I was not going to write anymore today, but after reading this article by MAUREEN DOWD in the NY Times(I will refrain from any jokes) about Justice Thomas' dissent in the Michigan Law school case, I felt compelled to write.

Bitter Liberal

Andrew Sullivan

does a good job of addressing the article, but I feel I must add to it.

First off, she describes "The dissent is a clinical study of a man who has been driven barking mad by the beneficial treatment he has received." She then goes on to say " It's poignant, really. It makes him crazy that people think he is where he is because of his race, but he is where he is because of his race." So, what exactly is she implying? Is she saying that any minority who achieves a high position will only get there with the help of their white benefactors and therefore can not achieve it on their own accord ? Or is Dowd implying that a minority who does not follow the liberal mode of thinking and in fact is a conservative, certainly can't achieve high office, irrespective of their race, because all conservatives are racists?

Dowd goes on to say "When the 43-year-old was nominated by Bush 41 with the preposterous claim that he was "the best qualified" man for the job, G.O.P. strategists diverted attention away from the judge's scant credentials". Scant Credentials? Here is a bit form his Biography: J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974. Was admitted to law practice in Missouri in 1974 and served as an assistant attorney general of Missouri from 1974-1977. He was an attorney with the Monsanto Company from 1977-1979. Served as a legislative assistant to Senator John Danforth from 1977-1981.From 1981-1982, he served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education• Was chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982-1990. He became a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990. President Bush nominated him as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991

Bio

I would not call this a scant record except that unlike some, he spent his career practicing law rather than teaching it Or unlike Justice Ginsburg, he did not spend his time as the General Counsel of such a liberal institution as the ACLU.

Finally she states, "President Bush, the Yale legacy who also disdains affirmative action, is playing affirmative action politics in the preliminary vetting of a prospective Supreme Court nominee, Alberto Gonzales. No doubt Bush 43 will call Mr. Gonzales the best qualified man for the job, rather than the one best qualified to help harvest the 2004 Hispanic vote." Well first off, President Bush is not the only one who believes that Gonzales is well qualified, the ABA agrees with him. Secondly, She is implying that all conservatives, including the President, are racists because the only reason they would nominate a minority is because they are a minority and not because they believe they would make a very good Judge. Finally, she sneers at President Bush's status as a Yale Legacy. First off, Equal Protection is limited to discrimination based on race, religion, or gender and NOT preferences given for status. The 14th amendment allows anyone to give any beneficial treatment as long as it is not based on Race religion, gender, if it is, the preference is evaluated under a higher level of scrutiny, something Dowd seems to not understand. A Legacy is not based on Race, religion, or gender and therefore does not require Strict Scrutiny.

Some more information from the Supreme Court's Decision in GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER. Justice SCALIA, has some good stuff in his

Dissent

Here are some quotes:

"The educational benefit that the University of Michigan seeks to achieve by racial discrimination consists, according to the Court, of "cross-racial understanding and better preparation of students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, all of which is necessary not only for work, but also for good citizenship. This is not, of course, an "Educational benefit" on which students will be graded on their Law School transcript (Works and Plays Well with Others: B+) or tested by the bar examiners (Q: Describe in 500 words or less your cross-racial understanding). "

"Unlike a clear constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are impermissible, or even a clear anti-constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are OK, todays Grutter-Gratz split double header seems perversely de-signed to prolong the controversy and the litigation. "

"Some future lawsuits will presumably focus on whether the discriminatory scheme in question contains enough evaluation of the applicant as an individual and sufficiently avoids separate admissions tracks to fall under Grutter rather than Gratz. Some will focus on whether a university has gone beyond the bounds of a good faith effort and has so zealously pursued its "critical mass" as to make it an unconstitutional de facto quota system, rather than merely a permissible goal."

It seems I am not alone in my concern with this new concept of a "critical mass" being added to the "narrowly tailored" element of Strict Scrutiny in evaluating racial discrimination.

Brought to you by the people who gave you the MOAB:

Airborne Laser

The idea of an airplane that shoots lasers is VERY cool to a fan of Star Wars
Now they want to try to put a laser on fighter air planes!

F-16 Laser Simulator

You have the love that!

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has

The Best Jonah Goldberg Quotes From The Last Year -- June 21, 2002 - June 21, 2003

Some of my favorites:
"(J)ust to clarify: If you go into every situation saying there's absolutely nothing worth fighting over, you will inevitably end up on a cot sleeping next to a guy named Tiny, bringing him breakfast in his cell every morning, and spending your afternoons ironing his boxers. Or, in the case of the French, you might spend your afternoon rounding up Jews to send to Germany, but you get the point." -- Jonah Goldberg

"In the weeks prior to the war to liberate Afghanistan, a good friend of mine would ask me almost every day, "Why aren't we killing people yet?" And I never had a good answer for him. Because one of the most important and vital things the United States could do after 9/11 was to kill people. Call it a "forceful response," "decisive action" — whatever. Those are all nice euphemisms for killing people. And the world is a better place because America saw the necessity of putting steel beneath the velvet of those euphemisms." -- Jonah Goldberg

AND

"(I)f France's righteous bloviating against war makes them your Dashboard Saint of International Integrity, it's either because you are sand-poundingly ignorant of how the world works or it's because you think France's self-interest is more important than America's. If the former applies to you, read a book. If it's the latter, maybe you should move there along with Alec Baldwin, Robert Altman, and the rest of the crowd who promised to leave a long time ago. But whatever you do, don't call France's position principled, because that just insults us both." -- Jonah Goldberg


GO look at the rest, they are Great!!!

Dick Gephardt's folly. Commenting on the pending decision with regard to racial preferences in Michigan, Dick Gephardt made the following statement: "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."

CNN

Am I missing something? Is there some super secret part of Article II (delegating powers to the Executive branch) or Article III (defining the powers of the court) that I am not aware of that states that the Judicial branch will be the final arbiter of disputes over the Constitution except when overturned by Executive Order? NO! It frightens me that a candidate for the Presidency of the United States believes that he can take actions contrary to Supreme Court determinations. I certainly hope that Mr. Gephardt knows that Executive Orders are also subject to Court review and no amount of desire or contempt for a Court decision will allow him to make independent Constitutional determinations or amend the Constitution by Executive Order.

Well the Supreme Court issued the long awaited and much anticipated decisions in the Michigan Law School case and the Michigan undergraduate admission case.

Washington Post

In both cases, the Court determined that the States have a Compelling interest in promoting diversity but struck down the points system used by Michigan's undergraduate school. The Court ruled that the "Critical Mass" approach used by the Law School was Narrowly Tailored sufficiently enough to promote the compelling States interest in promoting diversity.
In Justice O'Connor's opinion, she cites the Appellant's belief by stating that the objective of the school was to "achieve that diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone's education and thus
make a law school class stronger than the sum of its parts." Justice O'Connor goes on to cite the brief by stating, the policy does, however, reaffirm the Law School's long-standing commitment to one particular type of diversity, that is, racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of students from groups which have been historically discriminated against, like African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans, who without this commitment might not be represented in our student body in meaningful numbers. By enrolling a "critical mass" of [underrepresented] minority students, the Law School seeks to ensure their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the Law School."

Law School Decision

The question remains, however, in what way will this "critical mass" approach to racial diversity manifest itself in other institutions. Since the points system was determined not to be Narrowly tailored, is seems quite evident that this is not the end of litigation on this subject. There will most like be subsequent litigation and decisions of the Supreme Court to define and set the outer limits to what can constitute a "critical mass" and what methods can be used to achieve such a "critical Mass." As a side note, I wonder if Justice O'Connor will retire soon, using this decision as a legacy?

The Guardian is reporting that there is a HIGH likelihood that an attack on a convey last Wednesday may have killed Saddam Hussein and one of his sons. DNA tests are being carried out.

The Guardian Unlimited

Of course this is only a preliminary report, but if true it could be BIG and a well needed boost for the embattled intelligence community.

Good news for the Nation! The Economy seems poised for a strong bounce for the rest of year!

Article 1

Article 2

The main factor that many point as a bad sign for the economy's future is unemployment. Everybody who has studied macroeconomics, however, knows that unemployment is a lagging figure with respect to economic recovery and the fact that it may have peaked is a sign the nation's economic growth is about to forge ahead full steam. This is a bad sign for the Democratic Party because many of the party's candidates were relying on the illusion that President Bush lacked the ability to pull the nation from the Clinton Recession.

Today, Ann Coulter announced that her new book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism will be released next week.

TREASON

Also today, a naturalized Muslim plead guilty to aiding al-Qaida and plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge

MSNBC

Two seaming unrelated stories linked together by the endless myopia of liberals in this country. The premise behind Coulter's book is that Joe McCarthy had legitimate cause to believe that Soviet spies or those loyal to the Soviet cause had infiltrated the government and American society. Much of the information that has come to light since the fall of the Soviet Empire suggest that the USSR did have a rather extensive network of informants in the United States. Coulter's book attacks the liberals for destroying McCarthy in fear of being caught themselves. Fast forward to today, when a naturalized Muslim pleads guilty to plotting attacks against the US. This is occurring in an atmosphere in which the Bush administration is facing increase criticism from civil libertarians for the detention of al-Qaida members in Cuba, and the detention of individual caught in this country since September 11'th. Viewing these stories together, the first thing that came to mind was the expression, "just because you are paranoid does not mean that everybody is not out to get you." Or, to relate it to the McCarthy error, "Just because you are a paranoid conservative drunk, does not mean that the State Department is not infiltrated with communist sympathizers." And of course to relate it to today, "Just because you are a Muslim, does not mean that you are NOT and Islamic Fundamentalism." Liberals have had a hard time excepting the existence of evil people who wished harm on this country and its people. In both the McCarthy instance and the current battle over the rights of suspected terrorist, liberals have refused to accept that the evil being prevented may actual exist. In both cases, liberals structured their argument to end to processes all together rather than to narrow the size of the net being cast over both classes of people. If the Liberal mindset prevails, this country will face an increased security risk do solely to the fact that they refuse to believe that bad people exist and are plotting evil against this country and therefore will refuse to do what it takes to protect its people.

Former Vice President Al Gore is assisting in the creation of a liberal media corporation that encompasses both cable news and talk radio:

Article

In addressing this topic, I will refrain from the very obvious jokes such as, isn't a liberal cable news station just redundancy, or if a new liberal cable news station is started, where would CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC get all their reporters. As a whole, I am not all that concerned with such an effort. It beckons back to the time when rich financiers would fund Newspapers for the sole purpose of being a vehicle for the thoughts of Hamilton and Jefferson. The whole concept (or illusion depending on your perspective) of a disinterested news source is a relatively modern idea. In the past, newspapers would have the title of the DAILY(fill in city here) Republican and the Daily(fill in City) Democrat and the names reflected the position or party they supported. But somewhere along the line, the newspapers joined and the idea that they should represent the news in a "neutral" manner was born. Unfortunately, for most of the 60's, 70's, and 80's, a liberal mindset dominated the prominent national media. It was until the rise of talk radio that conservatives had a means of expressing their views to the public. Furthermore, with the creation of FOX NEWS, the NY Post, and the Washington Times, conservative were able to reach larger audiences in the country. Much to the chagrin of Liberals, however, the Conservative news media has gained in popularity, reflecting the ideological split that exist in the country, something you wound not have seen if you were a media fan in the 80's. So, let Gore create his Cable News station and Talk radio stations, the fact remains that most liberals will continue to look to the traditional sources because there opinion is already express there. A new Media Company will only work when its target audience is not already get there view point out. This is not true for liberals.

Thanks to Frank at

IMAO

for linking to my page. Somebody may actually be reading my blogg!.

The Foreign Policy Research Institute has an interesting look at US and European relations.

FPRI

Sen. Orrin Hatch has chimed in on the debate over peer-to-peer downloading of music:

Washington Post

The fundamental issue with respect to peer-to-peer downloading, not addressing the legal arguments for or against the enforcement of copyright laws, is what is the motivation behind the success of such services. The fact remains that these services are popular because the music industry has priced themselves out of the market. People, mostly young teens and students, can not afford or are not willing to pay up to $24.00 for a CD in which they want one or two songs. Some Music CD's cost as much as movie DVD 's and some would argue the product is of much more substance. The Music industry has not kept pace with modern technology and demand of their target audiences. They maintain an outmoded means of marketing trying to force the consumer to conform to the product rather than modeling the product after the demands of the customer. If most industries were to take such an approach, the consumer has an alternative in products. Not so when it come to music. A handful of large Corporations control the marketing and price of all the music sold in the world and all utilize the same methods of marketing and sales. The consumers who want an alternative to the product offered, has no other alternative than to take part in alleged copyright violations. The continued existence of online sites to download music will continue until the music industry prices their product to a level the market will accept and conforms to the modern demands of the consumer.

Well, more junk Social "Science," with respect to gun ownership, is being touted as demonstrating that those who own guns are more likely of dying from gun wounds than non-gun owners.

Story

Eugene Volokh, however, does a great job of showing the ridiculous nature of their claims

National Review

As for my take on the story, let me first point out the obvious error in the assumptions made. First, the study does not distinguish between those who obey the law and own guns and those who take part in criminal activity and own guns. Just by utilizing plain logic, one would see that criminals who own guns take part in dangerous activities and deal with unstable people. It would seem logical to assume that the ownership of the gun did not cause their death by a gun but rather their lifestyle. Would a soccer mom who owns a gun and does not take part in criminal activity have the same risk of dying by gun as a drug dealer who deals with unsavory people? Of course not. But the study does not make this logical distinction. Furthermore, there is no mention of a law enforcement exception in the study. Do police own guns, yes. Do police stand a higher likelihood of dying from a gun shot, yes. Is the higher likelihood of their death cause by their gun ownership? Of course not. Furthermore, because criminals often own guns and take part in illegal activity, they also stand a higher likelihood of being shot by law enforcement. This is also not addressed in the study. This story is nothing more than anti-gun propaganda that makes illogical conclusions based on the fact that criminals often die by guns and does no distinguish between those who are law-abiding gun owners and those who take part in unreasonably dangerous activities and own guns.

Much like the revolutionary tide sweeping Iran(see below), a Pro-Democracy, Pro-Capitalism movement is beginning to take hold California.

Gray Davis Recall

This demonstrates an interesting shift in the focus of American politics. In the 2000 and 2002 elections, most of the battles were fought by the national party apparatus utilizing local mechanics. This was shown in the ballot counting fiasco in Florida, the fight for the Senate seat in New Jersey, and the run-off election in Louisiana. Now t appears that the State party leaders are beginning to understand the national consequences of local politics. This is shown in the recent fights over redistricting in Texas and the current movement to recall the Governor of California. This could be foreshadowing the 2004 presidential election. The victor of the 2004 election will most likely owe their success to a brutal campaign fought and won in the trenches of local politics and not on the national stage. This definitely elevates the importance of local party mangers, and those who have the best ground forces in key states will fair better than those who continue the 90's model of presidential campaigns. This could only be surmised as a natural result of the close elections of 2000 and 2004.

Pro-Democracy, Pro-West protests in Iran have been gathering steam in the past week.

The Washington Post

This could be the direct result of the United State's action in Iraq. Prior to the fall of the Hussein regime, the Pro-West reformers were limited in there efforts because the radical clerics controlled most of the security organization. The reformers understood that if the security apparatus were weakened significantly, Iran would be open to attack from Iraq. Now that Hussein is no longer in power, the pro-Democracy elements in Iran are free to operate in a relative safe environment free from the threat of foreign invasion. President Bush, this past week, reaffirmed the national policy towards Iran and Democracy by praising the reformers in Iran. This response resulted in a verbal condemnation from the ruling Clerics in Iran. But once again, US foreign policy is at odds with many of the European and Asian nations who continue to support the radical clerics. While a revolutionary tide begins to sweep Iran, Russia continues to give nuclear support to radical elements in Iran, and France continues to do business with the unpopular ruling clerics, disavowing the popular trend in Iran. By doing Business with an unpopular regime, those nations that continue to bolster the radical clerics make a democratic movement in Iran much more difficult while facing the loss of their investments much like they did in Iraq.

On this Flag Day:
The Stars and Stripes has once again gained a special meaning to a new generation Americans. Since the Vietnam era, the Flag was seen as a divisive symbol, one to be used in protest of Governmental action, and another to be used to support the Nation, its people and it soldiers. After the events of September 11, the American attitude toward the Flag has shifted from a vehicle for free speech to a symbol that embodies all that is good with our nation. Like the generation of Americans who saw the Flag raised over Mt. Suribachi symbolizing America's triumph over Evil, our generation has seen the American Flag raised over the ruins of the World Trade Center representing our defiance in the face tragedy, raised over the Airport in Kandahar demonstrating our undeterred pursuit of Justice for those Americans lost on September 11, and we have seen the Flag flown over a statue in Iraq showing our commitment to freedom for those who can not fight against oppression. Old Glory does not just represent the most powerful nation on the planet, it represent all those who have sacrificed so that others can be free, and undaunted commitment to justice, and a nation not divided by race or religion but united in the belief that all men are created equal and all deserve an equal opportunity to the benefits the world has to offer. The Flag is not just red, white, and blue material, it is America and all that is embodied in its founding principles. Happy birthday Old Glory.

The House and Senate, this past week, past a bill extending the child tax credit to low income households.

Article

The theory behind this "Tax credit" is that even though these homes do not pay income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes like Social Security and State taxes, therefore they still require a break. However, if one considers the nature of payroll taxes, the ludicrous nature of this theory soon becomes evident. Payroll taxes are used to pay for benefits people already receive or will receive in the future. So by grating a "credit" based on these taxes, the Federal government is in essence GIVING a double benefit to those who fit in the classification in which the bills cover. Furthermore, this argument disregards the fact that these households are already eligible to receive the $600 per child tax credit in addition to up to a $3200 earned income tax credit. Keep in mind, that all this is received by people who do not pay income taxes. The true motivation behind this credit is redistribution of wealth pain and simple. As for the State tax argument, it seems to disregard the basic characteristics of republican government in that the state operates as a separate entity from the Federal government. This attitude is of no surprise given the fact that, increasingly, the state governments look to the federal government to solve traditionally state problems. If a bill were to have been pasted granting individuals who earn less than $26,000 a $400 per child check and required no more from the recipients, the conservatives and fiscally minded moderates would be in a uproar. This bill in essence does the same thing. It is using the tax code as a vehicle for a welfare program that may not have been supported if the true motivation behind it was reveled. The tax code should remain as a means to gain revenue for the Federal government and not a vehicle for social engineering.

The "road map" to peace in the mid-east has take a wrong turn away from its stated objective.

Terror attacks in Israel

With the increase in terror attacks on Israel since the historic meeting between the three major actors, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush, and Palestinian Premier Mahmoud Abbas of the future state of Palestine, peace in the region seems to have slipped from the cautious optimism it once had had. I fear that the Bush administer is making the same mistake that the Clinton administration had made and has not learned why there was early success in the peace process.
The Clinton administration, and increasingly the Bush administration, figured that the issue of peace between Palestine and Israel can be isolated to the region in question; the so-called land for peace approach. What this method lacks is a greater appreciation for the foreign involvement in the battle. The early success in implementing the "road map," in my opinion, can be attributed to the threats the Bush administration laid out against Syria and Iran. These treats, legitimized by 300,000 troops in the region and the one-sided victory over Iraq, caused Hamas and the like terror organization to limit operation in Israel in fear of being the US's next target. The Majority of those who wish to continue the fight until Israel is pushed into the sea are based in Iran and Syria. This is why the large presence of US troop in Iraq had a somewhat stabilizing effect on the peace process. The Peace process will not be able to move past the present impasse until the foreign elements of Hamas and the like are either destroyed or so threatened that they can not operate. Only then, can the conflict in the region be isolated to the primary players of Israel and Palestine. By eliminating the foreign elements in the Palestinian-Israel conflict, those who have the most to gain from peace and the most to lose from the continued conflict will be allowed to work together to come to a mutually beneficial solution.

Irwin M. Stelzer Has an interesting article on the state of the Airline industry over at the

Weekly Standard

I think it is time the Federal government stops subsidizing the inefficiency of the Major carriers. Though this may result in many of them going out of business, this may not be a bad thing. In most industries, Capitalist pressures force those that operate inefficiently to go out of business. The ineffective Airline companies utilizing old and bloated management structures, however, are kept in business by the never-ending flow of funding from the Federal government. This limits the growth of those airlines, like Jet-Blue and Southwest, with a modern management structure that often operate at a profit. Governmental subsidizing of inefficient Corporations only prevents natural economic forces from rooting out those companies that do not have the ability to fulfill the primary goal of all Corporations, to operate at a profit.

Will the Clinton's EVER go away? Being a life-long Republican, I must admit that I am not all that upset that the Clinton's are still blabbering away and removing focus from those in their party who want to move on and have some of the media focused on them. Sen. Clinton's book really has taken away from the 30-40(or something like that) of her fellow democrats who are trying to run for President. In addition, the former President Clinton Is getting involved in everything from the

Scandal

at the NY Times, to the

War in Iraq

and his

Public yearning

to serve a third term has gotten more press coverage than most of the Democrat's Presidential candidates. Alexander Hamilton once said that a former President should leave the country after his term in office was completed. It has not been an issue in the past since individuals did not live as long as they do today, but now, both Democrats and Republicans may politely boot Bill Clinton to the door and take away his keys just so both parties can move on to developing new issues and candidates.

I think

Ann Coulter

may be on to something to here. One thing that the Democrats have yet to understand is that the American people have a rather high tolerance when it comes to Presidential decisions with respect to policy matters(see Iran-Contra). It is lying and scandal with respect to personal gain that the American people have little tolerance for.(see Watergate, Tea pot dome, and the entire Clinton Presidency.)

British Scientist Puts Odds for Apocalypse at 50-50:

REM anybody?

> Is this story REALLY necessary? Like there is not enough to worry about from the threat of Airplanes flying into buildings and Anthrax being sent out in the mail, now we have to worry about "A genetically engineered pathogen released, or debris from an erupting "supervolcano." If the facts of real life threats are not sufficient enough to send the general public in a duct tape and plastic buying frenzy, we now have Scientists thinking up new and more violent theories on how the world will come to end.

Well I am a recent Law school grad in the process of studying for the Bar. I am new to this whole Blog thing so please be patient and bare with my lack of experience