« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
July 29, 2005
Hoy, Neuva York! and other ramblings
As if Yankee fans needed one more reason to despise the Mets...Manny Ramirez, who evidently listens to MP3's while earning his millions and millions, may be headed to Flushing. Everyone wins, I suppose.
I'm sure our friends at Pundit Review will have some nonsensical Yankee-hating commentary on the Manny Ramirez front. Regardless, be sure to set aside your baseball passions and tune in to Pundit Review radio on Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Despite their residing in a second-rate city, PR has lined up some serious guests over the past few weeks. This week, it's Jeff Jarvis, who seems like he'd benefit, all in all, from a punch in the mouth. (Among other things: Jarvis was among those who sand-bagged Bernard Goldberg on "The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch," prompting yours truly to draft a snitty letter to Donny (it's below the fold)). In any case, happy Friday, everyone. See you Sunday evening.
My letter (thanks for looking):
Dear Donny:
I watch your show, occasionally, and I think it's mildly entertaining. But after what you did to Goldberg, I don't think I'll be watching anymore. He's certainly gruff and disagreeable, and he doesn't debate as well as he thinks. But his conduct was understandable given the situation you put him in, and it's disappointing to me that you saw this as an opportunity to thwart debate rather than foster it. Whether you intended to "sandbag" him or not, the fact is you introduced the segment by reference to his book, which neither you nor the other guests -- all, coincidentally (?) left wing shills, the kind Goldberg betrayed -- bothered to read, then permitted those guests to pile on.
You then chuckled at the notion that the big 3 networks don't want Goldberg on their screens, and used the word "scary" to describe the book's success, which isn't "commentary" at all -- it's as vacuous as the "last word" silliness Jerry Springer offers. What is "scary" is that you, and the rest of your guests, don't bother to entertain ideas that bother you.
Read the book, Donny, and try to look past your personal distaste for Goldberg because you might learn something. Read, too, a book called "South Park Conservatives." Meantime, if you're willing to dismiss Goldberg and his work so summarily, the that you're not among the "media elite" is wishful thinking, hurt though that label might.
Posted by bill at 08:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Un-progress
Yesterday I suggested the tide might be turning against "Islamapologism" but pointed out "a few bright spots probably do not signal a 'trend.'" Today, Steve Emerson at Counterterrorism Blog suggests one of those spots isn't so bright. The fatwa announced yesterday against "terrorism and extremism," which had the endorsement of major Muslim groups:
...is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda.
He continues:
I spoke with Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl who told me that the fatwa was “vacuous because it does not name the perpetrators of Islamic terrorist theologies and leaders of Islamic movements like Yousef Al Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahari, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.” Pearl told me that these groups are “trying to perpetrate a deception on the American public."
This makes me think: What's worse? The old - silence for which we didn't want to know the explanation - or the sham fatwa, which is all but an acknowledgement that the old silence meant what we'd hoped it didn't?
Posted by bill at 04:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Too Close
The House of Representatives finally passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), but the narrow margin of victory should dissuade free marketers everywhere from celebrating. Two votes. A measure that would lower trade barriers between the United States and some of our (small and poor) neighboring countries, only passed by a two vote margin, 217-215. Yes, Republicans favored the bill and Democrats excoriated it, but the problem goes deeper. There were too many Republican defections, and the Democratic members of the House (more than 100 of whom voted for NAFTA in 1993) seem to have lost their stomach for globalization. If the United States is to continue as a leader in the march toward globalization, we are going to have to convince more than a bare majority of our legislators to come along.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Boy it's hot! Must be global warming!
...and that about sums up the "argument" offered in this braindead column at Huffington Post. I don't know how anyone can read this and do anything other than laugh. Nevermind the science! It's hot outside! The Media Research Center tackles the my-Frappuccino-is-sour-stop-global-warming silliness here.
Posted by bill at 07:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Friday, July 29, 2005
Securing our Subways - Michael Chertoff, WP
You object to profiling? Fuhgedaboutit. - D. Gelernter, LAT
The Roberts Documents - Manuel Miranda, WSJ
A Document Request for Senator Schumer - S. Calabresi, WS
Eliot's Sour Note - Ryan Sager, NYP
Questioning Roberts on Overturning Roe - Todd Zywicki, Volokh
Jane Fonda's Second Coming - Cal Thomas, Townhall
Tree Ring Circus - Steven Milloy, Fox News
From the Left: Paul Krugman/Thomas Friedman
Posted by bill at 06:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 28, 2005
Putrid prose
Next year I am entering this contest. I may enter my yet-unpublished account of my ordeal last year with a rabid, hungry NYC squirrel.
Posted by bill at 09:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
At last...
Is the tide turning against Islamapologism? Andrew Sullivan writes that "self criticism is becoming the order of the day," citing a few editorials - finally - from moderate Muslims condemning Islamofascism, even going so far as to suggest "reform." A friend of mine emailed me this, too:
A council of Muslim scholars in the United States has issued a religious ruling, or fatwa, against terrorism and extremism.
The Muslim scholars released the ruling during a press conference in Washington, saying that Islam condemns terrorism, religious radicalism and the use of violence.
The scholars serve on the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Muslim jurists who interpret Isalamic law.
The council's chairman, Muzammil Siddiqi, read the fatwa, which says "targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is forbidden, and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs."
A few bright spots probably do not signal a "trend." But there's hope.
Posted by bill at 08:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Quiz
If we didn't laugh at this, we'd have to cry.
Posted by bill at 03:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Air America: fleecing poor kids and old people?
If you haven't read about the Air America scandal involving the alleged diversion of funds from poor kids to the company's wallet, Michelle Malkin's covered it here and (updated) here.
Posted by bill at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Take Back the Memorial - Update
Their press release is below the fold. Good stuff, take a lookie.
New York, N.Y., July 27, 2005 - Fifteen September 11 organizations representing the majority of the families of victims lost in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 today announced the launch of two new initiatives that will help America ‘Take Back the Memorial’ at Ground Zero.
“Campaign America” is the way that concerned communities across the country can show their support to “Take Back the Memorial.” Concerned citizens are encouraged to download the Campaign America Resolution located at www.takebackthememorial.org and present it to their local city or town councils for consideration. Municipalities which have passed the resolution, will be listed on the Campaign America Honor Roll located at www.takebackthememorial.org. The passing of the Campaign America Resolution by communities across America will send a powerful message that this is America’s 9/11 Memorial, and American communities will not stand for the International Freedom Center and Drawing Center being located on the World Trade Center site.
The “Offline Petition Drive” is an extension of the widely successful online petition by www.takebackthememorial.org. Currently the online petition has garnered over 36,000 signatures including nearly 1900 family relatives of September 11 victims. The offline petition will reach supporters without easy access to the internet. We encourage supporters to printout the Petition kit and instructions (available at www.takebackthememorial.org) and gather the signatures of friends, neighbors, and co-workers.
Posted by bill at 08:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Thursday, July 28, 2005
The 'Evil Cabal' of Conservative Lawyers - Manuel Miranda, WSJ (6/27)
The Federalist Society - Emmett Tyrell, Townhall
Stupid Republican Tricks I and II - Captain's Quarters
The Democratic Party: Left Behind - Thomas Lifson, American Thinker
Party distress signals - Donald Lambro, Wash. Times
The Ugly Left - Tammy Bruce, FPM
Pataki's Next Move Not to the White House - John Podhoretz, NYP
No Bush, no border reform - Andres Martinez, LAT
Justice often served by jury nullification - Radley Balko, Fox News
Posted by bill at 06:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 27, 2005
City Journal
Their Summer '05 edition is out. I don't read fast enough to offer highlights, but this article on New York City's attempted "rebuilding" caught my attention. After 9/11, Steven Malanga writes:
another New York also emerged--a city of victims wallowing in grief over the attacks and urging that we should turn lower Manhattan into a gigantic permanent memorial or cultural wonderland, an idea supported even by Mayor Giuliani in one of his few wrongheaded moments. Anti-development groups seized on this emerging culture of grief to press a case against a dynamic rebuilding program, suggesting that it was not only undesirable but probably not feasible, since the attack had permanently crippled the city's economy. Brushing aside the vibrant, private-sector revival that had just taken place downtown, they advocated a raft of government-managed and -financed non-building alternatives for the World Trade Center and downtown in general.
This is a fantastic look at what's gone wrong in New York City for the last 4 years.
Posted by bill at 01:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Can anyone...
...name one liberal blog that's said a positive word about the liftoff of the space shuttle Discovery? This might be a smidge too patriotic for left-wingers (a similar question occurred to me this past Independence Day: Anything nice to say about the United States, my liberal friends?) I've seen a few posts here and there about the space shuttle, but none on the prominent liberal blogs. Maybe it's just me...
Posted by bill at 07:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Back where we belong - Reid Collins, American Spectator
Learning from Lance - Thomas Friedman, NYT
Terrorism's Latest Victim - Rick Moran, American Thinker
Will we defend ourselves? - Walter Williams, Townhall
Beards and Scarves Aren't Muslim - Amir Taheri, Times Online
Our Extreme Makeover - Max Boot, LAT
An Evolving Assessment - S. Hayes & T. Joscelyn, Weekly Standard
Revolt of Privilege, Muslim Style - David Ignatius, WP
Gun Liability Control - WSJ
Bush plays judicial jujitsu - Dick Morris, The Hill
Posted by bill at 06:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 26, 2005
Howard Dean hit parade...
...keeps on going:
-- "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is."
-- Republicans "are all about voter suppression."
-- "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is." [Note: Seriously! He said this.]
-- Referring to the Dems' hope for a return to majority party status: "If we want it back, we'll have to buy it back."
Posted by bill at 08:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tancredo not backing down
I've already posted about Pat [UPDATE: Tom; dang it] Tancredo's comments on nuclear tit-for-tat, and I was pleased to see he isn't backing down. Instead, he gives a big "up yours" to the namby-pambies.
Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.
That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach.
Does that mean the United States should be re-targeting its entire missile arsenal on Mecca today? Does it mean we ought to be sending Stealth bombers on runs over Medina? Clearly not.
But should we take any option or target off the table, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not, particularly if the mere discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack, or if it might encourage "moderate" Muslims to do a better job cracking down on extremism in their ranks.
A local Muslim group denounced the politician (as did, I'm sure, many other Islamapologists). But they didn't denounce the five Arab men who were arrested today on account of an apparent plot to kill and kill and kill and kill. Or this guy.
Posted by bill at 07:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Who said they said the Senator said?
As it turns out, what Jonathan Turley said his sources said their sources said might not be correct after all. Hmm.
Posted by bill at 03:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Liftoff!
The AP reports.
Posted by bill at 09:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Jihad" is NOT a harmless concept meaning "decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles"
Mark Steyn delivers another doozie, this time on multiculturalist nonsense in the most sensitive war ever:
Bomb us, and we agonise over the "root causes" (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace". Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush, Blair and Howard. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that to the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles".
Meantime, Ricky Martin seeks to end Arab sterotypes by wearing a Palestinian kaffiyeh that blares: "Jerusalem is Ours."
Posted by bill at 08:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Very Old Labor - WSJ
Unions Reinvented - LAT
Labor's Big Split - Harold Meyerson, Wash. Post
Mugged by Reality? - Mark Steyn, The Australian
Are Subway Searches Legal? - Daniel Engber, Slate
Israelis Know: Profiling's Key - Yishai Ha'etzni, NYP
Layman's Guide to the Valerie Plame Affair - Garrison Geillor, Ch. Trib.
The Pennsylvania funeral furor - Jay Bryant, Townhall
North Korean Shakedown Artist - NY Sun
The Sagebrush Solution - John Tierney, NY Times
Posted by bill at 06:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 25, 2005
Jonathan Turley
I hope to post more later on Jonathan Turley's op-ed today for the LA Times in which he breathlessly concludes, "that in answering "Who is John Roberts?" The burden may now have shifted to the White House to fully answer this question," based on Roberts' response to a question about his faith. For starters, there are reasons rules of evidence are skeptical about hearsay, and Turley's leaps are the reason why -- here we have
"double hearsay" (Turley says they said their sources said) as his starting point. More later - a crucial lawyer league softball game calls.
Posted by bill at 04:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Of course she's running, part N
Today's installment courtesy of Drudge. A shrewd move by a shrewd politician.
Posted by bill at 12:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Flinging labels
Not too long ago I wrote here that:
I don't like the fact that I cannot post anything here on the Middle East, September 11th and Israel without running the risk of being labeled an "anti-Semite" if I'm not exquisitely sensitive to the words I use and the range of inferences a reader might make. It's a sad truth that even foreign policy can be a casualty of speech policing inasmuch as Israel is involved....Like a lot of conservatives I support President Bush and his conduct of the war on terror, and I don't subscribe to Tin Foil Hat Brigade conspiracy theories. But if we're to have a worthwhile debate about what wars to fight, and how and when to do so, it'll have to account for the U.S.' unique relationship with Israel and the extent to which our interests are co-extensive with theirs, and when they diverge. One of the vastly unexplored issues of the last few years is whether, as to Israel, we're reaching a point of divergence, or are at or beyond it, as are sub-points such as: the idea that September 11th united much of the world against Islamofascim; questions about what Israel stands to gain from regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Today, Littlegreenfootballs underscores the problem. Responding to this post at Huffingtonpost:
little green footballs is a site of the Likud Party, they are not for America, for them Israel comes first.
LGF says:
Ariana opened the door to antisemites like Paul Findley and Justin Raimondo, and now their friends are showing up. The delicious irony, of course, is that the terrible secret of LFG is far stranger than their puny Earth minds can comprehend.[Link omitted.]
Anti-Semitism? How's that exactly? Sounds more like speech regulation by the right - no better than when it comes from the left.
Posted by bill at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Monday, July 25, 2005
Shoring Up the Western Front - Pete Du Pont, WSJ
The law of retaliation in Islam - James Arlandson, AT
The Pope of Terrorism, Pt. I - Thomas Joscelyn, WS
The Pentagon's secret new strategy for taking on terrorists - L. Robinson, US News
Collateral Damage - Captain Ed
The faith of John Roberts - J. Turley, LAT
Bush Bashing Fizzles - Michael Barone, Townhall
Why Our Black Families are Failing - William Raspberry, WP
Toyota, Moving Northward - Thomas Friedman, NYT
Thank you, Lance Armstrong - Wash. Times
Posted by bill at 06:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 24, 2005
Weekend edition
Sorry for not posting this weekend - was in Washington, D.C. enjoying a Nationals game, pondering whether I'll switch allegiances to that team in a few years if my New York Yankees go ahead with plans to tear down the Stadium. George Soros may be the only thing that could prevent me from doing so.
In any case, this should be an interesting week all around. A few good articles, and a new blogger to help carry the load. Stick around.
Posted by bill at 09:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 22, 2005
Fundraising
I really, really hate doing this but need to ask for your donations to support the site. If you're a fan of what I'm doing here, or if you hate me but appreciate the effort, please consider donating to Citizen Journal. It's in something of a hole financially, although I'm just trying to cover hosting and ongoing maintenance costs rather than the start-up ones. If you're a blogger or a business owner, I'm happy to post your ad as a token of my appreciation.
Even a $5 or $10 donation will help. "Thank you for your support."
Posted by bill at 11:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tripe
This seems to be the level of "debate" we can expect from the left on the Roberts nomination. Just a little too happy middle-America- Catholic looking for the urban blues. I suppose nipple rings, darker skin, and Cesare Catini shoes would have been better?
Pardon me, but Robin Givhan is an asshole.
Posted by bill at 10:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What she said
Michelle Malkin on window dressing security measures in NYC.
Posted by bill at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Friday, July 22, 2005
Time to learn from Israel - WSJ
We're at war. How about acting like it? - Victor Davis Hanson, NRO
Jihad Made in Europe - Reuel Marc Gerecht, Daily Standard
No more cheating for a good cause - David Gelernter, LAT
Schumer's Estradification Ploy - Captain Ed
What kind of Justice will we get? - Charles Krauthammer
Schumer's chutzpah - Wash. Times
From the Left: Friedman / Krugman
Stem Cell Smoke and Mirrors - Steven Milloy, Fox News
Posted by bill at 07:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 21, 2005
Absurdity
Apparently in response to today's bombings in London, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that 83 year-old caucasian women carrying purses will be treated with the same degree of suspicion as young Arabic men carrying backpacks. This, we know, is because we'd prefer inoffensiveness to safety.
UPDATE: Some will probably chastise me for interchanging "purse" and "backpack"; let's amend them both to "bag" for their sake.
Way to go, New York!
Posted by bill at 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Thursday, July 21, 2005
Worldwide Conspiracy? - M. Isikoff & M. Hosenball, Newsweek
Competent Conservative - David Brooks, NYT
Will Roberts be Borked? - V. Dinh/C. Sloan./D. Lithwick, Slate
A Long-Standing Norm - NY Sun
Cashing in on the Fight - Dick Morris, NYP
Moving the court back toward the center - WSJ
A Tale of Two Columnists - James Chen, American Thinker
Ignoring the News - Russ Smith, NY Press
How not to count bodies - Stephen Pollard, Times Online
Posted by bill at 06:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 20, 2005
Things to think about
Let's be clear about a few things:
First, if you're a neophyte when it comes to judges, the constitution and confirmations, I strongly recommend Robert H. Bork's book, The Tempting of America. Whether liberals want to admit this or not, Bork was borked because he is a colossal intellect who threatened liberalism in ways they didn't want to imagine. In The Tempting of America, Bork not only recalls his confirmation nightmare but outlines the court's proper function alongside the political world. It provides an outstanding backdrop for the battle over John Roberts, which has already been joined. (More after the jump - I'm trying to keep page one breezy.)
A second point concerns the blather we're going to hear about positions Roberts took as Solicitor General (and elsewhere). For starters, attacking a judicial candidate on the basis of positions advocated on behalf of clients reflects a misunderstanding (best case) about courts, the law and politics. Don't ask how I remember this, but the Los Angeles County Bar summed it up in 2003:
...neither the identity of a lawyer's clients nor the zealous advocacy of their causes necessarily provides any insight into the lawyer's personal beliefs, nor do they necessarily provide any indication of how a nominee may view a particular case presented to him or her as a judge. Indeed, representing clients whose views we may disagree with comes with the territory for many attorneys.
As an underling to the Solicitor General, Roberts had a client, too; in this respect his job was no different than private law practice. His client just happened to be the President of the United States, and so his responsibilities touched upon politically-charged issues, rather than insurance coverage, divorce, contracts and the likes. But Roberts' job was, simply, to advocate his client's position. Again, anyone who argues otherwise misunderstands (again, best case).
Posted by bill at 08:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Why don't we just send flowers and apologize?
"Red Ken" Livingstone says we're just asking for terrorism:
Asked on Wednesday what he thought had motivated the four suspected suicide bombers, Livingstone cited Western policy in the Middle East and early American backing for Osama bin Laden.
"A lot of young people see the double standards, they see what happens in (U.S. detention camp) Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn't a just foreign policy," he said.
Police say they believe there is a clear link between bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the four British Muslims who blew up three underground trains and a double-decker bus on July 7.
"You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic," Livingstone said.
"I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s ... the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians to drive them out of Afghanistan.
"They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that, he might turn on his creators," he told BBC radio.
Posted by bill at 11:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
This just in...
"Battle Over Nominee May Center on Abortion," reports the AP.
Posted by bill at 08:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sounding the alarm
Moveon.org joins the fray. Here's an excerpt of an email they sent last night:
We've got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.
The whole letter is below the fold.
In the past weeks, Republicans and Democrats have called on President Bush to nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court—someone who would honor the legacy of independent Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But last night, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts, a far-right lawyer and corporate lobbyist, to fill her post on the Supreme Court.
We've got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.
Join our urgent petition to let our senators know we expect them to oppose John Roberts right now at:
http://political.moveon.org/roberts/?id=5817-6356535-H1afZU31oLQg0T65zF2tkA&t=3
This is one of the most important domestic fights of President Bush's career. We can win—Americans overwhelmingly want a moderate judge. But to win, we need to get the word out early that Roberts is out of the mainstream.
After you've signed, please send this message on to your friends and colleagues. We need to fight back against the misinformation that the Bush administration is putting out.
John Roberts has little experience as a judge—he was only appointed in 2003. But he's got a lot of experience as a corporate lobbyist and lawyer, consistently favoring wealthy corporations over regular Americans.
Here's a list of some of the things that make Roberts the wrong pick for the Supreme Court:
Wrong on environmental protection: Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school he supported far-right legal theories about "takings" which would make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most environmental legislation.
Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act.
Wrong on human rights: As a appeals court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to some prisoners of war.
Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees.
Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case.
President Bush could have chosen many fair-minded and independent jurists to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, he chose a corporate partisan loved by Bush's right-wing base but out of step with the rest of the country.
Tell your senators they need to stop John Roberts now, at:
http://political.moveon.org/roberts/?id=5817-6356535-H1afZU31oLQg0T65zF2tkA&t=4
We'll be in touch soon about next steps. For now, please help us gather as many voices as possible to keep the Supreme Court fair. And thanks for everything you're doing.
Sincerely,
–Ben, Tanya, Justin, Jennifer and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005
Posted by bill at 08:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Wednesday, July 20, 2005
On Roberts:
Bush Rises to the Occasion - Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard
A great conservative sigh of relief - Manuel Miranda, WSJ
Blog roundup - at Blogs for Bush
Interest groups line up forces - USA Today
Steering toward John Roberts - The Prowler, American Spectator
Roberts is Ordinary - Adam C., Redstate
Townhall petition - Confirm Roberts
Senate hearings have one job: to block it - Bruce Ackerman, American Prospect.
Boring Choice, Interesting Pick - John Podhoretz, NYP
The Constitutional Wrecking Ball - Rick Santorum, NRO
Bush kept his promise - LAT
More: WP/Ch. Trib./LAT/Captain Ed/Powerline
Other Stuff:
Ask me About Cleveland - Sarah Vowell, NYT
From the Pulpit - Wash. Times
America's Democratic Terrorists - Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Slavery Reparations - Walter Williams
A guide to home Freakonomics - Michael Gove, Times of London
Posted by bill at 06:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 19, 2005
Getting to know the opposition
Links are below the fold (to organizations and what they've said about John Roberts).
On the "pro" side: Michelle Malkin; Tim Chapman says he's "rock solid." (But it's way more fun to watch the loony left, so click below.)
Emily Bazelon and David Newman at Slate sum things up:
Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.
Roberts is opposed by the following organizations:
As expressed in one case where he would have invalidated a provision of the Endangered Species Act, his exceedingly restrictive view of federal law-making authority – more restrictive than the current Supreme Court’s – could threaten a wide swath of workplace, civil rights, public safety and environmental protections. In his years of service as a political appointee in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Judge Roberts also helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans.Americans for Democratic Action
Feminist Majority asks for "Emergency Donations" to "save Roe."
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights:
While D.C. Circuit Court Judge John Roberts's experience as a judge is limited, what little record he has on the bench raises grave concerns about his ideology and judicial philosophy, calling into question his elevation to the Supreme Court.National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association:
John Roberts is a D.C. Circuit Court judge who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and went into private practice during the Clinton years. As Deputy Solicitor General, he co-authored a brief for the government in Rust v. Sullivan in which he argued that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. He also co-authored an amicus brief in support of Operation Rescue and six individuals who had obstructed access to reproductive health care clinics.National Organization for Women:
As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in NOW's case against Operation Rescue — in support of Operation Rescue, of course and in support of named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. At the Supreme Court level, that case was called Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (it was NOW v. Operation Rescue at the trial and appellate levels). The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. The case helped us push congressional passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
Naral (they've already posted the following form letter, for people who can’t type and think at the same time:
As your constituent, I am urging you to oppose John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court.
If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled....
(Belated h/t to Volokh for the link to the list.)
Posted by bill at 08:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Roberts
Bush goes nuclear and sticks by the people who elected him (pretty much). If it's Roberts, whatever happy talk there's been about a smooth confirmation process will evaporate within, literally, minutes. Roberts' credentials won't matter to Senate Democrats (more here). This sentence will: "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." As the WP report notes, Roberts wrote it in 1991, while a deputy for a Solicitor General by the name of Ken Starr.
Let's watch as the Angry Left get angrier, shall we?
UPDATE: Maybe "nuclear" was too strong. And what was I thinking? It didn't matter who Bush nominated.
Posted by bill at 07:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
One man's terrorist...
Below the fold is a memo distributed by the Canadian Broadcast Corp. on the use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism." (Thanks, CBC Watch/via LGF.)
'Terrorist' and 'terrorism': Exercise extreme caution before using either word.
Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an "attack," not as a "terrorist attack." The same applies to the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call "the Sept. 11 attacks" or some similar expression. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)
Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it's a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.
By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren't faced with the problem of calling one incident a "terrorist act" (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere "bombing" (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).
Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label ("terrorist" or "terrorism") when news breaks, try describing what happened.
For example, "A suicide bomber blew up a bus full of unarmed civilians early Monday, killing at least two dozen people." The details of these tragedies give our audience the information they need to form their own conclusions about what type of attack it was.
Rather than calling assailants "terrorists," we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.
It's not practical to draft a list of all contexts in which the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are appropriate in news stories. For instance, we might write that Canada and other countries have passed "anti-terrorism" legislation, or that intelligence agencies have lists of groups that they consider "terrorist" organizations, or that the U.S. government has issued another warning about an increased risk of "terrorist attacks" in the next few weeks, or that certain people have been charged with acts of "terrorism." Use common sense.
The guiding principle should be that we don't judge specific acts as "terrorism" or people as "terrorists." Such labels must be attributed.
As CBC News editor-in-chief Tony Burman has pointed out: "Our preference is to describe the act or individual, and let the viewer or listener or political representatives make their own judgment."
Posted by bill at 05:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
In Defense of Tancredo
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
I don’t bother to read Kos anymore (although I find myself skimming the headlines) because he simply doesn't add anything reasoned to a debate. If he's taken a breather from his Rove/Plame hysteria, he’s probably calling Tancredo/Republicans as sinister, evil bastards.
But I think some conservatives have it wrong this time, too. Two examples:
Michelle Malkin wrote that the “right thing” would be to retract the comments and added: “The controversy does raise a very serious issue: What should we do to deter the jihadist threat, nuclear or otherwise?”
For one thing this isn’t the issue Tancredo "raises"; we’ve been talking about “deterrence” for nearly 4 years (though it’s debatable whether that dialogue’s been an honest one). To his credit, Tancrendo introduced the unimaginable, before it happens, into the public debate (and we often read that unimaginable will happen).
Then there's Ed Morrissey ("Captain Ed"), who seems queasy with the bravado:
The idea that the US would retaliate in such a manner should be repulsive to any rational person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum….Besides, who is Tom Tancredo to make these threats anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations. He certainly doesn't speak for the President, who has to make the final determination in loosing those weapons on any target.
For starters, “repulsive to any rational person” isn’t debate – it’s name-calling. And Tancredo didn’t even imply he’d be involved with the decision - he made no “threat." To his credit, Morrissey responds to some readers, and this is where we can tackle substance. Among his them (to a reader who likened a Mecca bomb to those used against Japan): “we were at war with Japan and both cities had significant military production facilities. We also gave them plenty of warning on both and an opportunity to surrender each time.”
This is a "distinction without a difference"; if Mecca’s a strategic hit in an asymmetric war, so it goes. And we'd give notice (did Tancredo imply otherwise?). The point, after all, wouldn’t be to kill people. As in ending WWII, it would be to save American lives, even if at the terrible expense of enemy civilian lives. I'm not sure why Morrissey goes on to buy into the silliness about "creating enemies," which is textbook liberal-think: a fearsome military engenders hatred. Lest we forget: Our enemies already hate us. (And so long as Japan is a point of reference, let’s not forget they hated us, too, but somehow that dissipated, at least to the point Japan recognized that peace was theirs for the asking, which wouldn't have happened hadn't they realized the US wasn't weak and feeble, as they'd been taught.)
Morrissey goes on to say what we should do if terrorist were to carry out the unthinkable:
1. Take out the air forces of the two nations we know to support terrorists -- Syria and Iran; 2. Destroy all nuclear facilities in Iran, to the best of our intelligence; 3. Bomb all known militarily-related manufacturing facilities.
And our enemies would laugh and laugh and laugh. (I thought we aren't at war with any one country - what of the civilians?) And what on earth would this do to prevent a militant, non-statist terrorist from acquiring and detonating another nuclear bomb?
That is the uneasy question Tancredo brought up, and I'm glad he had the stones to do so. Is anyone willing to talk about it?
Posted by bill at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Pardon me, stewardess. I speak jive."
Ebonics is back. I'll resist the temptation to poke any more fun. What a joke.
Posted by bill at 08:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Tuesday, July 19, 2005
'Judges are not politicians' - John Cornyn, Wash. Times
No More Souters - WSJ
Punishing Pain - John Tierney, NYT
Can Hillary be elected Commander-in-Chief? - USA Today
Democrats' Contempt for Voters - Ed Lasky, American Thinker
Government Really Can Lessen Poverty - EJ Dionne, WP
Wondering about Generation Why - Pati Poblete, SF. Chron.
The DIA and the CIA go MIA - Stephen F. Hayes, Weekly Standard
The Tancredo Blunder - Hugh Hewitt
Managing a menage a trois - K. Indurfurth & D. Shambaugh, IHT
Get out the vote - S. Hersh, New Yorker
Showing conviction - Times Online (UK)
Inside the Loss Prevention Industry - Rachel Schteir, Slate
Posted by bill at 05:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 18, 2005
New Yorker on New York
Despite some cheap shots at President Bush, and the fact that it's a mere teaser to a subscription-only article, this Q&A in the online New Yorker is nonetheless worthwhile. In it, writer William Finnegan discusses terrorism, the NYPD, the evolution of anti-terrorism efforts and the personalities behind such things. An illuminating read. For example:
The N.Y.P.D. turns out to have some advantages, when it comes to counterterrorism work, over the federal agencies traditionally responsible for doing it. For instance, in the languages considered critical to counterterror work today--Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, and so on--the N.Y.P.D. has deeper resources than the Feds. That's partly because New York is a city of immigrants. When the police department's leaders decided, in the wake of the September 11th attacks, to get serious about doing counterterrorism--to start doing it at a level, certainly, that no American city had ever attempted--they looked into the rank and file and found there a wealth of language expertise. There were literally thousands of officers, many of them originally from the Middle East, who were native-level speakers of dozens of foreign languages. A lot of those people were writing parking tickets-and a lot of them were ready to get into something more challenging. The N.Y.P.D.'s employment-application form now lists sixty languages that the department is interested in.
Posted by bill at 07:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wash. Times reports the obvious
They report:
Democrats are floating candidates who they consider acceptable Supreme Court nominees primarily to ensure that they can complain later about not "really" being consulted by President Bush when none are selected, according to conservatives.
No kidding. That's politics.
Posted by bill at 05:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack