"As hip loses cool, bow tie fits again": How did I miss this article? Here's a taste of it:

Men who wear them say they feel as if they're part of an exclusive club. They get stopped in airports or on the street by fellow bow tie wearers. They congratulate one another on the look.

Wearing bow ties is also a way to get attention from women --- especially the fussy ones. "Women can't help but straighten them," Hinckley said.

But they also take a lot of ribbing, mostly from men who wouldn't be caught dead in a bow tie. It's the Hollywood stereotyping, once again: Bow tie wearers are eccentric or quirky. They're for lawyers. Doctors. Or professors.

Still, bow tie wearers eagerly own up to a few of the stereotypes. But there's more to it, they say. Bow tie wearers are self-assured. They're style-conscious. They're independent thinkers. Fashion aside, there are practical reasons for wearing them. Bow ties don't dangle into a bowl of soup, get caught up in a dressing-drenched salad or blow around on a windy day.

BTW, and FWIW, I think the best bowties in the world are made by Beau Ties Ltd. And I just found out about "Bill's Private Stock" tonight. Very nice.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I own 50 plus bow ties. I know, that's not nearly enough. :)

Prepare Fisking torpedos! It’s been a long time since I indulged in a full-scale Fisking of anything (oh, the fun I had with Maureen Dowd for a long while), so I figure ol’ folksy Texas charmer Molly Ivins is ripe for a good Fisking. Here goes.

The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I think for myself.

I am not "you liberals" or "you people on the left who always ..." My name is Molly Ivins, and I can speak for myself, thank you. I don't need Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove to tell me what I believe.

And I am not “you conservatives” or “you people on the right who always…” My name is Jim Dunn, and I can speak for myself, thank you. Neither I nor my conservative associates need Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove to tell me what I believe. Ivins is just maintaining the standard liberal line that we conservatives only know what to believe once somebody tells us what to believe.

Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has become a favorite form of "argument" for those on the right.

You mean, like the straw man you just erected in your opening grafs? Hypocrisy? You’re soaking in it.

Make some ridiculous claim about what "liberals" think, and then demonstrate how silly it is. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and many other right-wing ravers never seem to get tired of this old game. If I had a nickel for every idiotic thing I've ever heard those on the right claim "liberals" believe, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.

Here’s where ol’ Molly demonstrates an amazing lack of economic sense. Nobody cares about, and won’t tune in, when Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken or anybody gives both sides of an issue in a reasoned, balanced manner. Without conflict, you don't have a story.

And what’s with this “I’d be richer than Bill Gates”? Comment? Surely Molly can do better than that. I mean, how about, “If I had a nickel…I’d be eating nickel soup”? (Hat tip to Cotton Hill.) Or maybe, “…I’d have enough money to burn a wet mule”? Or how about calling up Dan Rather and you two Texans really pegging the folk-o-meter with something like “…my bank account would be tighter than a cayuse at an armadillo-killing east of the Rio Grande with a blue norther blowin’ through”?

The latest and most idiotic statement yet comes from Rove, who is not, actually, an objective observer. [White House advisers rarely are.]He is George Bush's hatchet man.

Wait. I thought President Bush, like the rest of us conservatives, took our orders from Karl Rove. How can Rove be Bush’s hatchet man? (And by the way, Molly, Rove doesn’t have to be a hatchet man when you liberals so willingly step into the traps he lays for you.)

Rove, in an address to the Conservative Party of New York, made the following claim: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

See above for mention of Rove’s traps. He really set the spittle to flying with that comment.

This seemed to the editorial writers at the San Diego Union-Tribune such a reasonable summary of the liberal position they couldn't figure out why Democrats were "hyperventilating."

"What is harder to understand is how Democrats can think they can have it both ways," they wrote. "Even as they beat their chests and profess support for military action, they can't help but criticize the military and do everything they can to undermine the war effort."

Note to self: There are level-headed people in California after all. You stand corrected.

What a deep mystery. Let's see if we can help the San Diego thinkers solve it. On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the president to take military action. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1. The lone dissenter was Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who expressed qualms about an open-ended war.

Find me the offer for therapy and understanding in that vote. Anyone remember what actually happened after 9/11? Unprecedented unity, support across the board, joint statements by Democratic and Republican political leaders. The whole world was with us. The most important newspaper in France headlined, "We Are All Americans Now," and all our allies sent troops and money to help. That is what George Bush has squandered with his war in Iraq.

Again, I’m gonna have to provide the folksiness here, so here goes. What happened immediately after 9/11 was what you could call a reverse Little Red Hen situation. Remember the story of the barnyard fowl who wanted to plant, cut, thresh, mill, and bake a grain of wheat and the wheat stalk that sprung from it? None of her fellow barnyard animals wanted to help with the aforementioned planting, cutting, threshing, milling, and baking, but they were more than happy to help eat the bread that was the end result of all the hen’s activity.

The opposite happened after 9/11. Countries and many liberals jumped up and blustered their way into the public eye via proclamations or newspaper headlines (and really, Molly—the most important paper in France is the gold medal winner of oxymorons). That’s because every nation knew that you can’t just jump into a worldwide battle. It takes time, and they knew they could use that time to let the fervor die down and “reconsider their opinions.”

Again, here’s some much-needed folkiness that Molly can’t seem to deliver: When I was growing up in Samson, Alabama, there wasn’t much to do. So if word got out that there was a fight brewing between a couple of good old boys, everybody would try to see the fight. You could always tell who wanted to fight and who didn’t. The boys (and girls; the nastiest fight I ever saw was between two sisters) who wanted to fight would get out of their car and commence with the fisticuffs post haste. The ones who wanted people to think they wanted to fight would bow up, rip their shirts off, get red in the face and generally do everything but fight.

France and like countries and many liberals ripped their shirts off. Then they promptly put them back on.

And Ivins is really being disingenuous in this section. In response to her "find me the therapy and understanding in that vote" comment, I'll refer her not to the days immediately after 9/11, but to last year, when John Kerry said he wanted a more sensitive war.

The vote on invading Iraq was 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House. By that time, some liberals did question the wisdom of invasion because: A) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and B) it looked increasingly unlikely that Iraq actually had great stores of weapons of mass destruction, since the U.N. inspectors, who were on the ground, couldn't find them -- even though Donald Rumsfeld claimed we knew exactly where they were.

“Nothing to do with 9/11.” I’m supposed to believe that terrorists were in Florida, but they weren’t in Iraq. Molly old girl, have you been out in the sun too long?

Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it -- I think it is bad for us. I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.

You know, I’d take on this graf, but it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. And the fish are nailed to the sides of the barrel. And your gun has laser sights.

I did not oppose the war because I like Saddam. I have been active in human rights work for 30 years, and I told you he was an s.o.b. in the '80s, when our government was sending him arms.

I did not oppose the war because I am soft on terrorists or didn't want to get Osama bin Laden. To the contrary, I thought it would be much more useful to get bin Laden than to invade Iraq -- which, once again, had nothing to do with 9/11. I believe the case now stands proved that this administration used 9/11 as a handy excuse to invade Iraq, which it already wanted to do.

The case now stands proved that we used 9/11 as an excuse? By what means, darling Molly? Are you like Stewart McKenzie’s father, with special inside knowledge of the Pentaveret and their meetings in Colorado?

It is one thing for a political knife-fighter like Rove to impugn the patriotism of people who disagree with him: We have seen this same crappy tactic before, just as we have seen administration officials use 9/11 for political purposes again and again. But how many times are the media going to let them get away with it?

Oh, darling Molly. The media let President Bush with stuff, do they? I must have missed all those blazing editorials in the NYT urging Americans to stand fast behind President Bush, any concerns for yourself be damned.

The first furious assault on the patriotism of Democrats came right after the 9/11 commission learned President Bush had received a clear warning in August 2001 that Osama bin Laden was planning a hijacking.

Let’s play time travel and go back to August 2001. President Bush has just received a clear warning that we’re about to be attacked by Middle Eastern terrorists. He and his hatchet man/knife-fighter Karl Rove immediately set about closing the borders, initiating thorough background checks of Middle Easterners and generally cracking the security whip all across the fruited plain. Can you imagine the caterwauling that would have arisen from Ivins and Company? Almost four years after 9/11, security officials have to walk a line measured in nano-angstroms in order to keep from offending anyone.

And if you’re going to go back in time, darling Molly, you’re gonna need to indict President Clinton, too. If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were only presenting one side of an issue.

Batten down the hatches: This is the beginning of a push to jack up public support for the war in Iraq by attacking anyone with enough sense to raise questions about how it's going.

First, an English lesson. Antecedents can be tricky, Molly dear, so when you say “This is the beginning of a push…” at the end of a long column, you need to be clearer about what exactly this is.

Secondly, nobody is attacking anybody who doesn’t support the war. We’re just pointing out that you’re wrong. And that’s what really binds your girdle like Granny after eating a whole gollywobbler mess of prickly pear fritters, ain’t it?

Congress' power to overrule Kelo. I'm not sure of the details of the recent congressional proposal in response to Kelo, but just a theoretical question: Assuming Congress has the power through the Commerce Clause, is there any reason that Congress could not pass a law saying, in effect: The government may not take private property, except to build a public road or government building. It is one thing to, by statute, take away an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution, but it is another to guarantee additional rights by statute. So, it would seem that, any arguments that Congress cannot "overrule" Kelo in this way are misplaced. I'm still thinking through this, so any thoughts?

From National Review: Chuck Hagel MovesOn

The same day as this week’s speech by President Bush on Iraq the MoveOn PAC began a new advertising campaign calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces. They took Hagel’s words and placed them alongside claims that President Bush, “is trying to change the subject from Iraq to terrorism and September 11-implying that Iraq attacked us in 2001.”

... So, who is at fault? On one hand, MoveOn has created another offensive advertisement that insults U.S. soldiers fighting the insurgency and assisting in Iraq’s reconstruction. It’s another slap in the face from a group that got its start defending former President Clinton’s infidelity and who called for “restraint” after the attacks of 9/11.

On the other hand, MoveOn does not put words in Hagel’s mouth. The words they cite are in fact his. Hagel’s rhetoric has been so strong, that even his self-described “good friend” John McCain was critical when asked to respond to Hagel’s comments while appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live. McCain told guest host Bob Costas: “I completely disagree. There are signs of progress. Yes, it's tough, and it's hard, and we've made mistakes and we paid a heavy price for those mistakes. Unfortunately, in wars, serious mistakes are made … And there is a legitimacy to the Iraqi government that, frankly, the government of South Vietnam never had.”

Me: For those not keeping up, Hagel is campaigning to be totally unqualified to run for the presidency in '08 on the Republican ticket. At least, that's how it seems...

GOD BLESS AMERICA!
With the 4th of July just around the corner I feel compelled to post some patriotic images.

I like it Ryder. So will our Catholic fans. The latest in Catholic Bumper Stickers.

Inside the Scrushy jury room: The juror who was dismissed last week for health reasons has gone public with his belief that Scrushy had been proved guilty, as well as his intention to continue voting against acquittal, had he remained on the jury. (He made the latter point on local TV news programs last night. No links yet.)

And what might the International Freedom Center at Ground Zero eventually look like? John Derbyshire offers a virtual tour. (N.B.: Satire alert!)

Frist-Allen Rivalry? From Tim Chapman over at Townhall.com's "Soapbox."

Roll Coll reports on what may be a growing rivalry between two of the GOP's leading Senators and presumed 2008 Presidential candidates. According to Roll Call (subscription), Virginia Senator George Allen is growing increasingly critical of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist:

Allen was one of the leading voices in the call to invoke the so called “nuclear,” or constitutional, option to eliminate filibusters on judicial nominees and has emerged as a critic of Frist’s approach to calling a vote. In a trip to New Hampshire last weekend, more than a month after a compromise on judges had been reached, Allen said, “we should have gone for it earlier,” when asked about the timing of triggering the nuclear option. The Virginia Senator has also been an aggressive advocate for John Bolton’s confirmation as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and was critical of Frist’s decision last week to bring the nomination to the floor without the votes required to end debate. “Having played quarterback, I always like to have everyone in formation when you are ready to run a play,” Allen said of the Bolton vote on MSNBC last week.

Me: Good. I hope they're at odds. I think George Allen should take over as Majority Leader when Frist leaves in '06. I'm not a big fan of Frist to begin with, but I think Allen has more spine. Besides, it would help his presidential bid (not that he really needs any help, though...)

This week's dose of Ann Coulter. So good.

A little Scrushy verdict round-up...via RCP:
Scrushy Has a Score to Settle and Where the Scrushy Prosecution Went Wrong

A very perceptive article: Democrats buy into Bush's war

If you listen carefully, you realize Democrats like Kerry and Biden are saying that this war is being fought the wrong way, not that this is the wrong war. They have bought into the Karl Rove argument that might makes right. And they are also accepting Rove's analysis that real men don't question war, only wimpy liberals do. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York endorses the same Rovian analysis.

As long as Democrats accept that premise, Republicans win and Democrats lose. Rove knows exactly how to push the Democrats' buttons and keep it that way. His recent speech about the difference between conservatives and liberals is a prime example. Conservatives, said Rove, watched the Sept. 11 attacks and ''prepared for war." Liberals ''wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy."

The main message of Bush's speech in Fort Bragg, N.C., was: ''We're in Iraq because we can't leave." Afterwards, even some of his harshest critics in the Democratic Party agreed: We can't leave. Why can't we leave? Because we can't be liberal wimps. Advantage: Bush.

Me: Outisde of a few quibbles, I think overall, this is dead-on analysis of the current political maneuvering over the War in Iraq.

This is probably true, generally - but it still sucks: The Young Labeled 'Entitlement Generation'

Evan Wayne thought he was prepared for anything during a recent interview for a job in radio sales. Then the interviewer hit the 24-year-old Chicagoan with this: "So, we call you guys the 'Entitlement Generation,'" the baby boomer executive said, expressing an oft-heard view of today's young work force. "You think you're
entitled to everything."

Such labeling is, perhaps, a rite of passage for every crop of twentysomethings. In their day, baby boomers were rabble-rousing hippies, while Gen Xers were apathetic slackers.

Now, deserved or not, this latest generation is being pegged, too Â? as one with shockingly high expectations for salary, job flexibility and duties but little willingness to take on grunt work or remain loyal to a company.

"We're seeing an epidemic of people who are having a hard time making the transition to work Â? kids who had too much success early in life and who've become accustomed to instant gratification," says Dr. Mel Levine, a pediatrics professor at the University of North Carolina Medical School and author of a book on the topic called "Ready or Not, Here Life Comes."

Me: I think the idea that my generation is full of slackers, etc. is a little skewed. I agree that it's generally the case, but I also think that there are definite reasons as to why.

Again, I see this all the time...first-hand mostly. (Pretty much all of my friends are in the same boat.) I was fortunate enough, through connections, to be able to land a nice job, nice salary, nice benefits, etc. But, for the most part, the 20-somthings I know generally just aren't that lucky. And you guessed it - they are more than a little frustrated. Why?

A couple of small things come to mind:
(1) We live in a culture that tells us that we deserve the moon - free of charge. Better still, it glorifies nonsense (read: Paris Hilton, entitlements from the gov, etc) to the point that young people don't feel the need to bust their butts anymore.

(2) This generation has overwhelmingly been blessed financially compared to past generations. Economic booms during the Reagan and Clinton years are absolutely seared in my mind, esp. the dot-com boom. My whole life people have been getting really rich, really fast. No one my age seems to realize that most rich people have busted it for years to get there. It's kind of hard to go from a 4 bedroom brick house in the burbs with 3 cars to a smelly apartment in the ghetto with a car you can't even afford to change the oil or tires. Why else would people want to live with their parents at age 28?

(3) We've been told that there are more important things than money - a huge pet peeve of mine. This is fine and all on paper...that is, until you realize that you enjoy having money and you want a few things. But, unfortunately you got a degree in counseling (me) and had to find other ways to make a buck. My parents' generation, methinks, largely failed to see the value in life without money. My generation doesn't want to work 60 hours per week to just to be able to take a 1 week vacation to Aruba (right). But, the fact remains, if you want to have nice things - you gotta work for them. Admittedly, this generation hasn't come to terms with that.

(4) Our parents said that we could be anything we wanted to be. LIARS! Even though they had good intention, this is only partially true.You can be anything you want to be...if you get enough degrees and are willing to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so (cuz a college degree just ain't cuttin' it anymore). You can be anything you want to be...if you know enough peopl to help you get there. You can be anything you want to be...when you're 46. I know of very few successful people under the age of 30. And, the truth is, you really can't be what you want to be. You can only be what you are gifted at being...and even then, you still can't always be what you want to be. (And then there's that point about the money which oftentimes hinders your "being what you want to be")

Finally, the world simply isn't set up to make it at a young age anymore. When my parents got married, they could afford a house, a car, etc. (We were basically poor and we still lived decent.) If I had my dad's salary today (adjusting for infaltion) - I'd probably be homeless, yet it stretched a ton further back in the day (probably not that extreme - but you get the point). In today's world, the reality is that outside of 30K + per year in salary, you can barely afford to live by yourself and eat if you live in any mediocre city in the country. You sure as hell can't buy a home. I live with 2 other people - otherwise, it would be hard to make approx. $700 apt. payment (1 bedrm) every month...and that's cheap! I live in B'ham.

Anyway, enough ranting. This is an interesting article...perhaps b/c it's so close to home (I first saw in on Inc.com) I'd like to hear thoughts from all you old fogies out there as to additional reasons why today's youngsters can't get their crap together. Mind you, my suggestions above are a little short-sighted and...well, just short. They weren't, however, intended to be bullet-proof. You can change 'em, explain 'em, dismiss 'em...whatever. Any thoughts?

Clarification: Just to clear up any confusion - I don't live in a 1 bedroom apt. with three dudes. I live in a 3 bdrm in which we all have a separate room. Just in case any hot girls are reading this...

Damned if you do...Damned if you don't: I've seen this on a various blog sites this morning. It's an article from the NYTimes entitled, "Troops' Silence at Fort Bragg Starts a Debate All Its Own"

When President Bush visits military bases, he invariably receives a foot-stomping, loud ovation at every applause line. At bases like Fort Bragg - the backdrop for his Tuesday night speech on Iraq - the clapping is often interspersed with calls of "Hoo-ah," the military's all-purpose, spirited response to, well, almost anything.

So the silence during his speech was more than a little noticeable, both on television and in the hall. On Wednesday, as Mr. Bush's repeated use of the imagery of the Sept. 11 attacks drew bitter criticism from Congressional Democrats, there was a parallel debate under way about whether the troops sat on their hands because they were not impressed, or because they thought that was their orders.

Captain's Quarters Responds:

If the same soldiers had greeted Bush with wild cheers and hoo-ahs, or had repeatedly interrupted the speech with cheers, we'd be hearing that the White House had secretly arranged that reception. Instead, we now have Clapgate, which doesn't have nearly the fun that such a monicker might suggest, where the big question is who initiated the applause that followed the one line where Bush told the nation that we would stay in the fight to the finish.

Well, this certainly qualifies as a national emergency. Can we say, "Slow News Day"?

Me: My thoughts exactly. As soon as I read this, I remebered that for a week straight, the liberal press condemned the WH for holding this speech at an army base where Bush would be using the military as a prop. Now that we know for sure that this was not the case? "Ooh, ooh, they didn't like what he had to say...." Aye Aye, Captain Ed. Slow news day.

THE WUSSIFICATION OF AMERICA
When I was a young lad my father explained to me that the only way to deal with a bully was to stand up to him. Running away from them only encouraged them. This was part of the broader lesson that life’s obstacles could not be overcome by avoidance and hand wringing.

My father’s wisdom appears to be completely lost on the founders of “Operation Respect: Don’t Laugh at me. This outfit, headed up by one of the former members of Peter, Paul, and Mary, (Go figure) seeks to “sensitize” our children and turn their schools into “ridicule-free zones.” After surfing around their site it appears to me that their approach is to try and remake children in the image of constantly emoting UN bureaucrats.

Now I don’t have a problem with schools taking measures to crack down on bullying or insisting that kids play nice together. However, I don’t think turning them into nail-biting Stuart Smalleys is the answer. As Michelle Malkin points out:

“The left-wing Kumbaya crowd is quietly grooming a generation of pushovers in the public schools. At a time of war, when young Americans should be educated about this nation's resilience and steely resolve, educators are indoctrinating students with saccharine-sticky lessons on "non-violent conflict resolution" and "promoting constructive dialogues."

Peaceniks are covering our kids from head to toe in emotional bubble wrap. They are creating a nation of namby-pambies.”

There was a time in this country when kids used to look at historical figures such as Davy Crockett and Wyatt Earp as heroes to emulate. Now Dr. Phil is considered as a top choice for “Greatest American.” Where are you when we need you John Wayne? Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

But God's First: I've decided, for reasons I outline here, to start a separate blog that will be distinctly Catholic in nature and "provide me with an outlet to discuss and document the progression of my faith and spiritual journey as a recent convert to Catholicism."*

I hope that some of y'all will decide to drop in every once in a while.

*Please do note that this blog is in its infancy stage, and obviously needs a great deal of work as far as the template and overall content are concerned.

Conflicting Priorities: Here's the latest from the CFD:

For more than two years, the international community has done little to stop the violence in Darfur or provide security to the millions of displaced victims. And the closer one follows the world's response to this crisis, the clearer the conflicting priorities of the major actors (the US, the AU, the ICC and the UN) become.

Though former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the situation "genocide" in September 2004, the United States has more or less ignored the Genocide Convention's legal requirement that parties to the convention "undertake to prevent and to punish" it. This can be partly explained by the fact that the administration played a key role in ending the decades long war in the South and does not want to risk upsetting it by directly confronting Khartoum over Darfur. It can also be partly explained by the fact that the CIA has developed significant ties to the regime in Khartoum, which has become "an indispensable part of CIA's counterterrorism strategy."

The International Criminal Court has just recently become involved in the conflict in Darfur, taking up an investigation and warning that Khartoum must cooperate with its investigation. The ICC is a relatively new body that has yet to try a case and is still working to establish itself as a viable international body. As such, the ICC is proceeding slowly and cautiously, attempting to stay within the bounds set by the ICC statute and avoid an embarrassing and potentially damaging showdown with Khartoum should the genocidal regime refuse to cooperate.

The AU faces many of the same problems. As a relatively new organization, the AU hopes to become the key to providing "African solutions to African problems." Over the last six months, the AU has only been able to supply 2/3rd the number of troops it initially mandated and will, in all likelihood, be equally unable to fill the size of its expanded mandate. As a fledgling organization, the AU does not possess the clout or support necessary to demand an expanded mandate to protect civilians in Darfur and has been reluctant to seek outside logistical or financial assistance for its mission, perhaps out of fear that doing so will highlight its inadequacies and undermine its credibility further.

While the US, ICC and AU all have a genuine interest in stopping the violence, it is clear that they also have internal concerns that are restricting their effectiveness in Darfur.

At the same time, the United Nations faces internal concerns of its own. The presence of Russia and China on the Security Council has stymied attempts to force Khartoum to reign in the Janjaweed militias and prevented the imposition of sanctions. Nonetheless, no amount of internal concerns can excuse this recent statement by Jan Pronk, Kofi Annan's Special Representative to Sudan.

While Annan was telling Khartoum that the violence "must stop," Pronk was praising Khartoum for setting up meaningless show trials designed solely to slow the ICC investigation

The government says its national trials will be credible and will be a substitute for the ICC, which announced last week the formal launch of its investigation in Darfur.

Pronk said those concerned about the credibility of the national court, which begins proceedings on June 15, should give the government the benefit of the doubt.

"If the government takes a decision to do something which it had been asked to do late, you only have to criticise that they are late, you should not criticise that they are doing it," he said. "So give the government the benefit of the doubt."

For two years, Khartoum has waged a genocidal campaign against the people of Darfur, taking the lives of an estimated 400,000 people. Under no circumstances does this government deserve "the benefit of the doubt."

Solving the crisis in Darfur is undoubtedly a priority for many in the international community. Unfortunately, it is not a main priority. And because of that, it is likely that tens of thousands Africans will continue to die over the coming months.

Peaches: For those of you with access to southern peaches (don't bother with those tasteless California things - blech!) you really must try this recipe for Cinnamon-Grilled Peaches.

The video of AEI's review of the Supreme Court term just ended is already up, just minutes after the panel ended. Michael Greve moderates; speakers include Professors Adler (Case Western), Nagel (Colorado), and Siegel (Duke), and NPR's Ms. Totenberg.

The second round of John Hawkins's e-mail interview of Mark Steyn is now up at Right Wing News. Here's a preview:

So the dynamism of American faith exemplifies the virtues of the broader society: the US has a free market in religion, Europe had cosseted overregulated monopolies and cartels. The other salient point is that obviously Europe does have a religion: radical secularism. The era of the state church has been replaced by an age in which the state itself is the church. European progressives still don't get this: they think the idea of a religion telling you how to live your life is primitive, but the government regulating every aspect of it is somehow advanced and enlightened.

The first installment is here. (Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.)

A policy wonk's dream come true:The reports to Congress generated by the Congressional Research Service are being webbed by the Open CRS Network. Here's their pitch:

American taxpayers spend nearly $100 million a year to fund the Congressional Research Service, a "think tank" that provides reports to members of Congress on a variety of topics relevant to current political events. Yet, these reports are not made available to the public in a way that they can be easily obtained. A project of the Center for Democracy & Technology, Open CRS provides citizens access to CRS Reports that are already in the public domain and encourages Congress to provide public access to all CRS Reports.

CRS Reports do not become public until a member of Congress releases the report. A number of libraries and non-profit organizations have sought to collect as many of the released reports as possible. Open CRS is a centralized utility that brings together these collections to search.

Unfortunately, there is no systematic way to obtain all CRS reports. Because of this, not all reports appear on the Open CRS web site. CDT believes that it would be far preferable for Congress to make available to the public all CRS Reports.

The Capital is being evacuated again. Does it strike anyone else that the evacuation "procedure," i.e., hundreds of people, including Congressmen, walking in the same direction at the same time, and standing around, presents a bigger risk?
Update: Sounds like the evacuation is in the process of being called off--an airplane entered the airspace again.

While looking for something else, I ran across the 2000 version of Chief Judge Danny Boggs's quiz for judicial clerkship applicants. (Answers provided.) Interesting.

From the same archive, here's a New Yorker piece (an interview of a reporter, actually) on Justice Scalia, from March of this year.

"How I feel when liberal Democrats extract a few extreme examples from around the country to make sweeping generalizations about the Republican Party as a whole: An Essay"

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our power - we did.

But you can't hold a whole political party responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole political system? And if the whole political system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our governmental institutions, in general? I put it to you, SA'ers - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?

Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! (start the Star-Spangled Banner music...) adapted from Animal House

Thank you.

...and, despite what you all think, I still like Dick Morris: Wake up, Mr. President: Every day is Election Day

...His determination in holding fast to his policies while aggressively
persuading the nation that they were the right ones was a welcome surprise after his father’s ambivalence about taking to the stump.

But now that he his reelected, he seems to have abandoned politics and retreated into government. Where is he? Where is the vaunted machine he assembled that humbled the best the Democrats had to offer? Where is Rove? Where is Hughes? Where are yesterday’s gods?

Me: Good question: Where are yesterday's gods, Dubya? As always, Morris has keen insight...

"Hands Off My Home" is the name of a $3 million anti-Kelo campaign announced today by the Institute for Justice. The plan is to

Pursue state-level litigation to enforce the “public use” limitations found in every state constitution.

Today issue a formal pledge for governors in each state to sign promising to oppose efforts in their states to use the government power of eminent domain for private development, and to support legislation and other efforts to ensure that citizens of their state are safe from eminent domain for private development. IJ and the Castle Coalition will soon extend this pledge to legislators and city officials nationwide.

Support citizen activists nationwide who are urging their state and local officials to set stricter standards for the use of eminent domain.

Establish a Castle Coalition presence in every state so ordinary citizens will be poised to mobilize the minute eminent domain is abused for private ends. Citizens can join the Castle Coalition at www.castlecoalition.org.

Host a conference in July in Washington, D.C., to train activists in fighting unjust takings.

Check out the new Kelo Amendment blog: "Dedicated to Using Constitutional Amendment to End Eminent Domain Abuse."

More Supreme Court speculation, courtesy of my man Erick Erickson at RedState:

Rehnquist is out. It'll happen on or about July 5 [Ed. -- but why not do it earlier so the Gang can have a 3 day weekend to mull the implications and feel out the Senate before announcing a replacement on Tuesday?!] POTUS is leaning toward Luttig.

If, however, O'Connor beats CJ to the White House (though POTUS & Co., Inc. does not expect her till Labor Day), we go with Garza first and Luttig second.

If Luttig doesn't want it, we go with John Roberts next -- Rehnquist is pushing Roberts. Roberts is a Rehnquist protege.

If O'Connor does go at Labor Day and women are not back on board GWB's bus (a current POTUS & Co., Inc. concern), he scraps Garza and goes with Edith Brown Clement, an under the radar conservative from the 5th Circuit.

If any other spot opens, he goes with (a) Gonzales or (b) a sitting United States Senator from a state that currently has a Republican governor. Oh, and there just might be a third spot opening, but not until after January 1. Your guess is as good as mine on that one. Until then people in New York and Chicago will be speculating.

Source does tell me that POTUS1 really, really, really wants Gonzales and "POTUS is POTUS" but knows the political calculus of a Gonzales nomination would be devastating to the base and to the 14 who have to either vote for a possible Souter or vote against the first Hispanic nominee and then go on and try to get re-elected next year.

Update: Ramesh indicates that Erick's information tracks what he has heard thus far.

"Why are our politicians so full of themselves?" asks Peggy Noonan.

Economic Freedom of North America, 2005, has been released by the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Fraser Institute. From the press release:

States that voted for George W. Bush in the last election tend to have less government regulation and more economic freedom than states that voted for Sen. John Kerry, according to a report released today by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) and Canada’s Fraser Institute. Ten of the 12 states with the most economic freedom were carried by President Bush (Red states), and 7 of the 12 least economically free states were carried by Sen. Kerry (Blue states).

“People in Red states prefer more economic freedom,” said NCPA Senior Fellow Devon Herrick. “The pay-off is that they enjoy higher economic growth.”

The report ranks states based on the degree of economic freedom. The three principal factors are: size of the state’s tax burden, size of state government in relation to the state’s economy, and flexibility of the state’s labor market.

Download the full text in PDF here.

Frederic Bastiat, French exponent of liberty, was born this day in 1801. The Foundation for Economic Education is observing the event (look under "FEE Today"). His 1850 pamphlet, "The Law," is well worth reading.

"No defect in Sarbanes-Oxley, officials agree after acquittal" This is the reassuring headline of a story by the Birmingham News's Washington correspondent. She quotes a DOJ press person, Alabama Senators Shelby and Sessions, and Alabama Representatives Bachus and Davis. Of this group, Shelby's reaction is the most significant, because of his committee chairmanship.

Sen. Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate banking committee, said he doesn't second-guess juries, because the facts in each case are a matter of interpretation. He said he did not think the law was too complex.

"The intent of the law was to bring the CEO into the mix to attest that these statements to the regulators and to the public were correct," said Shelby, R-Ala.

Shelby's committee will have a third hearing on the costs paid by companies to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley law but not on the criminal prosecution.

As you might expect, the Birmingham paper today has a number of stories, analyses, etc., on Scrushy's acquittal, which you can access via al.com

"Rehnquist will step down in the next four weeks" redux: Back on June 1st, I posted the following information:

I don't think this news will come as a surprise to anyone, but I just received a phone call from an extremely reliable source who tells me that it's a done deal.

And over at the Greedy Clerks Board today, someone named "gunner" posted the following:

Today is four weeks to the day since Feddie's "extremey reliable source" stated that it was "a done deal" that Rehnquist would step down in the next four weeks. If there is no announcement today, Feddie loses all credibility.

To which I responded as follows:

You know, you really are an ass.

Look, the person who told me that Rehnquist would retire within four weeks is an extremely reliable source. He/she is a person who is certainly in a position to know whether a Supreme Court vacancy is forthcoming. But as I noted recently, the situation is now extremely fluid. Things can and do change. Perhaps Rehnquist changed his mind about when to announce his retirement, or decided against retiring altogether. Who knows?

All I did was relay information from a highly credible source. And I have no doubt that his/her information was rock solid at that time. Now it is certainly fair game for you to criticize me for engaging in what can only be characterized as "law nerd gossip"; but to suggest that I somehow lack credibility if my source's intel re: Rehnquist never comes to pass is beyond ridiculous. And the glee you're displaying on this board about the mere possibility that I will be proven "wrong" only demonstrates what a small and petty person you are.

I stand by this post, but I am interested in hearing from SA's readers on the matter.

Let's do the opposite of whatever Kos wants:

We're going to have a conservative replace Rehnquist if he retires, and all four of these would likely be an improvement for our side. My choice would be Alberto Gonzales, torture lover that he is. Fact is, he would be the most likely to become the next Souter.

Does this really surprise anyone? Tom Cruise says he believes in aliens

Asked in an interview with the tabloid daily Bild if he believed in aliens, Cruise said: "Yes, of course. Are you really so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe?"

Me: Doesn't he believe that he has aliens inside of him? Or has he paid enough money to get rid of them? "Cheif Many Typos," where are you on this one?

I'm going back into the church business: Selling God A Lucrative Business

Last year, Lakewood brought in $55 million. Sales of Osteen's book "Your Best Life Now" became an instant best seller. But he makes no apologies for his style or his success.

Me: Personally, I think Osteen's kind of an idiot. Nice guy, I'm certain, but kinda dorky. (For what it's worth) That's not to say, however, that I'm on the "he's a heretic and should be condemned" train. A train, for those not in the know, that's very popular among other evangelical pastors with a disease scientifically called "sourmonia graposonia." From both a theological and a practical standpoint, I do have a problem with his frilly message - always free of sin, blood, guilt, etc. But, to be honest, I can't envision a scenario in which he stands before God, and the Good Lord sends him to Hell. Plus, I'll admit, I, along with countless thousands, stop on his sermons everytime I channel surf and sit there like a zombie for a few minutes before I regain consciousness and realize that Real World is on. (Actually, you know what I think? I think he has one of those brain-sucker-outer-thingies like the one the Riddler had in Batman Returns...)
Anyway, he's built an impressive - what's the word? - empire. And anyone that can attract thousands of people and millions of dollars with a sweet mullet (Ape Drape, Camaro Cut, Shlong (Short-Long), Mudflap, Hockey Hair, ten-ninety, Tennessee Tophat and Kentucky Waterfall, Neck Warmer and "Business in the front, party in the back") has my respect.
Here's his lead-in before sermons (memorize it, there will be a test later):

This is my Bible: I am what it says I am; I have what it says I have; I can do what it says I can do. Today, I'll be taught the Word of God. I'll boldly confess. My mind is alert; my heart is receptive; I will never be the same. I am about to receive the incorruptible, indestructible, ever-living Seed of the Word of God. I'll never be the same - never, never, never! I'll never be the same, in Jesus' Name.

In case you were wondering, the website that Bush mentioned that you can go to to support our troops can be found here.

The speech: In sum, I thought it was good and that the Democrat response was basically bitter, as usual. Though, again, I wish that Bush had provided a few more concrete examples of what exactly it will look like when the "job is done," overall I think he made it clear that it's irresponsible and silly to speak of such things at this present time. For whatever it's worth, right now is not the time to withdraw. And overall, as the Iraqis take charge of their own democracy, we will begin to withdraw...and not a day sooner. That's a fair point - regardless of whether one thinks we should have gone in the first place.
I also liked his points about why, in fact we have no need of more troops - because the commanders in the field say we don't need more troops. (I hope McCain was listening) I certainly trust their wisdom more than Nancy Pelosi's. Better still, Bush was wise to point out that sending more troops does nothing but send the message to Iraqis that they need not struggle quite so hard. He's right.
Again, I thought this was a great speech. Needless to say, the American people needed a little reassurance from our man that he still knows what he's doing. That's okay...we all need that sometimes. His tone and delivery was strong and resolute and I would wager that the folks will respond well after last night.
Anyway, here are some of what I consider to be the key points in the speech: (transcript)

These are savage acts of violence, but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists -- both foreign and Iraqi -- failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large number with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.

...The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch.

...Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe." Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi security forces. We made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely, helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf and Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul.

...Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

...I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.

...Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.

LEFT-WING PATRIOTISM
I unequivocally question the patriotism of groups that portray our troops in this fashion and actively seek to impede recruitment for our military. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin


On a more positive note, as we approach the 4th of July I can think of no better way to demonstrate one’s patriotism than by making a contribution to the Navy-Marine Corps relief society. This is a fine organization that provides much needed support to the families of Marines and Sailors. You can do so here.

Question of the day: Is Tibbles related to Toonces?

Breseden vs. The Left: Human Events says that Democratic TN Gov. Bredesen is getting acted by left-wing groups for having the audacity to try to pare back the ridiculously out-of-control TennCare program which is now the largest state medical program in the nation.

Given this leftist discontentment, I wonder how it will affect the Governor's bid for re-election in 2006. Will there be a challenge in the Dem. primary by a left-winger who believes that state funded heath insurance coverage is a fundamental right? And if the left doesn't succeed in ousting Bredesen, will there be an independent run?

Mississippi: Well, I got back from a two week stay at my parent's house TN yesterday after a 7 hour drive (though my dad did the driving), so I'm now back in good ol' air-is-so-humid-you-can-slice-it-with-a-knife Leland, MS.

Leland is just a few miles away from Greenville, where now-deceased author Shelby Foote hailed from. My co-bloggers have ably covered his passing below, but the one thing I'll add is how amazing it is how Mississippi which has never been a very populous state has produced so many top quality authors like Mr. Foote.

Thomas Decries Talk of 'Imagined Resignations'--Justice speaks at swearing-in of Georgia's chief justice (Leah Sears): The Fulton County Daily Report has the details here (LvHJB).

You can read my previous post praising Chief Justice Sears for inviting Justice Thomas to speak at her swearing-in-ceremony here.

BTW, a belated and hearty congratulations to Justice Harold Melton, who I know will done a fine job as the newest member of the Georgia Supreme Court.

The latest Supreme speculation, courtesy of Quin Hillyer (who Blogger is currently preventing from posting at SA).

The Shelby Foote obit at Ole Miss's Mississippi Writers Page includes links to several others, including his hometown paper, the Delta Democrat-Times. The NPR page includes links to the audio of three interviews he gave them over the years, including one on his friendship with Walker Percy. I'm sorry to note that the Memphis Commercial Appeal now requires you to register in order to read its website.

Rick Brookhiser: How very classy of you, sir.

CNN-USA Today-Gallup find continued erosion of public confidence in the Supreme Court:

A Gallup poll released on June 21st, 2005 shows that Americans' confidence in the Supreme Court has been declining. Gallup asked Americ