Iran Seeks Space Technology

Iran wants a space program (with possible military applications?) ASAP. The Russians are happy to oblige. If I were you, I'd read about it over at Cox & Forkum. You'll need the comic relief.

Nomination of Harriet Miers

The moment has arrived, and reactions vary:

Rick Santorum is cautious. according to Katheryn Jean Lopez at Bench Memos. John at Powerline is disappointed, Redstate profoundly so. Hugh Hewitt is more optimistic, and recommends a look at Olasky's posts here, and points us to Beldar, and to Kurtz, who sees the glass as half-full. The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is, well, snarling over the nomination, and at Hugh Hewitt's optimism.

As for me - I dunno. I'm going to wait and see.

Terrorist Attacks in London

The death toll from the train and bus bombings stands currently at 37, with 700 injured.

Blogs with info, and many more links: Tim Worstall, Dodgeblogium (London), Counterterrorism Blog, Samizdata.net (London), and as always, Instapundit.

Our sympathy to the British people. The victims of this cowardly atrocity are in our prayers.

Dick Durbin, I'm Ashamed to Share My State With You

The latest inexcusable idiocy, courtesy of Boortz, (via Instapundit):

On Tuesday, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois took to the floor of the Senate and had this to say, speaking about FBI accounts of what allegedly took place at the Islamic terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

That's right...a United States Senator has just compared our men and women in uniform to Nazis, Soviets running a gulag and even Pol Pot. This makes what Amnesty International said look tame.

Oh, yes, I agree. Boortz is philosophical, pointing out that the Nazi epithet is standard in the democrat vocabulary these days. That may be true, but this rant of Durbin's is inexcusable on so many levels, and to my mind is entirely different from the usual name-calling hyperbole. This is malignantly self-serving, and morally blind.

To equate the physical discomfort of a terrorist with the starvation, torture and death of six million innocent people, more than half of the Jewish population in 23 European countries is an astonishing trivialization of one of humanity's darkest hours. Can you believe that anyone needed to say that?

There are cludgy thinkers and jihadists that find such things plausible. I don't know what the reason is. Maybe those who have no aspiration beyond self-promotion can't comprehend the essential nobility and courage of our fighting men and women. Maybe the accusations come of jealousy - that vicious jealousy the small minded and narcissistic often have - of the honor that our soldiers rightly receive. I do know it's time (oh, is it ever time!) for change in Illinois.

Fedora 3 upgrade + CDROM Failure = Long Blog Absence

The title says it all, really. My CDROM failed in the middle of an FC3 upgrade. Kernel panic, yada-yada. I've had better days.

But, after some time invested in fixing and tweaking, all is well - better than ever, actually. (Linux is sweet, sweet, sweet!)

Judicial Nominations - Big Deals, Big Heads, and the Gang of Fourteen

Seems both sides are steamed about the "deal" struck by the so-called "gang of fourteen". Andrew C. McCarthy of the National Review Online is, shall we say, less than impressed with the syrupy and self-congratulatory rhetoric about "mutual trust" (they've got to be kidding) and defending senate tradition:

Let's say, instead, that they simply gave us the bottom line: (a) three of the president's nominees get an up-or-down vote (i.e., exactly three of the pending seven left standing after the Democrats, in that spirit of compromise, whittled down from the original ten); (b) the Democrats remain free to filibuster (but only on the strict condition that, uh, well, that the Democrats feel like filibustering); and (c) the Republicans, on the brink of breaking four years of obstruction, decide instead to punt (and on the eve of a likely battle over a Supreme Court vacancy, no less).

You can read the rest of McCarthy's column here. I got no great sense of victory when I watched the much touted moment unfold in the news conference announcing the agreement. What struck me was the euphoric self-congratulation of the "gang of fourteen", who were announcing that they had essentially postponed the problem. Grand moment. Celebratory claps on the back. But for what? Peggy Noonan (as usual) says it better than I can:

Listening to them I thought of some of the great and hallowed phrases of our Republic. "The rooster who thought he brought the dawn." "The only man who can strut sitting down."

I know they're centrists, but there is nothing moderate about their self-regard. And why should there be? I personally was dazzled by their refusal to bow to the counsels of common sense and proportion, and stirred that they had no fear of justified insult ("blowhard," "puffed up popinjay") as they moved forward in the halls of the United States Senate to bravely proclaim their excellence.

Yeah, I wanted to see an end to the Democrats' collective apoplexy. Would any deal have accomplished that? I'm guessing the answer is no.

Confederate Yankee's Comment on the "Religion of Peace"

Yup. 'Nuff said.

What has it got in its pocketses? The Truth in Filibuster Polling

Did you ever hear poll results, and ask yourself, "Who the hell are they asking?" Get the feeling there must be something wrong with this picture? Brian at The Blue State Conservatives is exploring polling . . .tricksy polling. . .

Pure Genius: Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons

Take a look at Cox & Forkum today. Go now, and browse. You'll thank me.

Kyoto Protocol - Maybe We're Not Dooooomed After All

There's been a fair bit of discussion lately about the monotonously singular nature of political discourse at universities. Guess the scientific community is infected with the same drone-like mentality on the issue of global warming. If you think you might adopt the "let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" strategy for dealing with our impending demise, you may want to pop over to Right Wing Nut House and take a look at what we've been missing - and why. There's more at LGF.

Escalating Viciousness of Anti-Christian Rhetoric

It was irritating enough before, this anti-Christian flap, what with police dramas depicting every ax-murdering wife-beating kidnapping pedophile as a twisted "Christian", quoting the Bible for justification. Or documentary "revelations" of "recent discoveries" of the secret sex life of Jesus Christ. And, of course, the sniggering attitude of superiority of a seeming hoard of news commentators presenting Christians as pitiable and addled. But lately, well, in case you've lived in some extraterrestrial place for the last year or so, here are some snippets:

Religious Divide In Politics Grows Venomous,
Richard N. Ostling shares this little gem in what is (in my opinion) a very fair-minded article in The Day (New London, CT). He's referring to the academic conference at the City University of New York on the real agenda of the religious far right:

At the CUNY conference, the central threat speakers raised was theocracy...Though one speaker lamented Roman Catholicism's new fundamentalist pope, the weekend's chief targets were evangelical Protestants whose tactics were compared with those of Machiavelli, Hitler, Stalin and Jim Jones of mass suicide fame.

HUMANISTS: US = DANGEROUS THEOCRACY = LIKE TALIBAN
J. Grant Swank, Jr. of MichNews.com puts his take on this new wave of left-leaning hysteria this way:

The United States is on the verge of destruction because of Christians. Christians are now the concerted enemy out to do in the nation. There is no doubt about it. Five hundred humanists gathering in New York said so. They are vehement. They are frightened.

I know. You picture the gentle and frail octogenarians on the steps of your local church, and you're tempted to laugh. But this is more than liberal looniness. Another snippet:

The Enemies of Religious Liberty, James Hitchcock:

The liberal state, Sadurski argues, should discriminate among religious groups on the basis of how progressive each is thought to be, and Rogers Smith insists in Liberalism and American Constitutional Law (1990) that religion can only enjoy constitutional liberties if it undergoes a basic transformation to make itself more rational or self-critical. Going further, Steven Macedo, who explicitly identifies his view as comprehensive, defines liberalism in The New Right Versus the Constitution (1987) as a permanently educative order for the preservation of liberal values and argues that the power of government can be legitimately used against illiberal churches because doing so promotes greater overall freedom.

Along the same lines, Smith asserts that society may overide people's commitments to particular religious groups if these commitments seriously restrain their members capacities and opportunities for reflective, independent choice. In other words, some private organizations, such as churches, should be restricted because their beliefs can be a danger to liberal values.

Aaahh. So the pointy-eared, dripping-fanged Christians aren't the only ones with an agenda, it seems.

The Left's "Dominionist" Demons
Don Feder of FrontPageMag.com reports Ken Salazar's revelation on the identity of the beast:

Last week, Colorado Senator Ken Salazar (a Democrat, naturally) told a radio interviewer that Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family "are the Antichrist of the world" for urging citizens to demand their senators vote to end the filibuster of Bush judges. (Aside: Imagine the furor if Jerry Falwell had called Hillary Clinton "the Antichrist.")

Salazar later amended himself to say Focus and Dobson's "approach was un-Christian, meaning self-serving and selfish." In effect, Salazar is saying that for a Christian group to attempt to get government to reflect Christian values is "un-Christian." If you say so, Senator....

And then Mr. Feder says something that I've been saying for awhile (only he says it better):

What The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion meant to anti-Semitism, Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are for the anti-Christian Left an attempt to stir up hatred by seeking to convince the unwary of a dark plot to take over the world or nation.

I've wondered which will happen first - outbreaks of violence against Christians, or revulsion on the part of fair minded people. So, needless to say, I was encouraged (and comforted, for the sake of the gentle and frail octogenarian on the steps of the local church) by James Taranto's column in the OpinionJournal, Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right. He says he is neither a Christian, nor religious at all, and lays claim to the political middle. But in his column I heard - yup! - outspoken revulsion. Here he's speaking of the use of the filibuster to subvert the voting process for judicial nominees:

After following long-established rules for at least a quarter-century, they [Christian conservatives] can hardly be faulted for objecting when their opponents answer their success by effectively changing those rules.
This procedural high-handedness is of a piece with the arrogant attitude the secular left takes toward the religious right. Last week a Boston Globe columnist wrote that what he called "right-wing crackpots--excuse me, 'people of faith' " were promoting "knuckle-dragging judges."

So why is he rooting for the religious right? He says,

I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism--all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right. . . And the religious right includes not only Christians of various stripes but also Orthodox Jews and even conservative Muslims. Far from the sectarian movement its foes portray, it is in truth a manifestation of the religious pluralism that makes America great. Therein lies its strength.

Do you remember what it was like to have a dialogue, a stimulating and spirited exchange of opposing ideas, instead of this mindless and potentially dangerous escalation of hate? I hope this is the beginning of a trend, don't you?

Chinese Christians and the UNCHR

An article by Jason Lee Steorts in the NRO today demonstrates what is surely an abysmal - and instructive - lapse for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Christians in China have been persecuted for their faith for many years. I'm talking about the old-fashioned definition of persecution, not the current American one. That is, they are being arrested, jailed, tortured, or killed, not being disagreed with, made fun of, or ignored. But Bob Fu, the president of the China Aid Association, got a taste of UNCHR-style persecution when he gave a presentation at their 61st session in Geneva. Mr. Steorts writes:

One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices, and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.

Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.

[Cai Zhuohua is a pastor jailed for printing Bibles without Chinese government permission.]

According to a news release on the China Aid website, the Chinese delegation was "insulted". Well, there are worse things. Like the things that hoppened to Bob Fu, for example. From a press release on China Aid, in which Mr. Fu describes the incident, and addresses the chairman of the UNCHR:

Mr. Chairman, as a former Chinese Christian prisoner, I have held great respect and high expectations upon the UNCHR which is supposedly the highest authority and institution on this earth with the stated mission "to protect and promote human rights for all". However, given what I have experienced and testified, I think that certain countries with the poorest of human rights records and worst violators have managed to seize control of and cripple the functionality of the UN Commission on Human Rights and its Secretariat. The issue of reform of various UN bodies is being discussed in the U.S. and internationally. The time is ripe to consider fundamental reforms to restore the focus of this Commission to its original purpose and to remove control of the Commission from the worst violators.

Mr. Chairman, about nine years ago, I was forced into a police car and taken from my home to prison by the Chinese Public Security Bureau in Beijing for alleged "illegal religious activities." Sadly, this is the second time I have been put into a police car and it was done by UN security guards. The only reason I was treated like that was because of a complaint filed by representatives of torturers. That very torture device is being widely used even today, at this moment, against hundreds of thousands of victims of conscience. As the device is described in its specifications it is an "an ideal tool for the Chinese law enforcement officials."

Human rights violations, including torture against those prisoners of conscience and religious beliefs in China, should be stopped immediately. Before we can accomplish that, we must first reform the very institution designed to protect human rights for all. An institution that even now is intolerant of demonstrating the torturers' cruel device.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
­­­­­­­

In all my life, I've never heard a 'thank-you' that has reverberated with more irony than that one.

lgf: France Backs China on Taiwan

Just when you thought you'd run out of reasons to dislike the French...
France Backs China on Tiawan. Well, business isn't so good in Iraq these days. Guess Reffarin's trying to drum up new unholy-alliance weapons deals. But, of course, the fault will be with the U.S., no?

Filibuster for the "Protection of Minorities"?

Only when it's convenient, evidently. According to Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times:

Liberal Democrats, who now extol the filibuster to protect minorities, were in the forefront advocating strict majority rule through most of my nearly 48 years as a reporter covering Congress. As recently as 2000, architects of the filibuster strategy to block President Bush's judicial nominees -- with Democrat Bill Clinton still in the White House -- were demanding straight up-or-down votes on judges.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

(True confession: I used to have a big dog. Every so often, I'd go to the yard to pick up dogshit. No matter what you do, if you have a dog, there it is, this distasteful chore. In the same way, I'm finding it hard to attend to the blatently self-serving, hypocritical, character assassinating lies of the left. The difference? Well, there's the obvious upside to having a dog, and on balance, dogshit is only moderately offensive.)

More Minuteman Project Fuss: The Rottweiler Sniffs Out ACLU Antics

The Minuteman Project, ("a citizens' neighborhood watch along our border") has had its share of opposition, including threats from terror-connected gangs. Now there are accusations, albeit unsubstantiated, that volunteers for the ACLU, having decided to "monitor" the Minuteman Project at the border, is actually assisting those attempting to cross the border. See The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: More ACLU Antics. (Question: Now that the ACLU is concerned with Mexican civil rights vs. the interests actual American citizens - do we call 'em the MCLU?? Or maybe the A in ACLU referred to the continents of the Americas and not the U.S? The C./M./U.S./S.A.CLU? Oh, nevermind.)

Cuban "Healthcare" - Viewer Discretion Advised

The Black Informant exposes a very different view of Castro's so-called "excellent [free] healthcare" than the official Cuban description leads us to believe, in The miseducation of American Negroes on Cuba. (The photos are shocking. Brace yourself.)

On the Subject of Anti-Christian Bigotry (again)

Hugh Hewitt is looking for outbreaks of "religiousrightitis", a term evidently coined by Mr. Hewitt himself (I may be wrong about this - if so, comments are open) to describe the vitriolic verbiage aimed at Americans who dare to adopt a Judeo-Christian value. Surely you know the kind of thing he's talking about, but in the event that you don't, he gives examples. I'm not quoting any of it, because I want you to GO READ HIS POST! (Pushy, no?)

More Grist for the Mill: Social Security for All

Americans for Prosperity Foundation has launched a new website, Social Security for All, to "give individuals an opportunity to become more involved in deciding the future of their Social Security" and to educate citizens on the issue, according to Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of Americans for Prosperity. Their position on Social Security reform is this:

# Permit workers to invest their payroll taxes in individually directed Personal Retirement Accounts (PRAs);
# No increase in payroll taxes;
# Guarantee a "safety net" for all retirees;
# Preserve the benefits of retirees and near retirees;
# No government investment in the stock market;
# No general revenue transfers to Social Security without structural reform;
# Reform Social Security to reduce the burden it will place on future taxpayers and the federal budget.

There are some who appear to be more frightened of reform than the systemic failure of Social Security, as evidenced by the panicky retreat to the past to cling to the neck of a statue of F.D.R. The problem for us as citizens is a perennial one. For a member of the My-Political-Survival-Is-Paramount party, any problem with a time horizon that extends beyond their likely tenure is - must be - ignored. Why spend political captial on a problem for which one cannot take credit? Only political pressure from an educated citizenry can move this sort of political narcissist toward the "third rail" of American politics.
At this point in the debate, I believe I agree with the principles in the list above, but I'm not sure that phasing out Social Security altogether isn't better. I'm still thinking, still reading. I'm adding links on the subject of Social Security to the sidebar so you can do the same.

Darn Frenzied Piranha!

Today Neil Steinberg, columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times offered his opinion on a CNN report on blogs, and on blog(er)s in general. Evidently the CNN report featured a blogger who was "accredited and given access to a White House press conference". Mr. Steinberg writes:

Yowza. Though they also let in a turkey at Thanksgiving, CNN found this particular entrance highly significant, perhaps some kind of turning point, and as the protracted, painful segment unfolded, the reporter tried to present the usual piranha frenzy in the so-called "blogosphere" by actually scrolling down, on air, blocks of verbiage on her computer screen.

(Piranha frenzy. Wow. I dream of being a piranha one day, But I'm still trying to fit into my "so-called blogosphere" pajamas.)

So why was CNN fooled? I know producers have time to fill, but they stumbled onto a common misperception that deserves note. Stuck as always in the jail of the present moment, we mistake White House or presidential involvement for a sign of importance or respectability.

Okay, Mr. Steinberg, we're noting. Here's the logic. Premise: A blogger is by his nature an unknown, unimportant individual (just look at me) and he cannot be respectable. Therefore, since this blogger got Whitehouse news conference access, any slob can have "White House or presidential involvement". All of us - unimportant un-respectable hoi polloi that we are - should take Neil's word for it, pop in at the Whitehouse, and have a little chat with the President. Why nobody has done this since the Lincoln administration is just beyond me. Who knew?

And blogs will, unless I am very much mistaken, be this decade's CB radio since, like CB radio, they are a cacophonous expression of the unvarnished and unedited psyche of the American people, God bless them, once again mistaking a new technology for the New Jerusalem.

There we go again. Poor "unvarnished and unedited" savages, mistaking advancement for magic, falling down to worship when the missionary strikes a match. (For a minute there, I thought this was the haughty and insulting condescension of an elitist. But having reflected on his insight for a moment, I believe I really do need to have my psyche edited. Can anyone recommend ... Oh, nevermind.)

Are Little Green Footballs and Powerline and Instapundit a CB-style fad? Time will tell. But time has told us a few things already. Dan Rather's little swim with the piranha ended well, I think, or rather (no pun, I swear) will end tonight. So did Daschle's. Will the unwashed masses, God bless us, prefer to sift our information from an unvarnished and unedited cacophony, or a pablum of whitewash and spin? If it's true that news today is entertainment, which do you think it will be? Feeding piranha or puffed-up pontificating elitist? Well, I can't tell the future any better than you - but I'm guessin'.

[Thanks to youch for the heads-up via email. Cross-posted on the Chicago Bungalow]

Feeling Guilty?

Every once in awhile, some original thinker considers the cultural landscape, and with ray-of-light acuity, describes the view for us all. If you like that kind of stuff, 4 Mile Creek has a great post for you today.

4th Annual Tarnished Halo Awards

The Center For Consumer Freedom has announced their 4th Annual Tarnished Halo Awards. This year, "The Reverend Rooster" category went to Al Sharpton, "The 'Will Sue Your Mom for Publicity' Category" to George Washington University professor John "Sue the Bastards" Banzhaf (threatening to sue parents & doctors of overweight children. Other winners include the Center for Science in the Public Interest [hmmmpfffff - ed.], the CDC, in the "The 'Pants on Fire' Category", and New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz in "The 'Breath Lock or Brain Lock' Category". Take a look at the cartoons, too.

"Rebirth" of the Democrats

Professor Bainbridge doesn't seem to think that this new, scripture quoting, church going democratic party is as evangelical friendly as they say they are. "Actions speak louder", he says. But, even though I live in a blue state, I have a red-state heart, and as ya'll knows, us red-staters ain't too bright. But I had a go at thinkin' about this kinder, gentler democratic party. I figger there's some advantages to bein' a liberal democrat.

1. I can quit tithin', an' git the gummint and other folks to do it fer me.

2. I can start complainin'. Them folks like complainin', you know, cuz' fer them it really does somethin', but you don't have to do nothin'. So I can quit all this volunteer stuff, and jus' complain.

3. Far as I can see, feelin' right for them folks is all the same as doin' right. Now everybody knows which one o' those two's tougher.

That's what I have so far. But it sure seems like a no-brainer, don't it? I mean, I've heard 'em quote scripture an' all. You know, while I was thinkin', it came to me . . . seems like there's somthin' I wanted to remember . . .

Supreme Court Decision on the Death Penalty

Whether you are for or against the death penalty, the Supreme Court's recent decision is a genuinely frigntening development in judicial activism, unless you support the idea of exchanging constitutional rights for the edicts of nine little black-robed kings. Steve at The Black Republican has written on the issue: The new arbiter of our nation's moral standards. The frightening part? Evidently the court found more weight in international opinion and foreign law than in our own Constitution. More here and here.

Suggested Reading

Classical Values has graciously added us to their link list. Click over there and read awhile - I guarantee you'll want bookmark this very outstanding and well written blog.

Cox & Forkum: USS Ironic

Cox & Forkum have applied their formidable talent to one of the most ironic events of the year. Don't miss their USS Ironic!

Blogosphere Challenge

JustOneMinute has offered a challenge to the blogosphere. I think it's brilliant! (via Instapundit)

To Feminists from a Female - Thanks for Nuttin', Honey

Larry Summers, president of Harvard University gives voice to some evidently volatile speculations on why women are not as well represented as men in fields of science and engineering, and in so doing committed an utterly unforgivable, deadly and despicable sin against the femi-zealots and their sympathizers at Harvard (and elsewhere). Some called for his resignation , while others adopted the suspected of one is guilty of all philosophy:

Carrying signs and chanting, ``Racist, sexist, anti-gay! Larry Summers, you must pay,'' about 60 protesters greeted faculty as they filed into the meeting.

Warning: Do NOT voice that thought. Don't play dumb with me - you know what thought. The thought that this neurotic and hypersensitive reaction of certain women serves to prove his point, and is in fact harmful to women everywhere. You Can't Say That. Got it?

Social Security Choice

If you're looking for more info on the Social Insecurity issue, you may want to have a look at Social Security Choice. It was recommended last month on Redstate (yeah, I know I need to pick up the pace). I personally have decided that my opinion is pretty well represented here.

And speaking of Social Security...

I thought I was in favor of personal accounts, but Ken at Chicago Boyz makes this argument (a good one, I think) against that approach:

First, it's not really yours if it can be used only at the sufferance of the Social Security administration. Second, having the government direct the flow of that large quantity of investment capital, however indirectly, is just asking for trouble. The reason that our investment system works is that people attract investment by convincing people not only that their investment will make money, but that their investment is the best possible use of the investor's money, better not only than "approved investments", better not only than any other investment, but better than any other possible present use of that money including consumption. Let bureaucrats who won't even be gaining or losing their own money have a say, and (much more) money will start flowing to enterprises based on pull rather than merit and profitability, and a lot of the money that would otherwise have gone to fund growth and technological advancement will instead go to waste.

The whole article is here.

Definition of Terms, Pelosi on Social Security

It's hard to have a productive discussion without a clear definition of terms, or so I'm told. (Well, so I was told a long time ago. Discussions I've heard lately have their substance in shrieking accusations of dubious credibility, fantastic assertions of conspiracy, and so forth. Nuff said. We've all heard 'em.) Today, for want of clear definitions, I'm confused.

The subject of my current muddled state begins with House Democratic Leader Rep. (D-CA) Nancy Pelosi's Legislative Briefing on Thursday. In the spirit of a fair exchange of ideas, I transcribed the whole thing. Did my very best to be accurate, except I removed a lot of the uh's and um's. (I think leaving them in makes a speaker look stupid, even when they represent the natural hesitation of a person who is speaking off the cuff. And if a person is verifiably stupid, you just don't need to do that, do you? Parenthetic lecture is now over.) Here's the transcript:

Last time we met - I began our session here - by commenting on the sadness we all felt in losing our colleague - Congresswoman Bob Matsui, to - hoping that the next time - we came together - we could start on a happier note ...

Am I confused about the gender of Congressman Bob Matsui? No. She misspoke, of course. A little freudian slip, possibly because she was thinking of this.

...but sadly, yesterday was the deadliest day in the Iraq war. So many of our young people lost. - we must always express our gratitude for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifice that they are willing to make. Of course we all join in sending our deepest sympathy to their families. I know that the State of Hawaii is particularly hard hit in this time. California has had a large, large number of casualties and injuries so - we have felt that - and now Hawaii is feeling a large number as well. Of course we also observe today the sixtieth anniversary of the freeing of Auschwitz and the camps and - we must always remember - that - man's cruelty to man has no place in a civilized society, outside the circle of civilized human behavior. That's why I'm so pleased that all of the attention is being placed on Rwanda now - past tragedy - but focusing on Darfur - which challenges the conscience of the soul, and gives us no excuse for taking the appropriate action.

We're not touching any of this. Don't even go there.

The subject of - of our conversation today is going to be social security. Democrats are very proud of social security. Just to remind some of you who are here that - social security came from a very entrepreneurial approach to how - on how to meet the needs of the American people. It came from the tradition of Roosevelt which was constant, persistent, experimentation. Risk taking, being bold, and entrepreneurial.

Now, this is where I get lost - this new twist on the word entrepreneurial. (entrepreneurial: adj. 1. of or relating to an entrepreneur; 2. willing to take risks in order to make a profit.) Am I to understand that Roosevelt took risks in order to make a profit? Clearly not. He himself took no real monetary risk. Who took the risk? Evidently, American people did. Did they profit? Well, yes and no. Americans who had already profited had their profits appropriated and given to other Americans, who did profit from other Americans' profits. Very confusing, trying to explain redistribution of wealth in terms of the entrepreneurship, risk taking and experimentation of Roosevelt. My head spins.

Because it is a guaranteed benefit, it provides economic security and therefore independence for America's seniors, disabled and those unfortunate that - to have become widowed and - and orphans. So it's a very positive - with a very positive attitude - that we say we must subject all that we do to meet the needs of the American people, and to - anytime we're spending tax dollars - to the scrutiny that it needs so that it's always operating in the best possible way. In the 1980's President Reagan and Tip O'Neill came together to address the challenges faced by social security, and they came up with a bipartisan, sustainable approach that will make social security fine until probably - oh - 2040 or 50, depending on the numbers. And that's from [?] of 60 or 70 years.

Am I confused about how a plan can be sustainable, and still, well, be expected to collapse? No, and neither are you. We all know that the dictionary definition of terms like "sustainable", and the political definition (sustainable: adj. 1. Unlikely to implode in time to damage my political career, meaningless to my constituancy) are two very different things. Am I confused by the "economic security and therefore independence" thing? Yup.

Now the president is saying - he had been saying we have a crisis - I think he's toned down to saying its a problem - that he wants to address it before it becomes a crisis, and I accept that, and Democrats accept that characterization. We said to him all along we want to go to the table in a bipartisan way, to - no preconditions - except that we don't want to add to the deficit or harm the middle class or begin by cutting benefits or go to the table and consider all the options that are available to us. The president has said he wants to act in a bipartisan way, and yet he has invited the Republican senators to the whitehouse to talk about social security and the Republican house members. So we're waiting for the call to act in a bipartisan way with him. [At this moment, the TV lights go out. She says,] Do you think that could have been the call? (Laughter.) He acts in strange and mysterious ways, but uh - (More laughter. From a member of the press "it doesn't sound like the right message." ) In any event, Democrats are united - we stand ready to receive the president's plan. He has said three things. What I just said when we did meet with him in a joint leadership meeting [two shafts of light - apparently spotlights - play across the room. She says:] Uh-huh. A very important light. (Laughter.) In the joint leadership meeting he said it's not a crisis it's a problem that we should address before it becomes a crisis, and then he went out and said it was a crisis. Now he's back. Secondly that we should be - many of us suggested - Democrats and Republicans at the table that we should be dealing from the same set of numbers. Can't call it - deal with one set of numbers that prove a case and the rest of us dealing with another set of numbers. Let's stipulate to a set of facts so that we can go forward in a realistic way. And he said, give me a chance. Wait until you see my plan, before you go forward. So we're waiting for his plan, but - but the part of the plan - the first part of the plan that was leaked from the Whitehouse was - that forty percent would - call for a forty percent cut in benefits - for recip...beneficiaries. I don't think we should start there - so if that's their - their first proffer to those of us who are concerned about social security I don't think that's a good place to start. A good place to start is to say how do we honor our fathers and our mothers. How do we give them the independence that they deserve? Money that they put into the system and now being there. Again, when you have a guaranteed benefit, you as a young person or middle age person can be very entrepreneurial because you know at the end of the day you will at least have social security. And that, I think, contributes to the entrepreneurial spirit in our country for people to take more risks and be more successful. With that I'd be pleased to take any questions you may have...

Still confused? Me, too. But I think I'm beginning to understand. You do bold risk taking entrepreneurial experimenting on your own. And then, when your enterprise is bled white by over-legislation and redistribution of wealth (that would be the Rooseveltian governmental experimental entrepreneurship), well, don't you worry. You'll always, (always: adv. 1. beyond the day that Nancy Pelosi's retires to ample benefits paid for by you) always have Social Security.

I also understand that there will be no bipartisan discussion, call or no call. Social Security, broken or not, has been redefined as "entrepreneurial" and "independent" and good. (In line with the Ten Commandments, even. Remeber the honor our fathers and mothers thing?) The gauntlet and the verbal smokescreen have simultaneously hit the ground. Looking for productive discussion? Mmmm. Nice thought - but don't hold your breath.