Congrats, Will!: Yale now sucks a little less. :)

The Ten Commandments of Chivalry: I received my copy of "The Compleat Gentleman" today, and thus far I am enjoying it a great deal. I especially like the "Ten Commandments of Chivalry" that Miner quotes in the book from Leon Gautier. They are as follows:

I. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.

II. Thou shalt defend the Church.

III. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

IV. Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.

V. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

VI. Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation, and without mercy.

VII. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.

VIII. Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.

IX. Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.

X. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

Gonzales is a concern: Rice Grad says below: "I don't see the evidence suggesting that Gonzales is not conservative." Although Rice Grad may not be aware of the evidence, it does exist. I think the National Review laid it out fairly well last year:

Ever since he came to Washington, conservatives have worried that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales would be this administration's David Souter. They have worried, that is, that Bush would nominate Gonzales to the Supreme Court and that the new justice would then turn out to be a liberal. Gonzales's record on the high court of Texas does not provide many clues about his judicial philosophy (although pro- lifers have called attention to a confusing series of cases in which he voted to weaken a parental-notification law).

But the wondering can now end. During the administration's internal debates over what to say to the Supreme Court about racial preferences, Gonzales led the pro- "diversity" brigades. Solicitor general Ted Olson wanted to submit a brief denying that discrimination in the cause of diversity is constitutionally permissible. Gonzales overruled him, and the resulting briefs were a muddle. So Gonzales is no Souter. When Souter was nominated, we didn't know anything about his views. We do know something about Gonzales's views, and what we know is not encouraging.

As Gonzales is a Republican and Rice graduate like myself, I find it difficult to condemn him. However, from what we do know of Gonzales's ideology, it does appear that he leans left. His support of affirmative is action is especially troubling, since it completely rejects the idea that the equal protection clause bans race-based preferences. If he's willing to indulge that kind of illogic, what's to say he won't do the same with an abortion case? Or gay rights?

I'm hoping that conservative suspicions are wrong, but make no mistake -- they're perfectly valid.

U.S. Reservists in Iraq Accused of Prisoner Abuse (with photos): This is disgusting and profoundly depressing. "Torture" and "degradation" are the right words here. If the situation is what, by every indication, it appears to be, then a series of swift and stern courts-martial is the only decent response.

Bush shafts Ashcroft
Did y'all catch the knife-in-back job our wonderful weaselly president did to John Ashcroft on Thursday? He told the 9/11 commission that he was highly disappointed with Ashcroft for releasing the document that showed how Jamie Gorelick added some significant bricks to the infamous "wall" ("beyond what the law requires," in her own words) that kept intelligence agencies from sharing info with the FBI, etc. The Ashcroft counterattack was wholly justified, and it also was politically the very first thing that REALLY turned the tables against the 9/11 Gorelicks and Ben Venistes after weeks of bad press (okay, it along with Condi's brilliant performance). I have very good reason to believe that when Ashcroft testified, the White House was erupting in cheers. Heck, Judge Gonzales was probably leading the cheers! And Bush surely was delighted. Yet there he was, saying that Ashcroft was out of line in pointing out Gorelick's blatant, and highly relevant, conflict of interest. So there you have it again: Conservative Ashcroft bails Bush out; Bush extends middle finger to conservative. See a pattern, anybody?!?!? I'm telling you, on domestic policy the only thing that makes this White House palatable is that it's not as bad as Kerry and Co. But this is not a president, or a White House, that has truly conservative principles. He's just a pol, and he shares his father's disdain for people who put principle first. So there. If this be treason, make the most of it. -- Quin

Alabama Won't Reinstate Ten Commandments Judge: Ceeeeelebrate good times, come on!

Memo to the Christian Coalition: Shut up.

Memo to Roy Moore: Now, be a good boy and instruct your kooky lawyers to prepare a writ of cert to file with the U.S. Supreme Court. Sure, there's an exxxxxxxcellent chance four Supremes will vote to grant cert. Why after all you're Roy Moore, Savior of the World. How could they not? Why it would be an outrage! An outrage, I say!

Update: Here's the opinion.

Update II: I beat you to the punch, Howard. :) Thanks to fellow Samford grad and loyal SA reader, KSM, who gave me the heads up.

Ribbons for unborn babies?: An excellent post by Amanda Strassner.

Not a time to take chances: Rice, whether or not many conservatives are wrong about Gonzales isn't really the point (although my "friends" in D.C. tell me that our fears are well founded). What is relevant is that we don't know enough about Gonzales (hence the reference to Souter). Why take a chance on someone who could easily flip to the dark side when other folks like Luttig and Wilkinson are out there? These slots are too precious to take that kind of risk. I want someone with a proven judicial conservative track record. If President Bush burns us (i.e., conservatives) on a Supreme Court nomination like his daddy did, I am done with him.

Taking Credit: Planned Parenthood is claiming credit for Pat Toomey's defeat in the recent Pa. primary. (Hat-tip BTB)

Nancy nixes Reagan U., according to FoxNews. (Thanks to BTB.)

Al Gonzales:
Feddie wrote in the comments:

Gonzales is Spanish for Souter. I don't know why the dems are so against him. They ought to beg for Bush to nominate him.

I know it's the right wing's conventional wisdom that Gonzalez is another Souter, but I think the conventional wisdom is mistaken.

The evidence is usually the abortion decision that Gonzales wrote. Awhile back, I read the statute and decision, and I would have written an opinion similar to Gonzales.

I don't see the evidence suggesting that Gonzales is not conservative. To the contrary, I know some of his friends, and the word I hear is good.

And besides, Gonzales is a Rice alum.

High Court Shift: The Supreme Court has come a long way...in technological terms that is. The release of audiotapes from oral arguments in high profile cases now appears to be a regular occurrence. However, don't expect television clips anytime soon.

Despite Some Unfavorable Reviews I plan on going to see "Bobby Jones-Stroke of Genius" this evening. Perhaps non-golf fans will not enjoy, or appreciate, such a film, but I think I'll find it most pleasurable. For those unaware, Jones, a Georgia native, is the only golfer to ever win the Grand Slam in the same calendar year. Furthermore, the guy was brilliant. He earned an engineering degree from Georgia Tech; a literary degree from Harvard, then attended Emory Law for a year, decided to take the bar and passed it on his first attempt. He later served for many years as an attornery for the Coca-Cola company here in Atlanta. Of note, actor Malcolm McDowell plays the Atlanta journalist O.B. Keeler, who covered Jones extensively. In the Marietta area, just north of Atlanta, the Keeler name is still well respected, and everywhere.

Pelosi to Ignore Vatican's Nudge: The AP reported yesterday that "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a Roman Catholic who supports abortion rights, said Thursday that she would continue to ask for Holy Communion despite of Vatican opposition." The article quotes Pelosi as saying, "I fully intend to receive Communion, one way or another." What in the heck is that supposed to mean? At gunpoint? "Give me the body of Christ, father, or I swear I'll pull the trigger!" What a psycho. But hey, that's the dem mindset: entitlement without responsibility or accountability. Why should it be any different in their "religious" lives.

I also fully concur with my friend Mark Shea's recent comments on the dems' shameful attempt to cast this issue as "The Church interfering with politics":

No children. The Church is not telling you you can't be a whore for abortion if you want. The Church (or at any rate, Rome) is saying you can't be a whore for abortion *and receive communion*.

Honoring The Greatest Generation: The World War II memorial to veterans opened yesterday on the Washington Mall. If ever a memorial was due to a group of Americans, then this is one.

It Was Just A Matter Of Time: Black and Hispanic leaders are voicing criticism of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for his lack of diversity within his campaign organization. The Kerry camp has responded that they will be rolling out a plan to reach out to minorities in the near future. The criticism began when Kerry's campaign manager released the names of Sen. Kerry's five closest advisers, who are all white men.

In 1st decision as judge, Pryor rules for company, arbitration: The Decatur Daily has this report.

Update: BTW, when I first posted this article I scanned past the last sentence of the piece: "Most federal appellate courts that have considered the issue said district courts are in the best position to decide whether the case should be stayed after an appeal on an arbitration ruling." That assertion is patently false. Indeed, the opinion (which, btw, was a unanimous per curiam decision) specifically notes that a circuit split exists on the issue and that the panel is following the Seventh Circuit's lead on the issue (and rejecting the reasoning employed by the Ninth Circuit--now there's a shocker!).

A word of thanks to Lew Rockwell, for sending a truckload of traffic to SA yesterday (by linking to William's review of his new book). As a small token of my appreciation, I have added a permalink to Mr. Rockwell's site and made him a member of the First Brigade. I gotta throw a little love to the paleos every once in a while, so this one's for y'all (especially Plainsman and William). :)

The IPO That Would Be King: Google announced yesterday plans to sell its IPO to public investors in a way that veers from the Wall Street tradition. The offering is expected to give the company a market value of somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion.

Freudian Slip At The Times? In an article looking at the 9/11 Commission's meeting with President Bush and V.P. Cheney yesterday, the New York Times contains this little gem, while reporting on the television network coverage of the event:

Fox News, the conservative cable network, paid less attention to the meeting than CNN or the networks did and was far more sanguine about the secrecy - as well as Mr. Bush's insistence that Mr. Cheney be at his side during the interview.

[Emphasis Added]

Of course, no where else in the report does the author refer to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN as either "liberal" or "conservative." If Fox is the "conservative cable network," then lets refer to CNN as the "liberal cable network." Talk about fair and balanced.

Not all conservatives think alike: SA has received some emails and comments recently questioning the consistency of the positions taken on this blog, and noting surprise at the strenuous disagreements aired amongst cobloggers (e.g., Rice and Quin). Here's just one example:

Odd, that a blog praising Rockwell, Rothbard and Austrian economics would have adds for donating money to Bush.

Has the world gone insane?

Quite frankly, I am a little surprised by reactions like this to SA. Look folks, this is exactly what I envisioned when I decided to make SA a group blog. I didn't choose the people who blog at SA by happenstance. Indeed, some of SA's bloggers were frequent critics of mine (in comments) before joining, and still are for that matter (e.g., Owen and William). Personally, I like it that way; it keeps things interesting. Sure, people can get testy at times; but serious issues should be debated with passion and vigor. The bottom line is that we're not all singing from the same hymnal, and "that's o.k."

WMD: Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, has taken credit for the aborted attempt to kill thousands of people in Jordan with chemical weapons. Jordan has captured the chemical that were to be used as weapons. Apparently the materials entered Jordan through Syria -- the locale into which much pre-war traffic threatened to bring any Iraqi WMD.

Too many people are eager to assume that the intel was wrong; that there is no WMD in Iraq, that there was no WMD in Iraq. These moments should give them pause.



THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THE BAATHISTS: When our people do these things to Iraqis, we (rightfully) find the perpetrators and punish them. When their people do these things to Iraqis, they are rewarded.

That's why American soldiers liberated Iraq. America is morally better than those people, and our courts martial will prove it.

[Originally posted at White Noize.]

Which Rat Pack Member Are You? Take the quiz. (If you are in need of background info on the Rat Pack, click here.)

"Quantum Physics Made Relatively Simple" From the Cornell U. web site:

In 1999, legendary theoretical physicist Hans Bethe delivered three lectures on quantum theory to his neighbors at the Kendal of Ithaca retirement community (near Cornell University). Given by Professor Bethe at age 93, the lectures are presented here as QuickTime videos synchronized with slides of his talking points and archival material.

Intended for an audience of Professor Bethe's neighbors at Kendal, the lectures hold appeal for experts and non-experts alike. The presentation makes use of limited mathematics while focusing on the personal and historical perspectives of one of the principal architects of quantum theory whose career in physics spans 75 years.

Another gem from the Southern Appeal Self-Improvement Division!

How Americans see America: A new Rasmussen poll maps the differences among conservatives, liberals, and moderates. (Hat tip: Best of the Web.) The Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows Kerry ahead of Bush, 46-44%, today. "This marks the first time Kerry has held an edge in nine days. For most of the past two months, the race has remained a toss-up."

Don't miss Mark Steyn's wrap-up of the month of April, and a look forward:

Another six weeks of Dick Clarke's book tour, of snotty network reporters condescending to the president at his press conference, of the sneering Richard Ben Veniste and emotionally unhinged Bob Kerrey badgering Condi Rice at their hack hearings, of Bob Woodward and his unreadable book filling up slabs of CNN's prime time every night with irrelevant arcana about what did Prince Bandar know and when did he tell Woodward he knew it, another six weeks of things that make Bush ''vulnerable,'' and he'd be heading for a 49-state blowout over Kerry.

EPA's new ozone regs flunk cost-benefit test big time, says erstwhile regulation scholar Kenneth Chilton. Rather than me telling you what his ratio of costs to benefits is, you should guess, and then check the article to see how close you were. (Hat tip: NCPA.)

More on worldwide demographic trends: Nicholas Eberstadt, the AEI's man on this subject, reviewed "The Empty Crade," by Philip Longman, for the Wall Street Journal yesterday. You can read the review here.

Next: John Derbyshire Living Omnimedia? Derb Radio debuts today on NRO. (This is how the BBC would sound, if the world made sense.)

"Everything is based on the consumer first," said Edna Bonacich, a sociology professor at the University of California, Riverside. "Is this the way we want to live?" More on Wal-Mart, from the NYT (the source of the quote) and The Economist. (Hat tip: Arts & Letters Daily.)

A Personal Disclaimer re: the Bush Blogad: I'm glad to see that a steady stream of Blogads is popping up on the right side of our fine blog. However, one of today's ads says "The bloggers of Southern Appeal encourage their readers to donate money (in any amount) to help re-elect one of our greatest presidents, George W. Bush."

I work for the federal government. It would be inappropriate for me to advocate that readers give financial support to a particular candidate. Thus, I want to make clear that I do not endorse the message in the blogad. Instead, I encourage readers to support the candidate of their choice, whether GOP, Dem, or third party. Use that First Amendment.

This disclaimer, in turn, should not be taken as expressing any particular view of Pres. Bush's merits and demerits. It just seemed wrong to let my posts appear next to the Bush blogad without an explanation.

It's a nice day for a white wedding: O.k., this is really freakin' funny.

Zell Miller: Voters should not choose senators: Wow. I am really speechless. I've been bashing the 17th Amendment for years. I am almost sad to see ol' Zell go. What follows is music to my ears:

The 17th Amendment was the death of the careful balance between state and federal governments. Make no mistake about it: It is the special interest groups and their fundraising power that elect U.S. senators and then hold them in bondage forever.

. . . .

It was a victory for special interest tyranny and a blow to the power of state governments that would cripple them forever. And so, instead of senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds, as they did during the Senate’s greatest era of Clay, Webster and Calhoun, we now have many senators who are mere cat’s paws for the special interests. It is the Senate’s sorriest time in its long, checkered and once-glorious history.

. . . .

The election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures was the linchpin that guaranteed the interests of the states would be protected. Today, state governments have to stand in line. They are just another one of many, many special interests that try to get senators to listen to them. And they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC.

You will be missed, Senator Miller.

How far are we from socialized medicine?

The next big take over of the private sector by government will be health care. We can thank George Bush for his role in the process. After all, he did give us an FDR-like expansion of the welfare state with his prescription drug bill.

Of course, I say the next government take over "will be," but perhaps I should say the latest government take over "was." While Americans still have the right to purchase health care with private funds, we are not that far from the Canadian system. Pierre Lemieux, Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, brings up some astonishing points in a recent essay:

The Canadian system is built around a compulsory public-insurance regime that provides most medical and hospital services free. Of course, it is not free for the taxpayer, who finances the system at a rate of 22% of all taxes raised in Canada. The Canadian government pays about 71% of total Canadian health care expenditures, compared to 44% paid by the government in the U.S. This translates into public health expenditures of 7% of GDP in Canada and 6% in the U.S.—a rather small difference. The difference in total expenditures is due to higher private expenditures in the U.S. Why are private health expenditures so low in Canada? The main reason is that they are illegal, which gets us to the heart of the system’s hidden costs.

The U.S. government already pays 44 percent of all health care expenditures. That is a huge figure, and with the aging of the population it will only grow. This health care revolution reminds me of words penned in 1938 by Garet Garret:

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

Conservatives have long felt that they are holding the pass against socialized medicine. Looking at government spending on health care, perhaps we are gazing in the wrong direction??

A warm Southern welcome!: To readers surfing over from LewRockwell.com. Glad to have y'all here. Kick off your shoes and stay for a spell (and come back often, ya hear?!).

Supreme Court rules in favor of PA GOP in redistricting battle: so the AP reports. The court ruled 5-4, with the liberals voting for the Dems. Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.

The opinion is here. Given the opinion, it would appear likely that the Texas redistricting will not be overturned by SCOTUS.

Rene Gonzalez is nothing more than a snotty little punk. Here's hoping that your nasty hit piece on Pat Tillman makes you unemployable, you freakin' jerk.

Even shorter answer to Quin:
I don't buy it. I could write a long reply, but I don't see the point. Perhaps you know more than Karl Rove about political reality. But I think not.

As to this:

[The Bush administration] LOVE the idea of Specter as Judiciary Chairman; it means they will have an excuse to nominate more Souters. (emphasis mine)

You have to be nuts. Bush has shown zero inclination towards nominating another Souter. In fact, every indication points to the opposite conclusion.

Easy answer to Rice Grad
I wrote a LONG, LONG answer to Rice Grad, and my Web access crashed. So I have to start again; here's a shorter version: Bush had at least two chances to beat the filibusters. He could have done so at the front end, by taking a sincere offer of mediation from John Breaux. But he threw the offer back in Breaux's face, thus pushing Breaux himself away on serveral filibusters and guaranteeing Mary Landrieu would radicalize against Bush judges. The Demo memos show that a whopping 14 Demo senators had serious qualms about the filibuster strategy. If Bush had worked with Breaux, he almost surely could have worked a deal to have 10 or 12 of those agree not to filibuster even if they voted against the nominees on final passage. Also, Bush could have played hardball once the filibusters start. Lyndon Johnson would have made the Demos pay for the filibusters. No up-or-down votes, no pork projects. No up-or-down vote on the nominees, then stiffer competition in the Fall. I could give plenty of examples (and did in my earlier post that was lost in cyberspace). Anyway,that's how to beat filibusters: Negotiate an out on the front end, or bash heads politically once crunch time comes. (Included in the hardball would be prime-time press conferences with Bush and, say, Pryor, or Bush and Brown together, and a full-court PR offensive led by the White House.) But Bush, or actually Rove, preferred to do neither. He didn't want to spend the political capital actually getting the nominees concerned; instead, he chose to take some tactical defeats as a way to rile up the conservative base against Schumer, Kennedy and company, without actually having to put real conservatives on the bench. It's a totally cynical game Rove is playing, and I've warned you guys this from the very start. They LOVE the idea of Specter as Judiciary Chairman; it means they will have an excuse to nominate more Souters.

Book Review: Speaking of Liberty by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.: 2003) 471 pages, soft cover, $25.00.

I first learned about Lew Rockwell when a friend gave me a copy of the Rothbard-Rockwell Report (“RRR”). At first I did not think much of the bland-looking RRR, but inside I discovered an examination of ideas not found in typical conservative publications—especially National Review, my favorite political magazine at the time. Rothbard and Rockwell opened my eyes to the history and tenets of the Old Right. Each month RRR explored such items as militarism, sound money, free trade, and the neo-conservative takeover of the GOP.

In 1995, Murray Rothbard passed away. Rothbard was the dean of the Austrian School of economics and the founder of modern libertarianism. Though he left twenty-five books and thousands of essays, his absence is still felt today.

Fortunately, Rothbard was not only a great scholar, but a great teacher. And Lew Rockwell proved to be one of his best pupils. One need only visit LewRockwell.com to see that Rothbard’s legacy lives on.

This legacy is also evident in Lew Rockwell’s latest book, Speaking of Liberty. The book tackles such topics as discrimination and the division of labor; the Federal Reserve’s connection to inflation and the business cycle; socialized medicine; and our current perpetual war for perpetual peace.

While economic matters, as seen through the lens of the Austrian School, play a central role in the book, the book is much more than a defense of the free market. For example, Rockwell deals with the conflict between North and South and the results of the War Between the States:

Let’s compare Calhoun’s arguments against the tariff of abominations with Jefferson’s summary view [of the rights of British North America]. Both argued against violations of free trade. Both argued against a centralized government. Both argued that tariffs were taxation without representation. Both argued that this is tyranny, and both argued that radical means were justified in overthrowing the oppressor. This is one of the reasons that the founding fathers of the Confederacy felt themselves to be the heirs of the original founders. Tariff taxes precipitated both independence movements, and both were based on the view that liberty and free trade were of a piece. If Randolph, Taylor, Calhoun, and all their followers had been able to repeal the tariffs and prevent their reimposition, the war between the states might never have occurred. So many young men might never have died, and our nation might still be free.

Such historical revisionism is frowned upon today, but the approval of the elites has never been a motivator for Lew Rockwell. From Alexander Hamilton to FDR, Rockwell is not afraid to be an iconoclast.

In sum, Speaking of Liberty is a provocative invitation to rethink the nature of contemporary American government. Not only does Rockwell show how far we have fallen, but his book provides a blueprint to get us back on track.

Quin, Bush, and political reality:
I confess that I don't understand my colleage Quin's argument:

Okay, I've been saying this on this site for months, but nobody seems to believe me: Bush and his evil brain Karl Rove do not WANT judicial conservatives on the bench. Neither one of them is a real conservative. They have played conservatives like suckers by putting forward conservative nominees to get us all excited, but then they haven't lifted a finger to effectively work to get them confirmed. They aparently would prefer a campaign issue to a conservative judge. (emphasis mine)

I disagree with the tone and point of the post, but I have just one question for Quin: if you were President Bush, exactly what would you have done to get judges confirmed?

Law School Turf War Ignites--The Federalist Society vies with emerging American Constitution Society: "Yeah, penumbra lovers need an organization too!"

Indeed. It's not like the legal academy is already dominated by a bunch of left leaning radicals, right?

More on the Ray Fair macro model for predicting Presidential elections, here.

Ronald Reagan University: The plan so far, as reported in the Wash Post today. I can't find a website for it, yet.

Bush/Rove give conservatives the shaft: Okay, I've been saying this on this site for months, but nobody seems to believe me: Bush and his evil brain Karl Rove do not WANT judicial conservatives on the bench. Neither one of them is a real conservative. They have played conservatives like suckers by putting forward conservative nominees to get us all excited, but then they haven't lifted a finger to effectively work to get them confirmed. They aparently would prefer a campaign issue to a conservative judge. Now they scr** over conservatives again by pulling Arlen Specter's butt out of the fire, when it's clear that Toomey would have won if the White House had stopped at merely giving Specter lip-service support rather than pulling out all the stops for him. But this helps Bush, IF Bush is still in the White House (which he will now do, if at all, without Pennsylvania, because Toomey would have helped Bush carry the Keystone State but Specter won't -- more on that in another post), and IF Specter wis re-election (far from a done deal, because he has a good chance of losing to Hoeffel), because if all those things happen and Specter is chairman, Bush has Specter to blame for not being able to appoint conservative judges. ("Oh, gee, well, our own chairman thinks he's not in the mainstream; what can we do but go with Gonzalez over Edith Jones, or some other liberal over another Bill Pryor?") This plays into Bush's hands because Bush doesn't WANT true conservative judges. Face it, folks, the Bush administration -- the deficit-expanding, Medicare-expanding, big-government, steel-protecting-until-it-backfires, cynical Bush administration -- is NOT conservative. If his opponent were Bob Kerrey instead of John Kerry, I'd stay home and let Kerrey win. As it is, I will vote for Bush, while holding my nose and gritting my teeth. George Bush, the savior of Chairman Specter! How's that sound? #@*^$%&@^&^*!!!!!1

Kavanaugh's Day At The Capitol: Brett Kavanaugh went before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday as President Bush's nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Democrats were quick to proclaim Kavanaugh as one who would "win first prize as the hard right's political lawyer." Kavanaugh did say that "no one at the White House knew about Democratic memos on judicial nominees being taken from Senate computers by GOP Senate aide."

RE: Alexander Hamilton: Apropos William's post below, here's a review of Ron Chernow's new book, Alexander Hamilton, by David Brooks.

When Alexander Hamilton was 10, his father abandoned him. When he was around 12, his mother died of a fever in the bed next to his. He was adopted by a cousin, who promptly committed suicide. During those same years, his aunt, uncle and grandmother also died. A court in St. Croix seized all of his possessions, sold off his personal effects and gave the rest to his mother's first husband. By the time he was a young teenager, he and his brother were orphaned, alone and destitute.

Within three years he was a successful businessman. Within a decade he was effectively George Washington's chief of staff, organizing the American revolutionary army and serving bravely in combat. Within two decades he was one of New York's most successful lawyers and had written major portions of The Federalist Papers. Within three decades he had served as Treasury secretary and forged the modern financial and economic systems that are the basis for American might today. Within five decades he was dead at the hands of Aaron Burr.

Check it out.

Alexander Hamilton and Monarchy.

I am a member of a list service called H-SHEAR, which is composed of historians interested in the early Republic. The following query was sent out to the list:

I've just been reading a letter from Thomas Jefferson where he accuses Alexander Hamilton of wanting to create "a king and house of lords" with the Constitution. How accurate is this charge?

I thought I would share my response to this and open up the floor for discussion here on SA:

When discussing Hamilton and monarchy, I think it important to be careful with terms. We all know what "monarchy" means in the traditional sense, but arguably Jefferson and others also used the term more loosely to refer to a faction (often a monied interest) that sought to topple the people from their place as ultimate sovereigns. For more on this second use of the term "monarchy" I recommend to you Richard Rosenfeld's Foreword to my new book Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (Palgrave MacMillan, 2004). Richard does an excellent job of analyzing the threat of "monarchy" in the 1790s.

As for your question regarding Hamilton and his supposed desire for a traditional "monarchy," I think there is ample evidence that he would have preferred a monarchical system to the republican one that was created.

In the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton was blunt on this subject. He averred that "the British Govt. was the best in the world" and doubted whether "any thing short of it would do in America." He specifically advised that for the executive branch, the British model with its hereditary interest was "the only good one on the subject." (See Madison's Notes for Hamilton Speech on June 18, 1787). Hamilton was certainly no fan of republican government, as many of his confidants admitted. For example, upon Hamilton's death the British consul general in New York sent the following eulogy to the Foreign Office: "I consider him even a loss to His Majesty and our Government, from the prudence of his measures, his conciliatory disposition, his abhorrence of the French Revolution and all republican principles and doctrines, and his great attachment to the British government." I cannot think of one part of the eulogy to which Hamilton would have objected.

To be fair, many other Founders admired the monarchical features of the British government. One need only look to John Adams' book, Defence of the American Constitutions, to find his beliefs that a monarchy was necessary to preserve the balance between nobles and commoners. And who can forget Adams' title campaign, which made him look like a lackey for monarchy?

In sum, I believe that Jefferson's concerns were very real and grounded much more in the facts than fiction.

A bitter pill: John J. Miller sums up my feelings this morning on Toomey's loss to Specter:

Does anybody doubt that President Bush's endorsement was worth the 15,000 votes or so that separated the Specter from Toomey? Bush could have refused to sit out the primary. Instead he got involved and probably made the difference. Maybe he's happy about this. The rest of us should grumble, especially, as Ramesh points out, when conservatives in the White House tell us they had no choice but to nominate a cipher like Al Gonzales to the Supreme Court because they had to make sure their guy could get past Arlen. Let's not forget who is responsible for that arrangement. (Memo to Rick Santorum: This goes for you as well.)

Oh, hello Pyrrhus! Thanks to the AP for this gem of a line in its coverage of the Specter victory:

Specter's win also was a victory for President Bush, who endorsed Specter . . . .

Yeah, Bush sure dodged a bullet. Now, even if he does win in November, he can look forward to four more years of getting his judicial nominations blocked -- maybe even in committee this time.

What fun. Pardon me if I don't put on my party hat.

Yet another Toomey update: Toomey has narrowed the gap to 2% points with 77% of the vote in.

Toomey v. Specter:
With 55% of the vote in, Specter leads by about 8000 votes.

In other words, the race is still a tossup and depends on what counties have come in so far.

UPDATE: At 90% in, the race is 50-50, with Specter up a few thousand votes.

Toomey update: Toomey currently leads Specter by 9 percentage points in Lancaster County, PA. From what I understand about PA politics (which admittedly is very little), this is a good sign. Also, this site has Specter leading Toomey narrowly by 4 percentage points with 43% of the precincts reporting.

Cross your fingers and say a prayer for our boy Toomey.

Why abortion is different: Father Rob Johansen (of the blog Thrown Back) provides an excellent explanation in this post. Here's a taste:

[M]aking moral distinctions is something we must do as responsible adult Catholics. We must distinguish where we may act as well as where we must act. We must distinguish between areas of dogmatic teaching, where, as Catholics, our consciences are bound, and matters of prudential judgment, where Catholics of good will can disagree.

. . . .

Firstly, the attempt to put the death penalty on equal footing with abortion is simply incorrect, and not consistent with Catholic teaching. These issues are treated as equivalent nowhere in Magisterial teaching: neither in the Catechism nor in the pronouncements of the Holy Father are they treated as having equal moral weight. If you are going to assert that they are, you must produce actual evidence from Church documents to that effect. If you can't do that, then you are asserting your opinion, not the teaching of the Church.

The Church's stance on abortion is a matter of doctrine. That is, the Catholic Church teaches, as a matter binding upon Catholics, that direct procured abortion is always wrong, and may never licitly be pursued. This is the ancient and constant teaching of the Church. (CCC 2271) Furthermore, human life and personhood are defined as beginning at conception. (CCC 2274) Because it is always and absolutely wrong, one may not sanction, permit, or participate in it, even indirectly. (CCC 2272) Finally, because it is a grave crime and offense against human dignity, Catholics are obliged to oppose it and work for its elimination. (CCC 2273, and the Doctrinal Note on...The Participation of Catholics in Political Life)

Because of the unequivocal and fundamental nature of the Church's teaching on abortion, the Holy Father has said that "the right to life comes first. It precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues." Furthermore, the U.S. Bishops have said that being "right" on other important issues "can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life." They also wrote that "All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the... foundation" of the dignity of human life. In other words we must take the defense and protection of the unborn as the starting point, the sine qua non of our pro-life ethic. Because the protection of innocent human life is fundamental, and the prohibition on abortion so absolute, the US bishops warn that "failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters...".

The rest of the post is excellent as well.

Tarantino on The Passion of the Christ: The blogger at Unmitigated Blatherskite posted the following excerpt from an interview that Tarantino did with LA Weekly, which I found very interesting:

INTERVIEWER: Is there any movie around you wish you'd made?

QUENTIN TARANTINO: ...I don't think I would have the mania to make The Passion of the Christ, but I'd be proud of the results. Those are the only things playing around right now that are terrific.

INTERVIEWER: So you saw The Passion of the Christ?

QUENTIN TARANTINO: I loved it. I'll tell you why. I think it actually is one of the most brilliant visual storytelling movies I've seen since the talkies -- as far as telling a story via pictures. So much so that when I was watching this movie, I turned to a friend and said, "This is such a Herculean leap of Mel Gibson's talent. I think divine intervention might be part of it." I cannot believe that Mel Gibson directed it. Not personally Mel Gibson -- I mean, Braveheart was great. I mean, I can't believe any actor made that movie. This is like the most visual movie by an actor since Charles Laughton made The Night of the Hunter. No, this is 15 times more visual than that. It has the power of a silent movie. And I was amazed by the fact that it was able to mix all these different tones. At first, this is going to be the most realistic version of the Jesus story -- you have to decipher the Latin and Aramaic. then it throws that away at a certain point and gives you this grandiose religious image. G**damn, that's good directing!

(LvCOTM)

This is one of the most powerful posts that I've ever read: God Bless you, Annie. I am truly in awe of your courage and grace (LvDB).

More proabort fun and games: "Well, we were thinking it was time to do more than just promote snuffing out babies, and quelling free speech and physically assaulting people with differing views sounded like a lot of fun."