NOW LIE IN IT..........

Republican senators are apparently considering whether they should try to sue to stop the Dems from blocking their appeals court nominations. The Senate has passed most of the lower court nominations. Funny that the party in power wants to have another branch of government come in and clean up its mess for it. What leadership!

The Republicans helped make this bed and now don't want to have to continue lying in it. It was the Republican Senate that stalled approving Clinton's nominations (which were way too slow in coming from Clinton) as a matter of standard practice. In fact, that led to the nomination of the current U.S. Comptroller General (a Reagan admin official) being nominated by Clinton in a deal to speed up the process. If Orrin Hatch is frustrated because he can't ram through Bush's more radio-active conservative picks (with only 51 votes in the Senate), he has himself to blame as well as he led the Republicans here over the last 10 years with unyielding accuracy and determination. Don't play hardball and then whine when the other side does it to you.........

Its fine to keep calling for Estrada votes (4 filed attempts thus far) in hopes of scoring political points with your base, but it does nothing to get qualified judges into office. The notion of a lawsuit is laughable bluster and the discussion of it by Hatch and others show their desperation.

TOP GUN

The pictures are just too cool. Can't imagine our last President doing anything like this.

A HOLLYWOOD HALFWIT

This is just too funny not to reprint. It's Ed Harris, trying to ruin my next viewing of The Right Stuff.

I haven’t even been drinking, but, at all, but, you know, being a man, I’ve got to say that we’ve got this guy in the White House who thinks he is a man, you know, who projects himself as a man because he has a certain masculinity, and he's a good old boy, and he used to drink, and he knows how to shoot a gun and how to drive a pickup truck, etcetera like that. That’s not the definition of a man, God Dammit!

Apparently, Ed's hatch just blew.

IT'S THE COMMUNIST HOLIDAY, SO WHERE'S THE CELEBRATION

I awoke this morning with joy, in anticipation of the glorious parades, the waving red flags of revolution, the celebration of the International Worker's Holiday, "May Day." But alas, the Red Chinese are under quarantine and even the website of the workers and oppressed peoples of the world leads with stories on how the Iraqis hate Americans and how the glorious government socialist hero Fidel Castro fights back against capitalist provocations from Washington. But no mention of May Day. No redesign of the site just for this holiday.

I remember, back in the day, the wonderful display of missiles and tanks in Red Square, under the watchful eye of the faithful servants in the Politburo. I remember the stern face of Leonid Brezhnev as he faced down the decadent West and uplifted the Russian worker, just as Uncle Joe did before him. But, alas, May Day seems to be going unremarked. Is Marx, at last, dead?

But then, what to my wondering eyes would appear, a message to the workers of the world -- as the anthem of the oppressed, The Internationale is posted on Democratic Underground. I new they would come through for me. Red China may be forgetting the joys of May Day, but not the people on the website that "welcome[s] Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals." The are coming through for us, reviving the ghosts of Marx and Engels and calling for Revolution Now:

we should take the example of the so called founding fathers. . . .instead of appeasers and ass kissers, we need fighters and ass kickers. we should be the new revolutionaries of the new american century. we are being crushed under a monarchy and led by men who are anything but leaders. we should take back america, because they are surely stealing it out from under our noses. the time is now. REVOLUTION NOW. more and more people are starting to wake up reluctantly to the fact that 9-11 was a deliberate u.s. government act, designed to kick off global conquest and imperial america.

Throwing off the yoke of oppression, fixing the lies of history:

I'm a progressive. I don't look to the past for guidance, but to the future. A war of indepedence fought largely for the preservation of the existing social elites in North America (Washington was at one time the richest man in the USA) is hardly my role model, and a period where only rich white males could vote is hardly my definition of "good ole' days" - it's more like the bad ole' days.

Yes, the Democrat base comes alive on May Day. Go enjoy.

FOXNEWS: NO SPIN ZONE

A great exchange from Fox & Friends is documented on the Dust in the Light Blog. Here's part of it:

[Former Scud Stud Arthur] Kent noted a meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and the Ba'athists in 1984 and mentioned that "the very nations" (the U.S. and U.K.) that liberated Iraq were also complicit in propping up the regime. Of course, one could point out the actual sources of support for Hussein and note that even the Pope met with Tariq Aziz much more recently than 1984. But what I found interesting was Kilmeade's response: "So, for your show about the horrors of Saddam's regime, you emphasize the role of the United States?"

60 Minutes has been doing challenging interviews like this for 30 years (mostly challenging figures on the right), while the rest of television has followed the softball examples of Larry King and Barbara Walters -- make your guest look good and they'll come back to deliver more ratings. Now, it takes the former sports guy from Fox Xpress to show the media how to conduct an interview that amounts to more than a press release.

GWB FOR AFRICA

In this picture, "President George W. Bush kisses HIV-positive Princess Zulu, from Zambia." I wonder how the Left is going to characterize the President's commitment toward fighting AIDS in Africa as a Halliburton jobs program? Do I dare look at DU to find out?

DEMONIZING JUDGES

Robert Alt explains in an excellent article on National Review Online how the Left, and it's paper of record The New York Times, demonizes judges who are concerned with upholding principles of Federalism. Alt details how Federalism is merely a set of rules that is neutral as to outcome...they cut against Conservatives who want Congress to outlaw partial-birth abortion and the Left who want to ban possession of guns.

Another example of a set of rules that works both ways, which conservatives have not used to attack left-leaning judges, is called "substantive due process." This is a way of interpreting the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to mean more than the requirement that lawful procedures exist and are followed before the government can deprive someone of property or life. After all, government can constitutionally kill you as long as it follows a due process (crime, trial, witnesses, jury, appeals).

But "substantive due process" says that the protections are not just procedural, but that there are actual, substantive rights inherent in the due process clause. In other words, it's not about procedure at all, but some rights can't be taken away even with due process. While Congress can't take your life without due process of law, there are other rights it can't take at all. If you think it is strange that an enumerated right, such as life, can be taken away with proper procedures, but other rights cannot be taken regardless of the procedure, then you aren't alone.

One of the most famous substantive due process cases was Dred Scott v. Sanford, in which the Supreme Court found a substantive due process right to ownership of slaves. The Court found that Illinois couldn't provide a procedure that would free a slave owned by someone in a slave State. And, of course, that case has been reviled ever since.

But substantive due process was applied in a case lauded by the Left today. Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court found a substantive right to abortion, which cannot be taken away by some duly legislated procedure. Yes, rules cut both ways, and only the intellectually dishonest, such as the editorial board of The New York Times, would characterize support for such neutral rules as support or opposition for the policy positions that may be effected by application of those rules.

THREE WEEKS AFTER YORKTOWN
STILL NO CONSTITUTION READY

The Weekly Standard has unearthed the November 11, 1781 copy of Ye Newe York Times and it reveals a remarkably consistent editorial philosophy. Interesting tidbits include:

Subsidies for Tobacco, Peanut Farming Announced: To Be Temporary

Harvard Tutor: Sanctions 'Gainst George III Would Have Worked

And current Times news "analyst" R.W. Apple's ancestor writes the following:

Triumph Over
British Empire
Was Easy Part
-----
Mayheme, Discontent
Betray Hollow Victory
-----
Desire to Return
To British Sovereignty
Becoming Widespread

"WOMEN'S SECTION" OF A HOME?

It appears that the former Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammad Said al-Sahhaf, has been hiding "in the women's section of a home in a poor neighbourhood of Baghdad." It just makes me wonder how much of this "diversity" we should "celebrate."

MORE SUBTLE BIAS

The Raleigh News and Observer provides another fine example of subtle bias in a story about two nominees to sit on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bush has appointed two Americans with North Carolina ties and each happens to be a black Republican. One, however, apparently cannot be forgiven for his 1984 stint as a spokesman for Sen. Jesse Helms (that's right, the allegedly racist Sen. Helms had a black spokesman), and the story foreshadows the coming attack from the Democrats.

The N&O article, which was picked up by the AP, introduces Allyson Duncan by noting that her nomination "has been expected for months." Claude Allen is introduced as living in Virginia, "so neither North Carolina senator could block his nomination under a Senate tradition that has effectively allowed members to veto picks from their home states." The implication, of course, that an NC Senator would (or should?) veto him. No mention of the fact that Ms. Duncan lives in North Carolina and therefore cannot be vetoed by Virginia's senators. Oh well.

After explaining the support (which is much deserved) that Ms. Duncan has received from Sen. John Edwards (D-NH, IA) and a law school dean, we're told not that Sen. Elizabeth Dole supports Allen, only that she supports having a confirmation hearing. Whatever. Then, the kicker. After reviewing Allen's accomplishments, we get this stand alone paragraph.

Allen has no previous experience as a judge.

And neither does Duncan, but this gets no mention. I wonder why.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

NPR presented us this morning with another great example of what makes NPR left. In Elizabeth Arnold's story today on Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), we learned that she's pushing for drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge -- as all Alaska politicians must in order to get elected -- NPR makes this point so we understand that there's no good reason to support the drilling, just greed for power and for money. Nevertheless, a good position, which the Senator supports in the story by pointing out that 60% of the nation's wilderness is in Alaska and that certainly limits the ability of Alaskans to make a living. I wonder what New Yorkers would think if the majority of New York was off limits to human development because a bunch of liberal Alaskans liked it that way (yet never visit)? Anyway, Elizabeth Arnold thought her job as narrator was to attack the Senator's points, as she made clear that the Alaskan's don't own that wilderness, but all Americans do, because it is "federal" land. No mention of the principles of Federalism, of course.

But the real kicker came with Ms. Arnold's final sentence of the piece, which, in NPR fashion is always more conclusion than denouement. Comparing the Senator to her father Frank, who held the seat before her, Ms. Arnold quotes a critic (yes, a critic's statement is used to sum up the profile), saying that while Lisa's style is different than her father's, she's still selling the same old "snake oil." (You can hear this example of fair and balanced journalism here after noon eastern). And that's why we call it National Liberal Radio.

TAXING LESSONS

Ithaca, New York, the most liberal city in America, has struck again. This time by looking to impose a tax directly on children.

The Ithaca Journal reports that Board of Education officials have proposed a $180.00 per year parking fee to be charged students who drive to school. According to the Journal, the fee would be applied to "things that will benefit all students," which, it turns out, consist largely of "positions which involve communicating with new families at the schools."

In other words, students are being taxed to pay for more bureaucratic fat at school. Niiiiiiccce...

The mentality seems to be the typical liberal one: that students who drive must be able to afford the cost. So this is just another way of "taxing the rich."

However, as with most liberal schemes, this ignores reality. Many of the students who drive to school do so because they have after school jobs, in order to pay for things that "rich" children may get from their parents gratis. But now, in addition to the usual taxes on their labor, such as payroll, they are being socked with Ithaca's own version of a commuter tax.

Faced with this tax, the students are already planning to do what many business owners do when confronted with taxes: looking for ways to avoid it. The Journal article notes that "according to parents and students...students will get around the fee by parking on surrounding streets."

So the kids now have their first lessons in loopholes.

And this lesson may be another reason why this scheme will backfire. By imposing a fee so high that no one bothers to pay it, the school may actually lose money (a fact one board member acknowledges to the Journal).

On the other, maybe this was a good thing. School is supposed to be a place for learning, of course. And, in this case, there would appear to be a lot of valuable lessons being taught:
that higher taxes often cause a loss of revenue; that people will look for a way to avoid paying taxes; that taxes on "the rich" often hurt the middle class and the wage earner.

As noted above, it looks like some of the children might even be learning these lessons.

The real question is...are the adults?