Matt Cunningham of Red County Online and Jon Fleishman of The Flash Report joined me to discuss the passage of AB 523 in the California State Senate last night.  Visit their blogs for the latest developments in this completely open and completely repugnant attemtp to discriminate against bidders on the basis of their religious affiliation.  Jon Fleishman suggests that a call to the office of the Speaker of the California Assembly, Fabian Nunez, may help slow the bill down: 916-319-2046. 

But I suspect it will be up to Arnold to stop the giveaway of public funds and exercise of religious bigotry via a veto.

Red County Magazine, btw, has become the title sponsor of California's premier half marathon, now the Red County Magazine Southern California Half Marathon, which runs on December 2, 2006.  Join me there.  Since I will be running, it will be hard to be last.

Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and John Eastman debated "birthright citizenship" on tonight's program. 

Professor Eastman's paper, "Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11," delivered as testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, can be downloaded here.

There's a little PBS station in Orange County, California --KOCE.  For years it has been run by the Orange Coast Community College District, but the burden became to great, and the Trustees of the District resolved to sell it.  Bids arrived, and a religious broadcaster, Daystar, bid far and away the most money. 

The Trustees chose to accept a significantly smaller bid, and that one mostly paper, not cash.  Not surprisingly, a court overturned the ridiculous deal.

So did the Trustees do the right thing and gain the most cash for the district?  No, they tromped off to Sacramento to get special legislation allowing them to sell the station for far less than it was worth to their pals.

The bill passed the state senate last night, and one of the arguments that carried the day was that a "televangelist" couldn't be allowed to get the license. This was a naked appeal to religious bigotry, and an expensive one. No Republican voted for the bill thank goodness.

Now the bill goes to Arnold's desk.  He should veto it within the hour it arrives.  Not only is it an enormous waste of taxpayer money, it is a clear bit of official religious bigotry that shames the legislature that passed it.

One of the most important services a writer could provide at this point in history is offering a work that demystifies Al Qaeda and other fonts of Islamic terrorism. Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower” does just that. The product of 5 years of diligent research, “The Looming Tower” has deservedly won universal acclaim from all points along the ideological spectrum. Explosively written and a compelling read, it is perhaps the best book of 2006.

Wright spent almost five years preparing his masterpiece, conducting hundreds of interviews in the process. The portraits that emerge of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawihiri and Al Qaeda are remarkable for their level of detail as well as for how consistently they contrast with the understandings and impressions that even the most well informed Americans have developed.

For instance, one of the myths surrounding bin Laden that has hardened into conventional wisdom is that as the scion of one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest families, he has unlimited funds to call on to wage his jihad on America. Untrue. In fact, bin Laden is barely a millionaire and Al Qaeda has been chronically short of funds since the day of its birth. Another myth-shattering tenet that “The Looming Tower” has brought to light is that bin Laden stands only six feet tall, well short of the 6’6” that is common belief.

In their own ways, both of these nuggets represent “news that you can use.” As regards the first, one of the widely held premises of the battle with Al Qaeda is that we are fighting a billionaire who can purchase the most destructive weapons that the world has to offer. Not to minimize the danger posed by bin Laden and his minions, that is simply not the case.

The revelation about bin Laden’s height is also instructive regarding the myth-making and fact-ignoring nature of our modern media. Wright relates a tale of ABC’s indefatigable correspondent John Miller preparing a profile of bin Laden in 1996. As bin Laden stood in front of a map of Africa predicting a “black future for America,” Miller gushed, “You are like the Middle Eastern version of Teddy Roosevelt.”

“The Looming Tower” contains dozens of similar revelations that will likely surprise even the most well informed reader. The details of the tensions between Mullah Omar and bin Laden are especially noteworthy in this regard. So, too, are Wright’s reports of the Sunni bin Laden’s overtures to Shiites that he thought might be like minded.

ALONG WITH CORRECTING misimpressions, the theme that dominates the book is the utterly pathetic nature of bin Laden, Zawihiri and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden emerges as a chronically ill figure, often too sick to do battle. Zawihiri comes across as an impoverished firebrand, desperate to overthrow the Mubarak regime but lacking the requisite funds and leadership ability to accomplish much of anything at all.

And Al Qaeda comes across as a magnet for nihilists and deeply religious losers. Unlike the myth that has emerged the past five years of Al Qaeda consisting of steely-eyed and well-trained killers, Wright’s diligent research shows us another view: Al Qaeda was instead a flock of rebels without a clue, personified by their ineffective leader who made a gradual slide from prominent Saudi citizen to ostracized fanatic.

When bin Laden issued his now-notorious declaration of war against the United States in 1996 (infuriating many of his supporters), the American government chose to ignore the event. Those who can’t repress their memories of the 9/11 Commission inquisitions might recall Bob Kerrey shrilly demanding, “They were on a war footing. Why weren’t we?”

Wright’s work makes the answer to Kerrey’s question obvious. At the time of his fatwa, bin Laden and his organization were powerless, penniless and often homeless. Few governments wanted to risk the wrath of the House of Saud by playing host to this group of radical big-mouths. A candid threat assessment at the time would have shown bin Laden’s blustering to be somewhat less than terrifying.

It is a tribute to the ineptitude of our government agencies that they managed to be outfought and out-thought by such a rag-tag band of lunatics. But the American government was up to the challenge.

While he documents the development of Al Qaeda, Wright also monitors the activities of the American officials tasked with handling Al Qaeda. Although some officials come across better than others, the overall impression Wright creates is withering. An irresolute ambassador, feuding government agencies and a seemingly numb Clinton administration stand as symbols of a government infrastructure that simply couldn’t deal with the challenge that Al Qaeda presented.

PERHAPS THE MOST VALUABLE aspect of “The Looming Tower” is the way it humanizes the enemy. In America, we have a tendency to imbue our foes with super-human characteristics. Such was the case with both the Germans and Japanese during WWII. The war with Islamism has been no different.

By giving us a fuller view of Al Qaeda and bin Laden than anything previously available, “The Looming Tower: shows us just how beatable the enemy is. And by giving us a complete brief on their pernicious ideology and their endless bloodlust, Lawrence Wright conveys just how dangerous bin Laden, his followers, and those of like mind truly are.

Complaints? Compliments? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com .

In the past I’ve written that failed nutroots heartthrob Paul Hackett (from Hugh’s native Ohio, I hasten to add!) is as mean-spirited a politician as I’ve ever seen. Most politicians have an unappealing narcissistic side – generally, one doesn’t seek to lead millions of others without having a healthy sense of one’s self-worth. It’s also common for such folks to have a bit of harshness and a mean streak in them. Examples of these characteristics range from Andrew Jackson hanging a helpless young deserter to George Allen needlessly calling a kid a nasty name.

The thing that separates Hackett from the political pack is that in his short time in public life, he has shown little except a mean streak. He relishes insulting others. He delighted in calling George W. Bush a chicken-hawk S.O.B. Sort of like a crude political version of Madonna, he loves to shock. Given this strange and politically undesirable predilection, it is in retrospect unsurprising that Markos Moulitsas was so willing to throw Hackett under the bus when the far more polished and politic (and therefore more electable) Sherrod Brown decided to challenge Hackett for the Democratic nomination for Mike Dewine’s Senate seat.

Last night, appearing with former Iraq-based Pentagon spokesman Dan Senor on the O’Reilly Factor, Hackett proved that in Charles Johnson’s memorable phrase, for Hackett and his ilk there “are still depths to plum.” During the conversation, apropos of nothing, Hackett referred to Senor as “Herr Senor” and “the Unterfuhrer.” A bewildered Senor could only ask, “Are you talking about me?”

HotAir has the dismaying video evidence of political dialogue, Democratic Party style, circa 2006.

Complaints? Compliments? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com .

With the decision of the Adminstration to bluntly outline to the public the dangers of the appeasement policies proposed by the Democrats, expect some reactions from Democrats along the lines of the famous response: "It's not my dog.  He didn't bite you.  And besides, you kicked him first."

NationalReview's Katherine Jean Lopez has a bit of the Democratic response here, with Democratic Senator Jack Reed arguing it isn't fascism we are fighting:

QUESTION: Senator, I was wondering if you could respond to the earlier note of the use of the phrase Islamo-fascism, if you think that is an accurate term for what's going on.

REED: Well, I'll just say I don't think it's particularly accurate. You know, I think if one carefully has looked at the history of fascism, which was a political movement in western Europe that actually, in the two principal cases, came to power through democratic elections — at least in Germany it did — I think the analogy is very, very weak.

Today's Washington Post has another bit with Senator Schumer arguing it isn't appeasement the Democrats are promoting:

"Maybe there are some people in America who do not want to fight the war on terror, but I do not know them," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said yesterday. "We Democrats want to fight a very strong war on terror. No one has talked about appeasement."

It won't be long for the last third of the argument to appear:  "How dare the Republicans are questioning my patriotism!"

Appeasers can and usually are patriots.  The Baldwin-Chamberlain governments that led Great Britain in the '30s were composed entirely of patriots, though of the most misguided sort who never understood Hitler and the rise of fascism and who always advocated policies they thought would appease Hitler but which never did because Hitler did not want to be appeased.  After the collapse of appeasement, the principal figures in that camp continued to serve honorably in many positions in the wartime government, because appeasers can be and usually are patriots:

Neville Chamberlain became Lord President of the Council after his resignation as Prime Minister, and served until his death.

After the fall of Chamberlain, one of Chamberlain's primary partners in appeasement, Lord Halifax, remained for many months as Foreign Minister before Churchill dispatched him to the United States as Ambassador.

Samuel Hoare was one of the most ardent of the appeasers. He served as Ambassador to Spain throughout most of the war brought about by appeasement's weakness in the face of determined evil.

The policies proposed by today's Democrats and promoted by a chorus of modern Geoffrey Dawsons in the MSM --as editor of the Times of London, Dawson was appeasement's mouthpiece-- are certainly as destructive of the nation's security as were those of the Baldwin/Chamberlain governments, but like the men of those governments, the appeasers of today are certainly patriots, just deeply misguided, foolish patriots. Because the charge of appeasement is so completely applicable and the understanding of appeasement's folly so clearly understood by a majority of the public, Democrats will, as  shown above, argue that our enemies aren't fascists and complain mightily that they are not appeasers.  When those responses prove futile because "facts are stubborn things,", they will attempt to change the subject by protesting that the charge of appeasement is a charge of treason, which it is not and never has been. The best response to such victim posturing:  "Chamberlain was a patriot, but he was an appeaser.  Halifax was an appeaser, but he was a patriot. Your response is silly.  Stop playing the victim and at least attempt to defend your appeasement policies."

Powerline's Scott Johnson assembles all the background as well as the necessary response to the idea of "Khatami as reformer."

The president should use today's defiance by Iran of the UN Security Council deadline to revoke the visa. Suggested statement:

The United States has done everything it could to encourage Iran to comply with the United Nation's Security Council Resolution, including participation in the generous offer of incentives fashioned by the EU and others, and even including the issuance of a visa to Iran's former President Khatami, done with the idea that reasonable action by the Iranian regime would be met with reasonable steps by the United States to establish dialogue.  I did not respond to the provocations of the current president of iran in the hopes that he was not speaking for the regime but in fact represented an extreme faction that was itself not representative of the government, and which we know is not reperesentative of the Iranian people.  I was pleased that German Chancellor Merkel showed the same restraint when confronted with another provocation from President Ahmadinejad.

Unfortunately, Iran has decided it will not comply with the world's demands.  It has chosen the course of the rogue regime, and though many will not be surprised, all should be disappointed and alarmed.  The world cannot allow rogue regimes access to nuclear weapons.

After consultations with our allies and deliberations at the Security Council, I will announce our response to the Iranian threat to the world.  Today I am announcing that the visa to Ayatollah Khameni is cancelled.  We will not provide a stage for anyone from an outlaw regime.  We offered Iran a different course.  Iran has refused it.  We will refuse Iran any cover for the nature of their regime, which is a fascist state that sponsors terror around the world.

Scott Johnson of Powerline directs our attention to a memorable clip from the film “The Last Waltz” that features Van Morrison singing his masterpiece “Caravan” with “The Band.” Directed by Martin Scorsese in 1976, “The Last Waltz” is probably the finest film ever made about music and the performances by a wealth of 60’s and 70’s luminaries (Clapton, Dylan, Neil Diamond) are spectacular. But as Scott implies, no one outshined Van the Man, although in my view Emmylou Harris came pretty close.

Do yourself a favor and click over to Powerline and watch the clip. Then do yourself a bigger favor and buy yourself either “The Last Waltz” DVD or CD, or better still, buy both.

Later, we can discuss the remarkable phenomenon of musicians who people still discuss more than three decades after their debut. Surely there are artists like that among us now whose work people will be discussing in 2036, but identifying them is, as ever, a younger person’s game.

Feel free to comment on current artists whose work will still be topical thirty years down the road (other than David Hasselhoff, of course).

Complaints? Compliments? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com .

Two articles from the Times of London discuss the morally bankrupt decision to issue a visa to the former president of Iran, a nation now advocating genocide against the Israeli people, denying the Holocaust, and supplying arms to Iraq terrorists trying to and sometimes succeeding in killing and wounding our soldiers.

Khatemi wants to meet with Jimmy Carter. What a surprise.

The Times of London columnist Oliver Kamm overstates the situation when he decalres "Khatami's host in the US is Jimmy Carter," but right on target when he charts Carter's terrible interventions in American foreign policy post presidency.  (Who can forget his helpful role with Kim Jong Il?)

The Times of London's Diplomatic Editor Richard Beeston is all for another round of Carter-inspired appeasement.

The debate about Khatemi's visit shouldn't turn into a Jimmy Carter debate.  It should remain firmly fixed on the awful decision to invite a former leader of a sworn enemy of the country --currently in the field via proxies-- to come and generate propaganda on our soil.

LA Observed blogger Kevin Roderick runs one of the very best city blogs in the land, and I have said so on many occasions.

But that doesn't mean he doesn't throw spokes.

Today he writes about a bit I did on the program yesterday where I had callers repeat three sentences from which I will produce a drop-in that I will use in the program from now until the election.  I posted the text yesterday:

"Any vote for any House or Senate Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.  Vote for victory. Vote Republican."

I probably had 40 callers repeat it from which I will cobble together a "we are the world" version of the message. It was a very popular bit, generating lots of calls and e-mails, and many laughs as some voice-over wannabes fell, well, short of the mark.

Kevin writes:

Cutting to his personal chase

SoCal talk radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt's message and worldview can almost always be reduced to a simple statement: Republicans good, Democrats bad. On yesterday's nationally syndicated show, he asked listeners to call in and recite this line — "Any vote for any House or Senate Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability. Vote for Victory. Vote Republican" — so he could record their voices for a pro-GOP ad he's making. Didn't hear it myself, but a reader wonders if such blatant partisanship on the public airwaves gets declared as an in-kind campaign contribution.

First, Kevin does not record his response to "reader," but I hope he had the good sense to refer him or her to the First Amendment.  Perhaps he went further and asked what, exactly, was the connection between "the public airwaves" and "in kind contributions" given that the latter very little to do with the former.  It would have been interesting to ask the "reader" what the definition of a media "in kind" contribution is.  Would it extend to almost every columnist in the Los Angeles Times? All programming at Pacifica?  The NPR/PBS 24/7 pipeline of lefty news and commentary?The absurd insinuation that endorsement of a party or candidate on the radio is an in-kind contribution is the sort of statist approach to speech that the left hopes to impose in the vain quest to get the old media its monopoly back.

My producer Duane just called Kevin and extended him an invitation to appear on the program right now.  Kevin declined and said "No, I don't want to do that. I said everything I wanted to on the blog,  I really don't want to go on."

Kevin's drive-by slander --the unsourced insinuation that my programming is somehow an illegal use of the public airwaves-- is very disappointing, but not nearly as disappointing as a refusal to appear and defend it.  It is an absurd charge, one that is just as silly as his characterization of my "message and worldview."  When it comes to federal elections, I believe that Republicans are generally serious, and Democrats mostly silly.  I rarely make judgments about any candidate's character, and depart from my general beliefs --I hope Lieberman wins and Chafee loses-- when it is justified.

What Kevin's "reader" suggests and Kevin writes are more examples of a simultaneously elitist and ill-informed approach to politics that believes party affiliation and loyalty are illegitimate --if they are pro-Republican.  It is a junior high sort of debating tactic, and one that dominates places like the Times, and the thinking of those who worked there for long periods, like Kevin.

That having been said, LAObserved is still a fine blog.

Howard Dean, on CNN earlier today:

"I believe Donald Rumsfeld is essentiually an object of ridicule at this point."

Question 1: Secretary Rumsfeld delivered a speech to the American Legion yesterday, and was warmly received by the members of that organization.  Do you think Howard Dean would be so warmly received? 

Question 2: Among our enemies --the people plotting to kill Americans on a daily basis, do you think Donald Rumsfeld is "an object of ridicule?"