When Will I Ever Learn?
That the path to a cushy university teaching job is to publicly express absolutely stupid ideas that only crazed left-wing nuts in the academic world could find merit with and love.
The most recent example I've run across: A Constitutional Law professor at the University of North Carolina who argues that the "Catholic majority" on the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. (link via)
...Beam me up Scotty!
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Ammo for BDS Sufferers
How typical that the MSM is suggesting that former vice-presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby has been convicted for publicly leaking the identity of a CIA agent.
The fact is that Libby was basically convicted for obstructing the investigation into the alleged leak which ultimately was found not to have emanated from the White House or been illegal. I strongly suspect, though, that these won't matter to BDS sufferers who will reach for any excuse, no matter how remotely connected, to bash the Bush Administration.
How typical that the MSM is suggesting that former vice-presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby has been convicted for publicly leaking the identity of a CIA agent.
The fact is that Libby was basically convicted for obstructing the investigation into the alleged leak which ultimately was found not to have emanated from the White House or been illegal. I strongly suspect, though, that these won't matter to BDS sufferers who will reach for any excuse, no matter how remotely connected, to bash the Bush Administration.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Reason #84939783847 Why Snotty Catholic Apologists Should Stop Blogging About Politics
So a recent Newsweek poll of registered Republicans shows that Rudy Giuliani is in the lead to be the 2008 Republican nominee for President. For self-described snotty "truth-tellers" like Mark Shea, this is just but one more example which goes to prove that the Republican Party is "unserious" about ridding this country of legalized abortion. Of course, the problem with using the aforereferenced poll to support this proclamation is that not all registered Republicans are actual members of the Republican Party. People who belong to the latter category can have direct influence over the party's platform, which last time I looked, contained an unambiguously pro-life plank.
It might be argued that Mark's allegation is supported by the above linked to article's disclosure that close to 2/3 of the registered Republicans who were polled don't even know what Giuliani's positions are on social issues. Then again, I'd be willing to bet that at least 2/3 of all American voters who are Catholic have no idea that the former New York City mayor thinks abortion should remain legal. Even worse is that a good chunk of these Catholics may actually agree with Giuliani. Does that mean the Catholic Church is "unserious" about abortion? I certainly hope not.
So a recent Newsweek poll of registered Republicans shows that Rudy Giuliani is in the lead to be the 2008 Republican nominee for President. For self-described snotty "truth-tellers" like Mark Shea, this is just but one more example which goes to prove that the Republican Party is "unserious" about ridding this country of legalized abortion. Of course, the problem with using the aforereferenced poll to support this proclamation is that not all registered Republicans are actual members of the Republican Party. People who belong to the latter category can have direct influence over the party's platform, which last time I looked, contained an unambiguously pro-life plank.
It might be argued that Mark's allegation is supported by the above linked to article's disclosure that close to 2/3 of the registered Republicans who were polled don't even know what Giuliani's positions are on social issues. Then again, I'd be willing to bet that at least 2/3 of all American voters who are Catholic have no idea that the former New York City mayor thinks abortion should remain legal. Even worse is that a good chunk of these Catholics may actually agree with Giuliani. Does that mean the Catholic Church is "unserious" about abortion? I certainly hope not.
New UC Law School is Unnecessary
A friend of mine forwarded this commentary from American Thinker to me about the proposed new law school at the University of California at Irvine (which is located in Orange County). The conclusion that it is unnecessary is something I agree with, and the disclosure that the school will focus on producing "public interest lawyers" is frankly disturbing.
Back in November, I had blogged that if there was to be a new UC law school, it should be located on the Riverside campus, not Irvine. But even if it was going to be located at my alma mater, the plan to make the new law school a training ground for liberal activists would be enough for me to still be against it.
A friend of mine forwarded this commentary from American Thinker to me about the proposed new law school at the University of California at Irvine (which is located in Orange County). The conclusion that it is unnecessary is something I agree with, and the disclosure that the school will focus on producing "public interest lawyers" is frankly disturbing.
Back in November, I had blogged that if there was to be a new UC law school, it should be located on the Riverside campus, not Irvine. But even if it was going to be located at my alma mater, the plan to make the new law school a training ground for liberal activists would be enough for me to still be against it.
Only Anonymous Leftists Hate?
Glenn Greenwald, liberal political commentator and hand sock puppet extraordinaire, says that only anonymous bloggers and e-mailers spew the kind of invective that Ann Coulter has (unfortunately) been expressing. According to the sock puppeteer, you'll not find any prominent liberal left-winger doing the same thing.
Patterico provides a nice listing of people and their recorded rantings which says otherwise. (In the comments section, I added Ted Turner and his "Jesus freaks" insult of Catholics on Ash Wednesday in 2001).
Update: At comment #126, I added political cartoonist Ted Rall.
Glenn Greenwald, liberal political commentator and hand sock puppet extraordinaire, says that only anonymous bloggers and e-mailers spew the kind of invective that Ann Coulter has (unfortunately) been expressing. According to the sock puppeteer, you'll not find any prominent liberal left-winger doing the same thing.
Patterico provides a nice listing of people and their recorded rantings which says otherwise. (In the comments section, I added Ted Turner and his "Jesus freaks" insult of Catholics on Ash Wednesday in 2001).
Update: At comment #126, I added political cartoonist Ted Rall.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Stop It, Already
Ann Coulter's now well publicized reference to Democrat presidential hopeful John Edwards as a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference was unkind and uncalled for, but those prominent conservative bloggers who are rightly criticizing Coulter need to stop characterizing the insult as being on par with using the "N" word. Doing so only lends credence to the false assertion that sexual orientation is the equivalent of and indistinguishable from race and ethnicity. Regardless of whether or not one is born with same sex attraction, the fact of the matter is that gay sex is biologically unnatural, and every person with homosexual tendencies has the innate capacity to stop themselves from acting upon their desires.
Ann Coulter's now well publicized reference to Democrat presidential hopeful John Edwards as a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference was unkind and uncalled for, but those prominent conservative bloggers who are rightly criticizing Coulter need to stop characterizing the insult as being on par with using the "N" word. Doing so only lends credence to the false assertion that sexual orientation is the equivalent of and indistinguishable from race and ethnicity. Regardless of whether or not one is born with same sex attraction, the fact of the matter is that gay sex is biologically unnatural, and every person with homosexual tendencies has the innate capacity to stop themselves from acting upon their desires.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Uh Huh...
In the spirit of the Lenten season, professional Catholic Apologist and BDS sufferer Mark Shea confesses his occasional sin of, get this, telling the truth in a mocking, flippant and snotty manner.
What an eye roller.
Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades Mark. How about confessing and repenting of the sin that you not only frequently commit in a mocking, flippant and snotty manner (a double sin) but which rhymes with the word "flying"?
In the spirit of the Lenten season, professional Catholic Apologist and BDS sufferer Mark Shea confesses his occasional sin of, get this, telling the truth in a mocking, flippant and snotty manner.
What an eye roller.
Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades Mark. How about confessing and repenting of the sin that you not only frequently commit in a mocking, flippant and snotty manner (a double sin) but which rhymes with the word "flying"?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Gay "Marriage"
Went to another Federalist Society sponsored event today, this time in downtown Los Angeles. The topic was gay "marriage", and there was a panel of four speakers that included the dean of Pepperdine Law School and former special independent counsel in the Whitewater matter, Ken Starr.
Two of the panelists were lawyers who are involved in challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 22, i.e., the California Defense of Marriage Act. The basis of their argument is somewhat technical, and disingenuous IMHO, but their position basically amounts to a contention that Prop. 22 invidiously discriminates against homosexuals and serves no legitimate government purpose.
The other two panelists, including Ken Starr, were presumptively against the legal recognition of gay "marriage". I say "presumptively," because the crux of their comments today pretty much focused on why the dispute over gay "marriage" should stay out of the courts and be resolved by the people through their duly elected representatives. One sensed the opposition these panelists had to gay "marriage" by the examples they provided as to how Prop. 22 could withstand constitutional scrutiny. (By "examples", I mean kinds of legitimate government purposes for which Prop. 22 serve. It is interesting to note that the government doesn't even have to be right about a particular purpose, e.g., traditional marriage results in less maladjusted children, in order for it to be legitimate.)
Since the event was co-sponsored by the left-liberal American Constitution Society, there were a significant number gay "marriage" proponents in the audience. I'm happy to report that no fisticuffs occurred, and I got 1.5 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education credits for basically $20.
Follow Up: I just remembered that one of the pro-gay "marriage" panelists attempted to argue that gay "marriage" was not an ideological issue that fell along liberal-conservative lines because noted stalwart conservatives like Andrew Sullivan are in favor of making gay "marriage" legal. Talk about self-undermining your argument.
Went to another Federalist Society sponsored event today, this time in downtown Los Angeles. The topic was gay "marriage", and there was a panel of four speakers that included the dean of Pepperdine Law School and former special independent counsel in the Whitewater matter, Ken Starr.
Two of the panelists were lawyers who are involved in challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 22, i.e., the California Defense of Marriage Act. The basis of their argument is somewhat technical, and disingenuous IMHO, but their position basically amounts to a contention that Prop. 22 invidiously discriminates against homosexuals and serves no legitimate government purpose.
The other two panelists, including Ken Starr, were presumptively against the legal recognition of gay "marriage". I say "presumptively," because the crux of their comments today pretty much focused on why the dispute over gay "marriage" should stay out of the courts and be resolved by the people through their duly elected representatives. One sensed the opposition these panelists had to gay "marriage" by the examples they provided as to how Prop. 22 could withstand constitutional scrutiny. (By "examples", I mean kinds of legitimate government purposes for which Prop. 22 serve. It is interesting to note that the government doesn't even have to be right about a particular purpose, e.g., traditional marriage results in less maladjusted children, in order for it to be legitimate.)
Since the event was co-sponsored by the left-liberal American Constitution Society, there were a significant number gay "marriage" proponents in the audience. I'm happy to report that no fisticuffs occurred, and I got 1.5 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education credits for basically $20.
Follow Up: I just remembered that one of the pro-gay "marriage" panelists attempted to argue that gay "marriage" was not an ideological issue that fell along liberal-conservative lines because noted stalwart conservatives like Andrew Sullivan are in favor of making gay "marriage" legal. Talk about self-undermining your argument.
Monday, February 26, 2007
John Yoo
I went to a Federalist Society speaking engagement today that featured John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall) and former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. From 2001 to 2003, Professor Yoo served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice.
As you might well be able to guess, the main topic of Professor Yoo's talk was the war on terror, and in particular, the national security policies of the Bush Administration (e.g., NSA wiretapping, coercive interrogation of terrorists, the Patriot Act). For all the handwringing that "civil libertarians" have been engaging in over these policies, Professor Yoo persuasively illustrated that not only does the administration have precedence on its side, none of what is going on now is nearly as "drastic" as what past presidents have done in previous wars. Roosevelt, for example, had ordered the monitoring of all forms of domestic communications a full year and a half before the U.S.'s formal entry into World War II. The Republic not only survived this seemingly imperial act, civil liberties would actually be expanded after the war concluded.
What I really found interesting about Professor Yoo is his willingness to publicly defend the Bush Administration's national security and war policies even when the administration itself does not seem all that interested in doing so. Indeed, this is the one major criticism that Professor Yoo has of the administration (he was especially critical of former Sec. of State Colin Powell and current Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice).
As a side note, I got to speak with Professor Yoo a little bit before he gave his lecture, and he informed that his old boss, Justice Thomas, will be releasing a book of his memoirs sometime this summer. In case you're wondering, the book is expected to address the whole Anita Hill affair.
I went to a Federalist Society speaking engagement today that featured John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall) and former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. From 2001 to 2003, Professor Yoo served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice.
As you might well be able to guess, the main topic of Professor Yoo's talk was the war on terror, and in particular, the national security policies of the Bush Administration (e.g., NSA wiretapping, coercive interrogation of terrorists, the Patriot Act). For all the handwringing that "civil libertarians" have been engaging in over these policies, Professor Yoo persuasively illustrated that not only does the administration have precedence on its side, none of what is going on now is nearly as "drastic" as what past presidents have done in previous wars. Roosevelt, for example, had ordered the monitoring of all forms of domestic communications a full year and a half before the U.S.'s formal entry into World War II. The Republic not only survived this seemingly imperial act, civil liberties would actually be expanded after the war concluded.
What I really found interesting about Professor Yoo is his willingness to publicly defend the Bush Administration's national security and war policies even when the administration itself does not seem all that interested in doing so. Indeed, this is the one major criticism that Professor Yoo has of the administration (he was especially critical of former Sec. of State Colin Powell and current Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice).
As a side note, I got to speak with Professor Yoo a little bit before he gave his lecture, and he informed that his old boss, Justice Thomas, will be releasing a book of his memoirs sometime this summer. In case you're wondering, the book is expected to address the whole Anita Hill affair.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Bizarre, Yes; But Not That Uncommon
Rob Vischer over at Mirror of Justice quips that Judge Larry Seidlin's handling of the Anna Nicole Smith case makes a compelling case for a return to jurisprudential formalism.
Here's a sampling of the reported behavior by Judge Seidlin:
As crazy as this stuff is, Judge Seidlin's behavior isn't all that uncommon as far as judges are concerned. Fact of the matter is that a lot of judges, not all of them, are big time ego-manics who treat the courtroom as their little kingdoms where they can do almost anything they want. So when Vischer rhetorically asks if we can agree on the need to return to formalism, my answer would be an enthusiastic "yes!" Problem is, this kind of stuff has been going on for so long there's really nothing to return to.
Rob Vischer over at Mirror of Justice quips that Judge Larry Seidlin's handling of the Anna Nicole Smith case makes a compelling case for a return to jurisprudential formalism.
Here's a sampling of the reported behavior by Judge Seidlin:
The flamboyant Seidlin, rumored to be coveting his own reality TV show, let the proceedings spin out of control. The judge interjected himself into testimony, talked about his daily routine and wardrobe, and chatted nostalgically about his roots in New York, where he was once a cab driver. He freely gave nicknames such as "Texas," "California" and "Mama" to the people involved in the trial.
As crazy as this stuff is, Judge Seidlin's behavior isn't all that uncommon as far as judges are concerned. Fact of the matter is that a lot of judges, not all of them, are big time ego-manics who treat the courtroom as their little kingdoms where they can do almost anything they want. So when Vischer rhetorically asks if we can agree on the need to return to formalism, my answer would be an enthusiastic "yes!" Problem is, this kind of stuff has been going on for so long there's really nothing to return to.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
What, No Lenten Call to Fast for Tax Hikes on the "Rich"?
I dearly love the Catholic Church, but this using of Ash Wednesday and Lent by some in the hierarchy, particularly in my home diocese, to advocate illegal immigration and open borders in this country is a bunch of garbage. (link via)
Yeah, not only am I not going to do what is being requested by the diocese, I may see if I can organize a game of this to be played.
I dearly love the Catholic Church, but this using of Ash Wednesday and Lent by some in the hierarchy, particularly in my home diocese, to advocate illegal immigration and open borders in this country is a bunch of garbage. (link via)
In Orange County, the church asked people to fast — consuming liquids only — for one day between March 26 and 30 as an appeal for citizenship opportunities for undocumented immigrants and reductions in visa application backlogs for the families of immigrants.
The church also called for a temporary worker program.
Yeah, not only am I not going to do what is being requested by the diocese, I may see if I can organize a game of this to be played.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Note to Lovers of Trindentine Mass
If you live in or around Orange County here in California, the Diocese of Orange has authorized (finally!) the offering of another Tridentine Mass. Said Mass will be celebrated on a six month trial basis every Sunday at 7am at the Pope John Paul II Polish Center in the City of Yorba Linda.
You think Bishop Tod Brown might be trying to set this up to fail?
If you live in or around Orange County here in California, the Diocese of Orange has authorized (finally!) the offering of another Tridentine Mass. Said Mass will be celebrated on a six month trial basis every Sunday at 7am at the Pope John Paul II Polish Center in the City of Yorba Linda.
You think Bishop Tod Brown might be trying to set this up to fail?
Monday, February 12, 2007
I'm Number 1 on AOL Search!
Thanks to Site Meter, I discovered that I am at the top of the list for AOL searches on "Donovan McNabb life as a child till now."
Woo hoo!!
Thanks to Site Meter, I discovered that I am at the top of the list for AOL searches on "Donovan McNabb life as a child till now."
Woo hoo!!
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Bashing Bush Through "An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare"
While I don’t mean to denigrate, or even doubt, the psychological trauma that Eric Fair claims to have incurred, his published article in the rabidly anti-Bush Washington Post about what he experienced as a contract interrogator in Iraq raises an eyebrow. Indeed, my eyeballs just rolled when I read Fair’s suggestion that the wanton prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, which the military began investigating well before it ever became news, is indistinguishable from the apparent approved interrogation practices of particular captured terrorists who may have information about planned terrorist plots. And the evidence Fair puts forth to support this suggested comparison, continuing violence in Iraq, is less than persuasive.
On a related front, some are quite predictably using Fair’s article as an opportunity to reassert their belief that the Catholic Church regardsdeportation torture to be “intrinsically evil,” and that anyone who disagrees with this is just a mindless apologist for SatanBush. Yeah, I don’t exactly know how he makes this connection either, but BDS has been known to make people lose all semblance of sense and sensibility.
Update (2/11/07): Somehow, I don't think the vital information provided by the detainees mentioned here was obtained by offering them milk and cookies.
While I don’t mean to denigrate, or even doubt, the psychological trauma that Eric Fair claims to have incurred, his published article in the rabidly anti-Bush Washington Post about what he experienced as a contract interrogator in Iraq raises an eyebrow. Indeed, my eyeballs just rolled when I read Fair’s suggestion that the wanton prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, which the military began investigating well before it ever became news, is indistinguishable from the apparent approved interrogation practices of particular captured terrorists who may have information about planned terrorist plots. And the evidence Fair puts forth to support this suggested comparison, continuing violence in Iraq, is less than persuasive.
On a related front, some are quite predictably using Fair’s article as an opportunity to reassert their belief that the Catholic Church regards
Update (2/11/07): Somehow, I don't think the vital information provided by the detainees mentioned here was obtained by offering them milk and cookies.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Oh. My. Gawd.
The Archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, states in a radio interview that he does not know what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's position on legalized abortion is.
Un-freakin'-believable.
The Archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, states in a radio interview that he does not know what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's position on legalized abortion is.
One of the show hosts described Pelosi as "not only pro-choice, but she would be someone who would be working to try to keep abortion legal." The Archbishop was asked, "In your view is she less of a Catholic because of that?" He replied saying about Pelosi, "We haven’t had an opportunity to talk about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but I don’t believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be, if I haven’t had a chance to talk to her about it."
Un-freakin'-believable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)