Some people don't deserve their good fortune

And a lot of them are entertainers (and the inexplicable Paris Hilton).

MSNBC had this story about an R&B singer named Omarion. (Yeah, I'd never heard of him either.)

Anyway, this cretin had been in England for the pointless, feel-good event, Live 8. (You do know that this eight-city mass navel-contemplation didn't raise one single penny for Africa, right? The whole thing was designed to "raise awareness". Excuse me while I retch.) I guess after the concert young master Omarion went to London (probably to shop for more "bling"). He just so happened to be in London on July 7th.

Oh my goodness, you exclaim. Is he all right? Rest easy, he's OK. (I know I will!) Come on. Did you really think a celebrity, even an E-lister like this twit, would be caught dead on, or even near, public transportation?

But that didn't stop this dolt (who probably couldn't find London on a map) from asking his fans to pray for his safe trip home. Here's an excerpt from the MSNBC story:

“Omarion was in London during the tragic bombings that struck this morning,” a statement by the singer’s publicist AR PR Marketing, released hours after the bombings, said.

Making no mention of the fatalities or casualties of the blasts, the singer’s statement concluded, “He would like his fans to pray that he has a safe trip and a safe return home. He appreciates your support.”

Is there really any need for me to get up on my soapbox and comment on the self-centeredness and vacuity of the modern celebrity?

CNN's coverage one week after the London terror attacks

I'm watching CNN right now as they cover the memorial services one week after the London terror attacks. It's positively Kafka-esque watching Jim Clancy as he interviews various social workers, psychologists and representatives of the British Muslim community as they struggle with the question of how four, apparently middle-class British citizens of Pakistani origin could have conspired to kill so many of their fellow Britons.

Most risible was watching the head of the British Muslim Council as he whined about how Muslims feel separated and alienated from the rest of British society. Gee, that couldn't be because Muslims choose to separate themselves from the rest of society by encouraging a separate identity, language and education, could it? He became even more flummoxed when he tried to explain why sending your impressionable young son to a madrassah in Pakistan is still an okay thing to do. Sure, just ask John Walker Lindh's parents how he turned out.

I feel like I am in the old SNL skit about the murder of Buckwheat. In it reporters interview friends, neighbors, schoolteachers and relatives of the killer. To a man, they describe a well-mannered, helpful, respectful young man. Yet when asked if they thought he could have killed Buckwheat, they invariably reply, "Ohhh, yes. It was all he talked about" There's even a shot of a high school yearbook page in which the killer-to-be had been named "Most Likely To Kill Buckwheat".

Hey, Jim, want to know how it's possible these fine, upstanding young men could have killed 50 people?

HELLO! THEY'RE MUSLIM!

We as a society have a problem with enemy identification and it is forcing us to fight this war with one hand tied behind our backs.

Perhaps more retch-inducing is the stories of trauma of the survivors. First of all, you want to know about trauma? Try getting blown up! That's trauma. And if CNN were really that interested in survivors' stories they've been missing a big scoop for the last 20 years not interviewing Israelis.

And, this being CNN, we couldn't have a story about terrorism without tossing a little blame on the War on Iraq. But that was to be expected.

Oh, that's right. My remote has an OFF button.

-*Click*-

Want to know why I support the War on Islam?

Hell, yes, I said it. Does anyone really think we are fighting just any old terrorists? Does anyone really think that it is just an amazing coincidence that Muslims are responsible for a disproportionate amount of indiscriminate killing of innocent men, women, and children?

Well, if you do happen to be that dim-witted or naive, allow me to introduce you to:

Mohammed Bouyeri, a baby-faced 27-year-old with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, broke his vow not to co-operate with the Amsterdam court by admitting shooting and stabbing his victim last November.

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," he told its three-strong panel of judges.

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same." . . .

Bouyeri then turned to the victim's mother, Anneke, in the public gallery, and told her he felt nothing for her. Mrs van Gogh watched as he read out from what appeared to be a statement: "I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because you're a non-believer."

Charming fellow, isn't he?

(Thanks, as always, to the indispensible James Taranto.)

Quick hitter about the Supreme Court vacancy

You know what I would do, if I were President Bush? I would meet and consult with each and every Senator so inclined. I would listen politely, smile and nod my head a lot.

And then I would still nominate whoever I darn well please!

Bush is already doing more than is required by the Constitution. The Senate's "advice and consent" duty only kicks in after the President has nominated someone. Bush is already dangerously close to establishing a precedent for prior Senate approval of Supreme Court nominees. (Of course, any such precedent would be quickly repudiated by Demos the next time a Democrat President has a chance to nominate a Supreme Court justice.) Republicans, President Bush included, are displaying a really short memory in this [one-sided] effort at collegiality. How quickly they forgot how Democrats ran roughshod over Republicans when they were the minority in Congress. Does anyone else remember how Hillary froze out all Republicans during her ill-fated health care reform effort?

More on the missing SEAL

I found another story about the missing SEAL on MSNBC. The story said that the Taliban claimed to have already executed the remaining missing SEAL. This last commando is the only unaccounted for US soldier from the four-man team that ran into trouble in Afghanistan. Two are confirmed dead, and one was rescued. It was the team's call for reinforcement that led to the downed Chinook with the loss of 16 brave soldiers last week.

The story on MSNBC included comments from Defense Department spokesmen. The DoD claims to know about the report but has no information leading them to believe its authenticity. They say that they are continuing their search in the hopes that the remaining SEAL is still alive.

I hope they're right. I really would like to hear that they found that guy. Good luck and God be with you, whereever you are!

Questions about 7/7

There are some aspects of this week's terror attack in London that point to Islamic perpetrators, but there are several others that I can't quite figure out.

First, the similarities. Well, for one, for the last thirty years, pretty much every time there's been a terrorist attack, suspicion has fallen on Muslims because for, oh, about the last thirty years Arab Muslims have been responsible for a lot of terrorist attacks. Second, there are the statements by an obscure Arab group, boasting of links to al-Qaeda, claiming responsibility for the attacks. Now, CNN just had a story on the bombings and they claimed that the high level of casualties was another similarity. This got me thinking about the attacks in general, and that got me here blogging.

Anyway, I don't agree with the high casualty argument. 50 people, with all due respect to the dead in London, just isn't that many victims. 9/11 numbered near 3,000 dead. Madrid, 192. Bali, some 200 dead. 50 is mild by comparison. This got me thinking about another dissimilarity between this attack and other 9/11 attacks. Yes, there is the simultaneity of the attacks (another similarity), but using electronic timers, not human detonators. Of course, I am sure the terrorists would have wished for more casualties, but the fact that they used timers and not people increased the odds of decreasing the lethality of their strike.

The other big problem I have with this (well, that and the fact that the guys who are getting paid to investigate this attack haven't yet confirmed that this was al-Qaeda) is the timing. The timing seems just awful to me, especially for a group that, let's give it to 'em, has had pretty good timing. They struck on 9/11 at a time when they knew air security has dangerous cracks that could be exploited. If I'm not mistaken, Bali coincided with an election in Australia (October 2002). And then the expertly timed Madrid attack, which has, so far, yielded the greatest effect, cowing the Spanish out of Iraq.

So, I can't quite figure out the timing of this attack. Or, the location. Why London? You would think they would want to target Scotland. I mean, if the catalyzing event is Gleneagles, why attack London so far away? Was the security too tight at Gleneagles? Perhaps leaving London vulnerable? But, then, why disrupt Gleneagles? The G-8 meeting was going to accomplish nothing while talking mainly about Africa and climate change. Big deal. Who cares if you disrupt that yawn-fest?

I mean, you would think a terrorist would want to keep a low profile until the opportunity for a decisive strike arose. Don't draw attention to yourself until you're ready to really do some damage. Well, nobody ever said terrorist were smart. Perhaps, these aren't. I hate to sound like I am making light because I am serious when I say this: this has the feel of a terrorist attack by a really smart, disgruntled teen, rather than Islamic terrorists. Some aspects of it just seem unpracticed, almost amateurish, with flashes of technical competence.

What's the symbolism here? I'm missing it. Because if the idea is to send a message to America's staunch ally in the Global War on Terror, then why attack now? The British just had elections in May. That would have been the time to strike, especially with one of candidate Blair's big weaknesses being Iraq. A terror event in London, during the campaign, and we could have a different resident at Number 10 Downing Street.

Breaking Story?

My Dad's good friend, Nick Keck, sends me interesting news items, pretty much every day. One item really jumped off the screen at me:

1429 GMT - A U.S. Navy SEAL missing in Afghanistan since June 28 hasbeen captured and will be executed, Taliban spokesman Mulla LatifHakimi said July 8. Hakimi said the SEAL is being held in a house in Kunar anda video would be released of his death. Two of the four SEALS have been found dead and one has been rescued.

I tried finding other reports on this story on CNN.com, Google's news page, MSNBC.com, BBC.com and Drudgereport.com but couldn't find any other sources on this. Unfortunately, the Sitrep doesn't include sources for the items.

However, if this story turns out to be true, just remember this the next time someone talks about an "exit strategy" or troop withdrawals. Just remember who we are fighting here. These guys have captured one of our guys and are going to execute him. And then make that grisly scene public. That's their idea of an exit strategy - for us!

And Dick Durbin compares our own men to Nazis and Cambodian killing fields soldiers? Let's be clear what we are talking about here. Some terrorist detainees had to crouch in uncomfortable positions for hours. Some dogs barked at them. Some had to listen to Christina Aguilera non-stop. No-one was filmed being beheaded. Certainly, millions didn't die. Statements such as Durbin's are perfidious. And his weaselly quasi-apology only compounded his error, as far as I am concerned.

Supreme Court Vacancy(ies)?

There's so much to cover here, but I'll start with what inspired me to post in the first place.

Chuck Muth had this in his today's News 'N Views newsletter:

"The hot rumor yesterday was that Chief Justice William Rehnquist would resign from the Supreme Court today. The hot rumor today is that Justice John Paul Stevens will join him."

This would give George Bush an unprecedented three nominations at once. I haven't checked, but in my readings on the vacancies - and there have been plenty of pixels killed on this subject already - I don't get the feeling that a single president has had the opportunity to nominate three justices at once. I'll do some more checking and update as I learn more.

Three nominations would give George Bush the chance to really put his money where his mouth is. With Scalia and Thomas two of the younger remaining six, Bush has the chance to install an "originalist" bloc on the Court. During his campaign in 2000, the only two names out of his lips were Scalia and Thomas. But does he have the guts to do it?

Probably not. And this leads me to my next point(s). Where did this idea come from that each justice had to be replaced with a justice of equal judicial temperament, thereby maintaining the ideological balance of the Court? This is a recent phenomenon, I'm sure. And I'm sure it started with Thurgood Marshall's retirement, when it seemed George H. W. Bush was compelled to fill Marshall's seat with an African-American. Of course, the last laugh was on Papa Bush on that one.

Anyway, Bush the Younger should bear that nomination in mind. And not because he promised to nominate more judges like Thomas, but because it would give him a chance to pull a Thomas, on the court. You want a judge that "looks like America"? The first female justice on the Court just retired? Gotta replace her with another woman? Meet Judge Janice Rogers Brown. (I'll admit to cribbing this idea from Chuck Muth but I think it's great.) She's fresh off a Senate confirmation hearing, so it would make it harder for Democrat obstructionists (and their muckraking partners) to derail her.

Thomas Sowell recently wrote a very candid column that sounded his (and echoed many others') genuine anger at the Democrat's judicial obstructionism and the Republicans almost willful inability to do anything about it. I mean, it's been one defeat after another. First the filibusters of highly-qualified men and women who were punished for their supposed (and, in some cases, genuinely-held) views and not being judged on their abilities as jurists. Then the Republicans long non-campaign against the obstructionism, during which Bill Frist threatened endlessly to invoke the "nuclear option". Indeed, Frist was able to keep the conversation on the "nuclear option" going for so long that the left had time to organize and mount a media campaign against it.

Then came the "Gang of Fourteen"'s deal to avert the "nuclear option". In this episode, seven brave Senators from each party broke from the ranks to the middle (if you believe the conventional media's portrayal) - led by one of the only Republican that the mainstream media likes, John McCain, but only because he's continually putting his thumb in his own party's eye - and brokered a deal to, well, to not use the filibuster again....unless we really, really need to, to block someone we really, really don't like (this being the Democrat's side of the deal). And in exchange the Republicans got floor votes on, like, three nominees that should have had floor votes in the first place.

Of course, this deal does nothing for eminently qualified nominee Miguel Estrada who withdrew his name after twisting in the wind for two years for being, what? Too Hispanic? (I thought that would be a good thing. You know, diversity.) Not having a paper trail? Having the cojones to be a conservative Hispanic? It's still not clear.

And, I can't let pass without comment (as others have already commented) the revulsion I feel upon hearing Ted Kennedy's thoughts on the judicial nomination process. For those of you that don't recall, Ted Kennedy is basically the reason that Robert Bork's surname is now a verb denoting an unfair, often scurrilous, attack against a presidential nominee. Back in 1987 Ted Kennedy launched his almost instantaneous attack on what he called "Robert Bork's America", an America where abortions will be relegated to back alleys, blacks and whites will return to separate lunch counters, the sun won't shine any more, birds will stop singing. You get the picture. All bad things. Kennedy offered not one passage of Bork's writings, not one public statement, nothing in Bork's considerable "paper trail", not one shred of evidence, much less proof, that Bork held anything even remotely close to such views. And yet that fat windbag still sits in the Senate, and Robert Bork commutes to and from the AEI building, working in relative obscurity, instead of on the High Court on which he was eminently qualified to sit.

By the way, all the usual suspects in a confirmation fight, People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, NARAL, et al., swear that they won't automatically oppose any nominee sent to the Senate by Bush. Yeah, and if you believe that insert your favorite joke implying massive gullibility here. While they all say they won't, as a matter of course, oppose any nominee, they've been buying up domain names like: stopgonzales.com, stopluttig.com, stopalito.com, and stopgarza.com. And not content with merely (perhaps) using these domains to launch websites designed to coordinate effort to defeat potential Bush nominees, they've also bought up domains like: confirmgonzales.com, confirmluttig.com, confirmalito.com, and confirmgarza.com. Now, why would they do such a thing? Perhaps they weren't lying when they said they might support a Bush nominee. Yeah, and if you believe that insert your favorite joke implying massive gullibility here.

I really hope that George Bush has the same kind of courage in making these choices as he's shown in fighting the Islamists. I really do. I hope he realizes that they are going to attack and put through the meat grinder any nominee he sends up, and so you might as well get one up there you want.

The Democrats aren't going to like you or praise you, no matter what you do. So, screw 'em! No matter whose name gets sent up, they're going to be an "extremist", someone out of "Bork's America (a place, which if it did exist as Ted Kennedy described it, certainly doesn't now). And when it's the Democrats' turn to govern again, they will not hesitate to nominate and confirm another Breyer or Ginsburg. And they certainly aren't going to pull out any stops to derail your nominee, so pick a good one! This is too important to screw up.

More on Kelo v. City of New London

Not to worry, says the Mayor of Indianapolis.

"City officials use the power of eminent domain very selectively and very carefully," said Indianapolis, Ind., Mayor Bart Peterson, who is also the vice president of the National League of Cities.

"Generally, property is taken only in the context of an overall economic development project that will provide significant benefits to a neighborhood. This usually involves public hearings or some other type of public process," Peterson added. "In addition, the Constitution's 'just compensation' requirement ensures that cities treat property owners fairly, as do state and federal laws that govern the use and limits of eminent domain."

So, in essence, Mayor Peterson is saying, "Trust us. We won't use this newly-enshrined power too often." Yeah, right.

Well, if property owners have nothing to worry about since they will be fairly compensated, why does the state has to use its coercive power to wrest property from private citizens to benefit private developers in the first place? Why don't developers just pay homeowners a fair price for their homes? Why not pay homeowners a little above market value to ensure their cooperation? After all, the developers generally stand to make so much more off the development of property, shouldn't they make it worth the property owner's while? This would be akin to the practice of paying shareholders more than the current value of their shares during a buyout of a publicly-traded company.

Why? Because, in fact, homeowners aren't paid what their property is worth to the private developer. Just who do you think determines the compensation paid to homeowners whose properties are taken? The Keebler Elves?

Brazil's disrespect for IP law

Brazilian Health Minister Humberto Costa says that Brazil's growing HIV/AIDS population needs anti-retroviral drugs. But he doesn't think they, or the Brazilian government, should have to pay for them.

Minister Costa announced recently that Abbott Laboratories of Chicago, maker of the anti-retroviral drug Kaletra, has until the end of the week to offer an acceptable price for it. Otherwise he will order a Brazilian state-run laboratory to begin making a generic version of the drug.

No matter what Costa says, this is patently illegal. It violates the WTO's TRIPs (trade-related intellectual property rights) agreement. Of course, Costa doesn't quite see it that way. He believes he has found a loophole which permits this practice.

Dr. Roger Bate, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, writing on Tech Central Station, thinks this practice "appears to be legal". I disagree. The loophole Costa is using to justify this theft is one which allows developing nations to suspend IP protections in times of health emergencies. An admirable clause indeed, since it allows the world's poorest quick access to life-saving medicines.

However, I think this clause doesn't apply to Brazil in this case for two reasons. First of all, it is a stretch to call Brazil, with the world's eighth-largest economy (larger than Canada, Spain, Australia, or Russia), a "developing" nation.

Second, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Brazil has hardly reached the stage where it can be called a health emergency. According to the Population Research Bureau, 0.1 % of the population between ages 15-40 is infected with HIV. Brazil doesn't even rank in the top 15 countries outside Africa in terms of the spread of HIV.

What Minister Costa is proposing is out-and-out theft. It's too bad such an educated person as Dr. Bate can't see that.

This is disturbing

The Washington Times has this item about a recent test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) by the Chinese.

It's no secret that the Chinese are working to acquire a "blue-water navy" (i.e., one that can project power beyond its littoral). Now, one reason they may be seeking such a capacity may be to defend their Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs). With China's voracious and growing appetite for oil, they are jumping into bed with any and all regimes that can help provide energy resources. Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Turkmenistan. Anyone. Doesn't matter who as long as they can provide oil or gas. Just look at the Chinese National Overseas Oil Corporation's (CNOOC) $2 billion dollar raise on Chevron's bid for Unocal.

So, one could look at this test and say that the Chinese are merely seeking to keep their trade routes open, especially the vital Strait of Malacca between Indonesia (a volatile, almost unstable country) and Malaysia, through which much of China's imported oil passes.

But does anyone think for a second that it hasn't occurred to the Chinese that an SLBM with a range of 6,000 miles might also be a useful tool in countering USPACOM's ability to project power in the region and defend Taiwan from Chinese threats?

I don't know who is more pathetic...

...The New York Times editorial board or Fatina Abdrabboh, author of a recent column that appeared on the Gray Lady's op-ed page.

In the column, entitled Veiled Praise, Ms. Abdrabboh, a student at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, recounts a recent episode at the gym where she works out in Cambridge. In her column, Ms. Abdrabboh writes that she felt "more self-conscious than usual" that day. She attributes this to the fact that she works out in her hijjab (head scarf). During her workout she writes how "[e]very television in the gym highlighted some aspect of America's conflict with the Muslim world: the war in Iraq, allegations that American soldiers had desecrated the Koran, prisoner abuse at Guantánamo Bay, President Bush urging support of the Patriot Act".

Ok. Let's stop right there. America's conflict with the Muslim world? Sorry, Ms. Abdrabboh, but it's the Muslim world that has the conflict with America. America has done more to help Muslims than any other government - including the governments of all the Muslim nations. Lebanon, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq. Americans died helping, or trying to help, all these countries stop the bloodshed within their own borders. To that list I would add Turkey's membership in NATO, and billions in military and foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Don't even get me started on the Koran "abuse" incident. The whole thing was completely overblown and let's leave it at that. And what the heck has the Patriot Act got to do with anything?

Oh, one other small point: it was Muslims that attacked America on September 11, not the other way around.

Ms. Abdrabboh continues on with a case of the vapors a la Nancy Hopkins (the MIT biologist who was so offended by Lawrence Summers' suggestion that innate differences between the sexes might explain women's lack of achievement in the sciences). Ms. Abdrabboh writes that the "stares just intensified my alienation as an Arab Muslim in what is supposed to be my country". She says she was "not sure if the blood rushing to my head was caused by the elliptical trainer or by the news coverage." (An aside: that is just crappy writing. How the heck did she get into Harvard?)

She goes on to relate how she finished her session on the elliptical trainer and moved on to the treadmill, where, unbeknownst to her, she dropped her keys. Her workout is interrupted by none other than Al Gore, who had interrupted his own workout to pick up her keys and hand them to her. Ms. Abdrabboh's reaction?

"It was nothing more than a kind gesture, but at that moment Mr. Gore's act represented all that I yearned for — acceptance and acknowledgment.

There in front of me, he stood for a part of America that has not made itself well known to 10 million Arab and Muslim-Americans, many of whom are becoming increasingly withdrawn and reclusive because of the everyday hostility they feel."

I'm sorry but the nerve of some people never ceases to amaze me. Here is a young woman, studying at the one of premier universities in the world (which happens to be American), with a bright future ahead of her, and all she can do is resort to imagined victimization. Notice, she never says that anyone physically or verbally assaulted her. Just that she "felt" that people were staring at her. I don't know. Maybe she had toilet paper stuck to her shoe.

Personally, I think Ms. Abdrabboh feels guilty for being a citizen of the country that has been targeted by her co-religionists. Rather than speak out against their crimes, she turns herself into the victim to dampen her own guilt. If she didn't, she might have to accept the fact that she comes from a part of the world with a lot of bad people and accept the fact that she herself is not doing anything to change it.

Maybe if she and her 10 million (a figure that is exaggerated; I believe America's Arab-American population numbers around 7 million) fellow Arab-Americans wouldn't feel such hostility (if indeed it does exist - a big if) if they stood up and denounced terrorism instead of talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue.

Or perhaps Americans are hostile to hyper-sensitive twerps that seem to live only to tell us what awful people we are, all the while enjoying the freedom and opportunity found only in our society. She's like a freeloader that shows up at your door, enters without knocking, goes straight for the fridge and grabs a beer - only to complain that you don't have any Heineken.

Plenty of other bloggers and columnists - notably Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online - have lampooned this garbage far better than I ever could. A simple Google search of "Fatina Abdrabboh" will yield plenty of results. Ankle Biting pundits exposes Ms. Abdrabboh's past efforts at claiming victimhood. It's quite a list. Hey, Fatina, if things are so bad in America, leave! I'm sure Canada or France would love to have you.

But, to return to the title of this piece, the fact that the New York Times printed this drivel on their op-ed page says as much about the Times as it does about Fatina Abdrabboh. I mean, this column might (and I stress might) have been worth printing if Al Gore and his Secret Service detail had rescued Ms. Abdrabboh from a pack of wilding skinheads.

But, all that happened is that this privileged twit dropped her keys during a fit of self-induced paranoia and anxiety, and a nice man picked them up and handed them to her. She then tries to turn this into some kind of metaphor for her own American experience. The whole episode is hardly worth a diary or blog entry, much less a spot on the Times' op-ed page.

That sure didn't take long

Minutes after finishing my post on Kelo v. City of New London, James Taranto's Best of the Web provided this bit:

"After celebrating the Supreme Court's decision yesterday to effectively give local governments carte blanche to seize land for private development, some local officials began quickly moving to use their new unlimited authority. Officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, Texas, announced they would move forward with plans to commandeer property owned by two seafood companies in order to allow the construction of a 900-slip private marina. Freeport will even be loaning the developers $6 million to finance the project, and if it fails the town won't be getting its money back. What is certain is that the displacement of the two seafood companies will cost scores of jobs."

(Sometimes I think that instead of taking the trouble to actually blog, I should just post a daily link to Taranto. He can make the rest of us bloggers feel so inadequate.)

Kelo v. City of New London

Anyone who owns a home, or dreams of owning one, should be profoundly disappointed by the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in favor of the City of New London. Basically, the Court affirmed the right of your town or county to take your house to make way for a Target, an Ikea or a Best Buy.

It should come as no suprise that the split went Stevens (writing for the majority), Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Kennedy (the last two living proof that with the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, a President doesn't always get what he bargained for) in favor; of course, leaving Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor against.

I am too tired and don't feel like working myself into a lather, so I haven't read Stevens' opinion. I have only read the news write-ups about it. As I understand it, the majority bloc did for the power of eminent domain (or takings clause) what Congress has done for the interstate-commerce clause: twisted it to mean pretty darn much whatever they say it means.

The traditional interpretation of eminent domain was that state and local governments could only take your property (traditionally land and/or a home) in order to benefit "public use". Throughout our country's history this had been interpreted to mean that eminent domain would be invoked in cases of public works (roads, bridges, schools, airports and the like).

In all cases of eminent domain, the appropriating entity must compensate the owner fairly. In Kelo, compensation was never the issue. It was understood that most people, fairly compensated or not, usually didn't want to give up their homes. At issue is the definition of "public use".

In Kelo, a narrowly-divided Supreme Court expanded this interpretation to include state and local government taking of private property for private development. In other words, your town could take your home, against your wishes, and allow a Starbucks to be built on what had previously been your land. This represents a radical departure from the previous interpretation since now the creation of private sector jobs and tax revenues is deemed to benefit public use.

I usually eschew "slippery slope" arguments but one seems a propos here. Just how many jobs must be created in order for it to be deemed a benefit to public use? If you and your wife are both employed, would the creation of three jobs be considered enough to justify a public taking?

In truth, not having read the majority opinion, I don't know if the Court enunciated any criteria in this area. I read nothing of the sort in any of the news pieces I read on the subject. This decision can only be seen as a drastic setback for private property rights. Combined with the Court's ruling in the Gonzalez v. Raich medical marijuana case, which brought back a more expansive view of the interstate-commerce clause, these rulings represent a blow to those citizens in our country who would like to see the power of government limited.

Well, at least Scalia got this one right. I still have a hard time believing he voted to uphold Gonzalez v. Raich.

Some people....

The nerve of some armchair diplomats is breath-taking. Take Madeleine Albright (please!). You remember her, right? She was the first woman Secretary of State - and an embarrassment to the United States. Recall that she was the one who danced with Kim Jong-Il in Pyongyang.

Ms. Albright also discovered her Jewish ancestry during her tenure at Foggy Bottom. Perhaps that explains her astonishing chutzpah.

Thanks to James Taranto's invaluable Best of the Web for highlighting comments Ms. Albright made about the Bush administration's diplomatic failings in sub-Saharan Africa:

"She decried the country's lack of support for sub-Saharan black Africa, calling Rwanda a 'volcanic' genocide [which occurred during the Clinton administration, while Madeleine was Ambassador to the UN recall] and the current situation in the Darfur region of Sudan a 'rolling genocide' that the United States must get involved in.

'There's no excuse. The money we spend in one year in Iraq would pay for 20 years of helping Africa,' she said.

This, in and of itself, would be bad enough, but contrast her bemoaning of the Bush adminstration's diplomacy in Africa with her own thoughts on the then-nascent "rolling genocide" (to use her term) in Darfur taken from a 2000 op-ed column by The Washington Post's Sebastian Mallaby:

"In a meeting last December, Albright suggested that, much as she deplored the country's suffering, 'The human rights situation in Sudan is not marketable to the American people.' Sudan's Muslim government may condone the enslavement of black people from the south; it may have pursued a war that has cost nearly two million lives; it may regularly bomb schools and hospitals. But Albright and one of her officials declined to call this 'genocide,' explaining that this might require the United States to do more about it."

The idea that she thought the Clinton administration had to "market" the idea that the US take action in a humanitarian crisis such as that in Darfur is simply repugnant. Americans know a wrong when they see it; they don't have to be sold on the idea of righting a grievous wrong.

For my money, Madeleine Albright has to rank as one of the worst Secretaries of State of all time, and certainly would be in the running for worst of the 20th century.

(For those interested, the latest National Review has an excellent article showing that the Bush administration has tried to do more about the slaughter in Darfur than just about any other country. In fact, it is the Europeans in the UN, most notably (wait for it) the French, who refuse to even consider threatening sanctions - much less sending in a peacekeeping force to supplement the African Union's woefully inadequate presence.)

The truth about the Democrat's filibusters

I know you will be shocked (shocked!) to learn that the Democrats in the Senate and the mainstream media have not been telling the truth about the filibuster of judicial nominees. So, here it is.

There is no long or honored tradition of using the filibuster in the Senate, and certainly not to block judicial nominees. In fact, the filibuster has almost always been used as an obstructionist tactic to block legislation that otherwise enjoys popular support . Recall Strom Thurmond's record filibuster of a 1957 civil rights bill.

The key difference here is that Thurmond actually took to the floor and spoke at length, without yielding, to block any other business from coming before the Senate. That is a "real" filibuster. Unlike today's filibuster in which all a Senator must do is signal his intent to filibuster (the so-called "gentleman's filibuster"). This is kind of like the batter signaling his "intent" to hit a home run and then just running around the bases and tagging home. That's ridiculous. The other team doesn't just accept the batter's intent. They make him go through the hard work of actually hitting the ball over the fence.

The first filibuster of a judicial nominee was in 1968 when Abe Fortas' nomination as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was filibustered. In addition to his nomination being opposed on ideological grounds, Fortas had serious ethical questions surrounding him as well. Opponents of Fortas' nomination wanted time to air these charges, so they filibustered. The two things to bear in mind about this filibuster are: (1) Fortas' opponents never intended to prevent his nomination from coming to the floor for an up-or-down vote; and (2) Fortas did not have the support of a majority of the Senate. In fact, the cloture vote (a motion to end debate, i.e., end the filibuster) garnered just 45 votes, far short of the required 60. Lyndon Johnson withdrew the nomination.

The filibuster did not raise its ugly head again until the Clinton administration. In 1996 Bill Clinton nominated a district-court judge named Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the same circuit that told us that we had to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance). In 1998 he nominated a San Francisco lawyer named Marsha Berzon to the same court.

Republicans, who were the majority at the time (just as they are now), wanted to block these nominations. The nominations were held up in committee until 1999 when Senate Democrats and President Clinton complained about the stalled nominations. Sens. Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter then sided with Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to approve the nominations and send them to a floor vote.

Now, here is where today's Democrats are caught in a lie. Paez and Berzon were never filibustered (contrary to the claims of Sen. Charles Schumer, among others). New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith tried to filibuster the nominations but his motions were defeated (85-14 in the case of Paez, and 86-13 for Berzon). Both nominees were subsequently approved.

Fast forward to 2003. The Democrats, still the minority, decided it was their prerogative to veto the President's judicial nominees. So, they began to use the filibuster. The Democrats have blocked 10 nominees from receiving up-or-down votes.

There are, I believe, three key differences between the 1968 Fortas filibuster, the 1999 non-filibusters of Paez and Berzon, and the 2003 filibuster of Bush's 10 judicial nominees.

First, in the case of the Fortas filibuster, the intent was not to block Fortas' nomination from ever reaching the floor. The intent was to allow for more time to study the nomination so that more information about Fortas could be brought to light prior to a floor vote. This is patently not the case with Bush's nominees. Witness this exchange between Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah over the Priscilla Owen nomination:

Bennett: "I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional six hours for debate on the Owen nomination."
Reid: "I object."
Bennett: "I modify the request to ten additional hours."
Presiding officer of the Senate asks if there are any objections.
Reid: "Yes. There are more productive things that could be done during those ten hours."
Bennett: "I ask if any number of hours would be sufficient for the Senator from Nevada."
Reid: "There is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient."

In other words, Senate Democrats fully intended to block this nomination from ever receiving an up-or-down vote. This wasn't about the advise and consent role. It was about obstructionism and denying the President his choices for the federal bench, pure and simple.

Second, the Democrats are the minority party. While the Constitution and Senate rules respect the minority, they clearly do not give them the power to block nominees from an up-or-down vote. Respect for the minority should not result in tyranny by the minority (something which is occurring more and more in our society). One of the perks of winning elections is that the winners (i.e., the Republicans) get to try and enact their policies and nominate people they believe will help them do that.

Third, the filibustered nominees enjoy majority support. In other words, were their nominations ever sent to the floor, they would be confirmed. This is what is most galling about this whole episode and stands in stark contrast to the Fortas "precedent". If a Senator objects to a nominee then he should vote not to confirm that nominee. If he wants to defeat an nominee, then he should convince 49 of his colleagues to do likewise. To do otherwise is cowardly.

Oh, and the fabulous compromise hammered out by the "McCain Seven"? Yeah, that lasted a long time. Democrats are at it again. Now they are filibustering John Bolton's nomination to be Ambassador to the U.N. Color me shocked!

Finally!

I love it when a national figure says something that I have been saying for some time. Follows is an excerpt from a column by former Clinton adviser Dick Morris:

"Frist just needs to end the 'virtual' filibuster and make the Democrats stage a real one, replete with quorum calls, 24/7 sessions and truly endless debate covered word for word by C-SPAN for all the nation to see - and ridicule." (emphasis added)

Morris makes the same point that I have made in several different posts - namely that the "filibusters" that everyone is so excised about aren´t really filibusters at all. Why the Republicans wouldn´t call the Democrats bluff on this remains a mystery to me.

Thanks for backing me up on this one, Dick!

Why doesn't some prominent Republican sue Howard Dean?

If I were a public figure, I'd sue him for slander.

The "never made an honest living" comment really chaps my hide. How dare he?! With one sound-bite, Dr. Dean has insulted the work ethic and integrity of millions of Americans.

As for the quote about the Republicans being a "white, Christian party", I'm sure this would come as news to people like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Elaine Chao, and Carlos Gutierrez (none of whom are white in the sense meant by Dean); or Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and Ken Melhman (who aren't Christian).

On the other hand, Howard Dean is a dream DNC chairman from a Republican standpoint. Not only is he alienating the very people the Democrats need to reach out to (the so-called "values voters"), he is so busy putting his foot in his mouth that the Democrats are lagging far behind the Republicans in fundraising. This is going to make it very hard for Democrats to fulfill Nancy Pelosi's (D., The Moon) prediction that her party will capture both houses of Congress in next year's mid-term election.

Who's the dunce?

This is rich. It's almost too good to be true!

For nigh on six years now the Left has repeated over and over that George Bush is dumb. They've repeated it so loudly and so often that it has become part of conventional wisdom. George Bush was presumed to have used his family connections and legacy status to win acceptance to Yale. John Kerry, on the other hand, with his erudition and French-ness was presumed to be the intellectually superior candidate.

Now the Boston Globe has revealed this:

"...Kerry received four times the number of Ds in his freshman year alone (than Bush received in four years of college) - one each in geology, and political science and two in history classes..."

Who's the dunce again?

Long Time, No Blog

For my readers out there, I just wanted to add a quick note to let you know that I am alive and well. I'm on the island of Sao Miguel in the Azores. The Azores, a Portuguese territory, are an island chain in the Atlantic. Just find Spain and Portugal on your map and then look to the left in the Atlantic.

Before that I was home for the month of May. I don't blog much at home since I am usually trying to catch up with friends and family and take care of all the little administrative details of my life. I generally do most of my blogging from the road. Unfortunately, the hotel here in Ponta Delgada (the capital of the Azores) doesn't have internet. Hence the lack of posts. I'm hopeful that next week will be a little slower and I'll get a chance to post.

I'm here until next Friday. I'll be home for almost a week and then I'm off to Frankfurt.