CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer, on why all three major networks reported Rep. Murtha's "we must surrender" speech as the most important news story of the day:

Politicians make speeches all the time. Some matter and some don't. It was our opinion that this one mattered.

Posted by: annika at 02:43 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

From Australia's Herald Sun:

Four Australian women have been detained while trying to board a plane in Syria, reportedly after gun parts were found inside a child's toy.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) said two women from Victoria and two from NSW were with two Iraqi women when they were detained at Damascus airport on Tuesday.

All six were of Iraqi origin, the department said.

A DFAT spokesman would not confirm media reports that the group was detained after a disassembled gun was found inside a toy being carried by a child with the women.

The ABC has quoted a Syrian police source and a diplomatic source as saying the women entered the airport in the Syrian capital with a child.

They said the women were detained after the gun parts were found in a toy the child was holding.

The women were reportedly trying to board a flight bound for Australia.

Posted by: annika at 01:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Rather than legislate a blanket prohibition on all "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," (which in many cases can be quite useful, not to mention fun*), i propose the following, more simple compromise amendment:

SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL - All persons within the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation that works.

(b) LIMITATIONS - But whatever you decide to do, for God's sakes, don't film it!

* Lighten up. i said "not to mention," didn't i?

Posted by: annika at 09:25 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Actually, every bit of it should be filmed, and every bit of information regarding detainees should be classified. It's that simple. BTW, is Cal really an 18.5 pt punk to USC? I'm thinking that it's a lot closer.

Posted by: Casca at November 11, 2005 10:30 AM (qBTBH)

2 Very funny, as usual. My thoughts on the role of the pardon power in any extreme interrogation methods: http://www.affbrainwash.com/chrisroach/archives/020509.php

Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 04:49 PM (MRlvg)

3 There is one cruel and inhumane interrogation technique which always works and has not (as for as I know) been banned by international tribunal. Put the detainees in a room and play nonstop Yoko Ono! (but you have to tie them up so they do not puncture their own eardrums.)

Posted by: Kyle N at November 11, 2005 07:48 PM (F0Eov)

4 C'mon Casca, stick to SCOTUS and Big 10 stuff and lay off the big leagues. Pac 10 is way too complicated for guys from Columbus. Cal has a second string QB and is scrappy, but thin. USC has a way of looking for payback; guess who the last team to beat them was, and where, in a huge upset as well? Look for this Trojan team to once again explain to the liberals from Sather Gate just how they feel about their last visit to Strawberry Canyon. USC 50+, Cal less than 20.

Posted by: shelly at November 12, 2005 10:10 AM (6mUkl)

5 LMAO, I KNOW what YOU think. I wanted to hear from the scandinavian blond. I'm watching Ohio State v Northwestern on Gameplan broadband. The resolution sucks! Next week, for the first time in forever, the dykes who now run ABC sports have decided that Ohio State v Michigan is unworthy of a national broadcast... amazing.

Posted by: Casca at November 12, 2005 12:01 PM (qBTBH)

6 For the uninformed amongst you, Keith Jackson is a puss-filled, ass-sucking whore, as are most of the PAC-10 officials who will do anything to keep another team from contending against USC. In one series, one sees a penalty called where there is none, and a TD called where there is none.

Posted by: Casca at November 12, 2005 02:42 PM (qBTBH)

7 So much for Mighty Alabama and their pretentions. Looks like its Texas vrs USC. and I am gald it worked out that way because, Honestly I think Texas is the only team with a chance of beating USC.

Posted by: Kyle N at November 12, 2005 06:40 PM (o5q9S)

8 Nah Kyle, there are several, it just needs to be one with a real defense, ND with a punk defense proved that, and a straight officiating crew, if there is one... fucking lawyers! Ought to mean instant disqualification for the job.

Posted by: Casca at November 12, 2005 07:20 PM (qBTBH)

9 Or, if you must film it, just edit the end of a Kerry-Edwards campaign commercial to it, so the last thing you hear after seeing the torture is "I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message."

Posted by: Eric Kephas at November 13, 2005 02:28 AM (ZRjA4)

10 OK Casca, I hope you reconsidered and did not part with your ill gotten money to back a bunch of weenies from Sather Gate. Even if you did, I figure you got it back while the Buckeyes continued to hide their offense. Did a great job of hiding the plays this time, huh? Too bad you guys blew it against Penn State; can't believe you guys actually lost that game, especially without Pac 10 officiating. Texas will not beat USC. It will be a shoot out, but SC's offense is virtually unstoppable, and they will simply outscore the horns and wear them down. The Rose Bowl is not our home field, but it is close enough for government work, and the place will be full of cardinal and gold, and not too much burnt orange. I hope OSU enjoys it in Hawaii.

Posted by: shelly at November 13, 2005 07:52 AM (6mUkl)

11 You old fuck, I'm not stupid enough to bet on Cal. It's not just PAC 10 officials who are corrupt either. There are at least several in the Big 10, and while PAC 10 officials are almost uniformly corrupt, Big 10 officials are almost uniformly incompetent. The requirements for officials should be; nobody over forty, nobody who wasn't a starter in the league for at least a year, and no lawyers. As you know, it's impossible not to destroy a team that is self-destructiing, and that's what NW did yesterday. After the blocked punt, they collective stood there and pissed their pants until it was over. Penn State won because Troy Smith can't pass read, and threw an interception that gave the ball to PSU on the OSU 2 yard line, leading to the margin of victory score. Unless Penn State falls to MSU, which is possible, although a longshot. Remember MSU beat ND. Ohio State and ND will get the at-large bids and go to the Fiesta Bowl. There's just too much money to be made off of all those Buckeye and Irish fans. Plus, it'll be a great game.

Posted by: Casca at November 13, 2005 09:02 AM (qBTBH)

12 This might be the best bowl season in a long time. One of the funniest things is that Spurrier actualy has a chance to win the SEC with the lowly Cocks. Spurrier is the best, nastiest, craftiest college coach ever.

Posted by: Kyle N at November 13, 2005 09:49 AM (6ngro)

13 Spurrier the best, ever? Well, ever hear of Knute Rockne, Red Blaik, John McKay, John Robinson, Howard Jones, Red Sanders, Pete Carroll, Ara Parsegian, Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes...just to name a few of the hacks that he is better than. NOT. Kyle, history is a great subject; learn it, or be doomed by it. (Apologies to Santayana)

Posted by: shelly at November 13, 2005 08:31 PM (6mUkl)

14 Shelly you are the one who needs to read. I said he was the NASTIEST, CRAFTIEST best coach. And I stand by that.

Posted by: kyle at November 14, 2005 04:14 AM (b7UTw)

15 Casca - Think other at large will go to either SEC # 2 or PAC-10 # 2. Ohio State ends up in the Capital One, assuming PSU and OSU win out. Well, if crafty means going to Washington, DC, screwing up a NFL team, and walking away with $15M, then Spurrier is all that. Hope McCain will define "degrading" because wading through the various references to find a definition is a mindnumbing endeavor. Article 16 Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity

Posted by: Col Steve at November 14, 2005 11:14 AM (NvUmm)

16 Kyle, I know how to read; I even know how to parse. Try parsing your sentence. Clearly, you did not write what you meant to say. Give it a rest; Spurrier is probably a flash in the pan. Certainly, in my mind, he cannot shine the shoes of the men I listed. I didn't include Shula, Lombardi or Landry, or George Allen or a passel of others due to the fact that you said college and I understood that part of it. But, if he keeps whipping the pussies at OSU, I may add Paterno...

Posted by: shelly at November 14, 2005 04:17 PM (6mUkl)

17 One more inhumane act is to have 15 posts on American football...now that is torture!

Posted by: NOTR at November 14, 2005 06:54 PM (izx0t)

18 And then I'll know that you've taken up the pipe and joined the crackheads on the palisades.

Posted by: Casca at November 14, 2005 07:54 PM (qBTBH)

19 I said, he has to keep beating the pussies at OSU. I guess, as long as they hide their offense, anything is possible. Carroll, on the other hand, just says that we are going around your right end; try and stop us... The pipes are in Venice, not the Palisades.

Posted by: shelly at November 14, 2005 11:42 PM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Tony Blair's days as PM are numbered?

(You might say that. i couldn't possibly comment.)

Posted by: annika at 08:19 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Everything lost.

It's easy to blame the lying public employee unions, and to feel discouraged about the future of democracy. i do. But those feelings will pass, because i know the main reason Californians voted for the status quo yesterday.

Californians, like most of the country, are very pissed off at their government for various, often opposing, reasons. So when you have a bunch of propositions that are intended to improve things and change the status quo, but you introduce them into a climate of voter dissatisfaction, it's very hard to expect people to vote "yes" on anything. The "no" is their way of saying "we don't like things the way they are."

Remember, the recall election was itself a "no" vote.

Add to that, the legions of well-funded and motivated, goose-stepping union members who were certain to get out their own vote yesterday, and you see why the reform measures had no chance.

Oh, and San Francisco voted yesterday to invite gun-toting outlaws to visit the city, stay a while, and while they're there why not rape rob or kill a San Franciscan for added fun and profit.

Posted by: annika at 06:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

AP's report about today's Tennessee school shooting contains an unusual choice of quotes in the third paragraph, as printed in this ABC News post.

The motive for the shooting at Campbell County High School, 30 miles from Knoxville, was not immediately known, Sheriff Ron McClellan told WVLT-TV.

'We don'a0644t [sic] know yet. I have the individual at the hospital,' McClellan said. 'These men are all fine Christian men, and I am at a loss for words.'

But i find it interesting that AP seems to take special care to identify the religion of this particular murderer at the top of the story, when i usually have to read to the end of a typical AP story on terrorism to find out that kind of information -- if they disclose it at all.

Posted by: annika at 04:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

If you are a Californian, you must vote today. The special election is the difference between changing things or giving up. Don't you give up. Vote for change. Unless of course, you like things the way they are in CA.

The cool thing is, if you haven't studied the propositions, don't worry. Just vote like i did.

Proposition 73: YES.

Proposition 74: YES.

Proposition 75: YES.

Proposition 76: YES.

Proposition 77: YES.

Proposition 78: YES.

Proposition 79: NO.

Proposition 80: NO.

Posted by: annika at 03:50 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

It amazes me that after eleven days of rioting, the French have not yet called out the military or instituted a curfew. Isn't that riot control 101? i mean at some point, you gotta do something, don't you. What are they doing over there? Sheesh, Mike Brown could have done a better job than Chirac and Villepin are doing.

Update: i have two more semi-facetious observations. First, it's a measure of how much things have changed in Europe, that the German government is actually advising their citizens to "be careful" about traveling to France. Come on guys. Now is the perfect time to strike! Whatever happened to "Let the last man on the right brush the channel with his sleeve?"

Second, a lot of people are saying it's poverty that's causing these riots. So maybe France isn't socialist enough. Taking that line of thought to its logical conclusion, i'd have to agree. If France were a full blown Communist dictatorship, you can bet these riots would have stopped soon after the first rock was thrown. Just ask any Czech or Hungarian of a certain age.

Update 2: Read Sarah's personal experiences living in one of the Parisian "suburbs."

Posted by: annika at 07:39 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Time to buy Renault stock.

Posted by: annika at 07:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

You've heard of the suburban Paris rioters. Now meet the Danish rioters.

The police has to stay away. This is our area. We decide what goes down here

We are tired of what we see happening with our prophet. We are tired of [Danish newspaper] Jyllands-Posten.

via Instapundit.

Update: Here's what's prompted the violence. A couple of cartoons.* Funny, i don't seem to remember Evangelicals rioting in this country after Flynt spoofed Falwell some years ago. But whatever.

* link updated.

Posted by: annika at 10:32 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Giuliani said Moslem terrorism has existed in Europe for the last thirty years and the European's did nothing about it. This allowed the Muslim terrorism movement to grow and flourish in the Middle East with people and funds supplied by European terrorists. Europe has to confront their Muslim terrorist problem; otherwise there will be no Europe worth saving.

Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 11:35 AM (r/5D/)

2 Oh, it's not the Euros who'll confront the Muslims, rather the other way round. Foolish human nature always mistakes tolerance for weakness. Even the French can exhibit savagery, once they've warmed to the task.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 02:00 PM (qBTBH)

3 I hope countries like France drown in the flood of Islamic immigrants they let into their borders without regard to the groups' beliefs or desire to assimilate to Western values. I think that it is ironic and hilarious that the same cultural relativism that leads to wide open borders also leads to a complete inability to respond when these groups react in the manner described in the post. How any country could possible allow mass immigration from Islamic countries is beyond me. Islamic culture has barely evolved over the past thousand years. These people, generally, could not care less about Western values or traditions. Europe (and America) allows Islamic immigration at its own peril. But, of course, no leading Western politician seems to have the courage to "just say no." I'm also sick of Muslims whining when folks dare criticize their beliefs or mention the fact that nearly all terroists acts committed are by Muslims in the name of Allah. Seriously, fuck 'em. I'm so over their excuses and the "whoa is me...I'm such a victim attitude." On a lighter note, Princess Mary, whose picture pops up on the side of the web-page discussing the cartoons, is pretty hot. She kinda looks like Jennifer Aniston. Yummy....

Posted by: Blu at November 03, 2005 02:03 PM (QjCK5)

4 The problem with leaders "just saying no" to Muslim immigrants is that it violates Western principles of democracy and tolerance. If you want to criticize those principles, fine, but then you have to replace them with something else. What do you replace it with? Fundamentalist Christian principles? Orthodox Jewish principles? Atheistic humanist principles? Wiccan principles? Or do we just take the unprincipled route and say, we tolerate everyone but you? And if today it's Muslim extremists, tomorrow is it people of Middle Eastern descent as a whole? It's almost kind of an impossible problem. If you take a Just War Theory type of approach, there's no solution because there's no sovereign nation to retaliate against when terrorists act out against the government (and thus no principled reason to ban a particular country's immigrants). I don't know what the answer is but I think closing our borders cheapens the value of Western society -- which is precisely what they want to achieve.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 02:57 PM (XUsiG)

5 Once upon a time, way back when Shelly was an undergrad, there used to be required coursework titled, "Western Civilization". It was a euphemism for the why and wherefore of our Judeo-Christian culture, and had replaced the original faith based underpinnings of most Universitys that predate the 20th Century. Western Civ was replaced with the modern relativism exhibited by Law Fairy's remarks above. Back when we were permitted to be men we understood that tolerance has limits, and importing a passel of sodomites who intend to hold to their satanic faith is probably beyond them. Like the man said in the song, "Do what you like, but don't do it here".

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 03:41 PM (qBTBH)

6 Law Fairy Europe must do what they do ((or did) in Austria. Every foreigner working in Austria must attend night school for classes in German and Austrian history and culture. They are kicked out of the country if they donÂ’t show progress in those courses or flunk the final exam.

Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 03:45 PM (r/5D/)

7 With all due respect, I would argue that the West's most important principles are the rule of law and the right to private property. To me, those are the bedrocks upon which Western civilization rests. Democracy and tolerance are only by-products. (Tolerance, by the way, must be very carefully defined. Our tradition doesn't simply embrace tolerance of everything no matter how vile.) Frankly, I would think that any person with even a modest knowledge of Western political history would understand this. Comments like those above by The Law Fairy only go to show how badly Western people understand their own history. How fucking depressing.....

Posted by: Blu at November 03, 2005 04:16 PM (QjCK5)

8 Yes, law Fairy, you very much misunderstand what western values are all about. We have NO compulsion upon us to be tolerant of the intolerant. Civil society is a two way street. Furthermore, any nation at any time has the right to close the door to those who are detroying their culture. (or even for economic reasons,) states have every right and indeed a responsibility to enforce their borders.

Posted by: Kyle N at November 03, 2005 04:54 PM (vt0fT)

9 Blu -- It's not a misunderstanding of history -- and believe me, I have had my share of right-leaning history lessons to understand many of the differing views on our civilization's origins. And regardless of history, the fact is that TODAY we live in a society that leans pluralistic. The "rule of law" has a nice ring to it, but of itself it doesn't carry much more than perhaps a hint of positivism. What should those rules be? I suppose we could go the fascist route, which would be very orderly, but I'm sure you agree with me that this is not the best course of action. And if you want to talk about private property and history, we first need to go way back to when we stole the land from those who were here before us. Call me ignorant or uneducated all you want, but (assuming you're not a loathed relativist) there's a word for taking a position that a moral rule applies to all future actions, but not to past actions one has already taken (applying the moral rule would include accepting the consequences of that rule's application): hypocrisy. (To preemptively counter the obvious ex post facto rule allusion that suggests itself, note I'm speaking to moral, rather than legal, rules). Jake -- I'm not familiar with that rule, or when it was implemented. Has it or did it make Austria a better country? Casca -- I've never been permitted to be a man. People make fun of me when I wear my artificial penis under my skirt. So I guess I've never understood that tolerance doesn't apply to, um, all the imported Satanist sodomists who are apparently making the country... less manly?

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 04:55 PM (XUsiG)

10 Alas LF, the first time you write your name in the snow, the scales fall away and all is revealed. Nice legalistic twist of my words unless you're incapable of identifying the object of my euphemism. As for hypocrisy, if it's hypocisy to seek after perfection when it is unachieveable in this imperfect world, then so be it. YOU have chosen the most hypocritical profession of them all. Now get thee to a nunnery!

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 05:11 PM (qBTBH)

11 Poor Law Fairy, I will make this simple. Islam is evil. It is not a religion at all. Do not compare it to Christianity, the Jewish Faith, or even Wiccan principles. It is a political movement complete with a set of indecent laws and the expressed goal of taking over the entire world. It is more closely compared to Nazism and Communism. It requires it's adherents to go forth into the world and conquer territory through both what Christians call evangelizing and through what everyone calls military invasion. Once Islam takes control of a territory, it gives the infidels (non-muslims) three choices: conversion to islam, submission into slavery (you will pay a special infidel tax and must submit to the whim of every muslim), or death. While every American is free to become a nazi or communist, we did not allow the importation of large numbers of nazi's or communists during all the years we were at war with these political ideology's. Even though the President can't and won't say it, we are at war with Islam because Islam declared war on us. Islam doesn't have any tolerance. It actually recquires intolerance. I am a Christian. Islam cannot tolerate me. Islam does not tolerate Jews and Islam certainly does not tolerate Wiccans. Western tolerance does not tolerate totalitarians , it does not tolerate murder and it does not tolerate repression. Yes, the lefties will scream and harp about the slavery, the lynchings, the KKK, and the right will point out union thuggery, communist marches, and the loss of individual rights by activists judges swinging hammers and taking our homes. But know this, America fought a war and ended slavery in its own borders, the FBI brought the law crashing down on the KKK, blacks armed themselves against lynchers, a woman member of the NAACP brought down the practice of racially organized seating, the legislatures are anulling Kelo, union thuggery is a sign that they are losing members and are in fact at an all time low. So sit back and relax and wring your hands and no not what to do. When Islam rears its ugly head, real Americans will stand up and know exactly what to do. We always have and we always will. The cycle of good and evil will rage back and forth and good will always win in the end.

Posted by: Houston's Problem at November 03, 2005 05:39 PM (LzjT8)

12 Well said Houston.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 05:55 PM (qBTBH)

13 Just to further some of Houston's point on jihad, I wrote this, it cites some of an interview with the author of new book studying Islam and the concept of jihad. I wouldn't mind a couple visitors clicking through, , but the relevant quote from the book for those who can't be bothered to click through: It is the consensus view of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence regarding jihad, since its formulation during the 8th and 9th centuries, through the current era, that non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives — from the Khaybar farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 — are muba’a in the Dar ul Harb. And these innocent non-combatants can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being “harbis” during endless razzias or full scale jihad campaigns that have occurred continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the institutionalized ideology that we are fighting, i.e., jihad

Posted by: Scof at November 03, 2005 06:20 PM (Gnqv5)

14 Law Fairy; The Eurotrash has probably outlawed the requirement in Austria by now. But while the law was in operation: 1. The immigrants to the country had jobs and lead productive lives. They became a part of the Austrian fabric of life rather than be walled up in a enclave as they are in France. 2. They did not go on welfare and take up a life of crime and violence. 3. They have not rioted.

Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 07:45 PM (r/5D/)

15 I feel like I'm being ganged-up on... casca, unfortunately the nunnery kicked me out when I expressed an interest in the World's Oldest Profession (the one that you can report on your tax return, to be clear). I would call my "twisting" of your words more literal than legalistic. To be precise, that is Houston, I honestly sincerely wish that things were still that black and white for me. They used to be but they're just not anymore. How can you know that Islam *itself* is evil, rather than simply its abuses? There are numerous different translations of the Koran and I'm skeptical of *any* non-native speaker who purports to know the "real" meaning. Christianity (my religion for my whole life) has fallen to such abuses, and I've no reason to believe Islam couldn't have been bastardized the same way. There are a lot of problems with saying, for instance, no more Muslim immigrants. How do you weed out the good from the bad? And, yes, there are good ones; I attended law school with and befriended some very decent Muslim students. I would gladly travel with them and not fear that they would blow the plane to smithereens. I'm not able to bring myself to a place where I think it's okay for the US to say to people, we won't let you in because of your religion, or your political ideology. I think it goes against everything the First Amendment stands for (disregarding the legal technicalities of whom it's meant to protect -- in my mind it embodies ideals we should all aspire to observe). We can sacrifice freedom for safety -- but in the end wind up with neither. That's why I say, don't close our borders. Jake, it sounds like an interesting proposal. I'm not opposed to trying a bit harder to instill patriotic virtues in citizens and new immigrants alike. I think America does get a bad rap outside and inside, and it doesn't help when we do things like outlaw the Pledge of Alleigiance (ha! Bet you all thought I was liberal ) and let media elites play fast and loose with the truth under principles of "journalistic freedom."

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 08:17 PM (bzLvk)

16 Back to the cartoon... I know how easy it is to get all excited about a cartoon. I agree Princess Mary is pretty hot. Maybe the French could trick the Jihadists into having a Burning Man festival in the French suburbs and then just let the whole place burn to the ground. Anyone left would have to go back to where they came from.

Posted by: d-rod at November 03, 2005 08:41 PM (Lmjjd)

17 LF, you've just spent two decades having bullshit poured into your brain. If you are intellectually curious, and you seem to be, somewhere in the next five to ten years you may trip over the reason why "East is East, and West is West, and neither the tween shall meet". I loved your comment about being willing to fly with your moslim acquaintances, lol, something very much like that was said about the bus bombers in London.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 10:14 PM (qBTBH)

18 Houston, I honestly sincerely wish that things were still that black and white for me. They used to be but they're just not anymore. That's because you went to law school. I went to engineering school. I learned about the beauty and logic of the laws of nature and you learned about the deceit and vile pettiness of the laws of man. You were suppossed to learn from the other lawyers, not listen to them. Everything you really need to know (socially), you learned in Kinder Garten. That stuff they taught you in law school is all lies. How can I be so sure? I was an evacuee during the Great Hurricane Rita exodous. It took 15 hours of being stuck in a car to break through my inborn desire to follow the useless folly of man's laws. Over the next 15 hours still stuck in that car I became an outlaw or rather I finally recognized that I am now and always have been an outlaw. I determined that I no longer needed a government to tell me how to act. I determined that in a society with thousands, perhaps millions of pages of law, I could not possibly be anything but an outlaw. I quickly did away with the laws that I found unnecessary and useless. I am the law. But you need not fear me or others like me. We and I are the law because we and I are guided by 10 simple commandments. These boil down to One Golden Rule. The golden rule is the measure which places the line between good and evil. Your indoctrination by the other lawyers attempted to blur this line, to create controversy, because lawyers live in the fringes of the grey areas. The grey allows lawyers to make money. Engineers only succeed when the project succeeds. The bridge stands or the bridge falls. If the dam fails, the engineer isn't hired to build another. How can you know that Islam *itself* is evil, rather than simply its abuses? Look to the Golden Rule. The Koran itself cannot stand the test of the Golden Rule. The Golden rule does not allow evangilization through murder or enslavement. It does not call for the execution of those that change their faith or deny it. God does not need the death penalty to keep the faithful. The Sharia mandates death for those that would convert from Islam to Christianity or Judaism or any other faith. Somebody will surely scream "Spanish Inquisition" at this statement. The Bible did not call for the Inquistion and neither did Jesus. The Inquisition created itself and followed it own ways. There are numerous different translations of the Koran and I'm skeptical of *any* non-native speaker who purports to know the "real" meaning. Unlike the Bible, that was written in very ancient times and was translated into Greek and translated into into English, the Koran was written in fairly modern times in the 6th or 7th century (I forget which). It was written then in the same language then as today, Arabic. And don't worry yourself about me trying to translate it for myself. I wanted to find out more about the religion of peace so I went to the web sites of muslims and found one in particular that said what the Koran said and backed it up with line item references to the Koran. Yes, there may be different opinions about many of the verses in the Koran. But many are quite clear and that usually isn't good. I find the Bible often confusing and sometime difficult to understand. The basic message gets through. The basic message of the Koran demands a lot of violence and a lot of utter nonsense. Christianity (my religion for my whole life) has fallen to such abuses, and I've no reason to believe Islam couldn't have been bastardized the same way. Good point. There are a lot of problems with saying, for instance, no more Muslim immigrants. Indeed there are. How do you weed out the good from the bad? And, yes, there are good ones; I attended law school with and befriended some very decent Muslim students. I would gladly travel with them and not fear that they would blow the plane to smithereens. I too have had Muslim friends. The ones that are really your friend and are really good simply aren't really muslims. They may consider themselves muslims but Islam does not consider them muslims. That is why terrorists kill more muslims than infidels. They kill them because they do not follow the Koran and they do not follow the Sharia. Islam means slavery. I read on the muslim site that a muslim cannot have a friend that is Christian. It is hareem. The imam or imam's backed this up with quotes from the Koran. I also read that a Muslim may not even greet a Christian first, but if a Christian greet's a Muslim first, then the Muslim should fall over himself to return a bigger greeting. Somehow, I don't think a simple greeting should be turned into a superiority war. I can't square that with the Golden Rule. That's just a little to sneaky and coniving for me. What I learned from the imam is that the Koran is full of superiority. It divides people into little groups. It labels most of these groups as bad. I can't square racism with the Golden Rule either. If kill the Jews isn't racism, then I don't know what is. The world of Islam is in a world of hurt. Our world isn't perfect either of course, but the difference is the more our world follows the Golden Rule the better it gets. Following the myriad rules of the Koran will make the world dizzy and violent. At best it will just make the world a little more schitzo; The Koran does not allow musical instruments and the Koran must not be played on tapes in a car that has the speaker down by the feet, lest it be insulted. I am sure someone will say that imam doesn't know what he is talking about, listen to my imam. Sorry, but there are far too many imams that never seem to get it right. There may be disagreement between Christian ministers and Priests but, I never had any of them go total wacko. The example of Europe is that it is now time to weed out the good from the bad. It is time to find out who is a real friend or not. Ask these friends why did the islamic prophet marry a six year old girl. Ask them why most islamic nations are headed by a dictator. Ask them why it is wrong to invest in a 401(k). Ask them if they believe that Jews were flying the 9/11 airplanes. Ask them if they want to replace the Constitution with the Sharia. I'm not able to bring myself to a place where I think it's okay for the US to say to people, we won't let you in because of your religion, or your political ideology. I think it goes against everything the First Amendment stands for (disregarding the legal technicalities of whom it's meant to protect -- in my mind it embodies ideals we should all aspire to observe). We can sacrifice freedom for safety -- but in the end wind up with neither. That's why I say, don't close our borders. I am at the point that I want answers. I demand to know if my neighbors want me dead, enslaved or forced into conversion. I know that my country will be better off without such people. If we have one more attack on our soil, I will be past the point of worrying about limiting first amendment rights to those that would burn the entire Constitution and replace it with the Sharia. Blood can change a nation mighty fast. Ugly things can happen very quickly and we may be suprised at who gets ugly first or ugliest. Sometimes great obscenities have to happen to win in a war. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was an ugliness for sure. But it was a far smaller ugliness than allowing Japan to continue to survive as even a remant of an evil empire or to loose the number of Americans that we would have lost without it. The death toll of Americans in taking the last few islands before the bomb lost was horrible in a war of the greatess horrors seen. We are at war on all fronts. We are at war with Islam on all fronts. Our ways, our laws, our culture, most of it not all of it, is fundamentally better and will prevail. Muslims will come here and some will come and see the bad parts and develop an even deeper hatred for us and try to kill us. Some will see the good parts and question slavery to the Koran. Those that come and remain faithful to the slavery of the Koran, I am most suspicious of all. If you can't handle freedom, you don't have a moral center of your own, and I definetly don't trust those who lack even a fundemental grasp of self regulation through the Golden Rule. The wars of today are one mighty race. The race is whether the speed of freedom is faster than the speed of oppression. In America, the race is between the speed of individuals trying to preserve the freedoms that they have versus the speed of groups who want to take that freedoms guaranteed in the consitution away through grey law hammer swinging. In China ,the race that will determine the outcome will be whether capitalists will desire freedom faster than the communists can build a super power for war. In the middle east, the race is whether the desire to be free can spread faster than terrorists can plant explosives. I feel like I'm being ganged-up on... This is a good thing. It means that we do not believe you are a waste of time. It means that we believe you can be saved from a life of wasted indescision and unclarity in a time where clarity is the key to winning. Your motives are fundamentally good; I feel from your expressed thoughts that you as a person motivated by good are not able to fully understand those that would fundamentally destroy your freedom, your world and your life. I often feel this about people at church. I don't think they are capable of understanding evil. Then I wonder if the reason I understand evil and expect evil is because I am somehow not as good as they are. Sometimes I wonder what would happen If I was raised in a household with no God. Would I become fundementally evil? Would I be arrogant and require others to follow my laws? Or would the libertarian prevail? No I'm not evil. I'm human to be sure. I struggle. I do my best. I seek clarity. I can't do it alone for it requires constant reexamination. Thank God for Jesus. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The concience that seperates good from evil. The conscience that tells you when your rights stop and others rights begin. The conscience that tells you when you are right to defend yourself and when you have gone beyond defense.

Posted by: Houston's Problem at November 03, 2005 10:45 PM (LzjT8)

19 Actually, Casca, my education was more conservative than probably 95% of Americans'. All the things I've been saying in my comments are my own opinions, formed free of any indoctrination or whatnot. The last five years for me have been quite enlightening, and being the open-minded and intellectually curious person I am, I've been able to see beyond the rhetoric of either side of any debate and understand why *everybody's* wrong As for London bombers &c, there's no way you could possibly know whether my friends are terrorists. You've never even met them. So the comparison seems to me inapt at best. Further, if as a people we can't trust those we're close to not to kill us for a "greater good" then we have much bigger problems to worry about than a few suicide bombers.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 10:46 PM (bzLvk)

20 Houston, I suppose it's a sort of compliment that you think I'm a fundamentally good person, so thank you. I have to disagree with you, though, even on that point My reading of the Bible is that we're all fundamentally bad and we ALL have to be saved from our sin -- hence the importance of Jesus. I don't believe that any of us IS the law, though I do believe God gave each of us a conscience. I also think, and it sounds like you might agree with me, that the Ten Commandments, while important, are basically just exemplaries. Jesus said it came down to two basic things: love God and love your neighbor. To me, loving our neighbors means loving the good neighbors and the bad neighbors. It even means loving the neighbors who secretly harbor plots to kill us. Jesus never turned anyone away, even the most reviled members of society. If Jesus, being perfect, didn't feel the need to cast them out, then certainly we don't have the right to cast them out. Separating the good from the bad -- the wheat from the chaff, if you will -- is God's job, not ours. I divine from the Bible no imperative or moral authority to take such a task upon ourselves. And as to the black and white issue, I think that when you're given a set of rules within which you can reliably expect certain results (as in your chosen field of engineering), it absolutely makes sense to view things in black and white terms -- leaving open, of course, the possibility that the premises on which you base your expectations may prove false. The human world isn't as rational or predictable as a lab. People don't always act in predictable or rational ways. It says a LOT to say that you can understand what a complete stranger thinks, or who he IS, based on virtually no knowledge about him. That's something not even our most brilliant social scientists have yet been able to do. Making assumptions about people also runs the risk of stereotyping and discrimination. You're free to disagree with me, but I find such things morally repugnant. And I appreciate your concern, but please don't mistake my politeness/civil tone for a weak argument. I don't often toot my own horn, but I'm highly intelligent, extremely well-educated, and I've thought long and hard about everything I bother arguing about. The fact that I'm a woman, or that I'm young, or whatever, doesn't mean I need to be "taught" any more than anyone else. Which isn't to say, of course, that we couldn't *all* use a little teaching now and again

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 11:02 PM (bzLvk)

21 Wow, what a commment thread. Regarding those Austrian rules for citizenship, Denmark has recently tightened up its immigration laws similarly. Regarding Jesus, i think it's interesting that while He sometimes spoke with Samaritans and used them as examples in his parables, Jesus never challenged the orthodoxy that kept Samaritans separate from the mainstream Jews of the time. In my view, it's not so easy to take what Jesus taught us about how to conduct our personal lives, and extend it so that these rules become God's directions to nation-states. i'm not sure that's a correct reading of the New Testament. Law Fairy, i put you on my blogroll, thanks for visiting.

Posted by: annika at November 04, 2005 07:57 AM (Dztge)

22 Heh, I'd like to go on record that I LIKE the Law Fairy, probably because she doesn't have a dick. It would be hard for me to be pals with a guy who self-applied a sobriquet like that. And therein lies the argument. Men and women are wired differently. Men are linear. The most linear of women still have an emotional thought override that kicks in at the most surprising times. Most women are full-auto emotionalism all the time. This all connects to the nurturing aspect of women. Men in general, no matter what the women's studies types told you, are useless as caregivers, and as exceptional as some women are as drivers, it isn't sexism that's kept women out of the NASCAR winner's circle. Men excel at the tasks of guarding hearth and home, and as a rule have the steel to inflict physical pain and destruction as necessary. Women will just ruin your life, by telling everyone that you're a brute. "The human world isn't as rational or predictable as a lab. People don't always act in predictable or rational ways. It says a LOT to say that you can understand what a complete stranger thinks, or who he IS, based on virtually no knowledge about him. That's something not even our most brilliant social scientists have yet been able to do. Making assumptions about people also runs the risk of stereotyping and discrimination. You're free to disagree with me, but I find such things morally repugnant." Relativism is morally repugnant. Being able to take the measure of people is one of the few advantages of age. Over time, one sees all the tricks. Thus comes wisdom. People tend to be stereotypical, and we're all discriminated against outside of our own groups. The delight of humanity is that occasionally one meets someone who DOESN'T fit the stereotype.

Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 08:52 AM (qBTBH)

23 LF - "I would call my "twisting" of your words more literal than legalistic. To be precise, that is " Being selectively precise in argument is rhetorical trickeration of the kind most often practised by your gender.

Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 08:59 AM (qBTBH)

24 Law Fairy: You seem to be a thoughtful person and I hope you return. To understand the problem in Europe, you should read this article by Theodore Dalrymple "The Suicide Bombers Among Us" http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_suicide_bombers.html

Posted by: Jake at November 04, 2005 09:28 AM (r/5D/)

25 You're missing the flaming comments. I shall provide: KILL 'EM ALL!!! LET ALLAH SORT 'EM OUT!!! I now return you to your previous discussion.

Posted by: Victor at November 04, 2005 10:04 AM (L3qPK)

26 Jesus would send in the rats.

Posted by: d-rod at November 04, 2005 10:28 AM (ooYm7)

27 I had the William Tecumseh Sherman quote in my comments, but didn't want to scare the fairy away. More accurately, "Kill them all. The Lord knows his own".

Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 03:47 PM (qBTBH)

28 Casca, I know the original quote. I was making a joke--see? Allah, all caps, cute little framing lines? You are such a buzzkill.

Posted by: Victor at November 04, 2005 08:31 PM (l+W8Z)

29 This from a guy who jams rats up his ass.

Posted by: Casca at November 05, 2005 09:19 AM (qBTBH)

30 LF, I don't give two hoots for "Western principles of democracy and tolerance." It is my country, not theirs. Immigration is not a right. Come and abide by my laws or stay away. I've nothing against immigrants - my wife is one - but nobody has the right to come here and violate our laws. You really need to think about that part of the Declaration of Independence about governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I'm not able to agree with Houston. This government exists to ensure our safety - if that means that Muslims cannot immigrate, so be it.

Posted by: MarkD at November 05, 2005 02:13 PM (X9njN)

31 No, Casca, I treat my rats with the same respect I treat my dog...and your dogs, if you have any. Stop being such a cocksucker.

Posted by: Victor at November 07, 2005 05:50 AM (L3qPK)

32 Let us simplify. Houston Condensed. If Islam leaves me alone. I will leave it alone. If Islamists come to hurt me or mine, I will blow their s**t into the weeds and never look back. I don't care about the whys or dialog.

Posted by: Baddog at November 07, 2005 08:34 AM (SMDIw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What a crappy crappy day i had today. i won't go into all the reasons, some were biological and others environmental. But i'm all stressed out right now. My preferred stress reliever had to work tonight, so instead i'm enjoying a glass of fine California wine.

One thing that pissed me off early, happened between classes as i was filling out my absentee ballot. An annoying guy in my class came over and sat down next to me. He obviously thought i was filling out a lotto card.

"Hey, if you win the lottery, do I get some?" he asked.

My first thought was, You couldn't get some offa me even if you won the lottery. Then it occurred to me that he was talking about the winnings.

"No this is an absentee ballot," i told him.

"Oh, are you voting no on all those propositions?" he said.

"What propositions do you mean?"

"Those ones the governator likes."

i paused for effect. "Um, no. i'm actually voting yes on them."

He looked horribly disappointed. "Really?"

"Yes really."

"i voted for him," he added. "But I don't like any of his propositions."

This type of thinking is apparently common, according to the polls. But i was amazed to have actually met someone with that kind of disconnection from reality.

"What's the point of voting for Schwarzenegger if you don't want him to change anything? That makes no sense at all. He can't do it by himself. We might as well have kept Gray Davis."

He obviously hadn't thought about that. "Um, well, it seems like some of those propositions are just 'broken promises.'"

Whoa. That was amazing. Here was a guy who had no idea what was on the ballot, yet he was able to parrot verbatim the Unions' attack ad slogan. That's how effective those anti-Schwarzenegger ads have been.

i wanted to lay into him at that point, but i figured the better solution would be to salvage something positive from an idiot, if possible.

i said, "They're not like that at all. Why don't you read the propositions and vote for the ones that sound good to you."

"Well, i suppose." He seemed open to the idea.

"Good. Promise me you'll do that," i flashed him a smile.

"I will. I promise."

Excellent. i had hopefully converted an idiot.

So here's how i voted for next Tuesday's special election, in case any of you care:

Proposition 73: This measure requires a 48 hour waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. This is probably just a ploy to get conservatives to the polls, but i figure it might actually bring just as many pro-abortion voters out. Since i'm against abortion, i'm in favor of any restrictions, no matter how incremental. i voted YES.

Proposition 74: This is the first of the four Schwarzenegger propositions. This measure increases the amount of time a teacher must work before getting tenure. Right now they can get tenure after two years. The initiative bumps it up to five years. Sounds reasonable to me. YES.

Proposition 75: According to the Secretary of State this initiative prohibits "the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form." That's a no-brainer. YES.

Proposition 76: This is the initiative that promises to make the State government "live within its means." i hope it passes, and if it does, i hope it works. YES.

Proposition 77: This measure is supposed to reform California's gerrymandered districts by taking redistricting out of the hands of the politicians and letting a panel of retired judges draw the lines. Not a perfect solution, but better than the current system, which leaves the foxes in charge of the henhouse. YES.

Proposition 78: One of two competing prescription drug discount initiatives. i voted for this one rather than 79, which is more flawed. YES.

Proposition 79: This prescription drug scheme relies on state bureaucrats to negotiate discounts, instead of the free market. But the worst thing is that it creates a whole new loophole for greedy plaintiff lawyers to file frivoulous lawsuits based on technicalities. NO.

Proposition 80: i don't know what to think about this measure, which purports to repeal California's energy deregulation. i can see arguments both ways on this one. However, i'm generally in favor of deregulation, so i voted NO.

The four Schwarzenegger supported propositions are 74, 75, 76 and 77. The polls say they're all going down. But the polls have been wrong before, and i hope at least 76 and 77 win. That could really start some changes here in California, which is a state that is much more conservative than its legislature. Though most people don't realize it.

Posted by: annika at 10:41 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 811 words, total size 5 kb.

i bet i could totally outshoot Ben Afflack, that pansy.

Posted by: annika at 09:22 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Let them eat cake....

Posted by: spielberg80 at November 01, 2005 09:41 AM (K9tdw)

2 At least Bennifer is pro second amendment. He actualy comes off a lot less moonbat in interviews than other hollywierd celeb-rities

Posted by: Kyle N at November 01, 2005 02:40 PM (uXdIQ)

3 Yes Kyle, but he's got an asshole the size of a fifty-cent piece.

Posted by: Casca at November 01, 2005 02:58 PM (qBTBH)

4 I bet you totally could too.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at November 01, 2005 04:35 PM (2ZXkL)

5 Is that pansy really worth a post?

Posted by: Orion Testaclese at November 01, 2005 05:50 PM (Vg0tt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

i apologize for not blogging much lately. i have been very busy, spending almost all of my waking time trying to care about the whole Scooter indictment. So far i have been unsuccessful.

Yesterday, in a desperate effort to make myself care, i attached this picture to a device i invented, so that i could look at it all day long. That didn't work, and in fact was more of a distraction than i intended.

Later on, i picked up the New York Times and scanned the three stories above the fold. i looked at the first story, which began with something like: Lewis Libby was indicted. Then i went to the second story which said Lewis Libby was indicted. Then i tried the third story, which talked about Lewis Libby being indicted. Then i looked at the... well, you get the picture. i thought, "what the hell?" There was nothing on there about any Scooter! If the New York Times doesn't care enough about the story to put it on their front page, why should i care?

Posted by: annika at 08:43 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Earlier, i posted my preliminary opinion on the Miers nomination. At the time i fully expected the controversy to die down, although i was mildly disappointed with the choice. Or rather, i was more disappointed with the fact that Bush had chosen not to nominate one of my preferred candidates, instead opting for another apparent stealth nominee.

Over three weeks have passed, and i've watched and listened as the controversy refused to die. This story has had "legs," in the news parlance of the day. And the more i learned about Miers, the less willing i have been to close my eyes and hope for the best. Now, i am ready to commit to a side in this debate. It shouldn't be a surprise, given my background as a conservative with a history degree, that i have decided to oppose the confirmation of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court justice. My reasons have little to do with ideology.

Many reasons to oppose her confirmation have been proffered by conservative pundits much more knowledgeable than i am. These reasons seem to fall into a few broad categories. One group is mad because she isn't a big name judge. These folks are mad because they expected Luttig or Brown or Pryor. i can understand this criticism. i wanted McConnell or Brown. i still don't understand why Kozinski's name wasn't batted around more often. But i could have lived with my disappointment if Miers had been a good choice, and i think most conservatives feel the same way.

Another group is mad because Miers lacks a clear "judicial philosophy." The most articulate spokesman for this point of view is Mark R. Levin, who's turned the phrase " . . . but what's her judicial philosophy?" into a kind of mantra. This criticism has a lot of merit, in my view. i think it's fair to suspect that a person who has shown no evidence of having a coherent underlying approach to constitutional issues probably does not have such an underlying approach. At age 60, it's a little late to expect Ms. Miers to start developing a useful judicial philosophy if she hasn't given much thought to it before now.

Still, i'd be willing to give Ms. Miers the benefit of the doubt on the judicial philosophy question if that were my only objection. It's quite possible that despite the scant evidence of any coherent philosophy, she might actually have one. The trouble is, we don't know what it is. Larry Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky have coherent judicial philosophies, but woe unto us if they were ever placed on the court. At least Tribe's and Chemerinsky's viewpoints are well known, as are their towering intellects. Which brings me to my next point, which is the clincher.

i'm not saying that Harriet Miers is not smart. Her background, education and experience proves to me that she is. But the position of associate justice on today's Supreme Court is not a job for just any smart person. It's a highly specialized occupation, and those who say it's not a place for "on-the-job training" have it absolutely right.

i am certainly no expert on constitutional law, although i have studied it in more detail than most people my age, both as a law student and in undergrad and graduate history courses. i know enough to know what i don't know. It is perhaps the most difficult area of law, not because it surpasses the intricate detail of a subject like tax or securities law, but because it is so malleable and its standards can be so hard to define. Con law is the "big leagues" of the legal profession. And doing con law as a Supreme Court justice is like being in the World Series. You have to be on your game at all times. You have to be the best of the best to do it right, and if you're not, it will become painfully obvious to knowledgeable observers very quickly.

i think that is the problem when non-lawyers like President Bush try to make decisions concerning the legal world. Most non-lawyers i've met seem to think that all lawyers know everything about all fields of law. No one would think to ask a dermatologist questions about spinal surgery. Yet Miers supporters are quick to assume that a corporate lawyer could easily slip into the role of constitutional scholar overnight.

i don't care that Miers has been at the White House for almost five years. That's not the same thing as spending a lifetime thinking about constitutional issues and the development of precedent from year to year and case to case. That's what con law is all about. It's analyzing precedent, history, argument and policy, then trying to extrapolate the potential reverberating effects of a ruling on future transactions, often for generations to come. Con law is to regular legal practice as Chess is to checkers.

Think about a guy like Mike McConnell, for instance. i've spent many hours this semester dissecting his various Establishment Clause articles, most notably his William and Mary Law Review piece (44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105), which is heavily footnoted, dense and unquestionably essential reading no matter what side of the religious argument you are on. i'm nowhere close to getting a handle on the subject. Here's a guy who's thought about this shit for years. He likes thinking about this shit. You could say the same thing about Prof. Tribe, if you're a liberal. Is there any evidence that Ms. Miers is similarly up to speed on even one subject of constitutional law?

So what if she's not up to speed? Why does that matter? i'll tell you why. An effective Supreme Court justice must have the power of persuasion. If the other justices do not have confidence in her mastery of the subject matter, in her authority as an analyst of the case law in question, they will eat her alive. At this point, i see no evidence that Ms. Miers has the kind of background that will give her that kind of persuasive authority. In fact, i have seen discouraging murmurs that she lacks just that.

How many Supreme Court opinions has she read top to bottom, and understood? It's hard to believe, with her busy career, that she's had the time for that kind of recreational study. If she's confirmed, when is she going to find the time then? i remember my first month of law school. In my nightly reading, i came across so many unfamiliar words and concepts that i was constantly going into Black's Dictionary to look things up. It was a nightmare. i've since learned how to skim the cases just to get through the reading, but that's not something i want my Supreme Court justices doing.

Oh sure, she can have her clerks do the heavy lifting. But in this day and age, i don't want unaccountable idealistic twenty year olds who were basically the best ass-kissers in law school leading around the new justice by her nose. There are plenty of historical examples of Supreme Court justices who relied overly much on their law clerks, but that was never a good thing. And today, the scariest issues are much scarier than they ever were back in the day. Terrorists who can blow up entire cities, scientists who can condemn millions more unborn lives to death, those are just two examples. This is a game best left to the pros.

i'm planning to watch the confirmation hearings, assuming she doesn't withdraw before then. i'm willing to keep an open mind, but unfortunately Ms. Miers has an even tougher job than Justice Roberts had. She must be absolutely stellar at the hearings, because she has to change minds. i know the White House has been working hard to prepare her, but i'd be very surprised if she can pull it off. Very surprised.

Update: You're freakin kidding me?! i told you the president reads my blog.

Update 2: i heard Dick Durbin this morning say, "this was not about documents, it was about Dobson." What an ignoramus. Dobson was one of Miers's earliest supporters, you moron.

And Hewitt's afraid we might lose to these guys?!

Update 3: The Anchoress, who correctly predicted the Miers nomination ahead of time, now turns her clairvoyant powers toward Ted Olsen. i see one problem that should prevent an Olsen nomination: a little case for which he represented the president once upon a time. Bush v. Gore. An Olsen nomination would be spun as a belated quid pro quo, fairly or not. Who needs that aggravation on top of everything else?

Let me go on record now and reiterate that McConnell is my first choice, J.R. Brown my second.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 06:50 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 1470 words, total size 9 kb.

With a collective sigh of orgasmic release, the US Media today celebrated the 2000th military death since the beggining of the Iraq War. In the past week or so, you could almost feel the tension mounting as various anti-American news outlets such as CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC finalized their preparations for today's festivities.

Media hopes are high for a multi-orgasmic week, with many journalists openly speculating that Karl Rove may be indicted before the weekend.

"I haven't felt this good since we hit 1000 dead guys," said one giddy newsanchor, who chose to remain anonymous. "People around the newsroom are positively glowing today. And if Rove gets it, man, I'm gonna need a cigarette. Whew."

In a related story, something or other happened with some election they had over there recently.

Developing . . .

Posted by: annika at 04:20 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Because 2000 Americans were murdered last year in California, I am calling on America to withdraw all police from California. These police should be sent to Iraq where it is much safer for Americans.

Posted by: Jake at October 25, 2005 05:49 PM (r/5D/)

2 I've always said these reporters are animals. I can't help but feel less and less inclined to even watch the local news.

Posted by: tesco at October 25, 2005 06:24 PM (c0E+O)

3 This is the media's neo-"Tet" coverage that is supposed to herald our utter defeat. Fuck 'em. Instapundit has good link about this: http://www.facesfromthefront.com/content/view/137/3/

Posted by: reagan80 at October 25, 2005 07:35 PM (K9tdw)

4 I was utterly fuzzbuckled to see Democratic Senators, including Patrick Leahy and Frank Lautenberg, rise on the floor of the Senate and commemorate the 2000th death by calling for the U.S. to withdraw our troops from Iraq. I just... bizzafutz... I don't want to get started. FUCKERS. Everything about the Democratic Senators' actions - on several levels - infuriates me. These guys, these corrupt adolescents, CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GAIN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 25, 2005 08:26 PM (zILLH)

5 One of the greatest disappointments of my life was watching the American people elect a quintessentially feckless corrupt free-loader entirely representative of his party, and the disloyal left whom we had to drag through the cold war while they sniped at us from the rear. It was a repudiation of all those who sacrificed so much. That's why I always look forward to the next revolution. Canada's largest influx of population was Whigs running for their lives after the last revolt.

Posted by: Casca at October 25, 2005 11:23 PM (qBTBH)

6 I found it telling how for the last couple of weeks most reports of U.S. casualties did not report the actual number of casualties but instead reported it as "closing in on", "nearing", or "approaching 2000."

Posted by: shugbear at October 26, 2005 06:23 AM (U7X+u)

7 and we're not talking combat deaths either! any ol' death will do as long as it is an American servicemember overseas. some of these people do not deserve the rights and benefits the military ensures they retain. grrrrrrrrr.

Posted by: jcrue at October 26, 2005 09:17 AM (ZDQoM)

8 I fully agree with your assessment of the biased-as-ever media. However, I am very disheartened by the fact that despite all of the rhetoric pouring out of the White House, we don't appear to be gaining any meaningful ground in Iraq (in terms of US casualties). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm ...and this is coming from a staunch supporter of this administration, and this war (me)... I'm finding it harder and harder each day to maintain my support in the face of what appears to be a flailing administration at this point; with the blatant crony-ism in Miers, the failure of Social Security reform, spending restraint, and the lack of the conservative/republican ideal of a limited government, the environment issues, etc. This in addition to the lack of concrete positive steps forward in Iraq as I mentioned before. The stance President Bush took and apparently thinks are important (abortion, and gay marriage, stem-cells) don't resonate at all in me. Where do I look for hope, my fellow conservatives?

Posted by: Rob at October 26, 2005 10:03 AM (OeHNk)

9 I'm appalled by the fixation myself; I don't get it -- just like it's been said, the 2000th American death in Iraq is just as important as the first and will be just as important as the last.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at October 26, 2005 01:31 PM (kxatG)

10 CASCA SEZ:That's why I always look forward to the next revolution. Canada's largest influx of population was Whigs running for their lives after the last revolt. I'm with ya bro, when we take over there's gonna be a lot of guys on meathooks.

Posted by: Kyle N at October 26, 2005 03:17 PM (q9xP6)

11 2,000 dead is a milestone, especially considering in the run-up to this debacle it was being sold to the American sheeple largely on the basis of presuming it would be nearly bloodless. The REAL story however is the showcase of American "military" weakness that this farce in Iraq has become and its potential ramifications. The U.S. "military" is a laughingstock, totally stymied by a poorly-armed rag-tag guerilla force several times smaller than itself, especially disgraceful is the U.S.'s pusillanimous over-reliance on air power instead of the fundamentals of ground combat. When someone slams a door loudly or when a car backfires they duck and call for air support. "Oh no, it's an 80-year-old Iraqi woman in a wheelchair with a musket! We need air support!!" "Look out, I see a crippled Iraqi man hobbling towards us in a threatening manner and he's got a sharp piece of glass! Call in the helicopter gunships!!" The world is laughing at your cowardice America. Any infantry that upon encountering a handful of poorly-armed Rebels doesn't attack them using fire & maneuver tactics but instead hides and calls in air support does not deserve to be called infantry. Infantry is the backbone of any army and without that you got nuthin'. The U.S. high command has given up hope of militarily defeating the insurgency and is now settling for trying to whittle down the Rebel forces somewhat so they can claim to believe the puppet "Iraqi" sellouts will be able to handle them so the U.S. can make an exit. Disgraceful, like the "Vietnamization" scheme all over again. Notice how all the "operations" it launches in Iraq are "hit and run" pinprick "operations" just designed to (they hope) disrupt Rebel activities? Notice how many cities like Ramadi and Haditha and Husaybah are Rebel strongholds and the U.S. knows it but is too weak to try to clear them out of those cities and occupy them? Notice how the so-called "world's only superpower", after two and a half years in Iraq still doesn't control the airport road in Baghdad? Pretty humbling isn't it? You'd better thank your lucky stars that America isn't up against a REAL enemy army like that of North Korea or China or Iran because they'd croak 2,000 Amerifags in an afternoon. The U.S. "Army" and "Marine Corps" would be a grease spot. America had better stick to picking on places like Panama and Grenada because that's about all that it can handle.

Posted by: Allen at October 27, 2005 10:10 AM (6/LqO)

12 This is what I take away from your screed: If a crippled Iraqi man is hobbling towards me in a threatening manner, and is carrying a sharp piece of glass, I should double-tap center mass with my M-16. Calling in a helicopter gunship would be a waste of ammunition. Well, I agree. Can't we all get along?

Posted by: gcotharn at October 27, 2005 11:18 AM (zILLH)

13 I'm impressed, Allen. That is, by far, the largest single paragraph I have ever seen on this blog. The fact that it is also the most idiotic is icing on the cake for me. Thank you for wasting a small part of my life.

Posted by: Rob at October 27, 2005 12:13 PM (OeHNk)

14 "The U.S. high command has given up hope of militarily defeating the insurgency and is now settling for trying to whittle down the Rebel forces somewhat so they can claim to believe the puppet 'Iraqi' sellouts will be able to handle them so the U.S. can make an exit." Iraqi troops and police are "sellouts" for trying to defend their fledgling democratic gov't from terrorists? This reminds of the Jan. 30 comment fiskings at the Democratic Underground..... ["Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?" -- 8,000,000 ballots. Turns out most Iraqis are... "American puppets?" "I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullshit." -- sorry, fellah, down here on Planet Reality, most people want democracy. Including Arabs. "Maybe they're afraid and felt they had to vote. That's the only way I can explain it to myself." -- since they were threatened with death if they _did_ vote, there's a bit of a contradiction there. In fact, they put on their festive clothes and in many cases danced to the polls, elevating their fingers to defy the "insurgents" who'd threatened to kill anyone whose finger was marked with the ink showing they'd voted. "Becuase if it's not--and if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread "freedom"--the world is screwed." -- let's see... the world is screwed if democracy spreads among the theocrats, kleptocrats, and general tyrants characteristic of the Middle East. Run that one by me again? Now let's sponsor elections in Saudi Arabia. I would just love to see the Saudi princelings in exile, clipping their coupons and complaining about how the Americans betrayed them. "they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election." -- you want to kill off 8,000,000 Iraqis? Awesome, dude.] "The U.S. "military" is a laughingstock, totally stymied by a poorly-armed rag-tag guerilla force several times smaller than itself, especially disgraceful is the U.S.'s pusillanimous over-reliance on air power instead of the fundamentals of ground combat." How many battles with out troops have you heard about on the news lately have involved thousands, or even hundreds, of "rebels" on the OFFENSIVE against our troops? How many Khe Sanh-styled sieges have our troops faced in Iraq? Where'e today's Dien Bien Phu? All I hear about our troops facing are sporatic car bombings, IED's, sniping, and....wait for it.... "Notice how all the "operations" it launches in Iraq are "hit and run" pinprick "operations" just designed to (they hope) disrupt Rebel activities?" ....."hit and run" attacks just designed to (they hope) disrupt Iraqi democratic and reconstruction activities. Wow, the strength of our superior enemies has us quaking in our boots! "Pretty humbling isn't it? You'd better thank your lucky stars that America isn't up against a REAL enemy army like that of North Korea or China or Iran because they'd croak 2,000 Amerifags in an afternoon." It's funny that you mention China because, after the 1991 Gulf War, the Chi-Coms crapped their collective pants. Wikipedia says: [The People's Republic of China (whose army in many ways resembled the Iraqi army) was surprised at the performance of American technology on the battlefield. The swiftness of the coalition victory resulted in an overall change in Chinese military thinking and began a movement to technologically modernize the People's Liberation Army.] You should check Strategy Page more often: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20051025.aspx You shouldn't be talking about our military's "weakness" since I'm sure that you live in a self-destructing welfare state with an atrophied defense force that would'nt survive a campaign against the Vatican, fucktard.

Posted by: reagan80 at October 27, 2005 12:27 PM (K9tdw)

15 Reagan, don't stop to kick every barking dog. Clearly, Allen's ancestors were some of those who ran North.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 01:56 PM (qBTBH)

16 i'm with Rob. i could spend a half hour explaining why Allen's comment is a collossal display of ignorance. Or i could choose to use my time more constructively, knowing that most of my visitors don't need to me to point out the stupidity of that comment.

Posted by: annika at October 27, 2005 01:56 PM (zAOEU)

17 Hey There - I really think you guys are way off the deep end. Your point seems to be "why be upset about 2,000 service men dead? Who Cares? No Big Deal. I mean I might be upset when there are 20,000 - but 2,000 just does not matter." Is there some way that you can honor the dead, and their families, without acting like it's a political thing. Two Thousand families hurt, maybe destroyed, is worth mourning, not mocking.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 28, 2005 04:58 PM (6krEN)

18 bbbustard, A sincere point. I plan to honor our fallen heroes by mocking Allen.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 28, 2005 05:03 PM (zILLH)

19 gcotham - Mocking an Allen is totally appropriate. Whatever you think of the war, calling U.S. troops, living wounded or dead, "Amerifags" like Allen does is really, really sick.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 29, 2005 02:49 PM (6krEN)

20 gcotharn - apologies for getting your name wrong.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 29, 2005 02:54 PM (6krEN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

On Mondays, it's customary for me to make predictions. Bush is about to name Alan Greenspan's successor today, so here's my prediction:

Bush will name Zahira Zahir as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Posted by: annika at 09:08 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Bravo, at long last, thank you.

Posted by: annika at 07:32 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

i was listening to Hugh Hewitt's show on the way home tonight and i heard a conservative caller from San Francisco say something that really bothered me. The caller paraphrased Bush the Elder's response to criticism that he had flip-flopped on his famous "voodoo economics" quote after Reagan selected him for VP. Supposedly, G.H.W. Bush said something to the effect that "Before Reagan picked me I owed him my discretion, afterwards I owed him my loyalty." The gist of the caller's analogy was that we conservatives owe the president our loyalty, i.e. our trust.

We owe him no such thing. i voted for president Bush twice. He serves at my pleasure and at the pleasure of the American voter. i don't owe him or any other politician my loyalty. On the contrary, they owe me. That is our system of government. i just want this to be clear, because i think most Americans suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic philosophy by which our nation was founded. It's not just a cute little theory that some old guys in powdered wigs made up. I believe it is Truth.

Do these words sound familiar?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphasis added]

So anyone who says i owe my loyalty, or my trust to any government official, evan a president whom i like a lot, is simply mistaken and needs to take a refresher course in American History, preferably by a professor who knows what he's talking about.

Now i'm just taking the long way around, to make a minor semantic point. But these things do piss me off because i often wonder how people can be so dense.

Posted by: annika at 06:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

i know everybody's been patiently waiting for my opinion on this chick Bush picked for Supreme Court. i wanted to read a little bit about her and listen to some other opinions before i weighed in.

i am a little disappointed that Bush did not take my advice. i have a pretty good idea that he or one of his aides reads this blog. My advice was to pick an in-your-face conservative. My personal choice would have been either Mike McConnell or Janice Rogers Brown. i like McConnell because he's a historian, and i like Brown because she's a Californian.

Of course, if i had my way, and i could give the Supreme Court an extreme makeover, things would be way different. i imagine there would be a huge exodus of liberals from this country, and that wouldn't be such a bad thing. Except for Canada and France, that is.

If i had my way, Roe would be overturned. Kelo would be gone. The Lemon test: gone. Oregon v. Smith: gone. Fifty years of establishment clause jurisprudence: gone. i wouldn't stop there either. The exclusionary rule? History. Miranda? Toast. 1A protection for Child Porn? Dead. The Second Amendment? Reborn. Federalism? Hell yah.

Regarding Miers, i'm adopting the wait and see approach. Maybe she'll be okay. Maybe not. The whole idea about wanting a known conservative is so that members of the Republican base, like me, won't have to worry. Now we have reason to worry. Two reasons, if you count Roberts.

Another disappointment is the likelihood that we won't get rid of that stupid filibuster rule now. i wanted a fight, because i wanted the nuclear option. But it's easy to forget that Bush is at heart a conciliatory kind of guy. All this talk about him being an evil warmonger has obscured that fact. It really should be no surprise that if Bush sees a way to do something without a fight, he'll do it. Again, if it were up to me, i'd have liked to see the Senate Democrats get straight-armed on this nominee, and losing the filibuster would have been gravy.

i'm not as worried as some people are about Miers having been a Democrat. Reagan was a Democrat once too. So was my dad. Still, neither of them would have ever given money to a freak like Gore. But the real problem is that Miers is not an idealogue. And the Court can change a person; i believe that. Unless a justice has a strong belief system, i'm afraid the pressure to get along can lead to a leftward drift over time.

So, should we trust Bush's judgment on this one as Professor Hewitt counsels us to do? Well, what choice do i have? Miers will probably be confirmed easily and i will have to hope for the best. But i can't help thinking this was a wasted opportunity.

Posted by: annika at 07:57 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

This event reminds me of something Annikus Gibbon once wrote:

And the great Emperor, deaf to the woes of his people, said unto them, 'lo, let us build a great ski slope in the middle of the village, and let them jump off it with skis, and afterward, they shall have sourdough bread, and circuses.'

Posted by: annika at 06:56 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.