A quick compare-and-contrast

Sam Alito - Counsel to Reagan White House, Justice Department Attorney and Deputy Attorney General throughout the late 1980s. Federal Judge for 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals from 1990 to 2005.

Harriet Miers - Lawyer since 1972. Dallas City Counselperson for two years, Chair of Texas Lottery Commission for 5 years. Held various positions in the Bush White House from the beginning.

Harry Reid this morning:

"Even before he was a judge, Alito made a name for himself arguing for expansive executive power. As a Justice Department attorney, he wrote that the Attorney General should have absolute immunity from lawsuits arising from illegal wiretaps."

"Once again, the roots of Judge Alito’s ideology can be found in his work during the Reagan Administration. As Deputy Attorney General in 1986, Judge Alito recommended that President Reagan veto the Truth in Mileage Act, a law designed to prevent odometer tampering, because “it violates the principles of federalism.”"

AND:

"First, I am disturbed by Judge Alito’s overall deference to executive power. At a time when President Bush has asserted unprecedented authority over the lives of American citizens and the Republican-controlled Congress seems too willing to cede those powers to him, I cannot support the confirmation of a judge predisposed to give the President the benefit of every
doubt.

In matters ranging from domestic spying to the use of torture, the current President has effectively declared himself above the law. Meanwhile, a Congress controlled by the President’s party has stripped the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases brought by Guantanamo detainees, some of whom have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. "

BUT:

"I continue to believe that Harriet Miers received a raw deal. She is an accomplished lawyer, a trailblazer for women and a strong advocate of legal services for the poor. Not only was she denied the up-down vote that my Republican colleagues say every nominee deserves, but she was never even afforded the chance to make her case to the Judiciary Committee. "

Let me see if I have this straight:

Sam Alito, 20 years ago, advocated the Unitary Executive Theory on behalf of his employer, President Ronald Reagan. This is proof positive that he wants to give George W. Bush free reign to rape, rob and pillage this country, piss all over democracy and destroy our republic as we know it.

Over the past five years, Harriet Miers has worked in a legal capacity for the CURRENT president who has claimed unprecedented authority and committed some of the most egregious offenses to this country in recent memory (Democrat's beliefs, not mine). Because of her various positions, her fingerprints are likely all over NSA, Guantanamo and, possibly Abu Ghraib.

In fact, every "offense" Bush has committed since 2001 can likely tie back to her in some way, form or fashion

However, this could not be proven because, as her paper trail leads back to a SITTING President, the Judiciary Committee would have never gotten their hands on it.

Yeah...Ms. Miers would have SAILED through the Senate....if it wasn't for those asshole right-wingers.

Notes on SOTU

Let's see if I can pull this off.

1. Apparently Cindy Sheehan was invited to SOTU by a CA congressperson and tried to get a banner into the chamber...apparently for a little protest. She was stopped, she refused to give it up, raised a rukus and was, subsequently arrested. Idiot.
The DU and Kos boards are probably going nuts.


2. Cynthia McKinney, of course, didn't let me down and was right at the front waiting on a kiss from W. Once again, he managed to accomodate her without smacking the hell out of her. The patience of Job, I'm telling ya.

3. Coretta Scott King got the first line...of course. Kinda surprised that he limited it to about 2-3 sentences. I figured he'd take the first couple minutes.

4. Opens about needing to keep our disagreements from manifesting into out-and-out hatred for each other. Obvious statement...but necessary.

5. Alito is sitting up front, wearing a robe. Sweet.

6. On Iraq and Afghanistan: "There is no peace in retreat. There is no honor in retreat"
"We will not surrender to evil."
Democrats yawning.
Actually, I'm kinda yawning too. The warm-fuzzy stuff is fine and good, but it also gets a bit repetitive.

7. Here comes Iran. Even I'll admit that this is sounding eerily similar to his comment to Iraqis in 2003.

So far, all of Europe and much of the UN is not happy with Iran and their nuclear pursuit. Will we build a "more acceptable" coalition????

8. NSA wiretapping. What we're doing has been done by other presidents and been approved by Federal Courts. It's integral to our safety...we're not going to sit idly.
In short: "You feeling froggy, Dems? Jump."

9. We need to be better stewards of tax dollars and cut spending.
Uh...no shit.

10. "This year, the first of about 78 million Baby Boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad’s favorite people – me, and Bill Clinton."
Funny.

OK, this play-by-play is killing me and not working. I'll pay attention now and post more later.

A response to my single commenter

Although I know that there are others out there who read my blog, only one person ever responds, and that is usually after I've baited him in some way, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Had dinner with Clay and the families and he immediately mentioned that I must have been a busy boy today as I never blogged anything. No conference calls today and I have a major project due in 1 week, so blogging had to take a back seat.

However, he now has my kid at a basketball game, the wife is busy working and I have some free time. I'm going to see how quickly I can respond to this since SOTU comes up in an hour. Not planning on live blogging it necessarily, but I'm sure I'll be watching it from my office, just in case W. says something that pisses me off...which he probably will.

Here goes.

"OK you finally baited me...

1. The Alito victory was inevitable unfortunately it puts Roe v Wade at risk. I am pro privacy rights. Perhap Roe v Wade is not the most cleasrly written text but it does uphold this."

"Roe v. Wade" not being clearly written is, in my opinion, an understatement. It was a decision based on a "right" that the Supreme Court, essentially, made up. I don't for a second believe that the "right-to-privacy" is so broad as to encompass a "right-to-abortion". A much narrower interpretation of "right-to-privacy" should allow me to be able to grow a little "Sticky Purple Punch" in my basement, for my own personal consumption, without it being a criminal trespass.

In addition, it doesn't stand on equal protection grounds because it provides a superior level of protection to the mother than to the father or, of course, the child itself.

Finally, it gutted the sovereign right of the state to legislate according to its community standards and values. That's where my biggest problem is with this. It's not that I'm a staunch anti-abortion wing-nut. In fact, my thoughts on abortion are probably a little more liberal than you might imagine.

I'm absolutely pro-privacy rights (albeit with some caveats I've discussed previously as it regards the NSA issue). This just doesn't rise to the level..

"My issue with the right is simply this. You oppose abortion and anything but abstiance based education but contunually attack, cut, and under fund program which often effect these children (of unwanted pregnancies.)"

Agreed. The Right's view of abstinence-only education is unrealistic. However, the left's opinion that we should have a bucket of Trojans in every Jr. High and High School nurses office is not the best option either. I am all for coming up with a common sense approach to sex-ed. Unfortunately, I have no clue what that would be.

Fortunately, I don't think I'm going to have to worry much about what my daughter is being told in school. My family's track-record on sex-ed leaves a bit to be desired, so my intention is to make certain that my wife and I have already addressed the subject well before it becomes a part of her curriculum.

"Additionally, the new justice will want to expand executive authority. Completely in contrary to the found fathers intentions and the strict reading of the constitution that the right claims to want."

Ah...the "Unitary Executive" talking point.

Alito's opinions map back to his time as White House Counsel for Ronald Reagan. The "smoking gun" consists (mostly) of some opinions he wrote when he was being paid to figure out a way to bolster the President's argument. An attorney's job is to find support for their client whether they agree with the client or not.

In fact, the timing of your comment and my response is...well... "timely". Part of my day today was taken up addressing an attorney and his ludicrous opinion.

I reached a settlement on an issue with a client, drafted an agreement to memorialize that settlement and got a response back from his attorney. Of the 7 points he raised, 3 of them caused me to shake my head and ask, "Is this guy f*$$ing serious? There is no way in hell I'm agreeing to this!" In all honestly, I don't believe he ever thought I would accept his terms. Can't fault him for tossing them out, though. His client would expect no less.

Beyond that, I'm going to table this one for now. I have some thoughts about the Unitary Executive Theory and it's Constitutionality, but it would take me another 2 hours and 10 pages to go into it.

"I do agree the confirmation hearings are a waste of time. We should just vote. Alito may not have lied but his not lying was = to what the republicans impeached Clinton on.Using the judges definition he did not have sex as the judge excluded oral sex. Was it a stretch yep...Alito "well em never thought about an abortion case that might overturn Roe." BS!!!"

I don't recall Alito saying he'd never thought about an abortion case which might overturn Roe. In fact, I specifically recall him being very cautious in his responses to abortion related questions on the grounds of him not wanting to comment on issues which may come before him as a Supreme Court Justice (read: he ducked them). He was right to do so. As recently as two weeks ago, a pretty significant abortion case came before SCOTUS and they remanded it to the lower court. Abortion-related cases will likely make their way to him throughout his tenure.

"2. Commander and chief was very poorly written bad TV nothing more or less.

3. I am curious about the concern the right has about Hillary. If she is as weak as they claim why wouldn't they love to see her run. My opinion is that the right knows seshe is an intellegent, well spoken, quick witted woman who could reach over and grab the slim margain the right may have."

The Right doesn't believe she's weak...I certainly don't. The Right just doesn't feel that her beliefs are in-line with their own.

Whether or not this is valid is, of course, subjective, but I decided I didn't like Hillary back in 1993 when she came up with the universal health care plan. Taking a significant portion of the US economy and putting it under government control is, for lack of a better word, frightening. To date, she's done nothing that would change my opinion of her.

She IS intelligent, well-spoken (unless she's addressing a mostly black audience on MLK day) and quick-witted. Could she reach across the aisle and grab the slim margin the Right may have? Absolutely not. Lieberman would be a much greater threat than Hillary on that.

However, I don't think Lieberman has any greater a chance at the presidency as Hillary...and for, essentially, the same reason. As long as the Middle East is as unstable as it is now (and has been for the past 60 years), I don't see a woman or a Jew in the Oval Office.

"4. When the founding fathers found the country the had no clue as to the massive chsnges the future would bring. The beauty of the Constitution is that it is a living document which will continue to change in the future as our world changes. "

Agreed that the Founding Fathers had no clue as to what the future would bring, but I don't believe that they envisioned the Constitution as a "living document." I tend to agree with the opinion that "The "living constitution" is just a fancy phrase for "making it up as you go along.""

I'm actually going to let Jonah Goldberg do the speaking on this one (as long as you don't mind the Republican propaganda!). Here too.

I tend to side with him on this issue.

Gotta go. The President has just been announced and I want to see how long it takes before Cynthia McKinney lays a big wet kiss on him.

Oh yeah...I forgot...

Filibuster failed.

Any of you centrist Democrats who have any hope of Dems taking a majority position in the Senate (or the House, or the White House), dodged a bullet.

Most of those who voted against cloture are in UNQUESTIONABLY blue states and probably managed to duck an ugly primary. The far-left doesn't have the numbers to have an overwhelming impact on national races, but they're just strong enough to screw-up a primary for a Feinstein (CA) or a Menendez (NJ) or the like.

Speaking of Feinstein, I hear that Cindy Sheehan is considering a run against her.

As a conservative (note, I say "conservative", not "Republican"), I can only say, "From your mouth to God's ear, babe. Best of luck. WAY better fodder for those of us who enjoy watching the adversary self-destruct. Anyone who makes Ted Kennedy look sane would be a hoot."

(Actually, I guess I should refer to myself as the "right-leaning Federalist" rather than "conservative". Whatever.)

For those who actually stood a chance at losing an election (and another Congressional seat to a Republican), they tended to go the "self-preservation" route.

Smart.

Legitimate Question

- Really, I'm not trying to be a butthole...

The critically acclaimed (yet hardly watched) "Commander In Chief", which focuses on the life of the first female President of the United States, is being "put on hiatus".

Question: If the American public is not interested in watching a one-hour drama about a female president, is this an indication that Hillary really has no chance at the Oval Office?

Confession: I watched "Commander-in-Chief" a few times. Wasn't a horrible show, but it certainly wasn't something I'd be all that interested in putting on my "must-see" list. May have been cancelled on it's merits (or lack thereof), rather than America's lack of interest in a woman at the helm, but you've gotta wonder.

Cheap Shot: Hillary being put in the Oval Office would likely be a HUGE step backwards for the Women's Lib movement. Being female, under the age of 50 and under the weight of 250 pounds would immediately disqualify you from any position inside the White House. If Bill can find time for a chunky intern as President of the US, imagine what he could do with 16 free hours-per-day as "First Lady".

Sometimes I crack myself up...

A brief statement on the filibuster

I’ve managed to avoid politics for a whopping two days but feel the need to briefly stick my toe in the water.

The vote for cloture on the Alito comes in a little over a half hour. Many Democrats (and possibly one Republican) have said that they will oppose cloture (as referenced in my Friday post). If 41 Senators manage to vote against cloture, a filibuster will be born.

Just to be clear…despite the fact that many claim the fact that the filibuster is a precious rule, full of nobility and is essential to our democratic way of life, it just isn’t. A filibuster is a process which allows a minority to subvert the will of the majority. In the case of the Alito debate, it not only subverts the will of the majority of the Senate, it subverts the will of the American public which, based on polls released over the past couple weeks, approve of Alito being confirmed by a ratio of 2-1. The filibuster is not a precious, noble rule. It is, by definition, undemocratic.

That said, bring it on. If the Democrats want to further alienate the centrists out there by proving they’re completely beholden to the far-left-tinfoil-hat-wearing moonbats, who am I to stop them? This is an election year, guys. People have short memories, but not that short.

I know that Republicans have used the filibuster as well. I still don’t like it. As far as I’m concerned, the nuclear option is completely justified.

I also know that, one of these days there will be a Supreme Court nominee who will be somewhere to the left of Cindy Sheehan (and not as bright) and the Senate will have a Democrat majority. Will I eat my words when there’s no way to filibuster that idiot? Probably…but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

OK, back to work I go.

An "evil" bank does good

- Sure, you can do it, but we ain't payin' for it...

Brief background: The Supreme Court made a HORRIBLE decision last year in the Kelo case. In short, your land can be taken by eminent domain and given to another private party IF the other party will use it in a way which will result in economic develpment. In other words, if Kroger wants to buy that little patch of woods behind my house to build a grocery store and my yard sits where they'd like to have a parking lot, no big deal. The city/county/state can offer to buy my property. If I refuse to sell, they can take it, via eminent domain, and turn around and sell it to Kroger (who will pay a whole lot more in taxes than I do). My lovely house and yard are now covered in asphalt.

Gotta hand it to BB&T. They say they won't finance such ventures. Almost feel like I should go and take out an account with them purely on principle. Good on 'em!

Maybe some of the other major banks out there (like mine) will follow suit.

That is all.

What so special about Germans eating night crawlers?

-Today in Religious History

485 years ago today, the Diet of Worms (Dee-ay of Verms) commenced. Most Protestants don’t realize the significance of this day, but, were it not for this, we’d likely still be praying to saints and laying out some cash for our salvation. A quick layman’s history (by someone who knows just enough to be dangerous):

About 488 years ago, a German priest named Martin Luther nailed up his thoughts about the direction the church was taking (the “95 theses”) on the church house door. It is assumed that he used the door as a forum because he did not have access to a blog, it being 1517 and all.

As is typical of most blog posts (at least, as is typical of my blog posts), his thoughts lacked “warm-and-fuzzies”; feelings the Catholic Church had become so accustomed to getting from its servants and congregation. They all tended to fall in line after it was made clear by the church that its process of counseling concerned or curious parishioners was pretty much limited to execution.

Luther’s 95 theses can be pretty much summed up as so:

“Salvation is not a fundraiser. Sure, the church can offer you absolution if you confess your sins, but charging you cash to pull you out of the grips of hell for your sins is a load of crap. That’s God’s job, and it doesn’t cost a thin dime…as long as you truly repent of your sins. If anyone from the church would like to have a civil discussion about this issue, have your people call my people. We’ll chat over punch and pie.”

The church declined the invitation and branded him a heretic…but they didn’t go out of their way to find him and barbecue him. I guess they figured that if they ignored him, he’d go away. He didn’t.

Over the next few years, Herr Luther went out and expressed his opinions to anyone who would listen. As is typical of us mere mortals, the more he talked, the more pissed he got and his simple disagreement with the church evolved into the proclamation that “Der Papst ain’t Scheiße”.

This little proclamation proved to be pretty popular with the unwashed masses and Luther was becoming a rock star, writing books and touring Europe. Unpleased over this development, the Pope formally excommunicated him, went to the Emperor and asked “Can you help a brutha out?” As a goodwill effort, the emperor called Luther down to the office.

Luther shows up in Worms and sits down before the assembly. He’s asked by the Pope’s representative if he will renounce all of his previous works. Calmly, Luther shakes his head, says he’s guided by Scripture, the Pope can pound salt, gives him the finger and walks out.

OK, maybe I’m exaggerating a little about giving him the finger.

Luther bails, and the assembly issued a pretty fierce edict that all of his writings are banned and that Luther should be killed on sight. He went into hiding until the heat died down. To kill some time, he translated the Bible into German. Once the heat died down, he went back on tour, in essence establishing a new school of religious thought which eventually gave birth to all of the protestant religions, thus proving a little heresy can be a good thing. Yea, Martin.

Here endeth our lesson.

This momentary interlude from politics-as-usual is brought to you by Delta House...

*

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Otter: Germans?

Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!

[runs out, alone; then returns]

Bluto: What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...

Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.

D-Day: Let's do it.

Bluto: LET'S DO IT!

Editors note: OK, so maybe it is a little political...

[Updated to adjust links]

Voter ID Law

Over the past two years, I’ve watched this issue be argued back and forth and, for the life of me, cannot see how, with a straight face, someone can compare this to the wholesale disenfranchisement of black voters that took place prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act or passage of the 15th, 19th or 24th amendments.

Bottom line: I am asked for my drivers license on almost a daily basis, as are most Americans. ID is required to puchase cigarettes and alcohol. In most stores, ID is required when using a credit card and is always required when you write a check. You have to show your ID to get on an airplane, get a hotel room, and, in some cases, to enter an R rated movie.

Although I’m not familiar with the processes involved, it would be a fair assumption that you would have to show ID in order to apply for state assistance, Social Security and the like.

I’m about to go and file my homestead exemption and, when I called the tax assessors office, they told me I had to bring an ID…just like I had to do when I registered my cars in this county.

If an ID is required for all of these daily activities, why is it unreasonable to be asked for an ID when you are about to exercise one of the greatest rights (and responsibilities) you possess as an American?

Based on a quick Google Search, at least 21 other states already have laws in place requiring an ID to vote...many of them are actually blue states Georgia is not breaking any new ground here. This new bill is actually making the process of getting an ID easier by ensuring that all counties have facilities to issue an ID and, further, makes them free of charge.

Passage of this bill creates a minor inconvenience for a small number of people who have the standing and the right to vote. It creates a SIGNIFICANT hurdle for those who do not have the right to vote and those who intend to commit voter fraud…whether they be Republican, Democrat or other.

This is not an attempt at disenfranchising the poor/old/minorities. It’s common sense.

There's nothing to see here...move along...

Sitting on a bookshelf in my living room is a picture of my wife, arm-in-arm, with a candidate for Texas Governor named George W. Bush. This picture was taken at some sort of event of which I know no details other than it was around 1994. The two of them look chummy.

Despite the fact that my wife and Mr. Bush lived on the same street for a number of years, have mutual acquaintences and had their picture taken together, I'm pretty confident that he would have no idea who she was were they to meet again today. I'm also pretty confident that these facts have exactly zero to do with any policy decisions made by Governor or President Bush respectively.

Accordingly, I'm not convinced that the pictures of Bush and Abramoff quite rise to the status of "smoking gun" as many seem to hope:

"Oh my GAWD! There's pictures of them together!! This PROVES that Bush accepted quid pro quo contributions from a corrupt lobbiest who has been linked to other Republicans! We've got him, fellas!!!! IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!"

Aww, maybe I'm just being silly...

Timely quote of the day

In the course of reading the most recent offering of the "G-File" from Jonah Goldberg, I came across a paragraph which, in light of my posts yesterday, are pretty timely.

"Rather, I think interest in conservatism has waned in recent years thanks to the more pressing issues of Islam and terrorism and the fact that — for good and for ill — conservatism has largely been defined for much of the last five years as "whatever George W. Bush does." To say this state of affairs has been vexing to some of us is an understatement on par with "haggis is an acquired taste."

Indeed...

Post 2 of 2 for the afternoon

See below for Post One:

This will be the republicans undoing


(includes a comic of Alito and Bush on a small elephant named “far-right” dragging a large elephant.…the large elephant is trying to “keep the little brat happy”)

Clay: “Just like the far left continues to undue the Democrats.

Statistics say America is ripe for the 3rd party. The question is not if but when on all counts”

Me: Count me in on the third (and even fourth) party. Republican is how I vote because they’re closer to my political ideology than the Democrats but they are certainly not a party that I’m happy with right now. I’m really tired of both sides of the aisle pandering to the more extreme elements of the party…especially since the more extreme elements have smaller numbers. I’d much rather us more moderate folks take back the existing parties and let the moonbats and wingnuts form their own parties. The Moonbats can rebrand Socialism and the wingnuts can create their own theocracy.

While we’re at it, let’s pass term limits for members of both the House and Senate and pass a Congressional demerit system which would have consequences for bad behavior.

That said, I take issue with one of the insinuations of the comic:

Bush’s nomination of Alito was an act of self-preservation, to be sure, but I don’t think it was pandering to the extreme right.

W found himself well outside the good graces of the majority of the people who voted for him, and as we’ve discussed, the majority of those of us who voted for him were NOT far-right wing.

On Clay’s comment board, I posted the following after Alito got the nomination:

“…Bush had no choice but to consult with prominent conservatives on the Alito pick because there was no way he was going to alienate his base again. The only conservatives who were happy with the Miers pick were those with a blind allegiance to GWB. Those of us (myself included) who already have issues with Dubya's brand of conservativism were ready to run him out on a rail. Ask my wife...after the Miers announcement, I told her that he'd pretty much lost me.

Why was I mad about the Miers pick?

A. Miers may be a brilliant corporate lawyer but there was no evidence that she was a constitutional scholar. Kinda difficult to believe that she was the best possible choice. Her resume consisted of being a Dallas City Councilwoman, running a law firm (which doesn't necessarily mean that she did much practicing of law at the time) and running the Texas Lottery Commission. While she, admittedly, has practiced law as White House Counsel for the past few years, she seems much more suited to a management position for some government agency than a seat on SCOTUS.

B. This whole thing just SMACKED of cronyism. Leave alone the fact that these two lived in the same North Dallas neighborhood for some time, there was a paper trail of their friendship that did not look good. After the Michael Brown/FEMA fiasco, the LAST thing we wanted to see was Bush nominate someone less than qualified to ANY position, let alone the Supreme Court. In the case of Miers, had it not been for her personal relationship with Dubya, she'd still be managing a law firm and living in Preston Hollow…”

I agree with the overall point of the comic, I just don’t think that Alito is the best example of the President pandering to the far-right.

With everything that’s going on, the Republican’s undoing will most likely be the Abramoff thing. That’s FAR uglier than NSA or Alito.

Just my $.02

Post 1 of 2 for the afternoon

My old buddy Clay has started blogging a little bit again.

Actually, he’s blogged several times over the past couple months, but his posts are usually sports or education related. I’m not qualified to speak to either of those subjects.. Politics, though, I can handle.

As is typical, our opinions tend to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, although there is some common ground there, I think. I’m linking to two of his posts today and am providing my dissents and affirmations of his positions below:

A picture is worth 1000 words

(includes a comic in which civil liberties literally takes a backseat to Bush and NSA “until we catch all the terrorists”)

Clay: “I am waiting for the right to begin screaming big over intrusive government. And don't say its ok because its a war on terror or my response is "slippery slope." Its the ludicrous side of the rights arguement. No government intrusion except on moral issues of our sides choosing - woman's choice, gay marriage but not guns...”

Me: Funny, I was waiting for the left to start calling for investigations over who leaked secret info which could jeopardize national security and intelligence efforts. As far as potential for damage goes, the Valerie Plame thing pales in comparison. I have a feeling we’ll both be waiting a LONG time.

But, being a member of the vast right-wing conspirators (albeit with some caveats), I’ll pitch in my two cents:

I’ve not posted about this situation up to this point because, to be honest, I’m just not that upset by it.

1. The laws being thrown out to support each side of the argument are both ambiguous and antiquated so I don’t believe this is a blatantly criminal act as the left contends.

2. The scope of this “spying”, from what I’ve read, was essentially limited to American citizens whose contact information had been found in the course of other counter-terrorism investigations. I’m sorry, but if you’ve been chatting it up with a member of al Queda, or some other terrorist group, I’m not going to shed many tears over your “civil rights” being violated.

3. Even the Democrats are admitting that, because of a tremendous amount of latitude given the chief executive by FISA, obtaining the warrants was procedural only. In fact, W. could have gone back to get the warrants days after the fact and been in compliance with FISA. Also notable is the fact that a handful of Democrats, by virtue of being members of the House Intelligence Committee, knew about this all along. If this was a nail in the coffin of our American Way of Life, why did they remain silent for several years until the New York Times broke the story?

I think that the position that this erodes the civil liberties of all Americans and opens the door for a police state is a far more slippery slope, in my humble opinion.

That said, “THE GOVERNMENT IS INTRUSIVE!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS INTRUSIVE”.

I would be more appropriately classified, politically, as a right leaning Federalist. By definition, I believe that the Federal Government is way more intrusive than they should be and think that you would need the tachometer from a Ferrari to accurately gauge the frequency in which our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Since the ratification of the Constitution, the Federal Government has managed to expand its role in ways I don’t believe our founders ever intended and has stomped all over state’s sovereignty.

This is why I (and many other true conservatives) believe that Roe was a bad decision and sincerely hope that there’s never a federal law passed (or, god forbid, a Constitutional Amendment) which allows or prohibits gay marriage. Morality, at least in the opinion of us right leaning, non-evangelicals, doesn’t enter into it.

Sometimes a cartoon is worth a thousand words

Cox and Forkum:

...Thus ensuring that Democrats will never win an election in the South again...

Let’s, for a moment, assume that the following statements are true:

1. While Republicans tend to have some concern over the environment, it has never been a significant part of the overall Republican platform;

2. Environmentalists have a vested interest in getting more Democrats in office as affords them a much better chance of getting their initiatives, without respect to their asininity in many cases, to be taken seriously;

3. NASCAR estimates a fan base of over 75 million people, most of whom are of voting age;

4. The majority of NASCAR fans reside in largely “red” states;

5. Each political party with a dog in the hunt in 2004 courted “NASCAR Dads” as they made up a significant voting block;

Assuming then that each of these were true, what kind of idiot would send a letter like this to the EPA?

Mr. Stephen Johnson
USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1101A
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I am writing to you about the need to monitor toxic lead emissions that could harm the health of people attending or living near NASCAR races.

As you probably know, the Clean Air Act exempts gasoline used in racing cars from the general ban on leaded gasoline.

The EPA reportedly has been working for several years in a “partnership” with NASCAR to encourage a voluntary phase-out of leaded gasoline. NASCAR reports to me that it has not yet found what it considers a suitable substitute.

Sincere NASCAR lead emissions are likely to continue unabated for the foreseeable future, I was struck by a passage in the recently published EPA draft criteria document for lead, in which EPA scientists note that “the combustion of racing fuel likely elevates airborne Pb concentrations in the nearby area. This may pose a serious health risk to some subpopulations such as residents living in the vicinity of racetracks, fuel attendants, racing crew and staff, and spectators.”

Separately, researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine recently reported that 40% of tested NASCAR team members had high levels of lead in their blood.

As the EPA itself has reported, lead causes damage to the kidneys, liver, brain and nerves, and other organs. Even low levels of lead damage the brain and nerves in fetuses and young children, resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ.

Because of the extraordinarily toxic nature of lead, most of the world has moved to eliminate its use in gasoline. The Washington Post reported earlier this month, for example, that all of sub-Saharan Africa has ended production of leaded gasoline.

Unfortunately, the health protections given to those in sub-Saharan Africa are not shared by children and others attending NASCAR events or living near race tracks.

Because EPA has determined that NASCAR lead emissions “may pose a serious health risk,” the agency should conduct a few simple tests to find out if that threat is real. And so I am requesting that, as you develop EPA’s new budget request to Congress, you include a request for appropriations to monitor for lead emissions at NASCAR race events. I am sure that a modest amount of money would either document the concerns raised by the agency, or put those concerns to rest.

Thank you for taking time to review this matter. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Frank O’Donnell
PresidentClean Air Watch

I'm not going to detail his piss-poor writing abilities, nor am I going to debate the science in this, although some of the claims are dubious at best. I will, however, point out a couple more facts to put this into perspective:

Until the early 1970s, almost every drop of gasoline sold was leaded and leaded gas was still fairly prominent even until my early teens. I remember the option being "Regular" or "Unleaded" throughout my childhood.

Today, our country consumes 360 million gallons of gasoline per day. Granted, we have more cars on the roads, but they’re much more fuel efficient so, just for fun, let’s say that we were burning 300 million gallons of leaded fuel per day in 1970 or 109.5 billion gallons per year. That’s a bunch of lead!

Using Atlanta Motor Speedway as a benchmark, NASCAR uses about 10,000 gallons on a race weekend (and there are three races here during each of those weekends).There are 36 race weekends per year, equaling 360,000 gallons. Add practice sessions each driver is allowed during the year, exhibition races, etc. and it’s fair to assume NASCAR uses approximately 500,000 gallons of leaded fuel per year.

Now, I ask, is it really worth alienating a significant portion of the overall population and losing political points you really cannot spare over annual lead emissions equal to 1 sixth of 1% of daily lead emissions 36 years ago?

To borrow from the letter: “As the EPA itself has reported, lead causes damage to the kidneys, liver, brain and nerves, and other organs. Even low levels of lead damage the brain and nerves in fetuses and young children, resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ.”

If Mr. O’Donnell is willing to take a political risk like this, I’d say it can only be attributed to all of the lead his body absorbed when he was a young child. If I were him, I'd get that liver and those kidneys checked out too.

Mad Cow

Two brief items this morning:

In follow-up to my post earlier this week, Ray Nagin has now apologized for blaming Katrina on God's wrath AND his "chocolate city" remarks. Sorta...

I do find his original explanation (from which he later backpedeled) for chocolate amusing:

"How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about,"

Well hell, Ray...I always liked a little Kahlua in my cocoa and a few Rice Krispies mixed in to give it a little extra texture. ..kinda like a "Krackle" bar. Had you thought about that, your explanation could've included the Mexicans and the Asians as well...one great big hot cocoa melting pot!

Item number two relates (to some extent) to the best show on TV...Boston Legal.

This morning I see on the news that Denny Crane himself (William Shatner) sold a kidney stone, passed by himself personally, to Golden Palace for $25,000, all proceeds going to charity.

Was it a case of Shatner's arrogance and vanity or was it a brilliant move to exploit the rabid celebrity mania so rampant in this culture? It's probably a combination of the two with an emphasis on the latter:

"I'm William Shatner, man....a legend! I'm Denny Crane...TJ Hooker. I was Kirk, for heavens sake! Why, I bet that I could fart in a jar and sell it for $100!"

"Well, Bill, let's test that theory. When you pass that stone you're working on, auction it off."

"BRILLIANT! Why, I'm sure some idiot trekkie would pay THOUSANDS for that!"

$25,000 for a crystalized hunk of calcium which passed though Shatner's urinary tract.

Good grief.

Dr. King's Legacy Lives On!

My comments, of course, in red:

New Orleans Mayor Says God Mad at U.S.Jan 16 4:51 PM US/Eastern

By BRETT MARTEL
Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS

Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day.

"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

I'm not quite getting the differentiation between "America" and "Black America." I guess, based on this statement, that "America" is everyone that's NOT black...the Asians, Latinos, Anglos, etc.

Well, thanks for sharing blame on this one, Ray. All this time, I just thought God was pissed with the white, yellow and brown folks. Glad to see that the black folks haven't gone unscathed.

Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina.

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans _ the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

A chocolate New Orleans? I'm flabbergasted. Beyond pointing out the obvious racial slur, no further comment is really necessary...

...or is that kind of a "nigga" thing? You can say it but if I did, I'd be deemed racist?

Nagin described an imaginary conversation with King, the late civil rights leader.

Are the voices in your head talking to you again, Ray?

"I said, `What is it going to take for us to move on and live your dream and make it a reality?' He said, `I don't think that we need to pay attention any more as much about other folks and racists on the other side.' He said, `The thing we need to focus on as a community _ black folks I'm talking about _ is ourselves.'"

Nagin said he also asked: "Why is black-on-black crime such an issue? Why do our young men hate each other so much that they look their brother in the face and they will take a gun and kill him in cold blood?"

The reply, Nagin said, was: "We as a people need to fix ourselves first."

Nagin also said King would have been dismayed with black leaders who are "most of the time tearing each other down publicly for the delight of many."

Kinda like when a group of black folks start pelting a black Republican with Oreos. You know...the whole black on the outside, white on the inside thing.

Actually, I can't fault the guy over this statement as he's spot-on. Just my opinion, but if MLK were to come back today, he'd be both amazed at how far blacks have come...especially in the South...but extremely dismayed over the fact that, overall, blacks are more responsible for victimizing blacks than whites are. Watch the news...how often do you hear about a white guy committing a drive-by? How often do you hear about white folks criticizing other white folks for "betraying their race" (see Oreo story above)?

A day earlier, gunfire erupted at a parade to commemorate King's birthday. Three people were wounded in the daylight shooting amid a throng of mostly black spectators, but police said there were no immediate suspects or witnesses.

Case in point.

I am, in now way, discounting the struggles that blacks faced up until the latter 20th century (I use the word "blacks" and should state now, for the record, that I refuse to use "African-Americans" for two reasons. 1. I don't refer to myself as a "German-Jewish-Irish-Scottish-White Trash-American", so I don't particularly recognize qualifiers in my label nor anyone elses, AND, 2. Because I grew up in South Florida, I know for a fact that Bahamians, Jamaicans, Haitians, etc., HATE to be referred to as "African"). I can't fathom the black experience (of the older and departed generations) and genuinely regret the suffering they went through.

In fact, since Nagin specifically mentions Iraq, I find it strange that he is so opposed to the Iraq War. Had the US not fought a war to "liberate the slaves", they'd still be picking cotton.

I'll be the first to admit that the US intentions were not so noble in Iraq...we were looking for WMDs...liberation of the Iraqis was secondary. Similarly, the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union...the liberation of slaves was secondary. Sometimes the ends justifies the means, Ray.

Bottom line, it's time for our prominent black leaders...as well as the rest of the community...to join our (the rest of America) reindeer games. It's not a matter of acting white...it's a matter of assimilating into a community of people who share a homeland, share an economy and share, for the most part, a culture.

Blacks are responsible for Rock and Roll, Cajun cooking, Hip-Hop and many other things that whites (and Asians, and Latinos, etc.) have embraced. It seems to me (and, I'm sure, based on my Southern, White pedigree, this could come off as racist), that if the black community could manage to bring it's wisdom, it's creativity and ingenuity to the table, while losing the chip on it's shoulder AND embracing those things which are "American", we'd be much closer to MLK's dream than we are today.

Just a thought...

Big Bad Dad as Movie Reviewer

For the first time in a while, the wife and I decided to rent some movies over the weekend:

"Dukes of Hazzard" was hysterical, altough the characters in the movie in no way resembled those in the TV show. In my humble opinion, the characters in the movie were much truer to many of the rednecks I've known in my life...

1. Boss and Rosco were corrupt (as they were in the TV show), but their characters were much more malicious in the movie.

2. Bo and Luke were still the good guys but much of their interaction was geared towards practical jokes and pranks on each other. Bo was much more the "Hey, y'all, watch this!" kinda feller.

3 Uncle Jesse still provided sage advise to his boys but it was in the form of jokes and one-liners. Willie Nelson was off-the-hook in this movie. He had, undoubtedly, some of the funniest lines.

4. Cooter was full-out white trash...which is really what you would expect a greasemonkey in a small southern town to be. No wonder Ben Jones got his panties into such a twist when this movie came out.

5. Finally, Daisy was a blonde. Otherwise, there were few differences between TV Daisy and Movie Daisy...

The reviews of the movie, of course, sucked, but I don't believe that the producers and director were aiming for that "Best Movie" Oscar. The poor reviews, in my opinion, were more a reflection on the reviewers themselves. I've watched plenty of critically acclaimed films and, nine times out of ten, would prefer a movie which caters to the lowest common denominator with lots of fart humor, fast cars and Jessica Simpson in shorty-shorts.

Also caught "Havoc". My review would be something like this:

"A scathing indictment of over-privledged kids in Southern California, Havoc explores the lives of wealthy teenagers and their struggle to create new identities for themselves which are in diametric opposition to those identities which are so often assigned to children of their particular socio-economic station.

Turning their backs on "white culture", these children assume an urban persona, comprised of ghetto clothing, gansta rap and a manner of speech that could best be defined as "Eminem Ebonics".

The film takes a dramatic turn when our protagonists seek the acceptance of those whom they emulate; lower middle class hispanics who, because of societies prejudices, have turned to a life of crime."

OK, even I can't keep up this line of crap...

It's a straight-to-video release that I only rented because I knew Anne Hathaway (previously of "The Princess Diaries") got her fun bags out...several times.

Turns out it wasn't all that bad. It's kind of like a "Less Than Zero" for today's generation.

Wedding Crashers is next. That is, once I can wrestle the television away from my 2 year-old. It's a holiday and there's a Dora and Diego marathon going on.

Last Alito post for a while...maybe...

I think this is going to be my last Alito post for the time being , barring any significant developments, as this this goose is cooked. If you listen carefully, you can hear Mama Cass singing “I Did It My Way” from the heavens.

In addition to their bloviating, the Democrats made some bad strategic moves…most notably being Kennedy’s demand for Rusher’s files (they’ve been reviewed and guess what they found….that’s right, nothing.).

The fatal blow to the Democrats came late in the afternoon when Alito’s wife cried and walked out of the room after Lindsey Graham apologized for all of the groundless accusations and name-calling over the past couple days. Ms. Alito was truly trying to be discreet (as evidenced by her quietly leaving the room) but every media outlet has picked up on this “human element” to the story and is beaming it out to the world.

The Democratic message boards and blogs this morning are being particularly vicious to her….a sure sign that they realize that it’s over.

I sympathize with Ms. Alito for one reason:

I have a VERY thick skin. In my professional life (and, on occasion, my personal life), I have been called some of the most wretched names people could come up with. More often than not, I actually puff up my chest and smile a little when that happens because it either means I’ve pushed a button, I’ve won or both. On those occasions when those insults are directed at my integrity or intelligence, it doesn’t matter how angry I get, you’ll never see it. I’m not giving you the satisfaction.

That said, if you ever say anything even remotely negative about my wife, child, parents, siblings etc., or wrong them in any way in my presence, I immediately make it my priority in life to destroy you. And there have been occasions when the peak of my anger has manifested itself in tears.

So, I get Ms. Alito. She’s just spent the past three days listening to her husband being called a woman-hating, lying racist…things he clearly isn’t. Rather than leaping over tables and inflicting bodily injury on these guys, she cried. Bully for her. I admire her restraint.

Of course, the stakes would’ve been entirely too high for her to lose it, so I guess the restraint issue is not so much a matter of personal strength, but a matter of self-preservation.

“Honey, I appreciate you coming to my defense but I really had the confirmation locked until you shoved Kennedy’s Mont Blanc up his nether regions and gave him a wedgie.”

It’s so bad that Biden has even said that he thinks confirmation hearings, as a whole, should be scrapped as they’re completely ineffective. All nominees should just be brought to the Senate for an up-or-down vote.

While I disagree with his reasoning, I think the idea itself is spot on.

Almost as fun as watching paint dry...

Over the span of 8+ hours, Democrats have managed to ask the following questions:

1. Why didn't you recuse yourself from Vanguard like you promised 15 years ago?

2. Why were you a member of a racist, mysogenistic, xenophobic group if you're not a racist, mysogenist or xenophobe?

3 Why won't you give a straight answer on whether or not you would overturn Roe (although we all know you would)?

Unfortunately, Alito has had to answer these same three questions over and over again for the past 8+ hours.

This guy has the patience of Job. I found myself yelling at the TV, feeding him the answers he should give:

1. I made a mistake! When I realized my mistake, I fixed it by having the case re-heard by a different panel...which came up with the same decision I did before I realized I screwed up! My bad. Move on.

2. I answered the f&@(ing telephone one evening and it was an alumni group asking for cash! Princeton pissed me off because of the ROTC thing so I ponied up. I didn't know that a couple of their members wrote some unflattering articles! Had I known, I wouldn't have kicked in! Again, my bad. It's no more a reflection of me than Ted's Nazi Dad is on him.

3. What part of "I'm not answering a question which may come before my court" do you not understand, asshole? You idiots keep saying stupid crap like "settled law" and "super-duper precedent" on the a far-overreaching decision that only passed with a 5-4 majority and is still being debated on both sides of the aisle. THEN you have the audacity to compare it to Brown v. Board of Education? Go screw yourself.

Durbin just took the floor and is now asking about unitary executive theory. Yet another stupid question (as referenced earlier, testing the impeachment waters) but at least it's a change of pace.

This guy has been a Federal Appeals Justice for the past 15 years and has decided (or dissented) from thousands of opinions. His decisions and dissents would be a pretty strong indicator as to how he would decide cases in the future. But somehow, the Democrats can't get past a mistake, a 20 year old job application or abortion.

Once cool thing that happened: Kennedy's bluff got called. The guy who wrote the papers Kennedy wanted to subpoena were released before Specter even got a chance to think about it. Stalling tactic is shot, as is the fillibuster possibility Teddy was counting on.

The wife and kid are on their way home. Time to order some Chinese.

Ted Kennedy Hates Jews

I paid little attention to the hearings until Teddy-Boy came on.

He hammered on Vanguard and CAP only. Never mentioned anything about Alito's decisions, dissents etc (things which would reasonably be considered in a confirmation hearing), but went straight to character assassination. Labeled him a liar because of the Vanguard issue and a racist because he belonged to CAP.

By this logic, Ted Kennedy can reasonably be assumed to hate Jews because his family (specifically his father) was sympathetic to Hitler in the 30's.

Has Kennedy ever commented about Robert Byrd's LEADERSHIP in the Klan?

Now Kennedy wants to subpoena papers from the Library of Congress of one of the founding members of CAP, despite the fact that there is zero evidence of Alito's active involvement in the group, let alone any allegation that Alito was involved in founding that group. What on earth could Kennedy be thinking?

Easy answer: he's sowing the seeds for a fillibuster. Specter is not going to agree to a subpoena and, if he doesn't, the Republican-dominated committee will not vote for such. Kennedy will use that to prove that the committee was denied full disclosure of Alito's background...never mind that these papers will have nothing to do with Alito's background.

Kennedy is the primary reason I believe Congress should be subject to term limits. Idiot.

Alito/Impeachment feasability hearings, day 2

Just a quick thought.

Listenting to Leahy talk about the unitary executive theory leads me to believe that he's testing the waters for the possibility of W's impeachment.

Of course, I could be wrong.

"Go Alito, it's your birthday, get stupid, Whoa-Oh!"

Working from home today so I'm getting to watch a little of the Alito hearings on C-Span. Takeaways so far:

1. Leahy elbows his way into the scene when Specter gave the floor to Durbin. He's concerned about "inconsistencies" and unanswered questions from yesterday. Specifically mentions Vanguard (which Biden just said yesterday was "malarkey").

I'm no master debater, Leahy, but common sense says that you let Alito speak for a while. If he's lying or being inconsistent, give him enough rope to hang himself.

Pure posturing. Nothing else.

2. Durbin attempts to link Roe to Griswold and Brown and is disappointed that Alito won't bite on the Roe question. Alito handled it well...Griswold and Brown will never come before the court again so he's free to discuss them. Roe probably will. Roberts did the same thing. Good job.

Brings up CAP. Leave it alone. It's a non-issue.

Uses Springsteens "Crushing Hand of Fate" as an analogy for Alito's rulings against the little guy. Thanks for the pop culture reference. Alito handled his responses well.

Goes back to Roe. Repeats the lie that overturning Roe will criminalize abortion. Ugh.

3. Brownback's statement is boring. All cheerleading. Now Coburn is on and it'll continue to be boring for the next 30 minutes.

The Democrats will go into attack mode in Round 2 as they managed to draw no real blood yesterday. I think they're all disappointed that Alito didn't sprout horns, call Feinstein a "c*%t" and start spouting racist slurs while threatning death to abortionists in Round 1.

Pity.

Big Bad Dad as Legal Scholar

I am not, nor have ever been, a law student for one major reason. Despite the fact that I’m intrigued by law, I hated school. Any desire I ever had to become a lawyer was outweighed by my inability to go to school any longer than I had to.

My legal credentials are limited to a professional designation relating to regulatory compliance and 14 years experience in a job which requires a strong knowledge of law and the ability to do some legal research. Several attorneys I’ve worked with over the years have tried to recruit me into positions underneath them. I still haven’t ruled out furthering my education in the legal field.

Despite having very little legal education, there are several observations from the Alito hearings I feel sufficiently qualified to discuss:

1. Roe v. Wade is the litmus test by which all justices are judged for a good reason. Never before has such a poorly decided opinion been viewed as so important. If a state passes a law prohibiting a practice which it believes is contrary to its community standards, how does a made-up “constitiutuional right to privacy” trump the state’s ability to pass a law which is in the best interests of its citizens?

How would this then not also apply to a state’s ability to determine its own age of consent laws?

In addition, it was decided on equal protection grounds, later upheld by Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Equal protection for whom? The latter case specifically struck down spousal notification requirements, thereby infringing on the rights of all would-be fathers to be involved in the decision.

Pro-choicers would have you believe that overturning Roe v. Wade would make all abortion illegal and would relegate the fairer sex to back alleys and clothes hangers.

Uh…no, it wouldn’t.

It would allow the individual states the ability to establish their own abortion laws consistent with the standards and values of the community. Some states may well abolish abortion but most would not.

A precedent is a precedent is a precedent. There is no such thing as a “superprecedent” nor a “super-duper precedent”. Never before has a court decision been stamped with a great big “S” across the front. Arlen Spector should stop making up legal jargon.

Speaking of Spector, he needs to get off this stare decicis obsession. Sure, it’s a good idea in some cases but if it was the law of the land, Plessy v. Ferguson would’ve never been overturned and the the south would continue to be segregated.

A lawyer is hired to represent his client.and will make any arguments necessary to bolster his client’s position…whether he agrees with that position or not. As was the case with Roberts, the Democrats are attempting to use his analyses, written for his clients, against him. Move on. Concentrate on his opinions when he was supposed to be impartial, not when he was being paid to be partial.

Speaking of his opinions, it’s generally not a good idea to trash him on his dissents when said dissent was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court later.

Conference call is over. Gotta go back to work.

Criminals are judged by a jury of their peers...

- Supreme Court Nominees aren't so lucky...


Saw a write-up this morning which included an old trial lawyer’s saying:

If you’ve got the facts behind you, argue the facts. If you’ve got the law behind you, argue the law. If you have neither, baffle them with bullshit.”

I’ll be the first to admit that Republicans are sucking right now for a wide variety of reasons that I may get into later. However, Democrats have reached a level of suckitude unprecedented in my lifetime. This too is for a wide variety of reasons but I will limit myself to one specific issue. Samuel Alito.

Alito’s confirmation hearings began yesterday and each member of the judiciary committee was given an opportunity to bloviate ad nauseum about why Mr. Alito would or wouldn’t be a good Supreme Court Justice.

Dick Durbin included the following in his opening statement:

“As a government lawyer, you pushed a policy of legislative construction designed to make congressional intents secondary to presidential intent. You wrote, and I quote, "The president will get in the last words on questions of interpretation," close quote.”

The “policy” Durbin refers was actually a memo, commissioned by the Reagan administration, which provided an opinion on Presidential Signing Statements. Apparently, the Gipper wanted to test the waters on whether or not he and his successors would be able to provide their own interpretation of legislation when it crossed his desk.

Like any good lawyer, Alito’s memo included some forward-thinking statements regarding obstacles associated with this position. Under the heading “Congressional Relations”; he wrote:

“In addition, and perhaps most important, Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation.”

On New Years Eve, we had some friends over to bring in the new year with a few fizzy libations and some games After enjoying a few drinks, I beat my wife and her friend in a game of NTN trivia by 3000 points.

According to Mr. Durbin, this could just as accurately be interepreted as “After enjoying a few drinks, I beat my wife.”

Then we come to my favorite Senator, Ted “I’m-all-for-women-unless-I-happen-to-kill-one” Kennedy who said:

“No, really, I wasn’t trying to sober up, I just forgot that I left her there 12 hours earlier…”

OK, he didn’t say that at the hearing. What he really said was:

"Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job"

Maybe he didn’t write any, but he’s ruled in favor of a person of color on at least 4 occasions when the decision was written by a different justice.

Since I’m in such an analogy mood today:

I pay most of my bills online, so I haven’t written a check for a credit card bill in four years.

By WC Fields…I mean…Kennedy’s logic that means I haven’t paid a credit card bill in 4 years because I don’t write out checks.

Republicans have been branded as the party who doesn’t care about Joe Six-Pack.

Well, Joe, the Democrats think you’re stupid. They’re counting on it. It’s easy to tell such deliberate lies to the unwashed masses if they’re not smart enough to catch you. And the mainstream media is complicit in this as I have yet to see a major news outlet call Durbin or Kennedy out. They’re standing in the lobby, kicking a foot around, looking at the sky and whistling. Meanwhile, the blog revolution continues to grow.

Prior to yesterday, I was fairly apathetic about Alito. Now, I’m a cheerleader.

These confirmation hearings, and the behavior of the Democrats therein, is further proof that they are shaking in their boots…and well they should be. 2000, 2002 and 2004 were not kind to them and their only platform for 2006 is to destroy Republicans. So far, it’s not working for them as the polls show:

1. Bush’s approval ratings are inching up, not down.

2. The majority of Americans support the Alito confirmation;

3. The majority of Americans are just not that upset about the Democrat’s pet causes of the day (NSA wiretapping, Abramoff, etc.).

It’s just an opinion, but this Alito confirmation is going to backfire on them. I’m looking forward to seeing if I’m right.

You can't make this stuff up...

Ted Kennedy is about to release a children's book.

The name of his dog?

"Splash"

Once again, to quote James Taranto: Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

You're the end of the rainbow, my pot of gold, you're Daddy's little girl to have and to hold...

After I moved to Atlanta, one of my greater disappointments was losing access to The Howard Stern Show. For many years, I listened to Howard, Robin and the rest of the crew every morning. Most of the time, I was able to catch all 4 hours of the show. It was tuned in on my alarm clock and car stereo and I always kept a radio in my office so that I could catch the rest of the show.

Unfortunately, Atlanta has, perhaps, the worst radio line-up in the country. The only decent morning show is “The Regular Guys” and I usually listened to them on my morning commute. Unfortunately, they were thrown off the radio for one year because of a stunt gone bad. It was around this time that I installed an XM satellite radio in my car.

Satellite radio is, unquestionably, one of the greatest things to happen to cars since electronic fuel injection and 4 valves per cylinder.

Unfortunately, my old buddy Howard signed up with the OTHER satellite service and I have no access to his show. ‘Tis a shame as I’d love to hear if he addressed this situation at all.

Howard’s oldest daughter Emily has apparently, for the past several weeks, been performing in a stage play in which she spends 10 minutes wearing nothing but a spotlight. She dropped out when her identity became public. Not quickly enough, apparently, as clips of her (non-nude but very crude) performance are making the rounds. In fact, Opie and Anthony (XM Morning guys) are now using this clip as part of a contest.

You’ve gotta love the irony of this. A man who has made a career out of exploiting women is now upset because his own daughter has put herself in a position to be exploited by other men…men not unlike himself.

Karma is a bitch. And, being aware of this fact, please let me take a moment to apologize to any woman I ever treated badly from age 10 until age 28. Although I’m certain some cretin is going to treat my daughter badly at some point in her life, I hope that those occurrences are kept to a minimum.

One parting thought:

If Emily had no problem being au naturel in front of hundreds (possibly thousands) of people, why would she be so upset at the prospect of nekkid pictures of her being in cyberspace? Personally, I’ve found that being in the presence of real live hooties is infinitely more titillating than a picture.

Probably comes down to cash. The theatergoers paid to see her in all her glory.

Ten-to-one she has a layout and a million bucks in her pocket within the next 6-9 months. Daddy’s little girl indeed.

It's 2006...

-doesn't feel any different...

Last day of vacation and it's back to work tomorrow. Ugh.

Trip home was fine and I'm very glad to have the wife and kid back to myself again. After two weeks of sharing them, I started to feel a little territorial.

Downloaded a trial version of Pinnacle Studio and am currently trying to burn a rough edit of the Christmas videos onto DVD. If this works well, I'll go out (maybe this afternoon) to buy the actual unrestricted software. My first edit was fun, but it's certainly time consuming. Oh well...I needed a new hobby. At least this one is more productive than playing PS2.

Keeping this one short. In addition to the video editing, I'm spending the day having some Daddy/Daughter time while Mom works. I think the kid is about 20 minutes away from losing interest in Dora the Explorer so I should be prepared to keep her entertained. I wonder if she'd enjoy a trip to Best Buy?