« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
July 31, 2005
Great Sunday Evening Read
Bush Bashing Fizzles by Michael Barone (HT: Drudge)
Posted by Rick at 11:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 30, 2005
New American Warriors
New Americans: At War in Mosul (HT: Instapundit)
[Photo credit: Deuce Four; after ceremony in Baghdad]
Deuce Four's newest Americans:These guys were dodging and taking bullets for you and me before they were citizens. May God bless them and keep them safe.Front row Left to Right
SPC Saroth Muth (Cambodia)
SPC David Floutier (England)
SPC Hugo Juarez (Mexico)
SPC Evans Martin (Antigua)
SPC Octavio Rodriguez (Mexico)Back row Left to Right
SGT Ringsey Khin (Cambodia)
SPC Abdel Phipps (Jamaica)
SGT Collin Campbell (Trinidad)
SPC Bosco Jerez (Nicaragua)
SPC Jose Alvarado (Honduras)
SPC Moises Medina (Mexico)
If you aren’t reading Michael Yon regularly, you are missing out.
Posted by Rick at 03:27 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Hugh Hewitt Exposes the Mainstream Media
Syndicated talk show host Hugh Hewitt reports that he has received numerous requests for interviews in the last few days from members of the mainstream media to discuss the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court:
I received a call from Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post today, requesting I call her back to discuss the nomination of John Roberts. I assumed that this is because (1)I worked with John Roberts in the White House Counsel's office for a year and (2)the big document dump may have turned up memos with my name on them which are of interest to the Post.
Hewitt goes on to say that he would have been willing to do the interview on one condition:
The subject didn't matter to me. I had my assistant call back and say fine. She could interview me. Only one condition: The interview had to be conducted on air, live, during my broadcast. Would she please call the show line at 3:06 Pacific?I had a similar request from a New York Times reporter for a similar interview a couple of days back. I made the same offer. He didn't respond.
Amy Goldstein did respond. She declined. My assistant relayed that Ms. Goldstein didn't want her story "out there" before it ran.
Fine, I thought. But then I got to thinking: Isn't journalism supposed to be in the public interest? If Goldstein wants information from me, and I am willing to give it to her, isn't she putting her own interests in a "scoop" or an "angle" ahead of the public's by refusing to conduct an interview she thought would be useful in the first place? And isn't she going forward with a story she knows may well be unnecessarily incomplete because she doesn't like the fact that her questions and my answers would have been on the record?
I of course want my listeners to get a chance if not to see the sausage that is MSM "news" being made, at least hear it being ground fine. I had hoped to compare whatever I was able to provide Ms. Goldstein with whatever it is that she publishes on the subject. Interesting all around, no?
But she declined to conduct the interview she requested. How interesting to note that the Post is willing to use sources that insist on anonymity, but not sources that demand transparency.
My guess is the reason that these reports were not willing to conduct the interviews on the air is that they are trying to find any dirt they can on Judge Roberts to help sink his nomination. By going on the air with Hugh they would be forfeiting their greatest weapon: the ability to shape the story in whatever way suits their agenda. Hugh is absolutely right to call the media on this. It's too bad that these reporters weren't willing to take him up on his offer.
It's no wonder that the public doesn't trust the mainstream media.
Posted by Tom at 02:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Justice Breyer's Property an Eniment Domain Target
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, Justice David Souter's house in New Hampshire became a target of a developer who wanted to seize it under eminent domain. Now a group of Libertarians want to seize Justice Stephen Breyer's land. (Hat tip: Free Republic):
Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on land taking have proposed seizing a justice's vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state.Organizers are trying to collect enough signatures to go before the town next spring to ask to use Justice Stephen G. Breyer's 167-acre Plainfield property for a "Constitution Park" with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.
"In the spirit of the ruling, we're recreating the same use of eminent domain," said John Babiarz, the Libertarian Party's state chairman.
The plot mirrors the party's ongoing effort to get the town of Weare, about 45 miles to the southeast, to seize Justice David Souter's home. Souter's property is also the focus of a proposal by a California man who suggested the town turn the farmhouse into a "Lost Liberty Hotel."
The efforts are meant in protest of the high court's June ruling that let a Connecticut city take land by eminent domain and turn it over to a private developer. Breyer and Souter supported the decision.
If either one or both of these efforts succeed then the Justices will get what they deserve for supporting such a ridiculous decision.
Although Kelo is without a doubt one of the worst rulings ever handed down by the Court, it has also revealed in a way that matters to every single citizen the danger of activist judges. Conservatives have long complained about activistism on the bench but the issues that were involved have never had as wide-ranging an effect that Kelo has had.
Posted by Tom at 09:48 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
July 29, 2005
Fascist French!
I expect to see that headline blairing from the diaries and posts at DailyKOS once word of this story gets 'round. (HT: Drudge)
Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.You they would be screaming if this happened in the US. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Bravo France!Mr Sarkozy also revealed that as many as 12 French mosques associated with provocative anti-western preaching were under surveillance. Imams indulging in inflammatory rhetoric will be expelled even if their religious status is recognised by mainstream Muslim bodies.
Those who have assumed French citizenship will not be protected from deportation. Mr Sarkozy said he will reactivate measures, "already available in our penal code but simply not used", to strip undesirables of their adopted nationality. "We have to act against radical preachers capable of influencing the youngest and most weak-minded," Mr Sarkozy told the French daily Le Parisien.
Posted by Rick at 10:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Did You Know....
....that if you type "failure" into a Google search the first result you get is the official White House biography of President George W. Bush? (Hat tip: The Corner)
Unbelievable.
Posted by Tom at 06:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Frist v Embryos
Back here I noted that adult stem cells keep looking better and better, being virtually as good as embryonic stem cells, not to mention their proven track record. Well, looks like Bill Frist hasn't read that study.
Breaking with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday he now supports legislation to remove some of the administration's limitations on embryonic stem cell research.Frist, an abortion opponent who just last month said he did not support expanding federal financing of research on embryos, said his decision was consistent with both his experience as a physician and his anti-abortion stance.
The crux of his argument appears to be this:
The Tennessee Republican, who has been said to be eyeing a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, said only stem cells from embryos that "would otherwise be discarded," not implanted in a woman or frozen indefinitely, should be considered for research.
First of all, never say "never". As I pointed out in a diary on Redstate.org (in the first set of comments), saying "never" amounts to predicting the future, which is not a power I typically want to give to the federal government. Ask these 21 children who were adopted as embryos.
Second, this amounts to human experimentation. If you don't consider these embryos truly "human", then what are they? They certainly aren't fish eggs. And further, if they weren't human, the scientists wouldn't want them.
I don't see how someone who is against abortion can be for human experimentation on embryos. The whole "would otherwise be discarded" argument is morally equivalent to a woman getting an abortion because she didn't want to have a baby right now.
"I give huge moral significance to the human embryo, it is nascent human life, what that means is as we advance science, we treat that embryo with dignity, with respect," Frist said.
And performing experiments on them is...what, exactly?
Frist said additional stem cells should be used, so long as there was a careful process of informed consent in which the parents had decided that the embryos should be discarded, not adopted or frozen.
Ah, so "aborting" them is OK as long as the proper government paperwork is fill out. Gotcha. Now that's "respect".
Posted by Doug at 01:43 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
"Fatwa Demonstrates World is at War with Fascists, Not Muslims"
So writes Mark Daniels. I think he's right. It took a while, but this is welcome news.
Posted by Rick at 10:35 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
IRA Standing Down, Pursuing Peaceful Means
Tony Blair calls this a "step of unparalleled magnitude". I think he's right, if it sticks.
The IRA has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign and says it will pursue exclusively peaceful means.In a long-awaited statement, the republican organisation said it would follow a democratic path ending more than 30 years of violence.
Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams said the move was a "courageous and confident initiative" and that the moment must be seized.
This is fantastic news for the people of the UK. Some, as the article notes, are still skeptical, which is perfectly understandable. Nonetheless, an official IRA statement calling for all IRA units to "dump arms" and pursue "purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means" is a giant leap in the right direction.
Democracy's busting out all over.
Posted by Doug at 09:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 28, 2005
Ah, Good News
This is nice, with a tip 'o the hat to the Corner.
Posted by Matt at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Getting Into Their Heads (and other acts of futility)
If the bombings in Madrid and London were really because of Spain's and England's support of the war in Iraq, why then are Algerian diplomats being killed by Al Qaeda? Via Release the Hounds comes word that being a diplomat is enough to get you on their hit list. Ric reminds readers that Algeria did not support the invasion of Iraq.
This goes to further prove James Taranto's assertion (scroll down to "The Road to Baghdad") that the Iraq war would be a pretext, not a provocation, for later acts of terror. Each act of terror simply references the most recent pretext. The goal is the same, it's just that the reason for the bombing du jour supposedly changes.
What it all comes down to is that you >gasp< can't trust terrorists! It's not just that they strike at targets of opportunity, they also use excuses of opportunity as well. Asking "why do they hate us?" is an exercise in futility. They can always come up with one more thing they hate if you keep appeasing them over and over. The Twin Towers are gone supposedly in response to our military presence in Saudi Arabia. If the anti-war left had their way, we'd be out of there, but do you really think bin Laden would have said, "OK, fine, then we won't go after you any more"? (Hint: No.)
Being against a war, but acknowledging a government duly elected by the people is enough to get you killed by Islamic extremists. You can't reason with people like that, and you can't get into their heads and figure out how to calm them down. Until there's a caliphate (run by them, of course), you won't get a break.
Unless and until you defeat them.
Posted by Doug at 04:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More on One
Let me make one quick addendum to my earlier comments about the One campaign. I am thankful that there are Christian aid groups working with One, and I know that the campaign is attempting to do a great deal of humanitarian work. I think that idea is on the right track, but I just can't support any calls for "first-world" nations to relieve debt without also working to develop stable democracies and market economies. Otherwise, we've not solved any problems and we've likely made them worse.
Posted by Matt at 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Double Standard, Alive and Well
That was Ted Kennedy then:
"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court," Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. "This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent."
This is now:
In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators "must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views."Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.
"Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years," Kennedy said. "In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come."
Click here for the full story and video to back it up.
Posted by Doug at 02:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Coughenour Controversy
Thanks Josh for this thorough summary of the controversy surrounding U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour’s asinine sentencing of Ahmed Ressam (aka Millenium Bomber).
Posted by Rick at 01:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 27, 2005
Absitence Only Programs Ill-Conceived
Catallarchy tackles the subject of teen sex. (HT: Instapundit). I expect to be hung for saying this here, but I think abstinence-only education is an ill-conceived approach to a very basic and age-old problem - temptation.
God created us to be sexual beings and to enjoy sex within the parameters of marriage. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me, this I know, but what power do I have to resist the lust of the flesh without Christ? Yet, abstinence-only program advocates tend to assume that non-Christians are equipped to combat the wiles of the devil and they simply are not.
I hope never to teach my children abstinence only. Surely I will teach my children God’s plan for marriage and sex. I will teach them that the only way to realize God’s plan for them is to submit their hearts Christ and conform their will to His. If I’ve done my job as a father, the word “abstinence” need not enter into the equation. They will understand that God’s plan is the ONLY plan that guarantees safety. If I’ve failed as a father, I pray God extend to them mercy and that they would exercise prudence and protect themselves the best *they* can.
Posted by Rick at 07:14 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Left-wing Blogs React to Hillary's Ceasefire Appeal
The Kossacks at the blog "Daily Kos" have never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton's feigns to the center. The mainstream media is now finding that out.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call for an ideological cease-fire in the Democratic Party drew an angry reaction yesterday from liberal bloggers and others on the left, who accused her of siding with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in a long-running dispute over the future of the party.Long a revered figure by many in the party's liberal wing, Clinton (D-N.Y.) unexpectedly found herself under attack after calling Monday for a cease-fire among the party's quarreling factions and for agreeing to assume the leadership of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party.
...
The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party.
"If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN," the blog said in a reference to the New Democrat Network, with which Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas is associated. "Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period."
The post by Markos himself is here.
You'd think with the huge following of Kos visitors (over 500,000 per day), Moveon.org, Howard Dean fans, and a press that is increasingly and openly antagonistic against the right (and the Christian Right in particular), this would result in more Democrats being voted in, not less. Instead it's beginning to appear that this group of hard-leftists who keep pushing further left are simply more vocal, as opposed to more numerous. And indeed the more vocal they are, the more they alienate the folks that the DLC is trying to bring in. Is this a winning strategy? (Hint: No.)
As to Hillary's participation in this, I think it's just another bit of posturing, but if it gets her barbs from the far left it may help a potential presidential candidacy. (See here for my thoughts on that, and here for what "Stonette" Thecla has to say about her.) Could actually be a good political move to get herself in a situation like this. But, as I've noted before, if it's a political move without the actual move, then it's just pure politics. So far, not much substance. We'll see.
Posted by Doug at 01:58 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Why One Won't Work
A couple of weeks ago, Al Mohler posted this commentary on the One campaign.
He refers to an article by Christian ethicist Ben Mitchell, wherein Mitchell does something a lot of people seem unwilling to do; evaluate the economic realities of third world poverty. Mohler's piece is primarily a rehashing of Mitchell's argument, save for this closing line: "failure to identify the true causes of Third World poverty and thus advocate useful real solutions–like the ONE Campaign–is not just misguided, it is actually harmful. The wider public knows this to be true." Not to assume the worst about others, but if One doesn't get support (and that's hardly the case), it's not that the public has beter ideas. It's that the public doesn't care. And I'm pretty convinced of that, too. The average Joe on the street and perhaps even on the church pew, while acknowledging that their lives are busy, just doesn't care what goes in another part of the world, so long as they're safe and sound. Sound harsh? Did anyone care about women's rights in Afghanistan prior to 9/11?
I truly believe that the celebrities lending their support to One have their hearts in the right place. I believe Bono cares deeply for the people of Africa, as does Brad Pitt, Chris Martin, Tom Hanks, et al. Yet I also believe that there means of implementing change are flawed. Seriously flawed. The central tenet of the One campaign is the concept of debt relief. It's a concept that has been attempted for years, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, some people seem incapable of acknowledging that it just doesn't work. Just as there are laws of chemistry, physics and biology, there are also some basic economic laws. If there's a giant list of things that work, debt relief ain't on there.
It seems more and more Christians are developing an open, demonstrable concern for third-world poverty. This is a good thing. I share these sentiments and I'm heartened to see others make overtures towards caring for the suffering overseas. My faith in Christ compels me to care for the fatherless and the widow. Yet I am also called to do everything to the glory of God, a phrase that the Church has long understood to mean a call to excellence. Christ has not called us to mediocrity, whether in the arts or the sciences or our daily work. And when we're talking about alleviating the suffering of millions of people and accomplishing that task with billions of other people's dollars, then the burden to do the right thing is that much greater. The issue of poverty in the third-world goes beyond wanting to help. That's a prerequisite to "doing the right thing." To do the right thing, we must move beyond the idea that our concern even matters. If our concern is misdirected, or we feel that doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing, then we've deluded ourselves and harmed the people we sought to help.
Debt relief and education won't help a soul if the government that has been relieved of its debt doesn't stop borrowing money. It won't help if the governments are still corrupt, still cheating taxpayers, still refusing to allow a free press, private property, or freedom of religion. It won't help if there are no decent roads so that farmers can get to market or so that sick children can get to medicine. It won't change a thing as long as rape and prostitution run rampant. Debt relief won't help the suffering people of Zimbabwe when their government - unelected, I should add - has a systematic policy of forcing white farmers off their own land. Nothing will change in the Sudan so long as the Bashir government practices genocide. Nothing will change in South Africa so long as the government there regards AIDS as "an African problem," thereby suggesting that the rest of the world step off. We can't help Nigeria or Algeria or Libya so long as those countries are run by brutally oppressive Islamic regimes that harbor terrorists, treat women as second-class citizens and treat their dogs better than they treat homosexuals or adulterers. We can't help a country that refuses to allow some level of capitalism, wherein a man can ply his trade and farm his land without worrying about being killed on the way to the market. The One campaign might offer a temporary solution, but there is no long term hope for Africa without government reform that brings an end to widespread corruption, a change to a free market, free speech, free religion and democratic elections.
And lastly, as a Christian, it would be foolish of me to think that any serious change can come to Africa without a change of heart. I'm not above supporting non-religious aid groups. I have before and will likely continue to do so. But I must acknowledge that there is no peace and no truth outside of the cross of Christ. As much as I pray that Africa and other poverty-stricken regions of the world can find relief, I must acknolwedge that true relief is found only in Christ. I must also acknowledge that my intentions mean nothing if my plans don't work. A fisherman can want with all his heart to catch a fish, but if he is not fishing correctly, his longing is in vain. Likewise we must acknowledge that Christ's command to care for the less fortunate must mean more than tossing money at the problem and thinking that true change can come from the government and not from the heart. To pretend otherwise is extremely dangerous.
Posted by Matt at 10:40 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Dean on Kelo
Howard Dean can't be this dumb (HT: Ballon Juice via Hugh Hewitt).
He also said the president was partly responsible for a recent Supreme Court decision involving eminent domain.Someone please get a hold of Dr. Dean and let him know that the most conservative judges on the Court were in the minority on Kelo. Perhaps then he will join Leahy in offering his wholehearted support for Judge Roberts."The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.
Dean's reference to the "right-wing" court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the fourth dissenter.
The court's liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.
"We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only," Dean said.
Dean may not be lying outright, but this quote does suggest that Dean has a penchant for making things up as he goes. He's doing a great job filling Mcauliffe's shoes!
Posted by Rick at 09:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Roberts Notes
Judicial restraint is by definition the opposite of judicial activism and I therefore await Patrick Leahy's wholehearted support for Bush's nominee.
Posted by Rick at 01:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Donna Frye - Out of Touch with San Diegans
Early returns in San Diego show liberal Democrat Donna Frye winning 42 percent of ballots cast today in a special election to replace resigned mayor Dick Murphy. Two Republican candidates split the remaining vote, with Frye likely to face former Police Chief Jerry Sanders in a runoff November. This we expected.
Not expected was the apparent overwhelming victory for Proposition A, which if the lead holds, will keep the Mt. Soledad cross as it is, where it is. As of the last newscast before bed, Prop A had 77 percent, which crushes the recently imposed 2/3 threshold.
Donna Frye has consistently voted and spoken out against the Mt. Soledad Cross. According to the San Diego Union Tribune, “Among major candidates, only Councilwoman Donna Frye opposes the measure. Citing concerns over legal costs, Frye twice voted against the transfer at City Council meetings, and she voted against putting it on the ballot.”
If Sanders is smart, he will use Frye's steadfast opposition to the Mt. Soledad Cross to demonstrate just how out of touch she is with San Diegans.
Posted by Rick at 01:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What Should Happen to Syria?
Fox News reports that Iraq exported billions of dollars of oil in exchange for arms and cash, in violation of UN sanctions. The illegal transactions began in 2000 and continued to March of 2003. In January of 2002, Syria won a 2-year seat on the UN Security Council.
Syria's ambassador to Washington pledged yesterday that his country would try to work with the United States during its two-year term on the Security Council.The Assad regime has made the United Nation in general and the Security Council specifically a mockery. What should now happen to Syria? What will happen to Syria?"Syria will cooperate with all the members of the Security Council to achieve the noble goals and objectives of the U.N. and preserve international peace and security," said Rostom Al-Zoubi.
What a useless institution...
Posted by Rick at 12:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 26, 2005
Keep on Shouting!
I missed it, but yesterday was Shouting into the Wind's one-year blogiversary. I met Shawna about the same time I met Mark Sides, Josh Britton, and a number of others blogging the runup to election 2004. After a year of shouting in every direction, Shawna's blog now has clear direction. Congrats Shawna!
Posted by Rick at 10:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Jon Stewart and Rick Santorum
Ann Althouse puts up some thoughts on last night's interview between Jon Stewart and Rick Santorum.
New Republic seems upset that Stewart did not batter Santorum, but Althouse says she thought the interview was pretty good.
Stewart made his points subtly, in the middle of the mushy niceness. Santorum kept talking about the "ideal" of the man-and-woman-with-children family, and Stewart accepted that ideal but asked why not include other people in that positive model even if it's a step away from ideal. He noted when Santorum equated heterosexuality with virtue and got Santorum to back away from that equation a tad.
I concur. I am also remembering Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, when he discussed how harmful the constant sniping from both sides is to public discourse. Stewart could have simply been an attack dog last night, but instead he proved his point, that people with almost nothing in common can still engage in civil conversation. It is, frankly, something the nation needs to come to understand. So I say good for Stewart!
Yes, I know The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is on Comedy Central, but that doesn't mean people don't actually get their news from the show. College students, especially, sometimes do, which is why you see politicos and authors make the trek to NY to sit with Stewart, who is a pretty smart fellow. Cute, too.
Crossposted at http://www.theclamauro.blogspot.com
Posted by Thecla at 03:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Politicians & the Press: They Deserve Each Other
Yesterday, many bloggers were talking about Jonathan Turley's LA Times piece examining the faith of SCOTUS nominee John Roberts. Leaving aside that no nominee to the Supreme Court in my memory has had to endure such scrutiny of his or her faith, and that this fixation on Roberts' Catholicism is beginning to remind me of the know-nothings, what interested most was this:
According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral.
...Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.
Now, the NY Times, in what appears to be an effort to "simplify" (or, more likely, "confuse") the matter have reduced Turley's information to this:
Professor Turley cited unnamed sources saying that Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash.
Not quite the same, is it? But that might not matter, at all, because aside from the Times' artless simplification, there are questions as to whether this exchange between Sen. Durbin (that paragon of restraint) and Roberts ever took place!
Betsy Newmark has a nice recap:
A spokesman for Mr. Durbin and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, who spoke to Judge Roberts on Monday about the meeting, said Professor Turley's account of a recusal statement was inaccurate.
But in an interview last night, Professor Turley said Mr. Durbin himself had described the conversation to him on Sunday morning, including the statement about recusal.
Betsy writes: So whom are we to believe: Dick Durbin or Dick Durbin?
But wait! There is more! Jonathan Turley has now "outted" those two "anonymous sources" he had quoted in the original piece, and in this Washington Times piece he sounds pretty angry. From that story:
"Jonathan Turley's column is not accurate," Durbin press secretary Joe Shoemaker said, adding that his boss never asked that question and Judge Roberts never said he would recuse himself in such a case.
"Judge Roberts said repeatedly that he would follow the rule of law," Mr. Shoemaker said.
Disagreement also came on who leaked the exchange.
"I don't know who was his source," Mr. Shoemaker said. "Whoever the source was either got it wrong or Jonathan Turley got it wrong."
Mr. Turley, contacted by The Washington Times yesterday, said his sources were Mr. Durbin and Mr. Shoemaker.
According to Mr. Turley, he met Mr. Durbin in NBC's makeup room Sunday between the senator's appearance on "Meet the Press" and Mr. Turley's appearance on another program. According to the professor, Mr. Durbin told him the story while Mr. Turley took notes, adding that he called Mr. Shoemaker and read back his account of the meeting "word for word."
"I specifically confirmed Senator Durbin's account with his press secretary," Mr. Turley said. .
Turley, hot for a scoop that could prove hurtful to a Bush nominee and willing to use an anonymous source, seems to have gotten burned.
Meanwhile, is this sad, or what? A U.S. Senator and a member of the press each calling the other a liar concerning a story which would not even be have been written, had the issue concerned someone they liked.
The state of our press and politicians. Deplorable in every way.
Crossposted at http://www.theclamauro.blogspot.com
Posted by Thecla at 02:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Space Shuttle Returns
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Discovery and seven astronauts blasted into orbit Tuesday on America's first manned space shot since the 2003 Columbia disaster, ending a painful, 2 1/2-year shutdown devoted to making the shuttle less risky and NASA more safety-conscious.At stake were not only the lives of the astronauts, but also America's pride in its technological prowess, the fate of the U.S. space program and the future of space exploration itself.
"Our long wait may be over. So on behalf of the many millions of people who believe so deeply in what we do, good luck, Godspeed _ and have a little fun up there," launch director Mike Leinbach told the astronauts just before liftoff.
My daughter, who has dreams of being a pioneer to Mars, likes the idea that the first Shuttle mission after this long wait, and thus a rather sensitive and scrutinized mission, is a woman. So do I.
Posted by Doug at 01:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Federalist Society
You may have heard that John Roberts, Bush's Supreme Court nominee was once a member of the Federalist Society. What does that tell us? Well, according to David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy, not much.
Posted by Doug at 01:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Key Issue in the Debate Over Roberts' Nomination
So far in the news coverage of the President's nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court, there has been much discussion about the issue of abortion, Judge Roberts' Catholic faith, and the White House assertion of executive privilege as Democrats have sought memos that Judge Roberts wrote when he was White House Counsel. But as Michael Rosen points out in his column today at Tech Central Station, the key issues in this debate are the legal questions decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (which I previously reported on here).
In summary, a unanimous three judge panel (including Judge Roberts) issued the following ruling:
1. Persons judged to be enemy combatants can be tried under military tribunals.
2. The President did not violate the separation of powers provision of the Constitution nor did he violate Article II of the Constitution when he ordered the establishment of military tribunals to deal with captured terrorists.
3. The Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy combatants such as those imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay as they do not qualify as "prisoners of war".
4. Even if a combatant is convicted under a military tribunal, they are still entitled to file an appeal in a civilian court.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld sets an important precedent not because it affirms the President's policies towards terrorists but because it clearly establishes the rules for the disposition of the cases against prisoners at Guantanamo as well as others being held as enemy combatants.
As Rosen concludes in his column:
By signing onto the ruling, Judge Roberts demonstrated that he can capably confront one of the most critical issues before the Court this decade: balancing the protection of fundamental liberties against the defense of our homeland.
Which only goes to show why Judge Roberts should be confirmed quickly to the Supreme Court.
Posted by Tom at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 25, 2005
Anita Hill speaks out on Roberts
Anita Hill, who once tried to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court bench, weighs in on Bush's nominee, John Roberts. While reading this article, keep in mind these key points:
Point A: The work "bork" is a verb these days because of litmus tests on issues that the Democrats made Robert Bork take. His ability to judge cases based on the Constitution (i.e. his potential job description) was less important as his views on specific issues.
Point B: Anita Hill herself tried to sink Clarence Thomas' confirmation based on some of his earlier behavior. His ability to judge cases based on the Constitution was less important than his demeanor in years gone by.
Point C: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had she been held to the same standard as Bork by the Republicans, would never have made it out of committee. She sailed through the Senate confirmation vote.
With that, here are some excerpts from Anita Hill's article:
In his nomination of John G. Roberts for the Supreme Court, President George W. Bush has put forward a highly regarded lawyer who is reportedly a quite likable individual. Roberts' supporters and independent analysts cite a lifetime of achievement as the reason he should be confirmed.Roberts worked in both President Ronald Reagan's and the first President George Bush's administrations before going into private practice. Republicans are counting on the fact that Democrats will have a hard time voting against someone with government and private practice experience who is widely recognized within the Beltway as one of the country's top appellate attorneys. As Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe wrote, Roberts' career reads like "a 1950s Boys' Life primer on how to prepare for the Supreme Court."
But was John Roberts chosen because he's the best choice for the court or because he may easily be confirmed? And why not choose a woman to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court? Or use this as an opportunity to nominate the first Latino to the court?
We don't know what the decision-making process was, but Ms. Hill seems to suggest that national origin or gender should trump experience and ability. This is much like Point A's issue litmus tests or Point B's bygone bad behavior being overriding concerns vs. job performance. But I think there's larger reason Roberts may have been nominated, and I'll get to that next.
Not surprisingly, the answer to these questions has to do with the politics of confirmability. One thing is certain: If nominees are selected based on the very narrow and elite credentials that brought us John Roberts, a wide range of equally qualified, more diverse candidates will never even be considered.
Here's the crux of the matter; the "politics of confirmability". The irony here is that Anita Hill is decrying the very thing she participated in. Why does George W. Bush have to nominate someone who's "confirmable"? Because the Democrats brought the "politics of confirmability" to us in Points A & B above. And while one might be tempted to paint both parties with an overly broad brush and say they all do it, please refer to Point C.
Ms. Hill goes on to complain about the groups that Roberts belonged to and the gender makeup of the Rehnquist clerks he was a part of. She's worried that those he's associated with weren't diverse enough. She speaks very little about his qualifications, and indeed says she she hopes the Judiciary Committee will determine if he indeed does have the right experience. She doesn't know for sure, but she's more worried about his background in diversity, as though judging constitutional questions is based on who you've known. I don't recall the being a criteria for the Supreme Court. What concerns Ms. Hill further is that if Roberts' background becomes the standard by which Presidents have to choose their nominees, we'll never get another Sandra Day O'Connor, or perhaps a future woman or Latino that doesn't fit the picture. Whether or not that is the case, I'll note again that it is Democrats and Ms. Hill who set this standard of "confirmability". See Points A and B. Again.
With O'Connor on the bench, the Supreme Court was the most diverse in its history. If confirmability through the Roberts "primer" becomes the rule, it is not hard to imagine a return to an all-white-male Supreme Court.
Again, diversity trumps all. I don't recall any blacks on the court when Brown v Board of Education was argued and ruled on (Thurgood Marshall's tenure was 14 years away), and yet they ruled in favor of those of a race other than their own. One doesn't have to be of the same race or gender to rule honestly and fairly with regards to that race or gender, but arguing for Supreme Court diversity suggests a rather dim view of people, and assumes that such honesty and fairness is difficult if not impossible. That's a rather cynical view.
The nomination process may have become so politicized that the only secure nomination is someone who is an ultimate Washington insider, liked by both sides. If so, it misses a chance to reflect the experiences of the vast majority of Americans. Moreover, a gold standard for judicial selection based on exclusivity appears to contradict the values of ever-expanding opportunities we espouse.Roberts' professional endeavors represent very limited legal experiences that do not appear to be balanced by other life experiences. I hope the Judiciary Committee members will try to determine whether Roberts has the breadth of experience that will help him understand the law beyond what is sometimes a very narrow text.
I don't know enough about John G. Roberts' positions on any issues to pass judgment on his suitability for the court. The concerns I have today are directed more to the process and standards for the nomination. For if confirmability politics continue to control the Supreme Court selection process, it will likely change the face of the court for the foreseeable future.
Ms. Hill, you have yourself and the Democrat Party you allied yourself with to thank for such an outcome. If diversity is really your goal, you'll only get it by de-politicizing the process. I'd like it de-politicized as well, but because I want nominees that best fit the job, not some gender or racial profile. As the points above note, it's the Democrats you have to convince on this point.
Posted by Doug at 01:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Political Implications of the SCOTUS Confirmation Vote
This Associated Press article speculates on the possible impact that 2008 Presidential aspirations may have on certain Senators' votes when Judge Roberts nomination comes up for vote both in the Judiciary Committee as well as the full Senate (hat tip: Rich Galen). While the article is somewhat interesting it misses what I believe is the bigger story: the 2006 Congressional Elections.
Democrats will be under tremendous pressure from constiuent special interest groups to vote against Judge Roberts. However, Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Kent Conrad (D-ND) are all in situations where they may need to vote to confirm Roberts in order to appease a growing conservative electorate in their states and ensure their re-election.
Meanwhile, Republicans Lincoln Chaffee (RI) and Olympia Snowe (ME) have both angered conservatives with their centrist voting patterns. Chaffee in particular may face a primary challenge from a more conservative Republican and may feel he needs to vote for Roberts in order to appease conservatives. Ohio's Mike DeWine, who was one of the Gang of 14 who forged the deal that temporary halted judicial filibusters may also face a conservative challenger next spring and may vote to confirm Roberts to appease conservatives.
I have my doubts that Presidential aspirations will matter much in this confirmation vote. The only question remaining is how much Democrats will fight Judge Roberts' confirmation which appears to be more inevitable with each passing day.
Posted by Tom at 12:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 22, 2005
Proud to be a Neocon
The term “neocon” is in vouge with liberal rhetoricians and polemics, but what does it mean? I’ve yet to be slapped with the ad hominem label, but Charles Krauthammer’s comments on neoconservatism make me long for the day that I am. Josh Britton has a few thoughts on Krauthammer’s worthy article. (Britton also takes on Mathew Yglesias’ challenge of the Ginsburg Precedent.)
Posted by Rick at 05:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Francis Schaeffer vs. Me
Biting off more than I can chew.
Scroll down to the bottom paragraphs.
But here's a question and I've seen it tossed around a bit on some other blogs: I realize Schaeffer is important to Christians, but does anyone else care? Were his ideas really that valuable, and can they stand on their own terms? I'm not criticizing...I'm just asking. Anyone have a thought?
Posted by Matt at 02:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
July 21, 2005
LA Times Absurdity
Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views - LA Times
A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.As left-wing a rag as it is, I couldn't believe it when I saw this story on the front page of the LA Times. DailyKOS mainpage material for sure, but LA Times? Absurd.
Posted by Rick at 10:10 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Two weeks later: Continue to pray for London
I was getting ready this morning and first heard reports of smoke in a train station around 830 eastern time...and now there are at least 4 incidents reported.
3 London Underground Stations evactuated.
British police say 'incident' on bus in east London
Explosions reported on London Tube
Interesting information so far is that there may have been bombs that detonated but didn't explode. This would make them easier to track and greatly aid in the investigation. Hopefully this is the case.
Posted by Abigail at 09:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 20, 2005
Ecto Posting Tool
Posting in MovableType isn't as easy as I thought it would be - especially on a Mac, which for some reason cannot read the formatting buttons that come with MT. My father-in-law, who hosts Stones Cry Out on his Mac OSX server, found an article on blogging in the latest MacAddict and suggested I read it. I found an article titled, "Update from Your Desktop" which featured ecto and marsedit software to complement MT's publishing capabilities.
I chose ecto, went to their website, downloaded their program (which can also be downloaded in Windows format), and within a few minutes crafted this post. There are built in links to iPhoto, iTunes, and the program even gives you a running word count. Not to mention many formatting tools and custom HTML tags. The price is nice too - $17.95.
If you've been frustrated with posting within MT, I suggest you give etco a shot.
Posted by Rick at 11:57 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Leahy Logic
Leahy, interviewed on CNN after meeting with Roberts, said, "We have right now the most activist Supreme Court I've seen in my lifetime. ... So I'm going to ask him are you going to be part of that same activist coalition, overturning settled law, rewriting the law yourself? And, among those, of course, is going to be Roe v. Wade," the 1973 ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion.Prior to Roe v. Wade, there was no established “right” to abortion. With that single ruling by life-tenured, unelected judges, settled law was overturned. That Court in effect rewrote the law themselves. His own logic would compel him to conclude that the Roe Court was activist.
Posted by Rick at 07:37 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
O'Connor: Roberts is "First Rate"
Not sure if this is good or bad. Just kidding. He should be installed by mid-September. Thanks Justice O'Connor!
Posted by Rick at 05:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ginsburg Precedent
Hugh Hewitt posts the relevant quotes from Justice Ginsburg, which set the “Ginsburg Precedent.” I heard Brit Hume discuss this last night following Chuck Schumer’s press conference and wanted to learn more. Hugh Hewitt provides an invaluable service.
"I prefer not to answer questions like that; again, to talk in grand terms about principles that have to be applied in concrete cases. I like to reason from the specific case," was the response of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Patrick Leahy's 1993 question to then nominee Judge Ginsburg on which of the two religion clauses of the First Amendment was subordinate to the other.BTW: Josh Britton has a series of SCOTUS posts and dissects Fred Barnes' puzzling comments on Roberts.
Posted by Rick at 11:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
"In your face ordinations" and how to report them
Amy Welborn, providing tons of links, sounds like she is fed up to the gills on how the press is reporting on these rogue "female ordinations" which are cropping up (and the fad seems to be to do it during a day cruise - see Curt Jester's satire on it) all over the place. As Amy points out - beyond the rebellion, there are the usual Catholic bishops doing a less-than-bang-up job in getting out information. She writes:
Anyway, the issue is: how should reporters be naming and claiming this business? The KRT solution of putting ordained in scare quotes doesn't work because they are, indeed, being ordained. It's not a Catholic ordination, but neither is it when someone is ordained a Presbyterian minister. That's okay.
No, the issue is the identification of all of this and subsequent actions as "Catholic." No, they are not going to be Catholic priests after this. Sorry. And you don't even have to get very complicated about it. I can't sit here and have the members of my family vote and proclaim me as the Democratic nominee for president. Institutions don't work that way. There are, to put it simplistically, chains of command and identity which are broken here, not just because of the femaleness of the ordinands, but because of the fact that the original women (including the "bishops" who will be doing this batch) have been excommunicated. Duh.
There are actually several break-off denominations of the Catholic Church, but they all have modifiers. American Catholic Church, and so on. When they ordain, they are ordaining priests or whatever of the American Catholic Church, and they are "American Catholic" priests.
The gist of these stories is that these women will be "Catholic" (which everyone understands as a shorthand for Roman Catholic HQ in Rome, even if that's imprecise) priests and the only glitch is that they are not "recognized" as such by "the Vatican." But such is not the case, is it?
Amy is quite correct. She is, in clarifying this issue, doing what the bishops should be doing.
As a Catholic woman who has looked long and hard at the issue of women priests, I cannot, at this time, support the idea. Until women can approach the issue of Ordination without this mindset of entitlement and ego, I fear they will not be as fully productive and pastoral as they might be - and the priesthood is nothing if not a deeply pastoral calling.
It doesn’t matter how many degrees one has, or how badly one desires to ’serve full-time in ministry’. An apostolic ordination is more than mere ‘ministry’. Heavens! Anyone can serve in full-time ministry if they really want to - without ever being ordained. I’m thinking of some of the great women of our so-called ’sexist’ church who managed, without ordination, to minister autonomously and so effectively that they renewed the face of the church. Catherine of Siena counseled not only the lay men and women around her but the pope as well - while writing extraordinary treatises. Theresa of Avila managed to reform an order, to build scores of monasteries for both men and women, without waiting around for someone to tell her she could, and without insisting that her own terms be met before she could give her all. It was the same with Hildegard of Bingen, who only wrote music, plays, books on medicine and so much more, in an era where women – at least secular women - didn’t aspire to such things because the secular world was not open to it, as the church was.
And dare I point out - though none of these women spoke from a pulpit, their words still echo and reverberate - their voices were never silent. While it’s easy to label the church ’sexist’ I am not entirely certain she has earned the name. Since the dawn of Christianity, within the church, women were educating themselves and others, writing books, imagining and then building schools, hospitals, policies and procedures. These were women of unqualified brilliance who understood that their calling - all of our callings - began with ONE calling, the most fundamental: to love, and to - out of love - do that which we can do, humbly and with gratitude.
Before any such movement may be undertaken, those women looking for ordination might consider that Jesus tended to use the most humble of materials to perform his most effective work. Think mud and spittle. Think Bernadette Soubirous (who would have been the first to describe herself as ignorant) or Sister Lucia of Fatima, who never got a degree in anything, much less in theology. Full of ego and hubris, they might have made noise, demanded ordination themselves for having been such very privileged and graced visionaries.
Instead, their egos diminished - they asked nothing earthly for themselves but to “to dwell in the house of the Lord, all my days…”
True service to the Lord begins not with a “give me” but with a “please take.” Ordination cannot be at the service of anger or spite. It must contain a willingness not to scream but to dialogue, not to lecture but to counsel, and it must have a passing acquaintance with, and respect for, the notion of obedience or else it is simply - only - going on about oneself, one’s own desires.
We, all of us, must first respond to the call to love, and serve it with a willing heart and a sublimation of one’s own ego. “Not my will, but yours be done, O Lord.” Everything else comes from that.
I know that’s not a popular sentiment these days. But it was the very prayer Christ himself prayed. Shall we demand more than he?
UPDATE: Michael Liccione at Pontifications has some thoughts on another rogue Catholic woman!
Crossposted at www.theclamauro.blogspot.com
Posted by Thecla at 07:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 19, 2005
Another Promise Kept
I certainly share Rick's enthusiam about the nomination of John Roberts. Great choice :)
As I've said before, any political pressure to choose a non-european or a woman was false. The best person should be the one for the job. By all accounts, John Roberts is the most qualified, intelligent, gracious and conservative choice. And...you know, he's 50 years old. So, I applaud President Bush for rising above speculation that he would bow any any of these pressures. Back during the '04 election, there was a large emphasis on the possibility that the President would be able to make a nomination to the court and that we had to give that the consideration it deserved in casting our vote. With this nomination President Bush has stood up for one of the main reasons he was re-elected.
I admit to not know much about John Roberts. But I also admit to having a weakness for the opinions of Bill Kristol. And Bill Kristol? He liked the choice and agreed that Roberts is extremely well suited for the position.
I also have respect for Hugh Hewitt's input and tonight he says this is a "home run."
I respect also Kathryn Jean Lopez who said to Hugh on his show "It's a great night."
I'm sure there will be many more bloggers, both here at SCO and all around who are giving their opinions and giving a round up of everyone else's opinion and that is great. We should continue the buzz about this because it is a definite win for the Bush Administration.
Oh, did we mention that John G. Roberts is 50 years old?
Posted by Abigail at 10:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Analysis of the Roberts SCOTUS Nomination
After watching the SCOTUS rumor mill all day, I'm pleasantly surprised that President Bush decided to nominate Judge John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
The President wisely took advantage of his bully pulpit to present his nominee directly to the American people in a televised speech that, for once, all the networks carried. Although the rumor mill had been suggesting Edith Clement or even Edith Jones was going to be nominated, the President went against the conventional wisdom in nominating Judge Roberts rather than another woman to replace Justice O'Connor. The President also calmed fears of conservatives who were afraid that he would nominate Alberto Gonzales to the Court. In fact, the media again showed themselves to be totally out of step with reality in their reporting of the rumors surrounding this nomination.
The President also seized the opportunity to frame the debate over the nomination with his brief statement tonight. Here are the key points in the speech:
"He's an honors graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School."
Opponents of the nomination will have to be prepared to ask smart questions. Judge Roberts clearly is a smart guy.
"In his career he has served as a law clerk to Justice William Rehnquist, as an associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan and as the principal deputy solicitor general in the Department of Justice.
In public service and in private practice, he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and earned a reputation as one of the best legal minds of his generation."
Obviously he already knows his way around the Court and his professional credentials are beyond question. The Left is not going to be able to argue that he doesn't have the appropriate curriculum vitae for the Court.
"After he was nominated for the Court of Appeals in 2001, a bipartisan group of more than 150 lawyers sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. They wrote, 'Although as individuals we reflect a wide spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding Federal Court of Appeals judge and should be confirmed by the United States Senate.'
The signers of this letter included a former counsel to a Republican president, a former counsel to two Democratic presidents and former high-ranking Justice Department officials of both parties."
He enjoys support from all across the political spectrum and from a number of legal heavyweights. He's not a nominee that will easily be characterized as "out of the mainstream".
"He has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen. He will strictly apply the Constitution in laws, not legislate from the bench."
The President has said repeatedly that he intended to appoint a strict constructionist to the Court and has accomplished that goal with this nomination.
"I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike will see the strong qualifications of this fine judge, as they did when they confirmed him by unanimous consent to the judicial seat he now holds."
This was my favorite line from the entire speech. The message to the Democrats was simply this: Confirm him. Now.
Democrats will have no choice but to confirm him. If they object too loudly, they will show themselves to be the obstructionists that they truly are. The beauty of this nomination is it gives absolutely no ammunition to the Left to use in the confirmation process.
I expect Roberts to be confirmed fairly easily after a lot of shouting from the Left.
Posted by Tom at 10:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
50 Years Old!!!
Posted by Rick at 09:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Britton Weighs In
Josh Britton answered my call with his maiden post at JoshBritton.com, offering thoughts on the SCOTUS buzz surrounding the two Ediths (Judge Edith Clement and Judge Edith Jones).
The Louisiana native and LSU student majoring in political communication has been a friend of the SCO almost since its inception. My wife and I had lunch with him earlier this year, before he headed to DC to serve as an intern to Louisiana Senator David Vitter. God certainly has His hand upon this young man and I look forward to the day when I can tell my friends, “I knew him when…”
Posted by Rick at 05:42 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Opponents to Kelo Come "Out of the Woodwork"
Who didn’t foresee this reaction to Kelo?
Alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes and turning the property over to developers, lawmakers in at least half the states are rushing to blunt last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain.Out of the woodwork? Nice. How many Democrats are this out of touch?
…
"People I've never heard from before came out of the woodwork and were just so agitated," said Illinois state Sen. Susan Garrett, a Democrat. "People feel that it's a threat to their personal property, and that has hit a chord."
Posted by Rick at 04:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Eric Rudolph: Christian Terrorist?
Eric Rudolph is certainly a terrorist. But did he inflict terror in the name of Jesus? Quoting from letters to his mother, this CNN story suggests that it is more likely that he is an atheist:
In another he refers to people who send him money and books.Doesn't the media-pushed conventional wisdom of Eric Rudolph suggest that he is a "Christian" and that his "faith" inspired his heinous acts?"Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame," he wrote.
"I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."