Combs Spouts Off

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Watcher’s Winners

Posted by Richard on October 11, 2005

While you’re waiting for me to post this week’s Carnival of Liberty, why not check out the the Watcher of Weasel’s latest winning posts, voted among the best on the Web by the Watcher’s Council?

Dymphna at Gates of Vienna again has the winning council post. The runaway winner for best non-council post came from Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred. For more good reading, check out the Council’s voting results and the complete list of nominees.

Then come right back here for all that Life, Liberty, and Property carnivalisciousness.

Subscribe To Site:

Finished 2nd (was: Vote for me!)

Posted by Richard on October 10, 2005

UPDATE, Monday PM: Well, it’s over and I lost. Radio Blogger seems to remove all traces of the actual balloting as soon as the deadline is reached, so I don’t know the final vote. About an hour before the poll closed, I trailed by 12 votes. Congratulations to the winner, Just A Woman.

At least there’s no shame in finishing a strong second.

Well … not too much shame.

Bumping to top. I’m still shamelessly blegging for your support. Combs Spouts Off is one of five finalists for Hugh Hewitt’s Blog of the Week award. This is for my post, Hugh hearts Harriet, which you should read if you haven’t.

The Blog of the Week winner is the one getting the most votes at RadioBlogger between now and noon Monday. ~~As of Saturday evening, I’m two votes behind.~~ As of Sunday afternoon, I’ve fallen 16 votes behind. But I’m not giving up hope — I think my friends, fans, and readers can close that gap.

I would greatly appreciate your vote! Thanks!

(BTW, you can only vote once. Per computer. So, if you’ve voted at home, and you have a computer at work… well, Monday morning’s not too late. <grin>)

Subscribe To Site:

Marriage as a short-term lease of property

Posted by Richard on October 9, 2005

The radical Wahhabist/Salafist Muslim Arabs who condemn the West for being corrupt, decadent, and permissive have an interesting way of demonstrating their commitment to moral uprightness and the sanctity of marriage.

Daniel Pipes has a new article that describes Arab tourism in India. Rich, middle-aged Saudi and Gulf Arab men, exploiting fundamentalist Islam’s 8th-century rules of marriage, are traveling to Muslim Indian communities and "marrying" one or more virgin teens, typically 13-15 years old. After a short time, they "divorce" them and depart.

It’s not marriage that these activities most closely resemble:

The Arabs usually "marry" the girls for short periods, sometimes just a single night. In fact, Wajihuddin reports, marriage and divorce formalities are often prepared at the same time, thereby expediting the process for all involved. Akhileshwari notes that "their girl children are available for as little as 5,000 rupees to satisfy the lust of doddering old Arab men." Five thousand rupees, by the way, equals just a bit over US$100.

An Indian television program recently reported on a show-casing of eight prospective brides, most of them minors, at which they were offered up to their Arab suitors. "It resembled a brothel. The girls were paraded before the Arab who would lift the girls’ burqa, run his fingers through their hair, gaze at their figures and converse through an interpreter," recalls one of Nishat’s assistants.

By now, we should all know that fundie Muslims value and treat women like cattle or goats, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Indian Muslims mostly don’t care:

Sunita Krishnan, head of an anti human-trafficking organization, Prajwala, makes the only too-obvious point that girl children are not valued. "If a girl child is sold or her life ruined, it is not a national loss, that’s why this is a non-issue, both for community and to society." …

For their part, Muslim politicians in the city of Hyderabad apparently could care less. … The Majlis-e-Ittihadul Muslameen, the main party of Hyderabad’s Muslims, is blissfully unconcerned: "You cannot deny that the fortunes of many families have changed through such marriages," MIM’s president, Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi, cheerfully points out.

Pipes made several pointed comments, including:

(6) The hypocrisy of this trade is perhaps its vilest aspect. Better prostitution, frankly acknowledged, than religiously-sanctioned fake marriages, for the former is understood to be a vice while the latter parades as a virtue.

(7) Wajihuddin compares the Arabian men to "medieval monarchs" and the analogy is apt. These transactions, involving Muslim minors and conducted under the auspices of Islamic law, point yet again to the dominance of premodern ways in the Muslim world and the urgent need to modernize the Islamic religion.

"Premodern ways" is far too polite and sanitary a phrase, really — how about "a barbaric, savage, contemptible culture"? Back in June, in a post entitled "Slavery is a part of Islam," I wrote:

Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and radical Islam in general should be all the evidence anyone needs to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the leftist multicultural BS about no culture being better than any other. These people still defend and practice slavery, and we’re supposed to worry that making a jihadist uncomfortable might bring us down to their level??

Yes, we had slavery in this country. And our society is still paying the price today. But look at the historical context: Slavery existed and was accepted as normal in every human society throughout history — until the 18th century, when voices in the United States and Great Britain were raised against it. Those voices spoke of liberty and natural rights and free will, and they proclaimed slavery to be a moral outrage.

In a hundred years, those ideas and moral values had swept through the Western world and made people ashamed of a practice they’d accepted for thousands of years. Those ideas and values are part of — are fundamental to — Western culture. And, by damn, it IS morally superior to the barbaric 8th-century culture that still enslaves people, that declares women property, that flays people’s flesh for dancing, that imprisons Christians for praying in their homes, that saws people’s heads off with a dull knife for being Jewish.

No, it doesn’t bother me that interrogators at Gitmo may have failed to show sufficient respect for the beliefs of their jihadist captives. It bothers me that they haven’t expressed contempt for those barbarous beliefs.

I stand by my assessment.

(HT: Jan, via email)

Subscribe To Site:

Quotes on politics

Posted by Richard on October 9, 2005

My post of famous gun nut quotes was a big hit, so I’m doing it again — this time, some quotes I like relating to politics. Plus an off-the-wall question at the end.

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other.
— Ferdinand Lundberg, Politicians and Other Scoundrels

Politicians never accuse you of "greed" for wanting other people’s money — only for wanting to keep your own money.
— Joseph Sobran

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
— socialpacifists.org

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
— Thomas Jefferson

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
— C. S. Lewis

The difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.
— Will Rogers

An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured.
— Konrad Adenauer

The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.
— Thucydides

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.
— F.A. Hayek

The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those who are charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the laws with impunity.
— Jon Rowland

Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.
— Edward Abbey

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
— George Bernard Shaw

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
— James Madison

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
— Benjamin Franklin

Liberty, Sancho, is one of the most precious gifts that the heavens have given to mankind; the treasures of the earth and sea cannot equal it: for liberty, as for honor, you can and should risk your life…
— Don Quijote de la Mancha

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
— Thomas Jefferson

Communism is a murderous failure. Socialism is communism with movie stars.
— Anonymous

Most of us could get along better with much less government than we have; there are others though who seem to require lifelong shepherding from pre-natal care to the electric chair. It makes no sense to talk of self-government to a man who cannot even govern his own behavior.
— Paul Kirchner

The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own folly is to fill the world with fools.
— Herbert Spencer

Of course, intellectuals pay lip service to free elections but in practice have a profound (if secret) hatred of democracy. They cannot believe that their votes should count for no more than the votes of "uneducated" people who run small businesses, work on farms and in factories and have never read Proust.
— Paul Johnson

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
— Frédéric Bastiat

Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear.
— Ayn Rand

They say that power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely…. so where does that put God?
— Steven Wright

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The one thing Bush gets right

Posted by Richard on October 6, 2005

I’ve been less than pleased with the President on a number of fronts lately: the Mier nomination, the profligate response to Katrina, the inept handling of Social Security reform, the continuing failure to exercise any fiscal discipline on any issue at any time, …

But Bush’s speech Thursday to supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy reminded me again of why 2004 was the first time I voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1972. George W. Bush gets it regarding the war being waged against us. And right now, that trumps everything else in my book.

Bush understands that we didn’t start this war, that Iraq is merely a battlefield in the war, and that our only options are to fight the war now, to fight it later under more difficult circumstances, or to surrender our culture, values, and way of life.

This speech may be his best ever on this subject, and I recommend that you read the whole thing. Better yet, watch the video available at that link — I heard the speech on the Hugh Hewitt show, and it was delivered with intensity and conviction. But I’ll point out a few key highlights.

Unlike in the past, this time Bush clearly and unambiguously described who we’re fighting. It’s not terrorism — that’s a tactic — it’s a specific group of people who have a specific ideology and goals (emphasis added throughout):

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places — in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we’ve seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. …

Bush warned against failing to take the threat of this movement seriously:

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme — and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously — and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

He rejected forcefully the idea that we’re to blame:

… The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. …

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence — the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we’re not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We’re facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers — and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

He talked at length about the nature of the enemy, making a number of comparisons to the great totalitarian threat of the late 20th century, including these:

… Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his — that this is the road to paradise — though he never offers to go along for the ride.
…
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

Bush then outlined at length what we have done and are doing to combat this enemy, from anti-terrorist activities to direct military action to encouraging the growth of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. He described the five elements of his strategy for dealing with this enemy:

Disrupt terrorist activities and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur.
Deny WMDs to outlaw regimes and their terrorist allies.
Block outlaw regimes such as Syria and Iran from providing support and sanctuary.
Prevent the terrorists from gaining control of any country, thus denying them a home base and "launching pad."
Long-term, dry up terrorist recruiting "by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East."

This passage from his description of the first element apparently set off quite a reaction in the mainstream media:

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We’ve stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. …

The press reacted to this with suspicion, demanding evidence of these foiled plots and questioning whether these claims could be substantiated. That’s the same press, remember, that reported unquestioningly all the breathless claims of chaos and mayhem from New Orleans’ mayor and police chief, including stories of hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome and babies being raped. I guess the rule for the MSM is simple: if it reflects poorly on this administration, it’s believable; if it reflects well on this administration, it’s suspect.

Bush spent the most time on the fourth and fifth elements, and it’s in the context of those that he discussed Iraq. He argued for realism about the difficulties we face, but optimism about the future:

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we’ve ever faced. They’re unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters — they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress — from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn’t easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.
…
As Americans, we believe that people everywhere — everywhere — prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we’re confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.

Bush spoke at length about the fifth point, and his commitment to "the transformational power of liberty" remains solid. He singled out Egypt and Saudi Arabia as "friends" whom we’re encouraging to reform and to "respect the rights and choices of their own people." He pointedly added:

… We’re standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We’re making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture.

Bush also noted that a vital part of confronting Islamic radicalism must come from within the Islamic world. He spoke approvingly of Muslim scholars and imams who’ve condemned terrorism and issued a challenge to those who haven’t:

… The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

Bush closed, as he so often does, with a restatement of his commitment to and confidence in liberty:

… Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision — and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure — until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent — until the day that free men and women defeat them.

We don’t know the course of our own struggle — the course our own struggle will take — or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.

I’ll say again what I said earlier: We didn’t start this war, Iraq is merely a battlefield in the war, and our only options are to fight the war now, to fight it later under more difficult circumstances, or to surrender our culture, values, and way of life.

If you get that, you understand why I still support this president.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Microsoft defends consumers’ rights

Posted by Richard on October 6, 2005

No, really. Stop laughing. I’m serious. Last week, Intel and Microsoft announced their support for Toshiba’s HD DVD format for high-definition DVDs over Sony’s competing Blu-Ray format. This news was a welcome shot in the arm for HD DVD, which seemed to be on the ropes after Sony lined up a lot of content providers behind Blu-Ray.

As an HD aficionado (I love my Samsung DLP TV and just want more HD content!), I was vaguely familiar with the pros and cons of the two formats and acutely aware that a war between competing formats, a la VHS vs. Betamax, would slow consumer adoption significantly. As usual, Sony seems to have a (theoretically) technologically superior product. But Blu-Ray has some serious real-world disadvantages compared to the HD DVD format. Chief among these is a radically different mastering and manufacturing process, still unproven, that will cost at least ten times as much per manufacturing line as the simple, evolutionary changes needed to manufacture HD DVDs. Not only is manufacturing Blu-Ray discs much more expensive, but the industry would have to maintain parallel Blu-Ray and standard DVD maufacturing lines for many years of transition.

On the other hand, HD DVD backers propose a simple, cheap migration path that will speed consumer adoption greatly: existing DVD plants can easily be adapted to manufacture "hybrid" discs that have a standard definition DVD on one side and an HD DVD on the other. Consumers can buy such "future proof" discs for their current SD DVD player, knowing that they won’t have to replace them when they move to HD.

But in my opinion, the real winning argument for HD DVD, and the point on which Microsoft won’t back down, is a concept called Managed Copy. According to Ken Fisher at ars technica, Blu-Ray may or may not be technically capable of supporting Managed Copy, and if it is, it will be optional; the HD DVD spec makes it mandatory.

Managed Copy is an extension of digital rights management (DRM) that attempts to restore consumers’ fair use rights. Right now, it’s illegal in the U.S. to copy a DVD, even for your own personal use, but it’s possible because the CSS encryption scheme was "cracked" some time ago. The next generation, whether Blu-Ray or HD DVD, will have far tougher copy protection called the Advanced Access Content System (AACS). Managed Copy works within AACS to enable you to legally make a copy of your HD DVD.

The Managed Copy spec requires content providers to let users make at least one legal copy. They can charge for it if they want, although Microsoft is hoping they’ll make the first one free. The AACS control mechanism is flexible enough to allow a variety of options regarding number and type of copies. So, for instance, you could copy your HD DVD to your Media Center PC’s hard drive for streaming to any TV on your home network. Or maybe you could copy it to a portable player.

If you hate the current state of DRM and content providers’ short-sighted and heavy-handed attitude toward fair-use copying, then you’d better hope HD DVD wins this format war.

And thank Microsoft for looking out for us little guys. Really. I mean it. Stop laughing, dammit.

Subscribe To Site:

The real problem with the Mier nomination

Posted by Richard on October 5, 2005

Hugh Hewitt has been calling character witnesses for Harriet Mier, repeatedly going over his bullet-point list of her qualifications and credentials. Administration spokesmen and Mier’s friends and associates have been making the rounds, doing the same thing. I’m sure it’s all very reassuring to those people who fear that Harriet Mier might be another David Souter or is a lightweight (but I repeat myself).

But for me, these reassurances miss the point. It’s not her law school or lack of judicial or academic background that concern me, and it’s not primarily concern over whether she’ll "go wobbly." I’m bothered by the appearance of weakness and lack of resolve. In politics, perceptions matter. When Dick Durbin goes on a TV talk show and crows about how the Democrats pressured Bush into nominating a "more mainstream" candidate, that’s a bad sign.

By nominating Harriet Mier, Bush has implicitly accepted two of the Democrat’s key premises: that membership in the Federalist Society is too controversial and that a clearly-articulated originalist or strict constructionist judicial philosophy is too far out of the mainstream. I think that’s a terrible mistake.

I didn’t want Bush to name a "stealth" candidate who thinks like Thomas and Scalia, but gets confirmed by hiding that — as if originalism and strict constructionism are ideas to be ashamed of that must be snuck past people. I wanted him to name someone known to be like Thomas and Scalia (you know who comes to mind) — not just to get another vote on the court, but to re-establish the notion that of course such candidates are qualified and such ideas are respectable.

The battle over what is and is not an acceptable judicial philosophy needs to be fought and won. If not now, when?

UPDATE: See also my earlier post, Hugh hearts Harriet. And please consider voting for it at Radio Blogger (before noon on Monday, 10/10), where I’m up for blog of the week.

UPDATE 2: It’s Miers, not Mier. But it’s also moot; she’s withdrawn herself. After reading one of her speeches, I’m relieved. See why here.

Subscribe To Site:

Carnival of Liberty #14

Posted by Richard on October 4, 2005

This week’s Carnival of Liberty is up at Eric’s Grumbles. Judging from Eric’s introductions, it looks like there’s lots of interesting reading — topics such as open source and liberty, choices, federalism, government corruption, property rights in Israel, Lamborghinis and price gouging, performance-enhancing drugs in music… You get the idea. Go check them out already.

Next week, I’ll be hosting for the first time (assuming I can pass Eric’s Carnival Hosting 101 class and don’t screw things up). I think I’ll list entries strictly in order of submission, so get yours in early. Make things easy on both yourself and me: use the Conservative Cat’s Carnival Submit Form. Put any intro, explanation, or other note to me in the Comments box. Thanks!

Subscribe To Site:

Watcher’s Winning Wreading

Posted by Richard on October 4, 2005

The Watcher of Weasels, as usual, has some of the best reads on the Web, voted so by the Watcher’s Council. This week, the women ruled. Dymphna at The Gates of Vienna wrote the latest winning council entry, a warning about the UN’s desire to control the Internet that you need to read. The winning non-council entry is an outstanding piece by Cassandra at Villainous Company about hurricanes, self-reliance, and socialist revolution.

But don’t stop with those two; there are other great entries you’re sure to enjoy. Check out the Council’s vote results or the complete list of nominees. After all, it’s an honor just to be nominated (ahem).

Subscribe To Site:

Hugh hearts Harriet

Posted by Richard on October 3, 2005

I like Hugh Hewitt, both as a blogger and as a talk radio host. He’s intelligent, articulate, and funny. I don’t always agree with him, of course. For one thing, I’m a libertarian — albeit hawkish and more realistic than most — and he’s a social conservative.

But there’s another problem: Hugh has rarely encountered a Bush administration decision he wouldn’t defend, and given the decidedly mixed record of this administration, that requires a great deal of, shall we say, flexibility.

Mind you, sometimes Hugh is an appropriately calming voice when his conservative friends are becoming overwrought for no good reason. But at other times, Hugh is just carrying the administration’s water and spinning like a Maytag after Final Rinse.

Regarding the Harriet Miers nomination, he seems to be in Spin Mode, and so far it’s an unbalanced load. Here’s what Hugh said just last night (emphasis added):

ConfirmThem.com hears it is Judge Luttig or Judge Williams. I am hoping for the former, and if not Judge Luttig, then the 10th Circuit’s Michael McConnell. The best case for either man is that they are the best men for the court. In the end, I am hoping that President Bush makes a choice that he can defend to the country as a simple merit pick, free of political calculation or constituency bolstering. …
…
The Supreme Court deserves the best jurists available to it. If the Constitution matters, then the nominees to join the court that interprets the Constitution should be those judges with the best intellectual talent, calm temperment and governmental experience.

And I clearly recall hearing Hugh describe candidates aged 55-60 as too old because, he argued, longevity on the bench should be a critical factor in choosing a nominee.

So, here’s Hugh this morning, describing a 60-year-old woman with zero judicial experience and unremarkable credentials:

Harriet Miers isn’t a Justice Souter pick, so don’t be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. …
…
The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatices.

As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.

So, Hugh, you’re saying we should embrace this nominee who has no judicial experience (or, apparently, philosophy), who was a Democrat throughout the 80s, and whose career has been primarily focused on administration and management because her close personal friend W. vouches for her, and her close personal friend Leonard Leo vouches for her, and she’s a woman, and working in the White House trumps everything else as a qualification for a Supreme Court justice? Is that about it?

Oh, yeah — she’s up to speed on the GWOT, and you think that’s real important for a SCOTUS nominee. Never mind that, if confirmed, she’d likely have to recuse herself from the very GWOT-related cases that you think she’s qualified to decide.

I’ll try to keep an open mind, Hugh, but you haven’t made much of a case so far. James Dobson’s endorsement of her pro-life credentials on your show doesn’t persuade me, either, because I’m pro-choice. It’s not a critical issue for me either way. I’ll tell you what is: I want a justice who can articulate why "public use" isn’t the same as "public benefit" and who’ll insist that growing a plant in your basement isn’t interstate commerce. I want a justice who reads the Constitution and sees a few limited, enumerated powers granted to the federal government, while recognizing that the rights retained by the people are unenumerable.

I share the concerns Todd Zywicki expressed at the Volokh Conspiracy. He contrasted appointments who "simply ‘vote right’ on the court" with those, like Brandeis, Warren, Scalia, or Thomas, who bring a judicial philosphy and intellectual leadership, and who can thus "change the legal culture." Zywicki’s assessment of Roberts and Miers wasn’t kind:

… One suspects that the best that conservatives can hope for from the two them is that they will consistently "vote right." But neither of them appears to be suited by background or temperament to provide intellectual leadership that will move the legal culture. …

Zywicki’s concern is exactly what concerned me about Roberts, but I told myself that the Chief Justice needed to be someone with some administrative and people skills, rather than a philosophical purist such as Thomas. Besides, Roberts was eminently qualified by education, experience, intellect, and temperament. It would have been churlish to criticize Bush for nominating such a strong candidate just because he wasn’t absolutely perfect.

I don’t believe we need this latest nominee’s management skills. Nor do I believe her qualifications remotely approach those of Roberts. There must be literally hundreds of people better qualified than Harriet Miers. Does Bush simply lack the stomach for a fight? Or is he, as Zywicki suggests, simply "uninterested in ideas and interested only in power"? Or does personal loyalty trump everything else for him?

For whatever reason, Bush nominated a pragmatic, easy-to-confirm candidate who appears to be philosophically rudderless and poorly prepared for the job. Maybe she’ll grow into it. Maybe she’s even secretly honed a well-thought-out, rigorous originalist legal philosophy that only Bush, Leo, and a few others sworn to secrecy know about.

But pardon me for remaining skeptical.

UPDATE: If you liked this post, please vote for it at Radio Blogger (before noon on Monday, 10/10), where I’m up for a blog of the week award. Also, see my follow-up, The real problem with the Mier nomination, for more about why nominating a "stealth" candidate with no clearly articulated judicial philosophy is a terrible mistake.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Harriet who??

Posted by Richard on October 3, 2005

I’m very disappointed by the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. To be fair, I’d have been very disappointed by the nomination of anyone other than Janice Rogers Brown or someone demonstrably like her.

I know nothing about Miers, except the few facts I’ve seen in the blogosphere this morning: close personal friend of Bush, no judicial experience, no credentials or record suggesting a conservative, strict-constructionist, or originalist judicial philosophy — heck, no reason to believe she has a judicial philosophy — a history of political donations to candidates across the political spectrum, and a resume filled with political, "make sure everybody likes you" jobs. It’s not encouraging.

The Volokh Conspiracy has a great roundup of right-wing blogger reactions, and they aren’t pretty. I really liked the first two, especially this from Right Wing News:

… She used to be Bush’s staff secretary for God’s sake and now she’s going to the Supreme Court while people like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown & Emilio Garza are being left on the sidelines.
To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection.

Actually, you should probably just go to the Volokh Conspiracy home page and start reading. The excerpt from Daily Kos is revealing, and the suggestions for renaming "The Website Formerly Known as ConfirmThem.com" are funny.

Might as well laugh, right?

Subscribe To Site:

Serenity the second time around

Posted by Richard on October 2, 2005

I saw Serenity for the second time Friday afternoon with about a dozen people from work (great excuse to call it a week a bit early!), some of whom were Firefly fans and some of whom had never seen it. In fact, I believe there were a couple or three people who were completely unfamiliar with Whedon’s work. The verdict: unanimously positive, and strongly so.

I enjoyed the film itself even more the second time. Sure, some of the surprise was gone, but that meant I could anticipate, study, and appreciate some of the surprising moments even more. I’m thinking in particular of the film’s saddest moment (no, I won’t spoil it) — I can see why Whedon felt it necessary, and I think he handled it brilliantly. Just brilliantly.

A second — and probably a third — viewing also reveals subtle touches or clever lines that whizzed by the first time, and the great laugh lines are still just as much fun the second time around.

The only negative was the crowd — or lack thereof. We went to a 4:30 show, and it was less than half full. I don’t know if it was that absence of critical mass or insufficient hard-core fans to act as a catalyst, but there wasn’t the strong audience involvement that I experienced Tuesday night. Sure, people laughed at ~~all~~ most of the right places, but Tuesday’s crowd seemed more engaged and reacting as one — gasping, shifting forward in their seats, etc. And unlike Tuesday night, there was no big round of applause this time — just a few hesitant claps that died quickly.

My suggestion — go at a time likely to be well-attended. One reason for going to a theater instead of watching a DVD at home is that sharing the experience with a few hundred others can greatly enhance the experience. Assuming it’s a great experience to begin with (Serenity is) and the others share your positive reaction (they almost certainly will), the resulting mutual reinforcement of positive feelings is worth the sticky floor, overpriced drinks, and risk of a cell phone or baby disrupting the mood.

And at the end, don’t wait for others to applaud, as I confess I did. If you really like the film (you will), start the ball rolling and see if others don’t join in. I suspect that if it’s a full or nearly full house, plenty will — and sharing that will feel good, too.

UPDATE: Dummy that I am, I tuned into Ebert & Roeper too late to see their review, and it’s not up at their website yet, but I caught the verdict at the end: Two Thumbs Up. Meanwhile, over at the NYTimes, Manohla Dargis echoed my contention that Serenity "should make George Lucas feel ashamed" (emphasis added):

It probably isn’t fair to Joss Whedon’s "Serenity" to say that this unassuming science-fiction adventure is superior in almost every respect to George Lucas’s aggressively more ambitious "Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith." But who cares about fair when there is fun to be had? Scene for scene, "Serenity" is more engaging and certainly better written and acted than any of Mr. Lucas’s recent screen entertainments.

Yowza. According to Movies.com, Serenity has received 7 positive, 3 mixed, and 0 negative reviews for an average critic score of 4.25/5. The average reader rating is 4.7/5, with an amazing 85% of 1289 readers giving it 5 stars. On their list of review scores for 13 new films, it ranks third (behind Capote and Duma) among critics and by far the highest among readers.

UPDATE 2: Serenity finished in second place behind Flightplan for the weekend, with just over $10 million gross. That put it well ahead of the other two films opening widely this weekend, Into the Blue and The Greatest Game Ever Played, both in total gross and in average per theater. In fact, it’s average per theater beat Flightplan, but Serenity is on far fewer screens (2188 vs. 3424). The only widely distributed film with a better average was A History of Violence (on 1340 screens, up from 14 its first week).

To me, that sounds pretty good. But Brandon Gray described it as a "tame start" and reported that:

Universal’s head of distribution, Nikki Rocco, was hopeful that positive word-of-mouth will broaden Serenity‘s audience beyond fans of Firefly, the 2002 series on which the movie is based. The picture scored an "A" grade from CinemaScore, which polls opening night moviegoers. Universal’s research suggested 88 percent of the audience rated the picture "excellent" or "very good," which is solid but not exceptional.

"We are satisfied," Rocco said. "The opening is where we thought it would be. The fan base turned out. We’re hoping more will turn out in the future. I think over $10 million is a lot of business for a niche appeal picture, and I think the ancillary [DVD, etc.] will be spectacular. … she would not speculate on whether Serenity was successful enough to merit a sequel.

So, have you seen it yet? If not, what are you waiting for? If so, when are you going back?

I want a sequel, dammit! Or a series…

Subscribe To Site:

Quotes: famous gun nuts

Posted by Richard on October 2, 2005

It’s been over a month since the last time I posted a collection of quotes. Here are some of my favorite quotes related to firearms and self-defense from various famous gun nuts:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
— Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, page 446

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
— Thomas Jefferson, 1764

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
— Ben Franklin

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature … laws not preventive but fearful of crimes.
— Beccaria

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
— Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
— The Dalai Lama

Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. …A simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.
— George Orwell

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
— Thomas Jefferson

If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government — and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.
— Edward Abbey

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
— George Washington

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
— George Mason

War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
— John Stuart Mill

The Dalai Lama and Ghandi quotes, and the second Jefferson quote, are available on T-shirts from FlashBunny.org as part of their "Famous Gun Nuts" line. Believe me, you get some interesting reactions when wearing the Dalai Lama or Ghandi shirt. Liberals tend to display some amusing expressions after they read the quote accompanying the picture.

Assuming you have the Flash player installed, you might want to look at some of the FlashBunny.org movies, too, especially the one entitled (in)Famous Gun Nuts.

Do you have a favorite self-defense or gun quote that I missed? If so, drop it into the comments. I’m going to grab another beer.

UPDATE: Jed Baer of FreedomSight emailed me a bunch of quotes because Blog-City’s comments require Javascript and he doesn’t do Javascript. I really like this one:

An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.
— Col. Jeff Cooper

As for the rest, I suggested he post them at FreedomSight, so look for them there.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Federalism and consistency

Posted by Richard on September 30, 2005

Eugene Volokh has an interesting post about federalism that addresses the frequently-heard inconsistency argument — that is, the claim that leaving X in the states’ hands, but giving the feds control of Y is inconsistent or hypocritical. He made several good points, including his observation that critics of federalists’ supposed inconsistencies often "mistake federalism (support for leaving many things at the state level, but deciding many others at the federal level) for a more categorical localism (support for leaving everything at the state level)."

Volokh proposed and discussed four questions that one might ask in deciding whether something — especially an individual rights matter — should be decided at the state or national level:

a. Should the federal Supreme Court protect a certain ostensible right throughout the nation, displacing contrary federal and state decisions? …

b. Does Congress have the constitutional authority to protect a certain ostensible right by federal statute throughout the nation, displacing contrary state decisions? …

c. Should Congress exercise its authority to protect a certain ostensible right by federal statute? …

d. Even if the federal government shouldn’t step in, should people nonetheless urge all states to protect a certain ostensible right? …

He argued that many claims of inconsistency against federalists fail to recognize that the federalists are making different arguments in each case. For instance, a federalist could look at the Violence Against Women Act and conclude that this is a matter that ought to be left to the states (the answers to a, b, and c are "no"), yet support the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as an appropriate protection of interstate commerce (the answer to b is "yes").

Since federalists are neither localists nor nationalists, they defend a federal role when arguing against localists (as in the 1780s) and a state role when arguing against nationalists (as in recent years). This has led them to stress one or the other more at different times in history, noted Volokh, even though federalists are committed to preserving "zones of authority" for both the federal and state governments:

In fact, today’s federalists probably have a broader view of the proper scope of federal power than most of the 1780s federalists had. They just tend to talk more about state power because today they think matters have swung too far in the direction of federal power.

That’s an important point. In the early years of our republic, the federalists were among the most authoritarian, big-government elements of the political spectrum. Today’s federalists, despite accepting a much broader federal role than their intellectual ancestors, are among the most libertarian, limited-government elements.

In any case, Volokh’s right that most accusations of inconsistency against federalists are simply bogus:

One can certainly argue that federalists are mistaken about where the line should be drawn, or even inconsistent in drawing that line. But one needs to do that by concretely explaining why the line should be drawn in a particular place, or why two things must in any event be on the same side of the line — one can’t just point to the federalist’s supporting national solutions in some situations and state solutions in others and say "Aha! Inconsistency!" Federalism is all about supporting national solutions in some situations and state solutions in others. More broadly, I suspect that good judgment, left, right, center, or libertarian is all about supporting national solutions in some situations and state solutions in others.

Quite right. But there’s no disputing that, sadly, the pool of national solutions has become an ocean while the pool of state solutions is a mere puddle. I suspect that staid, authoritarian old John Adams, if he were alive today, would probably be shouting revolutionary slogans and leading a modern equivalent of the Whiskey Rebellion.

Subscribe To Site: