Friday, February 28, 2003

The Ugly (and Crazy) Face of the American Left

From Opinion Journal Best of the Web:

On Tuesday we noted that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are expanding the frontiers of bad taste with an ad campaign that likens chicken farms to Nazi death camps. In a letter to the editor of WorldNetDaily, PETA's Matt Prescott explains his group's position: "Tragically, those who dismiss the abuse of animals on factory farms today sound hauntingly similar to those who dismissed the suffering of Jews because they were 'subhuman.' "

Yeah, that's it -- chicken farmers = Nazi death camp guards. I think you folks at PETA are on to something.


Welcome to Our Newest Blogger

In the spirit of great co-blogging endeavors (i.e. Volokh), I am pleased to announce that I have my first co-blogger, my good friend Mr. Jaime Raich. Jaime is an extremely intelligent fellow, but he has a problem -- he's a unabashed liberal. But that's OK with me, and it should be OK with everyone else. I envision a sort of point/counterpoint type dynamic between us. Should be fun.

Having Jaime here to criticize what he calls my "right-wing Rush Limbaugh extremism" will force me to sharpen my arguments and undoubtedly will produce a healthy debate of the issues.

Welcome aboard amigo....
Howdy! I'm in now too.
Buffy - R.I.P.?

MSNBC is reporting that Sarah Michelle Gellar is leaving Buffy the Vampireb Slayer at the end of this season. While I am sorry to see her go, I'm looking forward to the rest of what has been an excellent final season. According to the article, the show will not replace her with a new Buffy, but might create a spin off with some of the current cast.

I wonder if they'll kill of Buffy's character at the end or not. My guess - yes they will (they could always raise her from the dead again for the motion picture).

In other TV news, a new episode of Boomtown is coming this Sunday at 10:00 on NBC. For those of you who haven't yet seen this show, it is the best new show this year (well maybe second behind Without a Trace). Check it out, you won't regret it.

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Why Is Germany So Adamently Against the War?

This interesting story (subscription required) in today's Wall Street Journal suggests that the destruction inflicted upon German cities such as Dresdan by allied bombers during WWII makes the German people uniquely sensitive to the destruction brought on by bombing. This unique sensitivity may explain 70% opposition to any attack on Iraq, with or without the U.N..

In an article entitled "Long-Repressed Recollections of Allied Bombings Help Fuel Opposition to U.S.-Led Push for War," Chrisotpher Rhoads describes a new movement that is taking hold in Germany that views Germans as, in addition to being the perpetrators of Nazism, victims of the terrible devastation of Allied Bombers.

If you have a subscription to WSJ Online, check it out.
New Traffic Record - Thanks Again to Joe Millionaire!

Eighty unique visitors today! I know its not that much, but defintely better than the 11 I was averaging three weeks ago.

Most of the traffic was brought by renewed interest in Joe Millionaire resulting from the aftermath show last night.

I must admit, however, that it's a bit disconcerting to see that many of the searches submitted to Google involving Evan and Zora that eventually led to this blog also seem to include the words "boobs" or "fetish" or "nude."

Ain't that America...

Sunday, February 23, 2003

The Uselessness of Symbolic Protests

I got this link from Drudge:

From the Associated Press:

An NCAA Division III college basketball player who turns away from the U.S. flag during the national anthem was jeered by flag-waving students at a road game, even while she was on the bench. Toni Smith, a senior at Manhattanville College, was booed at Mount St. Mary at a game Thursday night. Smith is protesting "that the government's priorities are not on bettering the quality of life for all of its people, but rather on expanding its own power." She has turned away from the flag all season.
. . .

Manhattanville president Richard Berman said he told Smith "what she's doing is courageous and difficult."

Let me add third and fourth adjectives to describe Ms. Smith's actions: stupid and pointless. Stupid because what she claims to be protesting makes her sound like a Reagan Republican. President Reagan always fought against the government expanding its own power. Remember how he said government isn't part of the solution, but rather is part of the problem? Pointless because her protest achieves nothing except to further illustrate the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the far left in America today. Its funny how all of these people who make symbolic protests are unwilling to do something that actually takes effort such as researching and writing an influential policy paper, or starting a letter writing campaign. The problem is that these people lack the initiative and brain power necessary to undertake something that actually will achieve a tangible result.

I walk past the White House about three times a week. Each time I see a group of women dressed in all pink outfit protesting the war in Iraq. Out of politeness I never say anything to them, but I always ask myself a a question: If these women have enough free time to stand around all day in pink doing nothing, why don't they do something productive like work in a soup kitchen or raise money for HIV/AIDS medicine in Africa or even just get a frickin' job? My guess is that it's because that would require actual effort. These woman probably commute in from Montgomery County in their nice SUV's where they live in nice big houses paid for by their hard working husbands. They've spent way too many years sitting around the house watching Oprah and their white liberal guilt has finally gotten the best of them.

Friday, February 21, 2003

Is the Use of the Verb "Shafted" Proper in Newspaper Article?

I would not have thought so, but check out this article on the University of Michigan affirmative action case before the Supreme Court (thanks to SCOTUSBlog for the pointer).
Hamacher, who says he has been shafted by unfair admissions policies, believes there are hundreds of other students out there like him.

I always thought of the use of the term "getting shafted" as slang. It is an allusion, of course, to . . . well if you don't know, I'm not going to describe it here. It seems to me that using it in a newspaper article is a bit on the crass side. Or maybe not. Maybe "getting shafted" is perfectly acceptable language. Any thoughts?

Thursday, February 20, 2003

She May a Bit Extreme, but She Sure Is Funny

Ann Coulter's latest column, available at Townhall.com is devoted to the prospect of a liberal radio talk network. In it she includes this gem:

Among the "alternatives to Rush" that liberals have tried over the years are: former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, former Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker, former California Gov. Jerry Brown, former U.S. Sen. (and Monkey Business skipper) Gary Hart, and former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder.

The crowd attending a "Carol Moseley-Braun for president" rally last week compared favorably to the radio audiences for these guys. To be sure, conservative radio talk show hosts have a built-in audience unavailable to liberals: People driving cars to some sort of job.

If that wasn't enough, she continues:

Liberalism thrives on ignorance. Their media are "Lifetime: TV for Women," NBC's "The West Wing" and 4 billion "Law and Order" episodes in which the perp turns out to be a Christian, white male who recites the Second Amendment before disemboweling a poor minority child.

Now I happen to like "Law and Order" and haven't noticed the bias that Ms. Coulter finds. The recent hiring of former Senator Fred Thompson as the new D.A. actually supports a different conclusion. He plays a conservative (somewhat politically incorrect) District Attorney. Thus far, his character has been portrayed as wise, intelligent and extremely politically savvy.

Nevertheless, Coulter's column makes some interesting observations as to why liberal talk media has thus far failed in the age of cable television, concluding with tidbit:

Liberal persuasion consists of the highbrow sneer from self-satisfied snobs ladled out for people with a 40 IQ. This is not an ideology that can withstand several hours a day of caller scrutiny where their goofball notions can be shot down by any truck driver with a cell phone.

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Please Don't Take Away My Starbucks Card!!

Law.com has an article about a small inventor who claims to have patented the use of prepaid debit cards. It has sued, among others, Starbucks, Home Depot and Walmart for patent infringement. It is being represented by Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, a Chicago IP litigation boutique that (if I'm not mistaken) is known for taking cases on contingency. The Niro firm seems to win a lot of big cases, so I wouldn't be surprised to see this case actually go somewhere.

The patent (6,405,182) is titled "System for dispensing prepaid debit cards through point-of-sale terminals" and claims priority back to at least 1998.

I think this is a case to keep an eye on.

Web Marketing 101 - Blog About Joe Millionaire, Increase Traffic to Your Blog

My traffic is way up today. Typically I get 8-15 visits per day (I know, it's pathetic). Today, I've already had 27 and its only 7:00 PM. Not a lot, granted, but significantly more than usual. I'd like to think the increased traffic is the result of my Fisking of Senator Byrd's speech from the other day, but somehow I doubt it.

More likely, the traffic is from blogging about Joe Millionaire. I even noticed a hit from "Foxinc.com" (the internal Fox network). They were probably policing their intellectual property rights, checking to see if I had somehow infringed them. I checked, and Google has already spidered the page and I only updated it on Monday. I did not even ask Google to come and get it.

I remember the old days (when I was web programming) when you had to submit your sight to the web site so that it would come and spider it, and even then it would only check for fresh content every month or so. Apparently, Google has brought spidering technology a long way over the past couple years.

In order to test my hypothesis, I am going to place the words "Joe Millionaire" and "Zora" and "Evan Marriot" in this post several more times and see if my traffic stays up.

OK, here we go with shameless search engine manipulation attempt:

Sarah Kozer
Zora
Melissa M
Mojo
Evan Marriot
Joe Millionaire

I'll be sure to let you know how it goes.

Monday, February 17, 2003

Joe Millionaire - Pure Genius

Dude, that was so entirely cool that I can't even believe it!! Joe chooses the nice girl Zora over the hoochie fetish-movie star Sarah. Zora, upon deciding to stay with Evan (the real name of Joe Millionaire) tells him that she was actually turned off by the money!

After that, Fox surprises both of them by giving them one million dollars to share (this was especially cool because they are both dirt poor).

Brilliant. Everyone I watched the show with felt so good for the new couple.

Think about the ways that Fox was brilliant in its choices with this show:

- It chose Evan Marriott to play the part of Joe Millionaire. Evan was a genuinely nice guy, but not particularly sophisticated. He clearly had a good heart, but at the same time was not so pure that we got annoyed (remember the scene in the woods with Sarah). Most normal people could really identify with Evan, which kept us all watching.

- It found a girl like Zora who was completely normal and sweet. She was nothing like most of the other women on the show who were clearly there for the chance at becoming an instant millionaire. I can't see how they convinced Zora to even come on the show.

- They totally made fun of the shallow bimbos like Melissa M, Sara, and Heidi. That was simply beautiful.

- They cross-promoted the hell out of other Fox shows like the second Michael Jackson interview, the Married by America show that is coming up in March (and boy does that look funny).

- The are doing an Joe Millionaire aftermath show where we get to see how Evan and Zora have done over the past six months.

Rupert Murdoch is a television genius. Think about it. Fox News goes from not existing to the clear number 1 in just five short years. The Fox network challenged the big three with the Simpsons, Married w/ Children, Tracey Ullman when nobody thought it could be done. Now, he takes reality TV to a whole new level.

Sunday, February 16, 2003

OK Raich, Here You Go

My liberal (but conservative waiting to happen) friend Jaime sent me this transcript of Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd's speech made on the Senate floor on February 12, 2003. He told me to blog about it. Apparently, he thought the speech was a powerful indictment of the imminent war to liberate the Iraqi people.

Well, Jaime, you asked for it. What follows is known as a Fisking. For the uninitiated, according to the Volokh Conspiracy a Fisking is:
The term refers to Robert Fisk, a journalist who wrote some rather foolish anti-war stuff, and who in particular wrote a story in which he (1) recounted how he was beaten by some anti-American Afghan refugees, and (2) thought they were morally right for doing so. Hence many pro-war blogs -- most famously, InstaPundit -- often use the term "Fisking" figuratively to mean a thorough and forceful verbal beating of an anti-war, possibly anti-American, commentator who has richly earned this figurative beating through his words. Good Fisking tends to be (or at least aim to be) quite logical, and often quotes the other article in detail, interspersing criticisms with the original article's text.

Let the Fisking begin (original Senate speech in italics, my response in bold).

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.

Especially more so, according to Senator Byrd, if you have to fight side by side with a black person, as Senator Byrd said once: "I vow never to fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Actually, Senator, I'm comtemplating the horrors of some of the missing, unaccounted-for cyanide gas that we know that Iraq produced being released in a subway car that I'm riding.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war.

That's because you Democrats are too busy preventing Hispanics from being confirmed as federal judges. Wow, you guys really are the party that supports minorities!

There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.

I know Senator, it must be very scary for you Democrats to have a GASP conservative minority in your presence. The sheer turmoil that is caused by the realization that a Hispanic can achieve in this country without the help of some program you created must be quite shocking.

Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

Can we really consider the New York Times a newspaper anymore? Also, even if we do consider it a newspaper, are their arguments really substantive?

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain.

Your right, Senator. This is actually a very complex attempt to behead a insane, evil, corrupt man.

No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

Yup. We have finally realized that evil dictators should not be appeased, and that we have a moral obligation to free those who live under them. Recent world history took the view that we could appease dictators, and we got Hitler, Milosovic, and Mugabe to show for it.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.

Oh yeah, because we've always used our power to take over free and peace-loving countries and make them toil under our evil despotic rule. Senator, the only people who are justly scared of this new preemption policy are evil dictators that deny their people basic human rights. I see that as a good thing.

High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq.

Has Iraq taken nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction off the table? I know you are old Senator Byrd, and your memory might not be what it used to be, but recall 1991 and the Gulf War. The only reason that Saddam did not use chemical weapons on our troops then is because we told him that if he did, we'd respond by going nuclear. This is the one thing Hussein has listened to in the past 12 years.

What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?

Oh, I don't know, maybe Saddam Hussein developing a nuclear bomb (which he is close to doing) and dropping it on Israel?

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.

I'd hardly call the French not supporting us a huge crack. They get cheap oil from Iraq right now and fear that a free Iraq would not provide them with the same. NATO is only being fractured by the resistance of 3 out of 16 countries to defend Turkey according to the terms of the treaty. That's 3 out of 16, less than 20 percent.

Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

I'd say its still pretty solid, and if France, Germany, and Belgium want to leave NATO, hasta la vista, baby.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur.

Don't you think if we knew where or when these attacks were going to occur, then we'd go ahead and stop them?

Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face.

That's how the military works Senator. And imagine, someone might have to serve side by side with a black person that whole time. Oh the horrors!

Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection.

The new budget increases funds for police and fire protection 1000%.

Other essential services are also short-staffed.

Such as ... ?

The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

Once we get done in Iraq, the oil will flow and the economy and fuel prices will come back down. The longer we wait, the longer it takes.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

This is just too stupid to comment on.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.

Ok, first of all, last time I checked, the surpluses were merely projections. Anyone knows that ten year projections are inherently unrealiable. Didn't we project deficits "as far as the eye can see" in 1993 as well? Once the Republican congressional majority came in and put the brakes on some of Senator Byrd's pork projects the picture quickly turned. Once we win the war on terrorism and can redirect some of those funds to cover other essential services, we'll see surpluses once again.

This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people.

Actually, the states that increased spending by 50% over course of three years put themselves in dire financial condition. Any idiot should have known that that kind of growth of government could not be supported indefinitely.

This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth.

Actually, we were in a recession during that last 6 months of the Clinton administration. We have, thanks in part to the Bush tax cut, been able to climb out of that to some extent, even with the incredible damage that 9/11 did to our economy.

This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.

The Democratic Senate blocked the passage of a Medicare bill last year that the President said he'd sign and that sailed through the Republican house.

This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security.

Senator Byrd led the fight against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He voted against the bill creating the department. A bit hypocritical to criticize someone for inadequately funding something the very creation of which you opposed.

This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

Actually, I agree with him here. Even a blind squirrel ...

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.

Because he's buried so deep in the caves of Tora Bora, we can't get to his body.

In fact, just yesterday we heard from him

or, more likely a sound alike. Why incidently doesn't he ever release any more live videos?

again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill.

Or rather, what's left of his forces.

This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.

And that is bad because?

This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper.

But is hasn't called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as the people that will save everyone's ass after they fuck up and coddle dictators long enough (see Hitler, Milosevic, etc.).

This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence

Oh yeah, I forgot, Bush is stupid. Senator Byrd, haven't we gotten past this crap after two years?

and sensitivity of our leaders,

Yeah, that's what we want, sensitive leaders, not strong moral leaders.

and which will have consequences for years to come.

I hope so. Hopefully that lack of "sesnsitivity" will cause the French to take a hike and go it on their own.

Calling heads of state pygmies,

The truth hurts

labeling whole countries as evil,

the truth hurts

denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant

Once again, the truth hurts

-- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good.

We are so insenstive.

We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

Oh yeah, we need the French for their incredicle military acumen.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

How would you suggest securing peace in Afghanistan, Senator Byrd. If you have some way that doesn't include hunting down terrorists and killing them, I'm all ears.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces.

And that is bad why? Those two-faced assholes tell us they are helping while they hide and protect Al Queda in their mountains.

This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future?


Hey KKK Bob, if we wanted to occupy oil lands, we could have done it years ago. Give our great country some credit, we are not in the business of taking over countries (even though we could). We occupied Japan and Germany after WWII for a few years to help them get back on their feet. This will be no different.

To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Someone who understands and appreciates freedom.

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel?

Like Muslims are not already inflamed and inflicting devastating attacks on Israel. Last time I checked, suicide bombers who kill dozens of people are inflicting devasting attacks. Also, don't guys like you hate jews as well as blacks?

Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal?

Only if necessary. But I guarantee you that if Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would not wait to retaliate, he'd use a first strike.

Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals,

They'll be toppled, but not by radicals, but rather by people who appeciate freedom.

bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

On our way to North Korea from Iraq, Iran would be a nice field trip.

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

No Senator, crazy evil Islamists initiated policies on September 11th that "may reap disastrous consequences for years."

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Look. We were incredibly patient after the attack. We waited at least two months before moving into Afghanistan. I remember the American people saying that we should go in and nuke them. Bush was patient and waited for the information to get to him. Once he got it, he acted appropriately.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent.

Good. You guys talk way too much anyway.

On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent.

You know why 50% of the population is under the age of 15? Because Saddam kills so many people when they reach adulthood.

On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

Yeah, because we didn't get one on 9/11.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.

I would submit that 11 years of inspection were the first of many resorts.

I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country".

Those children live in a country that has a 13.5% infant mortality rate. They live in a country where they are tortured so that their parents will tell government officials what they know. These children live in a country where their dictatorial leader doesn't hesitate before murdering them with chemical weapons or cutting out their tongues because they dare speak critically of his regime.

This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.

Exactly what result have we achieved? Iraq has yet to produce any of the vast volumes of chemical weapons we know they have. They have yet to produce their nuclear weapons labs.

Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Bob, does a former KKK Grand Wizard really have any moral authority in this world? It's time to retire.

Sunday, February 02, 2003

From the Associated Press:


President Bush has reversed the slide in public support for a possible war with Iraq, with two-thirds, 66 percent, in an ABC-Washington Post poll released Saturday saying they support military action against Iraq.

That's up from 57 percent who felt that way in mid-January in this poll. Significantly, 51 percent said they support military action even if the United Nations is opposed. The number that supported military action over U.N. opposition was at 37 percent in mid-December.

Bush tried to make the case for his aggressive Iraq policy in the State of the Union speech Tuesday. Approval of the president's handling of the Iraq situation was up to 61 percent, compared with 50 percent in an ABC-Post poll released Jan. 20.


Funny, but I checked the New York Times web site, and found no mention of this change in public support. I guess it's only newsworthy when support declines.