As a policy geek and pundit, I'm used to yelling at C-Span or CNN the way some people yell at the Super Bowl. I've been known to exclaim things like, "That's not how Social Security works, ya moron!" on more than a few occasions. But watching my wife debate a coterie of feminists and professional liberals has been especially exasperating.
The first war of the 21st century has been a resounding success for the United States. Thus far, operations have claimed fewer than 250 U.S. combat casualties, and, for the most part, U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan are being positively portrayed by the media.
Does anyone think it somewhat odd and curious that the New York tabloids eulogized the death of organized crime boss John Gotti for page after page, but those very same tabs saw fit to trash successful businesswoman Martha Stewart over a relatively modest stock sale?
Interrupting the endless 30-year Watergate retrospective and getting back to the war for a moment, I've noticed that liberals are having trouble making any good arguments against Bush, so I thought I'd help them out this week.
The appalling story of the pedophile priests deserves all the negative press it has been getting. But is the press critical of them because they are pedophiles or because they are priests?
President Bush's decision to take pre-emptive action against terrorist groups and states is wholly consistent with the Bush Doctrine. He should apply that same consistency in his decision on whether to support the creation of a Palestinian state.
Politicians, tyrants and communists long have admired euphemism and double talk for their faculty in cloaking truth, diffusing meaning and just plain baffling the people they hope to convince, rule or confuse.
High-minded people who want to see Osama bin Laden tried by an international court -- if Osama's alive, and if he is captured -- ought to take a look at the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic taking place at The Hague.