U.S. Ranks 44th in Worldwide Press Freedom Index

Nation’s openness sinking after Sept. 11, northern Europe tops the list

OhmyNews International
The annual worldwide press freedom index from Reporters Without Borders shows the United States, which is supposedly spreading freedom and liberty throughout the world, is in a fast decline regarding the freedom of its own press.

The report ranked the United States in 44th place, an atomic drop from a favorable position of 22nd held last year, and from a handsome 17th place in 2002.

The organization mentioned that several journalists were expelled from the country since the terrorist attacks of 2001.

[...]

Repeated evidence of the media printing government propaganda and misleading information leading up to the U.S.-led Iraq invasion have surely made the decline of mainstream readers accelerate.

[...] > OhmyNews

You gotta read it to believe it.

UFB!

The right thing for me to do in the SCOTUS nomination process is to acknowledge that Dubya finally hit a homer.

After Bush made the Miers announcement I posted, “Harriet Miers: Another Double Cross” and said:

I don’t like to be double-crossed but in the last month it’s happened twice.

George Bush just confirmed what I concluded after it became clear that he wasn’t serious about national security. (When he invited Mexico to relocate its citizens to the U.S.) Its now clear: There’s a serious genetic defect in the Bush clan. If Jeb has any aspirations for the White House, forget ‘em.

[...]

Of course, I didn’t foresee the Miers withdrawal. It now appears that the Bush family problem may not be genetic after all. Either that, or he has an override switch. At any rate I’m satisfied and I will give him credit that, out of three chances, his batting average is .500 or possibly 1.000. — Not bad. Besides, he may have to take another swing should unfortunate circumstances develop. Jayson at PoliPundit says:

Random Alito Musings

[...]

At the risk of sounding morbid, Justice Stevens is 85 years old and Justice Ginsburg has a history of major health problems. George W. Bush still has three *years* within which he effectively can nominate SCOTUS candidates. And people like Janice Rogers Brown, Diane Sykes, Priscilla Owen, and Miguel Estrada, among others, still are out there.

Just do the math . . . > PoliPundit: Jayson

But something to keep in mind is this: Jayson’s scenario doesn’t mean squat if Republicans lose control of the Senate. It’s imperative that the current process is used to energize Republicans for next year’s elections.

-

How about this?

The Marianas have almost five times as many foreign workers as native workers and aren’t subject to U.S. minimum-wage laws. That helps them export such goods as T-shirts, caps and pants cheaply to the U.S., all labeled “made in USA.”

Isn’t free enterprise wonderful? At least the 1860 Mississippi cotton farmers thought so. That’s why they fought so hard to maintain those good old days. Too bad those farmers aren’t around today because the good old days are baaaaaack! We see it at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Tyson Foods, construction sites, vegetable fields, tobacco fields, and on and on. In fact, some of the biggest users of slave labor are local, state and federal government agencies. They take advantage of that wonderfully modern American stratagem, “temporary workers.” Of course, American governments don’t hire slaves directly. They contract with Peter Coyote’s Building Maintenance Services.

Want some of the gravy? Just get in touch with the people that operate the “day labor” camps in your neighborhood or contact the Mexican “coyotes” directly. You’ll be in business in no time flat. Here’s how it works: You provide room and board. You promise to pay about $3.00 hour under the table. Then, you hold back 2/3 of your slave’s wages until you have him tightly in your grip. When you owe him about $300-$500, voila!, you’ll be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams. Your slave can’t run because you have his money. He can’t complain because he’s an illegal alien! What a country!

The concept is so popular and so successful that we now export it to the U.S. territory, the Northern Mariana Islands.

Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Justice Department never acted on a post-Sept. 11 proposal, contested by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, calling for increased federal control over immigration to the Mariana Islands.

The agency reassigned the two officials who produced a 34- page report that contained the proposal, and House members of both parties who oversee the Homeland Security and Justice departments said they were never told about it. The 2002 report, a copy of which was obtained by Bloomberg News, warns that continued local control over the Marianas’ borders will “seriously jeopardize the national security” of the U.S.

[...] > Bloomberg News: Bad Guys’

Previous post: “Consequences of American Slave Trade”

UPDATE: Blue State Conservatives weigh in here and here.

UPDATE: An alert reader writes: — Q: “Why do Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NAACP, and other black leaders just stand around and do nothing?”

A: Because neo-slaves are fodder for their voter registration projects. “Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NAACP, and other African-American leaders” are the Democrat’s enablers. They sift through the neo-slaves and select those that will promise to vote for Democrats and sign them up.

President Bush has nominated Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as Associate Justice on the Supreme Court:

From USNews:
Nicknamed “Scalito” for views resembling those of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito Jr. is a favorite son of the political right. Appointed in 1990 by George H.W. Bush to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has earned a reputation for intellectual rigor and polite but frequent dissent in a court that has been historically liberal. His mettle, as well as a personable demeanor and ties to former Republican administrations, has long had observers buzzing about his potential rise to the high court. “Sam Alito is in my mind the strongest candidate on the list,” says Pepperdine law Prof. Douglas Kmiec. “I know them all . . . but I think Sam is a standout because he’s a judge’s judge. He approaches cases with impartiality and open-mindedness.”

A New Jersey native, the 55-year-old Alito received a bachelor’s degree from Princeton and graduated from Yale Law School. He worked in the solicitor general’s office during the Reagan administration and was a U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Third Circuit. His 15 years on the bench have been marked by strong conservatism on a case-by-case basis that avoids sweeping opinions on constitutionality.

In 1997, Alito authored the majority opinion upholding a city’s right to stage a holiday display that included a Nativity scene and a menorah because the city also included secular symbols and a banner emphasizing the importance of diversity. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as “economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion.” The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision 6 to 3.

[...] > USNews: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

YES! — Well, not my first choice, but I missed Dubya’s call when he phoned to ask my opinion.

PoliPundit has an analysis of Alito’s fate in the Senate.

Greg at What Attitude Problem? had the SCOTUSbabble on Alito last Friday.

ALITO following intro by President Bush:
JUDGE ALITO: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am deeply honored to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, and I am very grateful for the confidence that you have shown in me.

The Supreme Court is an institution that I have long held in reverence. During my 29 years as a public servant, I’ve had the opportunity to view the Supreme Court from a variety of perspectives — as an attorney in the Solicitor General’s Office, arguing and briefing cases before the Supreme Court, as a federal prosecutor, and most recently for the last 15 years as a judge of the Court of Appeals. During all of that time, my appreciation of the vital role that the Supreme Court plays in our constitutional system has greatly deepened.

I argued my first case before the Supreme Court in 1982, and I still vividly recall that day. I remember the sense of awe that I felt when I stepped up to the lectern. And I also remember the relief that I felt when Justice O’Connor — sensing, I think, that I was a rookie — made sure that the first question that I was asked was a kind one. I was grateful to her on that happy occasion, and I am particularly honored to be nominated for her seat.

My most recent visit to the Supreme Court building was on a very different and a very sad occasion: It was on the occasion of the funeral of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. And as I approached the Supreme Court building with a group of other federal judges, I was struck by the same sense of awe that I had felt back in 1982, not because of the imposing and beautiful building in which the Supreme Court is housed, but because of what the building, and, more importantly, the institutions stand for — our dedication as a free and open society to liberty and opportunity, and, as it says above the entrance to the Supreme Court, “equal justice under law.”

Every time that I have entered the courtroom during the past 15 years, I have been mindful of the solemn responsibility that goes with service as a federal judge. Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint, always keeping in mind the limited role that the courts play in our constitutional system. And I pledge that if confirmed I will do everything within my power to fulfill that responsibility.

I owe a great deal to many people who have taught me over the years about the law and about judging, to judges before whom I have appeared, and to colleagues who have shown me with their examples what it means to be a fair and conscientious and temperate judge.

I also owe a great deal, of course, to the members of my family. I wish that my father had lived to see this day. He was an extraordinary man who came to the United States as a young child, and overcame many difficulties and made many sacrifices so that my sister and I would have opportunities that he did not enjoy.

As the President mentioned, my mother will be celebrating her 91st birthday next month. She was a pioneering and very dedicated public school teacher who inspired my sister and me with a love of learning. My wife, Martha, has been a constant source of love and support for the past 20 years. My children, Philip and Laura, are the pride of my life and they have made sure that being a judge has never gone to my head — they do that very well on a, pretty much, daily basis. And my sister, Rosemary, has always been a great friend and an inspiration as a great lawyer, and as a strong and independent person.

I look forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process. Mr. President, thank you, once again, for the confidence that you’ve shown in me and for honoring me with this nomination.

END 8:11 A.M. EST

-

-

Everybody who gives a damn had better START listening!

-

WHAT ALEX SAID: California Conservative

-

My reaction to good old fair Patrick Fitzgerald after his press conference was “This Crap Needs to End” because there’s a hell of a lot more wrong with the special prosecutor system than is right. Where else would we allow unlimited funds and unlimited time for an unaccountable pursuer to go after a target in a dubious cause? The UN is more accountable than a special prosecutor.

How many realize that a SP is still on the trail of Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, from Clinton’s first term? So far that public servent has nailed Cisneros for the awful high crime of lying about payments he made to his mistress. [Can anybody say Jesse Jackson?] — UFB!

But, to my point. — I made my first post before I read the indictment and studied the transcript of Fitzgerald’s opening argument press conference. I’m no lawyer (whew, thank you Lord!) but I think I have a modicum of common sense so I looked at the charges and read old Pat’s attempt at instant sidewalk conviction as though I was a sitting juror. I ended up with a case of reasonable doubt without hearing Libby’s defense. — I went back and tried to factor in my bias but I was still unimpressed. I decided to bide my time and see what others have to say.

For my purposes, I got lucky. I ran across a discussion at NRO:

The Corner [Mark R. Levin] > RESPONSE TO JONAH
…The opponents of the administration placed their hopes on Joe Wilson’s allegations — that Karl Rove outed his secret-agent wife and harmed national security. Not one word of this is true. The media in recent days raised the bar even higher, with reports that the vice president was involved in some kind of conspiracy to destroy Wilson/Plame and cover-up lies about weapons of mass destruction. (I’ve never been able to connect all the dots of this “logic.”) The implication I get from the indictment is that she was not under-cover, and in any event no one has been charged with outing a spy. …

Then, farther along in the group discussion:

The Corner [Mark R. Levin] > RESPONSE TO ANDY
When I first read the indictment, I told the lawyers in my office that it was very sloppy. Much of the factual recitation doesn’t seem to match-up with the allegations (again, not downplaying the charges, just trying to understand the indictment counts). …

-

We shall see what we shall see.

This is to add some dimension to a piece in NRO by Jonah Goldberg with the grabby title of, “YOIKS.” (See below). Jonah is responding to one of his readers that questions the conservative movement’s informality (lack of manifesto).

Actually, there’s nothing wrong with conservatives, or I should say, the conservative movement but the question raised by Jonah’s reader gets asked a lot these days because so few people have stopped to analyze the differences between Republicans, conservatives and libertarians. [For you youngsters, the appellations are not synonymous.]

Here are some definitions:

1) Republicans are best described as a political group whose members oppose: Liberals, Lefties, moonbats, Democrats, Socialist, Communist, terrorist, criminals, and other whackos. — As a counter point, Democrats do not.

2) Conservatives are best described as a group* whose members oppose Liberals, Lefties, moonbats, Democrats, Socialist, Communist, terrorist, criminals, and other whackos. But those are secondary issues. Primarily, conservatives are highly principled beings with serious commitments to limited government, low taxes, strong national defense, firm law enforcement, adherence to tried and true governance, high patriotism, and strong beliefs in family, God and country. — Democrats are not.

3) Libertarians are conservatives without brakes.

Here’s an analogy: Albert Einstein convinced us that the universe is circular. That is, if you start out into space and travel long enough, you’ll end up where you started.

The same thing is true in politics and philosophy. The whole deal is a giant circle. If a Righty leans too far right he’s libel to bump into Cindy Sheehan. If Windy Cindy keeps leaning Left, she’ll wrap around and become a Libertarian. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy face the same jeopardy as Windbag Cindy.

Libertarians (little “l”) normally belong to the Republican Party because libertarians and conservatives share many secondary ideological attributes, i.e., opposing Democrats. However, confusion arises when young people, who haven’t sorted out the differences between libertarianism and conservatism, witness some of the things libertarians do. For instance, unenlightened young conservatives are startled when their Republican-libertarian brethren eat putrid, fetid, funky food because they don’t believe in taxation to fund food inspections. Another source of confusion is when libertarians invite Mexico to relocate its citizens to the U.S.

Hang in there youngsters. It’ll all become clear bye and bye.

[* I dropped "political" because individually, conservatives are more philosophical than political.]

-

P.S. CAUTION: Do not confuse libertarianism with liberalism. That would be like comparing apples to, er, bat droppings.

More Nirvana: YOIKS [Jonah Goldberg]

Even more Nirvana: Tony Woodlief, What’s Wrong With Libertarianism?

My thanks to Bulldogpundit at ABP for writing another post that says what I have in mind. It’s become a regular event and I appreciate it. But I wish he’d send them to me instead of posting them at his site.

Bulldog’s article explains how I feel after reading:

Telegraph.co.uk”
The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America’s “confrontational” approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam’s strengths.

My blood boiled. Then, before I could organize my thoughts BDP nailed it with “Hey Prince Charles: We Don’t Need Your Ignorant Lectures On How We Treat Muslims,” although I would’ve used less than a paragraph for the title. But he’s a better writer so I’ll acquiesce. Here’s one of my points:

From ABP
…when members of that royal family start spouting off about issues in my country that they know nothing [about] I get a bit offended, and unlike their subjects of old, I have no problem giving them a piece of my mind. Yes, I’m talking to you Prince Charles. Just because you’ve got a membership in the “lucky sperm” club doesn’t mean you have any special knowledge or understanding, especially when the subject is one about which you are obviously utterly ignorant.

YES!

For more on how I feel about Chazz’s [we don't need no stinking lectures] visit, see: Bulldogpundit @: Ankle Biting Pundits

UPDATE, Hey Chuck! Canada agrees with BDP: Explanations Aplenty

As might be expected of a geriatric person, I found myself wide-awake at 4:30am and flicked on the TV. There were reruns of Lou Dobbs on CNN, Jim Cramer on CNBC, Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, and Bill O’Reilly on FNC.

Here’s what I saw:

- – - – -

CNN: Dobbs’ panel of four was in agreement: Libby is guilty as hell. No one mentioned any other possibility. Over the next 20 minutes, the panel was dismissed and Dobbs pretended he was changing the subject, but after a break he brought in Paul Begala and David Gergen. He introduced Begala as a former aid to President Clinton and Gergen as an adviser to President Ford. — UFB!

Begala pointed out how Libby’s indictment was the most serious Wite House crime in 117 years and Dobbs nodded assent. Gergen quickly agreed by saying, “I agree completely.” The three then rushed into an over-talking crescendo on the evils of the Bush administration.

- – - – -

CNBC: Cramer was shouting about some stock deal that would make the buyer rich beyond all dreams but I had more important things on my mind, like “why doesn’t somebody shut this guy up?”

- – - – -

MSNBC: Carlson was helping his guest find the right words for Libby’s stupidity. The underlying theme seemed to be that maybe he should have burned the incriminating notes. — I wondered what Carlson’s other viewer thought.

- – - – -

FNC: Like Dobbs, O’Reilly had a panel but, as we’ve come to expect he just explained why Libby was guilty and told his guest that he would not tolerate criminality in the WH. He then dismissed those props and brought on Linda Chavez and Lanny Davis. Chavez quickly made the point that Libby is definitely guilty as well as stupid and O’Reilly agreed. With that out of the way, Lanny Davis chimed in. He asserted that Libby was not guilty. He explained to O’Reilly and Chavez that the guy was entitled to a trial. It obviously surprised both of them that Davis has the chutzpah to question what evidence Fitzgerald has.

- – - – -

After watching a few minutes of that crap, I tried the computer. Thank G-d for blogs. But sometimes blogs can go haywire. One of my favorites is Patterico and this morning he mentioned that Real Clear Politics has started a blog. I went there… Aaaaarrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh. They believe that Fitzgerald is telling the truth! I mean, they actually believe that good old Patrick is settling for Libby and letting Rove, Cheney and Bush off the hook! — UFB!

- – - – -

Reference:
NYT has a transcript of the Fitzgerald News Conference (may require free registration). However, if you believe Patrick Fitzgerald is telling the truth, reading the transcript is a waste of time.

P.S. – Well, I have one person (Dick Morris) that agrees with me when I say that Fitzgerald is after bigger fish.

UPDATE – I, ACSOL: We are not alone….. — WaPo has a piece by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey that certifies that I’m right. However, they go the final mile and correctly suggest that special prosecutors should go the way of the dinosaurs.

UPDATE – II, Powerline: Ceding The Debate. I think Powerline’s point is the essence of Dubya’s problems for the past two years.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor “investigating” Plamegate, dropped the hammer today in a last attempt to get somebody to rat out Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush. Of course, there are morons out there that’ll argue that this was a straight case of a good old boy just going where the evidence leads. Yeah. Right, and I just fell off a turnip truck.

Fitzgerald held a press conference today and proved a point I’ve made in the past. There’s a serious problem with the ‘special prosecutor’ concept. As far as I can tell, there are three groups of people that think the rationale exist to justify an investigation of this nature that runs for two years or more. 1st) Lawyers love it because it pumps money into their profession. 2nd) Democrats love it when Republicans are in office and Republicans love it when Democrats are in office. 3rd) Then, we have the freaking idiots and morons mentioned above.

Polipundit explained it eloquently on Dec. 30th, 2003, “Stupid, Stupid, Stupid”, and here are her views on Oct. 28, 2005, “Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!”. Notice the added “!”.

Polipundit’s posts explain the idiocy of any political party turning its fate over to the other side. We saw the results today and I’m not talking about the indictment. I’m referring to the obvious implications displayed in the body language of good old fair-minded Patrick. He as much as said that he had been aiming for Bush, Cheney and Rove but he ran into trouble making up the evidence that would hold up in court. Its clear to me that he now believes if he can string the process out a while longer, Libby will “regain his memory” (wink, wink) and roll over.

BTW. For those from group three that are getting ready to rebut what I just said, be sure to mention that I said the same thing about the crap Ken Starr pulled when Democrats were in control. It was bullsh-t then, and its bullsh-t now.

Want it stopped like I do? Insist that Congress pass a law that puts the special prosecutors, the SP’s staff, and all investigators under the same rules as the grand jury. In other words, the entire process stays secret (under penalty of hard jail time) except through court filings and that includes after the investigation closes. That’ll whittle investigations from years to months and it’ll limit SPs in their efforts to use the process for personal gain.