Althouse

Bernard Goldberg Online

Flash Video: Michael Jackson's Chocolate Factory (NSFW)

Froggy Ruminations

GOPness

Hispanic Pundit

JudgeRoberts.com

Mike Huckabee President 2008

National Summary

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Victor Davis Hanson: Enough Is Enough

Until RWN gets back, enjoy the week-end links...

Howard Dean wants the Democratic Party to be more friendly to candidates who're pro-life:

"Democrats need to reach out to voters who oppose abortion rights and promote candidates who share that view, the head of the party said Friday.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion.

"I think we need to talk about this issue differently," said Dean. "The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don't know anybody in America who is pro-abortion."

That would be good news for those of us who are pro-life -- if it weren't just meaningless lip service.

It's great if you think, "Life begins at conception," and you think that, "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare," but there's a reason why pro-life and pro-abortion groups give candidates ratings based on how they vote and not what they say. That's because what you say means little and how you vote means much.

If you want to see how committed the Democratic Party is to the "pro-life" position, you need look no further than these comments by Dean:

"He discussed the abortion debate after a student questioned why the party was supporting Bob Casey Jr., a Pennsylvania Democrat challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.

The chairman tried to draw a distinction between Casey and Santorum, even though both men oppose abortion rights.

"You have to respect people's positions of conscience," said Dean. "I think Bob Casey's position is a position of conscience."

Dean, a former Planned Parenthood board member, said the difference between his party and Republicans is that "we believe a woman has a right to make up their own mind and they believe (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay should make it up and Rick Santorum should make it up for them."

John Brabender, a consultant to Santorum's re-election campaign, said Dean's distinctions were meaningless. "It makes absolutely no sense for Howard Dean to attack Rick Santorum unless he's also attacking Bobby Casey," he said."

Even liberals should be embarrassed by this sort of blatant hypocrisy, but I suppose that if they were easily embarrassed, they never would have allowed someone like Howard Dean to become their Party spokesman in the first place.

If Democrats want to run real pro-life candidates, they should be applauded for doing so. But, if Democrats like Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton think they're going to be able to pass themselves off as pro-lifers while they're standing behind Roe v. Wade and supporting every piece of pro-abortion legislation that comes down the pike, they've "got another think coming"...

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that the House will produce another immigration and border security bill this Congress and will have to pass that bill before turning to a guest-worker program.

...He said the House has received the message that immigration is "an incredibly important issue to the American people."

...Mr. DeLay said more security measures are needed and that the government has to prove it can enforce immigration laws before voters will be willing to accept a guest-worker program. He said the House will act on the issues in that order.

"We'll probably have a law-enforcement-type bill, working with the Senate and the administration," he said. "Once we convince the American people we can secure the borders and enforce the law, we can discuss what is also important in this mix -- and that is how to accommodate people from other parts of the [world] that want to come here, work temporarily and go back home. Some people call that a guest-worker program."

...Mr. DeLay said he supports an eventual guest-worker plan and said a consensus is developing in Congress on the need for one.

"Even Tom Tancredo has said we need a guest-worker program," Mr. DeLay said of the Colorado Republican who is a leader in the immigration control movement.

But Mr. DeLay has said such a program should apply only to workers who register from their home countries, not to illegal aliens already in the United States." -- The Washington Times

Bingo! The only long-term solution to the illegal alien problem is to get our borders under control and to put a reliable system of enforcing of immigration laws into place. If that's not done first, it won't get done because the truth is a lot of people up on Capitol Hill don't want our immigration laws to be enforced.

A lot of Republicans want illegals as cheap labor for their business supporters and many Democrats want illegals to become citizens because they believe, correctly I might add, that they'll vote for Democrats in disproportionate numbers. So we've got to staunch the flow of illegals into the country FIRST, before a guest worker program is set up, or there will be no strong motivation for the soft on illegals crowd to support enforcement.

Now some people don't buy that, they think that if laws are on the books, they're going to be enforced. When it comes to illegal immigration, that's absolutely incorrect because both Republicans and Democrats have deliberately thwarted immigration law in the past. Mark Krikorian explains:

"In ninety eight, the border patrol noticed that the work force picking onions in the vidalia onion fields of Georgia appeared increasingly to be illegals, so they did some raids, arrested a few dozen illegal aliens, and all the rest of them ran off. So the farmers were there stuck with onions in the ground and no one to pull them out. It was all their own fault, they knew what they were doing, but nonetheless, they were outraged. They called their Congressmen, and by the end of the week, three of Georgia's Congressmen and both Senators, Republicans and Democrats, wrote a joint letter to the Attorney General demanding that the Immigration Service stop enforcing the law. Because they said the INS does not understand the needs of American farmers. Which in ordinary English means, "let them pick the onions, then arrest them. Preferably before we have to pay them". Well, the INS got slapped down and stopped.

So what they tried as an alternative to raids, was something called Operation Vanguard in Nebraska. It was sort of the first effort at something like this to see if it worked. They didn't do raids anywhere, all they did was subpoena personnel records. And they didn't just pick one or two employers, they did all the meatpacking plants in all of Nebraska, so that no one of them would be inconvenienced while the others benefitted. They took the personnel records back to the office, checked the Social Security numbers, and came back with a list of people who seemed to be illegal, who did not have authorization to work. They said "we know some of these people are legit and the records are wrong. We want to fix those people's records and the ones that are illegal, have to leave of course". They came back with four thousand names. One thousand people showed up and got their records fixed and three thousand were never heard from again. They were illegal aliens. It worked really well and it was intended to be repeated every two to three months so as to wean the whole industry off of the use of illegal aliens.

After one effort like this, the political and business elite in Nebraska went insane. The ranchers and the meat packers teamed up with the governor. The governor's predecessor, now Senator Nelson, was hired as a lobbyist to put an end to this initiative. Senator Chuck Hagel made it essentially his mission in life to see that this was never repeated and it wasn't. And the Senior INS official who thought it up in the first place was invited to retire early -- and he did. If you're a bureaucrat and you have kids in college, you're going to take the hint: Congress doesn't want you to enforce the law. So the Immigration Service essentially gave up enforcing the immigration laws inside the country. They focused on the important, but narrow, issues of criminal aliens and smugglers. I'm all for that, criminal aliens and alien smugglers are the scum of the earth, but there's a lot more to the issue than just that. But, going after those parts of the issue doesn't get you in trouble politically. So that's what they did, they gave up because Congress told them to stop doing their jobs. They really haven't changed that much such 9/11."

Until we control our porous borders and put some teeth in our barely functional immigration laws any guest worker programs should be DOA in Congress...

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." -- Author unknown

"Every time you take a rich man down, you take a 100 poor men with him."

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." -- Milton Friedman

Anyone think that a similar story about lynching aborignals would have gotten a prize? Or do you think that kid would have been expelled and/or put into forcible psychotherapy?

"I waken to the sounds of bombs. Women and children crying. Rubble. That is all there is to see.

Baghdad: once filled with beds of flowers and happy smiling faces. Now destroyed homes: destroyed families -- no peace, no hope ...

I miss my ma and papa so much. Images of their mangled bodies lying in pools of blood will never leave my mind ...

The back door opens. Two American soldiers. The enemy. The destroyers, who say they are here to save us. I hate the Americans ...

"Get them to the camp," the gruff one orders ...

A prisoner of war with nothing to live for except maybe to uphold the memories of my beloved Allah, my parents and my country.

To truly show the world what it means to be Muslim, I reach under my salwaar kameez and release the catch of dynamite strapped to my chest. Two minutes. Silence. THEN!!!!!"

Kids take their cues from teachers. This girl knew this terrorist splatterpunk would please her Give Terrorism A Chance teachers.

A very broad, very noisy, and very influential swath of the hard left is pro-terrorist and are effectively enemies of America. They are, as Excitable Andy described him before his heart went a-flutter at the thought of court-imposed gay marriage, a treasonous Fifth Column.

Full...stop.

Enough is enough.

This content was used with the permission of Ace of Spades HQ.

"Before serving as an associate counsel in the Reagan White House, Roberts worked at the Justice Department under Attorney General William French Smith. He returned to the department in 1989, serving as principal deputy solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush.

The Reagan-era memos portray a cocksure young lawyer whose writing was clear, highly attuned to political realities and occasionally sarcastic.

Take, for instance, Roberts's response to a request sent by then-Rep. Elliott Levitas (D-Ga.) to Reagan. In 1983, the Supreme Court struck down laws that contained provisions for Congress to veto actions taken by executive departments and agencies. Levitas wanted to meet with Reagan to determine "the manner of power sharing and accountability within in the federal government." The request offended Roberts's notion of the proper separation of powers.

"There already has, of course, been a 'Conference on Power Sharing,' " Roberts wrote, sarcastically referring to the convention at which the Constitution was drafted. "It took place in Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell Levitas about it and the 'report' it issued." -- The WAPO

Blasts Hit London Again, 2 Weeks After Bombings

Two Arrested In London Subway, Bus Blasts

Aussie PM John Howard On The London Terrorists

Iraqis Not Ready To Fight Terrorists On Their Own Yet, U.S. Says (Free NYT Reg. Req)

China Severs Currency's Link To The U.S. Dollar

Sudan Security Roughs Up Rice Delegation. Condi Demands & Gets Apology

Musharraf Targets Hate Preachers As Arrests Mount (Applause)

Correction: John Roberts Is Not A Member Of The Federalist Society

John G. Roberts Has Made 4 Campaign Contributions -- All To Republicans

A Memo With Plame's Name In It Was Marked Secret (Free WAPO Reg Req)

In New Security Move, New York Police to Search Commuters' Bags (Free NYT Reg Req)

Thomas Sowell: Dogma Vs. Reality On Ebonics

Michael Battle: Patriot Act Realities Vs. Myths

Dick Morris: Look Out, World: Here Comes Booming India

Manuel Miranda: Why Ralph Neas And Ann Coulter Are Both Wrong About John Roberts

Glenn Sacks: Stop the Destruction of Innocent Cops' Careers

Pay-Per-Click Speculation Market Soaring

A Short Survey For Bloggers

Teacher Says Principal Ordered Bush Portrait Removed From Classroom

The Top Web Fads Of All Time

Skateboarder Branded By Manhole Cover Sues

Website Of The Day: Feminists For Life

The Patriot Act is up for renewal. It's been controversial for a long time, but many people still don't know the facts about it. Thus, as a service to you, the public, I sent my crack research team to find out all they can about the Patriot Act.

FUN FACTS ABOUT THE PATRIOT ACT

* The "patriot" in The Patriot Act is actually an acronym for "Phat Acronym That Really Is Orwellian, Though".

* There are many clauses in The Patriot Act that concerns people, but all agree the scariest part of is its suspicious name.

* The Patriot Act was passed 99-1 in the Senate soon after 9/11, with the onc Senator voting against it being labeled an enemy combatant and indefinitely imprisoned as ordered by The Patriot Act.

* The Patriot Act is out there for anyone to read, but, according to The Patriot Act, that is considered a suspicious activity and makes you a person of interest.

* The Patriot Act allows the FBI to look at library records. This power has yet to be used, though, since pretty much no one uses a library anymore.

* The FBI wanted The Patriot Act to allow them to look at Google searches, but Google protested saying they only work in compliance with Communist countries to oppress people.

* Many people have raised objections to The Patriot Act - some of whom have even read it. According to The Patriot Act, these people are enemy combatants, and you must shoot them on site or be considered an enemy of the state yourself.

* The Patriot Act gives great new surveillance technology to the FBI, allowing them to spy on you through what looks like a period at the end of this sentence.

* Stop staring at that period!

* Yeah, they still need to use an exclamation point for audio.

* The Patriot Act allows more wire-tapping ability for law enforcement, something that’s been denounced by numerous people so boring that you couldn’t pay people to spy on them.

* The provisions of The Patriot Act has helped law enforcement capture numerous terrorists and, through a mix-up, one terrier.

* President Bush is currently urging Congress to renew The Patriot Act. This doesn't mean he supports it, though, as, according to The Patriot Act, the President must urge its renewal or be considered an enemy combatant.

* If ever attacked by The Patriot Act, imprison yourself indefinitely to steal its thunder.

* While The Patriot Act is immune to most attacks, it is scared of fire.

* In a fight between Aquaman and The Patriot Act, Aquaman would be locked up indefinitely and then be forgotten. After years of solitary confinement, he'd begin to believe he has the power to talk to cockroaches... which is just crazy!

* Some judges have ruled against clauses in The Patriot Act. They were all mysteriously killed as dictated by the Patriot Act.

* I guess the deaths aren't so mysterious since they were ordered by The Patriot Act, but The Patriot Act says you need to act like they were mysterious or you will be considered an enemy combatant.

* According to The Patriot Act, the fact that you consider The Patriot Act an enemy and want to find information about makes you an enemy combatant. In compliance with The Patriot Act, I have now sent your IP address to the FBI. Thanks for participating in this IMAO sting operation, and may your indefinite detention be a pleasant one.

This satire was used with the permission of IMAO.

1) Thank God the bombers botched it.

2) I don't think the Brits will need US help on this, but it goes w/out saying that all they need to do is ask to get it.

3) The fact that some people are blaming Blair for goading the terrorists into attacking by being in Iraq, instead of blaming the people clearly responsible, the terrorists, smacks of craven appeasement. You'd think that in Britain of all places, the debate over who had the right approach, Churchill (Confront evil instead of letting it gather strength) & Chamberlain (We don't want to make the people who want to kill us angry), would be settled definitively.

4) Despite the fact that the Brits have a level of security far surpassing anything we have or are likely to have (they have cameras everywhere), only a terrorist screw-up prevented another slaughter. There's an important lesson there. You've got to go after the terrorists where they live and do everything possible to stop them from getting into your country because once they're in, you're almost going to have to get lucky to stop them.

Yesterday, I posted the early reaction from the left side of the blogosphere to the John Roberts nomination. Well, after giving the lefties a day to think it over, I decided to take another crack at it.

The general consensus seems to be that...

1) They don't like Roberts but acknowledge that they can't stop him from being confirmed.
2) They still want the Democrats in the Senate to go after him, even if they can't win.
3) They're actually much more interested in getting Karl Rove than John Roberts.

In fact, I'd say there were roughly 3 Rove/Plame related posts for every John Roberts posts on the left-of-center blogs I read today and late last night.

Here are a few of the quotations from the lefty blogs that stood out...

"George W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts, Jr. is a setback for American women, just has his policies in Iraq have produced a setback for women's rights in the Arab world. Indeed, Bush has been bad for women all around the globe." -- Informed Comment

"Roberts happened to be standing in the right place at the right time. Maybe Rehnquist pushed him into Bush's office. Maybe he had paper over rock. Maybe he was caller ten. Whatever.

John Roberts is a very undistinguished choice. And he's small potatoes. He's anti-Roe v. Wade, but despite that and Roberts' wife's activism against abortion, it ain't going anywhere. John Roberts is a flea.

We have a bigger fight to fight than this nebbish. We have to stop this administration. For failing in Iraq. For failing us on 9/11. For fostering the American vs. American mentality. For failing us on truth and honesty.

I'm not going to sign any petition against John Roberts. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of bandwidth. If Bush wants his legacy to be a human speed bump like John Roberts, so be it." -- Hoffmania

"Well Bush certainly didn’t pull any punches. John Roberts’ nomination not only serves as a convenient distraction to the Rove madness, but is also a great big “f*ck you” to all the folks that thought Bush was leaning towards a moderate nominee.

...So pretty please take some f*cking action and put a stop to this nightmare nominee." -- Feministing

"For now, the Roberts announcement was moved up a week two knock Rove out of the news. Had Bush chosen a nutball, we could've wailed and beaten our breasts for the next six weeks. But in their rush for good press, the President chose a guy that there's nothing much to say about. So let's not say anything. Let him drift out of the news cycle and, in a day or two, make it all Rove, all the time. That's where their weak spot is, let's not lose focus and attack at the only smart thing they've done in months." -- Ezra Klein

"Anyone who saw young John cavorting on the stage last night should concede now that, barring something major, John G. Roberts, Jr. will be confirmed. That family is his secret weapon. Even Rick Santorum, who likely is cringing at a Harvard educated Justice, will go along with this one. (Rick is unswerving in support of the Harvard educated Dubya, for instance, but perhaps Santorum sees a fellow traveler there. . . one likes dogs, one likes horses. . . )" -- The All Spin Zone

"Roberts is a pleasant-looking white guy who wears suits well. Smoke does not billow out of his ears, nor does he have horns and a forked tail. Some leftie bloggers are saying the nomination could have been worse. Yeah, like ebola is worse than cholera." -- Mahablog

"We know that Justice Roberts will get voted in. But that in no way means that he should go without a fight. I'm an optimist. I say we have a basketful of lemons, let's make lemonade. This is leverage to expose the fact that the Republicans, including the President, are a bunch of far-right wingnuts who are beholden to Bible-thumpers who are single-handedly determined to ruin the lives of average Americans by taking away, first and foremost, the right to privacy that ensures that we can live as we choose." -- Pandragon

"But if the Party of God was hoping for an appointee who is obviously one of their own -- a Janice Rogers Brown or an Allen Keyes is a black robe -- they didn't get that, either. Professionally and culturally, Roberts is very much a Bush I throwback: a product of Harvard, government service and K Street (the pre-DeLay K Street). He clerked for Rehnquist, not Scalia or Thomas. It's a lot easier to imagine Roberts eating a working lunch in a corporate boardroom than breaking bread at a prayer breakfast with a bunch of Christian Dominionists.

These days, though, the two subcultures often overlap. Which is precisely what makes Roberts so scary. In his heart of hearts, he may be a raving Ayatollah -- as militant in defense of the New Theocracy as he appears to be in defense of property rights and corporate privilege. But in the clubby world of legal and political Washington, he's managed to convince an awful lot of people, including some staunch liberals, that he's really an OK guy -- a "reasonable" conservative." -- Whiskey Bar

Democrats always get huffy and offended when people question their patriotism. Yet, whenever someone trashes America you'll always find Democrats up to their armpits in the refuse. For example, take a look at this piece of "art" that, believe it or not, is now sitting in the "cafeteria of the state Department of Justice" in California:

The country and our flag being flushed down a toilet is certainly not something a person who loved this country would paint or hang up in a public place. Setting that aside it's not even a very good painting. But, it slams Bush and America and that's good enough for Democrats.

Still, if somebody wanted to hang this piece of tripe in a private art museum, that's his right and his business. But, when this sort of "art" gets hung in a public building, it's everybody's business and as per usual, it's Republicans who're unhappy and Democrats who're rallying against the flag:

"A painting of the United States sinking into a toilet now on display in the cafeteria of the state Department of Justice has raised the ire of the state Republican Party, which is demanding that Attorney General Bill Lockyer remove the image.

The painting -- part of an exhibit of more than 30 works by lawyer artists and pieces with overt legal themes -- has an American flag-painted continental United States heading into a toilet. Next to it are the words: "T'anks to Mr. Bush."

The artist, Stephen Pearcy, a Berkeley lawyer with a house in Sacramento, won earlier notoriety for hanging an effigy of an American soldier on the outside of his home here with a sign saying "Bush lied, I died." Angry residents tore the effigies down.

"I don't know why we need to tolerate the cheap artwork of a gadfly with a world view that is so offensive to a majority of the people," said Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for the California Republican Party.

...Although the debate centers on the appropriateness of art in public places, the exhibit was neither commissioned by Lockyer, nor did he participate in selecting the pieces, and no public funds were spent on the show.

...The art displayed in the first floor cafeteria at the Department of Justice on I Street includes paintings, sculptures and photographs and runs the gamut from a copy of Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl Earring'' to Blind Justice cowering in a prison cell with red paint splashed across the frame, apparently to symbolize blood.

...The exhibit's curator, Chuck Miller, said the Pearcy piece was not included in the collection to antagonize any, including the Republican Party.

"In the context of the show and what it's about, the painting is perfectly alright," he said. "... It's just one point of view."

Hanretty countered that Lockyer, a Democrat and staunch supporter of free speech, would not have allowed art to be displayed that gays or lesbians found offensive or promoted violence toward women.

Pearcy's painting is in a second, smaller room at the far end of the cafeteria and is only visible by diners sitting in that room.

To the right of Pearcy is a poster with a dove above the head of a Palestinian peering grimly from behind barbed wire. Across the top are the words: "Palestine -- Stop U.S. Financed Genocide in the Middle East."

Pearcy could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but in a statement that accompanies the exhibit he said he had made the painting on July 4, 2003, to "show the direction this country was (and still is) headed under the Bush administration." The painting also "confronted the absurd display of 'fanatical patriotism' following 9/11," he said."

Oh, yeah, look out for that 'fanatical patriotism.' There's nothing more disturbing than people who actually love their country...well, to some Democrats anyway.

"One step forward: A group of British imams issued an honest-to-Allah fatwa against suicide bombers. According to the clerics, terrorists are not acting in the name of true Islam and will ride a hot, slick razor blade straight to hell. Good; more, please.

Alas, there's also one step back: In the same news cycle Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., mused on a radio show about his preferred response to a nuclear attack on America: bombing Mecca.

...Bombing Mecca to revenge the acts of maniacs is like nuking the Vatican to protest the pedophilia scandal in Boston. The idea appeals to those whose nuanced study of Islam makes them conclude it's better to alienate 1 billion people than defeat a fraction of the same group. It appeals to those who believe that Islam is a metal shard that cannot be absorbed and must be removed, preferably by blowing up the body." -- James Lileks

Georgian Police Detained A Man Suspected Of Trying To Assassinate George Bush

A Top Al-Qaeda Briton Who Called Tube Bombers Before Attack Has Been Captured

North Korea Has Nuclear Bomb, Would-Be Defector Claims

Israel Parliament Rejects Gaza Pullout Delay

Gay Marriage Now Officially Legal Across Canada

Democratic Filibuster Of Roberts Unlikely

O'Connor: Bush's Nominee Is 'First Rate'

In The Aftermath Of The 2000 Election, Judge Roberts Played A Key Role In The Florida Recount

James Dobson: 'Roberts Unquestionably Qualified'

Social Conservatives, Pleased With Pick, Say Bush Kept Promise (Free LA Times Registration Required)

Bush Pledges 'Unprecedented' Spending On Security In U.S

Unocal Backs $17 Billion Chevron Merger Bid Instead Of Higher Chinese Offer

The DOD Wants To Raise The Maximum Age For Military Recruits To 42 For All Branches Of The Service

James Lileks: Roll the Daisy-Picking Ads, and Goodbye Tom Tancredo

Norman Geras: There Are Apologists Amongst Us

Keith Thompson: Life After The Left

James Taranto: How The Liberal Media Helped Re-Elect George W. Bush

Jonah Goldberg: The Red Foam Of The River Thames

John Stossel: Robbing The Poor To Build A Rich Man's Stadium — It's Just Plain Wrong

9 Million Copies Of Harry Potter Sold In The 1st 24 Hours

The Rolling Stones Attack Bush On New Record

'Star Trek' Star James Doohan Dies

A Short Survey For Bloggers

Conservative Grapevine: You've Heard Of Drinking The Kool-Aid? CG Is Where It Gets Handed Out

Video Of Roberts Son Goofing Off While Bush Was Talking (Funny Stuff)

Website Of The Day: Outside The Beltway

"In a small town, an idiot breaks a shop window. He's called a vandal, until someone points out that a window installer now must be paid to replace the window. The window installer then will have enough money to buy a new suit. A tailor will then be able to buy a new desk. And so on. The whole town apparently gains from the economic activity generated by the broken window. Of course, if this made sense, cities should hire people to run though town, breaking windows.

But it doesn't make sense. It's a fallacy because the circulating money is seen; what is not seen is what would have been done with the money if the window were still whole. The shopkeeper, instead of paying the window installer, might have expanded his business, or bought a new suit or a new desk. The town is worse off because of a broken window." -- John Stossel

Here’s another little item to add to the list of “Bad British Trends Bound To Catch On In America”.

"The word “fail” should be banned from use in British classrooms and replaced with the phrase “deferred success” to avoid demoralizing pupils, a group of teachers has proposed.

Members of the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) argue that telling pupils they have failed can put them off learning for life.

A spokesman for the group said it wanted to avoid labeling children. “We recognize that children do not necessarily achieve success first time,” he said. (Source: Reuters)

Deferred success. How… quaint. One has to wonder what other “labels” should be similarly re-written to avoid hurt feelings. I can think of a few:

Alcoholism = Deferred Sobriety.

Voluntary Unemployment = Deferred Productivity.

Sexual Promiscuity = Deferred Monogamy.

Abortion = Deferred Parenthood.

Domestic Violence = Deferred Communication.

Criminal Behavior = Deferred Legality.

Ok, your turn…

This content was used with the permission of Electric Venom.

There is some concern out there among conservatives that John Roberts doesn't have a long career on the bench. Ann Coulter for example says:

"So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever."

Daniel Flynn makes a similar argument:

"Republicans have tried the blank slate route before. That's the Supreme Court pick whose opinions are unknown--perhaps even to himself. What did it get the GOP? David Souter, for one. President Bush has twice been elected president, and his party controls 55 Senate seats. If he really is a social conservative--let's face it, this is all about Roe v. Wade--why should he operate from a position of weakness and nominate a consensus candidate? While Roberts is neither the consensus candidate nor 2005's David Souter, his views on Roe v. Wade, at least, are unknown. Is a crapshoot the best conservatives can do?"

This is a totally reasonable concern. After all, out of the 7 Justices on the Supreme Court that Republican Presidents have chosen, there are 3 originalists, 2 swinging door moderates, and 2 liberals. That's why it's generally a good idea for a Republican President to select a judge with a long track record: because it lessens the chances that they'll turn into another Souter or Kennedy.

Still, even though I publicly campaigned against Alberto Gonzales or Edith Clement getting on the court, I feel very comfortable with John Roberts as a selection -- no, let me revise that, I feel very good about Bush taking John Roberts despite his limited time on the bench.

Keep in mind: Roberts is not some compromise choice, he was considered to be one of the most desired candidates all along by conservative court watchers. As a matter of fact, the general word on him pre-nomination was that not only would he make a fantastic justice, he'd be a great candidate to take over for Rehnquist when he eventually steps down as Chief Justice.

Moreover, Roberts does have a very solid conservative pedigree. He clerked for Rehnquist, he served in the Reagan Justice Department, worked with Ken Star, he's a member of the The Federalist Society and his wife is the ex-Executive Vice President of Feminists for Life. There's just nothing there that makes you think he's going to turn out to be a squish like Kennedy or Souter.

Plus, we're not talking about a judge who's been writing opinions for two years out on the cowbell circuit in the middle of nowhere. Roberts has been moving around conservative legal circles in Washington since the eighties and as Rich Lowry wrote last night:

"Quick take from someone monitoring how it will play politically: “...It probably helps that he's already been here in Washington, the way Scalia and Thomas were. He's not going to 'grow' here.”

What it all boils down to is that there's not going to be a way to get a nominee who's going to swear in blood which way he'll vote on every decision that comes down the pike. So in the end, we're just going to have to wait and see how Roberts does. That being said, don't get down on Roberts because he doesn't have a track record as long as some other candidates, because a few Democrats have said nice things about him, or just because "somehow, Republican Presidents always seem to screw up their picks for the Supreme Court." Remember, we wanted this guy, we're going to get him, and it seems to be highly likely that even if he doesn't turn out to be another Scalia or Thomas, he'll at least be another Rehnquist, which is close enough and should suit conservatives just fine.

*** Update #1 ***: By the way, my personal take on Roberts is that he's an originalist, a strict constructionist, and if he gets the opportunity, he will vote to abolish Roe v. Wade. So, I'm totally satisfied with the pick and look forward to having him on the Supreme Court...

"So what do the shrieking wingnuts think of him? Is he pure enough? Does he speak in tongues, handle snakes, speak directly to Jesus and James Madison about original intent? Fill me in." -- Hullabaloo

"Roberts donated to Bush's election, and Bush seems to be treating the Supreme Court like it's France - a plum assignment for your buddy who helped you out in the last campaign. The Supreme Court isn't France, and being a Supreme Court justice is a bit more important than being an ambassador. I'm just not sure Bush gets the difference." -- AMERICAblog

"Bush has nominated a Ken Starr clone, one of those partisan insiders who can be counted on to do the bidding of the "conservative movement," to the Supreme Court. Was it because Bush is worried that the CIA leak case is headed to the Supreme Court? Did Bush nominate Roberts to be a vote on the Court that will protect Rove?" -- Seeing The Forest

So Beloved Leader has nominated hisself a Soopreme Kort Justice. Beloved Leader's nominee is relatively colorless 50 year-old white guy with suitably conservative leanings (Federalist Society, clerked for Rehnquist, worked in Ken Starr's office) to suit the wingnuts. He has apparently written some on Roe v. Wade, although not much. He's got no track record really, which is a plus for Bunnypants and the Christo-Fascists..." -- Democratic Veteran

"According to (the Kos) comment section, (Roberts is) red meat for the social conservatives. He hates Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, labour laws, and 12 year old girls eating fries on the subway(?!)

According to common sense, he's worth of a filibuster if anybody is.

According to Demosthenes, he's a test of courage. If the Dems don't act, they're invertebrates." -- Shadow of the Hegemon

"Well, Dobson certainly got the preznit he paid for." -- First Draft

"I have done some reading, and this guy is clearly and ultra-right conservative. Dkos has some info. Bondad has some info. Allaince for Justice here and here has info. This guy is totally unacceptable, and probably was chosen in order to start a fight.

...You know what? If Republicans are forced to use the nuclear option to confirm Roberts, then so be it. As far as I am concerned, that is the only way he should be confirmed. People will pay attention to this one. We just have to make the case ot them why he was unacceptable." -- MyDD

"It's John Roberts. Will John Roberts overturn Roe? Who knows. What he will do is vote with Scalia on dozens of issues that have been decided 5-4 against Scalia. Bummer. Kerry should have been elected. I put my heart and soul into Kerry's election because I knew everything depended on it. Kerry lost. Now we're f*cked. Roberts will be confirmed unless he screws up during the hearings. We will watch the hearings closely. But we will watch Fitzgerald closer." -- Booman Tribune

"...it's not like we are going to win this fight.

yes, i said it. so sue me.

the gop controls all three branches of our government. it's just not going to happen. this doesn't look like the "extraordinary circumstances" that was part of the filibuster deal. in addition, we are basically sitting where the GOP was when clinton got his two picks. the GOP mustered token opposition, but ginsburg and breyer got through easily." -- annatopia

It seems that Seymour Hersh is once again doing what he does best: making wild, unprovable allegations based on unverifiable anonymous sources. This time, he's claiming that the United States rigged the Iraqi election.

And what's his evidence, you say? Lots of untraceable, anonymous sources. How heavily does he rely on those sources? Well, by my count, in a piece that ran over 4600 words, Hersh had exactly one guy willing to go on the record and say that he THOUGHT something shady was going on. Here's the quote:

"Ghassan Atiyyah, a secular Shiite who worked on the State Department’s postwar planning project before the invasion of Iraq and is now the director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, in Baghdad, told me that he and many of his associates believed that Allawi’s surprisingly strong showing “was due to American manipulation of the election. There’s no doubt about it. The Americans, directly or indirectly, spent millions on Allawi.” Atiyyah went on, “As an Iraqi who supported the use of force to overthrow Saddam, I can tell you that as long as real democratic practices are not adhered to, you Americans cannot talk about democracy.”

Funny thing there -- our man Allawi -- the guy we're supposed to have put the "fix" in for? His slate of candidates only finished with 14% of the vote. If we really, really "spent millions" to rig the vote for Allawi, we didn't get much for our money. Particularly since, as Hersh mentions in his column, it wasn't as if we were starting from scratch:

"In one American poll, (Allawi) came close to nine per cent in the days before the election."

Not to belabor an obvious point, but a 5 point increase between poll numbers and election results isn't exactly out of the ordinary. Some polling organizations here in America were off that much when you looked at their numbers for particular states before the 2004 election. For example, the final Fox News poll had Kerry winning Florida by +5 points. Yet as, we all know today, Bush won Florida by 5%.

This would seem to bring up a question: if our candidate lost so badly, how exactly did we "fix" the race? Hersh is, uh....let's just say a little fuzzy on that part:

"The methods and the scope of the covert effort have been hard to discern. The current and former military and intelligence officials who spoke to me about the election operation were unable, or unwilling, to give precise details about who did what and where on Election Day. These sources said they heard reports of voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, bribery, and the falsification of returns, but the circumstances, and the extent of direct American involvement, could not be confirmed."

I see. So according to Hersh, there was some sort of "hard to discern" chicanery going on, but he has no "precise details about who did what and where". Of course, there are "reports," AKA "rumors," but they "could not be confirmed."

How does -- let me be very blunt here -- unmitigated crap like this make it into print? This looks like the sort of "journalism" you'd see on Prison Planet, Propaganda Matrix, or one of those other wacko conspiracy sites that feature articles explaining how the Bush administration knocked down the Twin Towers.

Furthermore, in the age of Jayson Blair and "Rathergate," how could anyone be blamed for wondering if Hersh just made up quotes from some of his sources? Here we have anonymous source after anonymous source after anonymous source making all these wild allegations and there's absolutely no reason to believe anything they're saying -- or even that they exist at all -- other than the word of a diehard liberal who has been burned by a con man, tricked into heavily relying on a source he later called a liar, and who had to write a 3000 word correction in the New York Times after he falsely accused a former "U.S. ambassador to Chile" of being "a collaborator in the CIA-backed 1973 coup"".

Hersh is just a Kitty Kelley clone masquerading as a journalist and, quite frankly, he shouldn't be treated as if he's credible...

After you finish up with Right Wing News today, make sure to check out my other blog, Conservative Grapevine, to find out what the blogosphere is saying about the John Roberts nomination....Oh, and while you're there? Bookmark the page. It'll be worth it...

Chechnya Terrorist Attack Leaves At Least 14 Dead, 20 Others Wounded

London Mayor Ken Livingstone: Hamas And The Likud Party As "Two Sides Of The Same Coin." (Disgusting)

Egypt Clears 7/7 Suspect

Bush Picks Roberts For High Court-Sources

Conservative Grapevine: For The Latest On What Bloggers Are Saying About John Roberts

Text of Remarks By Bush, John G. Roberts

Supreme Court Nomination Quotes

How Bush Chose Roberts

American Values President Gary Bauer Commends Choice of Judge John G. Roberts

A Glance At Supreme Court Nominee John Glover Roberts Jr.

A Legal Times Profile Of Roberts From Back In Feb

Orrin Hatch On Charles Schumer: "I Do Know Dumb*ss Questions When I See Dumb*ss Questions"

Soldiers Are Re-Enlisting At Rates Well Ahead Of The Army's Targets

James Pinkerton: We Could Use A Security Wall Like Israel's

A National Review Q&A With Bernard Goldberg

Rick Santorum: Where Did The “Right To Privacy” Come From?

Jack Kemp: A GOP Move Toward Black Voters

Mob Fire-Bombs Malaysia's 'Teapot' Cult HQ

Norway: Sex-Ed Urged For 5-Year-Olds

India: Victim Ordered To Wed Rapist

An Iraqi Refugee With Residence Permission In Norway Married His Own Mother

Website Of The Day: The Truth Laid Bear John Roberts Tracking Page

(*** Note: This post will be regularly updated until about 10:45 PM EST ***)

"A Republican political strategist tells me that this pick will further energize the Republican base with the ongoing talk that Stevens might retire before George Bush leaves office. Conservatives love Bush tonight. Make no mistake about it. Certain conservative leaders, if they were not men, would be offering to bear further children for GWB tonight. They love Roberts." -- Red State

"Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative." -- Power Line

"John Roberts is an excellent choice — one of the best available — for the Supreme Court. He is a lawyer’s lawyer, and has the reputation for being one of the finest appellate advocates to argue before the Supreme Court. He was a fine brief writer, and has garnered a reputation as a D.C. Court of Appeals Judge for being an excellent opinion writer, authoring concise, well-reasoned decisions." -- Robert Alt at Bench Memos

Quick take from someone monitoring how it will play politically: “Roberts and Luttig were the most-qualified possibilities. Roberts is brilliant and solid. He has a good temperment and he's very likable. There's no downside. Fred Thompson is going to have a very easy time bringing him around. And Bush has kept his promise to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. It probably helps that he's already been here in Washington, the way Scalia and Thomas were. He's not going to 'grow' here.” -- Rich Lowry at The Corner

"Republicans have tried the blank slate route before. That's the Supreme Court pick whose opinions are unknown--perhaps even to himself. What did it get the GOP? David Souter, for one. President Bush has twice been elected president, and his party controls 55 Senate seats. If he really is a social conservative--let's face it, this is all about Roe v. Wade--why should he operate from a position of weakness and nominate a consensus candidate? While Roberts is neither the consensus candidate nor 2005's David Souter, his views on Roe v. Wade, at least, are unknown. Is a crapshoot the best conservatives can do? On the other hand, the Democrats refused to confirm him when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the bench, and took two years to confirm him when George W. Bush nominated him to the DC Court of Appeals. Perhaps the Democrats know something that we don't. Time will tell." -- Flynn Files

"After that introduction, I'm ready to have (Roberts') baby!" --Right Thinking Girl

"John Roberts: A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States....Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him." -- Hugh Hewitt

"Roberts is my favorite among all of the people on the short list: he is brilliant, and his opinions as an appellate judge are textbook examples of outstanding judicial craft." -- Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy

President Bush certainly came through for judicial conservatives tonight. Roberts is a solid originalist/textualist, and he will make for an incredible justice. -- Confirm Them

"This is a huge victory for we conservatives, and that sound you hear is wails from liberals, faxes from the office of People For the American Way, etc. Which means it's a great pick." -- Ankle Biting Pundits

PS: Personally, I'm thrilled with Bush's selection of Roberts, who I think will be another Rehnquist. I feel like a little kid who got a puppy, a BB gun, and a bike for Christmas when he was just expecting another sweater. This is a good day for conservatism my friends, a very good day...

It's an hour and a half until the announcement. Here are the latest rumors leading up until 9 PM:

Luttig is in DC. Could he be there for the announcement?

"While I am not terribly surprised to see the Luttig children in proper attire in DC even if there is not a special occasion, the fact that Luttig is there is interesting. After all, he was down in Richmond this morning to hear oral arguments in the Padilla case, so he clearly had to beat feet back."

Over at Tradesports, Edith Jones is in the lead and Luttig is now number 2.

Confirm Them says Roberts:

"The President today referred to the nominee as a “he.” While we should be inclined to say he is using good english, we know better than that. Media and political types are beginning to email that it is Roberts. One House staffer emailed and said “everyone” is gathering data on Roberts.

Bench Memos says it's not Edith Jones:

"As much as I would like it to be Jones, those casting bets in her favor are wrong. I’ve got very solid information that it will not be her. Place your bets."

Here's one more from Bench Memos:

"Rumors are running wild now that Judge Clement has confirmed she's out."

Wow, this is like getting the first pick of the draft for political wonks! Will we go with the quarterback with great potential, the can't miss defensive end, or the unstoppable running back? Nobody knows, but it's not stopping anyone from speculating...still, it's fun isn't it? Especially since Clement isn't getting talked up anymore and it doesn't look like Gonzales or Wilkinson are going to get the nod either...

PS: All the names that are hot right now, Luttig, Roberts, and Jones would be fantastic picks...

PS #2: Stop by RWN a little later tonight, around 10:00ish for a round-up of blogger reactions to the pick...

*** Update #1 ***: Yes, yes, yes! Bush came through in the clutch with a great candidate! From Drudge:

"President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John C. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, a senior administration official says...

Roberts: 'No support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution' for legal reasoning in Roe vs Wade..."

*** Update #2 ***: Right Side Redux has a nice collection of links about Roberts.

If you're a blogger, how about filling out this survey over at JackLewis' blog? It doesn't take very long -- it took me less than 5 minutes -- and he could use some more responses.

Ugh...this is not particularly good news:

"President Bush is close to a decision on his first nominee to the Supreme Court and U.S. appeals court Judge Edith Clement has emerged as a leading candidate, Republican sources said.

The main appeal to Clement is supposed to be that she hasn't left a long paper trail and that she'll get some Democratic support:

"Republican strategists with close ties to the White House described Clement as the leading candidate.

"She's pretty untouchable," one of the strategists said, noting that she has attracted little attention for her judicial opinions, reducing the chances of a bitter confirmation fight over her writings.

...Brad Berenson, Bush's former associate White House counsel, said Clement would "face a relatively smooth confirmation" process because she has the backing of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. "She's the rare find that would be acceptable to both conservatives and Democrats," he said."

Of course, with 55 Republicans in the Senate, Bush doesn't need to have any Democratic support to get his choice through. Furthermore, since there's no paper trail, Clement may also turn out to be much more liberal than people think. That's why I've referred to Clement in a previous post as one of the judges that "might be good candidates to turn into little Kennedys or Souters".

If you want evidence that Clement wouldn't be another Scalia or Thomas, just know that she has previously made it clear that she would not overturn Roe v. Wade:

" (Clement) has stated that the Supreme Court ``has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion'' and that ``the law is settled in that regard.''

Clement would be a very disappointing pick and were Bush to select her, it would be proof that his talk about changing the court for the better was nothing but campaign rhetoric...

*** Update #1 ***: From the AP:

"President Bush has made his decision about whom he plans to nominate to take Sandra Day O'Connor's place on the Supreme Court and will announce his pick to the nation in a prime-time address Tuesday night, the White House said." --

*** Update #2 ***: Michelle Malkin has a round-up of conservative comments on Clement and the reactions don't seem to be particularly enthusiastic...

*** Update #3 ***: Cross your fingers, folks! From RedState...

"Something has happened in the past ten minutes. I've had three five (they keep IM'ing) people from the media and conservative think tanks IM to say we're on a wild goose chase -- the conservative think tank people say its an intentional one. According to them, we should not be looking at Edith Clement, but at her cohort on the Fifth Circuit, Edith H. Jones a/k/a the Female Scalia.

My money is on Clement still, but it is interesting how, by the time I've finished writing this post seven people have IM'ed to say it is Jones, not Clement."

Edith Jones gets the official Right Wing News seal of approval, which means she would be almost guaranteed to be a solid, originalist justice who'd make conservatives all across America do a snoopy dance out of pure joy.

Like I said, cross your fingers and let's hope that if it's an Edith, it's the RIGHT Edith...

*** Update #4 ***: Here's an interesting little excerpt from an old Robert Novak column about David Souter & Edith Jones. After you read it, it becomes easy to see why so many conservatives get very nervous about justices without a paper trail -- like Clement:

"Three years later, Souter had a powerful sponsor: White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, who in 1983 as governor of New Hampshire had named him to the state Supreme Court. With a wink, Sununu assured everybody that Souter was a stealth conservative. It would have taken a courageous judge-vetter to contradict the imperious Sununu.

But the White House lawyer checking judges, the former Lee Lieberman, had formidable right-wing credentials. A co-founder of the Federalist Society along with the future Sen. Abraham, she had been a law clerk of Justice Antonin Scalia. Instead, she went overboard for Souter. According to Justice Department sources, she predicted he would be another Scalia. That may have clinched his selection over the conservative favorite, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones of Houston.

The results were staggering. Had Bush the elder named Jones instead of Souter, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned. The numerous 5 to 4 votes -- on abortion, school prayer, term limits and much else -- would have been reversed. Instead of another Scalia, Souter duplicated the justice he replaced, William Brennan, as the court's most automatic liberal vote."

Hat tip to Polipundit for Novak column link.

See if you can spot the inconsistency here:

"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, Feb 11, 2003

"Speaking to the nations' largest Hispanic civil rights organization, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., received a standing ovation Monday when she vowed her support for legislation that would allow illegal immigrant high school students to attend college." -- July 18, 2005

Oh, yeah, Hillary is about as tough on illegal immigrants as she is on Bill for his serial adultery...

Lee over at Right-Thinking From the Left Coast points out that George Bush is backpedaling by only pledging to fire whoever was involved in the Plame leak if a crime was committed:

"(I)t can’t be denied that the administration has gone from firing anyone “involved” with the leak to anyone “convicted of a crime” involving the leak. You can argue if you like that what Rove has done does not constitute a fireable offense, and there’s probably some merit to that argument. But it can’t be denied that Bush and the gang are backpedaling from what they originally said."

It is fair to note that when this story initially broke, the spin was that Valerie Plame was a covert agent whose life had been put in danger by someone at the White House who had maliciously outed her, thereby committing a felony, in order to stick it to Joe Wilson.

If all of that were true, then Bush should fire the person responsible for revealing Plame's identity.

However, while Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the matter is not complete yet so we don't have the full story, it appears none of the original spin is true. Plame doesn't look to have been a covert agent, her life wasn't put in danger (or she wouldn't have appeared in Vanity Fair), her identity doesn't appear to have been maliciously revealed, and it looks as if no crime was committed.

Given all that, the leakers shouldn't be fired.

Now, is it a climb down for George Bush to move from firing anyone who leaked to firing anyone who committed a crime by leaking? Absolutely. He's not saying the same thing he did when this story broke.

But, should Karl Rove, a man who has been very valuable to Bush, be fired even though it looks as if he has done nothing wrong at this point just so Bush can say he's being consistent? Well, as Emerson said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

And it would be foolish to fire Karl Rove unless some new damaging information comes to light.

Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of conservatives seem to be rallying behind Rove, the Democrats and media are going to scream their heads off no matter what Bush does, and from what I've seen, outside the Beltway, the general reaction to this whole scandal has either been confusion or yawning.

So is Bush backing off a bit from what he said originally? Yes, but it's the right thing to do given the unusual circumstances in this case...

*** Update #1 ***: JustOneMinute has written a long post with lots of quotes on this subject and argues that Bush hasn't moved the goalposts at all.

You can certainly make a case for that point of view, but until recently, the perception was that Bush was going to fire whoever was involved in the leak, whether they committed a crime or not. Here's an exchange from a June 2004 press conference, for example, that buttresses that viewpoint:

Q: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

Yes, I know that you could counter that Bush originally pledged to fire the leaker if he/she broke the law and therefore he was probably just reiterating his original pledge, etc., etc., but I think that's a bit of a leap.

*** Update #3 ***:

Let me also add that this scandal has turned into a hair splitting festival on both the right and the left and, in my opinion, this whole thing has been over-analyzed into the ground.

To me, it comes down to whether Plame was a covert agent or not when her name came out. Right now, the answer to that question appears to be, "no." Since that's the case, it means that revealing her name wouldn't have been illegal or unethical. That means that Rove did nothing wrong and shouldn't be fired.

There's your whole case in a nutshell and nothing else matters very much in comparison...

(*** For the first time, I've decided to move the daily news in the right column over to the center of the page. That should make it easier to read, open up more Blogad space on the right, draw more attention for the news, and hopefully pull in more links. I've made some changes based on reader comments yesterday. Please let me know how you like the change in the comments section. ***)

Iraqi Gunmen Ambush Bus, Killing 13 -- Iraqi President Optimistic On New Constitution

June Report Led Britain To Lower Its Terror Alert (Free NYT Registration Req.)

500+ British Muslim Religious Leaders Issued A Fatwa In Response To London Bombs

Bush: CIA Leaker Would Be Fired If Crime Committed

A SCOTUS Nominee Should Be Announced This Week (Free NYT Registration Req.)

Rumsfeld Vows Speedy Action On Guantanamo Trials

This Year: RNC Raised 59.4 Mil W/ 34 Mil In The Bank V. DNC 28 Mil W/ 9 Mil In The Bank

Tancredo: If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca (Wacky)

Clinic Bomber Eric Rudolph Draws Life Sentences (Applause)

Bush Aims to Expand System of Merit Pay For Gov't Worker (WAPO Registration Required)

Claim: The White House Is Saying Gonzales Will Not Be Nominated For SCOTUS

Mark Steyn: A Victory For Multiculti Over Common Sense

John Leo: Rooting For The Martians

Stuart Taylor Jr: Five Reasons Not To Put Gonzales On The Court

The Washington Times: Knifing Rove, Whitewashing Wilson-Plame

Dick Morris: Bush Shouldn't Fire Karl Rove

Conservative Grapevine

Vietnam Commander Gen. William Westmoreland Dies

San Bernardino Is Incorporating Ebonics Into A New School Policy That Targets Black Students

Guilty: Warlord With 'Human Dog' Who Set Up Home In UK

2 Tramps Detained for Cannibalism in Russia’s Far East

Website Of The Day: World Defense Review

On a slow day, I may only hit 40-60 blogs and websites, but typically I hit somewhere in the neighborhood of 75-100 blogs and websites a day Sun-Fri. Here are the blogs that I have bookmarked as "daily reads," which in practice, means that I hit them 3-5+ times per week. Hopefully, you'll find some new reads....

Ace Of Spades HQ
Alarming News
Althouse
Ankle Biting Pundits
Asymmetrical Information
Betsy's Page
Blackfive
Belmont Club
BlogSpy
BlameBush!

Blogs For Bush
BlogSpy
Brainster's Blog
Byrd Droppings
C-Log
Captain's Quarters
Chrenkoff
Daily Pundit
DANEgerus Weblog
Daniel Drezner

Dean's World
Ed Driscoll
Election Projection
GayPatriot
GOP Bloggers
Gopinion
Guardian WatchBlog
Hit & Run
Hugh Hewitt
Huffington's Toast

IMAO
Inoperable Terran
Instapundit
Iowahawk
Iraq The Model
Irish Pennants
Jihad Watch
JunkYardBlog
Kausfiles
Kim du Toit

Knowledge Is Power
La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lifelike Pundits
Little Green Footballs
Media Blog
Memeorandum
Michelle Malkin
Outside The Beltway
Patrick Ruffini

Pejmanesque
Polipundit
Power Line
ProfessorBainbridge
Q&O Blog
Radio Blogger
Ravenwood's Universe
RedState
Relapsed Catholic
Riding Sun

Right Thinking Girl
Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Roger L. Simon
Samizdata
Scrappleface
Small Dead Animals
The Anchoress
The Blog Herald
The Corner
The Big Pharoh

The Buzz
The Daou Report
The Fourth Rail
The Hedgehog Report
The Hotline's Blogometer
The Jawa Report
The LLama Butchers
The Nose On Your Face
The Therapist
Tim Blair

Tongue Tied
UKBlogs Aggregator
Viking Pundit
Villainous Company
Vodkpundit
Vox Popoli
Winds Of Change
Wizbang!

These days, liberals seem to be almost perpetually sputtering with rage. They're infuriated by people who support the war in Iraq! They're outraged by Karl Rove! They get angry because of -- usually imaginary -- attacks on their patriotism. And George Bush? Oh, don't even get them started or they'll Chimpy McBushHitler your ear off.

But lately, the one thing that really set the left off was Karl Rove publicly slamming liberals for being soft on terrorism. The left side of the blogosphere was reeling off posts, Democratic politicians were condemning Rove, they were just flipping out.

Funny thing though, Rove was absolutely right; liberals aren't serious about stopping terrorism.

Here's a small, but instructive piece of evidence that should tell you a lot about the way liberals look at terrorism and help prove that Rove was right. From Margaret Cho's website, here's part of a description of how her dog Gudrun got its name:

"Gudrun is named after the infamous Gudrun Ensslin who was the female leader of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, an art terrorist group from the 70s. Terrorism was different then. It had a chicness to it, which made it seem less like a dangerous menace and more like fashion."

Here we have a popular, liberal comedian who got a First Amendment Award from the ACLU of Southern California last year and who worked with the biggest & most powerful liberal 527 group, MoveOn, and she's naming her dog after a terrorist!

Oh, but terrorism "had a chicness to it" back then. That's a fascinating way of looking at it, isn't it? Here are a few of the "chic crimes" the Baader-Meinhof Gang engaged in:

"They attempt to bomb Nixon's motorcade, but the bomb is discovered before it can be triggered."

"Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Holger Meins, and Jan-Carl Raspe place three pipe bombs near the entrance the the I.G. Farben building, which houses the headquarters of the US Army Corp. The bombs explode within minutes of each other from 6:59 AM to 7:02 AM. The officer's mess is destroyed. A shard of glass flies from the glass window of the mess and lodges deeply into the throat of Lt. Colonel Paul Bloomquist. A decorated Vietnam veteran and father of two, Bloomquist bleeds to death on the floor of the officer's mess."

"Irmgard Möller and Angela Luther drive two cars onto the Campbell Barracks of the US Army Supreme European Command in Heidelberg. It is an easy enough job, the guards wave any cars with American license plates through; a pair of stolen plates ensures that they will not be stopped. Helped by Baader and Meins, Möller's and Luther's cars are equipped with 50 pound bombs. Möller and Luther surely notice that the area they park their cars in is frequented by soldiers and their families.

At around 6:00 PM Captain Clyde Bonner of the US Army and his friend Ronald Woodward are killed instantly when the car that Möller has driven blows up next Bonner's new Ford Capri. Bonner is blown in half, his head and torso staying next to the car, with parts of his legs drooping off a nearby tree like wet leaves. The outside wall of the nearby base clubhouse collapses as well, knocking over a Coca-Cola machine, crushing and killing Charles Peck, another American soldier. Two days later in a communiqué (Full German Text), the "Commando Fifteenth July" (the day that Baader-Meinhof Gang member Petra Schelm was killed), claims responsibility for the bombings; they are "in response to American bombings in Vietnam."

Trying to assassinate the President and murder American soldiers? How chic, Margaret, how chic!

In all seriousness, doesn't this tell you a lot? Ya know, here we are in the middle of a war on terrorism and we're fighting radical Islamist fanatics who would happily murder Americans by the millions if they had the opportunity. Conservatives want to stop these terrorists by any means necessary, preferably by killing them. Meanwhile, we have a prominent liberal like Margaret Cho who admires terrorists with American blood on their hands so much that she's naming her dog after one of them.

If the left is wondering why the American people don't trust them to fight the war on terrorism, then they need look no further than the attitudes of people like Margaret Cho to gain an understanding of the situation.

"Framing" is the fashionable new strategy of the day on the left. In fact, framing is so "in" right now, that there's a 12 page long article about it in the New York Times magazine.

But, what does "framing" mean in a political context you may ask? I'll let the New York Times answer that one:

"Exactly what it means to ''frame'' issues seems to depend on which Democrat you are talking to, but everyone agrees that it has to do with choosing the language to define a debate and, more important, with fitting individual issues into the contexts of broader story lines. In the months after the election, Democratic consultants and elected officials came to sound like creative-writing teachers, holding forth on the importance of metaphor and narrative."

Put another way, it's that old chestnut: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it" repackaged and put to work in politics. What's new is that there are more than a few Democrats who seem to think that "framing" and the man promoting it, George Lakoff, are going to be the answer to all the Democratic Party's troubles:

"The father of framing is a man named George Lakoff, and his spectacular ascent over the last eight months in many ways tells the story of where Democrats have been since the election. A year ago, Lakoff was an obscure linguistics professor at Berkeley, renowned as one of the great, if controversial, minds in cognitive science but largely unknown outside of it. When he, like many liberals, became exasperated over the drift of the Kerry campaign last summer -- ''I went to bed angry every night,'' he told me -- Lakoff decided to bang out a short book about politics and language, based on theories he had already published with academic presses, that could serve as a kind of handbook for Democratic activists. His agent couldn't find a publishing house that wanted it. Lakoff ended up more or less giving it away to Chelsea Green, a tiny liberal publisher in Vermont.

That book, ''Don't Think of an Elephant!'' is now in its eighth printing, having sold nearly 200,000 copies, first through liberal word of mouth and the blogosphere and then through reviews and the lecture circuit. (On the eve of last fall's election, I came across a Democratic volunteer in Ohio who was handing out a boxful of copies to her friends.) Lakoff has emerged as one of the country's most coveted speakers among liberal groups, up there with Howard Dean, who, as it happens, wrote the foreword to ''Don't Think of an Elephant!'' Lakoff has a DVD titled ''How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Solutions From George Lakoff,'' and he recently set up his own consulting company."

There are three reasons that Democrats love the concept of "framing" so much.

The first is that there is something to it, it's not all hooey. You can take a rock, put it in a box, and sell about 3 of them by calling it "A rock I found in my back yard," or you can do what one man did, take that same stone, name it "The Pet Rock," and make millions. How an issue or product pitch is framed does make at least some difference.

The second thing that excites Dems about "framing" is that it doesn't require them to abandon any of their ideological goals. The idea being that the public hasn't rejected their policies, it's that the Dems just haven't been able to find the right "frame" for them yet. Dick Durbin explains:

"When I asked Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the minority whip and one of Lakoff's strongest supporters, whether Lakoff had talked to the caucus about this void of new ideas in the party, Durbin didn't hesitate. ''He doesn't ask us to change our views or change our philosophy,'' Durbin said. ''He tells us that we have to recommunicate.'' In fact, Durbin said he now understood, as a result of Lakoff's work, that the Republicans have triumphed ''by repackaging old ideas in all new wrapping,'' the implication being that this was not a war of ideas at all, but a contest of language."

Third, Democrats have a tendency to believe that most Americans are gullible idiots and view "framing" as an easy way to trick them. Don't take my word for it, just read what George Lakoff had to say about it:

"According to Lakoff, Democrats have been wrong to assume that people are rational actors who make their decisions based on facts; in reality, he says, cognitive science has proved that all of us are programmed to respond to the frames that have been embedded deep in our unconscious minds, and if the facts don't fit the frame, our brains simply reject them. Lakoff explained to me that the frames in our brains can be ''activated'' by the right combination of words and imagery, and only then, once the brain has been unlocked, can we process the facts being thrown at us.

This notion of ''activating'' unconscious thought sounded like something out of ''The Manchurian Candidate'' (''Raymond, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?''), and I asked Lakoff if he was suggesting that Americans voted for conservatives because they had been brainwashed.

''Absolutely not,'' he answered, shaking his head.

But hadn't he just said that Republicans had somehow managed to rewire people's brains?

''That's true, but that's different from brainwashing, and it's a very important thing,'' he said. ''Brainwashing has to do with physical control, capturing people and giving them messages over and over under conditions of physical deprivation or torture. What conservatives have done is not brainwashing in this way. They've done something that's perfectly legal. What they've done is find ways to set their frames into words over many years and have them repeated over and over again and have everybody say it the same way and get their journalists to repeat them, until they became part of normal English."

See? The American people aren't "rational actors" and they don't understand "facts." Instead, the population is full of drooling morons who have to be taught to believe the right things by their liberal betters. But unfortunately, the evil Republicans have gotten to the sheeplebots first and have rewired their circuits...for EVIL!

Of course, Lakoff and all the Democrats who are getting so excited about "framing" are missing the tinfoil hat wearing, talking donkey who's sitting in the middle of the living room asking if anyone else thinks the Bush Administration hired Osama Bin Laden to knock down the Twin Towers:

It's the ideas, stupid!

I'll let Republican consultant Frank Luntz, who works with Republicans on related issues, elaborate on that point:

"Luntz sees Lakoff, by contrast, as a doctrinaire liberal who believes viscerally that if Democrats are losing, it has to be because of the words they use rather than the substance of the argument they make. What Lakoff didn't realize, Luntz said, was that poll-tested phrases like ''tax relief'' were successful only because they reflected the values of voters to begin with; no one could sell ideas like higher taxes and more government to the American voter, no matter how they were framed. To prove it, Luntz, as part of his recent polling for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, specifically tested some of Lakoff's proposed language on taxation. He said he found that even when voters were reminded of the government's need to invest in education, health care, national security and retirement security, 66 percent of them said the United States overtaxed its citizenry and only 14 percent said we were undertaxed. Luntz presented this data to chamber officials on a slide with the headline ''George Lakoff Is Wrong!!''

''He deserves a lot of credit,'' Luntz said of Lakoff. ''He's one of the very few guys who understands the limits of liberal language. What he doesn't understand is that there are also limits on liberal philosophy. They think that if they change all the words, it'll make a difference. Won't happen.''"

Bingo! Give that man an Ann Coulter swimsuit calender, because he deserves a prize for getting it exactly right!

What the Democrats who're latching onto "framing" don't get is that you can take a big old mound of horse crap, put a layer of icing on it and call it a chocolate cake, but you aren't going to fool many people, and those you do trick aren't going to be real happy with you after they take that first bite.

Matt Bai, the writer of the article, picks up on this as he closes out:

"Consider, too, George Lakoff's own answer to the Republican mantra. He sums up the Republican message as ''strong defense, free markets, lower taxes, smaller government and family values,'' and in ''Don't Think of an Elephant!'' he proposes some Democratic alternatives: ''Stronger America, broad prosperity, better future, effective government and mutual responsibility.'' Look at the differences between the two. The Republican version is an argument, a series of philosophical assertions that require voters to make concrete choices about the direction of the country. Should we spend more or less on the military? Should government regulate industry or leave it unfettered? Lakoff's formulation, on the other hand, amounts to a vague collection of the least objectionable ideas in American life. Who out there wants to make the case against prosperity and a better future? Who doesn't want an effective government?

What all these middling generalities suggest, perhaps, is that Democrats are still unwilling to put their more concrete convictions about the country into words, either because they don't know what those convictions are or because they lack confidence in the notion that voters can be persuaded to embrace them. Either way, this is where the power of language meets its outer limit. The right words can frame an argument, but they will never stand in its place."

Again, bingo! Since Bai works for the New York Times, maybe he'll have to make do with a Maureen Dowd swimsuit calender, but he does deserve a prize -- especially for being able to at least consider the truth: that Democrats "lack confidence in the notion that voters can be persuaded to embrace" their ideas.

What Democratic ideas? Just look at the "Republican mantra" that Lakoff brought up:

"He sums up the Republican message as ''strong defense, free markets, lower taxes, smaller government and family values..."

The Democratic Party is essentially the mirror image of the Republican Party, which is why they try to block us at every turn. So what do the Democrats stand for? Just reverse the mantra:

"Weaker defense, protectionism and unions, higher taxes, bigger government, and undermining traditional family values."

There's the agenda and you can frame it any way you want, it's not going to look any better to the American people, which is why the Democrats can talk all day about the specific things that they oppose, but they get vague, fuzzy, and slip into "middling generalities" when you try to pin them down on their beliefs.

Take it from a guy with a BA in psychology, "framing" isn't going to be the miracle cure for what ails the Democratic Party.

The Christian Science Monitor has an article about the importance that a nominee's attitude towards following stare decisis or precedent will have in the nomination hearings.

Upholding precedent fosters stability and predictability in the law. And it enhances the legitimacy of the court by demonstrating to the nation that the justices themselves accept and respect the court's own opinions.

On the other hand, if the high court adhered strictly to precedent, it would be unable to correct mistakes in constitutional interpretation, and future interpretation would only perpetuate the errors. For example, Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case upholding "separate but equal" racial segregation, would have continued as the law of the land had the Supreme Court not overruled it in the 1954 landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education.

Stare decisis means different things to different jurists. Some are extremely reluctant to overrule precedent, while others place a higher priority on correcting what they view as fundamental errors in constitutional interpretation by the high court. Still others seem ready to invoke stare decisis to protect rulings they favor, but not those they oppose.

I know that for some, adherence to stare decisis is codetalk for upholding Roe v. Wade. I'm afraid that, for many jurists and observers, respecting precedent really means respecting the precedents I like and not the ones I dislike. The article cites the classic example of Brown v. Board of Education, but more recently, we have seen the Justices reverse the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision concerning gay rights. Presumably that is an overturning of precedent that those worried about overturning Roe v. Wade would have approved. I'm sure that lawyers could come up with other examples of overturning precedents that have pleased either side of the ideological spectrum. Unlike Nancy Pelosi most people don't regard a Supreme Court decision "as almost as if God has spoken" so why should any potential justice be eliminated just because he or she does or does not think that respecting precedent is essential in deciding cases? You can't argue that the age of a precedent makes it inviolable since Plessy was 58 years old when it was overturned. If a precedent is bad, shouldn't it be overturned? And different people will view different precedents as worth upholding or not.

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

Reporters familiar with Hillier's style barely flinched when he said all elements of the Canadian Forces need to be revamped, including the part where "you go out and bayonet somebody."

"We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."

The terrorist bombings in London underscore the need to take the fight to the enemy in failed states where they have room to thrive, said Hillier.

As a Western society that values rights and freedoms, Canada is already in conflict with "what people like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and those others want."

"These are detestable murderers and scumbags," Hillier said. "They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties."

It's time for Canada to take a stand, he said, just as it did 66 years ago when it joined the Second World War against the Nazis, whom he described as "those despicable, murderous b*stards." -- Canadian Gen. Rick Hillier, The Head Of Canada's Military

This is the first time I've been impressed with anyone in Canada's military since those Canadian snipers went to town on the Taliban. It's certainly nice to see a Canuck with real juice talking tough about terrorism for a change...

Suicide Bombings In Iraq Kill Over 100 In Iraq

Turkey: A Bomb Tore Apart A Minibus, Killing At Least Five People

More Than 100 Rockets And Mortars Have Been Fired At Israel In 4 Days

London Bombers Have Ties to United States

Police Have Released An Image Of The 4 London Bombers On Their Bombing Mission

Egypt Says It Will Not Hand Over A Biochemist Involved In The London Bombings

What Motivates A Suicide Bomber?

An Important Egyptian Imam Speaks Out Against Terrorism In Iraq (Applause)

Click on the more button for the domestic news, columns, leftovers, and website of the day...

(continued...)