A PASSION FOR FAME?

David Broder cautions Karl Rove on being too accessible to the journalists and biographers.

Rove is at the point where a single leaked memo showing his hand in a controversial presidential action could make him vulnerable. And if that happens, it won't be the president who has to step aside.

Rove should be well aware of the need to appear to be advising and not directing, if his political acumen is as good as advertised. However, I still can't get past the notion that Rove couldn't orchestrate a popular vote plurality. Had Bush lost that 500 vote lead in Florida, history's estimation of Rove would be 180 degrees from where it is now.

KING RALPH

I don't know why, but I've always been able to separate my political beliefs from my entertainment. If the entertainer is liberal, but I like what they do, I don't let the politics prevent my enjoyment of the entertainment. This explains why I am able to enjoy R.E.M., even when they are performing Ignoreland. So, I still like The West Wing, despite it's left-wing idealized president who is played by left-wing headline addict Martin Sheen.

The West Wing is at its best when it is exploring the processes of the presidency (dealing with Congress, the press, etc.) and the nature of presidential power and its exercise, or, as in last night's episode, it's lack of exercise. Political junkies who boycott the show because of Sheen's presence are really missing out on an interesting exploration of Constitutional issues, such as last night's invocation of the 25th Amendment and the elevation of the Republican Speaker of the House (John Goodman) to the powers of the presidency. Good television.

ADVANCED PLACEMENT

Lone Dissenter, a conservative high school student who blogs about her PC indoctrination at the hands of the public schools, discusses the Advanced Placement History exam that she recently took.

One of the multiple choice questions, I think around number seventy, (which meant that only a very few people are expected to get it right; I don't have the numbers on me, but I think around 15%), was "What happened at the Camp David accords?" Answer one was the right one and said something or other about Israel and Egypt. I started to panic, and realized that I did not know what the other country had been. I knew it was Israel, but had no idea of the other. Before I stabbed myself in the eye with my number two pencil, however, I looked at the other choices. "Carter proposed a tax cut", "Environmental issues were discussed", and so on. Nothing even vaguely touching the subject. Remember, the vast majority of American kids will get this one wrong, at least according to what my AP prep book said.

There's more here (to be archived here). We link to this wonderful blog on the right and would like to see if her opposite number is out there, somewhere. If you know of a leftist high schooler who blogs on politics and education topics, please let us know.

CAL-EL RAE?

Superman. A New Deal liberal? A union agitator? And now a communist?

iLOO JAYSON BLAIR

I'm sure there's some astute observation or joke that can tie together the MSN iLoo hoax and the New York Times' failure to manage Jayson Blair. I don't know what it is, but the two seem to go together.

HOWMARXISMWORKS.COM

I've always enjoyed HowStuffWorks.com. But in today's Raleigh News & Observer, founder Marshall Brain recommends that corporate dividends be banned, because, as he says, the "corporate dividend system redistributes a massive amount of wealth from consumers and employees to these wealthy shareholders, and it costs each of us a tremendous amount of money every year." And he's right. But what he really is proposing is the abolition of private property. After all, dividends are distributions of a company's private property to the owners of the company and they represent liquidated profits from the company. So, Mr. Brain is actually recommending the abolition of private property and the criminalization of corporate profit.

He even recommends that moneys that would be distributed as profits be distributed among the taxpayers because "the excess cash comes because corporations charge too much. Doesn't it make sense to send the money back to the consumers it came from?"

This is so breathtaking in its Marxist bluntness, so audacious and revolutionary a recommendation, I have to wonder if this is merely a Modest Proposal. If not, I note that HowStuffWorks is supported by advertising, that Circuit City advertises on the site and the money that Circuit City pays HowStuffWorks comes from overcharging its customers. I bought something recently at Circuit City, so I think that it's only fair for Marshall Brain to cut me a check for part of what he got in ad revenue from Circuit City.

ABOUT A POSITIVE DISCUSSION, NOT A RANT
BY JOHN, I THINK YOU'VE GOT IT

As any reader of this site must know, we have four bloggers. Brian, Hank, Winston and John. There's also our cartoonist Jeff, who hasn't joined the discussion yet. All would claim the label conservative (or some form of that label), except John. All probably vote Republican the majority of the time, except for John. All probably have a strong libertarian streak, though I'm not sure about Hank.

Rightfully, John doesn't want to be merely the token lefty on a rant-board, and I don't want him to be either. I want John to keep us all honest in our observations -- I don't want this to be like Free Republic or a GOP precinct meeting where people make bald assertions without backing them up. I also hope that John points out where we are wrong and challenges what people on the right say. And if you think its fine for Democrats to block Estrada and Owen, then I love to hear why (and I do take seriously the argument that only 2 are being blocked out of all of the Bush nominees, so what's the problem).

While my brand of conservatism varies from that of Hank, Brian and Jeff, I wanted to discuss more than just internal differences on the right, but to get at some of the assumptions. John, you have done that by discussing my press bias observation by saying that, yes, there is press bias, but so what? If our arguments are tit for tat, arguing without addressing our underlying assumptions, then we accomplish nothing and I don't see how this site would be of any use to our readers.

That's how I want this site to differ from that of other blogs. Look at National Review Online's The Corner. They do have discussions and disagreements, but they are within a very narrow range of Republicans that may be described as "neoconservatives," meaning (to me) that they are not isolationist, protectionist paleocons like Pat Buchanan. That's fine that they have disagreement, but it really doesn't go very far in helping us all find common ground. Look at Democratic Underground and Free Republic, both great places to discuss differences among our own parties, but if you are too far off the party dogma, then you are banned. I tried to get this kind of discussion going on Democratic Underground, but whammo, I got banned.

Anyway, I hope readers of Federal Review get a lively discussion and more than just the same old that they may get from other conservative sites. That's why the links at the right are not just from one side of the aisle. Come on, what "conservative" site links to The Nation without editorializing on the link? Well, that's enough rambling for now...and about the press objectivity, I agree that bias is not bad if everyone gets the spin the want and are aware of it. I just was making the point that the AP, for example, would never call CNN a "liberal" cable news channel. I guess my point was more about what one side might get away with. Your mileage may vary.