« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
Molly Ivins: Speak Up
Cross-posted to Blogmeister USA.
Last Thursday, Molly Ivins spoke at the Shubert Theater in New Haven about the loss of freedom Americans are experiencing. She discusses the story of her brother-in-law's mother, a 102-year-old woman escaping from Katrina who was searched at the airport.
Because she had a one-way ticket," Ivins said, "she was pulled aside for a full search. My brother-in-law is watching his bewildered, blind, 102-year-old mother going through this.
"She was saying, 'You want me to put my feet where?' and 'I can't raise my arms that high.' She was getting really upset.
"But my brother-in-law was thinking, 'I know if I speak up, it could get worse.' So he held his tongue."
I agree: it's ludicrous that this woman was searched. But if the left wasn't so adamantly against racial profiling, airport security wouldn't be going after grannies in wheelchairs and babies in strollers. By worrying about "offending" a particular group of people who fit the description of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks (and other terrorist attacks around the world), then the rest of us are going to be inconvenienced.
During the evening, Ivins claimed many are being accused of being "unpatriotic" and that she, in particular, was accused of "treason," and that many are "intimidated" by the "patriotic bully." And of course, she got the obligatory swipe in at Bush's intelligence.
Ivins, who knew Bush casually when they both spent their youths in Texas, licked her chops when somebody in the audience submitted a question asking: "Is he as dopey as he appears?"
"He's not actively stupid," she replied. "He doesn't react well to stress. He's limited."
Tee hee. Questioning her patriotism is off-limits, but it's not off-limits for her to call the right "patriotic bullies" and infer that the president is a doofus extraordinaire. She must be really subdued by the opposition.
If so many people are intimidated, as Ivins says they are, why are there so many like her able to talk about the so-called intimidation? Actor Tim Robbins spoke of a "chill wind" at the National Press Club luncheon a couple of years back. Actor Martin Sheen marched in a demonstration with tape over his mouth. Were Ivins, Robbins or Sheen tossed into jail for disagreeing with the current administration? Not to my knowledge.
When conservatives disagree with the left, the left cries that they are being oppressed and bullied, and that their patriotism is being questioned. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Oh, some of us definitely question their patriotism. However, the claim that they're being oppressed is nonsense. If you want to know about oppression, check out the policies of China, North Korea and Iran regarding political dissenters.
Besides, I'm not so sure I want to take the word of someone accused of plagiarism .
Posted by Pam at 10:47 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Alito Attacks Beginning on Left
Bill Scher at the HuffPo begins a salvo on an abortion case.
The opinion that people will focus on the most was his desire to uphold a spousal notification provision in a PA abortion law that severely restricted reproductive freedom.
Most will look at his opinion to indicate opposition to Roe, and they should. But fundamentally, it was an opinion that was dismissive of women's independence.
The vast majority of married women already discuss abortion decisions with their husbands, they don't need a law to force them to do so. But there are situations where a married woman would not want to, such as when she is mired in an abusive relationship, or if the marriage is fraying and near its end.
At issue was a Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement prior to a woman having an abortion. Patterico points out that the notification requirement was not terribly onerous:
...[T]he spousal notification provision at issue did not give the husband a veto power. Rather, a married woman simply had to certify (through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions, including:
(1) [The husband] is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) [the woman seeking an abortion] has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.
Note that Scher's hypothetical (when she is mired in an abusive relationship, or if the marriage is fraying and near its end) was already covered under Exception 4. So essentially he's lying in an effort to smear Alito.
This gets to one of the thorny problems of abortion rights. If a woman becomes pregnant and brings the baby to term, the husband/boyfriend/sperm donor is on the hook for 18 years of child support. Ask a feminist about this and they'll tell you, tough luck, he made his choice when he had sex without a condom. Of course, the same equally applies to women seeking abortions; apparently they are the only ones who have a second chance.
Posted by pat at 03:32 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
LLP Readership Survey
The week President Bush announced Miers to SCOTUS, our daily unique visitor readership fell from around 800 to the mid-500s. Last week, our readership went back up to the mid-700s. What do you think explains this bump?
1. Renewed interest by conservatives to read blogs in general after "Katrina/Miers depression?"
2. Renewed interest by liberals to read conservative blogs to watch the conservative "crack-up?"
3. Renewed interest by LLP bloggers to post more frequently on intersting issues due to "Katrina/Miers depression"/conservative "crack-up?"
4. Global Warming
5. All of the above?
6. None of the above? (provide your belief in the comments)
This article inspired the survey...
Posted by Aaron at 05:46 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Dowd on Men
You can kind of guess how we come out before you start it, right?
It's a long one, and it's all about how it's not Dowdy Doody's fault that she's still single at age 54 (or so). There's a rather pathetic picture of her alone at the bar in fishnet stockings and red high heels that has to be seen to be believed. You can almost hear the piano in the background.
I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with young women whose job it was was to care for them and nurture them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.
You know, this isn't really that hard to figure out, Maureen. The important word in that whole paragraph is "young".
Or, as Craig Bierko, a musical comedy star and actor who played one of Carrie's boyfriends on "Sex and the City," told me, "Deep down, beneath the bluster and machismo, men are simply afraid to say that what they're truly looking for in a woman is an intelligent, confident and dependable partner in life whom they can devote themselves to unconditionally until she's 40."
Well, you go around asking cast members of "Sex and the City" and you'll probably come up with a good anti-male quote, and Bierko delivers. But I disagree about the "until she's 40" part. Most men (Hollywood stars like Michael Douglas aside) don't abandon their women. In fact, I'd suspect that most divorces at that age are initiated by women.
And note that despite the focus of the column being about how men should start marrying up, we never hear anything about Dowd herself looking down for men? Oh, we do get one anecdote about how one guy wanted to ask her out but was too intimidated because she was a goddess at the New York Times. But we don't get any sense that this was anything Dowd was really interested in except as an example for her book.
Posted by pat at 10:40 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
SO, WHO WAS NOVAK'S SOURCE?
"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally, outed a covert agent. We have not charged that." - Patrick Fitzgerald, Justice Department Special Counsel
Color me confused, because I'm still not clear what Libby supposedly did. Besides, Valerie Plame wasn't "covert."
* Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.
...
The indictment itself contains no motive. And Mr. Libby is not alleged to have been the source for Robert Novak's July2003 column, in which Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was revealed.
Rather, according to the indictment,Mr. Libby did a little digging, found out who Joe Wilson's wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak's column had run. What's more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn't tell a grand jury and the FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.
* John Podhoretz sums it up nicely:
Scooter Libby was not charged with the misuse of that information, or with the unlawful exposure of an undercover agent, or with involvement in a conspiracy to reveal her identity. He is, it is worth repeating, charged only with lying about his knowledge of it.
* Same Media Pounding Cheney Over Libby Yawned At Al Gore's Convicted Fundraiser
* L'Affaire Libby could start a trend. Got a beef with your spouse, neighbor, boss, or even a mere stranger? Then E-indictments are for you!
Posted by kitty at 10:38 AM | Comments (6)
Fair Assessment by a Democrat
From Senator Lieberman:
When the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States is indicted in a criminal case, it is a sad day in the history of our government. While it is important to remember that an indictment is not a conviction, these charges are extremely serious. Our national security, intelligence protocols to protect covert agents and classified information must be protected. Witnesses under oath and in legal proceedings must tell the truth and be held accountable if they do not. The public’s confidence in government has been damaged by this matter and it must be restored. For this reason, Mr. Libby’s resignation is appropriate and necessary.
This indictment is about serious violations of law. It is not about partisan politics or the war in Iraq. Whatever our party affiliation or opinion on the war, we all agree that perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to a grand jury are inexcusable criminal acts. That is where our shared focus should be so that today’s indictment does not become one more cause of debilitating political divisiveness in our government.
Precisely.
Posted by Aaron at 07:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
King Kong--King Dud?
OK, time for some fluff. Who wants to see the upcoming King Kong movie?
Variety quotes a bigwig from Universal as saying it's "brilliant." Well of course she'll say that...she wants people to buy tickets. After all, it's costing $207 million to make and distribute. That's a lot of shamoola.
Still, I'm leery of any movie remake, especially a movie that is already a classic in its own right. Think of all the rehashes we've seen in the past couple of years: the Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Honeymooners, Charlie's Angels, Bewitched, and so on. Can't Hollywood come up with any new ideas?
And, three hours of a big ape climbing the Empire State Building being buzz bombed by airplanes sounds rather tedious. (Speaking of apes around the Empire State Building, I saw a guy in a gorilla suit running around near the main entrance to the ESB last week...some kind of promotional thing. Wish I'd had a camera.)
The bigger they are, the harder they fall. And King Kong is pretty big. Does anyone out there want to see it? Do you think my prediction is off base?
Posted by Pam at 09:09 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Miers Roundup
Kitty: I know many feel as though the conservatives won, and maybe we have, but we also lost something in the process, too. I was neither for nor against Harriet Miers because I didn't know her. I was appalled by the knee-jerk reaction by the conservatives, which did nothing for Bush and smeared Miers in the process. Their reaction was instant and severe even though they knew relatively nothing about her, and it fed into the ongoing left-wing anti-Bush feeding frenzy. Pam said it best:
You know, all of those Republicans and conservatives who declare that a nominee should be afforded the dignity of a straight up-or-down Senate vote after a timely confirmation hearing really need to check their double standards list. I'm just disgusted with the whole affair.
Pat: I hope that now the Miers nomination has been scuttled that we Republicans can "all just get along". We also need to be prepared for the onslaught on the new nominee, who will be blasted by the Democrats and their friends in the media as a sell-out to the "extremist wing" of the party. The Democrats are already sowing the seeds for this with their comments about how religious fundamentalists were responsible for the uprising. This is completely untrue; in fact many Christian Conservatives were among Miers' most enthusiastic backers, while largely secular conservatives like NRO and George Will were opposed. But of course that something is untrue will not prevent them from saying it.
Posted by Aaron at 01:06 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Let Them Gloat
Democrats are out in force talking about the FAR RIGHT WING influencing the president.
They will eat those words when Bush nominates a judicial conservative and the NARAL, PFAW and Moveon.org types lose their collective minds.
Posted by Aaron at 11:12 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Miers Withdrawl
I hope that conservatives remain respectful of an accomplished attorney who serves our president dutifully; gloating is not appropriate.
Posted by Aaron at 10:52 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
And in Other News...
With all the excitement about possible indictments of White House bigwigs, the "milestone" death in Iraq, and Janet Jackson denying the existence of a secret child from her brief marriage to James DeBarge back in 1984, here's a tidbit that got left by the wayside:
A federal judge upheld the conviction of terror lawyer Lynne Stewart yesterday, finding that a juror who said she was scared into voting guilty is not believable.
The defense had argued for a new trial based on a letter from the anonymous juror — written six weeks after the trial — claiming she was terrorized into agreeing to the conviction and had feared for her life.
Judge John Koeltl found there was not enough proof that the juror was actually intimidated.
Stewart faces up to 30 years in prison for providing material support to terrorists and filing false statements while she represented blind terror Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.
Stewart has claimed she was only engaged in "zealous representation" of her client and was constitutionally protected when she issued public statements on his behalf.
But Koeltl said the cleric used his communications from prison to participate in a terrorist conspiracy.
Hmmm...nothing on her support Website as of this writing.
Sentencing is set for December 22. See you in court, counselor.
Posted by Pam at 09:26 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
"Culture of Corruption and Cronyism"
The CIA tells the president that it is a SLAM DUNK that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
A woman sends her husband to Niger to refute CIA claims. He comes back and files an oral report stating that Iraq did not BUY uranium from Niger.
He then pens columns in the New York Times saying that VP Cheney sent him to Iraq knowing his wife did; he also split hairs knowing that Iraq tried to acquire uranium but the "transaction" did not take place.
The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bi-partisan report stating that he was a liar.
If nothing define's the new Democratic mantra of "corruption and cronyism" more than a man who went to Niger at the recommendation of his wife then lies repeatedly, I don't know what does.
But again, if members of the administration broke the law in exposing this "culture of corruption and cronyism" and/or broke the law during the investigation: then they should be tried, convicted and spend long years in prison.
Posted by Aaron at 07:30 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
EUTHANIZE THE SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM
"Health care is too expensive, so the Clinton administration is putting a high-powered corporate lawyer -- Hillary -- in charge of making it cheaper. (This is what I always do when I want to spend less money -- hire a lawyer from Yale.) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Canadian health-care system is ailing
Canada's health care, held by American supporters of single payer health care as a model our country should follow, isnt working, and Canada's highest court recognized that in a recent landmark decision.
Heres what happened: Told that he would have to wait a year for surgery to replace his painful, arthritic hip, 73-year-old George Zeliotis of Quebec decided to pay for the procedure himself. But Zeliotis was shocked to learn that its against the law in Canada to get private medical care.
In fact,according to the Pacific Research Institute, Canada, Cuba and North Korea are the only countries that ban private health care, whereas countries like France and Switzerland allow their citizens to purchase supplemental health insurance on the open market.
...
The [Canadian] Supreme Court made it clear: Canada must either provide workable health care or allow a private system that does.
...
Following the spectacular failure of the massive, national government-run health-care proposal dubbed Hillary Care, activists changed tactics and are working to dismantle Americas health-care system one piece at a time. Even now, California lawmakers are expected to approve a state-run system of single-payer, universal health care.
DEAD MEAT: The video about the Canadian health care system.
Posted by kitty at 02:24 PM | Comments (0)
Harriet Miers Couldn't Even Write This Stuff
Notice Jake Gyllenhaal's brilliance when answering a simple question about the upcoming movie Brokeback Mountain:
Latino Review: Are you nervous about doing the role, since it’s a love story about two men?
Jake: I’m nervous more about, the movie is about identity and about figuring out your identity and that I’m more scared about facing then I am about, you know, the, I think the secondary part of it which is that it is a story, you know a love story between two guys. That doesn’t really, look, you do a love scene in any movie it’s uncomfortable and it’s, you know, pretty asexual no matter what, and if you do get off on doing a love story, a love scene in a movie you should figure some stuff out.
The next question is the obvious one:
LR: What do you mean by that?
Jake: I don’t know, just ‘cause it’s very perverse and weird. It’s like tons of people are watching you, and it’s not real and it’s a very intimate thing that you’re faking intimacy in a weird way, you know? That’s always the place where it doesn’t have to be anything really. What has to happen—what has to make it something are the scenes before and after it. That’s what makes it that, I think, intimate...
What did you mean by that? His answer: I don't know. At least he's honest about it. Also, notice he believes that gay love scenes are "perverse and weird." Don't forget he is a BIG-HEARTED LIBERAL!
Gyllenhaal for Senate! Miers for SCOTUS!
Posted by Aaron at 01:52 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
USA Today Goes too Far
They are messing with my girl!
When will they learn that they JUST CAN'T GET AWAY WITH THIS STUFF ANYMORE. Bloggers rule the day.
vs. 
Malkin has the roundup.
Posted by Aaron at 11:51 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
INTERBLOGATORY TRAVELS
|
|
|
|
Scroll down to LuckyDawg's video of the week,
|
It's illegal for Canadians to buy health care for themselves, but not for their pets. Watch the eye-opener film,
|
And now for something wonderful ...
|
Posted by kitty at 11:48 AM | Comments (4)
Is This a Parody?
Or is Eugene Robinson just this foolish?
Like a lot of African Americans, I've long wondered what the deal was with Condoleezza Rice and the issue of race. How does she work so loyally for George W. Bush, whose approval rating among blacks was measured in a recent poll at a negligible 2 percent? How did she come to a worldview so radically different from that of most black Americans? Is she blind, is she in denial, is she confused -- or what?
Or could it be that she's just a heck of a lot smarter than most black Americans? Not to put too fine a point on it, but let's remember that a majority of black Americans think OJ was innocent. Are they blind, are they in denial, are they confused -- or what?
When she reminisces, she talks of piano lessons and her brief attempt at ballet -- not of Connor setting his dogs loose on brave men, women and children marching for freedom, which is the Birmingham that other residents I met still remember. A friend of Rice's, Denise McNair, was one of the four girls killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. That would have left a deep scar on me, but Rice can speak of that atrocity without visible emotion.
Well, Eugene, just because you get all doe-eyed over something that happened 42 years ago, doesn't mean that everybody does. And perhaps what Ms Rice remembers is that Bull Connor was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat?
But then why are the top echelons of her State Department almost entirely white? "That's an artifact of foreign policy," she said in the interview. "It's not been a very diverse profession." In other words, there aren't enough qualified minority candidates. I wondered how many times those words have been used as a lame excuse.
One of the things she somehow missed was that in Titusville and other black middle-class enclaves, a guiding principle was that as you climbed, you were obliged to reach back and bring others along. Rice has been a foreign policy heavyweight for nearly two decades; she spent four years in the White House as the president's national security adviser. In the interview, she mentioned just one black professional she has brought with her from the National Security Council to State.
I hate to be the one to point this out, but the Secretary of State before Rice was black as well. Indeed, blacks have held far more power in the Bush Administration than they ever did in the Clinton Administration. While decrying racism, Robinson seems to be saying that Rice should have promoted people solely because of their race (as long as that race was black).
Of course, this just points out something that I've hammered over and over again: To liberals, it's not racism if it's anti-white, it's not sexism if it's anti-male, and it's not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if it's anti-straight.
As we were flying to Alabama, Rice said an interesting thing. She was talking about the history of the civil rights movement, and she said, "If you read Frederick Douglass, he was not petitioning from outside of the institutions but rather demanding that the institutions live up to what they said they were. If you read Martin Luther King, he was not petitioning from outside, he was petitioning from inside the principles and the institutions, and challenging America to be what America said that it was."
The civil rights movement came from the inside? I always thought the Edmund Pettus Bridge was outside.
Gawd, even his jokes are lame.
When Rice was growing up, her father stood guard at the entrance of her neighborhood with a rifle to keep the Klan's nightriders away. But that was outside the bubble. Inside the bubble, Rice was sitting at the piano in pretty dresses to play Bach fugues. It sounds like a wonderful childhood, but one that left her able to see the impact that race has in America -- able to examine it and analyze it -- but not to feel it.
He doesn't have a clue as to what Rice meant by inside. This from a columnist at the Washington Post, one of the most influential newspapers in the country. Yet he's an absolute hack, just like his counterpart at the New York Times, Bob Herbert.
It's not as if there aren't talented black writers out there--Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, La Shawn Barber, or our own Aaron (although he'd have to tone down his language) to name a few. Of course, they aren't "authentically" black because they don't toe the Democratic party line.
Posted by pat at 10:50 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Miers Is No Affirmative Action Pick
I came out earlier against the Mier's nomination to SCOTUS. Other bloggers here disagree and that is welcome. What I want to discuss briefly is the anger over Miers' support of affirmative action.
I have a different take of affirmative action than many of my conservative counterparts. Also, I should note that I do not agree that affirmative action and quotas are the same thing.
There is no governmental remedy to combat racism other than provable malice during the hiring process..."I won't hire any niggers." But affirmative action is an important tool to combat something else: laziness.
Miers supported a policy that asked, simply, that entities try to hire a QUALIFIED minority for every nine other candidates. To me, this is not racial preference; it is asking that people make the effort to FIND that minority that is qualified, but that might not have applied because he/she felt they would never be hired.
It did not ask that they find a token--it's asking for due diligence. If there is a minority candidate on par with the class of people being hired, find him/her and hire him/her.
This is the essense of true affirmative action: go beyond laziness and find that gem, polish it and make it shine. That's the least that could be done in a country that in living memory of my father and mother would have once forbid them from even marrying each other.
Therefore, Miers is not an affirmative action pick, she is a lazy pick by Bush. An affirmative action pick would have been found after an exhaustive search for another John Roberts, but with different skin color or gender.
Posted by Aaron at 07:46 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Quote of the Day
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton accused the Bush administration of squandering the balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility that she said her husband created as president.
She and her husband created...riiiight.
Posted by Aaron at 04:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
2000!
Strike up the band! It's time for a parade! I will list the breathless headlines from the media as they come in...
Well, Moveon.org already has a television ad to raise money for Democrats!
Today, we received grim news: 2000 American soldiers have now died in Iraq. [So in honor of their memory, we need to have a fundraiser to Bash Bush!] Their caskets have been hidden from view, and the news of their deaths has receded to the back pages. But the men and women who died in recent days were no less brave or less honorable than those who died in the first days of the war. It's time for us to honor them—to remind the public that they're dying every day in the quagmire of Iraq—and ask, "How many more?" Can you help put this ad on the air?
Where's Cindy? I will walk by the White House after work to see if she is bound crucifiction style to the gate. Oh wait, it's raining and she is not important, so nevermind.
Posted by Aaron at 04:02 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Why I Don't Listen to Sean Hannity (often)
He can be funny, but the last two days he's been alarming me with his choice of topics.
Yesterday, he tries to imply "suspicious" things about prosecutor Fitzgerald. That's Clintonian politics: destroy the person simply doing their job like they did to Ken Starr.
Today, he is trotting out Juanita Brodderick to relive the Lewinsky affair. Yes, we need to remember why we supported Clinton's prosecution and impeachment:
BILL CLINTON'S PERJURY [Mark R. Levin]
... he helped Monica Lewinsky write a false affidavit denying sexual relations with him; he intended the false affidavit to be used during his deposition, and in fact his lawyer (Bob Bennett) did use (unwittingly) the false affidavit to try to convince the judge overseeing the deposition (Susan Webber Wright) to limit questions to Clinton during the deposition; Clinton himself confirmed the accuracy of the false Lewinsky affidavit during his deposition; and Clinton lied repeatedly during the sworn deposition about his relationship with Lewinsky. There were no problems with bad recollections or unintended omissions. As Judge Wright ruled in her contempt holding against Clinton, Clinton made "intentionally false" statements. Clinton also enlisted others to lie for him. And considering the Jones lawsuit was about sexual harassment, and Jones's lawyers were trying to establish a practice and pattern of sexual misconduct to win their civil suit, this was no side issue. And yet, Clinton was not indicted. Robert Ray, the last of the independent counsels in the case, settled the case.
Posted at 12:29 PM
But in remember why these cases are different, we need to remember not to do those things we found so dispicable that Clinton's administration did in the cover-up.
Posted by Aaron at 03:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
MORE DEADLY THAN BOMBING?
|
Posted by kitty at 01:34 PM | Comments (0)
I did not know this...
Did you know that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad was born on September 11? Hmmm...
Posted by Aaron at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
That's My Girl #435
RWN polled blogs about who we think should run a world government if there were one. Condi wins!
I think most right wing blogs would oppose such a government outright, but the BBC polled 15,000 people and received results like Bill Clinton (sexual predator, impeached, disgraced, disbarred former Presdident of the US) and George Soros (Cindy Sheehan with money).
Posted by Aaron at 11:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Al Franken Calls Laura Ingraham an Idiot
On the Today Show this morning.
Talk amongst yourselves...
Posted by Aaron at 10:25 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Why I Support Miers
It's really quite simple. I cast a vote on November 2, 2004 for George W. Bush for President of the United States of America. I did not cast a vote for the conservative movement (although I support most of its goals), I did not cast a vote for conservative bloggers (although I agree with them most of the time), I did not cast a vote for David Frum or George Will (dittos).
How many times did we hear in the last year or so (particularly during the discussion of the nuclear option) that Bush had been elected president and deserved to be able to nominate his choice of judges? I'd guess that every conservative blog made that point at one time or another.
But what some of us meant was that only the liberals couldn't object to the president's choices. Apparently every conservative blog forgot to mention that they reserved the right to exercise a veto in the event that Bush nominated someone insufficiently acceptable to the commentariat.
Bush has been terrific on judges; any objective ranking of his appointments to the federal bench would conclude that he has done an excellent job. The only clunkers were a couple holdovers from Clinton that he renominated in an effort to change the tone. Once it became obvious that would not satisfy the scorched earth partisans like Tom Daschle, he's been rock solid.
He's done a terrific job as well for the party. It's well-known that the 2002 election was a solid mid-term for Republicans, and 2004 wasn't too bad either. For the first time in many years the Republicans have held control of the House, Senate and Presidency for two consecutive elections (three if you ignore the Jumpin' Jim Jeffords incident which thwarted the will of the voters in 2000); not even Eisenhower was able to accomplish that feat.
More than that, I see danger signs ahead. If the conservative blogs, which I'll admit are largely against the Miers nomination, win this round, then who gains power and who loses power? President Bush loses, and that power won't flow down to the blogosphere. It will go to Congress. Which will mean Denny Hastert and Bill Frist benefit. They have one thing in common with George Will; I didn't vote for them.
And it fits in with the larger media story of the collapsing Bush presidency, which we all know is mostly a bogus concoction, but a least it gives the Democrats and their fans in the scribbling class something to crow about.
It's easy for a party to fracture like this during the second term of a presidency; Clinton's party only avoided it in 1998 because they had the specter of an impeachment and conviction of the president facing them. But they are called Lame Ducks for a reason, and if the Republicans succeed in laming their own early on despite majorities in both houses they just might deserve the butt-whipping that the Left is increasingly convinced is coming in the 2006 elections. Despite the furor in the punditocracy over the Miers nomination, the rank and file of the party is largely behind President Bush and not the talking heads. This was brought home to me by reading the comments in this recent post on Polipundit.
You probably are aware that the conservative blogosphere is largely hostile to Miers. What you may forget is that many of the major hostile bloggers do not allow comments. Check out the comments from some of these folks responding to Polipundit:
#1
Why don’t you make a sign - and stand in front of the White House until they give in to your demands?
Maybe you can share a tent with Cindy Sheehan?
Comment by Von Aras | Email | Homepage | 10/24/2005 - 4:38 pm
Ouch! That's gotta hurt.
#4
When the anti Miers crowd depends on Time Magazine, Chuck Schumer, New York Times, and all the rest of the liberal news media for their information, it is a sad day. For 5 whole years, we have all agreed that these organizations have been so biased against us and our policies. They have produced lie after lie about us. Yet, you anti Miers guys are now making them your bible as you try to further your points and agenda. You are becoming the Moveon.org of the right.
Comment by n.c. voter | 10/24/2005 - 4:45 pm
#5
again with miers.
Comment by j.foster | Email | 10/24/2005 - 4:46 pm
My point is not that these people necessarily raise terrific arguments, just that even major blogs like Polipundit (which is a group blog much like Lifelike where there is disagreement between the bloggers on the nomination) are encountering significant resistance from their readers on throwing Miers under the bus.
#11
these constant anti miers post are really annoying, I’d go to du/kos if really wanted to be annoyed.
Comment by JPNiner | 10/24/2005 - 5:02 pm
After that the comments diverge into various debates, but any notion that the large bloggers or pundits are really swaying or even representing public opinion within the party seems overblown.
What I would like is an agreement on a bet with the folks who are opposing Miers. I'll bet you a public apology in the blogosphere than if confirmed as I expect, in two years Harriet Miers will have a closer voting record to Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia than will Chief Justice Roberts.
Posted by pat at 01:08 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
David Gregory Demonstrates Difference between Liberals and Conservatives
Sloppy transcript of what David Gregory just said on Hardball:
Matthews: is the President going to accept the outcome of [Fitzgerald's] investigation or is he going to be defiant?
Gregory: I don't know. Bush has put himself in a good position by praising Fitzgerald as fair; he is not radioactive like Ken Starr.
Who the hell made Ken Starr* radioactive but the Clinton White House and its loyal mainstream media??? What an ass.
*I worked as the assistant to Ken Starr's former chief of staff, Susan Vouno, as an HR Assistant at Covington & Burling (I actually spoke with him on the phone once! "Covington & Burling, Human Resources, how may I help you? I'd like to speak with Susan, please. Certainly; May I ask who is calling? Ken Starr). Obviously, as an HR assistant, this was not a position that discussed politics (I worked there in the fall of 2000).
Posted by Aaron at 07:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
42 v. 37
So, 42% of the deaths from Katrina were black and 37% white.
Considering that 60% or so of New Orleans was black, what does this say about the racism argument (that being black and poor in America is a death sentence)?
Posted by Aaron at 04:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Leave Her to Rot
If she were true to her cause, she'd give up eating and drinking...but instead, she wants spectacle. Why doesn't she just have Moveon.org crucify her in Lafayette Park? It will make for good campaign fundraising.
Cindy Sheehan, the military mother who made her son's death in Iraq a rallying point for the anti-war movement, plans to tie herself to the White House fence to protest the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq.
"I'm going to go to Washington, D.C. and I'm going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I'm going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan said in a telephone interview last week as the milestone approached.
"And I'll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I'll go back and do the same thing," she said.
The death toll among U.S. military forces since the March 2003 invasion stood at 1,996 on Sunday.
The milestone's approach prompted plans for hundreds of other demonstrations across the United States, but for Sheehan, each military death in the Iraqi war has been a tragedy.
More on the media's hyping of a number with no significance.
Posted by Aaron at 03:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Perjury Is a SERIOUS Crime
I just want my opinion on the record that perjury attacks the very fabric of our judicial system and is a serious crime whether a prior crime was committed or not.
Posted by Aaron at 03:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hinderaker: Conservatives Opposing Miers Should Be Careful
Hindrocket of the Power Line Blog, writes in the Daily Standard:
REPUBLICANS HAVE LONG TAKEN the position that, because it is the president's prerogative to select Supreme Court justices, any nominee who is qualified and doesn't subscribe to an extreme judicial philosophy should be confirmed. Some Miers critics seem now to imply a new standard by mocking Miers as undistinguished, or by pointing out how much more qualified other potential nominees would have been. Such attacks carry a hazard. Until now, the judicial confirmation process has never been seen as one where senators can reject a qualified nominee on the ground that he or she isn't the nominee the senators wanted, or the one the senators consider the best.
But many conservative critics of Harriet Miers come perilously close to urging that standard on Republican senators, in hopes that, if Miers is defeated, the president will go back to the candidate pool more favored by conservatives. But, once a handful of Republican senators have used such a rationale to vote against a Republican nominee, it requires little imagination to foresee how quickly the Democrats will use that precedent to justify their own opposition to essentially any Republican nominee, no matter how well-qualified or mainstream.
That's definitely an issue. Hinderaker continues to accentuate the positive at the end:
Thus, if a group of conservative senators were to join with the Democrats to defeat Miers's nomination, the immediate consequence might well be a better nominee for the O'Connor seat, but the long-term damage to the confirmation procedure could be considerable.
How likely is that to happen? Not likely. There is no reason to think that either President Bush or Harriet Miers has been cowed by criticism from the right, so in all probability Miers's confirmation hearing will go forward in two weeks' time. Much will depend, obviously, on how she performs. But if she performs competently, it is hard to imagine any Republican senators voting against her. That would be a hard vote to explain to the rank and file back home.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the vote goes. I suspect that most Democrats will vote against Miers. I am less confident that all Republicans will vote in favor. It's an open question as to which Republicans would be likeliest to flip; will they be the squishy moderates like Lincoln Chafee or Arlen Specter, or will they be the hardcore conservatives like Sam Brownback?
Posted by pat at 01:06 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Mark Those Calendars!
(Crossposted to Blogmeister USA)
As if today's students aren't already overbooked between keggers, wet t-shirt contests, Phish concerts (and those pesky classes sandwiched inbetween), United for Peace and Justice wants to add to their overburdened schedules with their National "Not Your Soldier" Youth and Student Day of Action on November 17.
*Are military recruiters invading your schools and using promises of scholarships and career opportunities to convince your friends to join the military? (Military recruiters are invading? Help! Call in the military...oh, er, never mind.)
*Do you wish that job and college recruiters would replace the military ones? (I never thought I'd see the day when a leftist group espoused having an eeevil corporation recruiting our precious youth.)
*Are you tired of being trapped in JROTC programs? (Don't you have to be a willing participant? I wasn't aware that the ROTC set out traps in order to gain members.)
*Have you lost loved ones in this illegal and unjustifiable war? (Wasn't it the loved ones' choice to join the military in the first place?)
*Have you had enough of being used as a pawn in Bush’s games of war? (You can't be a pawn if you don't sign up. What do the anti-drug folks say? Just say NO.)
Here's what students can "do" to help the "cause":
1. Hold a demo/rally at a school or community recruiting station to declare a “Not Your Soldier” zone. (Classes? Fuhgeddaboutit!)
2.Offer solutions! Organize an “alternative” recruitment fair; invite college recruiters, local unions, job recruiters, activist organizations and others to table and show the alternatives to the military. (Again, colleges always have other alternatives at their job fairs. They never just invite the military.)
3. Demand a Meeting with your school administration to discuss your specific demands (if they don’t agree, organize a petition drive or demonstration to make sure they do!)(Oh, I like this one. Demand! Kids today are being taught that no one has the right to say no to them. And we wonder why recent college grads have a difficult time when they get into the real world and find out the hard way that not everything they want is going to be handed to them without question.)
4. Get creative! Organize a concert, open mic or party with music, poetry, theater and art against military recruitment! (Those liberal arts classes finally have an application in real life!)
5. Host a forum or debate on military recruitment! Invite community activists, teachers and parents to come listen to young people talk about their experiences, ideas and opinions on military recruitment, the poverty draft and the war! (Will the military be invited to this debate? If not, it's not much of a debate...)
6. Be visible! Set up a table, do sidewalk chalking, create a public graffiti wall, do a banner drop - let people know what young people really think about the war, military recruitment and the kind of future we want for our generation! (Yes, a future where our enemies can attack without fear of reprisal because the military was eradicated by a bunch of crunchy granolas.)
You know, the whole concept is ridiculous. To read this press release, you'd think that college campuses are the sole domain of military recruiters. What about schools like Yale, who are trying to ban them? If kids don't want to join the military, they don't have to, plain and simple. Just businesses offer employment alternatives, so does the military. Not your cup of tea? No problem.
Disclaimer: any citizen has the right to protest whatever he wants to. I'm not questioning that. I am questioning UPJ's contention that military recruiters are really such a danger. If the kids are as enlightened as our leftist professors try to make them, won't they turn down a military career anyway?
It's not about choice--it's about censoring views not held near and dear to the left.
Posted by Pam at 12:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Is Moveon.org Laundering Donations from Judges?
Judge Perkins donated to Moveon.org but claims he doesn't support the anti-DeLay actions Moveon is taking.
Can Judge Perkins PROVE that his $200.00 was not used for any Moveon.org anti-DeLay activities such as the TV ad they are airing in the county where DeLay is supposed to get a "fair" trial?
Posted by Aaron at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Christ the Lord
Um, this is the title of Anne Rice's next book.
Posted by Aaron at 10:19 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
I Oppose Miers' Confirmation
Two weeks of patience and wait-and-see did not work. I am coming out officially against the Miers confirmation. Let me make three caveats:
- Miers is not threatened with a fillibuster. I oppose fillibusters of judicial nominees because if the majority of the senate would approve a nominee put forth by the White House, then that fulfills the advise and consent clause of the constitution.
- The president, while given the power to select, does not have the power to override the senate. I look to the Bork defeat (which was a travesty if you ask me); Bork was defeated by the majority of the senate--not the fillibuster of a minority.
- I do not believe that Miers is unqualified. She is simply not the best and must be held accountable to her career choices. If I chose to pursue a course in mathematics and received a PhD in that study, I don't belong on the Supreme Court. Simply because you are a lawyer (even an excellent one) does not you believe you belong on the Supreme Court. I believe the Supreme Court is different than other branches of government. Is Bush the BEST administrator in the nation? Hardly. Are any of the Senators or Representatives the best legislators in the nation? Hardly. But that is NOT the requirement; popular election is the requirement for the Executive and Legislative branch. These branches are beholden to the electorate. Judges are beholden to the constitution and must meet a different standard.
Now, outside of my coming out against Miers, here is my dream scenario: Miers withdraws, Bush selects Janice Rogers Brown, puts Miguel Estrada in her slot and appoints Miers to the 9th or 2nd Circuit.
Miers can still be his third nominee, but only after we see at least ONE written opinion--of which she has none.
I cannot support a SCOTUS nominee for someone for whom I've read no example of a decision--as a judge--on constitutional matters.
I fully support Bush; I believe Miers is an amazing individual; someone else needs to be nominated.
That is only my opinion. I was not elected president or senator so I have no qualifications to support my opinion...it is simply my own.
[Note, I will not carry the water for those opposed to the nomination; I oppose it and will only post/link to information on the nomination going forward. My opinion is known and I will not move foreward to condemn Miers. Bush has the ability to appoint with the Senate's confirmation. My opinion is known, but this is not a political issue; SCOTUS is an apolitical entity and I will treat it as such.]
Posted by Aaron at 08:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Crash
I finally saw Crash (or Magnolia II: Racism in LA). It was an excellently acted and directed movie.
There are few films that take 10 or so character lines and successfully intertwine them into a solid story: the Big Chill, Grand Canyon, Magnolia, Heat. This is one of those films.
The character development is not as compelling as the movies I've listed, but the scenes and ironies constructed around the City of Angels are authentic and compelling.
If you've seen this movie, let me know what you think in the comments. If you haven't, it's on PPV and on DVD. See it and let me know what you think....
Posted by Aaron at 07:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
THE READING ROOM
|
|
Dick Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann, have written
|
Same book, different covers. Verne Edstrom, who originally self-published Posted by kitty at 09:42 AM | Comments (2)
A BLAST FROM THE PAST
|
Remember Buddy?
With a title like "White House will neuter first dog," I automatically thought they were referring to Bill. When I realized they were referring to poor Buddy, I decided that the article could easily be "adjusted." A bit of whiteout in a couple of spots, and change the word Buddy to Bill (twice), and voila! Don't tell me that Her Royal C never considered the idea.
Posted by kitty at 01:12 PM | Comments (2)
The Statement Harriet Miers Needs to Make
Question: Random abortion/privacy question...
Answer: Thank you Senator for giving me the opportunity to address this issue. There was a time in our history when the constitution itself said that black Americans were counted as 3/5s of a person. If this were still part of the constitution, I would--and must--vote to uphold it. However, after the nation ratified the 13th and 14th Amendments, I would be required to strike down any law that discusses humanity in portions.
The Roe v. Wade decision did just that: through the use of "trimesters," the court chose to define life and humanity in portions based on 90-day cycles. This is scientifically insufficient, unconstitutional and contrary to the intent of the writers of these amendments.
To illustrate this, we should look to laws against the torture of animals. The law grants rights against abuse and torture of animals, but the law also considers them as "property." What Roe v. Wade argues is that humans (many of whom would survive without the mother) have partial rights or fewer rights than those we would afford to the family dog.
Therefore, I wish to enter into the record that the constitutionality of the Roe decision is both racist, torturous and murderous; were there many murder trials of slave masters who killed their slaves through torture? Remember, these slaves were only considered partially human.
If the legislature, through the will of the people, wish to amend the constitution to define the unborn as "partial humans" as it once did with black Americans, then I would vote to uphold Roe.
Absent that legislation, the constitution forbids such practices that, like it once did black Americans, chooses to define humanity in artificial terms.
[thanks for the correction in the comments]
Posted by Aaron at 07:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Contrasts in Principles
Personally, I've felt an internal strugle with my support of Ken Starr and Clinton's numerous illegalities and my "wait and see" approach with the DeLay/LIbby/Rove situation.
But there are differences that were expertly outlined here.
Joe Wilson sought to interpose himself into the debate over Iraq. He and his wife conspired to get him sent to Niger. He was not sent by the vice president. He was not sent by the Bush administration, and they were taking no effort to get even with him because he double-crossed them. He chose to write an op-ed in the New York Times in which he lied repeatedly. It has been demonstrated over an