American generosity . . .

. . . is on display all over following the devastation in the Indian Ocean. Individual Americans are donating by the millions to help those whose lives have been irrevocably altered by forces of nature. Amazon.com has a site for donations to the American Red Cross, and as of this writing, had collected over $5 million in donations from over 82,000 contributors.

The Red Cross itself reports that, as of noon on December 29, Americans have given over $18 million -- since the disaster occurred. This incredible outpouring of assistance happened over a three-day period.

Stingy, indeed.

Unbelievable Ramsey Clark

Ramsey Clark, former United States Attorney General and left-wing crackpot, has joined Saddam Hussein's legal defense team. As an individual, Clark has little credibility remaining as an impartial legal practitioner. His only value -- and a significant one, at that -- to Saddam is the fact that under Lyndon Johnson he was the top law enforcement official in the United States.

It's not just conservatives who believe Clark is a little left of loopy. This article in Salon -- no stranger to American liberalism -- details Clark's reputation as a defender of all things anti-American. He defended Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian Serbian war criminal Clark defended in a New York civil suit brought against him by Bosnian rape victims. The article also notes that in crafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Clark accuses the United States, Britain, and France of being the primary drafters, and states that they showed:

"'little concern for economic, social and cultural rights.' The social and cultural rights claimed by his Iraqi hosts include the right to hang opponents in public at the airport, or poison thousands of Kurds and torture and execute any opponent of the regime. And on the legality of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the silence is deafening."

Maybe Saddam is already planning to appeal his ultimate conviction by claiming he had ineffective assistance of counsel. In that case, he couldn't have picked a better lawyer.

Jerry Orbach, RIP

The man who tried to put Baby in a corner, and of late Detective Lennie Briscoe on Law and Order, Jerry Orbach, has died at age 69 of prostate cancer. RIP. (Hat tip The Corner).

An honest question

President Bush is being criticized for his failure to make a public statement immediately after the devasatating events in in Asia brought about by the tsunamis. The article compares the enormity of these events with the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and notes that "[t]here was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy." And this paragraph:

"Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. 'When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care,' said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations."

Without plunging into the debate about whether the president's public appearance and a public statement of condolence would have any real effect on the aid efforts -- publicly supporting the aid workers and expressing collective grief may have a tangential effect on fundraising efforts, but it is style over substance and showing "that you care" does nothing to actually assist in the rescue work currently underway on the ground -- I have a question born out of genuine curiosity. How much financial aid did the countries around the world give to the United States following the 9/11 attacks? I know that newspapers bore headlines that "We are all Americans now," and that leaders issued statements of support, but how much money came to help with rescue, recovery, cleanup, and eventual rebuilding efforts from these nations? I don't know the answer, and would appreciate any feedback on this question.

The Ohio recount . . .

. . . is over, and George W. Bush won again.

This paragraph is interesting, though: "Kerry gained 734 more votes in the recount, and Bush picked up 449, mostly from disqualified ballots that were counted in the second tally because hanging chads had come loose when ballots were handled again or rerun through counting machines."

This seems to be the same problem Florida had in 2000 -- wear and tear on the paper ballots. The writer of the article leaves the assumption that the chads that fell were the chads that were intended to be marked by the voter, but there is no way to tell if that is the case. Repeated handling of paper ballots causes the ballot to lose its structural integrity. It's time to stop trolling for votes.

Hypocritical on the Hippocratic Oath

According to this story, a group of doctors have asked the Kentucky Medical Association to review whether a Kentucky doctor should be permitted to keep his license. Ordinarily, that would not generate news. In this instance, however, the doctor in question is Governor Ernie Fletcher, and the reason for the inquiry is his signing of a death warrant in the case of Thomas Clyde Bowling, convicted of murdering two people in 1990. The doctors claim that the governor's action violates the Hippocratic Oath and Kentucky law (pdf file).

The Hippocratic Oath does not state "First, do no harm," in either its classical or modern form (although the AMA apparently does not endorse any version, but relies instead upon its Code of Ethics), although the sentiments expressed in the oath may reflect that view. As you may notice from the varying versions of the oath, it has changed to no longer prevent a doctor from performing an abortion, so that it now states that performing an abortion is permissible "within an ethical and legal framework." Also notice that the AMA Code of Ethics states, "A physician shall respect the law . . . ."

Section 81 of the Kentucky Constitution states that the governor "shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed." Kentucky law also states that, if a person under a death sentence is mentally incompetent, under the legal definition, the execution is to be stayed until the individual is restored to sanity, then "[t]he execution shall then take place under the warrant of the Governor and at the time designated by him, unless stayed by due process of law." Another statute requires the governor to set the date for execution after appeals have been exhausted. However, the previously mentioned law that the doctors claim has been violated says that "[n]o physician shall be involved in the conduct of an execution except to certify cause of death provided that the condemned is declared dead by another person." And the State Board of Medical Licensure is authorized to adopt a code of ethics, which includes the AMA's code.

These conflicting statutes, if read literally, would prevent a physician from ever being governor in Kentucky, because he would be unable to perform his constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The constitution does not prevent physicians from serving as governor. The courts would most likely rule that signing a death warrant as required by statute is not being "involved in the conduct of an execution" as contemplated by the statutory prohibition, because the governor is not acting in the capacity of a physician.

But let's address the hypocrisy of the doctors using the Hippocratic Oath to justify their complaints. The oath has changed dramatically over the years. In 1928 only 24 percent of medical schools used a form of the oath at graduation ceremonies; today it is almost 100 percent. While use of the oath has increased to near unanimity, some of the more sacred tenets have fallen by the wayside:

"According to a 1993 survey of 150 U.S. and Canadian medical schools, for example, only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia, 11 percent hold convenant with a deity, 8 percent foreswear abortion, and a mere 3 percent forbid sexual contact with patients -- all maxims held sacred in the classical version. . . . Perhaps most telling, while the classical oath calls for 'the opposite' of pleasure and fame for those who transgress the oath, fewer than half of oaths taken today insist the taker be held accountable for keeping the pledge."

Doubtless the doctors opposed to the governor's action would simply respond that the oath has evolved with society into a more "user-friendly" version for modern physicians. Okay. If that is the case, why should the governor be "held accountable for keeping the pledge" when he is not actively practicing medicine, and the offending action was a requirement of his job as chief executive of a state, and when over half of modern oaths do not even make oath-keeping a requirement? And if the doctors are going to use the "do no harm" adage, they should be required to answer for why performing an abortion does no harm. It stops a beating heart.

The UN's hubris knows no bounds

The enormity of the massive earthquake in Asia that triggered devastating tsunamis, wiping out coastal villages and killing over 44,000 people so far, is difficult to grasp. Scientists say that the quake changed the earth's orbit, and altered the physical map of the region. The quake moved the island of Sumatra, the sixth largest island in the world, 66 feet. Sumatra has approximately 183,000 square miles; by comparison, only two of the United States are larger: Alaska (656,425 sq. mi.) and Texas (268,601 sq. mi.). The third largest state is California, at 163,707 sq. mi. The earthquake moved an island larger than the state of California 66 feet.

In response, the United States made an initial pledge of $15 million to help the Asian countries cope with the devastation. A U.N. official called the amount "stingy." Secretary of State Colin Powell "bristled" at the remark, noting that "The United States has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world," and Powell noted that the eventual U.S. contribution would run into the billions. The United States has followed up with a pledge of an additional $20 million in aid to the Asian countries. For perspective, the EU gave $4 million initially, with an additional pledge of $27 million. Canada and some European nations pledged $1 million each.

Jan Egeland, the UN's undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs, claims that Western nations could give more "if taxes were raised." Speaking of Western nations, Egeland said, "'There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy,'" and added that "the United States and Europe 'believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more.'"

According to the American Red Cross's FY 2004 report (pdf format), contributions totalled $668.8 million from corporations, foundations, individuals, the United Way, and other bequests, legacies, and in-kind giving. Contributions for Domestic and International Relief, General Operations, and Endowment Gifts were $442.5 million for FY 2004. Of course Americans want to give; what they don't want is the government to force them to do so. As these numbers indicate, left to their own devices, Americans are among the most generous people in the world. There is no need to tax Americans to create an international aid pool.

And apparently, the U.N. believes that its track record of fiscal responsibility, which includes massive fraud over a decade in the administration of the Iraq oil-for-food program, allowing Saddam Hussein to skin over $21 billion dollars from the "humanitarian" effort, justifies calling on the United States to write a blank check. Sorry, Jan.

UPDATE: Jan Egeland has apologized, sort of, for the "stingy" remark. The original statement: "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous." The "clarification": "I've been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that I believed that rich countries in general can be more generous."

Misinterpreted? There is not much room for error in interpreting that original statement, Jan. Don't compound the error by taking us for idiots.

This week's top ten

Is unchanged from last week:

1. Illinois (55)
2. Kansas (13)
3. Oklahoma State (4)
4. North Carolina
5. Wake Forest
6. Duke
7. Syracuse
8. Kentucky
9. Georgia Tech
10. Pittsburgh

SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (18), Mississippi State (21).

Letterman goes to Iraq

Having watched Dave Letterman since I was in college and he was pulling late duty on NBC, it is touching to read that he and some of his staff went to Iraq on Christmas Eve to perform for the troops stationed there. As he notes in this article, three years ago he performed for the troops in Afghanistan, and last year performed in Baghdad for Christmas. Thanks, Dave -- although I'm sure he realizes that his sacrifice of giving up Christmas at home is nothing compared to the sacrifices made every day by our troops.

Judges, Senate rules, and Abraham Lincoln

Two days before Christmas, President Bush announced the re-nomination of judges to the federal bench who had been filibustered in the previous Congress. Some of these individuals were first nominated in 2001, and have yet to receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate. News of the nominations has triggered talk of "bloody" battles in Washington in the year to come.

Over at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru and Mark Levin have been engaged in a debate over whether the Senate's practice of filibustering judicial nominees is constitutional, with Ponnuru defending the institution's right to set its own rules and Levin arguing that the practice encroaches on a power that belongs not solely to the Senate, but also to the executive branch, and that a supermajority requirement to "advise and consent" is an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the legislature.

The clause in the Constitution that is causing all of this uproar is set forth in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, and states, in pertinent part, as follows:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Ponnuru correctly notes that the Constitution is not explicit that there is no supermajority requirement for the confirmation of judicial nominees. However, this clause specifically requires a two-thirds majority to ratify a treaty made by the executive. No other provision in this clause contains a numerical requirement, including the "advice and consent" to judicial nominations. As Levin argues, correctly, I think, if the Framers had intended there to be anything other than a majority requirement for confirmation of presidential appointments, it could easily have included such a provision in this paragraph. Its inclusion for ratification of treaties, and omission when discussing presidential appointments in the same paragraph, weighs against a supermajority requirement for confirmation of those appointees.

Another argument advanced by Levin is the placement of the "advice and consent" clause in the Constitution itself. It is not included in Article I, which establishes the Legislature, and which states in Section 1 that "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." It is in Article II, which establishes the executive, and is in a paragraph defining the executive power. It clearly, then, is not solely a legislative power, but an executive power to appoint.

I think Levin's arguments are persuasive. For historical comparison, there is one glaring event in United States history in which the executive clearly acted to do something that the Constitution places under legislative power -- Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. In Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice Taney stated that Lincoln had acted outside the scope of the authority granted him by the Constitution, because "[t]he clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department."

Recently, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court again addressed this historical oddity, noting that "[d]uring the Civil War, Congress passed its first Act authorizing Executive suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, to the relief of those many who thought President Lincoln's unauthorized proclamations of suspension unconstitutional. Later Presidential proclamations of suspension relied upon the congressional authorization."

If it was unconstitutional for Lincoln to frustrate a power granted to Congress by the Constitution, is it any less an encroachment upon executive power for the Senate to add to the plain text of the Constitution a super-majority requirement on advice and consent, when the Constitution (1) places the appointment power in the executive, and (2) does not specify that more than a majority is required to act on the President's judicial nominees? Congress is only required to provide "advice and consent" to the president's nominees. Yes, the appointment power is slightly different than Taney's reference to habeas corpus, in that it does contain a reference to Senate action. But given the opportunity the Framers had within that paragraph to specify a super-majority for confirmation, and its blatant omission, for Congress to add such a provision on its own is an improper action, usurping the executive prerogative.

Reggie White, RIP

The future NFL Hall-of-Famer died yesterday morning in his sleep at the age of 43. For his inspiration, he was a blessing. RIP.

NBA justice

Ron Artest's season-long suspension has been upheld by an arbitrator, while Jermaine O'Neal's suspension was reduced by ten games.

Restoring the meaning of Christmas

For years, people have complained about the increasing commercialism of Christmas, and the concurrent decline in the meaning of the holiday. Maureen Dowd -- no doubt a secularist --recently wrote a column titled "Jingle Bell Schlock" in the New York Times, in which she admitted, "I've never said this out loud before, but I can't stand Christmas." To those who regularly read Maureen Dowd's columns (for whatever reason you choose to subject yourself to that, you have my pity), this was probably not the surprise she hoped it would be. In the article, she mentions reasons why she hates Christmas, "besides the obvious fact that yuppies have drenched the holidays in ever more absurd levels of consumerism." This article also lists some complaints about the commercialization of Christmas, not only from the author, but also those he solicited from readers. And as Charles Krauthammer put it in a recent (and excellent) article, "It is Christmastime, and what would Christmas be without the usual platoon of annoying pettifoggers rising annually to strip Christmas of any Christian content?"

This year has seen a sea change. This story discusses how many Christians are attempting to re-emphasize the meaning of the Christmas celebration. These reclamation efforts are in response to years of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by -- who else -- the ACLU to keep Christ out of public Christmas displays.

Ours is a pluralistic society, open to people of all faiths, or none. The solution is not, as American Atheists would have it, to remove all religious displays from the public square. It is to welcome all celebrants into the culture. Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. Hanukkah celebrates the miracle that one day's worth of oil burned for eight days during the rededication of the Jewish temple. Each holiday has its own story. No parts of the stories need to be excised to make them "comfortable" for non-adherents. That is not the tradition of our free society. There is nothing wrong with Christians trying to restore the true reason for the Christmas season in the culture, which by necessity will change the emphasis of the holiday from its recent commercialization. As the angel said, Fear not.

More election nonsense

Democratic Rep. John Conyers is trying to get the media to turn over its raw exit poll data from the November 2004 presidential election. His rationale? According to this report, "so that any discrepancies between the data and the certified election results can be investigated." Conyers' letter claims that "[w]ithout the raw data, the committee will be severely handicapped in its efforts to show the need for serious election reform in the United States."

It is difficult to comprehend how anyone, especially the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, can believe that exit poll results are more accurate than the actual vote count! While the exit poll data may be slightly different than tha pre-election polls we all watched anxiously, I recall that those pre-election polls all included a "margin of error." The margin of error, presumably, is to account for discrepancies in the sample, or inaccurate answers given to the poll-takers. There is no reason to believe that a poll of voters leaving the pools would not be subject to the same influences (e.g., over-sampling of one candidate's voters, false answers given by the voters, etc.) that the pre-election polls were, and would not also have a margin of error. What we do know, though, is the actual vote count leaves no room for error. It gives hard numbers on which the electors are chosen.

Why would hard numbers be less accurate than polls that include a margin of error? The election is over. To borrow a phrase, MoveOn.

This weekend's sibling rivalry

The UK-U of L game over the weekend was one of the best games in that series. Kentucky had a terrible first half, managing only sixteen points, as Louisville surprisingly dominated the inside against Kentucky's less experienced size. But how many times have children in Kentucky lived the last five seconds of the game, in a gym or backyard playground, shooting the ball as the clock (nearly) expires, getting fouled, and making the free throws to bring the team from behind and beat an arch-rival? Way to go, Patrick. Congratulations, Cats.

But as Han Solo said, "Don't get cocky." Louisville is good, and we may see them again.

One ingredient adding intrigue to this year's game has been Pitino's recent comment when asked his thoughts on whether Louisville football coach Bobby Petrino should stay at Louisville:

"I made a big mistake in my life professionally. I thought I needed a new challenge, thought I needed this or that, and I never should have left UK, looking back on it. I didn't know it then; hindsight is great. . . .

"What makes you happy as a basketball coach is seeing your family happy, winning and spending quality time with your players because they're good people. And I had all of that at UK. We had a dynasty going and I made more than enough money. Money wasn't a factor. It's only a factor when you can't pay your bills, but that's not the case with college coaches."

Some Louisville fans were a bit peeved that Pitino seemed to be pining for his old job on his U of L radio show. I don't doubt his commitment to Louisville. But it was nice to hear what Big Blue Nation has known all along -- he had it great at UK, and should have stayed.

This week's top ten

From the AP men's basketball poll:

1. Illinois (50)
2. Kansas (15)
3. Oklahoma State (5)
4. North Carolina
5. Wake Forest
6. Duke
7. Syracuse
8. Kentucky
9. Georgia Tech
10. Pittsburgh

SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (19), Mississippi State (21).

Whoo-hoo! It's wintertime!

On Scarborough Country on MSNBC Tuesday night, Ellen Johnson, spokesperson for American Atheists, appeared to discuss Christmas. Her solution to the "uproar" surrounding the display of religious symbols in the public square was jaw-droppingly sad in it emptiness:

"Let me ask you, this whole cry about discrimination is, you know who is doing the so-called discrimination, religious people, so please stop with this discrimination. People who are making these decisions are already religious. I have the solution. Keep your religious displays out of the public schools, public property. This is the winter solstice season, it‘s beginning of winter. Why don‘t we all just celebrate the beginning of winter. . . . I‘ll be celebrating the winter solstice on December 21, something that all cultures celebrate. . . . Mythological Jesus. There was no Jesus. I invite you all to celebrate [the] first day of winter. . . . Jesus was not [an] historical figure."

Let's celebrate the first day of winter! Really? That's the best you can do? And "all cultures" celebrate it? There is nothing in this worldview that gives a person any reason for hope or happiness. It is an empty mindset. And although I am not familiar with the beliefs of atheists (there's an oxymoron), this was the first time I had heard the claim from an atheist that Jesus not only wasn't divine, but he was not even real. Interesting, and further proof that denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

More disappearing Christmas trees

The American Center for Law and Justice reports on the decision of officials in Pasco County, Florida, to ban Christmas trees from public buildings, because they decided that Christmas trees were religious symbols. The same wrong logic on display in Florida as in Washington.

Merry Christmas? Or Bah! Humbug!

Atheists on the prowl

Drudge had this story yesterday about atheists in Bellevue, Washington, and their opposition to a charitable endeavor in the Bellevue City Hall. The city, each December, erects an evergreen tree in City Hall, decorated with gold balls, gold ribbon, and requests for gifts from needy families. It is not even called a Christmas tree; it is called a "giving tree."

Even this, however, is too much for atheists Sidney and Jennifer Stock, who "complained [about the tree] after a city worker told them the tree makes him feel out of place, and if he says so, he fears for his job." According to the report, "[t]hey asked the city council to remove the tree because it represents Christmas, which is a Christian holiday.

"Stock says city hall should: 'Act as a place where everybody feels welcome. It is impossible for everybody's religious belief to be displayed and non-religious belief to be displayed, so therefore, no religious beliefs be displayed.'"

Well, isn't that interesting. More importantly, the Stocks are wrong from a legal perspective. The United States Congress has recognized Christmas as a national holiday, along with such secular holidays as New Year's Day, Washington's birthday, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day, to name a few. Further, in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court said the following about Christmas trees:

"The Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol. Although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas. Numerous Americans place Christmas trees in their homes without subscribing to Christian religious beliefs, and when the city's tree stands alone in front of the City-County Building, it is not considered an endorsement of Christian faith. Indeed, a 40-foot Christmas tree was one of the objects that validated the creche in Lynch. The widely accepted view of the Christmas tree as the preeminent secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season serves to emphasize the secular component of the message communicated by other elements of an accompanying holiday display, including the Chanukah menorah."

While fir trees have been adopted as symbols of Christmas and can, to Christians, have religious meaning, there were no evergreens in or around the stable in Bethlehem, at least not any that are mentioned in the Scriptural accounts of Christ's birth. Displaying a Christmas, or a "giving," tree, in and of itself, carries no religious connotations whatsoever.

This is just one more in a long line of examples of a lack of tolerance toward Christians by those who claim, as the Stocks did, that they want everyone to feel welcome. Stock claims that he tries to "be aware of injustice and inequality when it affects anybody or everybody." Everyone, that is, except those who make him uncomfortable.

More cultural decline

In what surely ranks as one of the most repulsive acts of the year, an eight-month pregnant woman was murdered, and the baby cut from her stomach and taken, presumably by the killer. An Amber Alert has been issued for the baby. The husband is reportedly not a suspect, because he was at work at the time of the murder. One can only imagine how he will deal with losing his wife and having his baby stolen one week before Christmas. God bless him. (Hat tip Drudge.)

UPDATE: The baby has been found alive and in good health, according to this report.

Dick Clark update

His spokesman has announced that Dick Clark will miss the New Year's Eve telecast from Times Square this year due to the stroke he suffered last week. Subbing for Clark? Regis Philbin.

ACLU sues in evolution case

The ACLU's Pennsylvania chapter is filing a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district that voted to teach alternatives to the theory of evolution, including "intelligent design," or the theory that the universe was created by some higher power and intelligence.

Yes, the ACLU is all about tolerance for different points of view.

Less than good news on Rehnquist

The Supreme Court announced today that "Chief Justice Rehnquist will not participate in decisions argued during the November sitting, unless his vote is necessary to break a 4-4 tie." Scaling back his activity to this degree is a troubling sign, despite the fact that he recently agreed to administer the presidential oath of office at next month's inauguration. (Link via How Appealing via The Corner.)

Election day is finally here

The electoral votes for president and vice-president of the United States will be cast today, in accordance with federal law. Despite the fact that Title 3, Section 7 of the U.S. Code requires electoral votes to be cast today, and that the Ohio legislature has expressly adopted (go to Section 3505.39) this day as the day for casting electoral votes, protestors in Ohio want that state to postpone its official electoral vote until after a recount is completed.

To paraphrase the Gipper, there they go again.

Reagan's office to close

Peter Robinson reports that Ronald Reagan's office will close effective December 31, 2004. I loved the Gipper, but as much respect as I had for the man, it baffles me that the United States taxpayer pays each former president a pension of $175,700 per year, and provides an annual office allowance to them for the rest of their lives. According to Table 1 in this report, the FY 2005 budget requests for former presidents were as follows: Ford - $539,000; Carter - $505,000; Reagan - $200,000; Bush - $713,000; Clinton - $1,105,000. That's a total of $3,062,000 for the next year.

Let's not even begin to discuss congressional pensions. I have no problem with Secret Service protection being provided to former presidents and their spouses. But there is no good justification for paying these pensions to the former presidents, or providing an office allowance, especially when many of our military families are required to apply for food stamps. According to this story from April 2000, as many as 6300 military personnel qualified for food stamps; all were enlisted personnel and married with children.

Three million dollars would go a long way toward solving this problem (or providing equipment), and when former presidents are earning as much as nine million dollars a year in speaking fees, it is beyond absurd to provide pensions. After all, they are limited to two terms, or, if circumstances warrant, ten years as president. So for four to eight (maybe ten) years of service, they get lifetime pensions? It's a waste of taxpayer money.

Rehnquist to deliver presidential oath

Good news for anyone who is concerned about the health of Chief Justice Rehnquist. It appears he will deliver the oath of office to President Bush on January 20, at the president's request. (Nod to The Corner.)

The irrepressible Bill Moyers

Announcing his retirement from television, Bill Moyers stated, "the biggest story of our time [is] how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee. We have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."

This is Bill Moyers, who has been employed in public television for a good part of thirty years. Has he been "vigilant," "independent," and nonpartisan? You decide. Following the 2002 elections, Moyers stated on his PBS website,

"[T]he entire federal government — the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.

"And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.

"And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God."

You also get a glimpse of Moyers' contempt for Christians whoo are engaged in politics by reading the acceptance speech he gave when he was presented Harvard Medical School's Global Environment Citizen Award. Fair, evenhanded, balanced commentary, no?

Obviously Bill is not part of the "ideological" press interested in electing Republicans. Since he criticized the "mainstream" press over its concern for the bottom line, one presumes he is not in that category either. Bill apparently believes that he is the voice of reason, vigilant, independent, and looking out for the American people. Give me a break. He is as partisan as they come, has made no effort to hide that fact, while all the while proclaiming his objectivity and being funded by tax dollars.

Goodbye, and good riddance.

We'll drink a cup of kindness yet

New Year's Eve may seem a little different this year with news that Dick Clark, America's oldest teenager and perennial host of New Year's Rockin' Eve in Times Square, has had a stroke. No details yet as to his condition or prognosis. Link via Drudge.

He gave his life for tourism

The always funny Steve Martin on -- what else -- the King Tut exhibit coming to the United States, again.

America as "Jesusland"

A popular map circulating the Internet following last month's election showed the "blue" states that voted for Democrat John Kerry aligned with our northern neighbor as "The United States of Canada," and the great swath of red states that voted for President Bush as "Jesusland." A Newsweek poll suggests that characterization of the red states may not be far from the mark:

"Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that, as the Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a human father, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll on beliefs about Jesus.

"Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmas—the Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the East—is historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible.

"In the NEWSWEEK poll, 93 percent of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ actually lived and 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God. Fifty-two percent of all those polled believe, as the Bible proclaims, that Jesus will return to earth someday; 21 percent do not believe it. Fifteen percent believe Jesus will return in their lifetime; 47 percent do not, the poll shows."

One number bears repeating: 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God. Yet last night, Dave Silverman of American Atheists was on Scarborough Country insisting that this is not a Christian nation. Once again: this is a secular, pluralist country founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Saying it is not a Christian nation over and over again will not change history. America has prospered because Christianity is a tolerant religion, allowing individuals to choose to embrace the faith or not. This tolerance permitted a thousand flowers to bloom in this country, but Christian principles -- and goals -- were unmistakable driving forces behind the founding of this nation. Many people still believe that Jesus is the reason for the season. Joy to the world!

The "integrity of the game"

Barry Bonds has reportedly testified that he "unknowingly" used steroids provided to him by his close friend and personal trainer. Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield have also been implicated in the steroid scandal. And Major League Baseball apparently plans to do exactly nothing to punish these players, although their organizations may take individual action.

A question for Barry Bonds: At what point in your transformation from David Banner to the Incredible Hulk should you have thought to ask, why is my body undergoing these bizarre changes?

A larger question for MLB: when are you going to consistently enforce the ethereal concept of the "integrity of the game"? In a statement earlier this year in support of legislation to ban steroids, Commissioner Bud Selig said, "The illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances is detrimental to the integrity of the game and the long-term health of the athletes who use them."

Hmm. Integrity of the game. That's a familiar phrase in baseball. Former Commissioner A Bartlett Giamatti used it when he banned Pete Rose from baseball for life for betting on baseball games. Giamatti concluded his press conference on Rose by stating,

"[W]hile there will be debate and dissent about this or that or another occurrence on or off the field, and while the game's nobler parts will always be enmeshed in the human frailties of those who, whatever their role, have stewardship of this game, let there be no doubt or dissent about our goals for baseball or our dedication to it. Nor about our vigilance and vigor - and patience - in protecting the game from blemish or stain or disgrace.

"The matter of Mr. Rose is now closed. It will be debated and discussed. Let no one think that it did not hurt baseball. That hurt will pass, however, as the great glory of the game asserts itself and a resilient institution goes forward. Let it also be clear that no individual is superior to the game."

Taking Giamatti at his word, Rose would have been banned even if these allegations had surfaced during his chase of Ty Cobb's all-time hits record, and not only later when he no longer played but managed the Cincinnati Reds. Should the same standard apply to Bonds, even as he chases the all-time homerun record of Hank Aaron? The answer is an unqualified yes.

Aaron himself expressed disappointment in Bonds, and while acknowledging that steroids can't make you hit a round ball approaching at 90 mph with a round stick with accuracy, he questioned whether steroids are a factor in the ability of a player Bonds' age (40) to bounce back and play day in and day out, as opposed to "unleaded" players. Aaron said, "Any way you look at it, it's wrong."

Is baseball serious about the integrity of the game? If Rose's transgressions warranted a lifetime suspension for tarnishing the game's integrity, are Bonds' offenses any less worthy of punishment? Is baseball content to keep putting fans in the seats, so it will take a pass on punishing these high profile players? Is Bonds superior to the game, or temporarily larger than Rose? If Bonds had integrity, he would retire. If baseball had integrity, Bonds would take his place alongside Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson. The stewards are asleep at the wheel if this goes unpunished.

This week's Top Ten

An impressive vault for Illinois from fifth to first with its commanding win over former No. 1 Wake Forest. This week's rankings:

1. Illinois (25)
2. Kansas (23)
3. Georgia Tech (12)
4. Syracuse (9)
5. Oklahoma State
6. Wake Forest
7. Connecticut
8. North Carolina
9. Duke
10. Kentucky

SEC Representatives in Top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (18), Mississippi State (22).

The New, "moderate" Senate minority leader

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is the Democrats' choice to replace outgoing Sen. Tom Daschle as minority leader. Despite his modest manner and quiet speaking voice (reminiscent of Daschle), Reid has chosen to escalate the political attacks with a potential Supreme Court nomination in the wings.

Appearing yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Reid was asked about the possibility of either Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas as Chief Justice. Reid has previously expressed cautious support for Scalia, which he repeated yesterday. But he went on to make an unsupported, unchallenged remark about Justice Thomas' ability:

"I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

An embarrassment? Poorly written opinions? Russert did not follow up asking Reid to name three, two, or even one opinion that Reid thought was "poorly written." These unsupported, unsubstantiated, and, quite frankly, baseless charges do not bode well for the restoration of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill.

UK-UNC recap

The Cats lost to a clearly more experienced North Carolina team in Chapel Hill. Kentucky nevertheless showed poise in its ability to continue making runs at UNC, but always falling short and allowing Carolina to have runs of its own. There were some remarkable disparites, though. Kentucky was out rebounded 45-32. That's not acceptable for a team with a 7'3" post player and a freshman post player who flirted with going pro before entering college. Kentucky also was unable to hit free throws, making only 8 of 16, while UNC made 27 of 40. Which brings me to the final, eye-popping statistic. Kentucky was whistled for 31 fouls, UNC only 16, without even commiting enough in the second half to give UK a bonus situation. It's hard to believe that a game played so aggressively by both teams was played that cleanly by only one team.

By the end of the year, when UK's freshmen are closer to being true sophomores, this team will be dangerous in the tournament.