Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

My comments will be interspersed...

UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq? (The Anchoress)

Those who have thought it strange that despite all the so-called "evidences" against "WMD's" and all the "Bush Lied" assertions made by various nattering nabobs why your host has not reversed course on his long-enunciated position on the war in Iraq;{1} well, it is quite simple really.

First of all, I take a long view on these matters and know well that these things take a while to round into shape.{2} Secondly, I am quite aware of the problems with a round the clock media influence{3} and how it can misrepresent more complex arguments quite easily.{4} Thirdly, your host never put any of his eggs into the WMD basket to begin with so all of the shrieking back and forth on this issue was seen by me as a case of missing the forest for the trees to a significant extent.{5}

And fourthly, your host has been an adherent to the "Syria Hypothesis" since before the war started and has noted this in various ways on this very weblog subsequent to the war.{6} Nonetheless, it is nice to see the long view approach that your host takes on issues such as this appear to receive yet more vindication...not to mention Our view that the media has an obvious bias in favour of quackish liberalism. But enough on that subject for now.

Moving onto the Captain's Quarters, there are these four threads worth considering:

Louis Freeh: Let's Get Hearings On Able Danger

The summary of the above thread is as follows (in his words):

We need to press Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy to fight the DIA and issue subpoenas if necessary. One man has already sacrificed his career for this effort, and that sacrifice should not pass unrewarded.

As one who has gone on record supporting a focus on Able Danger{7}, I cannot disagree in the slightest with the above assertion. Bug your senators people...including Senator Arlen Spector who expressed interest in this back in September but may well get wishy washy in true congressional fashion on the matter in question. Of course those of us who have Maria Cantvotewell and Patty Murray (the latter of whose lips have been firmly attached to the backside of Robert "Sheets" Byrd for the past thirteen years), it will not make much of a difference but one must try nonetheless. Moving from Able Danger to Democratic cowardice, we have this thread for consideration:

What Could Be More American Than A Vote?

Just a taste...

The Republicans made the right move -- instead of debating the issue through the media, they took the Democratic demands and introduced it as a resolution for debate where rhetoric actually counts, and where both sides get equal time. In the Democratic world, that equates to something vaguely unfair. They tried to hide behind a procedural block, and when that didn't work, they screamed and hollered in support of the idea of withdrawal -- and then promptly voted against it when it counted.

Since I cannot improve on what was just noted by the good captain, let us move onto the third thread:

Woodward Apologetics 101

This quote is priceless:

[J]ournalists only believe in protecting sources when leaks come from fellow liberals and/or serve to embarrass conservatives.

In fact, that quote belongs in the long-running "points to ponder" series so look for it in the future to be added. Moving on...

Iranians Admit Getting Blueprint For Nuclear Warhead (Captain Ed)

A show of hands please for those who trust in the UN to handle this matter properly by themselves...anybody...anybody... did not think so.{8}

Freedom Has a Taste the Protected Will Never Know (Beth Cleaver)

Well said. However, that is not to say that those of us who are protected by the freedom our fighting soldiers provide do not have an awareness of what they do as well as an appreciation for it. But we have more from Beth including this gem:

Boogie to Baghdad

I do not consider myself unfamiliar with the divers threads surrounding the war on terror subject but I must confess to not being familiar with this one (until now). It is in the 9/11 Commission Report; however I have not read most of it...mainly because they refused to deal adequately with Able Danger and (therefore) the ultimate position they take is significantly tainted as a result. Nonetheless, thanks for the heads up...another nail in the metal-filled coffin lid of the "Bush Lied" canard.

Laziest Post Ever

No Beth, that is the second laziest post ever. I still hold the record (I think) for the laziest post ever and it can be viewed HERE.{9}

403-3

Of course since there are 435 house members, a vote like that means there were twenty-nine people who either (i) abstained from voting or (ii) were absent. Still though, for all the Democratic congressional bluster about demanding "immediate withdrawal", when put to a vote, the craven way many of those windbags responded is quite telling.

Whatever else you want to say about Cynthia McKinney, (D-GA), José Serrano, (D-NY), and Robert Wexler, (D-FL) -at least they put their vote where their mouth is. Moving on...

The Iraq War: A History Lesson (Michelle Malkin)

Sounds to me like a worthy project. By the way, readers who peruse my post defending the use of force in Iraq will notice that I include situations and events from the 1990's in that assessment. The reason is that they are not an insignificant part of the overall equation. However, to include stuff that predates 9/11 is to shoot holes in the "Bush Lied" cadaver-of-an-argument so it is not surprising to me that those sorts ignore that stuff.

And via Michelle's blog we find this thread from a relatively new site called "All Things Conservative":

Operation Clean Sweep and Iraq Update (Bill Crawford)

Once again, the alternative media has to report the news that the MSM does not want to report for (presumably) ideological reasons.

Where the WMDs Went (Jamie Glasnov)

Former intelligence officer Bill Tierney concurs with your host both with regards to the war approach viz. Iraq as well as the Syria hypothesis...something which I remind you that the Duelfer Report did not rule out of the equation.

Huge Anti-Terror Protest in Jordan (Little Green Footballs)

Can anyone think of an MSM source other than the Washington Times who has reported on this event???

Kurt Vonnegut: Moonbat (Little Green Footballs)

Well, at the very least that will probably get Vonnegutless some feature coverage over at a certain site aptly called Treasonous Communist Rubbish.{10}

And finally, some of the stuff you can find with a word search at wikipedia include the following:

Backward message (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I cannot believe someone actually put this into wikipedia!!! Nonetheless, I include it here since it mentions an album I wrote a review for Amazon on. (The rough draft of which will be posted to this weblog before the end of the month.)

Besides, it should stand to reason that a bad message played backwards on a record logically has its problems. After all, if we have something bad being played backwards it is akin to adding two numbers together of equal value, one positive and one negative (i.e. 2+-2). But then again, simple logic is often a problem for those who spend their time panting and otherwise hyperventilating over "backwards messages" on recordings along with various and sundry other forms of useless drivel (read: idiotarians and moonbats of various persuasions).



Notes:

{1} Why Those Who Hold Out For Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Wrong (circa February 9, 2003)

Nary a jot nor tittle of what I wrote in that post (nearly three years ago) has been altered by subsequent supposed "findings" or "facts" about WMD's, their existence or non-existence, etc. That is not to say that finding WMD's either in Iraq or elsewhere would not bolster the arguments made of course but an absence of them does not hurt my view at all.

{2} Points to Ponder on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" by Amir Taheri (circa December 14, 2003)

{3} Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror--An Audio Post Part I (circa September 22, 2004)

Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror--An Audio Post Part II (circa September 22, 2004)

{4} The media in its mainstream incarnations should be taken with many grains of salt if not a saltshaker with regards to any pronouncements it makes on the aforesaid complex issues. This is the foundation of the McElhinney Media Dictum finally defined after many years of adherence last year at the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG.

{5} Readers who have followed this weblog for a long time are aware that I never in the entire subject of the war in Iraq -even from the earliest of the postings where I took an unequivocal position in favour of the utilization of the military option there to the more immediate post war period and beyond to the present time- placed any of my eggs in the WMD basket. For those who wondered about my reasons for this, you now have some of them. In light of how many commentators are tossed to and fro with whatever the immediate media zeitgeist happens to say, it does not hurt on occasion to point to the very solid trackrecord of your weblog host and how often he has avoided falling into those traps. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]


{6} Here is a list of many of the threads where this was noted explicitly or otherwise:

More on the Iraq War, the Syria Hypothesis, and the Duelfer Report (circa June 8, 2005)

Briefly on Iraq, WMD's, and Another Pseudo-"Progressivist" War Dogma Bites the Dust (circa March 14, 2005)

The Iraq - Al Queda Connection (circa September 18, 2004)

More on Extreme Ideologies (circa August 31, 2004)

Miscellaneous Mutterings on David Kay and His Testimony (circa January 30, 2004)

Points to Ponder on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" by Amir Taheri (circa December 14, 2003)

{7} Among which are these excerpts:

I surmize that...the existence of Able Danger and its coverup will prove to be a huge black mark on the previous administration. And in light of Hillary's longtime designs on the presidency, Able Danger would not be a benefit to her cause to put it mildly...

As I have noted in private correspondence to a few individuals, what he has done (in writing a book about Able Danger and 9/11) and what he is saying (in promoting his book on the various media curcuits), Rep. Curt Weldon has taken quite a gamble here. Bryan is right about him essentially going "all in" with what he is doing (to use a Texas hold'em expression) in that if he is called and does not produce the cards, he will be finished politically. However, if he can deliver on what he says he can, then his prestige will increase. In fact, if the latter proves to be true, look for Rep. Weldon to become a Republican darkhorse candidate for the presidency in 2008 (whether he wants it or not). My money is on Weldon's gamble paying off because generally speaking people do not make public stances like this unless they can deliver. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]

And these links:

On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)

Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)

"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 2, 2005)

"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Revisited (circa November 3, 2005)

{8} Those who did raise their hands, I will be nice and ask that you put the bong down and wait a while before voting again (either in what I just asked you, in the 2006 elections, etc).

{9} It is also perhaps the only time in the history of Rerum Novarum that the title for a post was longer than the post itself actually.

{10} An entity whose entire approach to complex issues is a mixture of equal parts moonbat and idiotarian with a serial propensity towards dowdification.

Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat and The Law:

The following note was sent to your host by a friend who maintains a very large website with various interconnected themes. Their words will be in shale font.

In adding new content to the 'Church and Liberal Tradition' website today I realized I was long negligent in adding Frederic Bastiat to the list of intellectual precursors:

Claude Frederic Bastiat

As well as adding 'The Law' to the recommended reading section. Just wanted to let you know the matter is resolved. =)

No problemo. I have come to consider that book as a prerequisite for properly understanding law and its function in society...so much so that anyone with a degree in economics or a liberal arts field who is not familiar with The Law, has a useless degree as far as I am concerned.

With regards to the Whig classification, I am not sure that Claude Frederic Bastiat would identify himself as a Whig though. (I guess it depends on how that term is defined.) He certainly supported free trade though I do not think for a minute he would support NAFTA or CAFTA.{1} I cannot see him supporting the crippling business and regulatory climate of businesses in this country and then NAFTA/CAFTA making it easy to go a short distance where these burdens are not a factor (i.e. Mexico, Central America, etc). If anything, he would support free trade without the artificial constraints imposed by useless taxes and regulations in the American climate.

If the only thing that stood between us and Mexico was the wages issue, I do not believe it is likely that many companies would move. But when there is the tons of red tape and other garbage added on top of the wages issue, I have a hard time faulting companies who choose to leave for leaving. The problem is squarely that of the federal government intervening where it has no business intervening and (furthermore) where one could argue that from a constitutional standpoint they are limited in their ability to intervene. Not that the feds care a whit about the Constitution of course (except when it benefits them to). But that is another subject altogether.

Note:

{1} Briefly on CAFTA and So-Called "Free Trade" (circa July 29, 2005)

Points to Ponder:
(On "Ignorance" and "Education")

My grandparents were ignorant people by our standards and my grandfather held only lowly jobs. But their home was spiritually rich because all the things done in it, not only what was specifically ritual, found their origin in the Bible’s commandments, and their explanation in the Bible’s stories and the commentaries on them, and had their imaginative counterparts in the deeds of the myriad of exemplary heroes. My grandparents found reasons for the existence of their family and the fulfillment of their duties in serious writings, and they interpreted their special sufferings with respect to a great and ennobling past. Their simple faith and practices linked them to great scholars and thinkers who dealt with the same material, not from outside or from an alien perspective, but believing as they did, while simply going deeper and providing guidance. There was a respect for real learning, because it had a felt connection with their lives. That is what a community and a history mean, a common experience inviting high and low into a single body of belief.

I do not believe that my generation, my cousins who have all been educated in the American way, all of whom are M.D.s or Ph.D.s, have any comparable learning. When they talk about heaven and earth, the relations between men and women, parents and children, the human condition, I hear nothing but clichés, superficialities, the material of satire. I am not saying anything so trite as that life is fuller when people have myths to live by. I mean rather that a life based on the Book is closer to the truth, that it provides the material for deeper research in and access to the real nature of things. Without the great revelations, epics, and philosophies as part of our natural vision, there is nothing to see out there and eventually little left inside. The Bible is not the only means to furnish a mind, but without a book of similar gravity, read with the gravity of the potential believer, it will remain unfurnished. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pgs. 59-60 (c. 1987)]

Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage:
(With Christopher Blosser)

This is a partial response to the article Christopher posted to his Religion and Liberty weblog. His words will be in blue font.

Given the twists and turns in the understanding of 'neocon' over the decades, it is my contention that when the 'neocon' label is liberally applied without proper clarification or qualification, it easily becomes an impediment to the discussion and only adds to readers' confusion.

This is especially the case when whole groups of individuals, publications, or organizations are lumped together..

As you may know Chris, I mentioned this subject in an audioposting in late October.{1} My guess is that those who wield this terminology have no interest in actually setting forth identifying parameters for what a so-called "neo-con" is because that would mean they had to exercise the thinking mechanism and would be subjecting not a few of their usages of the term and its derivatives to a kind of scrutiny they do not want to have to deal with. All one needs to see as evidence of this viewpoint is how readily they flee from the simplest of accountability for their own public statements.{2} If they are not willing to answer some pretty elementary questions about their own oft-reiterated public proclamations{3}, then it would be no small stretch to presume that they would be willing to respond to the request I noted in the aforementioned audipost above.

Another way of saying it is this: I am not surprised by their evasions Chris. Hopefully in time they will recognize that authentic dialogue{4} is not possible with how they approach these matters. But then again, I have my suspicions that they have no interest in dialogue anyway based on the pattern of habitual evasion they have thus far engaged in.

Notes:

{1} Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)

{2} On Stephen Hand and Certain Statements He Needs to Account For (circa October 6, 2005)

{3} --Viz. Issue 1, there are several points which need a response from Mr. Hand. They can all be summarized in Greg's recent question to Mr. Hand [...]. However, for the sake of greater exactness, I want to note the others which pertain to the latter. They are (i) a public request from me for Mr. Hand to clarify once and for all if Pope John Paul II's position on the war -which seems to be mirrored by his successor Pope Benedict XVI- constitutes Church teaching or not and (ii) should he answer in the negative on the matter, Mr. Hand needs to make it clear that he accepts the position on the matter that the Church does with the proper disposition of mind and in the future reflect this realization accordingly in his writings and statements on the subject in question.

If Mr. Hand responds to my request in the affirmative, he is called upon to produce the magisterial texts to support to support his usage of authoritative language and also to support his reference to the war issue as "grave" and justify this usage in light of the doctrinal clarifications of the present pope on these matters when he was chief theologian for the previous pope.

---Viz. Issue 2, Mr. Hand needs to explain (i) why he continues to parrot discredited statistics as he does and (ii) why anyone should take him seriously as a credible commentator on these issues in light of his continual parrotting of said discredited statistics.

---Viz. Issue 3, Mr. Hand also has to explain why he continues for ideological reasons to flout the teachings of Pope Benedict XV on the use of derisive labels as he does.

---Viz. Issue 4, Mr. Hand needs to explain why he reads into the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (on Pope John Paul II's view being one "of conscience enlightened by faith) sentiments not expressed by him. Furthermore, it would be nice if Mr. Hand could explain to us in light of what I have noted in this posting from Catholic sources[...] how his manifested views on just war (viz. who is the competent authority to assess the evidences and ultimately levy such a war) are at all congruent with the totality of the Catholic just war tradition. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 6, 2005)]

{4} Miscellaneous Musings on Dialogue--An Audio Post (circa October 6, 2005)

Points to Ponder:
(On Dreamers)

All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recess of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. [T. E. Lawrence]

Responding to the Archives Meme:

The instructions given were these:

On your blog...

Go into your archives.
Find your 23rd post (or closest to it).
Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it).
Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
Tag five other people to do the same thing.

Step by step...

Go into your archives.

Done.

Find your 23rd post (or closest to it).

Done.

Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it).

Ok:

From some of [Mr. Dreher's] comments at In Between Naps, I see that he had a 900-word limit and only four hours in which to write. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 27, 2002)]

Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.

This has been done already.

Tag five other people to do the same thing.

Five other people huh??? Okay, let me see...

Jeff Miller

Greg Mockeridge

The Mighty Barrister

Jeanetta

And

SecretAgent Man

"Mea Culpa" Dept.

In light of the high degree of accuracy of many of your host's analyses and predictions over the years, it is important to balance the scales and be just as forthright in pointing out the misses as the hits. Or, for those who would prefer a musical analogy, in light of mentioning the strophes it is also important to make note of the antistrophes. And while this has always been a policy at this weblog to admit to a mistake to the extent it is made, two months ago, We posted a thread on the economics behind the gas price increases in which your host made an errant prediction. To quote what was said then:

[T]here has been a push for alternative fuel sources for decades by people who are utterly ignorant of how markets actually work.[...] These same people have sought to use the federal government to raise taxes on gasoline to try and shape the buying decisions of the public. Furthermore, the same people have sought to avoid the building of any additional oil refineries in the United States for about three decades making the refineries the weakness in the entire oil-into-petrol-into-your-local-gaspump chain if you will.

And of course if you add to the above concoction a massive storm devastating a key urban center with some of the very limited numbers of refineries in close proximity; inexorably you have a recipe for increased gasoline prices and why they will go up further as a result of the storm fallout over the coming months. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 10, 2005)]

In the above example, the prediction was based on the presupposition that there was major damage to refineries and other infrastructure in the vicinity of New Orleans: a presumption that proved to be false. And while not the only reason the prices of gasoline have come down, that there was less damage to some of the few refineries we have certainly contributed to that to some extent.

That of course explains the genesis of the error but does not excuse it, it was posted on A1 so the correction is made on A1 -not Q14, X7, or Z2 as is common for the MSM or other entities to admit to their frontpage mistakes.{1}

We would be remiss in not noting that the rest of the article where the discredited prediction was made is still very much worth reading.{2} And to say that such persons are legion in their numbers would not be an exaggeration in the least. But it was important to note this publicly and prominently; ergo your host has done just that. And (for the record) this is a prediction We are quite happy to be wrong about in case anyone was wondering.

Notes:

{1} If they admit to them at all of course.

{2} Since it provides a kind of basic economics lesson for those who are ignorant of basic economics viz. these kinds of issues.

Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing:

[Update: When posting this thread, I mentioned possibly adding some threads to the post later on. This has now been done with the new first footnote which has replaced the original one where the aforementioned intention was originally manifested. -ISM 11/05/05 3:20pm]

My comments will be interspersed in regular font.

Internet Rules--The Miers denouement shows the power of the new media (John Fund)

Though he has said nothing your host has not reiterated privately as well as publicly in recent years{1}; nonetheless, John Fund's observations on the growing power of alternative media are worth reflecting upon. Here is just a sample from the above article:

One that deserves study is how a lightning-fast news cycle, a flat-footed defense and the growth of new media such as talk radio and blogs sank Ms. Miers's chances even before the megabuck special-interest groups could unload their first TV ad. Ms. Miers herself has told friends that she was astonished at how the Internet became a conveyor belt for skeptical mainstream media reports on her in addition to helping drive the debate...

While only a small minority of Americans read political blogs, they tend to attract high-profile readers in media and politics with nonstop access to a computer. Such people influence the influencers. "The Internet processed all the arguments for Miers in record time and rejected them," says Rich Lowry, editor of National Review. "A few days before the Miers withdrawal her supporters had nothing left to say."

Liberals, who were largely bystanders during the conservative family feud over Ms. Miers, are now stepping forward to tar her critics as Grand Inquisitors. "The radical right wing of the Republican Party drove this woman's nomination right out of town," thundered Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Juan Williams, a National Public Radio and Fox News analyst, compared her critics to "a far-right Donner party. They're eating their own."

In fact, the conservative critique of the Miers nomination contained almost none of the bitter invective that characterized the liberal assault on Robert Bork in 1987. Back then, Sen. Ted Kennedy set the tone of the attacks within two hours of Mr. Bork's nomination, when he charged that "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, and rogue police would break down citizens' doors in midnight raids."

In contrast, Miers critics routinely stipulated she was a good corporate litigator, a path-breaking legal talent and a good person. They emphasized two basic points: She didn't have the background for such an important appointment, and her judicial philosophy, when not unknown, was incoherent. It was the White House that suggested her opponents might be operating from "sexist" or "elitist" motives and that a knowledge of constitutional law wasn't a prerequisite for service on the high court.

Well said John!!! Moving on...

Bomb technology enters Iraq from Iran (Charles Aldinger)

Here is the opening bits from the above link:

Sophisticated technology and explosives to make improvised bombs killing U.S. and other troops in Iraq are apparently entering the country virtually unhindered from Iran, a senior British general said on Friday.

Royal Marines Maj. Gen. James Dutton spoke with reporters in a teleconference from Basra in southern Iraq a day after the Pentagon announced plans to increase efforts to find ways to defend against improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, used by insurgents that are the leading cause of U.S. casualties in the war...

Of course we are supposed to believe that a problem like this (which could be fixed with better border security) would somehow not exist if not for the US presence in Iraq. Somehow, if we pulled all troops out tomorrow and left the Iraqis with insufficient trained forces, somehow the Muslim theocracy Iran would leave the infant republic of Iraq (with its newly minted Constitution of representative government) alone. The word "naive" comes to mind to explain such a viewpoint (among other less savoury ones) but that is all that will be said on the matter at this time.

Economic Activity Jumps 3.8 Percent in Third Quarter (Randy Hall)

Not a bad third quarter of economic growth for 2005...

A nation of sheeple (Walter E. Williams)

Just a snippet from the above article to whet the appetite a bit:

President Bush informed the nation, during a press conference, that he might seek to use the U.S. military to quarantine parts of the nation should there be a serious outbreak of the deadly avian flu that has killed millions of chickens and 60-some people in Southeast Asia. That's the second time Bush has expressed a desire to use the military for local policing. The first was in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the U.S. National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution or Congress.

It bears noting that those who sanction the notion of an "evolving Constitution" are incapable of arguing cogently against the increase of federal authority for matters of "security"; however, those who argue for a proper originalist understanding as Dr. Williams and your humble servant at Rerum Novarum are fully consistent in our opposition to such matters.

Ammunition for poverty pimps (Walter E. Williams)

Just a snippet from the above article to whet the appetite a bit:

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation...

To find out the explanation for the two divergent situations, read the article above.

Do we really care about children? (Walter E. Williams)

Again, just a snippet:

I cringe with disgust when I hear politicians say, "We're doing it for the children." What's worse is so many Americans mindlessly fall hook, line and sinker for the hype. Judging by our actions, Americans could not care less for future generations, and future generations will curse us for it...

Preach on Brother Williams!!!

Lefty Professors Crush Dissent (Beth Cleaver)

The above situation is not one that is surprising -indeed it has been a problem at colleges for a long time.{2}

Beth also has a fundraising project for the troops called Project Valor. Anyway, drop on over there and contribute what you can now or consider making a contribution soon. It is after all for a good cause.

Go in Peace Mr. President, Your Sin Has Been Forgiven (Greg Mockeridge)

The above thread constitutes Greg Mockeridge's take on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito in place of Harriet Miers.

In other news, House Speaker Dennis Hastert has taken a stand for freedom of expression on the Internet. Those who are interested in the continuing viability and influence of the alternative media should bear this in mind. Here is an except from a source I will not at this time identify:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) issued the following statement after House Democrats rejected H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. The bill failed 225-182. Under the House suspension rules, it needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

“Today’s action marks a sad day for one of our nation’s most sacred rights: freedom of speech. The federal government seeks to control and regulate the Internet, but the last thing this Congress should be doing is trying to stifle public debate online. This bill would have kept the hands of the federal government off of Internet speech and protected the online debate that’s underway. Our world has evolved and grown more technologically savvy. Lawmakers need to adjust to these changes. Unfortunately, opponents of online speech have decided to punish our changing technological world. It’s especially unfortunate that Democratic Leader Pelosi voted no to free speech. This bill will come back under regular order, and I encourage all those who support free speech on the Internet to make their voices heard.”

Note: When Congress passed campaign finance reform in 2002, the legislation did not identify the Internet as a target of regulation. But recently a federal judge ruled that the FEC's previous broad exemption of the Internet was impermissible, absent clear direction from Congress. HR 1606 would exclude blogs and other types of communications over the Internet from regulation by the FEC.

Remember this the next time the Democrats run for offices in your area and claim to be "for free speech." In truth, they cannot persuade people to their positions utilizing the tools of reason and logic and thus are being creamed in the alternative media viz. their influence.

Notes:

{1} Among the threads where this theme has been dealt with are this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one.

{2} A friend of mine who has gone back to college wrote a piece on the subject which was posted at this weblog as a guest editorial. Here is the thread if interested:

Guest Editorial On Colleges and Their Lack of Faculty Diversity (Tim Tull)

To supplement what was noted yesterday in the last thread posted, it seems appropriate to note why the Democrats want to have these so-called "hearings" behind closed doors. In a word, it is so that the public cannot see them try to squirm out of their own prewar statements on Saddam Hussein, Iraq, WMD's and the like. To assist those who simply do not get it, I will emphasize it again for you:

Focus on Able Danger Stupid!!!

And that is the bottom line really.

For those who think either the closed door Democrat congressional session on "pre-war intelligence" or the Libby indictment stuff this way are the "major intellgence story items of the day"--and further still, are salivating over perceived "damage to Bush's government" as a result of those issues--I have five words for you:

Focus on Able Danger Stupid!!!

For this is the real intelligence story and it is certain to not be pretty. However, if it is allowed to be swept under the rug, then Santayana will turn in his grave and we will have another 9/11 as sure as I am typing this...at which point there will be all the predictable "what could we have done" questions which I would answer simply: "you should have focused on Able Danger stupid."

And that is the bottom line really...

Some Minor Weblog Updates:

Two additions to report on this minor weblog update:

--Inclusion of the body count logo from the Religion of Peace weblog.
--Inclusion of the link to my radio station.

Briefly on these additions...

I first made reference to the "religion of peace" weblog in the last miscellaneous threads installment of this weblog circa October 13, 2005. I have not added the weblog to the side margin yet (though I will in the next weblog update). However, adding the body count logo became a no-brainer after the bullshit from last week with the media making the 2,000th death in Iraq a front page story and the like. It is important to remember the kinds of vile animals masquerading as human beings which we are dealing with in this war on terror and not let the pseudo-"peacemakers"{1} hoodwink any more of the populace than they already have. But enough on that subject for now.

I have also started a new column category titled "music" under which I have included a radio station I have to some degree constructed from various music genres.{2} However, it needs further tweaking to play the mix as I would like it to. Nonetheless, I have decided to add the thread now and tweak with it via artist ratings when I have time to. Hopefully before Christmas it will be playing as I want it to{3} but in the meantime, what is there is what is there. Oh, it helps for those who have a yahoo account to log into it so they can get the "change channel" option. (Those who do not have a yahoo account and want to have the channel changing feature should create one.)

Oh and those who get to change channels, do not do so simply because something unfamiliar is playing...be it blues, jazz, rock and roll, funk,country, or whatever. One of the goals of that station is and will be to get beyond format radio: something I have hated for about twenty years. Anyway, the station provides one with realplayer or other capabilities to listen to music as they read the sometimes-ponderous cogitations blogged to this humble weblog. Over time, I will tweak the playing themes by rating various artists, albums, songs, etc., and banning certain songs I am sick of from being played at my station. But until then, bear with me on the station please while I tweak it here and there as time allows for it.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} This is but one of the many masks which certain odious ideologues hide under to advance their sedition under the guise of being "more 'compassionate' than thou" as they advance policies which will inexorably lead to either greater wars or totalitarianism (whichever comes first).

{2} For example, while writing this post and working on business related stuff, I have listened to Tom Petty, Rush, Marvin Gaye, Jimi Hendrix, The Cartigans, Terri Clark, Steppenwolf, Elton John, Louie Armstrong, Sheryl Crow, AC DC, and Pink Floyd with Johnny Cash's singing of "Unchained" playing in my ears as I finish typing this sentence. This is not a difficult link to find...it is directly under the listing of recent posts and bolded.

{3} I plan to upgrade it to premium by then. Until then, there will be an occasional commercial on the station about every three or four songs usually about fifteen to thirty seconds long. I apologize for this but for the time being it will have to be dealt with...fortunately it is usually a launchcaster ad for the premium service.

Though it was overshadowed by the final rush of blogging in the days prior to the election last year, I do not want to forget this year to note the souls I will be remembering on this Feast of All Souls. Here is the list in the order of (i) father's side (ii) mother's side (iii) current and former parish communities (iv) other:

Richard Dunn McElhinney f
James Dunn McElhinney u
Teresa Mildred McElhinney gm
Paul Dowd McElhinney gf
McElhinney fam
Dunn fam
Flynn fam
McCann fam
Mark Usher sgf
Virginia Usher sgm
Usher sfam
Brooks fam
Hellstrom sfam
Leta M. Allen sa

David Kanski u
Mary H. Kanski gm
Harry Kanski gf
Harold Kanski u
Kanski fam
Haluk fam
Hruby fam
Duma fam
Rogowski fam
Denny fam
Omafrey fam
Ripplinger fam
Spence fam
Mel Clark sgf
Jane Clark sgm
Clark fam

James Jenner OP p
Joseph Fulton OP p
Blessed Sacrament Parish/Dom. Priory
St. Pius X Parish
Corpus Christi Parish

Jeff Cox cl
Rasmussen ext-fam
Tull ext-fam
Anselmo ext-fam
St. Blogs ext-fam
Mike Mentzer t
Mentzer tfam
Cipriani ffam
O'Grady ffam
Bannon ffam
Ziadeh ffam
Stein ffam
Smith ffam
Roy Sabin acq
Anne Sabin acq

While I am sure more will come to mind than just those later on, they are what will be noted at this time. The link to the Purgatory Project can be found HERE and I encourage all my readers to check it out and register the names of family and friends.{1}

Eternal rest grant unto their souls O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them. May their souls and all the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen

The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found [me]. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord on that day (2 Tim i,18).

Note:

{1} One should not presume that my recommendation of the above site constitutes a blanket approval of all or even many of the other threads they have posted there. Nonetheless, they do have a good thread on explaining purgatory written by Jimmy Akin which can be read HERE and which I do highly recommend.

On the Niger Uranium Document Forgeries:

I am currently working on a thread of JYB material intermittently. Nonetheless, this one deserves to be brought front and center because of how it impacts the whole Plame and Wilson situation on which I have touched on a few times this year.{1} Nonetheless, Bryan Preston again shows why I have long viewed his site as a necessary read with this kind of crack reporting from a few days ago. Here is just a snippet:

Rocco Martino has admitted that the French paid him to make the fake Niger-Iraq uranium documents. If the Bush administration weren't in a fog largely of its own making, it would take this story and run with it. It locks in several important Iraq-related threads and thoughts as facts: The French are our enemies, the UN is corrupt, and Joseph Wilson isn't operating in good faith and never was.

The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.

Let that sink in for a minute. The French paid a man to conjure up fake documents related to Saddam's WMD ambitions and floated those documents to the US and UK...

Now as I have noted before{2}, there was an abundance of adequate rationale for utilizing the military option in Iraq when we did. This also explains in technicolour why your host has an ingrained loathing for the French government and has for a long time: they are collaborationists with the enemy. They have manifested this pattern of disingenuousness for at least sixty-five years now and now they have done it again. But enough on that for now before I really come unhinged. The bottom line is this: the French government cannot be trusted anymore than the UN can be and the sooner this is realized, the better.


Notes:

{1} To note the more significant ones, there is this thread:

Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation (circa July 14, 2005)

And this excerpt from another thread.

Certainly the actions of Wilson and Plame in seeking to undermine the Administration as they did were just cause for outing them.{2} I realize that those who would lionize persons such as Deep Throat would find such a position apalling but then again I have already explained why those who view the Deep Throat situation (and by logical extension the Wilson-Plame situation) as "noble causes" of sorts are seriously askew in their operative viewpoints on these matters.{3} Ergo, no no more needs to be noted on it at this time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]

{2} Among the seventy odd threads through March 20, 2005 where this is pointed out (sixty or so of which are viewable HERE), the most fundamental of them is this onefrom February 9, 2003 where the first fully synthesized argument for the military option was promulgated at this weblog. I have not in substance departed from what I wrote then--seeing no rational arguments to persuade me to even consider it. If anything, I have developed further my position as enunciated there with the passing of time.

Jeff Miller notified me that he took and ran with a suggestion I made yesterday about a parody on the "Dancing Itos" as applicable to Judge Samuel Alito (or the "Dancing Alitos"). Well done (as always) on the parody Jeff!!!

It is Halloween; ergo the following "quiz" seems apropo...

Your Monster Profile

Brutal Murderer You Feast On: Jack and Coke You Lurk Around In: Closets You Especially Like to Torment: Hippies

What's Your Monster Name?

Well, it got two out of the three right :)

Miscellaneous Notes:

This being Halloween, it bears noting that I actually contemplated disguising myself as a moonbat and blogging intermittently throughout the day in like manner. The posts would have been short and vitriolic and would have used such labellings as "neo-cons" along with making assertions without bothering to substantiate them and all the other antics common to those who delude themselves into thinking they are substantive commentators.{1} But since I have been misunderstood before when doing weblog pranks{2}, I decided not to since it would take more time to explain it than it would be worth. But enough on that point.

On the Supreme Court nomination, it is clear that President Bush is again not going with the best possible strategery as outlined by your host in a recent blog entry. But at least he has diverged from the Miers trainwreck and I can see nothing functionally wrong with this choice. From what I know of Judge Samuel Alito{3}, he is a jurist with a sound constitutional mind so there will be no objections to this nomination except for minutiae stuff{4} which in no way will impede the support of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum. (Our support is not as vigorous as some in the blogosphere have thus far set forth; however, it is still quite ample.) Hopefully a solid batch of supportive responses will be par for the course for those who vigorously opposed the Miers nomination but only time will tell if that will be the case or not.

Notes:

{1} But instead are either (i) mindless parrotters of "arguments" which are frequently pathetically easy to confute, (ii) cowardly evaders of substantive critiques of their facile "arguments" or both.

{2} An incident from over two years ago with Sandra Meisel particularly comes to mind where the target of the satire wrote me an email. She was quite obviously teed off at me and did not realize that the whole posting she objected to was a parody. And while not the only example that comes to mind, that one signalled a kind of seachange in my approach viz. parodying. Readers should not presume that I ever deluded myself into thinking I was another Curt Jester of course. However, I do occasionally dabble in satires and song parodies...just not nearly as much anymore since the incident noted above.

{3} I have to say it, I immediately thought of Judge Lance Ito when I heard the name. And for that reason, I have to ask if anyone will come up with a takeoff of the "Dancing Itos" and call it the "Dancing Alito's" ;-)

{4} For example, it will not be the pier six brawl that we would have had with a Janice Rogers Brown nomination but there will still be a fight and for that I am well pleased.

Points to Ponder:
(On "The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics")

This is a continuation from the thread located HERE.

America's Constitution provided an 18th Century answer to the question of what to do about the status of the individual and the mode of government. Though the founders set out to establish good government "from reflection and choice," they also acknowledged the "limits of reason as applied to constitutional design," and wisely did not seek to invent the world anew on the basis of abstract principle; instead, they chose to rely on habits, customs, and principles derived from human experience and authenticated by tradition.

"The Framers understood that the self-interest which in the private sphere contributes to welfare of society — both in the sense of material well-being and in the social unity engendered by commerce — makes man a knave in the public sphere, the sphere of politics and group action. It is self-interest that leads individuals to form factions to try to expropriate the wealth of others through government and that constantly threatens social harmony."

Collectivism sought to answer a different question: how to achieve cosmic justice — sometimes referred to as social justice — a world of social and economic equality. Such an ambitious proposal sees no limit to man's capacity to reason. It presupposes a community can consciously design not only improved political, economic, and social systems but new and improved human beings as well.

The great innovation of this millennium was equality before the law. The greatest fiasco — the attempt to guarantee equal outcomes for all people. Tom Bethell notes that the security of property — a security our Constitution sought to ensure — had to be devalued in order for collectivism to come of age. The founders viewed private property as "the guardian of every other right." But, "by 1890 we find Alfred Marshall, the teacher of John Maynard Keynes making the astounding claim that the need for private property reaches no deeper than the qualities of human nature." A hundred years later came Milton Friedman's laconic reply: " 'I would say that goes pretty deep.'" In between, came the reign of socialism.

"Starting with the formation of the Fabian Society and ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall, its ambitious project was the reformation of human nature. Intellectuals visualized a planned life without private property, mediated by the New Man." He never arrived. As John McGinnis persuasively argues: "There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature. As Edward O. Wilson, the world's foremost expert on ants, remarked about Marxism, 'Wonderful theory. Wrong species.'" [Judge Janice Rogers Brown (circa April 20, 2000)]

Points to Ponder:
(On "The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics")

[W]e are living in a world where words have lost their meaning. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. It seems to be an inevitable artifact of cultural disintegration. Thucydides lamented the great changes in language and life that succeeded the Pelopennesian War; Clarendon and Burke expressed similar concerns about the political transformations of their own time. It is always a disorienting experience for a member of the old guard when the entire understanding of the old world is uprooted. As James Boyd White expresses it: "[I]n this world no one would see what he sees, respond as he responds, speak as he speaks," and living in that world means surrender to the near certainty of central and fundamental changes within the self. "One cannot maintain forever one's language and judgment against the pressures of a world that works in different ways," for we are shaped by the world in which we live.

This is a fascinating subject which we do not have time to explore more thoroughly. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon accounts for much of the near hysterical tone of current political discourse. Our problems, however, seem to go even deeper. It is not simply that the same words don't have the same meanings; in our lifetime, words are ceasing to have any meaning. The culture of the word is being extinguished by the culture of the camera. Politicians no longer have positions they have photo-ops. To be or not to be is no longer the question. The question is: how do you feel.

Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom." He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people.

Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. Aaron Wildavsky gives a credible account of this dynamic. Wildavsky notes that the Madisonian world has gone "topsy turvy" as factions, defined as groups "activated by some common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community," have been transformed into sectors of public policy. "Indeed," says Wildavsky, "government now pays citizens to organize, lawyers to sue, and politicians to run for office. Soon enough, if current trends continue, government will become self-contained, generating (apparently spontaneously) the forces to which it responds." That explains how, but not why. And certainly not why we are so comfortable with that result. [Judge Janice Rogers Brown (circa April 20, 2000)]

To be Continued...

Hmmmmm...



MIGUEL ESTRADA
Partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 44 years old
Estrada was nominated by G.W. Bush to the D.C.
Circuit court, only to be fiibustered. After
more than two years, he withdrew his name from
consideration. His age, ethnicity and the fact
fellow GD&C partner Ted Olson is pushing him
make Estrada an intriguing choice if the
President wants to test the limits of the
Democrats' filibuster resolve. Considered a
star-powered lawyer and intellect.


New World Man presents: My favorite candidate for the Supreme Court
brought to you by Quizilla


Based on the way I answered the questions, I would have figured on Janice Rogers Brown but I could certainly support an Estrada nomination.

(Via Beth)

On the Previous Audiopost and Our Final Post on the Miers Nomination:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)



I have to thank Zach Brissett over at Southern Appeal for that cartoon...very apropo in light of what this post intends to cover.

To start with, as the audiopost recorded this morning{1} cut off right before I finished it, it seems appropriate to note now that I have a few spare moments what was intended in an audio followup but which was not tended to for various and sundry reasons. First of all, there was not the opportunity to deal with the news that the nomination was withdrawn -in part because the audioposting was recorded before your host turned on the radio and found out about it. The end of the post was basically a bit of a "see, I told you so" since my internal hunchometer told me at the very beginning that this whole choice of a nominee was askew and all the mounting evidences as of yesterday evening confirmed those initial intuitions.{2} So the end of the posting would have dealt with me by implication still treating the nomination as if it was still in play but the recorder cut off first. Nonetheless, that is the truth and I do not mind admitting to it. For once, the audio cutting off the last sentence of an audiopost (which happens at times) was actually my friend if you will but I have no qualms about admitting that I was not completely up to speed this morning on the matter.

As for what else was touched on in that posting{3}, the readers will have to listen to that thread to know what was said there. I noted some time ago with one of the postings on the Miers nomination{4} that we needed to make the Miers nomination a referendum of sorts on Supreme Court judicial philosophy and in a round about way, that was accomplished with this withdrawal. I was worried that this nomination would not be a true paradigm shifting one on the Court{5} and all the evidence subsequent to those concerns demonstrated that this was a correct intuition on your host's part. But that is neither nere nor there.

It suffices to note here that my intuition on this matter proved to be correct including that any withdrawal would have to come from Miers if it was to arrive at all.{6} The MSM will speculate on this being "evidence of a crackup" by the base but let them. I will take this time to reiterate what I noted back on October 22nd viz. the effect this will have on the Bush presidency (prior to noting that Bush was not likely to withdraw the nomination himself):

I am not so sure his presidency suffers irreparable damage over this. There are two possible outs for him actually: (i) nominate a solid originalist like Brown and let his base fight for him and (ii) scrap his stupid illegal amnesty program and come out in favour of tougher border security and deportation of illegal immigrants. If he were to make the next appointment to the court (I am sure there will be three made by him) a male Hispanic, that would be the trifecta. He needs at least two out of these three to make the Miers debacle forgettable...and if nothing else it is the first two which he should focus on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 22, 2005)]

In case it is not clear, I was advocating a nomination pattern of first Brown and then Garza for the nominee after Brown. Essentially, I have reversed my original proposal of first Garza and then Brown{7} but this is because President Bush's first two nominees were to a certain extent surprises: Roberts a pleasant surprise and Miers the converse. Furthermore, the Miers nomination not going through has galvanized the base and makes a Brown fight (which would have been a potentially losing one) a more winnable one. Plus, we need to consider the other factors in the equation now that were not there previously.

What needs to be recognized is an opening when we see it and that a picture is worth a thousand words. The Democrats are reeling and (to put it bluntly) nominating a white guy would lose a golden opportunity here. We need to make a pictoral statement as much as a principled one. For that reason, the nominee should be either a qualified Hispanic man or a qualified black woman. I suggest Emilio Garza for the former and Janice Rogers Brown for the latter and to go with Brown first and Garza either for the third nomination or to follow Brown for the second one if for some reason she does not get confirmed.

Another way of saying it is that we need to get beyond simply supporting originalists while avoiding activism on our parts: we need to set up the leaders of the left to tar and feather themselves as the racists we know many of them are. That will not happen with a white nominee; ergo we need a minority who is qualified and is an originalist to bring out the white sheets of the Democratic leadership and trigger the nuclear option over the filibuster and break the back of this so-called "gang of 14." There, I said it and I doubt many others will but it needs to be said: this is a war and you do not fight a war if you do not intend to win it. Bush has a golden opportunity to insure that the base will fight for him on this one but he needs to nominate an acceptable candidate.{8}

Finally, now that the Miers nomination has been withdrawn at her request, what is ahead is some necessary strategery and thus We at Rerum Novarum in bidding her adieu make our own the brief parting sentiment that Feddie noted over at SA viz. Ms. Miers. As the old adage goes "nothing personal, just business" and in this case, the "business" is forcing a public debate on judicial activism and seeking to reassert the Constitutional boundaries of the Supreme Court. That was the reason for the reaction to you Ms. Miers: that you are simply not a candidate who would do that. Thankyou once again for your gracious withdrawal and I wish you only the best in the months and years ahead.


Notes:

{1} Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)

{2} Greg Mockeridge can vouch for the fact that we spoke on the phone on October 5th and I was not mincing in my private assessment of the matter even though publicly I was being less strident at the time. I mentioned this conversation in passing in the October 7th posting but was still trying (despite every intuition in my being at the time) to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Readers already know that by October 8th this was impossible and I for all intensive purposes joined the chorus of public vitriol at that time. Those who would read this as me "jumping on the bandwagon" apparently are not familiar with my general approach to issues: in this case it just so happened that the bandwagon agreed with me; ergo the reason for the symbiosis in tonality on the issue.

{3} The other parts of the audio include some bits about blogging/upcoming post subjects and a challenge for those who continually kvetch about so-called "neo-cons" without providing a template for identifying such people if they even exist.

{4} Feddie is right that we need to ask specific questions and make this a referendum of sorts on the judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court in the coming years. This would have been easier with a known commodity but at the very least, if it appears Miers will be confirmed, then somehow this kind of confrontation needs to be manufactured out of her nomination hearings. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 7, 2005)]

{5} I noted in the previous posting on this topic that I agreed with QD's original thoughts on the matter and I still do. There is a problem with this nomination from the standpoint of giving any indication that this will move the court from its activist rulings in recent decades back towards a proper approach to the Constitution. Just because Miers may be positionally correct, there is no evidence to suggest that she will have a paradigm shifting effect on the court in the coming years if she is confirmed by the Senate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 7, 2005)]

{6} Or to quote what I noted in a thread to Kevin Tierney five days ago:

To use a poker metaphor, Bush sought to bluff on this nomination and his bluff was called. He does not have the cards and would be wise to fold them after "the flop" (which has already happened) rather than continue to "the turn" (the hearings themselves) and then to "the river" (the confirmation vote itself) if you will. He still has a couple of ways out of this but I am more and more skeptical that he will take them. In the end, Miers may have to withdraw (or be persuaded to) in order for the president to recover from this since he appears unlikely to withdraw the nomination himself. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 22, 2005)]

{7} On the Upcoming Supreme Court Retirements/Nominations (circa July 8, 2005)

{8} I am not saying that a white candidate is "unacceptable" of course but I want blood from the left on this; ergo a constructionist nominee who is both qualified and a minority so they can pull another Clarence Thomas right before the 2006 elections and piss off the majority of the voters in this country.