Liberty Dad - a World Without Dictators

I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

About me

User: TomGrey
Name: Tom Grey
Now a libertarian paternalist - progressive Conservative. I want lots of choices for people, with very responsible oriented defaults. Political, smaller gov't oriented, pro- Christian with tolerance and against changes reducing Christian influence.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

And the blogroll

Counter

visited *loading* times

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear
Home » October 2005
Monday, 31 October 2005
Joanne Grey -- RIP

My dear mother, Joanne Grey, aka McBride Graessle Keeling, passed away. 

I will be unexpectedly visiting the USA for a memorial service; she will be cremated.  She was a member of the Neptune Society (like my Grandpa George and Grandma Blanche, but not Granny Lorraine).

I'll have more to say, or not, later.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/31/05 16:59 | link | comments (4)

Friday, 28 October 2005
Hugh's farewell thanks to Harriet

Usually I link to other sites, without copying it all.  This time is an exception.  Hugh Hewitt says:

 I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.

She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies.

I totally agree.

On the next nomination, Hugh says:

I think this gets us to Judge Michael McConnell in a hurry.

If, after conversations with Senators Specter and Kyl, there appears to be no way to rush a nomination in time for the crucial cases, then Judge Luttig or Judge Jones are the other obvious choices

I kinda like Brown, myself.

Hugh says, quite rightly, that the Conservatives have picked up the "weapon of the Left".  I'm sure he's right.  I have mixed feelings about it.  The Court became too political in Brown v. Board of Education, because filibustering Democrats (like D - Byrd) refused to legislate equal treatment for Negroes (as ML King named himself and his people; though I now prefer Blacks). 

The SC was a little bit wrong in further "legislating" to correct the discrimination failures.  The SC was terribly wrong to do the same for Abortion, creating a "right" where none is written, and pretty expressly contradicting the reservation of powers to the States, rather than the Feds -- not to mention condemning 45 million unwanted innocent human fetuses to execution.

Hugh correctly doesn't want the SC to be politics.  Unfortunately, it now IS, it long HAS BEEN, and I see no reason whatsoever to believe it will STOP being politics.  One of the "weapons of the Left" is the slander, the quotes out of context, the cherry-picking of the negative.  It's reasonable to reject these.  Another, bigger, weapon is this: Public Opinion. I'm sure Hugh doesn't say conservatives should ignore public opinion, but he, author of the book Blog, writes:

Distortion, denial, and damning all in the pursuit of the destruction of a nominee before she has uttered a single word to the Senate.

The Left has been, for too long, an expert at public opinion.  I'm against distortion or denial, but all in favor of damning the Left, especially the anti-war folk from Vietnam who are in denial about their support for N. Viet commie victory, and commie victory in Cambodia, and therefore in favor of genocide.

 
I, too, think there was premature damning of Miers -- but not so much distortion or denial.  She did NOT have a paper trail, it's not clear to me her nearly invisible record was much distorted.  I trusted the President, I think he deserved it and Miers deserved a vote -- but David Frum, among others, was quick to damn her for not being "good enough" or, more likely, not NT/NF "intellectual" enough.
Especially among Conservatives, the popularity of blogs is the ability to damn whomever we want, as soon as we want. And then try to get rational arguments in favor of our emotions, while our blogs allow us to bypass the Leftist NY-DC-LA anti-God, anti-Success, anti-Bush MainStreamMedia.
 
Finally, I’d like to refight the Bork fight. More, I’d like an SC candidate to honestly state:
No on Roe – my opinion would concur with one of the dissenters, so the decision would be reversed.
 
And let the Dems go apoplectic at that; if Roe is their litmus test, let’s be more honest about it. 
 
Yes, there is the problem that many Reps are pro-choice small gov’t types, while the pro-life BIG gov’t folk have been pushed out of the Dems into the Reps. Just on these two important issues (pro-life/ pro-choice and big/small gov’t) there is none among the four choices which is a majority. Most small-gov’t folk are in the Reps, and have been for a long time (and have been betrayed by Pork loving Reps in power); since Roe in 1973, most pro-life folk have been pushed into the Reps. 
 
Hugh correctly notes that McCain and the Gang (of 14, half Reps) did damage to the Reps, but not as much as refusing an up or down vote on Miers. Because the anti-Miers folk were successful at getting withdrawal BEFORE hearings, I think the McCain & Gang’s damage is greater. Further, the Blog damning genie is out of the bottle / available on the internet. Only terrible McCain-Feingold type restrictions on Free Speech could possibly put it back. 
 
Hugh should keep damning McCain & the Gang; and possibly join with David Frum and Glenn Reynolds in PorkBusters – and getting all bloggers to damn excessive spending.
 

An effort to get Open Source Legislation might work – especially if it starts with UNSCAM and the US refuses to fund the UN until they go (first) into Open Source Procurement mode! All UN contracts should be on the Web – Transparent – available. There are NO “national secrets” to protect with the UN in what they buy, from whom, for how much. At least, there shouldn’t be.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/28/05 09:38 | link | comments (2)
abortion, supreme court

Thursday, 27 October 2005
Bye Harriet

I was wrong.  Way wrong. BBC reports her exit.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/27/05 15:37 | link | comments
supreme court

Questions about Harriet

Hugh Hewitt asks important questions about Harriet Miers: Which I answer

Does George W. Bush deserve any loyalty from his party?  A big amount, but weak on spending.

From pundits identified with his party? Yes.

If so, how much and why not more? About 80%: weak on spending AND weak on Public Relations given a known hostile and unfair press.  Hugh Hewitt shouldn't have to do the PR heavy lifting of being pro-Harriet.

Do Harriett Miers' many accomplishments count for nothing? She's an accomplished DOER, not so much a THINKER (SJ not NT/NF in Myers-Briggs; she's not "one of us" intelligentsia.)

Does Harriett Miers strike the commentator as a dedicated public servant? Yes

Why not wait for the hearings to at least begin? I'm waiting.

How important is it that Roe v. Wade/Casey be reversed?  Roe is the MOST IMPORTANT reversal.

Which five precedents does the commentator think are in most pressing need of reversal? (I am one of the non-qualified to evaluate.) Roe, and all state restrictions on abortion.  Ten Commandments should be legal.  McCain-Feingold.  Voluntary prayer in gov't schools should be legal. Restricting marriage to be male-female adults must be a state's preogative.

Does the commentator agree with George Will's assertion of Justice Lewis Powell as the "embodiment of mainstream conservative jurisprudence?" No.

Is a neo-Borking underway which will discredit the conservative cause's defense of its future nominees against similar, future attacks from the left? Possibly, but I kinda like having a pre-debate.  All Dems voting against her needs to be prepared for.

What are the political consequences of a defeat of Miers at the hands of a GOP controlled Senate?  Totally unknown; who is the next candidate (Brown?), does she get confirmed, do the Reps of the Gang of 14 agree to go nuclear  for a clear anti-Roe intellectual?

----  I think the most important question was not asked by Hugh:  Will a confirmed Miers more likely increase the number of different opinions issued or decrease the number?  I think decrease; which is the most important kind of conservative change the SCOTUS needs.  Yes, reverse Roe -- but in a single 5-4 majority opinion.

The reason this is the important question is that Brown or other judges will more likely increase the number of opinions, and thereby confuse the law with too much nuance.  Which means, in practice, more arbitrary uncertainty.

Miers will not be withdrawn by the Pres., and is unlikely to withdraw herself; I agree with Stan. Who points at DJ Drummond on why Miers will be confirmed.

The Hedgehog Blog notes that, now in disagreement with conservative Bush critics, he can more easily see some things:

Now, I am not necessarily right about all this; I remain prepared to be convinced I am wrong. But I do see how my own ideological brethren can be unfair, short-sighted, and guilty of flabby reasoning. It's a bit of a jarring perspective-expanding lesson, even though it should not be. In the future I will bear it in mind when I am once again on the same side as those talk radio hosts and blogospheric conservatives.

As a Libertarian Paternalist, I have long seen how some can be unfair or guilty of flabby reasoning.  David Frum usually is not one of these, but on Miers, he is.

Miers is not mediocre, she is a quite competent lawyer/ manager.  But she is NOT an abstract (iNtuitive) oriented person.  David says "we can do better."  I believe he thinks we can.  I don't think "doing better" is a good enough reason to oppose Bush on a fully competent Miers (competence isn't good enough!).

I'm getting convinced we conservatives won't do better on Miers than listen closely in the hearings before making up our minds; but I tend to think if Miers goes into the hearings, she comes out confirmed.  Therefore, I sort of agree that, to stop her, she must be withdrawn before hearings; so the anti-Miers strategy is correct for their goal.

I don't agree with their goal.   Still, as Jeremy noted in a comment (on Two Minute Offense), Bush could push Miers for an Appeals Court if he wanted to -- I CAN imagine her suggesting this to him, especially if Rove gets indicted.

I support Harriet here (on concurrence, especially; forgot to credit Beldar), with Neo-neocon actually comparing Miers and Roberts answers; and here where I blame the Reps of the Gang of 14 (and note that Althouse finds Bush jokes much funnier -- like Lowell in reverse); and in Common Sense and Goodness, not a Pointy Head.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/27/05 01:48 | link | comments
abortion, christianity, supreme court

Wednesday, 26 October 2005
Still in favor of Harriet -- more concurrence

Neo-neocon has a fine post on being neutral in judging Miers. She actually compares Miers and Roberts in their written statements! 
I'm leaning IN FAVOR of Harriet, because I think she'll vote more in favor of somebody else's opinion.
She'll concur.
 
What the SC needs is more concurrence, less "brilliant nuance", it needs fewer separate opinions, not more.
 
As an NT (Myers-Briggs), who knows lots of NFs (like NNC?), there is a LOT of intellectual elitism behind the criticisms.
 
I do think there are more brilliant judges Bush could have chosen -- but I don't think the SC needs another brilliant judge. I'm sure there are more clearly anti-Roe candidates, and my biggest hesitation is that Miers would be pro-Roe. 
 
I would prefer more an honest Roe as litmus test, with the Dems trying to filibuster and the Reps ending their power to stop a judicial nomination from getting voted on. But the Reps of the Gang of 14 don't seem willing, much less eager, to fight and win a Bork type battle.
 
 
I think that, besides conservative anger at Bush's / Rep excessive spending, there is also anger that Bush is failing to do good Public Relations. I know the media is an enemy, so he should treat it as such; and try harder to get good messages out. Through bloggers, local newspapers, better Press Releases. I don't know how.
 
NNC's own "blood-smelling shark attack" comment is also right on; many pundits are more interested in being witty/ snarky than in getting Roe overturned, given the present elected politicians.
 
I'd like such pundits to be more anti-Pork (PorkBusters!) against specific politicians, but it's easier to just focus all the anti-energy against one Pres. than against 85 (or 41 Reps) Senators who want to keep their pork.
 
This is a reason the Pope will always get more credit/ blame for Christianity, too -- focus on the top person rather than the much larger group.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/26/05 09:02 | link | comments
abortion, supreme court

Wilkerson whining about Bush

Marc Cooper writes on another ex-admin guy,  Wilkerson (who worked for Powell), whining about Bush – Rummy - Condi. (Oh, and Dick Cheney, too).
 
It really IS too bad Bush was convinced by Dem Pres. Clinton's false assertions (in 1998, official US policy) that Saddam had WMDs. And UNSC 1441 required Saddam to show what he had done with them -- he never did, and we still don't know. (What did happen to the stuff he had? Secret destruction? Out to Syria/Iran? buried? We don't know.)
 
I'm glad that Iraq has had an election in Jan. to elect Constitution writers; and an election in Oct. to accept that Constitution.
Looks like a HUGE success. Of course, not a good Bash-Bush story, so the press doesn't cover it so much.  What is happening in Iraq is looking relatively good (although we passed the 2000 US casualty). This makes the anti-war folk go back to before the war (same with press vs. Judi).
 
Yay for Iraq! Yay for Afghanistan! and Georgia and Ukraine!
 
Compare Bush's cabal with Kofi Annan's corrupt oil-for-bribes. I like Bush's folks, and policies, much more. Compare Iraq vs Kosovo, after 6 years under the UN -- likely to split away from Serbia, and possibly another little mass migration of Kosovo Serbs getting out.
Compare Iraq with Darfur -- you know, the place where hundreds are being murdered, thousands dying. Little press about it -- Bush, and Powell, called it genocide (so as to push UN action). UN says "no", just war crimes, so let the ICC treat it as a law enforcement. (Like what Dems wanted against Al Qaeda.)
 
How many thousands have to die in Darfur before the US solution for Iraq looks better than the UN solution for Darfur? I'd guess Powell, too, is looking at this comparison, since history will. Or should.
 
I forgot, many folks still think genocide in SE Asia was better than US support for anti-commie S. Vietnam. No matter how many hundreds of thousands of Asian civilians were murdered by the commies; anti-war folk think that's all OK, at least, better than fighting against it. No wait, I remember. The anti-war folk only compare reality they don’t like with UNreality la-la land “could have been.”
Oh yeah, when Wilkerson says "secret cabal", how can you not LOL? The neo-cons have not been secret since before Bush was elected.
 
++ Fantastic article on the Merger of Village Voice and New Times. You had a good note about no Lefty foundations giving a big chunk of cash to a paper to avoid the otherwise needed money-grubbing. Also Craigslist -- PressThink noted a big journalism conference where none of the Big Shots/ Fat Cats recognized his picture. Even though he's eating their lunch.
 
Have you followed Michael Totten into Pajama Media yet? When you say "the curve has been going in the wrong direction" you actually mean that MORE edgy journalism is increasingly available FOR FREE, and therefore not in a stable secure fashion, for writers wanting cash for words.
 
 
GM Roper complimented your new site, though with a wish you were more conservative. Not quite my own wish, though your new site looks great (except no picture; I'd like one above or below Search).
 
I most liked your sentence beginning: "There’s some unreal expectation that in a fiercely competitive ...marketplace..." Unreal Perfection as the assumed easy-to-achieve alternative is the biggest problem of the Left.
 
 
I wish you would be more honest about what you think a REALISTIC alternative to BushCo is, and some of the real tradeoffs. In your prior post on Wilkerson's "Bush is a disaster" op-ed, he mentions foreign disasters, but no alternatives. Was Clinton's Somalia adventure really better? Did Carter's capitulation to Iran serve world peace? I don't think so.
 
(to repeat myself: Yay for Iraq and a New Constitution.)
 
Keep pounding on Bush (where I'll usually disagree, to one extent or another) AND on greedy Dems, or intellectually dishonest PC bozos. 
 
Thanks for having comments, still.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/26/05 08:11 | link | comments

Friday, 21 October 2005
Dan Gillmor, anti-intelligent design, intellectual coward

Update first: Intelligent Design is "untestable" -- it fills in, with GOD/ "Intelligent Designer" all those parts of evolutionary science that "evolution" fails to explain.  Such as the Big Bang, and what's before (God).  Science should be extremely clear on what they think they know, and why, what they're less certain of, and what they can never know.  There seems lots of evidence for same-species changes based on natural selection (evolution).  There is little or no evidence of changes in the number of DNA chromosomes from one generation of a species, to the next generation of a different species.  But, logically, different species with a "common ancestor" had to, at some point, cease being able to interbreed. The chromosome changes in species are not fully explained by evolution in any testable way that I know of.

Similarly, what was before the Big Bang? (Unlikely to ever know)  Also, what is the meaning of life? the purpose of life? All civilizations throughout history have included some religious answers to these questions--there might well be a "civilization need" for having answers to develop as a civilization.  In a secular-tolerant, science oriented civilization like ours, if "evolution" is taught as science, it is fully appropriate to also teach Intelligent Design as one alternative theory, including the difficulty in testing it, but comparing its testability with evolution's.  It's not clear that change-in species evolution is much more testable than ID.
Finally, many anti-ID folk complain about the lack of math & engineer graduates in the USA. Yet the same folk are totally hypocritical and unsupportive of Larry Summers noting the scientifically testable fact that the very top physicists are overwhelming male; and the Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) testable fact that whites score higher than blacks on IQ tests.  If such non-politically correct TESTABLE truth is  censored, THAT is surely a bigger problem than teaching unfalsifiable Intelligent Design.
It smacks of a PC anti-religious false "intellectual superiority" to oppose ID, yet fail to support testable truth about group differences.

Dan Gillmor says: "It's time to speak out for science," in the Financial Times 19 Oct 2005 edition I read on the way back from Kenya. (Subscription only; 15 days free trial available). 

I want to speak about it and Donald Sensing's  understanding of it: 

ID is the proposal that the complexity of the universe and of earth's creatures cannot be explained by random processes. Hence, IDers (as ID's proponents are sometimes called), say that it is reasonable to posit that creation was designed by a power outside nature.

Now, I happen to believe that, but I also know that ID is not science. At best, Intelligent Design is a conclusion from science. The postulate of a Creator of nature is a non-scientific postulate.

This is what Dan says:

Evolution is not just a theory in the lay sense. The evidence supports it overwhelmingly.

The scientific method does not support intelligent design.  The latter's proponents fill in evolution's holes - tine ones, by scientific standards -- essentially with faith.

Dan pays some lip service to the power and frequent goodness of religion, but concludes: "It does not belong in science class."  I'm pretty sure he's wrong, because ALL the "tiny holes" DO belong in science class, and will certainly be used to discredit any science that pretends it has all the answers.  Each tiny hole means "scientist atheists are lying -- (when they imply they have all the answers, and have no need of faith)."

I prefer Michael Balter (via Donald) Let's have a debate: 

Pro-evolution scientists have little to lose and everything to gain from a nationwide debate. Let’s put the leading proponents of intelligent design and our sharpest evolutionary biologists on a national television panel and let them take their best shots. If biblical literalists want to join in, let them. Let’s encourage teachers to stage debates in their classrooms or in assemblies. Students can be assigned to one or the other side, and guest speakers can be invited. Among other things, students would learn that science, when properly done, reaches conclusions via experimentation, evidence and argument, not through majority view.

The transformation of one species into another, with different numbers of chromosomes, seems a HUGE hole, to me, in evolutionary theory.    ID or God will always explain the Big Bang better than science, whose "scientific method" can never be expected to duplicate the Big Bang; and certainly "randomness" is a weak source for the "meaning of life"  (if any).  This is not so relevant, except as another secular shot against religion (and prolly in favor of killing innocent human fetuses unwanted by their mothers). If the ID debate isn't really about the Abortion Culture War, what is it about? But that's not quite what this post is about.

I'm enraged by Dan Gillmor's silence about science on actual, relevant, and testable hypothoses, especially those postulated by Charles Murray (author of The Bell Curve, and Losing Ground) )about Group Differences: The Inequality Taboo:

 The president of Harvard University offered a few mild, speculative, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard's faculty as if he were a crank.

Where is Dan's outrage against the NON-scientific criticism of Summers? Here's where Murray is so good, and important:

 Good social policy can be based on premises that have nothing to do with scientific truth. The premise that is supposed to undergird all of our social policy, the founders' assertion of an unalienable right to liberty, is not a falsifiable hypothesis. But specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.

Unspoken by Gillmor is any real harm by examining ID; I don't think there is any, unless one is an atheist-believing proponent wanting the gov't schools to indoctrinate students in a pseudo-scientific (those holes!) atheistic materialism as truth.  Murray goes on to discuss how assumptions of group equality leads to bad policy, because the assumption is wrong.  Here's a fact that feminists hate:

Even in the 20th century, women got only 2% of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences--a proportion constant for both halves of the century--and 10% of the prizes in literature. The Fields Medal, the most prestigious award in mathematics, has been given to 44 people since it originated in 1936. All have been men. ...

 In a large sample of mathematically gifted youths, for example, seven times as many males as females scored in the top percentile of the SAT mathematics test. We do not have good test data on the male-female ratio at the top one-hundredth or top one-thousandth of a percentile, where first-rate mathematicians are most likely to be found, but collateral evidence suggests that the male advantage there continues to increase, perhaps exponentially.

Testable Science says there IS a difference, at the extremes.  But Political Correctness says no.

Teaching ID in schools allows those with faith in God to tell atheists -- "you don't have all the answers".  Which is true, they don't.  But anti-ID PC folk prefer the current situation, with only evolution taught, and any faith in God being dismissed as BS.   Yet when their own PC junk is called out, they grow hysterical.  Hypocrites, I call them.  Intellectual cowards.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/21/05 13:43 | link | comments (1)

Technorati -- Open Adventures

This OPEN adventures on Technorati seems something I should be following more, for supporting small businesses.

With the code copied from there to have my name show up:

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/21/05 11:34 | link | comments
economics

Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Big News -- Iraq constitution vote

With so many countries revising, improving, even creating constitutions, thanks to US Pres. Bush and his use of American military power to promote democracy, it's not a surprise that the media doesn't cover all of them. Like the upcoming one in Kenya. But the media's BIG coverage of bombs in Afghanistan, and tiny coverage of their voting, is suggestive of a bias.

Their limited coverage of the Iraq vote is a scandal. Neo-Neocon has a fine post about Iraqification and Vietnamization.  I add:

Great post. The US succeeded in building democracy in S. Korea -- via a semi-corrupt "authoritarian" dictator phase during most of the Cold War. The US failed in democracy building in S. Vietnam, because we were not really willing to fight the proxy war effectively -- meaning train the S. Vietnamese and unleash them. (In the air, especially).

Yes, the S. Vietnamese were corrupt -- virtually all countries getting "aid" become corrupt. I'm in Kenya now; desperately poor kids, so cute, say "give me money" or "buy me lunch". The Kenyans are arguing about a new Constitution (did you know? almost nothing in news). It would increase the power of the (hugely corrupt) President; it would also allow women to own and inherit property. Theft is a huge problem everywhere; yet on my drive from Nairobi to Eldoret, there were at least 7 "police checks".

We didn't stop, but I understand they have a request for most drivers: "Give me money". I'm convinced they learned this line when young, very young and very cute. It's not at all cute when, 20 years later, the same kids use the same words when they're now cops. Too much US "aid" is helping Iraq become corrupt (reinforcing it) -- this is the biggest threat to democratic success. It should be loans, only; with big increases in loans to those who prove to be successful in using prior loans. Democracy based corruption can also be said to be a BIG reason for loss of US political support for S. Vietnam. Similarities and differences are very important.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/19/05 16:01 | link | comments
democracy, wot

Monday, 17 October 2005
Gone to Kenya

I'm in Kenya for a long week, so blogging is low.

Michael Barone talks about elites.  It's a problem.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/051024/24barone.htm 

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/17/05 17:44 | link | comments (1)

Sunday, 09 October 2005
More Pro-Harriet Miers rehash

I want a Bork rematch, with Luttig or Brown, say, where the majority Senate Reps (55?) are willing to go nu-kue-lar to stop a fillibuster and to get an up or down vote; and thus WIN.
The Gang of 14 (7 Reps) says "no".  The outrage on the Right should be directed at the Senate Reps unwilling to fight the Bork rematch.  If a Rep President can NOT count on all Rep Senators, than it's not clear he should fight.

We don't need more intellectuals "making love with their egos," (my Bowie quote) unwilling or unable to merely concur on a majority opinion, as Beldar states .  If she only and always merely votes in a compassionate conservative way, she will be a huge improvement.

Finally, there is some BS that a Bork or Roberts level intelligence will be better able to convince other justices.  I see no evidence of this from Scalia or Rehnquist ... or Souter, Kennedy, O'Conner.  Or anybody on the Court.  In fact, I rather guess Souter, O'Conner, & Kennedy are turned off and reject conservative intellectual bullying.

Where is the proof that serving donuts won't be actually MORE effective at getting a swing vote to agree?  I suspect it will be -- and she's the only candidate who's actually been successful at MANAGING real live people with real live high-powered egos.

Initially underwhelmed/ ignorant.  Now fairly supportive.  Still afraid she will NOT overturn Roe (90% she will) -- actually more afraid Roberts will not (only 80% he will).

Thanks to Mrs. Bay for a fine defense of Harriet Miers.  Hugh Hewitt for a fine note on the elitism of the anti-Miers folk.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/09/05 22:48 | link | comments (1)
abortion, supreme court

Blame Senate Reps

The blame for Miers should be on the Rep Senators of the Gang of 14, who refused to go nu-kue-lar to stop Dem fillibustering of high-powered intellectuals.

I read that the Senate Reps did not want a war; Bush seems to have agreed with them. I, like many Reps, WANT to refight the Bork nomination, but this time WIN. It's not clear an open anti-Roe intellectual would win -- because it's not clear the Senate Reps would fight for such.


Miers is in the top 1% of women lawyers in the country; it's not necessary to go to the top 1/10 of 1%. (She's prolly also an SJ on Meyers-Briggs, not NF or NT.)  (see Althouse, who thinks jokes against Bush are now funnier.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/09/05 08:45 | link | comments
abortion, supreme court

Friday, 07 October 2005
Are Christians to Reps like blacks are to Dems?

Not sure I should even say the N-word in my prior post , because I try not to be gratuitiously offensive on my blog. Certainly I mean to be shocking. 

The point is that Dems use the black vote to get elected, but do nothing to actually help black folk have lower unemployment levels, or higher HS graduation rates, or higher SAT scores, or lower abortion rates.

It might be that the Reps are using the Christian pro-life voters in a similar way, just to get elected but then to continue not supporting the Christian desired changes.  If Christians unhappy with the Stealth candidacy of Miers want to complain, LOUDLY, that they are being taken for granted by the Rep leadership, this is good. 

Any group of supporters who supports something should not allow the leaders they support to take them for granted.  This is an important message for the Rep leadership.  It is also an important message for blacks to tell the Dem leadership.  It would be brilliant, prolly unintentional, if the main 2006 effect of the Miers nomination was to open the eyes of more American blacks about they are so taken advantage of by the Dems.

++So Marc Cooper is enjoying the Reps ripping into each other on Harriet.

Seems obvious now that not only can Ham Sandwiches be indicted by a grand jury – they can also be nominated to the Supreme Court.

 

 The flap over Harriet Miers has finally brought some comic relief to the grim national political scene. Whether she ultimately gets confirmed or not, her nomination already seems a rather colossal blunder by President Bush.

I like Harriet, from what (little) I've read about her.  Among the top 50 or top 100 lawyers in the country, consistently; managing law partner of a big Texas law firm (she was the first woman they hired) -- and it merged with another law firm, she co-lead the merged firm.

Isn't married, no kids; goes to Christian Church regularly.  Bush knows her for years.

I say she's 90% to vote to overturn Roe; Roberts is only 80%.  Roberts is more likely a Souter than Miers -- intellectuals always know how to tell themselves such good lies that they believe them.  (Rationalization).

If the Dems don't accept her, look for radical conservative intellect, and nu-kue-lar option to stop filibuster. 

Reps might not like her -- but name the Rep Senators who will vote no.  Otherwise she's in. 

Frum and Malkin prolly want, as do I, an intellectual giant who is openly Conservative & pro-life (anti-Roe, at least), and is willing to fight the Bork battle again, but this time win.  I read that Rep Senators told Bush they didn't want to fight that fight.

So she's top 1% as a woman lawyer, instead of top 1/10 of 1%.  My blog post in her support:
Common Sense and Goodness, not a Pointy Head.

Recently I've heard some Christians complain that they are being taken advantage of by the Reps, just like the Dems use but never really help poor Blacks.  It would be interesting to see if Dem-voting Black sheep start getting restless based on this kind of Christian complaint about the Reps.

Marc, in ref. to your Let me Count the Ways post, did you see anything substantive that Bush has done that is really pro-Christian?

Almost half of Bush voters voted for him for "moral values" as most important -- they want openly pro-life, anti-Roe justices on the Court.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/07/05 12:38 | link | comments
christianity, aid

Thursday, 06 October 2005
Are Christians the Rep niggers?

Intellectual Conservatives want to fight Bork again, but this time win.  *I* want Reps to win a Bork-fight rematch.
 
But I'm not sure that would be better for the country than Bush's picks. 
Bush could NOT win a fight using the current Rep Senate "army" -- that couldn't even get his lower court super-qualified nominees an up or down vote, nor go nu-ku-lar and kill fillibusters.

If the Christian Right starts feeling like they're being taken advantage of, like Dems treat blacks, that would be good.  They have been; just as blacks have been.  And Christians complaining of that Rep treatment might be the best way to pry blacks away from the Dems!
 
Christians as the Rep niggers.  (Can I even say that word?)  I think the N-word is how many Dem leaders secretly think of the monolithic black voters who reliably pull the Dem lever, no matter how bad the Dem program results are.
 
After the press was all over Katrina in their race based desire to smear Bush, I think it's a little appropriate.  I usually try to not offend.
 
Don Surbur is for Harriet, Peggy Noonan has thoughts about it (and how Bush misstepped).
 
It looks like she'll get confirmed, without a big fight.  (So if she overturns Roe, Bush wins.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/06/05 21:23 | link | comments
supreme court

Tuesday, 04 October 2005
Common Sense and Goodness, not a Pointy Head

Harriet Miers is full of Common Sense and Goodness; so what if she's not a Pointy Head.
 
In Myers-Briggs personalities, one of the pairs of types is being abstract, iNtuitive (N) versus being concrete, Sensory (S). Most bloggers and academics (and press?) are N, and it’s therefore important whether they are NF (abstract Feelers) or NT (abstract Thinkers). John Roberts is almost certainly an NT.
 
Bush and many business folk are S, concrete folk. Actions speak louder than words. I didn’t know too much about Harriet Miers, but now I think she’ll be GREAT.  Most of the criticism to her seems to be ignorance of what she HAS done, combined with snob-rejection at what she HASN'T done.  Criticisms like I had, earlier -- but at least I knew I was ignorant of her.  Now, I've changed.
 
Starting with Marvin Olasky’s points about her long and dedicated church service – I believe she’s a devout Christian. And, like so many Christians, she wants to help poor people, she wants poor people helped.  She's humble and willing to do what it takes to be successful.
 
She’s full of common goodness.
 
Glenn’s been good on noting supporters like American Thinker, with a wonderful support post Don’t misunderestimate Miers. She’s a successful businesswoman, was a managing law partner in a big firm that merged with another big firm. She IS a feminist; and perhaps a Dem feminist’s nightmare.
 
Beldar has a fantastic comparison of Miers and Roberts. Miers would have been Roberts’ boss…
Beldar’s smackdown of Rich Lowry: “Do you honestly think Microsoft or Disney would hire a "third-rate" lawyer from an "undistinguished firm"?
Which followed his smackdown of Prof. Barnett, (previous in WSJ):
“Prof. Barnett asks: "Given her lack of experience, does anyone doubt that Ms. Miers's only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice is her close connection to the president?" To which I answer: Absolutely and emphatically, I do indeed doubt that! I challenge that assertion, and I fortunately have something more than sneering innuendo to refute it.
 
Beldar’s certainly a fan, and he’s convinced me.
Common sense. 
 
Not pointy heads … which, if you chose you would (from Beldar):
end up with a Supreme Court whose members are out of touch both with America and with nuts and bolts legal practice. You're going to end up with a Court full of prima donnas who can't "just" concur, but instead feel compelled to write countless separate opinions. You'll often have no majority opinion, but instead special concurrences, partial concurrences, separate dissents, and partial concurrences only in Part III-D-6(f) but not Part III-D-6(g) of another's minority opinion. You'll get a Court that on the same day finds a display of the Ten Commandments constitutional in Texas and unconstitutional in Kentucky. You'll get a Court that takes up an incredibly important issue like redistricting, one that's splintered the Court in previous years, and then just leaves things more splintered when it's done. You'll get a Court that flip-flops within the space of a few years on issues involving capital punishment and what the government may or may not do in an attempt to promote morality.
 
So I’m convinced, despite my own earlier thoughts:
Yes on New Bush nominee Harriet Miers
 
(earlier thoughts below)
I think Bush picked her with the idea to minimize the confirmation fight.
 
Like many conservatives, I'd kinda like a big nuclear-option all out fight in the Senate, with "my" Rep side winning ...
 
But then I think, such a "victory" would certainly unite the Dems. Divided they fall, and fail to win ...
 
Or, maybe Bush is just tired of bad press and constant Dem attacks. But this is lazy cronyism...
 
I liked his other women nominees to the Circuit Courts. (Do I hear Brown???)
 
If it is true that Reid "suggested" her, how can the Dems fight it?
 
If they fight HER, with no record to fight, then the conservatives can let her nomination die ... and go as far right as Bork in reply.
 
It's not credible that she is "outside the mainstream".
(See Joe Gandelman)
 
++Or John Cole where I’ve thought some more:
I kinda don't like her because, as a Rep, I wanted a BIG VCICTORY.
 
I think, therefore, she will be confirmed without a big loss for Bush. Her confirmation, if she really IS against Roe, would be a big victory, but quiet -- stealth.
 
Assuming confirmation, Bush is right, and I am wrong to want the BIG WIN I want. (I know it's not politically good rub the losers nose in the loss; I still want to.)
 
If she's NOT confirmed -- maybe even better. The Reps will vote for her, even if unenthusiastically in public (prolly WITH secret enthusiasm); the Dems will have to stop her.
 
There's no paper trail to claim she's "outside the mainstream." If the Dems don't accept her, I'd expect a nukular-option fight over a stronger conservative. 
 
Do the Dems really want to "hurt" Bush's 2008 chances that much? They already know he won't win again.
 
Marvin Olasky supports her, based on her history. This is prolly VERY important.
Makes me feel better about her winning.
 
In fact, Bush is now in a “win with Harriet” position AND a “win if the Dems fight Harriet”.
 
Won’t be able to say it’s a GREAT choice until Roe is overturned; but that’s also true of Roberts.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/04/05 21:45 | link | comments
abortion

Strong man leaders, fascists, dictators

Michael sees many pictures of Lebanese Christian strong man/ martyr Bashir Gemayel.   His comments have lots of hate-Gemayel notes.
 
Wow -- real heat here!  One commenter's phrase jumps out at me.
 
"who reject ruthless fascist militiamen."
 
Weak "moral" folk who reject all ruthless leaders have always, historically, lost out when forced to fight against the ruthless. Gandhi could be moral ONLY because he was fighting against a moral British empire more willing to lose than to be immoral.
 
Do the anti-fascists really believe Gemayel's assassination was better for Lebanon?
 
And, if not, how is that much different from respect FOR the fascist?
 
I'm pretty anti-fascist, but civil war to replace one dictator with another dictator seems like a real bad idea. [admittedly ignorant of Lebanese specifics from 20 years ago.]
 
In Slovakia, I've seen decent, "moral" politicians getting smeared by more nationalist ones, who then get more votes. Because they're "strong", and "for the people (his people)".
 
Today in Russia there's a good amount of sentiment in favor of Stalin; in China, Mao. I think most mass-murderers tried to do some good for their people. Thus, simple Politically Correct demonization of "everything" about them can even become counter-productive. The good should be separated from the bad, with the claim that the good should have been pursued without the bad.
 
[The above caused some comment attack.]
++"debating some of Stalin's good qualities as well."
 
Well, a pretty big one is that he led Russia into killing about 5 times more Nazis than the US led Western Allies. 
 
He saved the Soviet Union from Nazi fascism a LOT better than France & England, and then the US, saved Poland from totalitarianism (including Stalin's) (recall it was to save Poland, after sacrificing Czechoslovakia, that caused France & the UK to go to war).
 
Why not put some effort into defining a good standard to judge a leader before demonization?
 
Tito in Yugoslavia was fascist, too -- but looks a lot better than democratically elected Milosevic.
 
One of the key points about a "strong man" is that it ends the intra-group in-fighting about who will be the main leader. So the group is better able to defend, or attack, the non-group.
 
Most groups appreciate a "group uniter".
 
After Mao as the worst, Stalin the second worst, and Hitler only third worst as far as mass murderers. Though Pol Pot's 2 million of 8 million is prolly the highest percentage murdered.
 
Given how terrible Stalin was, it behooves anybody traveling in Russia to try to understand why some might like him, or certain aspects of his rule. Very relevant as Putin emulates some of these "strong man" tendencies; and is popular for it.
 
I suggest Michael try to find out why those Christians who like Gemayel, like him. I'm very interested. I suspect there will be popular new "strong man" Christian, to counter Druze strong man Jumblatt, for instance.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/04/05 09:13 | link | comments
democracy, hearts and minds

Saturday, 01 October 2005
Bad nanny state

The nanny state is bad whether the nanny goes to church (and wants you to), or doesn’t (and wants you NOT to, too).
 
And as the War on Terror continues, nanny will know more and more about more and more folk.
 
Voters are most guilty: wanting both the adult freedom to act and yet also the childish freedom from responsibility. Politicians who promise voters what the voters want are also to blame; and the press as well.
The Anchoress reminds me of this in her link to Peggy Noonan.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/01/05 07:07 | link | comments (3)
democracy, wot