Townhall.com's Tim Chapman writes today in his Capitol Report that the Democrats have already begun their smear campaign against Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito by circulating their preferred talking point slanders.

When even Chris Matthews calls this document "disgusting," you know it must be.

Fran O'Brien's-style.

Star Parker, a conservative commentator who writes regularly that life in the black community can be improved most effectively by limiting government dependency, pens a puzzling column today.

Ms. Parker argues that President Bush could best help kids displaced by Hurricane Katrina by using his power of executive order to provide them with federally funded school vouchers.

The estimated price tag to provide a $7,500 voucher for each displaced kid is $2.8 billion. This is a drop in the bucket of the $62 billion that Congress has already appropriated for emergency relief. By a stroke of the pen, the president can eliminate restrictions in place and permit directing these FEMA funds for education. Why doesn't the president act? Now.

The reason Bush hasn't - or at least shouldn't - act on this suggestion is because public education is not the responsibility of the federal government. Although we already commit billions of federal dollars every year to education programs at the state and local levels, this hardly justifies expanding further whatever obligation we might think we have to our children.

Unfortunately, Ms. Parker ignores the fact that thousands of displaced students have already been absorbed by private and public schools around the country. Furthermore, her support for a federal school voucher program is specifically confusing given the fact that she's written critically of Mr. Bush's faith-based initiative program, which she quite correctly views as a "a significant expansion of government." So how would establishing a federally-managed school voucher program be any different, especially when there's no reason to believe that federal outlays that occur under specific circumstances won't eventually be expanded to include everyone?

Moreover, Ms. Parker virtually contradicts her reasons for supporting such a voucher program by admitting that more and more young blacks are beginning to shun government programs and other political handouts that politicians have traditionally used to buy their support.

Young blacks now are saying no thanks. We want freedom.

[...]

For blacks, school vouchers are a no brainer. The black community has gotten the message that getting its children educated is the central challenge to moving up the economic ladder.

School vouchers are a no-brainer, but they must be implemented at the state and local levels of government. If principles of limited goverment and federalism don't matter anymore, it at least ought to be common sense that the logistics of a voucher program can only be managed efficiently by those immersed in such a system, not by a slew of bureaucrats in Washington who'd have no idea how best to allocate resources to meet the needs of children living in a variety of situations.

Like welfare programs, Social Security, FEMA, and our current public school system, let's not see good intentions fall victim to federal mismanagement yet again.

Is anyone listening? Some bloggers, and the president, have not ignored the present danger.

The blogger at WordUnheard is listening, to Iran’s Ahmadinejad’s words: “I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel ] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable.”

The montage of photos attached to the post are a painful reminder of that Islamic morality.

Judith Klinghoffer elaborates on the "selective Muslim silence": “Here we are: part of the Muslim community is in the thrall of a totalitarian ideology which turns young Muslims into human bombs. Photos of Muslim and non Muslim civilian body parts flying in the middle of markets, mosques, discos and hotels have become routine. Beheadings of Christian and Jewish men and women are no longer surprising. And what do the ever-silent and passive-defensive Muslim countries, Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab League vociferously condemn?”

Jack Risko’s Dinocrat blog features President Bush’s response: “The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They’ve been sheltered by authoritarian regimes — allies of convenience like Syria and Iran — that share the goal of hurting America and modern Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West, on America, and on the Jews.”

Agree or disagree, usually on some grounds of immediate pragmatism or personal prejudice, for decades Nat Hentoff is our conscience. Indeed, I would suggest he is the most core “originalist” among commentators, reserving all individual liberties to the individual not explicitly granted to government.

Hentoff holds that mirror to the Supreme Court in today’s column.

Hentoff discusses whether Supreme Court oral arguments should be televised. Justice Scalia is opposed. "We don't want to become entertainment." Scalia said, "I think there's something sick about making entertainment out of real people's legal problems. I don't like it in the lower courts, and I don't particularly like it in the Supreme Court."

In contrary view, Hentoff emphasizes “how important is it for Americans to understand the workings of the Supreme Court”, and that “a lot of times this can seem very abstract, but how do these cases and judgments filter into our everyday lives?" It’s not about “making entertainment”, but allowing unfiltered public access to the deliberations of our government that affect us.

Anyone who has read the oral arguments before the Supreme Court is struck by how relatively little is focused on the specific law, but moreso the practical impacts and interactions. The Justices seek to elicit from the contending sides these fine lines.

If more Americans were witness to these oral arguments, more Americans would have greater appreciation for how decisions come to be made and, maybe, less upset with the outcomes. It’s, simply, not usually as clear as many political partisans or partisan lawyers paint it.

As Hentoff ends his brief, “After all, it's not their court, it's our court.”

And it got happier this morning. President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated longtime judge Samuel Alito Monday in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his conservative allies. Democrats said that Alito may be "too radical for the American people."

"Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years, and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years," Bush said, drawing an unspoken contrast to his first choice, Harriet Miers.

This is the type of pick conservatives expected. Good for Bush.

Dems aren't happy:

[Sen. Harry] Reid, who had jumped to the support of Miers, promised to give Alito a "hard look."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., pulled no punches. "Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not on strength."

When Reid and Kennedy don't react like this, you know you've nominated the wrong person.

“Not one life is worth it to remove Saddam”

You’ve heard that one from the Left, many times, arguing that America only has base motives and depraved execution, forgetting to compare that to the hundreds of thousands cruelly murdered by Saddam and the thugs we face since. Or you may have heard that from self-regarding “realists”, whose timidity at executing a finale to Saddam in 1991 or their betrayal of Kurds and Shia fed to the slaughter is the achievement of what a real realist must recognize as real ineptitude and amorality.

Well, apparently the Arab League felt differently. According to an Al-Arabiya documentary (discussed at CaptainsQuarters) the Arab League rejected a deal for Saddam to go into exile in order to avoid the U.S. invasion. Apparently, to the Arab League "morality" it was worth many lives to remove Saddam. The loss of Iraqi and American lives is more precious than their cooperation in peacefully deposing one of their fellow despots. You can hear them now: “Hey, us despots have to hang tough together, or we might be next, and the people be damned, right?” That is the company kept by the American Left and so-called “realists”.

There is a custom among observant Jews to read from Pirkei Avos, Ethics of the Fathers, on a Saturday afternoon of rest during the Sabbath. It is a collection of the moral arguments and lessons of our great Sages.

The motivation for Pirkei Avos is the belief that the fall of the second Temple is largely rooted in the moral divisions among Jews who were otherwise observant of the forms of worship. It is not a book of lists of great moral maxims or slogans. It is the delicate discussion of the very many small choices of how we choose to live our daily lives, which cumulatively bring us closer to building the world we care to live in, one that the Messiah will find worthy to come.

For those inclined toward Bible study or morality study, it is one of the most enriching experiences to set aside a time each week to consider these collected wisdoms.

In our daily lives we also need to have friends whose example leads us into these considerations. I’ve been blessed to have many such friends in my life. Those friendships have been forged most often in the field of battle, some of those friends coming from my adversaries at the time whose wisdom later earned my understanding and respect.

It is in that vein of openness that just after reading in my Pirkei Avos the words of Rashi (“Do not act in a fashion that will cause you to view yourself as wicked,” and the comment, “Be careful how you act today so that you will not come to question later how you came to do such evil.”) that I opened one of my and your favorite blogs, Powerline.com, and read: “Some ground rules are better than others when it comes to confirming judges, and an approach that involves deference to the president has much to recommend it. But the most important thing is that the rules be consistent so that the ability of the parties to confirm their nominees is a function of their standing with the public, not more favorable rules.” (Paul Mirengoff)

I won’t judge, I am not qualified to stand in judgment of someone whom I respect so much for so many of his merits and contributions. I hope I am missing something in my darkness, and will learn it.

At this moment, however, this statement of, perhaps, political truth, does not appear to me to be a moral truth as overriding as consistency in observing the process of the Constitution and fairness. Just because some liberals may not follow those rules does not mean that conservatives should surrender the moral high ground, that is the root of our unity and strength and attraction to those whom we want as allies, in order to come down to the level of our political adversaries.

In the 2000 election campaign, candidate George W. Bush said, "In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but what is right - not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves." That's whom I voted for.

of liberal "tolerance."

It's important to understand that Proposition 75, one of Gov. Schwarzenegger's union reform initiatives, would simply give employees the right to choose whether or not they want union dues taken from their paychecks to be used for political purposes.

Yes, those very same "right to choose" liberals.

David Gelernter writes in his Los Angeles Times column, “Americans won’t let Democrats lose Iraq.” Gelernter points at promoter of doom Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy’s threat to try and cut off funds to fulfill our commitments in Iraq unless we abdicate our commitments and withdraw.

Gelernter reminds us that “Leahy’s words lighted up a deep, dark secret that this nation would rather forget:” The last time Democrats did this, reaping electoral reaction to the downfall of Nixon, 30-million Indochinese were treated to tyranny, several million were murdered, and millions more fled with hundreds of thousands dying in the effort.

“But, for left-wing Democrats, it was a triumph. Forcing the mighty U.S. military to run away was the greatest victory they have ever known. That triumph broke a levee that sent a flood of left-wing ideas pounding across the U.S. landscape.” President Carter’s defeatist foreign policy was the outcome in 1976. Respect for Western culture and for U.S. willingness to defend against tyrannies were overthrown in favor of moral relativism, abdication of defense responsibilities, and even reflexive anti-Americanism in much of our universities, our media, and our foreign policy.

America has been digging itself out of that deep hole ever since, and the sides are kept slippery by the anti-Vietnam generation in positions of power. John Kerry almost won in 2004, if not for the marginal difference to a few percent of the electorate contributed by his exposure as a fraud by the Vietnam veterans who knew the truth and were willing to go to war again to uphold it.

Gelernter points to the progress made in Iraq, to the overwhelming vote in favor of the new constitution, to the reluctant but promising Sunni participation, to polls showing that most Americans don’t want to cut and run even though wishing we’d never gone in.

Sorry David, that’s not enough.

Analogies are misleading. However, as Democrats assuming Congressional power in the wake of Watergate fulfilled their anti-anti-communist ideology, if Democrats assume Congressional power in 2006, they will fulfill their relativist ideology again. Most, simply, are not willing to fight for Western morality or the West.

John Kerry, a year after the election, finally clarified his policy on Iraq a few days ago: Let’s start withdrawing. Other leading Democrats will start speaking out along these lines.

The perceived weakening of support for President Bush is their encouragement.

“The fear factor is gone” as to Bush’s power to influence says former Democrat Senator John Breaux, one of the few Senators willing to break with his Party to support Bush on many occasions, reflecting on the consequence of the face-down by conservative oppositionists to Bush’s Miers nomination.

Most of the conservative oppositionists to Miers perceived a higher calling -- outright power -- in bringing her and Bush down than the principles of Constitutional process and fairness they are now exposed as only conveniently espousing when Democrats imposed ideological litmus tests.

I’ve been involved in defending our commitments to South Vietnam since 1964, including Marine service there. I’ve kept track of who said and did what over the past 40-years. I’ve watched many of the same conservatives waffle whenever the going gets tough in debates over a firm foreign policy, and during the Iraq engagement.

These rear-guard armchair generals and claimers of after-action kudos are weak allies of what is most at stake today.

They shout for a Congressional war between conservatives and liberals over the next Supreme Court nomination, but their hypocrisy has weakened the man they send into battle – George W. Bush. The result, whomever wins, may energize some partisan conservatives, but will alienate many in the decisive middle, and energize the liberal base.

A shift of a few percent of the electorate kept Kerry out of the White House. A shift of a few percent in 1994 overthrew the formerly perceived impregnable Democrat majority in Congress. A shift of a few percent may reverse that in 2006. Electoral experts say this is possible.

If so, bye bye a democratic Iraq, bye bye a more benign Middle East, bye bye reforming the U.N., bye bye any Republican legislative agenda, hello even more assertive North Korea, Iran, France, Russia, and maybe hello whomever today’s Carter will be for the Democrats in 2008.

Erick at RedState.org says he's hearing a lot of Samuel "Scalito" Alito buzz. [h/t: Andy Roth.]

The President has decided to give conservatives the fight they were looking for, with a caveat. The President is not going to go with a Janice Rogers Brown, an Edith Jones, or a Bill Pryor. No one previously filibustered will go through and no "flame thrower" will be considered. At the same time, the White House intends to go with a solid conservative pick, knowing that whoever is picked will draw the wrath of Democrats. It is important for the White House to be seen as making a reasonable pick.

Of course this is all rumor at this point, but Erick's right that, despite my recent pleas for Janice Rogers Brown, Bush almost certainly will not intentionally stoke his enemies' hatred by nominating any beneficiary of the filibuster compromise during the summer.

This is my new favorite acronym - ever - which stands for "Senators Who Initiate Needless Expenditures." I'd like to say I can claim credit for it, but it's an offshoot of a title coined by a caller who phoned Jed Babbin recently while he was sitting in for talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt.

Andy Roth brings the acronym to mind today as he points to this post by Townhall.com's Tim Chapman.

This week, Senator Inoye took the Senate floor to offer an amendment to the Labor HHS appropriations bill. When Senator Inoye took the Senate floor, the only Senators in the chamber were Inoye, Harkin and Specter -- thereby making it impossible for any other Senators to object to the pending Inoye amendment.

The amendment Inoye offered was to name two federal buildings after Senators Harkin and Specter. Here is the relevant text of the amendment:

At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following: SEC. __. (a) The Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center Building (Building 21) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hereby renamed as the Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center.

(b) The Global Communications Center Building (Building 19) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hereby renamed as the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications Center.

Ugh. And I thought we had issues with Supreme Court nominees. If this amendment passes, these two buildings will henceforth be known as the "Flotsam and Jetsam Buildings." Respectively, of course.

Three days ago, discussing how he criticizes Bush for Iraq, I wrote about how much "Brent Scowcroft, and his fellow moral myopics, also have much to answer for." The U.S. policies that Scowcroft guided in 1991 stopped short of Baghdad, of sense and of elemental decency.

Today, Charles Krauthammer weighs in, as only he can, on Scowcroft. Krauthammer concludes of Scowcroft becoming a Cindy Sheehan stand-in, "It is not surprising that Scowcroft, who helped give indecency a 12-year life extension, should disdain decency's return [in Iraq]. But we should not." Scowcroft is described as "unmoved by the stirrings of democracy movements in the Middle East." With Krauthammer, it's always well worth it to read the whole thing.

After I wrote my column three days ago, a reader asked in what branch of service Scowcroft served as a general. I replied Air Force. The reader, an Air Force veteran, responded, "Oh, in the clouds." Unfortunately, those earthbound who Scowcroft abandons to tyrannies can't so easily fly away.

My latest column is up at Townhall.com this morning. Despite the rough ride of it from conservatives, Harriet Miers was not - despite obvious perceptions - the true target of the Right. It was President Bush, and again we've seen that a politician's power is only as strong as the will of his base. The way it should be.

UPDATE: The NRO editors on where we go from here, on the day after.

Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris have just finished giving breathless commentary about the painfully, horribly, ridiculously, unfairly "high" price of gasoline and how President Bush has to put together a campaign to motivate the country to produce hydrogen-powered cars and give up the fantasy of drilling in Alaska, which will only prolong our dependence on oil, blah, blah-blah, blah-blah...

(OK, actually, they didn't just finish; I was watching the repeat of the original 8:00 EST broadcast, and I just watched it for the first time. But I still felt like I was living in China while listening to them carry on.)

My question: When will people like O'Reilly, who constantly takes oil conglomerates to task over their supposed "obligation to the community" to keep prices low, take the time to read a book like Tom Sowell's Basic Economics? Or just make outstanding blogs like Cafe Hayek required reading?! Doesn't he recognize his "obligation" to provide his millions of viewers with accurate information?

I want to take a little break from Miers blogging to point out La Shawn Barber's Harry Potter series review, which was just posted today on Townhall and raises some interesting questions. (Full disclosure: I confess to having never read one of Rowling's masterpieces, though I do remember seeing one of the movies. The first one. I think.)

While I appreciate the complex plots, the emphasis of good over evil, and renewed love of reading among children, as a Christian I struggle with the magical elements of the series. Other Christians seem to have a similar love-hate relationship with Harry Potter. “I read [the books] with a certain sense of guilt because I don’t think I should be allowing my mind to focus on things such as witchcraft,” one Christian confessed.

Some say the books will influence children to dabble in the occult, forbidden by the Bible, while others believe they teach valuable moral lessons and that Christian parents can use the books to share the Gospel.

Read the whole thing. One day I might just get around to checking out the books. When, exactly, I'm a bit unsure. I'm behind on a Townhall book review myself, and I just started Manchester's 800-some-odd-page The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill - Alone. Pray for me.

We’ve all seen too many photos of murdered Jews and their mourning surviving relatives, if any, correct?

That seems to be the attitude of some leading media, who instead focus on the sad faces of the surviving relatives of Palestinian terrorists who blew themselves up in order to commit mass murder. See, for example, these photos. Note, there are no photos of the grieving family cashing their bounty checks from Arab supporters. Note, there are no photos of proud Palestinian parents dressing their young children in bomb-vests and real rifles. For those, you have to keep track here.

Iran’s latest madman leader, Ahmadinejad, should be taken seriously when he threatens that Israel “must be wiped off the map.” If that happened, leading media may spare us the photos, but may show those of a mourning Iranian mother whose son strapped himself to the missile.

She's been my favorite since the beginning of all this. La Shawn Barber wonders if Bush will dare to nominate her, predicting he'll appoint another ho-hum candidate. (Read La Shawn's great analysis of Brown here.)

I disagree. I don't know that the Miers nomination was an indication that Bush intentionally flouted the will of his base, but I have to believe he's definitely paying attention to it now. He's no dummy, and ironically enough, the very same Republican senators he may have feared would oppose a strict constructionist may now be convinced that it's in their best interests to support such a nominee.

Come on, W.. JRB!

Pretty please?

Maybe we can send this lady to Iran to have a talk with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who yesterday called for the extermination of Israel and the U.S.

During a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

Par for the course.

If there's anything we can take away from Harriet Miers' withdrawal this morning, it's that conservatives rebuked President Bush, not Miers - even if it didn't seem that way.

Bush has been alienating his base on several fronts for some time now, and the Miers nomination was simply that last straw. If Miers was confirmed, I think we would have ended up with someone to the left of O'Connor (as one speech transcript from the Nineties tends to indicate). On the other hand, by forcing the withdrawal, conservatives have risked setting a bad precedent because they've always argued that if a nominee is qualified, he or she should be confirmed. As the guys at Power Line have argued, Ms. Miers qualifies, at least by historical standards. And by getting her to withdraw we potentially face future confirmation standards where senators will reject qualified candidates simply because they're not the ones they wanted, or they're not the "best" of the bunch. That shouldn't be how it should work, either. But I think this outcome is the only one that gives Republicans a shot of avoiding irrelevance for the next three years, and at least saves Bush from immediate lame duck status.

At the end of the day, it was Bush's capitulation to Senate Democrats as well as his apparent decision to listen to his wife - practically discounting male candidates - instead of his base that turned conservatives sour, lending the impression that Ms. Miers lacked merit for such a prestigious position in American politics. In short, what else were people supposed to think?

Senate Republicans refused to fight for John Bolton's nomination to the U.N., which may have been a harbinger of their reluctance to fight for a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court. But, in my view, Bush has an obligation to his base to appoint one and at least expect them to. If nothing else, such a nomination will clarify whether our problems lie with our president or our Congress.

Minutes ago, the White House AP correspondent reported in the Washington Post that, “Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination.”

Charles Krauthammer is now the most famous and prescient columnist in America. He wrote last week in “Miers: The Only Exit Strategy” that a White House refusal to release documents relating to her work there for President Bush would be a face-saving way to exit. That's the excuse now given by Miers and the White House for her withdrawal.

I may now be the most stubborn columnist in America. Just last night I wrote about “What is the debate over Miers?” in my Augusta Free Press column.

My thrust – in accord with a 2002 analysis by the Claremont Institute, written when on ideological grounds Democrats held up Bush nominees to other courts -- was that “original intent” of the Constitution regarding Supreme Court nominations gave presumptive weight to the choice of the President, with Senate rejection being only appropriate to a nominee not supporting the Constitution, not particular contentious interpretations of it. Also, Miers would bring a refreshing breath of practical experience in practical governance and in business to a Supreme Court dominated by judicial theorists and judicial-legislator wannabe’s.

I concluded that the Miers debate initiated by many conservative columnists, and almost all being drawn into its orbit, “exposes their outspoken aspirations on other issues as less principled than power-driven.”

I stand by that conclusion.

I, actually, share many if not most of the specific concerns about Miers by fellow columnists. BUT, overriding that are some deeper drivers:

I am even more of a “process conservative” than an originalist. The process is the core “original intent” of the Constitution.

I am less a Wall Street conservative than a Main Street conservative. Big business is very adept at caring for its own interests – excessively selfishly, and even un-American when it suits them – but America’s small businesses and proprietors have too few defenders on the bench.

Overriding all, I am a national security conservative, standing for American ideals of freedom and independence for all, here and abroad, being my guiding light throughout my life.

“Captain” Ed Morrissey, as usual on target, pointed at the reason for such vehement opposition to Miers among so many conservative commentators, in the Weekly Standard calling a “Family Squabble” their cumulative upset with other than conservative positions taken by President Bush.

Morissey is only part correct. Bush never said he was a hard-conservative. And, as much or more of the cause is that Bush must work with a Congress – even when a Republican majority – that is more concerned with local “pork” and Congress’ institutional interests (just think of the 85 Senators who voted last week to keep the boondoggle “bridge to nowhere”). And must deal with a thinly-veiled hostile mainstream media seldom missing an opportunity to skew perceptions against him and his policies. AND, most importantly, must work as a practical leader with an electorate that is NOT dominated by hard conservatives, but is actually in majority on the majority of issues much more moderate and liberal.

The Miers withdrawal may lead to a more “conservative” Supreme Court nominee, or one seemingly more clearly so. But, it will also lead to the emboldening of the intransigent ideologues among Democrats. It will weaken President Bush’s leadership ability on other issues among non-conservatives. It will weaken his hand, don’t forget the firmest, on finishing the job in Iraq. It will undermine many of the very causes that anti-Miers conservative commentators care about.

I’m proud to be one of the last and most stubborn columnists.

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers _ and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

It looks like Charles Krauthammer called it.

Well, there goes the op-ed I was just getting ready to write explaining why Bush's only hope of saving his party from irrelevance for the next three years and himself from immediate lame-duck status was to either withdraw Miers' nomination himself or encourage her to do so.

On the bright side, conservatives have just been granted a reprieve, and it's time for Bush to act like a leader and appoint a nominee his base deserves.

Harriet Miers did not bring this hullabaloo upon herself, and I feel badly that she had to endure such criticism the past three weeks. But she has likely just done conservatives and Republicans a bigger favor than she ever could have done on the Court, and for that she is owed a debt of gratitude.

More later.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin links to Miers' withdrawal notice.

My latest column for Augusta Free Press is up online, "What is the debate over Miers?"

Consider whether the arguments from conservative opponents of the Harriet Miers nomination are exposing their aspirations on other issues as less principled than power-driven.

For someone who chastized Sen. Joe Lieberman for "din[ing] with [the] racists" of National Review during the magazine's recent 50th Anniversary celebration, you'd think Steve Gilliard would at least attempt to keep his own racism in check.

Which he failed to do today when he called Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele a "Simple Sambo" and posted a doctored, racist photo of Steele on his blog after the lieutenant governor announced his Senate ambitions yesterday. [h/t: Michelle Malkin, via Robert George.]

Dictionary.com defines racism as "Discrimination or prejudice based on race," though we all know it's impossible to be a racist if one is a self-proclaimed liberal and therefore a champion of poor blacks, who've been kept on the plantation by Whitey and black "Uncle Toms" who have betrayed their race by having the audacity to differ in opinion from Democrat race-baiters.

In response to a reader who questioned the appropriateness of the racist photo, Gilliard responded, "Just explain that I'm a black person with low tolerance for people who betray their community for personal gain."

Yeah, we get it, pal. You get upset when people in your "community" who all look alike don't all think and act the same.

In other words, you're a racist. It hardly matters what color you are.

Yesterday Hugh Hewitt pointed to a couple pieces on Harriet Miers that I happened to miss but deserve widespread attention.

Hewitt has been a staunch defender of the Miers nomination but is forced to admit that Jack Kelly's latest column is enough to give pause to the anti-anti-Miers crowd (which, incidentally, I think should either admit they're pro-Miers or drop a term that reminds me way too much of the "anti-anti-communists" of the Sixties).

[It] is one thing to give the president the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence, another to continue giving him that benefit in the face of evidence ... If Ms. Miers were as smart and as conservative as Mr. Bush said she was, criticism should have abated as we learned more about her. It hasn't worked out that way ... If Ms. Miers were as the president described her, there was much to be said for a "stealth" nominee ... It's hard to find supporters of Harriet Miers beyond the president and the First Lady ... The president needs to pull the plug on this nomination. He needs to fill in this hole before it gets deeper. If he keeps digging, his enemies will fill it in over his head.

Hugh contrasts Kelly's piece with John Hinderaker's words of caution that Republican opposition to Miers may cause much more long-term damage to both the party and future makeup of the Supreme Court than her confirmation would, even in the event that her detractors' worst fears are realized.

REPUBLICANS HAVE LONG TAKEN the position that, because it is the president's prerogative to select Supreme Court justices, any nominee who is qualified and doesn't subscribe to an extreme judicial philosophy should be confirmed. Some Miers critics seem now to imply a new standard by mocking Miers as undistinguished, or by pointing out how much more qualified other potential nominees would have been. Such attacks carry a hazard. Until now, the judicial confirmation process has never been seen as one where senators can reject a qualified nominee on the ground that he or she isn't the nominee the senators wanted, or the one the senators consider the best.

Excellent points all. And I think Hugh is pretty much on the mark today when he writes that there's no real upside to any Republican senator voting against Miers.

To those who, like Senators Graham and DeWine, took the most heat for the Gang of 14 deal, or like Senators Chafee and Snowe, facing re-election with restive conservative bases, or even stalwart Jon Kyl, facing a deep pockets opponent in Arizona, smashing up the president nominee just doesn't figure to be a good move. Try explaining to the Arizona Pro-life Network why Miers wasn't good enough.

I've been opposed to the Miers nomination from the outset, namely because I still believe Bush ducked away from a confrontation with Senate Democrats (which admittedly may have been wise politically considering Republican senators don't seem to be inclined to fight for a strong conservative nominee) and made it clear that he placed affirmative action and political correctness above merit (if only by definition alone) when he practically discounted the possibility of replacing O'Connor with a man - both of which suggest, however potentially untrue, that Ms. Miers isn't nearly as good a candidate as Bush supporters deserved.

That said, I still hold the Constitution in higher regard than my personal fancies. The president gets to appoint replacements for the Supreme Court; Ms. Miers deserves her interview with the Senate. Alas, this does not mean that conservatives and Republicans will necessarily be able to avoid this apparent Catch-22, where either outcome of this nomination may bear undesirable consequences in the future.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele announced today that he intends to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes.

This is great news, not only for Maryland residents like yours truly, but for Americans in general who yearn for the day when we have 100 U.S. senators who at any one time possess virtues of character and integrity so often lacking in our politicians. If elected, Mike Steele would get us one closer to that goal.

Steele's speech today was similar to the one he gave during the Republican National Convention last year, which just so happened to be my favorite one of the entire event. I've never met Mr. Steele, but there was just something about his convictions and sincerity emanating from his speech that convinced me this guy was going to be more than just the lieutenant governor from Maryland.

Maryland almost has to get more conservative with the retirement alone of Paul Sarbanes, who, along with Barbara Mikulski, is one of the most liberal senators in the country. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff wrote earlier today that Steele is polling ahead of potential challenger Kweisi Mfume but behind Rep. Ben Cardin, who will probably beat Mfume in the primary. A Cardin victory would almost certainly guarantee another liberal vote in Congress favoring legislation supporting things like universal health care, "living wage" laws, more environmental regulations, and bans on "outsourcing."

Put simply, Marylanders who savor liberty and freedom will do well to consider what a pro-small business, pro-growth, small-government Sen. Steele would mean both to their state and to the country.

I'm admittedly stealing this title from Radley Balko, whose regular advertisement of asinine legislation around the country is a service to everyone.

Well, the newest addition to the "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" files comes to us compliments of Calvert County, Maryland (my county of residence), which has stepped up its enforcement of, ahem, pet licensing. You heard me.

I suppose it's one thing for government to want to keep tabs on its citizens (and their cars and motorcycles and boats and trailers and guns and ...), but this is ridiculous. Apparently, Calvert County is worried about its domesticated pets running amok as well!

This legislation obviously doesn't even pass the laugh test. At best the county is subsidizing the pet industry by mandating such fees, and at worst it's simply justifying another de facto tax.

The pet license is mandated through the county ordinance and has minimal requirements.

You must show proof of the current rabies certificate along with documentation indicating whether your pet has been spayed or neutered.

The fee is $5.00 for those that are spayed or neutered. For dogs and cats that are not, the fee is $15.00.

And I don't know about you, but I don't like to be patronized while I'm being sodomized. Calvert County could at least refrain from pretending they have my best interests at heart while they're reaching into my wallet. But as government entities are wont to do, they feel compelled to convince us of the nobility of such regulation:

There are advantages to purchasing your pet license:

To obtain a pet license you must have a current rabies shot, this is for the protection of your pet as well as others.

If a pet is lost, Animal Control will be able to locate the owner through the pet license owner information on file with Animal Control at the Sheriff’s Office.

A current tag also indicates to officers and other citizens that your pet is not a stray animal.

Some of the pet license funding can go toward education for children to teach about proper care of animals and kindness to animals.

We are able to provide some programs to community groups about animal care as well.

Obviously, if pet owners are concerned about the welfare of their dogs and cats, they're going to immunize them against rabies and other diseases, keep them out of the street, feed them, and basically do what people have been doing for eons when caring for their own animals. (In the event you're unaware of the cost of pet care these days, rest assured most owners prefer to limit their veterinary visits due to pet illness or accidents regardless of whether or not the state or county requires it.) Indeed, the biggest reasons for the imposition of such fees are most closely related to the last two mentioned in the list above: those that are used for the creation of silly government-subsidized programs that cater to the fancies of animal rights activists.

As pathetic as the rationales for this registration program are, the county outdoes itself with the final statement of its memo.

Remember, it is for the safety of your pet and the community!

Aha! Just when you think it's the county that stands to benefit most from such draconian legislation, it touts the "common good" defense, just so you know they're on your side!

The press release doesn't mention what sort of fine one stands to incur if he neglects to register his pets; and while I disagree with many laws I tend to obey them. But I think it's a safe bet that on this one I'll be waiting for Big Bro to track me down. After all, maybe my dog will be in the car with me one night as I roll up to a DUI checkpoint, or when I'm pulled over by a trooper with night vision goggles for failing to wear my seatbelt (I'd wear one even if it weren't a law, but I couldn't resist).

In the meantime, keep an eye on your fish and children.

I’m too “dense” to get what my Leftist friends have against America. I’m apparently, also, too dense to get what my Rightist friends have against Harriet Miers.

In both cases, their arguments strike me as excessively trivial, irrelevant, intemperate, off-base, hypocritical, self-serving, mean-spirited, immature, and generally contrary to fairness. But, hey, that’s just me, an ordinary American not of the Delphic intelligentsia.

DJ Drummond of the Polipundit blog, details the reasons that Harriet Miers will be confirmed. Drummond’s analysis is succinct and based on realities of politics and polling.

For the most comprehensive guide to debunking the many myths and gnawings from fellow conservatives about Miers, you can read the collected works of “antimedia”, whose reasoning powers were seasoned in Navy intelligence and as a computer security expert, without the befuddlement of legalese.

All that remains from the shredded arguments of anti-Miers conservatives after these two hard-headed realists are through should be their naked shame over their public temper tantrum exhibitionism.

On a historic day that has seen the ratification of Iraq's constitution, the AP has decided that it would rather lead its story with an announcement that, sadly, the U.S. military's death toll has reached 2,000. One might be forgiven for assuming that the AP's decision is intended to coincide with the Left's plans to use the unfortunate death of Staff Sgt. George T. Alexander Jr. as yet another reason to protest the war.

Clearly I do not intend to diminish the significance of American deaths, but that is exactly what the AP is doing by its determination to place more emphasis on negativity than on the tremendous gains we are making in Iraq as a result of our troops' sacrifices. In the words of U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan (via Michelle Malkin), "The 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action is just as important as the first that died and will be just as important as the last to die in this war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in over two generations."

If anyone has retained doubt as to whether the AP is biased in its coverage, such feelings should dissipate immediately considering it decided to run the "2,000 deaths" lede in a story that combined reports of both this grim mark and the passage of Iraq's constitution.

See here, here, and here for more responsible reporting.

The English are so good at “send ups.” David Aaronovitch presents the 1946 trial of Hitler as it would be reported today by leading British and world newspapers. We’ve seen similar reportage in leading American and British newspapers of Saddam Hussein’s trial.

A sample dispatch, as USA TODAY would report it if existing in 1946: “One needs to ask: Is Hitler that different from other rulers? The USA and Britain justified mass bombing because of national imperatives. Hitler justified his actions because of the war with the Jews.”

Jim Hoagland, nationally syndicated foreign affairs columnist from the Washington Post, quotes Saddam’s lead trial lawyer planning his defense. “Americans…want to blame Saddam for the mass graves and killing Kurds. But they forget that they supported Saddam back then.”

Hoagland, while not necessarily really in favor of allowing Saddam’s trial to be distracted from the specific guilt of the defendant, does support a deeper examination of the prior decades’ foreign policy of the United States. Hoagland quotes a leader of France’s Socialist Party, in his introduction to a comprehensively detailed book of Saddam’s crimes, “Le Livre de Saddam Hussein,” as concluding that Iraq’s “most important weapon of mass destruction was Saddam Hussein.” Hoagland adds, “Yet, it is worth remembering – and atoning for – those who blindly or deliberately helped such a monster.”

Hoagland’s point is well taken. As he says, “Americans cannot simply walk away from that history – or from Iraq. They owe Iraqis, and themselves, more than a sudden case of moral amnesia to bolster precipitous withdrawal.”

Brent Scowcroft’s broadside at the George W. Bush administration’s policies toward Iraq present a good place to start. In a lengthy article in The New Yorker magazine (only available on dead-trees), his interviewer cites Scowcroft saying, “he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.” The interviewer continues, “Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force.”

However, as the modern godfather of realpolitick, Henry Kissinger, reminds us, “The war in Iraq is less about geopolitics than the clash of ideologies, cultures, religious beliefs. Because of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper significance than Vietnam.” Ideologies are ultimately about concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. Scowcroft’s dismissal of this central fact reveals much about his other blindnesses.

In August 2002, seven months before the U.S. entered Iraq, Scowcroft wrote that the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is the primary source of unhappiness in the Middle East. The interviewer notes: “Unlike the current Bush administration, which is unambiguously pro-Israel, Scowcroft, James Baker, and others associated with the elder George Bush believe that Israel’s settlement policies arouse Arab anger, and that American foreign policy should reflect the fact that there are far more Arabs than Israelis in the world.”

Scowcroft’s morally clouded spectacles do not seem to see, as to many other aspects of that situation, the 1948 and 1967 attacks by the Arab states on Israel’s very right to exist in peace came long before any settlements. Apparently, he’s in the James Baker camp, of “f—k the Jews.”

The interview goes on, admitting, “Like everyone else in Washington, Scowcroft believed that Saddam maintained stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, but he wrote [in the August 2002 piece] that a strong inspections program would have kept him at bay.”

Scowcroft’s un-realism does not account for the crumbling of any international will to have a strong inspections program, nor that – even in the discovered absence of such stockpiles – Saddam used every means at his disposal to retain the capacity to restart production once the weak inspections petered out, and that Saddam ably employed his $10-billion skim from the UN’s oil-for-food program and illegal oil exports to buy technology and UN Security Council defenders and appeasers.

There’s much more self-revealing inanity in the full interview.

Back to Jim Hoagland’s point. It was the timidity of Scowcroft and his compatriots in the first Bush administration that left Saddam in power in 1991. It was this unreal amoralism that encouraged the Shia to revolt, and stood aside as they were slaughtered by Saddam. Going back to Scowcroft’s then lesser, but important, role in the earlier Reagan administration, it was then that Iraq was supplied and supported in its aggressive war against emergent militantly Islamist Iran.

As I’ve written, there are clear international legal and moral grounds for trying Saddam, and the procedures are in accord with established international law and precedent.

Brent Scowcroft, and his fellow moral myopics, also have much to answer for.

Mitchell's post below is especially timlely given the fact that a friend recently asked me to proof a group paper she's been writing for one of her graduate courses.

Judging writing quality can be a subjective task, and if anyone's like me, bad writing usually jumps out like a sharp poke in the eye. And what's more, gauging its relative improvement or degradation over the years has to be one of the few things we just don't keep hard statistics on.

However, I was taken aback at the poor quality of the initial draft of this paper, which was written by another classmate and replete with sentence fragments and punctuation errors (apostrophes were the death knell of this particular fellow), and it had me thinking what it actually takes to be admitted into graduate programs these days.

Most irritating was the usage of the word "firstly" to introduce a sentence; though I realize this is an actual word that can be used synonymously with the term "first," I've always recoiled at the clumsiness of the word when there are so many better alternatives available. Worse, the writer didn't even use it to introduce successive ideas, instead using it alone and abruptly ending his thoughts without justifying its usage in the first place.

I know I probably sound pretty stuffy right about now, but that's not my intent. Although I've taught a college writing course, I'm well aware that I'm hardly atop the universe when it comes to the quality of my own writing. But I've taken the time to outline this example because, in addition to being a candidate for a master's degree, this person is also a college instructor (though not a professor) in some capacity.

Mitchell is right to ask what type of role we can expect our students to play in this country's future when they can't speak or write English effectively. And I might add, how can we expect them to do so when many of them are probably being taught by those who can't?

Michael Yon's latest dispatch, "Purple Fingers," is up on his site and recounts the events leading up to the recent referendum on the Iraqi constitution.

On the eve of the election, I wanted to be fully prepared for combat in the morning. Once we started out, we’d have no idea how long we might be away, so I headed as quickly as possible to my room, showered, and managed to fall asleep. While I slept, terrorists knocked out electricity to most of Baghdad. Iraqis pulled out their lanterns.

I walked through the morning darkness to meet the soldiers, who were laughing at the terrorists: “Don’t those dumbasses know that the voting will happen during the daytime?” When it comes to winning hearts and minds, cutting off the electricity didn’t win any support. I have been saying it for many months: The terrorists are losing. But today was litmus-day.

And the result?

Next morning, the Army said there had been 19 attacks on polling sites throughout Iraq. In January there had been 108 attacks on polling sites. There had been about 300 total attacks during the January election day, and the Army said there had been 89 total attacks in Iraq during this voting day.

It had been quiet from my perch. The guns had been silenced long enough that we could hear the Iraqi voice speak for a second time. The voice was louder, stronger, and prouder than it had been in January.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Take the Russell Roberts "Gas Quiz" today at Cafe Hayek for a quick lesson on prices.

Incidentally, it's interesting to note that it's quite trendy for anti-free marketeers to go after the big, bad oil industry when prices hit levels we arbitrarily decide we don't like, though few who complain of such "gouging" offer no more than a whisper when it comes to other industries well-known for consistently higher prices than others.

Say, professional football, for example. Yesterday I had to pay 28 bucks (!) for four bottles of Miller Lite at FedEx Field during the Redskins game. The nerve of such people! Clearly the price police must swoop down and put an end to such treachery!

Oh, wait a minute. I chose to pay that price, didn't I?

See also this related piece by John Stossel.

Here's the lineup for True North, for the week of October 24th, 2005:

Monday: EVE GREENE, Director of Vermont Outdoorswoman (VOW). Eve is an environmentalist who’s a strong supporter of the safe and responsible use of firearms. Learning to shoot was, for Eve, "the first step into an honest world, where people are held responsible for their own actions. . . . When you have the ultimate power of life and death in your pocket, you must take responsibility for choosing life over death. There is an appreciation of life that comes with that--including the life of a cow, or a deer, or a chicken, that you've just eaten for dinner." Eve also manages Doe Camp -- which brings us to our topic: Women and the Wilderness: what should women's relationship to the wilderness be? How do feminism and environmentalism usually intersect? How should they intersect? What is/should be the relationship between men and women, in the wild outdoors?

Tuesday: JIM BEERS brings to us decades of experience as a wildlife biologist, wetlands biologist, special agent, and refuge-manager. He had a 30-year career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where he served as Chief of Operations for the National Wildlife Refuge System. A Congressional Fellow in Washington, D.C., Jim was the wildlife biologist in the National Wildlife Refuge System’s Central Office. His career ended when, during the Clinton Administration, Jim blew the whistle on $45 million of government-agency abuses, committed by government agencies in collusion with animal rights and environmental organizations. (You can read his Congressional testimony online.) Jim was rewarded for doing his job by having all work assignments taken from him, and being sent home. After nine months, Jim accepted a settlement and began a new career, as one of America’s most eloquent advocates of property rights. National audiences can read him here. Here in Vermont, you can read Jim’s columns in print, in one of my favorite magazines, Outdoors Magazine.

Wednesday: DR. CHRISTOPHER C. HARMON, who holds the Kim T. Adamson Chair at the Marine Corps University. The recipient of the Distinguished Public Service Award from the U.S. Department of State, Chris is one of the world’s leading authorities on terrorism, and the author of the book, Terrorism Today. Since 1993, Chris has served as Professor of International Relations at the Command and Staff College of Marine Corps University, where he directed the core courses on Strategy and Policy. Chris also served for four years as foreign policy advisor to a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and also taught Strategy at the Naval War College.

Unlike most who write about terrorism, Chris has been publishing in this field for over two decades. He gave expert testimony before Congress after the September 11th attacks. You’ve probably not heard of him yet, because, until very recently, he directed his writing toward professionals in counterterrorism & insurgency and those who advise members of Congress. If you’re in the military and studying counterterrorism in grad school, chances are that Terrorism Today is on your list of required reading.

Thursday: BILL SAYRE, formerly with the U.S. Federal Reserve, now a Member of the Board of Directors of Associated Industries of Vermont; of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce; and of the Vermont Forest Products Association. A student of Milton Friedman's (among other Nobel Laureates), Bill received his MBA in economics/finance from the University of Chicago. We’ll be discussing what’s top-of-the-fold in the headlines this week.

Friday: TBA

You are encouraged to forward this announcement to people who may be interested in the guests and topics featured this week, and to put our call-in numbers on speed dial.

Waterbury/Montpelier area: 244-1777
Long distance from anywhere: 1-877-291-TALK or 1-877-291-8255

HOW TO HEAR THE SHOW LIVE

Tune in to WDEV 550 AM/96.1 FM or to WSYB 1380 AM to hear TRUE NORTH live, from 11:05 a.m. till noon, Monday through Friday.

HOW TO HEAR PAST SHOWS

You can listen to some of our favorite shows on our website. Just go to our archives.

American Enterprise Online early edition has my Monday column up, "Not a Sunni Day for the Left."

Is Jacque Chirac regretting the French contribution to the American Revolution? Is the Left "stuck on stupid" in 2002? Has the world moved on past them? Find out, at American Enterprise Online.

I began my corporate career as an auditor, and earned my credential as a Certified Internal Auditor long before legislative and accounting regulations placed heavy emphasis on internal controls. One of the lessons learned early on is that “fish stink from the head.” The moral and professional example and tone set by a corporation’s leaders told much about what one might find below.

Perhaps that’s one of the reasons that I’ve had such a fascination with the role played by ombudsmen in newspapers. I wrote, critically, here, here and here, about the failure of leading newspaper’s ombudsmen to question specific significant instances of outrageously poor reporting in their newspapers – mostly by omission of important, verified information. Such omissions, aside from revealing instances of inadequate reporting of full information deserved by the reader, also flowed from the liberal orthodoxy prevalent in mainstream journalism.

But, there’s another reason that may come into play: Most mainstream journalism is inherently “conservative” – and should be -- about the sourcing and the facts presented. Presentation of news information may not be as exact as accounting, but dual-entry and internal controls are paralleled in requirements for multiple verification and transparency (i.e., traceability to the full context).

An instance of this is the treatment of the latest charge made by Congressman Curt Weldon regarding Able Danger. For those unversed in the Able Danger issue – the seeming failure by the 9/11 Commission to consider the evidence unearthed by Weldon that an operation within American intelligence may have revealed the plane hijackers’ leader a year before the event – please see the extensive reporting by “Captain” Ed Morrissey. You’ll have to scan numerous posts but, if distracted by another subject he’s written about, you’ll be rewarded.

Fellow blogger Dana Pico, of CommonSensePoliticalThought, is exercised at the Philadelphia Inquirer’s not reporting that Philadelphia-area Congressman Weldon charges that part of the fault of not transmitting the Able Danger information to the 9/11 Commission is that a key staffer had formerly worked for Commission member Jamie Gorelick, whose Clinton-administration directives and influence in imposing a wall between intelligence agencies was one of the key weaknesses of American intelligence preparedness.

Pico points out, correctly, that the Philadelphia Inquirer’s motives are suspect, inasmuch as its editorial stance is even more stridently liberal than the New York Times, for example publishing 21 successive editorials in October 2004 endorsing John Kerry. Pico also points out that local newspapers usually go out of their way to publish reports from or about local representatives, as local voters are directly concerned.

However, as “Captain” Ed points out, he is unable to find a suspect connection between the Commission staffer and Gorelick.

The sole publisher of the allegation is NewsMax. NewsMax is a decidedly conservative online newspaper, the opinions from which are easy to agree with by conservatives. However, it never links to its source documents. Far too often for comfort, when I and others have gone to the difficulty of tracing the story, it is reported sufficiently out of context to not be a fully reliable rendition of the story. Thus, most reputable conservative bloggers tend to avoid NewsMax as a source.

Nonetheless, Congressman Weldon’s overall rendition and exposure of the ignored dangers in the Able Danger case has proven far more accurate than his detractors. Pico is correct to expect, at least, that the Philadelphia Inquirer report the allegation, given that context and Weldon’s importance to local voters.

Thus, a “conservative journalism” defense of the Philadelphia Inquirer is inappropriately inadequate to the matter of it ignoring the allegation entirely.

I searched the Philadelphia Inquirer website and the website of the Organization of News Ombudsmen. It appears that the Philadelphia Inquirer does not have an ombudsman.

Given that most ombudsmen are more house eunuchs than internal auditors of the truth, the editors of the Philadelphia Inquirer do not even present this channel to question their judgment. They may be more honest with their readers than newspapers that espouse consideration for their critical readers while treating them as nettlesome ignoramuses of the orthodoxies of mainstream reporting.

Corporate America, and America’s legislators and accounting profession, decided that it’s better to have real internal auditors with real teeth than not. It’s time that mainstream media caught up with real ombudsmen with real teeth.

but predictable.

Reminds me of the "plane parties" Germans had after 9/11. Oh, don't worry, you won't find any articles on Google referencing this. I was on the elevator of a high rise in Frankfurt in March 2002 listening to a bunch of German guys laughing on the way up, only to find out from my Saudi tour guide (also a bartender at the Billy Blues night club in Heidelberg) that they were yukking it up over a party they'd been to the night before celebrating the six-month anniversary of September 11.

Nice.

The reader of the post two items below about Harriet Miers might want to consider the alternate opinion of attorney Paul Mirengoff at Powerline.com, here and here.

Tom Gross, the former Jerusalem correspondent for Britain’s Sunday Telegraph, writes in the Spectator how “Dead Jews Aren’t News.” There are 57 articles about pro-Palestinian Rachel Corrie in London’s Guardian, who died blocking an Israeli bulldozer trying to unearth weapon smuggling tunnels, an activist member of suicide bomber supporting International Solidarity Movement, burner of the U.S. flag and rouser at a pro-Hamas rally in Gaza. There’s even a play, “My name is Rachel Corrie” eulogizing her as a martyr to peace. Theater critic Clive Davis remarked that, “Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one,” referring to Rachel Corrie’s declaration, “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance.”

However, Tom Gross points out that there are no articles about other Rachels – Thaler (age 16), Levy (age 17), Levi (age 19), Gavich (no age given, but a wife and mother), Charhi (mother of 3 young children), Shabo (mother of 3 sons), and Kol (53) – murdered by Palestinian terrorists by bomb attacks and targeted killings.

Steven Salinsky writes about “The Arab Silence on Darfur”, where Arab militias are committing genocide against mainly Muslim tribes people for the past two years. Yet, wealthy Arab countries are paltry contributors to relief. Salinsky quotes the former editor of London’s Arabic daily, Alsharq Al-Awsat: “They are not the victims of Israeli or American aggression; therefore, they are not an issue for concern.”

What do dead Jews and Muslims have in common? To get coverage, not to mention sympathy, in much of the world’s press, you have to have certified anti-U.S. or anti-Israeli credentials.

Ed Morrissey had supported Harriet Miers' confirmation until this morning, when he admitted that the poorly prepared questionnaire that she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week ultimately forced him to conclude that Miers is "an imprecise and sloppy nominee for a position that requires absolute clarity and precision."

This saga is both unfortunate and amazing to witness all at the same time, as the White House conducts futile attempts at damage control while Ms. Miers seemingly digs herself into a deeper and deeper hole. However, sensing all is not lost, Charles Krauthammer suggests an exit strategy:

Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers' White House tenure.

[...]

For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no previous record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- ``policy documents'' and ``legal analysis'' -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

Which creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

The solution: Miers withdraws, the Senate thanks her for understanding its request, and the White House regretfully accepts Miers' resignation, knowing it can't release such privileged information.

I hate it. The perfect political solution, replete with all the requisite smarminess. But it would probably work. And anyhow, we really can't expect to get much more than political charades from here on out when it was Bush who initiated the entire process by bowing at the altar of political correctness in the first place, right?

The people must. And that's just what residents of Herndon, Va. are doing. The Washington Times reports that area residents are organizing a chapter of the Minutemen to monitor illegal aliens and employers who hire them.

Organizer George Taplin said those who met at the Herndon Fort Nightly Library are opposed to the taxpayer-funded, day-laborer center that town officials want to build, and want to expose employers, landlords and others who would exploit legal immigrants and illegal aliens at the center.

"This summer it came to a head," said Mr. Taplin, a retired Navy officer. "I saw what was happening in terms of the Town Council and the mayor not paying attention to the constituency and I tried to get people to step up and do something about it."

[...]

Problems began in Herndon when day laborers, including illegal aliens, began loitering outside a 7-Eleven store.

In response, town officials agreed to build a center, which was slated to open in mid-September on the Fairfax County line and would offer English classes and access to social workers. It would not check the immigration status of laborers.

[...]

Herndon's operation would also create a network of observers, informants, lawyers and retired law-enforcement personnel to help crack down on illegal aliens.

"Realistically what we're looking for is the people who are going to get out on the street and make their presence known to let the employers know we're not going to let them get away with this," Mr. Taplin said. "We want to make sure that Herndon stays a law-abiding town."

Members of the Herndon-area chapter would also photograph employers hiring illegal aliens at the town day-laborer center, follow them to work sites and report them to the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and state employment agencies.

I don't believe for a minute that federal law enforcment agencies are going to act even half as responsibly as the Minutemen are in attempting to curb illegal immigration, but we'll never see our borders protected without massive resistance from American citizens. Chris Kelly has exposed the shortcomings of the latest Bush immigration "reform" offensive, so if we want our lawmakers held accountable for such lenient policy, groups like the Minutemen need as much support as possible.

That said, one significant variable of the influx of illegals is the willingness of companies to hire them. And while we should expect employers to be held accountable for hiring illegal labor, our minimum wage laws simultaneously encourage such behavior. When an employer knows he can be arrested for paying an American less than $5.15 an hour to sweep a floor, it's hardly difficult to understand why he'll gladly scoop up an illegal for half the cost.

On Wednesday the Senate rejected the latest proposal to raise the minimum wage, and if we were smart we'd rid ourselves of this draconian regulation that quite clearly could be the primary cause of our illegal immigration mess. After all, illegals aren't necessarily willing to "do the jobs Americans won't" so much as they're - quite perversely - simply allowed to.

I'm getting around to this treacherously late today, but DO NOT MISS Andy Roth's live-blogging of the “Bridge to Nowhere AND Don Young’s Way” Amendment, which Tom Coburn has sponsored to defund the "infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' pork project that Congressman Don Young of Alaska decided to slip into the Highway Bill in the middle of the night."

Some key reports from Andy here, here, and here.

And here Andy cites some great stuff from the Club For Growth's Key Vote Alert yesterday:

This amendment will transfer funding from the wasteful pork project, the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska, to the repair and reconstruction of the “Twin Spans” bridge in Louisiana. According to published reports, the Alaskan pork project costs $220 million for a 5.9-mile bridge connecting Gravina Island (population 50) to the Alaskan mainland. The cost of the bridge alone would be enough to buy every island resident his own personal Lear jet.

The Republican Congress may yet prove to have retained some fiscal sanity. We'll see.

UPDATE (6:06 EST): The Senate killed a smaller Coburn amendment earlier today.

UPDATE (7:28 EST): Alas, Tom Coburn's "bridge to nowhere" bill has failed 15 to 82. Allow me to join Andy in congratulating Dr. Coburn and the senators who supported him for acting on principle and fighting for his amendments today.

This is not a loss for the Republican Party (though the "Yea" votes were depressingly few), or for the Democrats who supported the bill; it is a loss for fiscal restraint and principles of responsibility that seek to impede government largesse. It is also a stark and important reminder that we here in the United States are undeniably cradled to the bosom of socialism.

When the Club for Growth is joined by the Daily Kos blog - which called this vote "unconscionable" and supported the bill primarily to shift this money to needy hurricane victims, but supported it nonetheless - you know exactly what the majority of politicians in this country really think of you and your money. That's right, you're in it for them, not the other way around.

To paraphrase Harry Dunne from the movie Dumb and Dumber, just when I think the AP couldn't get any worse, they go and do something like this and toootally redeem themselves. Well, for now at least.

WASHINGTON - It took a hurricane to do it, but Congress has finally ended federal subsidies for users of Viagra and other sexual performance drugs.

To say nothing of the fact that this was also a good decision on the part of the Congress.

D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, the "poor people's champion," is set to seize the private property of landowners along the Anacostia River so he can begin construction of his taxpayer-subsidized ballpark for the Washington Nationals.

City officials informed the 23 landowners at the 21-acre ballpark site that they must sell their property to the city by tomorrow or have it taken through eminent domain.

That means the District could begin acquiring properties through eminent domain by next week, though it is likely to try to close any deals that are being negotiated.

Mr. Williams, a Democrat who is not seeking a third term, has been pushing for the Anacostia River location because it is key to his waterfront development initiative.

[...]

[City] officials said they have struck a deal with one landowner at the ballpark site but that most others have been either unwilling to sell or have not responded.

No kidding! That's the normal response from people who've been told the government's about to steal their property under the guise of "eminent domain" for someone else's personal gain. And it's even worse when you know the thief won't even be around when the time comes to pay the political consequences.

If this isn't the very definition of "fraud, waste, and abuse," the term is undefinable.

It hasn’t been confirmed that the Chinese government’s pogrom against free speech on the Internet has now extended to Wikipedia. But, according to the report at AsiaPundit, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is now blocked on Chinese computers. The assistance of Cisco, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! to Chinese repression of freedom within China is reciprocated by billions of dollars of potential business.

As the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s Reichskristallnacht approaches on November 9-10, I turn to Wikipedia for a quote from Hermann Goring on November 12, 1938, in which I will substitute the words “Peking regime” for “Fuhrer”, “freedom” for “Jew”, and the word “China” for “Germany”: "I have received a letter written on the Peking regime’s orders requesting that the freedom question be now, once and for all, coordinated and solved one way or another... I should not want to leave any doubt, gentlemen, as to the aim of today's meeting. We have not come together merely to talk again, but to make decisions, and I implore competent agencies to take all measures for the elimination of the freedom from the Chinese economy, and to submit them to me."

How far we’ve traveled thanks to technology when by the flick of a switch in Peking all of the books and thoughts referenced in Wikipedia can be burned. Goring would be quite jealous.

The New York Times’ editorialists continue their fishwife crusade to criticize anything in Iraq that they can imagine. And, imagine mostly it is, divorced from facts on the ground or context.

The NYT’s editorial charges about today’s start of Saddam Hussein’s trial: “What we have is a narrow sectarian government, still struggling to come up with a nationally inclusive constitution, that is conducting what looks like a show trial, borrowing noxious elements of Baathist law to speed the way toward an early and politically popular execution.”

“Captain” Ed Morrissey calls them on today’s inanity. “The Times fails to grasp the historical and cultural impact of Saddam's trial, bitching about the details while missing the big picture. At least they're consistent.” Consistently wrong, that is.

In contrast to the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, Saddam’s trial is based on established international procedure. Some criticized the Nuremberg Trials as “victor’s justice”, as the indictments were created ex post facto and were not based on any nation's law. Further, Article 19 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal Charter reads: "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value. ."

The Case Western Reserve University School of Law has assembled a dozen famous international law experts to evaluate the trial. All are impressive, independent thinkers, with vast experience in international law and war crimes trials. For example, included is the president of the International Human Rights Law Institute, who helped draft the Iraqi court’s statute, and the legal assistant to the judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Their bios are available here. Key documents, FAQ’s, expert debate and public commentary is available at the special website they’ve created.

Here’s what the Case site says about the trial court, the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) : “The IST has been called an ‘internationalized domestic court’ since its statute and rules of procedure are modeled upon the U.N. war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, and its statute requires the IST to follow the precedent of the U.N. tribunals.” The site also points out that Saddam is being tried for crimes committed prior to the U.S. entry in July 2002, so there’s no “victor’s” or ex post facto about the trial.

James Taranto quotes a German judge sitting on U.N. tribunals trying war criminals from former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, who said the world could have set up a special court for Saddam.

The Case Western site answers “why not an international court?”: “Creating a new U.N. ad hoc war crimes tribunal…requires the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Several countries that wield a veto on the Council made it known that they would not vote for an ad hoc tribunal to try Saddam Hussein.”

Taranto also points out a Reuters dispatch that “the trial of Slobodan Milosevic may take another 4 to 5 years”. As Taranto comments, “Saddam Hussein would probably die of old age before he could be executed for his crimes.” For the Iraqis, justice delayed is justice denied.

For the New York Times’ editorialists, an opportunity to display ignorance and cant is not to be missed.

There's a good debate shaping up today over at The Corner between Peter Robinson and John Podhoretz (scroll down for more) concerning the actual similarities between Presidents Reagan and Bush 43.

Podhoretz doesn't want to spend all day on it, but it would probably turn out to be one of the more interesting discussions we could have. If nothing else, it might help to nail down the true definition of "neoconservatism," which, as Jonah Goldberg explains, is still debated even among neocons.

Conservative critics of Harriet Miers may have gotten good news today in the form of this AP report.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

I, on the other hand, think this just might be one good reason to oppose Ms. Miers's confirmation on grounds of overall qualification. I realize we've been entangled in an ideological struggle for the Supreme Court for decades now, but I still grate at the concept of either "liberal" or "conservative" justices. Supreme Court justices are expected to respect the Constitution (one would believe, anyhow), and I'd think the best way to acquire such reverence would be to examine the document inside and out, memorize it even, and at the very least acknowledge its function as a check on government authority.

I'm sure I'm just oversimplifying all of this, but what would be so wrong with expecting SCOTUS nominees to understand that the Constitution already affords the states the right to determine abortion policy? The Founders allowed for the amendment of our Constitution, but we wouldn't even have to talk about a constitutional amendment banning abortion if seven justices were capable of accurately interpreting the thing and thus reining in their own power of decree over 30 years ago.

The idea isn't so much how our justices will vote while on the Court, but what ultimately drives their decisions one way or the other in the first place. Perhaps this all too common tendency to stray from the original text is reason above all to support term limits for justices.

American Enterprise Institute fellow James Glassman enjoyed his honeymoon in Europe, but comes home worrying “Are Americans becoming Europeans?”

Glassman’s description of Europe – actually mostly France, Germany and Belgium -- is to the point: “Europe has taken a wrong turn. Its welfare state has sapped initiative and driven jobs abroad. Its treatment of immigrants is shameful. Unemployment is in the double-digits, health policy is making people sicker, and foreign policy is based on isolationism and moral posturing.”

Glassman worries whether Americans will follow this wrong turn. “Is it inevitable that as we grow more prosperous, we will become more like Europe – losing initiative, insisting that our governments coddle us?” Glassman criticizes the ostrich approach: “The whiners think we can opt out of a globalized world, cocoon ourselves in protectionism. In fact, if we take that course, the crack-up will come sooner.”

Then, almost steering off-course himself, Glassman turns to the aggressive economies of Asia. “America has a choice: more like Europe, or more like Asia.” But, Glassman, correctly, pulls back from that path. It is not the American way to be mercantilist, rigidly socially stratified, compelled by government planning, imitative technologically and culturally derivative.

In concluding, Glassman says, “the real choice is whether we want to be complacent Europeans or our hard-working, compassionate, imaginative American selves.”

The argument is endless about what makes for those special American traits. I maintain it is our polyglot populace. There is no doubt that illegal immigration, when composed of the poorly educated, heavily burdens our social spending. It must be controlled. Nothing less than strictly enforced penalties against U.S. employers will do that. Further, there is no doubt -- except among those who profit from exploiting their separateness -- increased efforts must be made to more rapidly integrate immigrants into American life, rather than isolating or exploiting them.

There is also no doubt that our legal and illegal immigrants come here with few exceptions because they want to work hard, to be free to use their imaginations to get ahead, and having faced deprivations and struggle retain compassion for others. You can’t get more American Way than that.

The poet Henry Van Dyke wrote about “America For Me”:

I know that Europe’s wonderful, yet something seems to lack!
The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back.
But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free,--
We love our land for what she is and what she is to be.

There will be heated debate over upcoming immigration reforms. It’s a difficult issue. But, we must avoid being European, even worse un-American, about it. Emphasis must be on integrating immigrants into America, all of us profiting from their energy and infusion of faith in American traits, not excluding them.

Alex: "The degree to which one should always take the mainstream media."

Jeopardy challenger: "What is with a grain of salt?"

Alex: "Correct!"

Okay, forgive me for trying to shake up my blog posts a bit. After all, it's not too likely you'll hear this exchange on America's favorite quiz show anytime soon. But I got a kick out of a local D.C. news report last night while I was killing time over a beer waiting for my meeting at the American Enterprise Institute.

A reporter was planted in front of an area gas station commenting on how great it is that gas has fallen to $2.49 a gallon, at that particular station at least. And the caption at the bottom of the screen that read "CHEAP GAS" was - pardon the expression - priceless.

My first reaction was that these people apparently don't realize that only a year ago $2.49 would have been considered anything but "cheap." Considering the fact that gas at the Wawa up the street from my office here in good ol' southern Maryland currently goes for $2.49 a gallon, I'm going to assume that our prices weren't much different than those outside the District last year. And last year we were paying around $1.89 a gallon. So, if the price of gas suddenly jumped 60 cents last year - especially absent sudden natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which ended up wiping out refineries and injecting volatility into the market this year - I doubt our newscasters would have ignored such a story, not to mention opine that such new prices were indeed "cheap."

What's the point of all this? Well, primarily that prices fluctuate with supply and demand, and perhaps more important, that such perceptions about prices are often relative when compared to continually changing events. Above all, it's wise to remember that economist Thomas Sowell continually warns against government controls aimed at limiting the prices that companies sometimes have to increase to offset their own rising costs by cautioning: Prices are not costs.

Just as surely as salt is not pepper.

My friend Mark Safranski, the ZenPundit, scores again, with his post “Why the morally confused UN bureaucracy should not be writing rule-sets any time soon.”

“ En route to researching something unrelated I stumbled across this gem today:

"Yes, absolutely, I worry about a democracy having nuclear weapons as much as a dictatorship having nuclear weapons"

- Mohammed ElBareidei, New York Times Magazine, March 2, 2003.

”Well now. I think in principle you could easily translate such sentiments to this:

"Yes, absolutely, I worry about a policeman having a handgun as much as a gangbanger having a handgun".

One of the comments he received to this post, obviously not from a John Bolton admirerer, said, “Saying things that cement a careful, non-partisan stance, even if they sound silly to you, is called clever diplomacy.” I call it appeasement, moral befuddlement, inanity, and bulls—t that floats in the UN fever swamp next to the East River.

UPDATE from ABC News, Picture at Dinocrat link below:

“US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton has accused Iran of spending 18 years trying to develop nuclear weapons, while lying to the world about its intentions.
“Tehran insists that its nuclear programs are designed to generate energy purely for civil purposes.
“Mr Bolton says diplomatic pressure is needed to stop Iran from achieving its alleged nuclear ambitions.
" ‘The real issue is whether the international community is going to accept an Iran that violates its treaty commitments under the non-proliferation treaty,’ he said.
" ‘That lies about its program and is determined to get nuclear weapons deliverable on ballistic missiles, that it can then use to intimidate not only its own region, but possibly to supply to terrorists.’ "

The Dinocrat, Jack Risko, has a map showing the targets within range of Iran’s missiles, including Moscow, Berlin, Rome, Athens and Marseille.

Before World War II, German was a language of high-culture. As late as the 1970’s, German was still a required language in college for scientific curriculums. Until the 1980’s, the German economy was admired as one of the world’s strongest. Until the past few years, German quality in BMW and Mercedes were worth the premium price.

Now, you’d be hard put to find German language enrollment in other countries’ universities. Its economy is stagnant, mired in welfarist anchors dragging it down, and double-digit unemployment is its norm. The quality of German automobiles is only average, and its automakers have laid off many thousands.

The resentments against the West that proliferate among Arabs is rooted in resentment at their sorry condition as a cultural and technologic backwater compared to the centuries past glories of Islam. Similar influences are at the root of current German attitudes toward the United States. Pride in the past compared to a currently fallen state leads those who are unwilling to modernize to seek refuge in delusions of us-them antagonisms.

My wife is from Germany. She is a “Jew by Choice,” otherwise known as a convert. Her family is a model of tolerance and decency. I am not anti-German. I have defended Germany among fellow Jews as being an exemplar of a nation -- indeed unique among nations -- that devoted huge resources to reeducating its people against anti-Semitism. My wife recently watched the 1947 U.S. classic film “Gentleman’s Agreement”, and was shocked at the level of anti-Semitism prevalent in America in the year of my birth.

A new anti-Semitism is taking root in Germany. It is seen in the overt resentment among elders and the young at being subject to any more of the anti-anti-Semitism education. Civility is diminished by anxieties about their fallen state and lost status – and Germans are undeniably a prideful people. It is seen in the blooming of anti-Israel propaganda from the left that in its one-sided propaganda is anti-Semitic. It is a part of, allied with, fed by the crude anti-U.S. remarks of former Chancellor Schroeder that he’s used to distract from his own ineptitude. It is, no less than the insanity of extremist Arabs, the politics of failure. It is not dissimilar (although not yet to the degree) to the feeding on resentments post-World War I that in Germany were fertile soil for the extremism of Hitler.

DavidsMedienkritik is an invaluable blog – moderate and usually understated -- from Germany, in English, to keep current on developments in Germany.

DavidsMedienkritik's latest post, about the German film Paradise Now, is angry at “the first openly anti-Semitic film I’ve seen in the German cinema. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud.” What’s even worse, “the German taxpayer ponied up an essential contribution to the production costs. The materials for discussion of the f