Capitalism Sucks

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Yes, that's the mindset at Democratic Underground. And not one user disagrees. The thread begins: "I can't think of a worse economic system under the sun."

How about the many "systems" that resulted in such a depression that its citzens fled en masse to greater countries? Please remind me why so many Cubans risk their lives to reach Florida every day.

A Woman's "Choice" for Perfection

Monday, May 29, 2006

Opponents of the right to kill one's unborn child are often portrayed by feminists and liberals as intolerant woman-hating brutes who get off on controlling women's bodies. We are told abortion is necessary because fathers are regularly raping their daughters. We are told it is necessary because poor women can't afford another mouth to feed. But one thing we are never told by the abortion activists is that sometimes the baby just isn't pretty enough.

Whether it's blue eyes and blonde hair that make a perfect human, or simply a foot that has a decent arch, there are plenty of traits that can make a person inferior. The golden standard may change from generation to generation, culture to culture, but the one thing that has remained constant is how to deal with such imperfections: the deprivation of live.

The Daily Mail reports on the other reasons why abortion is so handy:

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Babies are being aborted with only minor defects.

Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot.

It is one of the most common birth defects in Britain, affecting one in 1,000 babies each year. That means around 600 to 700 babies are born annually in the UK with the problem, which causes the feet to point downwards and in severe cases can cause a limp.

However it can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots. Naomi Davis, a leading paediatrician (sp) at Manchester Children's Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: 'I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this.

Figures also show that four babies were aborted since 1996 because they were found to have webbed fingers or extra digits, which can be sorted out with simply surgery.

Remarkable pictures recently have revealed how at just 23 weeks baby in the womb appears to smile, yawn and flinch in pain.

Club foot? That's just gross. Webbed fingers? What, is the baby a fish or something? Clearly we have no room in society for the retarded, and seeing someone with a constant limp is just unsightly. In the never-ending quest for perfection, it's all about the looks, baby. And when your baby doesn't make the grade, you are faced with a serious dilemma.

Thankfully you can fix your less than-perfect child. No, not with simple surgery. Well, yes, that works too. But for the busy woman who's always on the go or just doesn't like the idea of it, she can always elect to have an abortion. Just one visit to an accommodating clinic and that freak will be sucked from your womb so fast you'll hardly be able to call it an inconvenience...for you anyway.

So Much for Child Safety Locks

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Call Michael Moore. Another teen got his hands on daddy's gun:

With a man breaking through the front door, a Hollywood 15-year-old loaded his father's gun, waited for the intruder to come in and shot him, police said.

Keil Jumper, 22, who police said has a long rap sheet, was later found bleeding in an area between two houses. Police said Jumper was seriously injured but his injuries didn't appear life threatening.

The incident happened about 3:30 a.m. Saturday, when Jumper attempted to break down the front door, then picked up a bicycle to smash the window, police said. The sounds terrified a family of eight to 10 people who were asleep in the home, which is on South 61st Avenue in Hollywood, police said.

Police said the teenager is unlikely to be charged in the case. But they said Jumper, who was shot several times, will be -- once he's discharged from Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood.

The teen is unlikely to be charged? Try the teen is likely to receive a medal.

Judge Powerless to Stop Prayer

Sunday, May 21, 2006

This First Amendment case is a great example of how powerless the judiciary is to enforce its own rulings. When U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley told a high school graduating class that they couldn't recite a simple prayer, the students responded in mass defiance to a standing ovation and approval from the administration.

If only more graduation ceremonies were as exciting as this one:

RUSSELL SPRINGS, Ky. (AP) - A federal judge on Friday blocked a southern Kentucky high school from including prayers in its graduation ceremony, prompting students to begin reciting the Lord's Prayer during the opening remarks.

About 200 students interrupted the principal's comments with the prayer, drawing thunderous applause and a standing ovation from the crowd.

Earlier in the day, a judge banned prayers from the ceremony in response to a lawsuit filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit sought a restraining order on behalf of an unidentified student at Russell County High School in Russell Springs, 90 miles south of Louisville.

Later in the ceremony, senior Megan Chapman told the crowd that God had guided her since childhood. She was interrupted repeatedly by cheering as she urged her classmates to trust in God as they go through life.

A sign across the street from the high school at a garden center declared "We believe in prayer" in response to the judge's ruling.

The student mentioned in the lawsuit had appealed to Principal Darren Gossage to drop the prayer from the ceremony, but the principal refused, ACLU attorney Lili Lutgens said.

Lutgens argued that any prayer would be unconstitutional because it would endorse a specific religion and religious views. U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted the temporary restraining order, prohibiting the school district from having even a student representative say a prayer during the ceremony.

Superintendent Scott Pierce said he was pleased with the students' response to the ruling.

"This was a good learning process for them as far as how to handle things that come along in life," Pierce said. "They exhibited what we've tried to accomplish in 12 years of education — they have the ability to make these compelling decisions on their own."

I am not the least bit sympathetic toward atheists who are so full of themselves that they would attempt to keep a harmless prayer out of a high school graduation ceremony. Lest it's been awhile since you last read your copy of the U.S. Constitution, the Establishment Clause plainly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The ACLU has for the last century depended on liberal judges to expand the First Amendment in such a way that "Congress" also means: neighborhood associations, courthouses, teachers, attorney generals - and now, high school students.

The argument that religious commencement speeches violate the Constitution is a silly one. For the three or so tedious hours family and friends come together to celebrate the graduation of the senior class, church and state remain in their respective corners. So now that we've got that out of the way, there's no rational reason to fiercely oppose such speeches in such a way that one would go to the lengths of filing a federal lawsuit.

And I know. Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone believes in God. But just because you don't believe in what's being espoused in a planned sermon, doesn't mean you have the right or authority to censor it. It's not as if you're compelled to submit yourself to a specific religion when it's the subject of an oration. Like the pointless valedictorian speeches with hackneyed directives to make "the most of yourself" and "the world a better place," the remedy for the person who doesn't want to hear anything about Jesus or the path to God is to simply block it out.

Yes, we must tolerate the minority, but we must also tolerate the majority (and in Kentucky where the crowd got so enthusiastic - it's a pretty big majority), and it's absurd that the interest group with the word "liberty" in its name finds more of it in a shield against religious exposure than the ability of free persons to practice it as they see fit

It's Our Fault if Mexicans Die

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Mexico, which opposes any U.S. militarization of the border despite the fact that its side is crawling with soldiers, has actually threatened to sue us in our own courts if the National Guard become "directly involved in detaining migrants."

So why does Mexico oppose the National Guard on the border? Because the presence of troops would force illegal migrants to travel on more perilous routes to avoid detection - in order to break federal law. If anything were to happen along to way to these immigrants, it would of course be our fault.

It's hard to believe after reading this AP story that President Bush is still best buddies with the president of our neighbor to the south:

"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details.

Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths. Since Washington toughened security in Texas and California in 1994, migrants have flooded Arizona's hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have spiked. Migrant groups estimate 500 people died trying to cross the border in 2005. The Border Patrol reported 473 deaths in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

Juan Canche, 36, traveled more than 1,200 miles to the border from the southern town of Izamal and said nothing would stop him from trying to cross.

"Even with a lot of guards and soldiers in place, we have to jump that puddle," said Canche, referring to the drought-stricken Rio Grande dividing Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Texas. "My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it."

In Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas, Honduran Antonio Auriel said he would make it into the U.S.

"Soldiers on the border? That won't stop me," he said. "I'll swim the river and jump the wall. I'm going to arrive in the United States."

Look, if you want to swim in my pool against my wishes and jump the fence to get in, don't expect me to be responsible if you drown. The plight of many Mexicans to seek a better life is an understandable one, but once you take your first step into the desert you take on a great risk that you alone decide to try.

The United States government is charged by the Constitution to protect this nation and has the wherewithal to do so. Our commissioned officers have sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." And who are these foreign enemies? Terrorists. Terrorism as we all know, is a real threat, and one of the more practical solutions to keeping malicious invaders out of our country is to maintain an awesomely fortified border.

Unfortunately a vast number of migrants who seek only a better life get caught up in the mess, but our resolve must remain absolute. Our government is bending over backwards, trying to figure out a fair way to assimilate migrants into our society. But those who are jumping the gun take a deadly risk, and many will run into tragic consequences.

The threat of lawsuits is simply absurd. The U.S. government should be condemning them as pure foolishness and should be making it loud and clear that our federal courts will not compensate the parties of criminals who ignore our laws when they venture illegally into the United States.

Japan's Got it Right

Those guys don't mess around:

TOKYO (Reuters) - Foreigners arriving in Japan will be photographed and fingerprinted on arrival as part of measures to prevent terrorism, under a measure approved by Japan's parliament on Wednesday.

It allows Japan to deport any arriving foreigner it considers to be a terrorist, and requires planes and ships arriving in Japan to submit lists of passengers before arrival.

Japan's Federation of Bar Associations had called for the bill to be scrapped, saying fingerprinting foreigners violates a constitutional requirement to treat people with respect.

A police report in December said Japan was at risk of attack because of its close links with the United States.

Fingerprinting and photographs were introduced at U.S. immigration checkpoints in 2004.

But not soon enough. It should be a general rule that if you're not a citizen of a particular country, the government will be paying close attention to you. There's nothing "disrespectful" about fingerprinting foreigners inasmuch as it is quite disrespectful to cause massive casualties as a result of a covert terrorist strike.

We live in fearful times. Sometimes drastic measures must be taken to ensure public safety, even if we must go as far as taking somebody's fingerprints.

More of that Annoying Napoleon Kid

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Apparently a lot of people liked Napoleon Dynamite so much that another DVD edition has been pushed out of the factory: "Like the Best Special Edition Ever!" - two discs that apparently include more of that horrible, horrible dancing everyone loves so.

The question is: If you already have the one-disk Napoleon DVD, do you, like, go out and buy the "Best Special Edition Ever!" edition?

Bush's Immigration Speech: Practical or Pipedream?

Monday, May 15, 2006

President Bush's immigration speech tonight hardly justified pushing back "24" in order to accommodate an unclear plan that may bring stability to our nation's southern border. The rub, of course, is the enforceability to the president's strategy.

Here is Bush's five-point plan to "deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair."

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign Nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration – and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.

Bush is absolutely 100% correct on this. We need a secure border, but a border is only secure if we know who's crossing it. As of now there is no system in place to catch every illegal alien crossing the border. Bush wants to install 6,000 National Guard personnel and eventually hire 6,000 more border patrol agents. But are these numbers sufficient? Fox's Bill O'Reilly wants 15,000 National Guard troops. Why less than half? What kind of technology will the National Guard bring?

Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across.

Unless you believe in magic, this part of the plan makes no sense. How will a guest-worker program abruptly reduce the number of illegal crossers? If the first part of the plan is successfully implemented, and the border does become "secure," there will be no reason to introduce a plan to reduce the number of illegal aliens crossing the border!

The practical reason for something like a guest-worker program would be to provide a way for foreigners to legally find work in the country without applying for citizenship. The problem is, for this to work foreigners would have to comply with the rules that include returning home after the duration of the stay. But do we honestly expect those on the program to voluntarily leave the country? Can we bridge the program to a plan to legalization? Should we?

Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker.

Like step one, this part is crucial. It's too easy for illegal aliens to find work when employers are welcoming them with open arms. Companies must be heavily fined and punished for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. In Bush's world employers have been tricked into hiring illegal aliens, but how many do it knowingly?

Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully – and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.

This is the most unclear part of the plan. The president is against full-blown amnesty, but also against mass deportation. He calls for a penalty system that I believe is unattractive to illegal aliens who need an incentive to register in the country legally. Bush is pandering to the moderates while trying not to offend either end too much by pretending you can oppose deportation without granting amnesty.

Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language.

That's some sugary sweet goodness for you! This is all well and good, but in order to get to this point we must get step one right, and that requires immediate reinforcement of the border. Will 6,000 National Guard troops do the trick?

Regardless, it is a start. No one will be perfectly satisfied with the program, but at least the illegal immigration issue is getting some serious attention. Here is the recap:

Step One: Secure the Border. (Excellent, but the president's strategy for this is a long shot.)

Step Two: Guest-Worker Program. (Unnecessary; won't reduce number of illegal crossers, but a start to allowing for legal immigration.)

Step Three: Hold Employers Accountable. (Necessary, and can be easily enforced. Make it harder for illegal aliens to find work, and force them to become legal.)

Step Four: Legalize the Illegals. (This is amnesty even if you make them pay a fee for it. Needs clarity if not scrapped all together.)

Step Five: Honor the melting pot. (The president simply being a politician.)

From the Public School Chronicles

How did this tool not expect a parent to find out and complain about this:

A high school teacher has apologized for asking students to write about who they would kill and how they would do it, and officials said he will likely keep his job.

Michael Maxwell, who teaches industrial technology at Central High School, said his request that students in his beginning drafting class describe how they would carry out a murder was merely a writing prompt. It was not clear why he asked the drafting class to write fiction.

"I made a horrible mistake that I regret," Maxwell said. "I want to apologize to my students, my colleagues and to the community."

This would be no different from a teacher who asked his students to write about who they would brutally rape and how they would go about doing it. To say the teacher made a "horrible mistake" doesn't begin to describe it.

Look, I'm all for creative teaching methods, but sometimes you've just got to teach the damn curriculum and leave it at that.

Border Patrol Turns on Minutemen

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

The Department of Homeland Security employs Border Patrol agents to guard the United States/Mexican border by arresting illegal aliens and confiscating illegal drugs. Basically, if it's illegal and on or around the border, the Border Patrol gets involved. To many analysts, pundits and Americans, the Border Patrol is vital to national security and terrorism prevention.

So why is the Border Patrol working with Mexican officials to get illegal aliens across the border under the radar?

Because of the Minutemen. You've heard of them; volunteer American citizens fed up with the government's ineptness and unwillingness to effectively stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico. As a result of their presence, the Border Patrol has been sending intelligence to Mexico allowing illegal immigrants to know exactly where the Minutemen are:

According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants -- and if and when violence is used against border crossers.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.

"This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."

Minuteman members were not so sanguine about the arrangement, however, saying that reporting their location to Mexican officials nullifies their effectiveness along the border and could endanger their lives.

"Now we know why it seemed like Mexican officials knew where we were all the time," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. "It's unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country. They are sending intelligence to a nation where corruption runs rampant, and that could be getting into the hands of criminal cartels.

"They just basically endangered the lives of American people."

Reading this story makes me wonder why we even fund the Border Patrol in the first place when they're revealing the location of volunteers who do nothing more than report alien sightings to the proper authorities.

The "Nobody is Illegal" crowd vilifies the Minutemen volunteers, portraying them as racist and violent, even though despite their outbursts they can't produce any records of Minutemen acting violent toward illegal aliens.

We hear they're a bunch of "heavily armed" gun-toters. And white, really white! But we're not seeing the shootings. We're not seeing the cross burnings. We're not seeing any of the negative embodiment they supposedly represent.

We are however, seeing the effectiveness of the Minutemen, as the higher-ups have been ordering Border Patrol agents to cease arrests in order to keep the Minutemen from "looking good," if you can believe the spitefulness. But they're getting the job done and keeping the illegal immigration issue on the front burner - with or without the backstabbing by the American government.

Bush Seeks Negative Approval Rating

Monday, May 08, 2006

Not even Tom Cruise gets as much media attention as President Bush's poll numbers. "All-time low!" we are told, and then the next day we read the same headline. Why even waste the ink to print something that will be outdated in 24 hours? "Even lower than yesterday!" will read tomorrow's newspapers, blogs and journals.

But what does this mean for the president and the GOP? Absolutely nothing!

The Democratic Party, completely devoid of a clear agenda by which to lead (oh wait, they promise to catch Osama bin Laden!), is putting all of its chips on a Republican implosion. They look at Bush's poll numbers with glee, hoping that this November Americans will be desperate enough to vote for Democrats again.

According to the most recent USA TODAY poll -- yep, you've guessed it -- "Bush approval rating hits new low." It's at 31%, which I guess is worse than when it was at 34%, bleaker than when it was at 36%.

For Democrats, polls give them solace. They think bad polls for Republicans translate into election victories for Democrats. Pop-Quiz: How many times have Democrats won a majority vote in a national election to become president since FDR?

Answer: Two! Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. The former was damaged so badly by Vietnam that he opted not to run for re-election, and it took someone like Richard Nixon and his vice-president for Americans to give Democrats another chance. They elected Jimmy Carter, but then fixed that mistake by limiting him to one term in the White House.

But Democrats don't look at history. They look at polls; meaningless polls. As one political pundit put it so perfectly:

And then - despite the fact that every single man, woman and child in America opposed the war in Iraq and despised George Bush - a few months later, Bush won re-election against well-respected war hero John Kerry.

If history is an accurate predictor, Democrats should win Congress easily this year. They should have won it in 2004. Traditionally, the president's party loses Congress in the midterm elections. And we know how bad the Republicans are because Democrats keep reminding us. But then why do Americans continue to keep them in them?

Ramesh Ponnuru's 'The Party of Death'

Thursday, May 04, 2006

I'm late to posting on the blog but over at the main site you can read my review of Ramesh Ponnuru's excellent new book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, The Media, The Courts and the Disregard for Human Life. Here's an excerpt:

With a major midterm election on the horizon it's no wonder the current trend in conservative publishing is the production of "roadmaps" to taking back conservative values and Hugh Hewitt-style steps to ensuring GOP victories in 2006. But few books are delving into the substance on which Ramesh Ponnuru meticulously expounds: the sensitive social issues -- specifically on the topic of life -- of today's political climate.

The book: The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life may at first on a cursory glance look like an assault on liberal values, yet Ponnuru never explicitly charges any mainstream political party of facilitating "the party of death." It is however, no secret or coincidence, that those who support the legality of abortion, stem-cell research and euthanasia are Democrats. "The Democratic Party used to try to protect the weak. But too many of today's Democrats have become part of a 'party of death.'"

For the better, Ponnuru avoids the name-calling game, and instead of going after liberals and left-wingers as the enablers of the party of death, he mostly argues why you shouldn't be a part of it and why the opposing arguments are either flawed or flat-out wrong.

This is a must-read book for all pro-lifers. Buy it here and pass it along to friends and family.

America, You Lost

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

As anti-death penalty advocates celebrate the verdict for Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, let us be reminded that the unrepentant terrorist allowed 3,000 Americans to perish on September 11th, 2001. He may not have played a direct role in the attacks, but the fact that he woke up that morning knowing what would soon happen to the thousands of innocent civilians means he deserves the most severe sentence the federal system can bestow.

The rationalization for sparing his life is to deny him martyrdom. So instead, he'll live out the rest of his days in a prison cell that may or may not be furnished with cable television and access to a library.

Moussaoui taunted, "America, you lost. I won," as he was being escorted from the courthouse. And in many respects he is right. He was spared the ultimate sentence even though he took part in the ultimate crime against the United States.

Oh, but maybe supermax prison won't be so peachy. Maybe he will suffer. Maybe the 72 virgins will be spared. Considering the magnitude of this trial, a bitter outcome was unavoidable.

Alito's First Opinion

Monday, May 01, 2006

Big bad Sam Alito wrote his first opinion that was announced today for a Supreme Court that's supposedly going to "turn back the clock" on civil rights and blah bla-blah bla-blah. Nothing juicy here but being that it's Alito's first written opinion it's worth a mention:

By a 9-0 vote, justices said a South Carolina defendant's constitutional rights were violated by a rule that barred him from introducing testimony blaming another man because the prosecution had introduced forensic evidence that appeared to support a guilty verdict.

Alito wrote that the South Carolina Supreme Court was wrong because it looked only at the strength of the prosecution's evidence and did not consider information that defendant Bobby Lee Holmes had gathered in his defense, including that he was framed by police.

A trial judge excluded evidence that Holmes wanted to present that implicated another man in the 1989 beating, rape and robbery of Mary Stewart, 86, who later died of her injuries.

The prosecution's evidence included Holmes' palm print found on the door of the victim's house, fibers from his sweatshirt discovered on Stewart's sheets and DNA tests that implicated him.

Alito said "the true strength of the prosecution's proof cannot be assessed without considering challenges to the reliability of the prosecution's evidence."

You'd think with DNA evidence the conservatives would have been satisfied enough to throw away the key. After all, Clarence Thomas is the "cruelest justice" and Scalia is Scalia, but this just goes to show how bogus critics of the conservative justices are.

Deconstructing Another Stupid Scalia Critic

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is such an intellectual force that his critics (of which there are many) can't ever seem to logically deconstruct his arguments. Instead, they attack his character and temperament as if he's supposed to take unfair criticism lying down. A recent article in CQ Weekly is the typical anti-Scalia screed:

Conservatives love Antonin Scalia. And no wonder. The Supreme Court justice just loves to stick it to the liberals. And with life tenure he can get away with it.

This is such an absurd statement that I don't know where to begin. I don't recall Justice Scalia ever discussing his penchant for "sticking it" to liberals, most likely because he's too busy defending the Constitution as a Supreme Court justice. The author of this piece, Kenneth Jost, would have been more accurate in saying liberals love sticking it to Justice Scalia.

In recent weeks, Scalia has denounced people who believe in a "living Constitution" as "idiots" and told critics of Bush v. Gore to "get over it."

Right, because text doesn't change over time. I would agree there's something wrong with individuals (yes even those on the Court) who believe a text's meaning can change over time but only a judge can decipher the change. But why does Jost take offense to Scalia telling critics of Bush v. Gore to get over it? Should liberals still be fuming six years later? Is it Scalia's fault President Bush was re-elected (by the country and Florida) in 2004?

He has defended his decision not to step out of a case involving his duck-hunting companion Vice President Dick Cheney, and he has raised a new question about his impartiality in a pending case by publicly declaring that foreign terrorists are not entitled to jury trials.

Despite there not being a way to factually measure someone's impartiality, liberals are so sure Scalia is biased toward the vice president because they hunted together. But life-tenured justices have nothing to gain by practicing nepotism. That is why John Roberts and Sam Alito can hear cases involving the Bush administration even though the president gave them their jobs. They have no reason to favor him.

But what bothers liberals the most about Scalia is that he has spoken publicly about not favoring U.S. trials for foreign blood-spilling terrorists. It's an opinion many sane individuals have, but generic enough to allow the justice to hear cases involving this matter on the Court. We know what Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion is on abortion, but you don't hear conservatives screaming for her to step down whenever the Court hears abortion cases.

I find it humorous that Scalia's critics are still bothered by his "gesture" that nearly killed a reporter, and according to Jost, "that was at the least insulting and arguably obscene." More "insulting" and "obscene" than a reporter who disturbed the justice while he was attending church services in a private capacity?

Scalia has staked out some of the most conservative positions of any Supreme Court justice since perhaps the 1930s. And his vote has been decisive in any of the 5-4 decisions where he joined the majority, like the series of cases under former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist easing the rules for government funding of religious institutions and strengthening states’ rights in disputes over federal powers.

Yes, it is true conservatives usually stake out conservative opinions. It's an unexplained phenomenon scientists are still trying to crack in addition to figuring out why they believe states should have rights impervious to the federal government when everyone knows the men in D.C. knows what's best for the 50 states and its 300 million people.

Scalia's personal influence after 20 years on the court, however, is unclear. In most of those closely divided cases, Rehnquist turned to justices other than Scalia to forge and hold a majority. If he were to retire today, Scalia would be remembered mostly for taking positions in dissenting or separate opinions that even his fellow conservatives sometimes refused to join.

I think Scalia would be remembered as one of the most intelligent justices to serve on the Court, whose critics, like Jost, could only conjecture and be unable to criticize the logic of his opinions.

The reason why Scalia hasn't written an overwhelming number of majority opinions, according to political scientists, is because in order to keep moderate Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor in the crucial 5-4 bloc the opinion would have to be written by a more moderate justice. Don't be surprised when in a few years both Scalia and Thomas are given more majority opinions to write.

On several of his signature issues, Scalia is clearly in the minority on the court. Scalia believes in "original intent" as the only way to interpret the Constitution. At least six of the court's current members disagree, including the new chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr. Scalia believes that foreign law should never be used to help interpret the Constitution. A majority of the justices, including conservative Anthony M. Kennedy, disagree. And none of the other justices agree with Scalia on his stubborn refusal to ever look at legislative history in interpreting congressional statutes.

1: It's way too early to tell whether Roberts believes in "original intent" as he's been on the Supreme Court for less than a year.

2: Of course a majority of justices believe in using foreign law because with Anthony Kennedy they form a liberal majority! But reread how Jost phrases that point, as if there's something wrong with the position that foreign law shouldn't influence interpretation of our Constitution. "Scalia believes that foreign law should never be used to help interpret the Constitution." Why on earth do we need to consult foreign text to interpret how the U.S. Constitution was written? As Scalia has said in his reasoning (conveniently left out by Jost) how do we decide which foreign countries should shape our Constitution? France? Italy? Iran? North Korea? Congo?

I wonder what proponents of a foreign Constitution would say if you tell them a majority of countries have far more strict abortion laws than ours? Can we still use their influence then?

3: Jost is just plain wrong in saying only Scalia refuses to look at history when interpreting legislative statutes. Quite a few justices at some point, including Thomas, have narrowly focused on the text of the law. And that makes sense, American history hasn't always been pretty and if you can get an understanding of the meaning of a stature without conjecture it's the perfect way to go. Jost believes justices can somehow look decades into the past to determine how law makers "felt" when they wrote laws as a tool for modern interpretation.

He accused the six justices who struck down state anti-sodomy laws of taking sides in "the culture war." The five who voted to limit display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, he said, were guilty of "hostility to religion."

Because justices did take sides in the culture war when they determined it was wrong to ban sodomy. Using Jost's approach, the history of our legislature was hostile to sodomy. Word opinion has been hostile to sodomy. There's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly protects sodomy. Therefore, to say sodomy is a right is to take sides in the culture war.

And justices were hostile to religion when they limited the display of the Ten Commandments because the First Amendment says nothing about displaying religious documents in public.

Jost claims "Scalia's colleagues do not stoop to reply to his personal attacks," but if you read Supreme Court opinions you'll find the justices trading barbs with one another all the time; just read Stevens' concurring opinion (I know, it actually means reading) in Roper v. Simmons, where he attacks Scalia's originalist (and correct) interpretation of the Eight Amendment. But I'm sure Jost doesn't read Supreme Court opinions so I can understand why he lied.

The irreconcilable right wing cares little for the dignity of the court...That's politics perhaps. Scalia, however, is no politician, but a robe-wearing justice. The court - and the public it serves - deserve better.

Better what? Better justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who naps during oral arguments? Would that bring "dignity" back to the Court? Does America deserve more justices like the liberals in Kelo who gave the federal government the right to take your property and give it to another private party?

Just what, Mr. Jost, do you mean when you say America deserves better? Because I believe America deserves better, too. More justices like Scalia to frustrate people like Jost who frequently criticize their opinions without bringing up a single one of their legal arguments to debate. But I understand. It's much easier to after Scalia for using the word "idiot" to accurately describe his critics.

Limbaugh Avoids Slammer

A zealous prosecutor who once claimed to have a grab bag of charges against Rush Limbaugh has worked out a deal with the radio host to drop a single count of fraud against him in 18 months if Limbaugh agrees to continue drug treatment.

In case you didn't know the details, Rush admitted awhile back to being addicted to prescription painkillers had had sought like-prescriptions from four different physicians. A really bad writer at The Huffington Post, Jason Pollock was hoping to see Mr. Limbaugh in the orange jumpsuit:

As most of you now know, Rush has spent some time at the police station. Addicts can't control themselves and he just can't seem to get off his precious pills.

However, through all of this the Drudge Report is running a headline with Rush's face that plainly says, 'Not Guilty.' Are you kidding me?

Is Mr. Drudge trying to get the country and the world to laugh?

Just like everyone knows that Karl Rove is guilty and not 'focusing on the election,' everyone knows that Rush is a drug addict and that he was in fact doctor shopping.

I think the lines between the Daily Show and the Drudge Report are blurred more and more every day. Both media outlets make a point and get people to laugh. The difference is that Jon Stewart is making people laugh by telling them the truth and the Drudge Report is making people laugh because he reports mainly lies.

I am so sick and tired of the right wing constantly telling the world about how people should live clean and moral lives when they are the ones living lives of deceit and crime.

So we know Karl Rove is guilty. We know Limbaugh is guilty. We know Jon Stewart's fake journalism satire tells the truth while Drudge Report lies (even though 99% of the site links to official news sources) and right-wingers live "lives of deceit and crime."

Analyzing this garbage would be giving too much credit to Pollock.