« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 31, 2005
Reading up on Scalito
John Hinderaker has an excellent post "for our non-lawyer readers...about the context in which discussion of [Samuel] Alito's judicial record will take place." I'd recommend reading Robert Bork's Tempting of America, which explains Bork's constitutional thinking and exposes the lies special interests used to take down his nomination; and The Brethren, which a friend of mine mentioned as one I'll be reading, I hope, this weekend. Justice Scalia's Matter of Interpretation is also worthwhile.
Posted by bill at 10:11 PM | Comments (0)
Happy Halloween
In honor of Halloween, Mark Steyn offers his "Topical Take," dusting off the Steyn archives and regurgitating his reviews of The Blair Witch Project(1999), Mike Nichols' Wolf (1994), Interview with the Vampire (1995) and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994). Priceless.
Update: Oh, you want a link, huh?
Posted by bill at 03:44 PM | Comments (0)
What we were waiting for...
No time at the moment to post much of substance, but as always it's worth noting how the Angry Left is reacting to Samuel Alito. And, well, there are no surprises. To name a few: Harry Reid will be dismayed; the Kos Kidz are rabid, cursing; and Chuck Schumer will flail away; NARAL (think they were ready for this?) claim to speak on behalf of all "Pro-Choice Americans."
(Many links courtesy of Michelle Malkin.)
This will indeed be the battle conservatives had hoped for. With 2006 looming, though, many Senate Democrats will find themselves in a difficult position, particularly if Alito gives a Roberts-like performance in confirmation hearings.
UPDATE: More here on initial manuevering within the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Posted by bill at 01:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 30, 2005
"Prince Tampon" aka Prince Charles to lecture Bush on Muslims!!
Prince Charles of England, just another satyr of "the Royal Family," will be lecturing George Bush on the proper care and handling of Muslims Now, here's a man who was caught on tape professing his undying love for the current Duchess of Cornwall (and yearning to be her tampon!), aka his paramour while he was still wed to Princess Diana, whose butler would have to hold the cup when he gave a urine sample, whose own mother refuses to step down and hand him the throne of England, whose nation is so far gone and crawling with those of the Muslim persuasion that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said England is no longer a Christian nation, and he would PRESUME to lecture the President of the United States! Could it be that "peaceful" Muslims now have so much power in formerly Merry Ol' England that they are dictating what he must say and do? I would remind Bonnie Prince Charley that England hasn't been hit--yet! When, not if, they do incur the wrath of Islam in retribution for the Crusades, or for whatever pretext, let's see if he still wants a better understanding of Muslim intentions.
Posted by Gene Blogger at 09:18 AM | Comments (0)
October 28, 2005
Life in the big city: mystery maple syrup
I was half-watching the Boston College / Virginia Tech game last night when I had an odd conversation with my wife of three years and two days.
"Do you smell that?" Jen asked me. Jen is my wife.
"Smell what?" I wondered.
"Smell what?" I asked.
"Maple syrup," she replied.
"Huh?" I chortled, "Nope. No maple syrup. I don’t smell maple syrup."
"Does Jen smell maple syrup?" I pondered.
"Do you smell maple syrup," I asked.
"Yes, and I've been smelling it all day."
"Why has she been smelling maple syrup all day," I thought.
"Did you have pancakes and spill maple syrup on yourself?" I asked Jen. Jen likes pancakes with maple syrup.
"Nope."
And French toast.
"French toast?" I asked.
"Nope," she said.
Jen works with kids all day, so I said, "Did one of your shithead kids spill maple syrup on you?" I don't like those kids, sometimes. They're messy and they spill things on Jen.
"Nope," she said.
"Hmm," I said.
"Hmm," Jen said, "That's weird. All day in midtown I've been smelling maple syrup, and even now I can smell it."
"Hmm," I said, "I don't smell maple syrup."
I went to Google.com. "Maybe your olfactory epithelium is out of whack," I suggested.
"Thanks, Bill."
But that was that.
Today, mystery solved, sort of.
Posted by bill at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)
October 27, 2005
GOP Base Plays Grinch
When President Bush appointed Harriet Miers, he gave all Democrats, and Senate Democrats in particular, a gift. With nothing in her background speaking to the towering intellect and laboriously developed judicial philosophy that a justice on the Supreme Court would need in order to resist the prevailing currents of society, Miers seemed unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade or do anything to counteract the momentum the Lawrence v. Texas decision gave to gay rights. All Democrats had to do was hold their nose at the spectacle of such an appallingly unqualified justice and publicly praise her. It was a good deal.
Unfortunately, my former party has a special talent for failing to recognize political opportunities. The Democratic leadership went for the fleeting pleasure of taking cheap shots at a faltering President instead of thinking strategically, and as a result they now face the grim possibility that they will be helpless spectators as a truly polarizing nominee is pushed through and confirmed on a party-line vote.
To me this is shocking. The Bush administration nominated Miers to prevent a fight, and Democrats, apparently forgetting their numbers in the Senate, fought anyway. The next nominee will almost certainly be truly upsetting to those on the left.
Social conservatives should thank Harry Reid for his role in clearing Harriet Miers from the scene.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 11:43 PM | Comments (0)
Thursday admixture
Volokh suggests Michael McConnell; Joe Cella at Red State moves forward; Michelle Malkin has a roundup of the Miers mess.
Back to Plame-gate: Mark Steyn debriefs Spectator (U.K.) readers on America's "Scandalously Unscandalous Scandals." (H/T: Mike S. from Chicago, who is not a White Sox fan.)
Chris Dufresne at the LA Times says we should all be rooting for Penn State football.
Posted by bill at 05:05 PM | Comments (0)
"Irrepressible Conflict" Dooms Miers
She's history. Administrations have confronted miserable times, and this one is no different; Miers' evaporation is the disappearance of one particularly vast and unnecessary cloud.
And as unnecessary as it was, the irrepressible conflict between the constitutional prerogatives and duties of the Senate and those of the Presidency represented a truth that Bush either knew of or should have known of when this whole process began. That failure is the only real shock, and the only real embarassment.
But Miers' withdrawal clears the air as well as the path for our new nominee, who will be, one can feel certain, better in every way. Typically one can only seize the initiative by exploiting the setbacks of one's opponents. Here we seize it back from ourselves.
Posted by James G. Poulos at 09:40 AM | Comments (0)
What now?
The AP is reporting that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. Let the next round begin.
UPDATE - A friend just emailed me and was exacerbated with this post, saying I sounded timid. Bush will, I think, deliver. As Tony Blankley wrote yesterday, "Seldom has a president found himself in more political trouble that he substantially has the power in his own hands to fix than does President Bush currently." Bush's next move will be a pivotal one in his second term and I happen to believe he'll seize the moment by nominating someone within spitting distance of Michael Luttig et al. As another friend emailed this morning, "Alito! Alito! Scalito!"
Posted by bill at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)
October 26, 2005
An actual judge's perspective on Harriet Miers
Earlier this month I wrote about the difficulty inherent in nominating to the Supreme Court someone whose qualifications are in the form of "practical" experience. Yesterday a federal trial judge offered his views on what "qualified" means, and thus a minority view on Harriet Miers:
the role of the litigating attorney, where it is performed as it should be, is of a very high order and is entitled to the greatest respect. There is no reason in the world why such an attorney is not qualified to step into any court, including the Supreme Court. Indeed, why wouldn't the Supreme Court benefit from this? Or from having on it any lawyer who has had a successful career of counseling on complex matters.
I wonder, though, where Miers' eight trials put her in terms of litigation experience as compared to the attorneys in Griesa's courtroom.
Posted by bill at 04:42 PM | Comments (0)
Media objectivity alert
Via Michelle Malkin, Fromthepen.com demonstrates USA Today's doctoring of a photo of Condi Rice which makes her look downright demonic. Just in time for Halloween!
UPDATE: Kieran from EVS provides this link. Variations on a theme. Check out the last picture in on that page. Priceless.
Posted by bill at 09:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 25, 2005
Indictments on their way?
The Washington Note cites an "uber-insider":
1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.
Obviously there's no reason to believe this but we shall see, aye?
Meantime as indictments may or may not be on their way Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus query Joe Wilson's credibility. Wait a second? That Walter Pincus? Him? Quite honestly I haven't followed the story as closely as others have but I'm not sure whether Pincus, well, Christ, it's ridiculous.
Posted by bill at 05:53 PM | Comments (0)
October 24, 2005
Stupid is as stupid does
One of the delicacies offered by the Internet is the insight it offers into the minds of people we've long known to be buffoons. Huffington Post, e.g., offers idiot syndication, of sorts, recording that once-fleeting evidence in daily installments. Alec Baldwin's latest work demonstrates why Huff Post is indispensible. Baldwin, you see, is upset with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom Baldwin seems to perceive as something of a hypocrite. Baldwin quotes her downplaying a "perjury technicality" in the context of the Fitzgerald/CIA leak and digs up a statement Hutchinson made in connection with her "yes" vote on impeaching Bill Clinton in 1999, which indicated something of a contrary view.
One might imagine that Baldwin, as political thinker, might compare the contexts of the statements, parse Hutchinson's words, or otherwise offer some argument as to why Hutchinson is hypocritical. But one would be sorely mistaken; Baldwin doesn't do any of that. His analysis?
My question for today is: Why are contemporary Republicans so full of shit? And a follow-up...How did the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and General Eisenhower get taken over by such lying, thieving, self-serving scoundrels?
And that's it. That's the whole analysis - the entirety of Baldwin's entry consists of two quotes and one paragraph that could've been pulled from a 7th grade history textbook. In the end, Baldwin's post is Michael Moore-ian "political pornography" -- it makes liberals feel good but doesn't really say anything. Who says Republicans are in trouble?
Posted by bill at 07:23 PM | Comments (0)
Subservient Chicken
Let's not even ask what Burger King is up to here.
Posted by bill at 03:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Exhibit A
Why the New York Times is all but unreadable to us red state types. (H/T: Alarming News.)
Posted by bill at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 23, 2005
More bad news for Miers
Is the end near for the Miers debacle? As Chuck Schumer suggests perhaps Harriet Miers' problems are crystalizing, "Blanton" at Red State asks whether Hugh Hewitt's support for Miers has"jumped the shark":
Hugh's support seems to be, beyond trusting the President, based on the fact that people who know MIers say she'll be right on life, she'll have a conservative judicial philosophy, and that she is personally conservative and evangelical. This makes no sense. If Miers is personally supportive of affirmative action, Hugh believes that will not affect her judicial philosophy. But, because we're told Miers is personally conservative, Hugh believes her judicial philosophy will be just what we want. I dare not even contemplate the pains Hugh will go through to explain how personal support of affirmative action and a conservative judicial philosophy mess.
We may at last be approaching denouement, if not closure. In fact, "closure" may one day be Miers' personally but the bastardization her nomination effected on the conservative movement will linger well beyond this Bush administration, and perhaps much longer. The White House's chaotic defense of a third-tier candidate who seemed better suited to run a high school bake sale than sit on the Supreme Court - which one hopes scraped bottom when Christianity was offered in support of her jurist creds - will have rendered almost laughable a central piece of federalist constitutionalism: that a judge's personal beliefs and politics should have no bearing on decision-making, and thus fitness for the bench.
Posted by bill at 08:09 PM | Comments (0)
October 22, 2005
Turning the corner?
Might Harriet Miers withdraw? The Washington Times reports that a "conservative Republican with ties to the White House" told them "contingency plans" may be in the works: "White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?'" Another "conservative leader" says, "The political people in the White House are very worried about how she will do in the hearings. I think they have finally awakened."
Posted by bill at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)
October 21, 2005
From suck to blow
The S.S. Harriet Miers continues to leak. Captain Ed has a roundup of today's installment of bad news.
Posted by bill at 02:09 PM | Comments (0)
MSM hearts communists
Is it just me? Violence at anti-war marches and WTO demonstrations is often described as "confrontations" whereas if it's neo-Nazis marching, the same awful, criminal beahvior is dubbed "rioting." When's the last time you read about a "Communist riot"? Usually, responsibility for those "confrontations" between police and leftists is with the police, not anything on the part of the helpless crunchy kids. A while back Gadsden Flag noted the oddity of Che Guevera chique fashion - communism, he pointed out, has been responsible for millions and millions of dead, and yet thoughtless (at best) endorsements by celebs and others of Che is given, more or less, a free pass. I supppse MSM's choice of words as to what happened in Toledo is an extension of the same double standard. I suppose, too, it's too much to expect a reporter simply to "report."
I'll anxiously await emails accusing me of defending Nazis.
Posted by bill at 09:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 20, 2005
As Darkness Falls on the Labor Movement
Amid the deafening cry of capital "C" conservatives watching in horror as the Bush Administration allows their adopted party to tear itself apart, nonpartisan conservatives are quietly cheering a long overdue bit of good news: the last bastion of strength among American industrial unions is being stormed, and no one is riding to the aid of the beleaguered UAW. When Steve Miller, CEO of Delphi and a veteran of many corporate turnarounds, announced recently that his firm was filing for bankruptcy, he may have finally sounded the death knell for uneconomic pay packages in this country.
While labor costs should not bear exclusive blame for the bankruptcy of Delphi in particular and the distress of the domestic automotive sector in general, they have played a large part. The intractability of the UAW regarding those costs may have given auto executives an excuse to regard high labor costs as inherent in their business, instead of a variable cost that could be negotiated down. As Professor John Paul MacDuffie of the Wharton School of Business observes: "The question is why there wasn't pressure to deal with that issue sooner. There wasn't much of an inclination to invest in [improving] those businesses, maybe because labor costs were seen as insurmountable barriers." In short, the former strength of the UAW, and the irresponsible way in which that organization used its strength, has now imperiled an industry.
The auto industry will restructure, and workers will find new employment. Perhaps more importantly, the children of current UAW employees will come of age in a world in which their parents will not be able to regale them with stories of a comfortable life in exchange for their unskilled labor. Those children will know (as most American children have for at least a generation) that they must educate themselves and provide value commensurate with the salaries they hope to command. A recent article in The Nation summarizes the situation best: "Delphi is a marker of a new America in which there is no collective security, in which the union will not make you strong, in which there is no government to give you shelter and in which you know you are alone." Individuality, self-reliance, and an end to the welfare state, surely this is something to warm the hearts of fiscal conservatives everywhere.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 11:35 PM | Comments (0)
Koffi-proofing the Internet
Thank you, Norm Coleman.
Posted by bill at 01:32 PM | Comments (0)
On HEM: "Incomplete, Insulting"
Don't miss James Poulos' take on Harriet Miers' responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. He closes:
Spinning -- if HEM is even capable of such deception -- her role as Chief Legal Henchwoman to the President as separation-of-powers street cred is what we elitist intellectuals refer to as A Howler of the first rank. Pity that's the only thing first-rank about this blighted nominee.
Michelle Malkin has a round-up of reax.
Posted by bill at 11:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sound advice for a President who needs it
An even-handed statistical look at President Bush's plummeting ratings is here. I hope the numbers get better, though I'm not rooting for improvement for its own sake. My hope is that W understands (and cares) that many of us are tired of defending him. Peggy Noonan, who reminds us that she knows W better than do most polemecists, suggests humility:
...there's a family in crisis, and it's conservatism. He can let it break up, or let it wither under his watch. Or he can change. Just as he learned at 40 that to keep his family he had to become part of something larger than himself, he should realize as he approaches 60 that he has to become part of something larger if he is to save his administration. And that "something larger" is a movement that has been building for half a century, since before Barry Goldwater. The president would be well advised to look at the stakes, see what's in the balance, judge the strengths and weaknesses of his own leadership, and get back to the basics of conservatism.
Posted by bill at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)
October 19, 2005
Mid-week Melange
Just how shallow is this White House? Consider that with polls drooping the Bush administration found it convenient (and necessary) to "get tough" on immigration although theirs is true-blue liberal work product: fecklessly passing more laws, with no apparent intention of enforcing any of them.
John Stossel debunks myths about gun control, foremost that bad law is better than no law at all. The world is more dangerous, he suggests, because of gun control. Kudos. (H/T: RFDTH.)
And in CJ's latest reference to "Of Course She's Running" fun facts NY Observer exposes Hillary Clinton's war chest, which is looking awfully presidential. Her campaign fund-raising line that she's just fending off vicious right wingers is, of course, a pretext; she has a 32-1 funding edge in her Senatorial race next year - and she'll have upwards of $35 million in the bank after she decimates poor Ms. Pirro.
Posted by bill at 08:18 PM | Comments (0)
The damage will last
Robert Bork writes about the damage President Bush's defense of Harriet Miers is inflicting on conservatives, referencing both the infighting and the kick in the teeth Miers' pick represents to originalists. As usual, Bork is dead-on. But he doesn't say what I think someone should: that in the White House's scramble to defend Miers, they've bought into a lie. Adding to the ammunition they gave to those who would slander the Federalist Society (see J. Roberts confirmation), they've now bought into the commonly held misperception that a judge's political views guide his decisionmaking. In the process the WH has compromised any effort conservatives may make, be it in 2009 or 2019, to hold the line and argue that: (1) being personally, e.g., pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-Roe; (2) a judge's political views have nothing to do with constitutional philosophy; and (3) Americans shouldn't particularly care whether a judge votes (again e.g.) pro-life.
Update: James Poulos says it best:
This is grand farce, a mountain of bollocks high enough to blot out the sun and plunge her resume into deep shadow. The "Harriet Miers" destined to be remembered (and caricatured) by history seems a poor player indeed, doomed to strut and fret her hour upon the stage.
Posted by bill at 03:09 PM | Comments (0)
Can't Miss
Another look at the OU bomber. (H/T: Rob from down the hall.)
Posted by bill at 02:58 PM | Comments (0)
October 18, 2005
Huff on Russ
Arianna Huffington gets it right with her post yesterday chastising Tim Russert for his cheeky evasiveness on Plamegate:
...it's at least obvious that the the [New York] Times has taken a big first step in trying to deal with these facts: (a) the Times is a major news outlet, (b) the Plame saga is a huge news story, and (c) one of the Times's own journalists is a participant in the story.
Well, the exact same conditions exist at NBC: Tim Russert is a participant. He was interviewed under oath by Fitzgerald. And, like Miller, he has an obligation to explain to the public just exactly what he knows as a result of his involvement in the story.
Huffin' Puff offers an intriguing timeline suggesting Russert owes has some 'splainin to do.
Posted by bill at 06:53 PM | Comments (0)
CNN: Boring, and awful
CNN's uninsightful look at the "eroding distinction between work and play [that] is one of the many paradoxes at the heart of our increasingly wireless world"zzzzzzzzzzzz. Yawn - what year is this? But take heart: terrible writing rescues us from boredom. Take this sentence, for example, which on the CNN article page captions a photo of a Palm Pilot set awkwardly against a laptop: "With the proliferation of laptops and e-mail-enabled cell phones, the ability to disconnect is becoming harder." Huh? No kidding, but, you know, Editor? Editor?
At one time I would've expected vapid prose like this in, e.g., the Smithtown Pennysaver, or from Newsday's awful Sheryl McCarthy. In fact when I think about it I don't know why I expected anything better from CNN.
Posted by bill at 12:20 PM | Comments (0)
October 17, 2005
Catching up
It's good to be blogging again. Much to discuss.
Michelle Malkin offers a thought-provoking look at the MSM's hostility toward bloggers, even though by most accounts the blogosphere, warts and all, is a far superior finder of fact, and more democratic media. Speaking of which, Pundit Review Radio recently interviewed Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation, who has pursued the OU bomber story relentlessly.
Meantime, Mark Steyn offers his take on UNICEF's Smurf-alating commercial:
...I can't help thinking that, if you are that concerned for children in war zones, you might have done something closer to what real conflict is like in those places. In Rwanda, Sudan and a big chunk of west Africa, air strikes are few and far between. Instead, millions get hacked to death by machetes. Even on the very borders of Eutopia, hundreds of thousands died in the Balkans in mostly low-tech, non-state-of-the-art ways.
Posted by bill at 10:17 PM | Comments (0)
Hiccup
We're recovering at last from some awful technical issues, the kind that scare the bejesus out of relative small-timers like CJ because they bring with them helplessness and near-total blackout, which is why you've seen no posts here since Thursday. At last the issues seem to have been resolved, no thanks to Infinology but with kudos to Frank Sharp, CJ's fearless tech point man.
If you missed it, take a look at James Poulos' latest, posted here.
Posted by bill at 09:58 PM | Comments (0)
October 13, 2005
Quote of the Day
"The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop allowing girls to go to law school."
Posted by bill at 11:49 AM | Comments (0)
Morning Blend - Thursday, October 13, 2005
How She Slipped Through - John Fund, WSJ
Sexist? Get Serious - John Dickerson, Slate
Mosque Madness - Dean Barnett, Daily Standard
President Rice? - A Q&A with Dick Morris - NRO
Farm "Aid" - Tim Worstall, TCS
Bush to Poor: Drop Dead? - Larry Elder
Award Inflation - Michael Fumento, Am. Spect.
Posted by bill at 07:46 AM | Comments (0)
October 12, 2005
Zawa's Fatwa
With Iraq on lockdown approaching Saturday's momentous constitutional referendum, Al Qaeda's number two Ayman al-Zawahri has gone on record (quite unintentionally) as advocating the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.
"It has always been my belief," he writes, "that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world." From that heart (called Mesopotamia, remember, not Iraq) will extend tentacles of Islamism aimed at Syria as well as Jordan and Lebanon.
The publicity of this note, meant for pen pal al-Zarqawi, comes at a fine time. Not only does it throw the upcoming vote in Iraq into higher relief, but it expresses in a very public forum (the Associated Press) the very real danger posed by revolutionary Islamism to countries not known to be American stooges or poodles. If it wasn't yet clear to Arabs generally and the world at large that Al Qaeda intends to impose deliberately its repressed and cankered will without regard to American policy, then it should be now.
Will Assad get the drift (while he lasts)?
Posted by James G. Poulos at 02:53 PM | Comments (0)
Deconstructing Zawahiri
Austin Bay offers the definitive look at the Zawahiri letter. Writes Bay:
Zawahiri vacillates. At one level he knows Al Qaeda's losing. But the US may buckle, folks, cut and run like Vietnam. Heck, Boxer, Sheehan, Kennedy, and the DailyKos, give Zawahiri hope.
Zawahiri understands that Iraq is now the critical battleground, and he hasn't given up on the vision of the caliphate......
The genius of the war in Iraq is a brutal but necessary form of strategic judo: It brought the War on Terror into the heart of the Middle East and onto Arab Muslim turf.
More here, via Michelle Malkin.
Posted by bill at 01:14 PM | Comments (0)
Morning Blend - Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Shocking Nominations & Other Betrayals - C. Nelsen, Pjct. USA
Dimwitted Nod to 'Diversity' - George Will, Wash Post
The Inequality Taboo - Charles Murray, WSJ
Change the Legal Culture - Chris Chantrill, AT
Why is Bush's Christianity so Risible - M. Steyn, Daily Telegraph
The Bottom Line for Bush - Max Boot, LAT
Public Deserves Truth on DeLay - Martin Frost, Fox News
Twelve Questions for Mr. Earle - Powerline
What Rove Said to Dobson - Hotline blog
Posted by bill at 07:43 AM | Comments (0)
Faint signs of governing
Bush's tax advisory panel is backing a significant limitation in the tax breaks currently given to homeowners. This is the type of boring, wonkish stuff that effective governing is all about. Now let's hope our elected officials have the courage to act on these sensible recommendations instead of caving to pressure from the inevitable horde of lobbyists that are going to be unleashed at even the hint of a move toward rationality.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 12:50 AM | Comments (0)
October 11, 2005
Tuesday Melange
Since: (1) Harriet Miers is a woman; and (2) many of her critics are Republicans, we can hardly surprised that pinhead Matt Lauer felt compelled to ask Laura Bush whether "sexism" might be factoring into the ruckus over Miers' nomination. For Lauer's part, fatuousness is a job requirement that he fulfills well. But what of the First Lady's response? "It"s possible. I think that's possible," she answered Lauer. "I think people are not looking at her accomplishments." Nothing like buying into the old you-are-sexist/racist/homophobic-if-you-don't-fall-for-tokenism. Another misstep by the White House. As Mike from Chicago points out, wouldn't many of these people have supported Janice Rogers Brown?
Meantime, Michelle Malkin becomes the first prominent conservative blogger I am aware of who is delving into the apparent suspension of the 2nd Amendment in and around New Orleans since Katrina hit. Just remember: we noted it here first.
Finally: MSM suffers another blow, this time at the hands of Yahoo!, who will be using weblogs in its news search engine. Dan Rather could not be reached for comment. (H/T: Rob from down the hall.)
Posted by bill at 12:13 PM | Comments (0)
Morning Blend - Tuesday, October 11, 2005
The Conservative Problem with Miers - Andrew Cline, Am. Spectator
Mary Landrieu: It's Never Enough - N. Sheppard, AT
A Stolen Jet in Gwinnett Cty, GA - Michelle Malkin
Miers Not a Hit Inside the Beltway - Captain Ed
Whistling Past the Fault Line - George Will, Wash Post
Envt'l Movement & the High Cost of Energy - Pat Cleary, RS
10 Up & Coming House Conservatives - Human Events Online
Posted by bill at 07:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 10, 2005
Bork: Miers pick is a "disaster"
Bork was interviewed by Tucker Carlson:
...it's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already. So that-I'm afraid she's likely to be influenced by factors, such as personal sympathies and so forth, that she shouldn't be influenced by. I don't expect that she can be, as the president says, a great justice.
But the other level is more worrisome, in a way: it's kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years. There's all kinds of people, now, on the federal bench and some in the law schools who have worked out consistent philosophies of sticking with the original principles of the Constitution. And all of those people have been overlooked. And I think one of the messages here is, don't write, don't say anything controversial before you're nominated.
Posted by bill at 08:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hurricane porkchop
Anyone who donated to the victims of Hurricane Katrina should read this, a depressing piece by AEI Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy highlighting the pork that, if Louisiana politicians get their way, would be sent to the state, including "many items having nothing to do with hurricane relief." Some personal favorites:
- $35,000,000 for the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board
- $25,490,073 to complete the Sugarcane Research Laboratory
$120,000,000 for a laboratory, facilities and equipment at the Southern Regional Research Center
$34,193,591 to support the research and education activities of the Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
- $19,000,000 for the acquisition of first-responder mobile communications, deployable cellular towers and for equipment necessary for public Internet access in a 100-block area of downtown New Orleans using wireless-fidelity technology.
- $100,000,000 for early intervention, prevention, and disorder treatment for children who are 0 to 5 years of age
- $100,000,000 for early intervention, prevention, and disorder treatment for school age children.
- $100,000,000 for substance abuse assessment, early intervention, prevention, and treatment.
- $600,000,000 for early childhood education
- $160 million to implement the 2005 recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission related to the Federal city development in Algiers, Louisiana.
Posted by bill at 09:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Praise Jesus, and send in your money.
Posted by bill at 08:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Monday, October 10, 2005
K Street Conservatism - George Will
Lincoln's Faith - Matthew May, American Thinker
CIA's Bad Show - Peter Brookes, NYP
Miers Remorse - John Fund, WSJ
Bush's Fraying Presidency - David Brooks, Wash Post
The Culture of Celebrity - Joseph Epstein, WS
ADHD and Me - Jennifer Roback Morse, Townhall
Posted by bill at 07:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 09, 2005
A Left-Wing Case for Vouchers
Policy debates have a tendency to get stale. Lines are drawn, people choose sides, and then the intelligensia of each side goes to war with articles, studies and op-ed pieces. I'll admit, I'm a policy geek and I find all of it fascinating. But even more fascinating are those instances when someone re-envisions the issue at hand in a way that dissolves many of the bulwarks of opposition.
I came across such an instance today, in an article that makes an environmental case for the broad adoption of school vouchers. Daniel Akst is by no means promoting a conservative case for vouchers. In fact, some conservatives may become somewhat nauseous as they look on in horror at the contortions Akst puts their cherished policy goal through. But such improbable contortions are necessary to achieve ambitious ends. When seeking to build a critical mass of support for a far-reaching policy goal such as school vouchers, the ideological purity of allies should always be a distant second to their passion for the cause.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 10:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 08, 2005
A Rational Look at Housing Policy
The stage is set. On Tuesday a presidental commission on tax policy will review the many tax benefits granted to homeowners (see article here). This policy is overdue for a serious revamping. As I have argued on this site before, federal tax policy currently serves only as a restraint on sanity in the housing market; at best a dubious use of nearly $100 billion a year.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 07, 2005
Sorry Boston
I happen to think the Red Sox' World Series win last year was good for baseball. I've heard some great stories, too, about what that night was like for New England dads and grandfathers and kids last October. But I can't forget the idiotic Sox fans (I'm not including Kevin Whelan at Pundit Review) who ridiculed the Yankees for the last 11 1/2 months, and I hope tonight those people gained some perspective. I like Boston, and I like Fenway Park and some of the current Red Sox, but a lot of their fans simply stink. Yes, Boston, you've won a World Series since 1920. The Florida Marlins have won two. As a dejected Derek Jeter said after the 2001 Series, "Winning is hard." The Red Sox aren't the Yankees. Now please, give it a rest.
Posted by bill at 06:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Joel Hinrichs
The latest (video) on the Oklahoma U bomber, Joel Hinrichs.
(H/T: Mike S. from Chicago.)
Posted by bill at 02:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Friday, October 7, 2005
Pitching America, Despite the Boos - Max Boot, LAT
Hiding the Cisneros Report - WSJ
Debating Harriet Miers: The Right Rebels - Ryan Sager, NYP
Withdraw this Nominee - C. Krauthammer, Wash Post
A Tentative Yes on Miers - Paul Mirengoff, Powerline
Gulf Coast Reconstructionists Beware - R. Carter Pate, WT
Elián's Elán - Duncan Currie, Daily Standard
Quiet Consensus on Iraq - Victor Davis Hanson, NRO
Posted by bill at 07:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 06, 2005
C is for cookie...good enough for me (maybe, possibly, sometime)
In Republican circles, three views seem to have emerged regarding Harriet Miers - first, that given the absence of real proof Miers is qualified either as a jurist or a "conservative" one, Republicans should work to defeat her nomination; second is the idea (best articulated by Thomas Lifson at American Thinker) that conservatives railing against Miers are engaging in, as Lifson identifies it, "groupthink" (visual: picture 6 year olds playing soccer - everyone runs in the same direction).
Today David Broder offers support for the 'tweener view: "It's too soon to judge." Recounting his conversation with Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society Broder writes:
The first thing Leo said was that Miers's statement accepting the nomination from Bush was significant to him. "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the Founders' vision of the proper role of courts in our society...and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution," she said. "When she talked about 'the Founders' vision' and used the word 'strictly,'" Leo said, "I thought, 'Robert Bork,' "Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court pick, who was rejected by the Senate after a bitter fight. "She didn't have to go there. She could simply have said, 'Judges should not legislate from the bench.' But she chose those words."
Posted by bill at 08:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Target: New Yorkers
New Yorkers are advised to be on the lookout for bearded and/or not bearded persons not of any particular race, ethnicity or religious background or sexual preference who may or may not be shouting Islamic religous slogans and/or sweating while detonating suitcase bombs in or around NYC subways. New Yorkers are further advised to approach such non-descript individuals with extreme caution and sensitivity as such persons are known to be represented by aggressive, well-funded attorneys at the ACLU. New Yorkers are further advised that Muslims are by no means being targeted by the NYPD, who are constrained to harass pregnant caucasian women from Larchmont who are lugging a 2-child stroller, instead of casting any suspicious look toward the sweating, bearded Islamic young men carrying suitcases onto subway platforms. New Yorkers are further asked to disregard what happened last weekend in Oklahoma and to remember that, whatever happens or doesn't happen, we should be pleased with ourselves for being such a sensitive lot.
Posted by bill at 05:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Something stinks in Soonerville
Why we need the blogosphere - at Michelle Malkin.
UPDATE - As noted by Rob from down the hall, where is the MSM coverage? CNN has two stories on Hinrichs, both of which are fatuous - first quotes U. Oklahoma's president [to paraphrase]: "Just a suicidal kid"; and uses passive, non-judgmental voice, essentially: "the poor kid was detonated"; and another (2 days ago) provides more unsightfulness - "evidence points to suicide"; Dad [paraphrasing]: "he's all-American boy"; "not a poltical statement."
Fox News doesn't fare much better; I don't read MSNBC. NY Times? With all those bare-knuckle investigative reporters? Nada. Reuters? Zilch (literally), although I simply can't believe it.
Posted by bill at 01:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Shameless self-promotion
My article entitled, "No experience necessary?" has been published at American Thinker. The article discusses Harriet Miers' nomination and her lack of "white shoe" credentials for the job. Take a lookie.
Posted by bill at 09:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Thursday, October 6, 2005
What Was President Bush Thinking? - Peggy Noonan, WSJ
What Will Republicans Do? - Jonah Goldberg, NRO
Ambassador of Oil & Angst - Jim Hoagland, NYP
A White Oppressor? Who, Me? - Wendy McElroy, Fox News
Four Brothers/A History of Violence - Mark Steyn
Al Quaeda Waning? - Austin Bay, TCS
Espionage in the White House - Michelle Malkin
The Zombie Hunters - Evan Ratliff, The New Yorker
Posted by bill at 06:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 05, 2005
Newt Again
If, or when, Newt Gingrich runs for president, he will do so from a position none of his possible competitors can duplicate or mimic. Speculation and boosterism echo and amplify the great grinding of gears now taking place among Republicans, and the following names are uttered:
Rudy Giuliani, who has quasi-announced, in Denmark; his major hurdle is the same as McCain's, only higher -- namely the primary season... Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Mormon; buzz centers around his unorthodox technique of insulting his home state from event to speaking event... Haley Barbour, who is still more toasted and connected in Washington than Mississippi; he has that drawl, and wonks and minipundits insist paradoxically on his unmarketable regionalism... George Allen, who has no name recognition... and Chuck Hagel, who also has none.
Count as well both Cheney and Condi, both of whom have expressed a basic desire not to run for President. The risque possibility of a write-in campaign, which stems from a party's grassroots desperation and rejection of its establishment candidates, makes little sense when the prospective beneficiaries are current figureheads of the sitting administration....
With attitudes of discomfort now confronting Congress as well as that administration -- and with an increasingly strident upset over Bush himself leaking freely from the conservative wings of the House of Reps and the public prints -- Newt's attributes take on a certain luster. A former insider, now on the outside, he has earned his stripes as a non-reactionary yet pre-neocon (postmodern?) conservative. The only taint of which Gingrich isn't free is his own: the leftovers of the '96 meltdown. He has a name, he has a policy program, he has a certain legitimacy. He is closer to the right than McCain and Guiliani, and further from the President than any of the others with a comparably high profile. And he neutralizes Hillary on health care.
This is not sufficient for a sweep to power, but, given the next three years, it may be necessary.
Posted by James G. Poulos at 04:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 04, 2005
Joel Hinrichs
Call me insensitive, but is there something odd about this kid's beard? Let's get this straight: a suicidal young man opts to blow himself up in the vicinity of tens of thousands of people, in Oklahoma, and he wears an awkward beard? Hmm.
Posted by bill at 10:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Will-e-nator:
NRO's The Corner is reporting George Will is set to publish a column tomorrow in which he "goes as far as he can to oppose Miers's nomination without explicitly doing so....it might just turn this thing around for conservatives." A preview is offered:
1) Bush has no interest or ability to make "sophisticated judgments" about such matters, and it's impossible to believe that anyone who can would have recommended Harriet Miers;
2) Bush "forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution" by calling McCain-Feingold unconstitutional back in 2000, then signing it into law.
3) unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends";
4) the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"
Zoinks! Will conservatives answer the call?
(H/T: Mike S. in Chicago)
UPDATE: Confirmthem.com has the rest. An excerpt:
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.
Posted by bill at 04:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Faith-based nominee - WSJ
More Miers: J. Hinderaker/M. Malkin/S. Duke/M. Frost
Why is Government Getting So Big? - Nathan Smith,* TCS
The Leaderless Left - Dick Morris, NYP
Why Ask Why? - C. Hitchens, Slate
Role Reversal - J. Babbin, American Spectator
Yes I'm Saying Something About Your Mother - R. McHenry, TCS
Delay's 2nd Indictment Stinks Worse than the 1st - Captain Ed
* Nathan is a CJ contributor and blogs under the name "Good Samaritan."
Posted by bill at 07:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 03, 2005
Pro-Life, Until it Counts
President Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers seems to have upset a fair number of conversatives. David Frum opined that the Miers nomination was an "unforced error". If the goal was anything more than a relatively painless confirmation, there were any number of better qualified candidates. William Kristol views the Miers nomination as a sign of the weakness of the Bush Administration and wonders what such an administration will be able to accomplish with the time remaining to it. I see the nomination as a sign that social conservatives have been had.
I have a theory; and while it may seem apostasy to conservatives, I think it should be seriously considered. Perhaps the legislators and the current President that social conservatives have dutifully sent to Washington are not terribly eager to overturn Roe v. Wade. After all, to overcome the natural respect of justices for the principle of stare decisis, one would presumably need both an overpowering intellect and a fervent passion for the cause. Is there any indication that Harriet Miers has either the intellectual firepower or the pro-life passion necessary to drag the court towards overturning a 32 year old precedent? This nomination is an act of treason toward all those evangelicals who have worked so hard for the time when a president of their choosing could act to reshape the court.
As someone who has been pro-choice since I first understood the issue, this nomination does not worry me at all. But I do feel for the foot soldiers of the Republican Party that have been sold a bill of goods.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 11:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Islam "exists to destroy"
Mark Steyn on "Islamist way or no way":
I found myself behind a car in Vermont, in the US, the other day; it had a one-word bumper sticker with the injunction "COEXIST". It's one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives, one designed principally to flatter their sense of moral superiority. The C was the Islamic crescent, the O was the hippie peace sign, the X was the Star of David and the T was the Christian cross. Very nice, hard to argue with. But the reality is, it's the first of those symbols that has a problem with coexistence. Take the crescent out of the equation and you wouldn't need a bumper sticker at all. Indeed, coexistence is what the Islamists are at war with; or, if you prefer, pluralism, the idea that different groups can rub along together within the same general neighbourhood. There are many trouble spots across the world but, as a general rule, even if one gives no more than a cursory glance at the foreign pages, it's easy to guess at least one of the sides: Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact....
So even Muslims v (your team here) doesn't quite cover it. You don't have to have a team or even be aware that you belong to any side. You can be a hippie-dippy hey-man-I-love-everybody-whatever-your-bag-is-cool backpacking Dutch stoner, and they'll blow you up with as much enthusiasm as if you were Dick Cheney....
The reality is that there are more Muslim states than a half-century ago, many more Muslims within non-Muslim states, and many more of those Muslims are radicalised and fundamentalist. It's not hard to understand. All you have to do is take them at their word. As Bassam Tibi, a Muslim professor at Gottingen University in Germany, said in an interesting speech a few months after September 11, "Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms, these mean different things to each of them. The word peace, for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or House of Islam -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought. Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or House of Peace."
That's why they blew up Bali in 2002, and last weekend, and why they'll keep blowing it up. It's not about Bush or Blair or Iraq or Palestine. It's about a world where everything other than Islamism lies in ruins.
Sort of bone-chilling, when you think about it, and I felt this article deserved plenty of space. Read the whole thing. (H/T: Rob from down the hall.)
Posted by bill at 07:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bad sign: Kos sees Miers pick as a big win
The conservative blogosphere is furious about President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers. And despite a few who are willing to accept Miers on the strength of Bush's word (e.g., Hugh Hewitt), maybe the best clue as to how awful the pick is can be found at liberal websites. Kos, for example, says "Sit back enjoy," not only mocking conservatives' disappointment but acknowledging that "Miers' biggest sin, at this early juncture, is her allegiance to Bush. That her appointment is an act of cronyism is without a doubt, but if that's the price of admission to another Souter or moderate justice, I'm willing to pay it....But my early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats." "Democrats are fully aboard," he continues, and they're following the lead of Sen. Harry Reid, of all people. More? As one commenter at the loony Democratic Underground notes, "Considering whom [Bush]COULD have picked...this is a hell of a lot better."
After poking around a bit, there seems to be a consensus on the left: the Miers pick was a win for Democrats. Ugh.
Posted by bill at 12:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Miers: Many questions
Krempasky says it best: "Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember - we've been defending you these five years because of this moment." That's a bit of an overstatement (I've defended him in large part because he seems to believe in America, and because I agree with his policies in the Middle East, although Confirmthem may be in a different boat) but the sentiment is dead-on. Questions abound, not least of which involve Myers' campaign donations to Lloyd Bentsen and Al Gore and the vast unknown of how Miers would interpret the Constitution.
Michelle Malkin, a fair barometer for conservatives, is "utterly underwhelmed."
On the other hand, is the WH employing the strategy many (example: me) suggested it might in nominating O'Connor's replacement - i.e., nominating a lamb to the Judiciary Committe slaughter?
Posted by bill at 08:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Monday, October 3, 2005
A New Era - Manuel Miranda, WSJ
A Time for McCain? - Sebastian Mallaby, Wash Post
A Real Freedom Center - John A. Byrnes, NYP
Litigation fever hits China - T. Lifson, AT
Media deserve blame for Katrina debacle - M. Steyn, CST
Insurance Lawsuits Won't Help Katrina Victims - M. Hayes, Fox News
Like Pulling Teeth - John Hinderaker, Powerline
Political jurisimprudence - D. Lambro, Wash Times
Posted by bill at 07:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 02, 2005
"Who Killed the Bush Doctrine?"
AEI's Michael Rubin says that "While Bush might once have been remembered for bringing freedom to 30 million Afghans and 25 million Iraqis, his legacy is fast becoming one of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."
Posted by bill at 08:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack