribution to science has decayed and produced almost next to nothing.

Why the drop-off? Dr. Sanai says Islam is not the problem.

(And yes, I'm aware-- though not as aware as the guy who wrote this book--that there is some dispute over who really invented zero, but the concept did apparently come to Europe via the Arabs.)

(Via Ocean Guy.)

Quote of the day

Yossi Klein Helevi:

One of the great political ironies of our time is that it is the hawks, both in Israel and America, who may yet fulfill the vision of the doves.

Strange but true baseball videos

• Lost ball found in ump's pocket.
• Randy Johnson's fastball meets a bird.

Union for Reform Judaism and Iraq

A round-up of some sentiments on the URJ resolution against the Iraq War:

• Rabbi Marc Gellman:

  Historical Blindness
  The Union of Reform Judaism’s vote to oppose the war in Iraq was a mistake and embarrassment for my movement.
  
  The movement of which I am a member has just voted against a war that I support. This vote by the Union of Reform Judaism was the first vote by a major national Jewish organization or religious movement opposing the war in Iraq.
  
  This war was and is being fought for American reasons, not Jewish reasons. However, to see this war that toppled one of Israel's fiercest enemies—an anti-Semitic dictator who sent $25,000 to the families of every jihadist who had been able to kill and maim Israeli children and other innocents—opposed by Jews is more than an act of ingratitude to this country and this president. This vote was an act of stunning and incomprehensible historical blindness.

• Mona Charen:

  Jewish useful idiots
  
  Apparently eager to disprove the Jewish reputation for intelligence, the Union for Reform Judaism recently adopted a resolution condemning the Iraq War and demanding that President Bush provide "a clear exit strategy," including a plan for troop withdrawals.

• Winds of Change
  
  
• Rabbi Mark Ankcorn
  
  
• My prior posts on the topic:
  
  
  • Not in my name
  • Liberalism and Judaism
  • URJ ad
  • Sen Coleman takes on URJ on Senate floor

"He would still be torturing us"

The New York Sun reports a telling interchange between the UN Secretary General and an Iraqi diplomat:

Mr. Annan yesterday said the greatest misgiving he had in his tenure as secretary-general was that he wished the United Nations had "done everything that we could have done to avoid the war in Iraq" and its effects on Turtle Bay.

The comment did not sit well with Iraqi officials. "If the United States and its allies had not removed Saddam Hussein, he would still be torturing us" rather than standing accused on trial, Iraq's deputy U.N. ambassador, Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, said when told by The New York Sun of Mr. Annan's words.

Also, Mediacrity and American Thinker's Ed Lasky were unimpressed with Mr. Annan's performance yesterday. Apparently Annan attacked a reporter instead of answering his question.

Update: Claudia Rosett writes in National Review Online,

The Blow-Up: Annan insults and distracts

In a telling moment at a United Nations press conference Wednesday, Secretary-General Kofi Annan lost his temper — hurling insults at a widely respected senior member of the U.N. press corps. Beyond the who-what-when-where-how of this episode, the big question is: Why?

The broad answer is that the U.N. Secretariat, despite all the recent talk of reform, evidently remains a place of secrecy and privilege, run by high officials who don’t mind talking about their global goals and grand legacies, but find it highly irritating to be held to normal standards of good governance or subjected to anything resembling the workings of a free press. And in this particular case, given the ferocity of Annan’s reaction, one has to wonder if there is even more to it.

Times Watch

Times Watch has put together the worst quotes of 2005 from the New York Times. One of my favorites:

"Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences. The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork. This is a bad piece of legislation."
-- Editorial page, April 13.

And I like this comparison:

"An Advocate for the Right."
-- Front-page headline on Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, July 28, 2005.

[versus]

"Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle."
-- Headline on Clinton Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, June 27, 1993.

(Hat tip.)

Memo to Steinbrenner: this isn't what we need (again)

Self-described idiot Johnny Damon is a Yankee, and I don't like it.


From what I have heard, Damon is not particularly a class act. And Derek Jeter is a better lead-off guy (higher on-base percentage, the most important lead-off stat). Damon's arm is no better than Bernie Williams' was, and his range is not what it was. Damon is 30-something and will I suspect get worse over the course of the contract. Shouldn't have spent eight figures on the guy. Should have signed the younger and cheaper Juan Pierre instead.

Or perhaps I'm just bitter that Damon beat us almost single-handedly in game 7 two years ago.

And for the record, I reserve the right to change my mind utterly once I get used to him in pinstripes.

Here are their OBPs:

Year Jeter Damon Pierre
2005 .389 .366 .326
2004 .352 .380 .374
2003 .393 .345 .361
2002 .373 .356 .332
career .386 .353 .355

And here's what I wrote in this space a year ago:

Memo to Steinbrenner: this isn't what we need

How many aging superstars with eight-figure salaries will the Yankees acquire immediately after they have an MVP-caliber season?

Keith Srakocic/AP

NSA wiretapping kerfuffle

For a legal reviev of the NSA wiretapping kerfuffle, see Powerline's posts from December 17 through today.

And here are William F. Buckley Jr.'s conclusions on the matter:

What is a reasonable verdict from a conservative/libertarian on what happened?

1. The president did his job of attempting to outmaneuver the enemy.
   
2. The press may have overdone its interceptive curiosity, but it performed the function of a free press.
   
3. The legislative arm yielded to the demands of national security.
   
4. The courts, acknowledging a natural division of responsibilities, stayed away.

And for a snarky version of the left's views on the matter, see Sadly, No!'s posts from recent days.

Smiles and tears

Two pithy stories today.

One brought smiles:

A German art expert was fooled into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was the work of a master.

And the other, tears:

Mike Stokely didn't die for a just cause, he died for a lot of just causes, including the ones I set out above. I wish I were fit to tie his shoe laces but I am fortunate enough to have a son who believed in God, family, duty, honor and country and who certainly turned out to be the better of the two of us.

(Hat tip.)

Need a problem solved?

Heh.

Bush and the Angry Left: I read Atrios so you don't have to

First, the basics on President Bush's speech on Iraq:

• Here's the text.
• Here's the video.
• Here's a round-up of mostly positive reaction.
• And here are some desciptions: "Part humble, part visionary," "sober, strong, soaring."

But all that is not what I'm here to discuss.

I'm here to discuss the Angry Left. I've taken a brief look into their thoughts, and it is not a pretty sight.

Duncan Black (a.k.a. Atrios) runs a high-traffic liberal blog. He posted a brief reaction to Bush's speech tonight. Following that, his readers posted over a thousand comments. I skimmed the first couple of hundred. To save you the trouble of reading them all, I've picked a few representative posts and divided them into three helpful categories: "I hate Bush," "I really hate Bush" and "I really, really hate Bush." Here they are:

• Category 1, "I hate Bush":

  • I can no longer stand to watch that sonofabitch. As I've said, I can scarcely stand to *think* about him.
  • I'm never again watching any speech Bush gives, unless I get advance notice that he's about to announce his resignation.
    
    I'd watch that.
  • As for the speech- I give it a grade of "the author deserves two swift pitchfork pokes in the eyeball"

• Category 2, "I really hate Bush":

  • Mr. President, with all due respect: F*** you, you lying lawbreaking son of a bitch. [Emphasis in original. My asterisks.]
    
  • Take out the "all due respect" and I'm down with that.
  • Impeachment - NOW!!!
  • Because America has concluded that 9/11 didn't change everything: we had a s****ty president before 9/11, and we have a shitty president afterwards. [Emphasis in original. My asterisks.]
  • Alrighty then!! I do not despair that one day I will live to see you and all your ilk permanently relelated to the trash heap of history and/or prison AND I will never give up the fight to free this country from your pernicious influence.
    
    How do you like THOSE apples, f***wit? [My asterisks.]
  • Fulla shit.
    He feels how deeply I disagree with him? Fuck you, George. Send your daughters to Iraq if it's as noble as you claim.
  • Here he goes -- "we didn't find WMD's; everybody thought there were WMD's. We lied; but it was OK because Saddam was bad."
    
    Lying, lying,lying. And THE COUNTRY DRINKS THE KOOL-AID.
  • Impeach. Convict. Hand Over to the Hague.
  • It's enough to make one want to projectile vomit.
  • Damn I can't find that "lying sack of crap" jingle they play on Stephanie Miller so I'm not going to watch El Presidente speechify.
    
    I'd rather watch the Bears and Falcons do absolutely nothing.
  • ok, how bad is it...i can't watch him without getting physically ill...
    
  • I can't watch him, but someone tell me: Does he look like he's wearing his daddy's suit this time? You'd think with all the money he's embezzled over the years he could hire a tailor.
  • He's mentally ill.

• Category 3, "I really, really hate Bush":

  • I hated Nixon. i don't know the word to describe the way I feel about this stinking pustulant arrongant sociopathic lying sack of smelling pustulence.
  • I despise the puke and spit on his shadow.
  • This a**hole needs to be impeached!
    
  • And he ends with a little prayer. Somebody bring him his ermine, now, and lead him away. Little motherfucker.
  • ... Can't think of a word black enough to describe just how f***ing much I hate him. [My asterisks.]

Yow. Now that's a lot of anger. And I didn't even get through a third of the comments.

Update: 'Lanche! Welcome, Instapundit readers. Have a look around.

UCLA finds leftward media bias

A new academic study (soon to be published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics) found significant leftward media bias:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Here is UCLA's press release summarizing the findings.

(Via Glenn Reynolds and Betsy Newmark.)

Bush Lied!!! didn't lie, redux

A year and a half ago, the New York Times of all places reported in its own half-hearted way that Bush and his administration did not lie about a link between Al Qaeda and 9/11:

Critics of the Bush administration argue that it falsely created a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks to help justify the war. Last week, the administration countered that it had never made such an assertion — only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out — although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.

The Times backs this up with a series of quotations from key members of the administration.

But the Times editorial writers don't seem to have gotten the memo. Jim Miller wondered at the time, if they would take back some of their editorials, like this one:

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Or this one:

Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.

I hope Miller wasn't holding his breath.

(Hat tip from June 2004.)

Arabs on Iraq: Blame the Americans and Praise the Result

Strategy Page (via Instapundit):

This relentless progress of democracy is causing quite a commotion throughout the Arab world. While it is fashionable to denounce the American presence in Iraq, and what the Americans were doing, the Arab language buzz on the net is going in unexpected directions. Because of al Jazeera and the Internet, young Arabs everywhere are not only able to observe what it happening in Iraq, but to discuss it with young Iraqis. These discussions are not noted much in the West, because they generally take place in Arabic, and often via email and listservs. The non-Iraqi Arabs are impressed at the proliferation of media in Iraq, and the eagerness of Iraqis to vote, and make democracy work. The economic growth in Iraq is admired, and is already attracting entrepreneurs from other Arab countries. The more cynical non-Iraqis believe that it will all come to nothing, and that another Saddam will eventually emerge and shut down all this democratic nonsense, as is the case in most of the Arab world. But the pessimists appear to be in the minority. Arabs are tired of dictators, economic stagnation, the corruption and living in a police state. Moreover, there’s a nimble quality in Arab thinking that allows them to simultaneously blame the Americans for going into Iraq, and praising the result.

Found an online copy of the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels, 1848). Seems to me that some of these principles (from chaper two) have an uncomfortably familiar ring to them:

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c.

Munich: Spielberg, terrorism and moral equivalence

I haven't seen Steven Spielberg's new movie Munich, but The New Republic's Leon Wieseltier has:

It is soaked in the sweat of its idea of evenhandedness. Palestinians murder, Israelis murder. Palestinians show evidence of a conscience, Israelis show evidence of a conscience. Palestinians suppress their scruples, Israelis suppress their scruples. Palestinians make little speeches about home and blood and soil, Israelis make little speeches about home and blood and soil. Palestinians kill innocents, Israelis kill innocents. All these analogies begin to look ominously like the sin of equivalence, and so it is worth pointing out that the death of innocents was an Israeli mistake but a Palestinian objective.

Update: Here is the New York Sun's Mitch Webber:

Liberal writer Leon Wieseltier concurred: "Munich prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold."

If both sides of the political spectrum can agree that a nation is not only right, but obligated, to act as Israel did, why does "Munich" try so hard to say otherwise?

A large part of the blame belongs to the screenwriter, Tony Kushner, whose literary accomplishments ("Angels in America," among other brilliant plays) are too often overshadowed by an extreme left-wing political agenda. Why on earth would anyone entrust a script about Israel to someone who declared, "I wish modern Israel hadn't been born?" (So much for impartiality.)

Cool

ABC News:

Iraqis Cast Ballots in One of the Arab World's Largest, Freest Elections; Sunni Turnout Strong

Sen Coleman takes on URJ on Senate floor

Speaking Tuesday on the Senate floor, Senator Norm Coleman strongly supported the ad taking strong exception to the Union for Reform Judaism's anti-Iraq War resolution. Here is Coleman's statement:

Mr. President, Freedom is Worth Fighting For. That is the headline of a full page advertisement today in The New York Times. I was proud to add my name to this strong statement in support of our troops and our President in fighting the war on terror. The ad is sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition, a grassroots organization based in Washington, DC, with five full-time offices, 41 chapters, and over 20,000 members across our Nation.

The ad takes strong exception to a resolution approved last month by about 2,000 members of the Union for Reform Judaism—URJ—at a convention in Houston. The URJ resolution said, ‘‘American Jews, and all Americans, are profoundly critical of this war and they want this administration to tell us how and when it will bring our troops home,’’ and called the Iraq war ‘‘unjust.’’ The resolution reversed a 2002 URJ endorsement of the war and, according to news accounts, was adopted with very limited debate and only one person speaking against it.

As the Republican Jewish Coalition ad states, the URJ statement that American Jews oppose President Bush on Iraq is misleading and wrong. The URJ does not speak for me. Nor does it speak for all reform Jews or for the American Jewish community.

The Republican Jewish Coalition ad carries the signatures of 180 leaders and prominent figures in the Jewish community. In addition to my name, among those signing the newspaper ad are my colleague in the other body Representative ERIC CANTOR of Virginia, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, and two former chairmen of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, James Tisch and Kenneth Bialkin. Other signers include rabbis and cantors; as well as State and local elected officials.

The Republican Jewish Coalition ad contains several other important messages. It notes that we support the President and the war on terror. We stand behind our troops and their mission of creating a safe, democratic Iraq. This mission is vital, says the ad, not only for the continuing fight against terrorism and the stability of the Middle East, but also for making the world a safer place for our children. I believe this message of support is particularly important as the Iraqi people prepare to vote for a permanent government later this week.

We can never surrender to terrorism. Those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, will not hesitate to do so again if given the opportunity. We dare not encourage them by weakness and vacillation in our unrelenting war on terror.

I commend the Republican Jewish Coalition for its leadership on this vital issue. I am proud to stand with them in defense of freedom.

Barnyard animal dances (again)

Just read the children's book Clorinda (Simon & Schuster, 2003, by Robert Kinerk), which came free with a box of Cheerios. It is, shall we say, a bit derivative of Dumpy La Rue (Henry Holt and Co., 2001, by Elizabeth Winthrop), published two years earlier.

The plot, set to verse: a freespirited {pig named Dumpy/cow named Clarinda} overcomes criticism of peers to become ballet dancer, eventually leading other animals in highly touted barnyard ballet.

From Clorinda:

"You can't dance! Are you nuts?" said a turkey named Doris,
The ducks geese, and hens, in a sort of a chorus,
all said to Clorinda, "No, no. That won't do.
You're only a cow, and what they do is MOO!"

From Dumpy La Rue:

Dumpy La Rue wanted to dance.
"You're a pig," said his father.
"Pigs don't dance.
They grunt, they grovel,
they snuffle for truffles."

Clarinda:

A person can't know what it is she can do.
Be bold and imaginative!
Shoot for the sky!
If it's dance that you love,
then it's dance you should try!"

Dumpy:

But Dumpy La Rue
was a pig
who knew what he wanted to do.
He twirled in the sty,
raised his snout to the sky,
spread his hooves far and wide,
and pretended to fly.

Oddly similar, no?

[Management apologizes for this brief interruption. We will soon return to our regularly scheduled political ranting.]

Nomar Garciaparra

The big sports news today in New York is a New York Post report that the Yankees are interested in signing former all-star shortstop Nomar Garciaparra.

But before anyone gets too excited, consider these recent headlines:

• Fox Sports, today: "Astros show interest in Garciaparra"
• MLB web site, yesterday: "Will Nomar become a Brave?"
• A.P., Saturday: "Indians add Merloni in hopes of luring Nomar"
• Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Friday: "Source: Bucs interested in Nomar"
• BetUs.com, Friday: "Nomar come back [to Boston]!"

Military recruits are richer, better educated than their non-military peers

One critique of war in general, and war in Iraq in particular, is that rich folks do the planning, but poor folks do the dying.

Poor folks do do the dying, right? I mean we all accept that, right?

And if we don't trust our instincts, we can refer to trusted media sources. For example, here is Bob Herbert in the August 18 New York Times:

For the most part, the only people sacrificing for this war are the troops and their families, and very few of them are coming from the privileged economic classes. That's why it's so easy to keep the troops out of sight and out of mind.

And last month the Washington Post ran a front-page article on the topic. Here are some snippets from that article:

Many of today's recruits are financially strapped....

Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median....

All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan....

The Post's statistics are based on a recent study by the National Priorities Project. A press release accompanying the release of the NPP study shows that the Post certainly relayed the spirit of the NPP study. It quoted NPP executive director Greg Speeter:

As the Iraq War continues and the number of soldiers killed and wounded mounts, this [sic] data makes clear that low- and middle-income kids are paying the highest price.... It's young people with limited opportunities that are putting their lives on the line.

Get the idea? Poor folks do the dying.

Only one problem. Bob Herbert, the NPP, the Washington Post, and indeed conventional wisdom are wrong. Here is a USA Today piece by Tom Kane and James Jay Carafano refuting the conventional wisdom:

According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.

Kane performed the Heritage study. Here he discusses the differences between his study and NPP's and why NPP's reasoning is flawed. (Incidentally, NPP essentially stands by its story.)

Heritage has summarized the conclusions of Kane's study in tabular form here.

Liberalism and Judaism

Is the infusion of liberal politics into Reform Judaism causing people to stay away from the religion? In this case, yes:

I have chosen not to be a member of the Reform movement. There are various reasons for this, including that I do not like to hear lectures on the High Holidays about the high crimes of the United States, why Bush is bad, or if the Middle East conflict even comes up, why Israel is primarily responsible for the failure to achieve peace. Many of my friends routinely tell me every year that these themes are exactly the kind of verbiage that they get to hear in the sermons by their Reform rabbis. I can get this kind of political indoctrination in the New York Times. I do not care for it in shul.

Just today, the Reform Judaism Religious Action Center issued an "action alert" entitled "Urge Your Representative to Oppose More Tax Cuts." I hope none of my temple dues are going to support this effort with which I so heartily disagree.

Let's take a quick look at the results of the Bush tax cuts: more of the income tax burden has fallen on the rich, federal tax receipts have increased to record levels, the economy has shown consistent growth and unemployment is significantly down. I wonder which of these results the Reform Jewish leadership does not like.

(Related post below.)

Update: Rabbi and blogger Mark Ankcorn writes in reaction to the URJ's position against confirmation of Judge Alito:

This, for me, is a symptom of the real problem with American organized Judaism. We seem to be much more concerned about enacting a political agenda than in bringing God into the presence of people's lives. "The scope of federal power" is a matter of "core concern" to the URJ? Funny enough, I don't really remember reading that in the Torah or anywhere in the Talmud.

Not in my name

The Union for Reform Judaism is the central body for reform Judaism in North America. According to its website, the URJ's

primary mission is to create and sustain vibrant Jewish congregations wherever Reform Jews live.

The URJ recently held its biennial conference, and perhaps in an effort to create and sustain vibrant congragations, the organization passed its usual littany of resolutions supporting liberal political views. From one resolution opposing confirmation of Judge Alito to another opposing right-to-work laws, the resolutions could have been taken from the Democratic National Committee's position papers. (Generally, right-to-work laws state that "the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization," as stated in this Virgina law.)

But to my sensibility, the most offensive resolution of all was the one calling for a "clear exit strategy" from Iraq. No mention of a victory strategy, just an exit strategy. Here is a statement by the URJ's president in the press release accompanying the resolution:

"The sentiment was clear and overwhelming,” said Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, President of the Union. "American Jews, and all Americans, are profoundly critical of this war and they want this Administration to tell us how and when it will bring our troops home."

All Americans? Please. Not this American. Not this reform Jew. Not in my name, Rabbi Yoffie.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of this campaign, soon to be launched by the Republican Jewish Coalition:

THE UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM DOES NOT SPEAK FOR US.

The recent statement by the Union for Reform Judaism saying American Jews oppose the President on Iraq is misleading and wrong. We support the President and the War on Terrorism. We stand behind our troops and their mission of creating a safe, democratic Iraq. This mission is vital not only for the continuing fight against terrorism and the stability of the Middle East, but also for making the world a safer place for our children.

Update: More on the topic from Richard Baehr in a piece entitled "Megalomania in the Liberal Jewish Establishment":

[I]t is time for leaders of major Jewish organizations on the political left to demonstrate their ignorance and arrogance, and proclaim their special hold on the truth and justice.

And from Betsy Newmark:

Reading the list of resolutions passed at [the URJ's] last convention reads a lot like the list of resolutions that the NEA regularly passes at its conventions.

Tax rates down, federal revenues up, jobs up

Interesting chart. Is there something to the Laffer curve?

(Click on chart to enlarge in separate window.)
Source: US Treasury Dept.

More on the topic from Treasury Secretary John Snow here.

And another interesting chart:

(Click on chart to enlarge in separate window.)
Source: US Treasury Dept.

Disclaimers: Was the economy due to turn around even without the tax cuts? Perhaps. And is it fair to label a chart "highest level of federal receipts in history" without adjusting for inflation? Not really. But still, it's fun to gloat.

(Hat tip to TaxProf Blog via Instapundit.)