There seems to be a consensus among the sources I have read that the Alito so-called "hearings" are not worth spending much time on...vindicating my gut intuition on the matter as noted yesterday. But at least there is some excitement in the blososphere if not on the hearings themselves than on events or persons pertaining to them in some respect...witness Beth's recent outburst which had me chucking as I read it. My first thought when finishing the thread was that she must be a fun person to drink with Which reminds me...

Goin' to California, yes
To resurrect my soul
The sun is always shinin', shinin'
Or at least that's what I'm told...

I will be vacationing in California later this month (Santa Cruz to be precise) and may blog once or twice when I am down there if there is time to. Those who would find it interesting that I would head down to a place like Santa Cruz (which is one of the former Kremlin's west coast branches) it is to visit one of my oldest friends who has (in their time there) definitely become another Ted Nugent if you know what I mean. So it should be a blast and be a good recharge for my mental and physiological batteries. I am going to have to get in some "pre-emptive training" at the gym to prepay in advance for the we will do but that will be fine...I may even get a temporary membership at a gym when I am down there as well (if there is time for it).

So in the tradition started with the late 2003's Puerto Vallarta Special Reports threads, there will probably be a thread or more blogged when I am down there...time-willing of course.

[Update: What is posted below this point was added around 8pm PST (20:00 for you military types) -ISM]

Finally, I found this thread from the weblog called Girl on the Right as a recommended read. Just a little taste though...

Conservatives are scary. Everyone knows it. They're fanatical, radical, evangelical . . . or not. But what do the facts matter in politics.

Just like there are fanatical, radical, evangelical conservatives, there are also fanatical, radical, evangelical socialists. Our country has been run by the latter for the better part of 40 years, so it is not entirely unreasonable that a couple of generations of Canadian children have grown up without ever understanding that there is a middle ground -- and that in many ways, especially recently, it is the Conservative Party of Canada that holds that middle ground.

Just like 2004, Paul Martin is using this election to attack my values and tell me that I don't belong. He's aiming his vitriol at Stephen Harper, but most of what he says applies to me as well and since the shoe fits . . [LINK]

I will readily admit that Canadian politics is something I find confusing; ergo I will email my Canadian friend Pete Vere and ask for his appraisal of the above thread. From what I have read, it looks good but I know better than to attempt an analysis of Canadian politics lest I come across looking like a moron. So Pete, give that thread a read and email me with your comments so I can blog them for the benefit of the readers m'kay???

Some Confirmation Hearing Predictions:
(Courtesy of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: This thread has been updated with the additions in purple font - ISM 1/11/06 7:00pm]

I wish I could say that I was paying a lot of attention to the Alito hearing but frankly I am not.{1} Basically, I can predict what will happen with this pretty much already so (donning my Kreskin hat) here goes...

---The Democrats are going to try to get Alito to answer questions about their pet issues as a kind of litmus test.

---They will have abortion on their minds primarily but as a rule will not address it as much as the so-called "right to privacy" or Griswald v. Connecticut in 1965 which fabricated a so-called "right to privacy" which is the lynchpin for Roe v. Wade.

---Alito like Roberts before him will have to answer these questions in a fashion that gives at least the appearance that he would consider sticking with the status quo in order to get confirmed and avoid a major fight on the nomination.

---Certain Catholic commentators will claim without suitable warrant that Alito like Roberts in answering in this fashion would be "selling their faith down the river" ignoring the obvious fact that if ever was there a time to have to approach something with the "cunningness of serpents and the guileness of doves" (cf. Jesus Christ) than it is in these instances.{2}

---Alito will be confirmed by a vote of approximately 57-43.

---President Bush will afterwards figure he has appeased his supporters enough and do something stupid figuring he can get away with it. (Depending on what that is, it is difficult to say whether or not he will succeed at it or not.)

---Both Alito and Roberts will pan as genuine originalists as a rule viz. how they approach the issues brought before the court during their tenures.

---There may well be a third confirmation hearing before the 2006 elections and thus Bush needs to be watched like a hawk to avoid picking another Miers or viewing the Stevens seat (the next to be vacated) as "the seat of Alberto Gonzales" or some equivalent thereof.

As for the rest, the gang at Southern Appeal have written a bit on this subject as one might expect. I for one concur with Patrick Carver (and Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters whom he quotes) that Alito thus far is a much better candidate than Miers...see this example which illustrates the difference well in snapshot form for those who are interested.

Notes:

{1} Apparently I am not missing much according to Beth at VRWC.

{2} Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain realizes that if Alito or Roberts would have been 100% forthright and answered the questions the Democrats asked of them that they never would be confirmed. But certain geopolitically naive sorts seem to think it is better to do that and lose rather than take a more tactical approach in the hearings and win.

Points to Ponder:
(On Fighting Wars in a Timely or Appropriate Manner)

[Prefatory Note: The below statement by Fr. James V. Schall SJ coheres quite well with something your host posted to this weblog almost seven months ago in another "points to ponder" thread taken from his own private musings - ISM]

"I could make an historical argument, I think, to the effect that failure to fight wars in time or appropriately has caused as much chaos, degradation of the human spirit, and slaughter as wars that were in fact fought. Wars are a question of justice. When justice is an obvious and paramount question, it is not a virtue to avoid them. It is the mistake of always framing the issue in terms of peace and not in terms of justice. Logically, the former cannot be had without the latter. Peace without justice is the definition of extreme tyranny. And it is not just a question of justice, but of generosity and self-sacrifice. If there are no causes worth fighting and dying for, we might as well give up pretending that we are civilized." [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]