Cynical Nation

Don't get any ideas, Val.

Russians are queueing up in hordes to have images of President Vladimir Putin tattooed onto their bodies.
...
Josef Radimov, from Omsk city, said he had decided to get a tattoo of Putin's face on his shoulder because it made him feel safe.

He said: "Having a tattoo of President Putin is very fashionable at the moment - all my friends have them.

"Being able to look down at my shoulder and seeing our President there all the time makes me feel more confident and safe."

Posted by BNJ at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Well okay, he's not in jail, so I guess that's not really necessary. He did, however, lose his job as a talk show host for comments he made regarding Islam.

I've followed Michael's career for years, ever since he was doing The Usual Suspects in South Carolina where I used to live. He's no stranger to this kind of controversy, having been fired from a gig at Charlotte's WBT following an unfortunate comment made in the wake of the Columbine massacre. Having been down this road before, surely Michael saw this step as a distinct possibility.

Now look, ABC Disney has a perfect right to fire him if that's what they want to do. What disturbs me more than the loss of one man's radio job is a political environment in which a particular religion is immune to criticism, no matter how many atrocities are committed at the hands of its adherents.

Read Michael's column that started the whole thing. It's provocative, sure. Controversial, sure. But its substance is disturbingly difficult to refute. Tired, meaningless PC platitudes about Islam being a "religion of peace" simply don't cut it anymore.

Look, we all know there are many peaceful practicing Muslims who are appalled by what's being done in the name of their religion. But the undeniable fact is that a significant portion of Muslims at least tacitly condone this barbarism, as recent polls have indicated.

I disagree with Graham's assertion that Islam is a "terror organization," but it is a religion that's defiled by a cancer of hatred, a cancer that is growing and metastasizing. The existence of extremist fanatics may not invalidate an entire faith, but we also can't pretend that the religion itself doesn't have a serious problem. And we can't even begin to correct that problem unless and until we can engage in a frank and honest dialogue on the matter. Unfortunately, in today's climate, that doesn't seem possible.

Posted by BNJ at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Earlier this week I posted a link to an ABC news story cataloging the accomplishments the Bush Administration has been able to rack up while the Democrats were preoccupied with fitting Karl Rove for his noose. I guess you can now add a Senate bill to protect gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits. Even the New York Times is noticing that for a lame duck, George W. Bush isn't particularly lame.

Posted by BNJ at 09:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Check out this transcript of Nancy Pelosi's press conference yesterday. She was pissed off that the defection of 15 or so House Democrats helped get CAFTA passed, and accused Republicans of vote-buying.

Q Can you elaborate, Madame Leader, on some of the offers that were made to Democrats that you know about?

REP. PELOSI: No.

Q In which case -- it's a pretty serious charge, that you're saying some of them didn't pass legal muster to you.

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

Q You're saying that -- that Republicans were trying to bribe Democrats?

REP. PELOSI: I didn't use the word bribe.

Q Well, you said it wasn't legal.

REP. PELOSI: I said that offers were made that were, in my view, questionable. And I know that they would be at a cost to the taxpayers. And I say that without any hesitation.

Q But that's a very serious charge.

REP. PELOSI: It is.

Q Could you just -- could you just give us the specifics of what you've heard?

REP. PELOSI: No, I'm not going to. I'm telling you, and -- why don't you go ask the Republicans or the White House what they were offering people? They would know best; they're the ones who were making the offers. I think that this has to stop. We have to stop the Republican rip-off of the legislative process on Capitol Hill. It has to stop now...

Q Madame Leader, I'm sorry to belabor this point, but it is -- let me see how to phrase this -- is there a difference between horse trading and federal violation regarding offering something of value for somebody's vote?

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

Q There's got to be a difference, right?

REP. PELOSI: Yeah. There is.

Q So now you're beyond just the normal give and take of --

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

Q I don't see how you can just lay that out there without giving us the specifics --

REP. PELOSI: Well, I just did. But I just did.

Q Is that fair, though? Is that the way you would like to be treated?

REP. PELOSI: That's the way we are treated. That's the way we are treated.

Q Are you going to pursue any sort of ethics complaint --

REP. PELOSI: I may. I may. I may. Not me, but those who have the information may. But these are the kinds of things that are very hard to prove if the deal is not consummated. That doesn't mean the deal wasn't offered. And it really -- because they have a poverty of arguments in favor of CAFTA, they have to resort to these extraordinary means.

Posted by BNJ at 08:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Much is being made over Bill Frist's decision to support enhanced federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The truth is that the GOP was never of one mind on this issue, but Frist's departure from Bush policy will highlight the Republicans' internal debate and bring it into sharp focus.

I think this is a good thing. I personally know more people who voted against Bush because of stem cells than because of the war in Iraq. Granted, some of this is due to the fact that Bush's opponents have been allowed to spin Bush policy as a "ban," but there is still widespread agreement that current guidelines are too restrictive.

Interestingly, I get more heat from libertarians than social conservatives for my support of ESC research. I understand a libertarian case can be made against funding such endeavors, but let's be honest, that's not what's going on here. The libertarian argument isn't even on the radar. So long as federal funding of basic biotech research is a fact of life (and it is) I support funding those areas in proportion to the promise they show in treating disease. That, in addition to the political reasons, is why I'd like to see Frist come out the winner on this one.

Posted by BNJ at 08:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Scott Kirwin has an interesting post on mixed marriages. Politically mixed, that is.

There are serious benefits to a Liberal/Conservative marriage. First and foremost it keeps both of us from the extremes. If she comes home with some barking moonbat piece of tripe, I can usually shoot it down before she has wasted too much time on it or worse, come to believe it herself. Likewise I can sound an idea or an opinion off her and get her candid take on it before going public with it - thereby applying a level of rigor to what might otherwise have been a stupid idea or opinion. Secondly we can intellectually spar with one another, thereby keeping our ideas fresh and perhaps even (gasp) changing them. Finally, when we're together we can handle issues and situations using our different perspectives. Because of her liberal nature she can be much more open with salesmen than I can be. If the salesman takes advanatage of her openness, I can step in and bitch-slap him into submission without any regard for his feelings or the validity of his opinions. Needless to say the "Good cop - Bad cop" routine comes in quite handy when dealing with disputes with retailers and service providers.

It sounds like Scott's experience, as mine, has been mostly positive. I do think my wife and I tend to moderate one another, but unlike in Scott's household (interestingly) it's my wife who's a hardass in dealing with annoying people, and I'm usually the pushover unless things get really bad.

I'm also learning that relationships such as ours are a bit more unusual than I used to think. I can't think of a single one of my friends who's in the same boat, for example.

If you're in a mixed relationship, we'd like to hear your stories here at Cynical Nation, good or bad. You can do so anonymously. Step right up for True Confession Hour!

Posted by BNJ at 04:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Fer Christ's sake, I can't believe I actually have to post this.

When I first saw this early this morning via Atrios I just laughed. What other appropriate response is there?

But I'll be damned if it isn't being linked on every moonbat site in the world, in addition to being the subject of about fifty threads on the Democratic Underground.

Apparently some people think Bush flipped off reporters before a meeting with Congress yesterday:

Look, here's me giving a thumb's-up sign:

Now here's me flipping a bird (aren't cell phone cameras great?):

Shrink these puppies down, and tell me which you think more closely matches Bush's hand in this vidcap.

Honestly, people, this is just embarrassing. In one short year, we've gone from "Bush lied, people died!" to "Ooh! Teacher! Little Georgie made a naughty sign!! Ooh!" Ah well, such is the paucity of substance for many of Bush's critics, I guess.

And speaking of Atrios, this seems to be something of a theme for him of late. This morning he also posted a clip showing Tucker Carlson to be a "potty mouth." Now how's that for irony? Duncan Black calling Tucker Carlson a "potty mouth." I know, I know, it's about the "hypocrisy," right?

It's going to be a looooooong three years and three-and-a-half months.

Posted by BNJ at 03:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

All right, I'm normally skeptical of moonbat conspiracies that view every single phenomenon in the observable universe as part of a Karl Rove-orchestrated conspiracy. I've got to say, though, that the whole notion of a Plamegate Rove-a-dope is looking more and more plausible all the time.

Consider:

• The MSM is beginning to shift focus away from Rove as the original source of the Plame leak.
  
• It's a White House M.O. to allow Bush's critics to whale away against the president ad nauseum, so long as they're reasonably assured the assaults won't ultimately amount to anything substantial.
  
• What little, tantalizing information we have about Rove's involvement, that has kept this story alive for weeks, came to us because Rove himself signed a waiver of confidentiality.
  

If the Bush White House weren't so completely distracted by the Wilson leak investigation, perhaps the President would be able to actually get something done -- besides sign CAFTA, the highway bill, and the energy bill into law; read all the improving economic figures; celebrate his still-bullet-proof Supreme Court nomination; and continue along semi-stealthily on 2006 fundraising and candidate recruitment.

And if the Democrats weren't so sure that a one-sentence party platform ("Karl Rove should be in jail.") was a sure winner, perhaps they would Notice that the Republican majority is likely to get at least some credit with voters for passing these laws; that the Bill Clinton Democratic Party of free trade just might have been dead and buried shortly after midnight; and that the AFL thing -- along with the America Coming Together thing, along with the DNC thing -- leaves the party with some serious money and organization questions.

I'm still not completely sure I believe in the Plamegate Rove-a-dope. My biggest problem with the theory is that it seems to have worked too well. I mean, no one can really be that adroit at manipulating their enemies....

Can they?

Posted by BNJ at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

CAFTA passed the House in a squeaker, and Will Franklin observes that the vote adhered much more closely to party lines than did the NAFTA vote of a dozen years ago.

His chart is interesting, but I'm not really sure that it represents an actual realignment on the issue of trade, or merely reflects the differences you would expect given that NAFTA was pushed by a Democratic president and CAFTA by a Republican.

(Hat tip: Glenn)

Posted by BNJ at 08:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I thought the GOP was supposed to be the party of sex-phobic priggishness. But last week saw Hillary Clinton call for a federal investigation of a video game, because of sexual content that can't even be accessed in the retail version (the cop shooting, car stealing and drug use in the game presumably don't warrant senatorial attention.)

And now, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is sponsoring a bill to implement a 25% "porn tax" and mandatory age verification for websites with adult content. The Senate bill's co-sponsors are:

Tom Carper (D-Del.)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)
Ken Salazar (D-Colo.)
Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)
Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

I don't even know what to say. As of today, there's still a scant handful of issues on which I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans. That handful seems to be diminishing on a near-daily basis, however.

Posted by BNJ at 08:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I could've told them this.

People who illegally share music files online are also big spenders on legal music downloads, research suggests.

Digital music research firm The Leading Question found that they spent four and a half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans.
...
"The research clearly shows that music fans who break piracy laws are highly valuable customers," said Paul Brindley, director of The Leading Question.

"It also points out that they are eager to adopt legitimate music services in the future."

"There's a myth that all illegal downloaders are mercenaries hell-bent on breaking the law in pursuit of free music."

Posted by BNJ at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

If nothing in his paper trail is found to disqualify him, it won't be because the New York Times didn't try.

In a proposed response to a letter from Gov. Bob Graham of Florida about the disposition of Cuban refugees from the Mariel boatlift of 1980, he repeatedly misspelled Marielitos (writing "Marielitoes") and rendered the capital of Cuba three times as "Havanna."

Posted by BNJ at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I agree with Ted Rall. Not when he calls the Federalist Society a "far-right cadre of scary college kids who worship Ayn Rand, dress like Tucker Carlson and care deeply about your sex life," but a few grafs further down, when he says this:

In a sick way, the end of Roe v. Wade may turn out to be a net positive for America. For one thing, Roe was a legally dubious decision based on flawed constitutional logic. Rather than pass abortion rights into law, 14 cowardly congresses and seven weasely presidents have relied on the 1973 ruling to avoid taking political fire from the Bible-thumpers.

Posted by BNJ at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

All right, I'll be the first to admit that Doonesbury can be occasionally offensive, and, more to the point, has not been remotely funny even once during the past two decades. But can anyone explain to me why this particular strip got pulled?

Posted by BNJ at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Please indulge me this one post. I love music, jazz in particular. And I've just listened to one of the best pianists to come along in a very long time.

His name is Eldar Djangirov and he is an 18 year old prodigy from Krgyzstan. This kid is simply amazing. His debut album is arrangements of standards by Herbie Hancock, Monk and others. If you enjoy traditional jazz piano, you have to add this recording to your collection, it's worth every penny.

I can't wait to see where he takes his music next.

Posted by CRB at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Posted by CRB at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I guess Egypt shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Oh wait, they didn't. I wonder how the George Galloways of the world are going to explain this one.

Posted by BNJ at 09:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

All right, I'm now officially bored beyond tears with the increasingly desperate attempts by Josh Marshall and others to cobble together something resembling an actual scandal in this whole Valerie Plame nonsense.

In the beginning, we were led to expect a tale of high treason -- a deliberate and coordinated White House plot to destroy the cover of American secret agents during wartime, simply to settle a score with the president's enemies. Karl Rove would be shown to be the Rosenbergs, Benedict Arnold and Alger Hiss rolled into one. A ten-blowjob scandal on the Treacher scale, if you will.

Having fallen ridiculously short of that goal, the Rove lynch mob is now frantically but tediously parsing mind-numbing minutiae in their pathetic attempts to spin it into at least a half-blowjob scandal as opposed to a zero-blowjob scandal. I just can't watch the spectacle anymore. It would be grotesque if it weren't so embarrassing.

I'm done with it. Wake me up if they actually come up with anything.

Posted by BNJ at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

The Volokh Conspiracy has a roundup of posts on Hayek. It's fascinating stuff, but I'll admit that some of it is over my head. A lot of it has to do with whether the recent phenomena of blogs and open-source software could properly be considered Hayekian information-processing mechanisms. The debate seems to center on the centralization and decentralization of knowledge, and whether centralized systems emerge as a consequence of intentional as opposed to unintentional decentralized decision making.

I guess I need to think about that one some more. Meanwhile, I remain convinced that Hayek's greatest contribution to Western civilization was her role in Desperado. Smokin'.

Posted by BNJ at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Has anyone else ever been to one of those places where they put ice in the urinals? What's up with that? Is it just because it's fun to pee on ice or is there some higher purpose involved?

Posted by BNJ at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Sounds like Australia's prime minister has little patience for those "they attacked us because we fought back" arguments. Thanks to K-Lo for the transcript.

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

Posted by BNJ at 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I haven't posted about this yet because it's breaking news, and I'm just sitting here reading the same sources as everything else.

I will point out this, though. Although not always reliable in the past, Debka proved an excellent source of nearly instant news and analysis during the first wave of bombings two weeks ago. Today they seem poised to follow up. I read about the arrest in front of Blair's office there long before it showed up on BBC, for example.

Anyway, for what it's worth.

Posted by BNJ at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I'm getting the impression that the whole Kyoto debate will soon be moot. At this rate, how long can it be before there is no real agreement to join? Now Canada is becoming disillusioned.

A team of officials responsible for a key part of the Kyoto implementation plan has been decimated by resignations, raising questions about whether insiders believe the plan can work.
...
Natural Resources officials won't speak on the record, but some privately mock Environment Canada's Kyoto plan as little more than a fiction filled with soft numbers and wishful thinking.

(Hat tip : Tim)

Posted by BNJ at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

John Yoo, writing for the Washington Post thinks so.

Democrats should recognize an olive branch when they see it.

By choosing John G. Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, President Bush came as close as possible to finding a non-ideological, consensus nominee who can also lay claim to being a Republican.

Posted by BNJ at 09:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Heh, who knew Orrin Hatch had it in him?

In the beginning of Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Bush nominee John G. Roberts Jr. Chairman Orrin Hatch praised Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New York for asking "intelligent" questions, but then Hatch switched gears.

"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."

A stunned Schumer asked if he heard the chairman correctly, to which Hatch said yes. Again, Schumer asked Hatch if he would like to "revise and extend his remark," congressional speak for change his mind.

A former trial attorney, Hatch replied: "No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."

(Hat tip: Trey Jackson)

Posted by BNJ at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Todd Snider and I have the same record collection.

Posted by BNJ at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I don't normally write much about abortion here, but I have a feeling that's going to change over the next few weeks. In preparation for that, let's get one thing straight.

I use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" to broadly classify the opposing sides of this debate. Almost every time I do that, I'll get some complaint from somebody somewhere, saying I should really use "anti-choice" or "pro-death" or some other such idiocy.

Look, I realize that neither of these terms aren't exactly judgment-neutral, but I will continue to use them for the following reasons.

1. It's convenient. These terms are commonly accepted and everyone already knows what they mean.
   
2. It does each side the courtesy of calling them what they wish to be called.
   

Posted by BNJ at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Guess what? I'm on a drive to "resurrect" "ancient" and "discredited" theories. So says the New York Times, anyway, in today's editorial on the Roberts nomination:

One of the most important areas for the Senate to explore is Judge Roberts's views on federalism -- the issue of how much power the federal government should have. The far right is on a drive to resurrect ancient, and discredited, states' rights theories.

Can you believe how unenlightened these "federalists" were? It's a pity they didn't have the New York Times back then to explain that the best way to protect individual rights is to cede as much power and authority to Washington as possible.

If he is a mainstream conservative in the tradition of Justice O'Connor, he should be confirmed. But if on closer inspection he turns out to be an extreme ideologue with an agenda of stripping away important rights, he should not be.

Many people will see only one issue at stake with this new nomination -- abortion. That's shortsighted. The Times at least "gets it" about one thing -- there are more important and more fundamental issues at stake than Roe v. Wade. (They relegate a mere two sentences to abortion in the edtiorial's penultimate paragraph.) They recognize the upcoming battle for what it is. They're just on the wrong side of it.

Posted by BNJ at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Warning: this post is going to devolve into uncharacteristic sentimentality, so if you're as offended by that sort of thing as I usually am, you may want to skip this one.

The reason I've been out of sorts for a couple of days has to do with something that happened this past weekend. One of the neighborhood's most beloved doggies, a Pomeranian named Bella, died this Sunday. She didn't expire quietly during a nap on a comfy sofa at the age of seventeen as she should have. She ran into the path of an oncoming car while we all watched, helpless, from the sidewalk. She was three.

I picked her up immediately, but there was nothing to do except hold her while she went to that big comfy sofa in the sky. My dog Zora lost her best friend. Bella lived next door, and there was a hole in the fence big enough to allow her through, but not Zora. She would come into our backyard and visit and play every day. Her mother is inconsolable. Bella was like her child.

Now I know that with all the trouble in the world, a neighbor's dead dog doesn't rank very high in the overall scheme of things, so it's difficult to account for how shaken up my wife and I were over this. I think part of it was watching it happen and not being able to do anything to stop it. It's disconcerting to think how quickly a pleasant Summer weekend can turn tragic in a single instant that no one can take back. It had been such a good day before that happened, I kept saying to myself. I thought back to similar traumatic events in my life, and I remember having said the same thing: "It was such a good day until..."

So I think the lesson here may be this. Most days are good days. It's just that normally we're too stupid to appreciate it, and we take them for granted. That might be something good to keep in mind. I'm going to try.

Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, those of you who are still with me. :-)

Posted by BNJ at 08:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Can I be the first to say it?

I could give a shit what he thinks about abortion. I mean it.

He thinks life begins at conception? Fine by me. He thinks abortions should be allowable retroactively until the kid starts college, or at least moves his shit out of the basement? That's fine too.

The point is, I don't care what his personal views are, so long as his jurisprudential philosophy is to intrepret the law as written, without regard to his personal ideology.

Will Roberts do that? Will he be a strict constructionalist? An originalist? A "pragmatist?"

Don't know. Have no idea. Like everyone else, I'm keeping my fingers crossed and waiting for the information to roll in.

Posted by BNJ at 09:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

To answer everyone's questions, yes, I'm interested, but I just don't have much to say at this point. I'm waiting, just like everyone else. And in the meantime, I have no inclination to get bogged down in esoteric debates about, say, the relative merits of "orginalism" versus "textualism." I'm not saying such academic debates are uninteresting, or even unimportant. But either a textualist or an originalist would be infinitely preferable to the kind of unrestrained judicial temperaments that have morphed our highest court into a supra-legislature of late.

I guess we'll know something definite later tonight, after which I'll try reading the tea leaves like everyone else. If history is any indication, however, there's no accurate way to evaluate a justice until he has actually sat on the court for at least a year.

Meanwhile, I don't think either side is eager for a bruising confirmation battle. I predict Bush will take a cue from his base and avoid Gonzales, but I also think he's going to try to stay as true to his principles as possible while simultaneously striving to set up a relatively easy confirmation -- no small feat.

On the subject of Gonzales, am I the only one who was amused by the way some liberals, after having recast Gonzales as Torquemada reincarnated during his AG confirmation, practically started praying for a Gonzales nomination to the high court once the trial balloon had been floated? Heh, that was funny.

Posted by BNJ at 06:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I heard that afterward, Senators Clinton and Schumer both asked him, "Are you headed uptown?"

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Posted by BNJ at 03:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I'm still here. Just not feeling so great. Hope to be back at full force soon.

Rock on... or something...

Posted by BNJ at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

...of Plamegate.

Posted by BNJ at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

When I first heard that some people were objecting to John McCain's cameo role in some titty movie, I naturally assumed they were conservative religious zealots for whom Senator McCain was a treasonous Rino. But no, the first shots fired were from professional harpy and Democratic harridan Susan Estrich.

You'd think Estrich would welcome evidence that the GOP is not held entirely in thrall by the religious right, but I guess not. With prominent Democrats resorting to this kind of nonsense, it's proof positive that the Rove/Plame "scandal" is panning out to be a major disappointment for their party.

Posted by BNJ at 06:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Because why not?

All of these were taken during a recent trip to North Carolina's Outer Banks.

Posted by BNJ at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

Chilling words, right? Damning, in fact. Maybe we should just skip the trial and fry him now.

I stayed up last night waiting for the breaking New York Times "blockbuster"... and got this.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

Meanwhile, we have this admission by Joe Wilson himself:

My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

But that's not stopping a rabid Democratic lynch mob from braying for Rove's scalp. Let 'em bray, I say. The more they do, and the more attention the average person pays to this story, the more they'll come across as the gibbering lunatics they are. I don't think the MoveOn wing of the Democratic Party has learned a damn thing since Paul Wellstone's funeral.

Posted by BNJ at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

All right, I know this audio clip has already been linked all over the internet, but I'm going to do it again. What grabs me more than the content itself (old news to many of us) is the meta-story here. I'm astonished at the MSM's ability to turn on a dime and completely invert the entire Saddam/OBL connection narrative once the White House had a new occupant.

By the way, I wonder whether ABC News ever issued corrections, retractions or apologies for having gotten the story so "wrong" in 1999?

No, I take it back. I don't wonder.

Posted by BNJ at 09:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

...or is this the worst idea ever?

Posted by BNJ at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

I'd just been wondering where media whore Joe Wilson was these days, and then as if on cue, he shows up on the "Today" show speaking with Jamie Gangel. The transcript is here if you're interested, but I can summarize it for you.

Gangel: Gosh, Mr. Wilson, do you think that Karl Rove should be executed now or later?

Wilson: Well, Jamie, I think he should be executed now, and so does my super-duper-top-double-secret-agent-pinky-swear wife. I talked to her about it on the set of her new Vanity Fair photo shoot.

Nope, Wilson was confronted on none of this. The toughest question he faced was whether he was a Democrat (as if that matters), which he dodged bizarrely by claiming to have contributed to both Gore's and Bush's campaigns in 2000.

And some people still wonder why conservatives mistrust the mainstream media.

Posted by BNJ at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss

When Democratic mayoral hopeful Virginia fields published a doctored photograph on a campaign flier, I didn't mention it here because I doubted there'd be much interest outside the NYC area. (Presumably the photo wasn't "diverse" enough, so two white people's heads were cut off and replaced by Asian heads. Digitally, of course.)

But now that I've seen the actual before and after photos, I have to ask... why do the Asians appear to be singing?

Posted by BNJ at 09:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)|Discuss