26th Parallel

Jackie Bueno Sousa's Cuban Problem

2009-07-13T15:40:00.000-04:00

Been catching up to the latest musings of our favorite Miami Herald columnists, and not one, but two of Jackie Bueno Sousa's columns perked my interest. The first one, back on June 28th, served as a good reminder not to draw conclusions about minorities based on the actions of some. The second one, written exactly one week later, implores us to admit that Cuban-Americans have a knack for looking the other way when some of their own scam the government or other big business, whether it's Medicare, the mortgage/real estate industry, or anything else.

If you would have told me that Sousa wrote the first column and Carl Hiaasen the second, I wouldn't have batted an eye. The fact that Sousa wrote both is puzzling, not to mention amazingly contradictory, for a major newspaper columnist to pen exactly one week apart. Oh, and that Sousa is Cuban-American.

Somehow, the Cuban-bashers that wrote to Sousa in the wake of her first column made an impression on her. She basically admits as much. These folks apparently managed to convince Sousa in the span of one week that there is more than just a kernel of truth in the perception that Cuban-Americans as a whole have a bad tendency to "accept" dishonesty and fraud.

Good Jackie circa June 28th, 2009:

Certainly many Cubans have been involved in the recent strings of Medicare fraud arrests, and I wouldn't even be surprised if, as some believe, the Cuban government were benefiting from a scam that totals hundreds of millions of dollars. But the notion that Cubans are primarily responsible for such a popular criminal scheme highlights a myopic mentality in vogue these days.

Not-so-good Jackie circa July 6th, 2009:

While the overwhelming majority of Miami's Cuban community consists of honest, hard-working people, there's a certain passivity and acceptance in how we react to those who do engage in such fraudulent acts.

Yes, there are Cuban-Americans that take advantage of the system and commit all sorts of fraud, major and minor. I know some. Is it enough to categorize as a broad "acceptance" issue for Cuban-Americans as a whole? Of course not. A columnist with basic smarts and common-sense principles such as Sousa should know that. If I'm wrong or just simply naive, prove it to me (and no, distant relatives in Cuba don't count as broad anecdotal evidence).

Whenever Cubans pound their chest and proclaim that they turned Miami from a small meaningless town in the swamp to a major metropolis, I cringe. Whenever non-Cubans blame Cubans for South Florida's problems, I cringe. Whenever one generalizes the bad of their own group, I cringe.

I play no favorites here. If our local history has taught us something, it's that each and every ethnic group that has set up camp in South Florida has its share of successes and downfalls that we can point to. Just like the rest of the world. In the end, we all put our pants on the same way and have to deal in the real world with both good and not-so-good individuals.

The main underlying problem we DO have as a community is this: we have a tendency to see the worst in our neighbors, especially if they're from "somewhere else" (which they almost inevitably are). It's largely because we don't see ourselves as being from Miami, but from "somewhere else", with the invariable "where I'm from, we don't do things this way" attitude that comes attached with the misplaced sense of ethnic/regional/national pride. It's therefore no surprise that Sousa got the type of letters she did in response to her spot-on first column (why her knees turned to jelly afterward remains a mystery). With all of our diverse groups serving as experts in pointing out each other's flaws, you would think our problems would have been resolved a long time ago, right? Yeah.

When You Have No Solid Argument...

2009-07-13T09:49:00.003-04:00

you can always fall back on the good ol' trusted war horse.

This article posted at Babalu the other day reminded me of the silly arguments and name-calling people on both sides of the Cuba issue often fall back on when solid, factual arguments aren't enough or don't exist. My grievance is mostly with the pro-engagement-with-Cuba crowd who often finds itself resorting to cries of "Batistianos" and "Mafiosos" in reference to the hardline right, but some on my side of the fence fall into a similar trap as well, calling anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them "comunistas", whether it's warranted or not.

I don't have a suggestion for our friends on the left...they can use their allegedly superior intellect to figure it out on their own. I will, however, remind those on the RIGHT side (in more ways than one) that when one stops using facts and logic and resorts to similar tactics employed by the other side, it's we who lose the argument every single time.

Instead, we should take to heart the immortal words the immortal Mr. Miyagi once said:

"Focus".

Not All Presidential Ousters Are Made Equal

2009-07-12T15:46:00.003-04:00

Back from a week of dodging thunderstorms up in Northeast Florida (meanwhile, the weather in South Florida made a turn for the better). Just my luck. Nevertheless, it was good to do a little body surfing in the nice 4-5 foot swells (sorry, I don't have any pictures).

I left last week with a note on the situation in Honduras, and I return with another one. Andres Oppenheimer opined early last week about how the U.S. made the right decision by not supporting the ouster of Zelaya in Honduras. I understand the general sentiment, but the problem I have with it is this: the ouster was driven by Zelaya's thoroughly un-democratic actions. I think responsible people can make a distinction between what happened in Honduras and what's occurred in places such as Venezuela, for example. Perhaps there was a better way of deposing Zelaya. But if the goal of the overthrow in Honduras was to re-establish a semblance of democracy, shouldn't that also be noted and supported by the U.S. and other democracy-supporting states?

This was Oppenheimer's only flaw in what was a dead-on article which rightly took the OAS to task for its hypocrisy and double-standards.

Happy Independence Day

2009-07-04T15:14:00.005-04:00

Pinecrest Today

Happy Fourth of July!

2009-07-04T08:40:00.003-04:00

Peeking my head in for just a second to wish everyone a happy and SAFE Fourth of July. Remember, nature's fireworks can be deadly, too.

I am retreating just as quick as I came in, since I will be out of town and with zero computer access for a week. Feel free to look around, throw a few parties...but just make sure everything is back in its place, OK?

Before I leave, I just want to say one small thing to Rick Sanchez:

Shut up already. You're embarrassing us.

Honduras to OAS: Get Lost

2009-07-04T08:00:00.001-04:00

Honduras' governmental body has guts. That's all I can say in the wake of what's happened over the past couple of weeks, including their most recent decision to get out of the useless Organization of American States.

Meanwhile, the Herald thinks the new government's actions and statements in deposing Zelaya to exile hurts the cause of democracy in Honduras. Sure, the government could have been a little "cleaner" in its removal of Zelaya. But to make that the centerpiece of Honduras' problems and not the fact that Zelaya was using overtly anti-democratic means (with assistance from his friends Chavez and Ortega) to take over his country speaks volumes for where some people's priorities lie.

Bravo, Honduras!

Pitts-Slapping

2009-06-28T20:26:00.003-04:00

I've stopped reading Leonard Pitts' columns. Frankly, I don't have the time, energy and will to sit through another one of that man's articles and read another lie about how racist and nasty Republicans (read: conservatives) are.

Fortunately, there are still activists out there who can stomach Pitts and give him a little dose of his own medicine.

In his June 21 Issues & Ideas column, GOP blind to its race problem Leonard Pitts Jr. unfairly condemns the entire Republican Party as racist based on the actions of a few. In reality, the Republican Party, since its inception in 1854 as the antislavery party until today, has been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. A better case can be made that the Democratic Party is a racist party.
As author Michael Scheuer stated, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 40 years, and their policies have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.
Democrats fought to expand slavery, while Republicans fought to ban it. After the Civil War, Republicans amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote. Republicans then passed the civil-rights laws of the 1860s that, sadly, were over turned by the Democrats with the Repeal Act of 1894 after they took over Congress in 1892.

Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil-rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. He wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of the civil-rights legislation without the support of Republicans. Johnson's statement about losing the South was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party. Instead, Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party.
Democrats readily demean black professionals who do not toe the Democratic Party's liberal line, denigrating them as ''sellouts'' and ''Uncle Toms.'' A Democrat blogger depicted RNC Chairman Michael Steele as a ''Simple Sambo'' with a blackened minstrel-style face, nappy hair and big, thick red lips.
Condoleezza Rice was demeaned by a Democratic cartoonist as an ignorant, barefoot ''mammy.'' Democrats Al Sharpton and Harry Belafonte denigrated Gen. Colin Powell and Rice as ``house Negroes.''
Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy called some black judicial nominees, including Judge Janice Rogers Brown, ''Neanderthals.'' Democratic Senator Harry Reid slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an ''embarrassment'' who could not write properly.
Has Pitts condemned racism in the Democratic Party?
FRANCES RICE, chairman, National Black Republican Association, Sarasota

I don't believe the Democratic Party itself is racist. Nor do I believe most Democrats and liberals are racist, either. But Frances Rice puts the finger on something many Democrats don't want to admit to: their party's own dark history as well as their largely failed policies towards minorities.

Another Celebrity Death - Billy Mays RIP

2009-06-28T13:19:00.005-04:00

Whoever came up with the theory that celebrity deaths come in threes is unfortunately correct these days.

Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson died on Thursday. Today we have reports that pitchman Billy Mays has died at the age of 50. On my flight to Texas this past Monday I read an article in American Way magazine on Billy Mays and how he got his start in the TV salesman/pitchman business. Seemed like a nice guy who truly earned his path to success; too bad to hear about his death at a much-too-young age.

The recent celebrity deaths just serves as a sobering reminder of how short and fickle life can be, no matter how famous or ordinary you are. Enjoy it to your fullest, folks.

Odds and Ends

2009-06-27T09:12:00.004-04:00

I'm back from a combination of work travel and just plain work, and I apologize for the lack of blogging (of course, our dedicated readers are used to this by now). We appreciate your patience.

Here's some of what's been on my mind lately:

- Cap and Trade makes no sense to me. It's based on, at best, highly disputable science; it's undoubtedly going to raise energy costs across the board and more jobs will be lost than created. Look at the Kyoto Protocol for a hint of what this would be like if passed. Let's hope the Senate kills this awful bill.

- Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett: R.I.P.

- Don't let anyone tell you that "dry heat" is more comfortable than humidity. An oven is dry heat, too.

- I'm glad President Obama finally said something in support of Cuban dissidents. Now all he has to do is to stop trying to be nice to the castros, who despise him.

- I'm glad President Obama is finally standing up to the thugs in Iran. Too bad it took 2 weeks for him to do so. So much for a kinder and gentler relationship with our enemies.

- Seeing how Iranians are bravely expressing their outrage at their dictatorship makes me sad that Cubans can't seem to muster up enough courage to do the same. Yes, there are differences between Iran and Cuba, but lots of similarities, too.

- Far-left and even some mainstream-left reaction to Mark Sanford's dalliances in Tangoland reminds me of this paradox: if some Republicans and conservatives caught literally with their pants down are accused (justly) by lefties of being hypocrites, while the same lefties mostly shrug when a Spitzer or an Edwards gets caught, does this mean that the finger-pointing lefties don't hold their own up to a higher standard?

- Very quietly, the Florida Marlins are in the hunt for the division lead midway through the season.

- Speaking of the Marlins, everything's still on track for the new ballpark's groundbreaking in July.

Bush Bashing "Comical"

2009-06-14T18:01:00.003-04:00

Perhaps the neatest thing about the Herald's new BlogNet is that you can peruse all sorts of local blogs without having to go into the sites themselves. That way, if you see a post that looks to be a stinker right off the bat, especially at some of our "favorite" blogs, all you have to do is keep scrolling down and it's gone, c ya.

It's through the Herald's BlogNet that I discovered this post by Reid Blog on the difference between Obama Derangement Syndrome (how original) and Bush Derangement Syndrome. It's not necessarily the fact that there are a few deranged and sick individuals out there who want to do real harm to Obama, but Reid's assertion that personal criticism of Bush "tended to lean more toward the comical" was the real eye-popper. You see, the harshest criticism of Bush was actualy targeted at his policies.

Brace yourselves:

In other words: "Bush Derangement" if you want to call it that, was based on a loathing of Bush administration policies. Attitudes toward Bush himself, if you have to characterize them broadly, tend to lean more toward the comical. And while derision of Bush as a dunce bugs those on the right, it's hardly the same chilling talk that derides our current president as tantamount to a Marxist, Socialist, anti-American Muslim terrorist. [Left: a leaflet distributed in Dallas on the day of JFK's assassination. Courtesy of Prose]

Ahhhh, so that's what it was all along. Too bad this dunce of a conservative missed it. After all, calling Bush a Nazi, a murderer and a war criminal was indeed funny to many liberals, especially when it was comedians and skilled entertainers delivering the punch lines. The fact that many average folks I know freely participated in this type of ridiculous defamation makes it even more legitimate, Reid would probably make you believe. It's all about the policies, not the person, remember?

This is truly a bizarre era we're living in, folks.

Liberal MSM Does It Again

2009-06-13T19:28:00.004-04:00

Liberal columnist Eugene Robinson of the liberal Washington Post could have saved all of us a lot of time by condensing his latest column into these few words:

Right-wingers really ARE responsible, whether directly or indirectly, for the killing of the guard at the Holocaust Museum.

So then, Mr. Robinson, who's to blame for the shooting of Private William Long 2 weeks ago? Keith Olbermann? Rick Sanchez? Chris Matthews? Mike Wallace?

Give me a break. And to think this guy writes for our nation's capital's largest newspaper.

Joecito's Moral Relativism (And One Other Topic)

2009-06-11T16:31:00.003-04:00

Just got back from a business trip to St. Maarten (yes, it is possible to go to a Caribbean island just for business - ask me how it's done). Stayed mostly on the Dutch side and got to see jumbo jets coming in for landing no more than 50 feet over the beach at the Juliana Airport (check out this YouTube video for an idea of how incredibly low these planes get to the beach).

At the hotel there was none other than the Miami Herald's International Edition available for reading. BTW, the Herald is cutting back the International Edition from two sections to 16 pages and eliminating Sundays. One of the articles I read which almost made me shoot blood out of my eyes was this one, which was already covered by Babalu. To think that Joe Garcia equates American operatives with the "Cuban Five". I'm just glad Joe Garcia got beat last fall, and with comments like that, I don't see him winning any time soon. I'd love to see his supporters try to defend his totally ridiculous assertion that we can draw an equal comparison between the two.

Also on my mind is the reaction to the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum. An extremist nutcase killing a guard is most certainly worthy of top news of the day and should be thoroughly and properly analyzed. We had another tragedy not too long ago involving the killing of an U.S. Army soldier at a Little Rock recruiting center by another extremist nutcase. Too bad the latter got nowhere near the amount of press and immediate attention drawn to the killer and his probable motives as the guard killing did.

School Accountability and Civic Pride

2009-06-07T14:01:00.003-04:00

I'll be out of town and with no internet access for much of the upcoming week, so this is it until Thursday or Friday at the earliest.

Two stories of local interest I'd like to share:

- I realize the FCAT is far from perfect, but this is what can happen when schools are held accountable for the performance of their students, and a principal who works extra hard and cares takes over an inner-city public high school on the brink of complete failure. It's no coincidence the turnaround at Miami Central came in the FCAT era and not in the 1990s when kids were able to pass from grade to grade without learning anything.

- Miami needs more people like Rosa Sugranes.

Obama Zigs and Zags in Cairo

2009-06-04T22:01:00.002-04:00

Obama's speech in Cairo today was OK...that's about the best grade I can give it. I admire his attempt to reach out to Muslims and try to reach common ground, even if it can seem like an odd marriage of arrogance and naivete to try to do such a thing. Reminding the Muslim world of America's values was a good move, but do enough of the right people care to do anything about it?

Where I found Obama's speech somewhat maddening was when he got to some of his "issues". For example, the second one on Israeli-Palestinian relations. It was tilted too much to the sympathetic side toward the Palestinians - regardless of Obama's audience. While Obama's sympathy toward Jews is largely based on history (Holocaust), his sympathy for Palestinians is exclusively based on the "occupation" of a land that has never truly belonged solely to Palestinians to begin with. Obama points out Gaza as an example. Does anyone remember what happened when Israel abandoned Gaza? That's right...bombs started heading north. A two-state solution is fine, but who's doing more to prevent this from happening, and what are the Palestinian people doing to change it? Those are fair questions to ask.

From the speech:

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Darn it, that Israel won't go away. Amazing. BTW, what's wrong with imposing peace? Just asking.

The next issue -nuclear weapons:

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

No further comment required.

Next issue - Democracy:

I know — I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Mr. President, you began by stating that no nation should impose a system of government on another. Then you go on to state that people yearn for freedom and democracy and that America should support these rights everywhere. Did I miss something? You can't have it both ways. Either you support human rights (Obama was good in stating that) or you don't. It's that simple.

Next issue - Religion

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility toward any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

What exactly is he talking about here? If anything, it's the opposite that's occurring. When threatened with something so hideous and oppressive as Sharia law, for example, the logical and right thing to do is to impede it. Faith should serve as a unifying force when it serves the common good, not because it sounds politically correct and "noble".

In the end, it was Obama trying to please both sides. Problem is, you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth, ignore certain inconvenient facts about Muslims and Muslim culture and expect problems to go away. Right-minded people know the underpinning issue here: the West versus a significant minority of Muslims that not only do not believe in unity and freedom, but are hell-bent on fighting it to the death, literally. The sooner we realize who we're really fighting here (as opposed to a religion), the sooner we can end this mess. All the best outreach in the world won't accomplish much if people aren't told the truth.

One last thing, Mr. President: it's perfectly OK to refer to "extremists" by their real description: terrorists. Even in Cairo.

Ethnicity Colors Law

2009-06-02T21:25:00.003-04:00

Due to lack of time to do much of anything except catch a column or blog post here and there, I haven't had a chance to comment on the selection of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. However, the Herald's right-wing of Jackie Bueno Sousa and Glenn Garvin have.

Sousa hits a double:

What worries me is when that pride turns into feelings of superiority, which is the insinuation in Sotomayor's now famous counter to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's well-known assertion that wise old men and wise old women ultimately reach the same conclusions when deciding cases.
In disagreeing with O'Connor, the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, Sotomayor said: ``I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.''
The statement implies that the lives of one group of people are richer than those of another group, when in reality we're all limited by the bounds of our existence. We can certainly enrich our lives by being exposed to different cultures, listening to diverse ways of thinking and learning from the experiences of others.
But, in the end, we each have our own unique experiences; one as real as the other. A Latina's life, in general, is no richer than the life of a white male, or a black woman, or an Asian man; it's just different.

Garvin hits it out of the park:

Sotomayor's claim that ''a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life'' wasn't some blundering parenthetical reference. It was part of a full-scale repudiation of the idea that the law, or the judges who interpret it, should be color-blind. It even questions whether judicial objectivity is a desirable goal.

Sotomayor may very well be qualified enough. But her not-so-disguised feelings about her ethnicity (one that I broadly share with her, by the way) making her superior to a member of a "less ethnically-rich" group really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It shouldn't sit well with any good-intentioned American, either.

Watch Out Father Alberto!!

2009-05-31T21:58:00.004-04:00

Myriam Marquez delivers serious verbal haymakers to Alberto Cutié, his girlfriend and Episcopal Bishop Leo Frade. Although Marquez was, in my opinion, quite heavy-handed in her approach, I agree with most of the underlying sentiments.

A sample from her column:

What irks isn't so much Cutié's struggle to reconcile his desires as a man and his vows of celibacy as a priest or that he chose carnal knowledge over celestial approval, it's the way this sordid affair came down. The scandal not only damaged the Catholic church, it diminished Cutié's reputation among many of his followers who are true-blue Catholics. He hurt them.

And, yes, I know that there have been worse scandals in the church involving sexual abuse of boys and decades of denial by church leaders -- a disgrace that hurt Catholics, even bad ones like me, much more. But to excuse Cutié's lies for two years because he was in love -- lust? -- with a gal gives him a pass on his responsibility as a spiritual leader. He had choices to make and he sure took his sweet time to make them.

Padre Alberto Moves On

2009-05-29T06:59:00.002-04:00

I've been insanely busy the past few days and will be for a few days more, so this will be rather brief.

I'm glad that Father Alberto has decided to remain in the Christian community as a minister, but feel saddened that he has chosen to leave the church he committed to many years ago. As I've stated in previous posts on the topic, I can go either way with Catholic priests being married, but what's gotten kind of lost in this case is that Padre Alberto broke his vows, whether you agree with them or not.

Also, and most importantly in the grand scheme of things; as influential and charismatic as Alberto was with Catholics in South Florida, he's only one man. I'm sure the many other young priests in the Archdiocese and around the world who struggle with temptation and other issues, just like Alberto did, and manage to keep their vows intact would appreciate a little credit on their part for doing what Alberto couldn't do. That's not to say that they should be awarded for "doing their job". But the outcry to allow Catholic priests to get married is overshadowing the simple but important fact that for every Father Alberto, there are many others who are rock solid with their vows and probably just as charismatic and influential on a smaller but still critical scale. No one is truly irreplaceable. The Episcopal Church has gained a talented clergyman. But the Catholic Church will surely survive.

More on the Waterboarding Issue

2009-05-25T20:02:00.003-04:00

Here's an interesting and thought-provoking take on torture as well as waterboarding:

It is refreshing to see that so many liberals have discovered their moral compass. In their lust to claim the moral high ground over conservatives, along with their lust to discredit the previous administration and all of its conservative policies (and to prosecute as many of them as possible), liberals have decided that the "torture" of three al-Qaida figures in 2002 and 2003 is the issue with which to pursue their desired ends.

Liberals are throwing the word "torture" around much like they do the words "homophobe" and "racist." Those are popular "snarl" words that, when used, are intended to induce a negative response, appealing to a person's emotions rather than their reasoning. "Torture" is well on its way to becoming liberals' newest and most favorite "snarl" word.

This was in plain evidence in the comment thread to my post a few days ago. And, yes, waterboarding did work:

Near the heart-of-the-matter in this debate is the interrogation procedure with which we have all become too familiar: waterboarding. According to many different sources, waterboarding was used on only three al-Qaida figures: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
Also, as many have recently pointed out, these "enhanced interrogations," as they were officially known, produced "high value information," as Obama's director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, acknowledges. Former CIA Director George Tenet in 2007 said, "I know that this program (of "enhanced interrogations") has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than (what) the FBI, the CIA, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."
Michael Hayden, another former director of the CIA, said recently that, "the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work."

The columnist doesn't hide the sticky points (and neither do I), including the Catholic Church's position on torture.

Of course, the mere fact that something worked and was approved by Congress doesn't make it right and just. There are significant legal and moral issues in play when it comes to such interrogation.
Given the ticking bomb scenario, even the very liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer admits, "I think there are probably very few people ... in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake."
Now I can respect an honest and consistent ethic (though I believe it is quite wrong) that lovingly honors human dignity (at every phase of life), and concludes that torture (whatever that is) is "intrinsically evil." The Catholic Church takes such a position.

I won't go further and paste Trevor Thomas' thoughts on the hypocrisy of those who are against waterboarding but support a woman's choice to kill a human fetus, since that goes into another hot-button topic best saved for another day. I will, however, conclude by pointing out that no matter how you feel about waterboarding, it's a choice reasonable people arrive at after much thought and internal as well as external debate. I would imagine it's not easy on either side. Remember that the next time a liberal anti-waterboarder tries to browbeat you with personal and moral arguments against waterboarding.

(H/T Aymee)

Memorial Day

2009-05-25T09:41:00.001-04:00

I have nothing special for this year's Memorial Day post, only my deepest respect and admiration for those who serve and have served this country as well as a heartfelt sympathy for those who have lost loved ones in active duty.

Just Give The Damned Ball Back

2009-05-23T23:08:00.002-04:00

This guy is a real jerk for demanding something in return for catching a Marlins rookie's first career home run.

Ana Menendez: Meteorologist

2009-05-22T14:57:00.003-04:00

Just when you thought it was safe to open up your soggy copy of the Herald again...

Ana Menendez...yes THAT Ana Menendez...is back. At least for a cameo appearance and in a subject that, as you'll find out shortly, she knows little about (gotta say...I've kind of missed ol' Anita. It's just not the same agreeing most of the time with the right-wing lunatics that have invaded the Herald's columnist ranks).

Let's just say I know a thing or two about those weather systems that occasionally torture (oops) us between June and November. Here goes:

There's a little bit of the control freak in every scientist. And perhaps no profession is immune from the illusion that any problem eventually will yield to diligence and intelligence. But in the case of hurricane forecasting, human folly has given way to humbling hilarity.

Take the 2007 season, a fortune-telling exercise no less futile for erring in our favor.

Scientists predicted 17 named storms, including five intense ones. We got 14 storms, only two with winds over 110 miles per hour.

Geez, Ana. Good thing you're not my boss. 17...14...whatever. It was an above normal year. The overall categorization of the 2007 season was dead on, as it usually is.

I'm not suggesting an end to long-range hurricane predictions. But maybe, in the interest of full disclosure, they should come stamped: For Amusement Only.

BUTTERFLY EFFECT

Forecasting has come a long way since the invention of the umbrella. But there are still some things scientists can't predict with certainty -- and probably never will.

"I can't imagine the time in the future where on Jan. 1, they print the chart that goes on the Web and they hand it out to everyone, " said hurricane specialist Hugh Willoughby, now a research professor at Florida International University. "The reason, basically, is the Butterfly Effect: What the atmosphere does depends on its history, and a slightly different history will produce very different results."

The Butterfly Effect -- the notion that the flutter of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas -- is an elegant illustration of one of the principles of chaos theory: that small variations in the present can produce large variations in the future.

In his 2000 book, Ubiquity, Mark Buchanan uses similar reasoning to explain why some natural phenomena, such as earthquakes and avalanches, elude prediction: "It appears that, at many levels, our world is at all times tuned to be on the verge of sudden, radical change, and that these and other upheavals may all be strictly unavoidable and unforeseeable, even just moments before they strike. Consequently, our human longing for explanation may be terribly misplaced, and doomed always to go unsatisfied."

JOYFUL SKEPTICISM

When it comes to hurricane forecasting, the problem is not so much the science as the reaction to it. Call it the Mother-in-Law Effect: the principle that as the level of nagging increases, the ability to hear dramatically decreases.

The Miami Herald's Martin Merzer reported this week that some researchers worry that errors in the full-season prediction will undermine faith in forecasts of actual storms, which tend to be more accurate.

The researchers, while good-intentioned, are just plain wrong on that one. The vast majority of people understand the difference between a seasonal outlook and forecasts for individual storms.

Others suggested that forecasters have no business trying to predict an entire season before it even starts. "If [William] Gray were honest, " former NOAA hurricane researcher Jeff Masters said in referring to the forecaster, "he would say they have no skill in making predictions that far in advance."

If William Gray were honest, Jeff, he would tell you that he and his team have been right in the overall trend and state of the season (if not the exact numbers) much more than they've been wrong. There IS skill in assessing trends and forecasting the overall state of the season (active, inactive, near normal). You should know this.

Willoughby takes a softer stance, assuming that most people can tell the difference between wild six-month forecasts and real warnings about impending storms.

"I've never taken year-to-year predictions seriously other than as an exercise in public relations and as a good publicity move to get people started thinking, " he said.

Most accurate quote of the article.

So perhaps the best way to approach the long-term predictions is with the same joyful skepticism with which one would greet the tarot lady at the county fair.

In the meantime, I'm not going to begrudge nature for failing to live up to human prediction. I'm quite glad all those scientists were wrong in May, not least because the hurricane windows I ordered on their advice have yet to arrive. But I could have predicted that.

OK, Ana. Next time interview the scientists that actually help to MAKE those predictions you're so fond of. After all, they know a little more than you do about the subject.

Cheney On America's Post 9-11 Policies

2009-05-21T20:47:00.007-04:00

Dick Cheney's speech today to the American Enterprise Institute was dead-on. Every single word of it. Too bad it took a former VP to speak so clearly and eloquently about why we must do everything we can to stop terrorists (that's right...terrorists) from hurting and killing Americans again. Imagine if John McCain would have uttered even half of Cheney's words. To those of you who go into convulsions at the mere mention of Cheney's name but go into a coma upon hearing his voice...don't worry. Here's the transcript.

Pitts Gets All Boo-Hoo on Us

2009-05-20T21:43:00.001-04:00

Cry me a river, Lenny.

Marco Rubio Gets the MSM Treatment

2009-05-17T20:01:00.004-04:00

Fearless warrior. Unhinged zealot. Doomed martyr.

Those are three of the categories the St. Pete Times' Adam Smith (with a little help from his friends at the Herald) is trying to place Marco Rubio in. Nice, right?

Poor Marco. He's not "reasonably moderate" like our good Governor Crist, say the MSM. Of course, it's perfectly OK for Barack Obama to not be a moderate (he had the Senate's most liberal record) because he's, after all, a LIBERAL. To the MSM, Barack is right down Flagler Street.

Remember. The MSM does not have a liberal bias. Remember. The MSM does not have a liberal bias. Repeat it enough and you too may end up believing it.

Brutal Pompoms

2009-05-17T14:21:00.003-04:00

The Florida Marlins gave away silver pompoms as a promotion for yesterday's game. Breezy conditions and fans shaking the pompoms in the air in excitement over the Marlins actually leading in (and winning) a game, for a change, led to strands of nylon, plastic...whatever....littering the field.

Here's local reaction to this:

"Brutal", stated Marlins second baseman "His Name is" Dan Uggla. Uggla was apparently referring to the distracting strands of shiny silver, not his season-long slump.

"Absolutely brutal", said Marlins catcher John Baker. Baker found conditions not-so-distracting-enough to hit a two-run homer.

"We're a Banana Republic", blurted local radio sports commentator Joe Zagacki this morning. That's OK, Joe. I know it's tough to make interesting and intelligent commentary at 8 AM on a Sunday morning on a show in which probably 5 people were listening (including yours truly). Therefore, it's perfectly fine to make an absolutely moronic and insulting comment about your own community over something so incredibly insignificant.

OK, so what about The. Game??