Sunday, July 31, 2005
Hi everybody!!! : )
I'm so excited!!! There are big changes afoot, but I'm not allowed to tell you anything about them. For the moment let me say that we are entering a new era in Make Me a Commentator History. As you can see we have redone the look of the blog. We have also finally updated the Quotes Page.
Also you will note we all finally filled out our Blogger Profiles over there on the left. You will see there are now six of us (hint! hint! ;-)) including the Monster. Anyway I think we are going to make the big announcement tomorrow so get ready for that! : )))
Friday, July 29, 2005
Thought I would give you a short update. The Monster has been here for about an hour. He scanned the last several weeks of the Blog, until he saw something that apparently really upset him. : ( I think he was upset anyway, since he immediately threw the chair he was sitting in out of the window and roared at Make Me a Commentator Management. He went charging into their office and we heard a few crashes. I noticed that the website was scrolled up to this post.
A few minutes ago a message came over the intercom telling us that we were all excused for the day and that the office would be closed over the weekend for "refurbishing." So I don't know what is going on. At any rate, it looks like we won't be having any updates over the weekend - but you never know what will happen.
At any rate, you have a nice weekend and keep smiling! : )
Hi all! : ))
Just a reminder to fill the mail bag. If you have any comments on the blog send them to this e-mail address, or simply post them in the comments section of this blog. And our mail handler, Space Lobster, will responde to them on Monday.
Also for those of you who are fans of The Monster, I'll report that he has returned from his trip; he'll be visiting the offices later on today, and may start posting here beginning of next week! So that's exciting!
Yes, I, Mr. Irwin J. McIckleson, Fictional 1910's Plutocrat, am here to escort you on a trip through the Liberal Coalition. Before getting to the Liberal Coalition I did have a few stories of my own that I thought were interesting and deserved comment.
First of all, I am heartened to see that the tradition of quackery is alive and well in this future age. Quackery is one of the pillars of any strong society; for how can a civilization thrive if it has not mastered all the arts of deception. And Kevin Trudeau certainly seems like a world class quack. Consider these words from his book.
If you read the labels of everything you put in your mouth, you would see the name [sic] of various chemicals. All the chemicals listed are dangerous man-made chemicals. They are poisons. If you were to take any of those chemicals and ingest a large amount at one time, you would probably die. Therefore they are in fact poisons.What a triumph of illogic! I hope you future men are smart enough to realize the obvious value of medicinal chemicals. Chemicals are necessary and life preserving, and I can only imagine that, 100 years hence, you have developed even more powerful Chemicals. But for those who are foolish enough to doubt the integrity of chemicals or the scientists who create them, it is good to know the quack will still be there to strike.
I also read an article which stated that the National Labor Relations Board is banning employers to fraternize during their off hours. Or as the headline puts it, "Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour." What abject cruelty. Even I have to marvel at the immense lack of concern for workers shown by this policy. In my day, we were known to be cruel to our employees, but forbidding them to enjoy each others company out of the factory? The thought makes me blush (or it would, had not an industrial accident removed the ability to blush from me).
Ultimately though, the purpose of cruelty to your workers has to be to inspire them to produce more. Thus punishing them outside of work is particularly pointless, unless the object is to make their life outside of work so painful they would prefer to work rather than leave the factory. But if that is the goal, it might be more practical to simply lock them in!
But enough of my fripperies. On to the Liberal Coalition.
AND THEN . . . has a fascinating discussion of secret languages, or languages known only to a very few. It is interesting to consider that there are truths that cannot be conveyed in simple English or Latin; but such must be the case. Still it's all a bit mystical for me.
blogAmy has a section on a man I take to be the Current Majority Leader in the Senate and his allegiance to the National Rifle Association. It provides an interesting study in how the interests of the Plutocrats do not always coincide perfectly. Certainly easy availability of firearms for our workers can be seen as a somewhat dangerous state of affairs, yet the Gun Making Plutocrats want to be able to sell their product. Apparently the Gun Making Plutocrats have largely succeeded in whatever struggle occurred. So much that now that Senate Majority Leader is in favor of not holding them responsible even if they should sell the gun to a lunatic or irishman!
According to a piece by Collective Sigh, former President Clinton has been offered a dowry of cows and goats for his daughters hand. Personally I would refuse such an offer, but each father has to make that decision on his own, I suppose.
LeftyBrown's Corner has some thoughts on Movie Films about Superheros. I gather they mean some kind of dime novel characters. I guess those could make interesting movies. Anyway he lists his favorite of those kinds of Movie Films.
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time has some complaints about how the United States Government serves it's most valuable citizens, the plutocrats. Apparently he is upset that a recent government bill benefits energy plutocrats far more than it does anybody else. To that I say Bah. Plutocrats made this country, so naturally they should reap the greater share of its rewards.
Dohiyi Mir has a discussion of how to handle bomb-throwing anarchist prisoners. Apparently it is the better part of wisdom to use such prisoners to implicate their fellow criminals. Also apparently the people President Bush has put in place to accomplish this have not been successful at convincing prisoners to aid them in the such for their enemies.
Respectful of Otters has a picture of an adorable child who is apparently the authors daughter. I have to say the art of photography has advanced considerably since my time.
Rooks Rant has commentary on how the United States need for Oil as a natural resource has led them to invade Iraq. I still strongly suspect that the cost of invading and extracting the oil will not equal the value of the oil produced. I also agree that if Oil is in limited supply it makes sense to take steps to minimize its use.
First Draft has some comments on the fact that the President apparently made rude gesture while in public? I must admit to be shocked that any United States President would have so little decorum as to make a gesture of this time. What has happened to the values of America, if such a thing can be brushed aside so easily?
T. Rex's Guide to life has a quiz one can take to find out what sort of humor one creates. I assume that now, with science having advanced so greatly, human nature can be efficiently and easily mapped through questionnaires of this nature. I'm sure that has positive effects as workers can be placed with people with which they will work the most hard.
And that's it for another week.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Hi All! :-)
Apparently Cheetahs might be able to make a comeback! This is good news; and it points to how environtmentalism works best. Apparently rather than acting as scolds, they explained to people how preserving the Cheetahs were in their best interest (because of tourism, naturally). So this is a good week for cats!
Molly Ivins, in her latest article, expresses dismay that Roberts may actually have some opinions. Apparently the fact that he belongs to the Federalist society (a conservative organization) is enough to convince her that he doesn't belong on the bench.
My first reaction to Roberts was: "Sounds like that's about as good as we can get. Quick, affirm him before they nominate Bork, Bolton or Pinochet." A conservative with good manners and no known nutball decisions or statements on his record? Hey, take him. At least he's not (whew!) a member of the Federalist Society.Well, I certainly agree that it was foolish of Cornyn and Roberts to try and hide his allegiance to the Federalist Society. That said, I can understand why they would, given the DISDAIN the Liberal and the media elite have for conservatism.
No such luck. Cornyn, who I would have sworn is not this stupid, apparently signed off on having the nominee "forget" he was a member of the Federalist Society, and Roberts obliged, which is strange considering his reputation for brilliance and a spectacular memory.
Turns out the guy is listed in the society's 1997-98 "Leadership Directory" as a member of its steering committee in Washington. How many steering committees have you been on that you've forgotten about?
Sometimes smart mouth liberals will note that Conservatives control the Congress, the Presidency, and soon the Supreme Court. Usually I just respond by noting that REPUBLICANS are not the same as CONSERVATIVES. There is some overlap, but not as much as you would think.
But to a larger extent the argument misses how completely Liberals control our national discourse and how much they work to delegitamize conservatism and Conservatives. They don't want to hear what we have to say and so constantly mock and ridicule us.
So while I don't agree with hiding Robert's membership in the Federalist Society, I can't really blame him.
Although really, when you think about it, it's hard to characterize anything Ann Coulter does as "friendly." ;-)
Good morning all! As you have guessed taking on Ann Coulter's latest article. Her latest article is all about how awful John Roberts is. Or how awful she assumes he is, because, just like the rest of us, she doesn't seem to know anything about him.
But naturally, being a cup half empty kind of person, she assumes that President Bush let down her and the Conservative Movement because that's what Republican Presidents do.
Republicans are desperately trying to convince themselves that Roberts will be different because they want to believe Bush wouldn't let us down on the Supreme Court. Somewhere in America a woman is desperately trying to convince herself that her husband won't hit her again because he told her "things are going to be different this time." (And yes, that woman's name is Whitney Houston.)Reading lines like that last one always make me feel bad for Ann Coulter. Can you imagine how much she must struggle with self-worth if she gets pleasure over writing those kinds of mean spirited attacks? What a sad woman.
But the larger point is this; we don't know what kind of Justice Roberts will be. That makes liberals nervous and distrustful, and it's nice that at least some conservatives are sharing those feelings (even if not for exactly the same reasons).
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Who says the New York Times is all bad? Not I. In my opinion the New York Times is no more than 98.4% bad.
But in an editorial published at the New York Times today, they take a stance on Homelessness that I approve of.
The [Homeless] advocates argue that some of the shelter residents in question suffer mental illnesses and should not be held accountable for their actions. The city clearly needs to be careful in the eviction process. But the advocates need to read the writing on the wall. From now on, homeless New Yorkers will be pushed to take more responsibility for reclaiming their lives, and that is not at all a bad thing.See that's a good start. But how about this, instead of asking the Homeless to take MORE responsibility, why not simply ask them to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY For their own lives.
Of course, expecting the Homeless to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY would put a dent in the social welfare industrial complex's bottom line, so I can see why the Times might not want to take the obvious next step.
Hi all! : )
Just want to point you to a few posts I noticed wandering around the internet this morning.
First of all you should go check out Random Goblin's site today. He's on a bit of a tear about a quiz he got and I think his dissection of it is dead on.
Then you might check out this post over at the Babbling Brook. It's such a nice story about a kitty; reading it made me feel really nice inside.
Finally you ought to consider these words from gavagirl about the Golden Rule, and how you can apply it to yourself as well as others. She gives some very sage advice.
Anyway that's all for now - have a super day! : - ))
Hi all! :)
I'm not sure about that title now that I think about it. It's kind of mean, isn't it, Mr. Shapiro? I don't know I guess I wouldn't like being called a Blockhead. In fact I know I wouldn't. I just read your latest article, entitled "This is War Blockhead" and I didn't like that title one bit.
I guess there are worse things you could call your readers, but why call them names at all?
Sometimes I'm forced to wonder exactly how DUMB do Liberals think that Conservatives are? I get that feeling from a recent article by Sean Gonsalves in which he asks if Conservatives are smart enough to figure to investigate terrorists.
. . . not only are ''liberals'' out to destroy America with their bleeding hearts and soft-headedness, they're also Jean Paul Sarte-reading navel-gazers.You see the subtext I take it. Conservatives aren't BRIGHT enough to do detective work; only Liberals with their more advanced way of looking at things are.
Now, to see how ridiculous this is, imagine if this real-men-don't-introspect logic was applied to, say, police homicide investigations.
Detectives routinely ask why. Why would someone kill this particular person? What was the motive? In doing so, cops aren't ''justifying'' murder. They're not making excuses when they speak of what environmental circumstances provided the opportunity or the encouragement to kill.
Conservatives would never think of trying to figure out where the terrorists are, say. Or figuring out what the badguys are trying to do. This is doubly funny or annoying when one considers how Liberals have consistently tried to hamstring the FBI and the CIA.
No, I'm sorry, but Gonsalves is dead wrong. What Conservatives find objectionable from these questions is not how they are used to figure out where the terrorists are. Instead we find it offensive that Liberals would use such questions to SCOLD America and force their anti-American views down our throat.
It's one thing to ask where Osama will strike next and another to ask what he thinks of America's foreign policy or tolerance at home. I can see asking the first; asking the second is stupid!
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Hi all ;-)
You know motorcycles are dangerous right? No protection in the case of a crash (except may be a helmet). They go super fast and are pretty much invisible.
But did you know a motorcycle could cost you your job? Apparently it can. So be extra careful around motorcycles! ;-}
E. J. Dionne's latest article is about the Network of Spiritual Progressives. But apparently this conference of Leftist Believers has a number of problems. First of all they were barely able to get 1,200 attendees. Compare that to any Conservative Religious Conference and see what you come up with.
Secondly Dionne suggests that they are a non-inclusive group.
Assuming an authentic commitment to inclusion, spiritual progressives must be willing to leave the door open for those whose world view may differ.It's clear, incidentally, that Dionne doesn't really believe in moral truths that much. I've noticed that when Liberals fail to understand Conservative Christians, this is often the culprit. They can't believe that anybody would be so STUPID as to believe in MORAL ABSOLUTES and STANDARDS.
One of my of criticisms of conservative Christianity in particular has been the ease with which they can post a No Vacancy sign for anyone who is not in lockstep with their ideology.
. . . spiritual progressives would do well to learn from history.
African American Christians apparently do believe in Moral Absolutes, which explains why only 15 chose to attend this meeting. 15 out of 1,200. The organizing committee must have been overjoyed.
At any rate, I think Liberal Christians will have to eventually consider Matthew 6:24, and decide where they really need to be.
Hi all! ;-)
A lot of Conservatives like to pretend that liberals believe that the first, last, and only solution to any problem is more government involvement. The truth is that it's much better when problems are solved without any government involvement. Some government regulation is occasionally necessary, but it's always better if citizens can solve problems themselves.
That's why I was both pleased and upset by John Tierny's latest article. In it, he relates how some environmentalists are taking a new approach to conservation in Utah; they are purchasing the land they wish to preserve. Or to be more precise, they are purchasing the grazing permits for said land.
Mr. Hedden's group doesn't use lobbyists or lawsuits (or guns) to drive out ranchers. These environmentalists get land the old-fashioned way. They buy it.So that is a nice way to preserve our land.
To reclaim the Escalante River canyon, Mr. Hedden bought the permits that entitle Mr. LeFevre's cows to graze on the federal land near the river. He figures it was a good deal for the environment because native shrubs and grasses are reappearing, now that cows aren't eating and trampling the vegetation.
Mr. LeFevre likes the deal because it enabled him to buy grazing permits for higher ground that's easier for him and his cows to reach than the canyon.
That said, there is some trouble coming for this deal. Apparently some of the ranching interests in Utah want to see federal intervention to put a stop to these kinds of deals. They believe that their way of life will be endangered if some of these lands are allowed to revert to nature; and they are pressuring the Bureau of Land Management to put cows back on these lands. Hopefully they won't.
Anyway it is a nice idea, at any rate.
Does the United States Commander in Chief deserve a certain degree of trust? Hasn't he earned it? If anything, this is a President who stymies his opponents by doing what he says he will do.
So what do you make of this little snippit in an editorial at the New York Times by Frank Rich?
When the president decided not to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman, why did he pick a white guy and not nominate the first Hispanic justice, his friend Alberto Gonzales? Mr. Bush was surely not scared off by Gonzales critics on the right (who find him soft on abortion) or left (who find him soft on the Geneva Conventions). It's Mr. Gonzales's proximity to this scandal that inspires real fear.So apparently there was a delay between the time the White House was informed of an impending investigation and the time that investigation actuallyoccurredd.
As White House counsel, he was the one first notified that the Justice Department, at the request of the C.I.A., had opened an investigation into the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife. That notification came at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003, but it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must "preserve all materials" relevant to the investigation. This 12-hour delay, he has said, was sanctioned by the Justice Department, but since the department was then run by John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist who refused to recuse himself from the Plame case, inquiring Senate Democrats would examine this 12-hour delay as closely as an 18Â½-minute tape gap.
What Rich doesn't say, and presumably doesn't know, is whether or not the Bush administratoin used that time to cover up evidence. Rich, being a liberal and a reporter (somewhat redundent there), assumes that the hated President Bush must have. I'm not sure the American people share the "get Bush" mindset of Rich.
Good Morning all! : ) I'm somewhat chipper, despite Dennis Prager's efforts to bring me down.
You see Dennis Prager holds me partially responsible for the recent terror in London and the ongoing terror in Iraq. Apparently seeing the Palestinian Conflict in anything but Black (Palestinians) and White (Israelis) leads people to justify terrorism. He also seems to imply that a leftist Israeli government agreed to give up 97% of Israel to the Palestinians - I'm pretty sure that's not right. I think a correct formulation would be 97% of the lands Palestinians requested.
To be fair to Mr. Prager's argument, there are a few leftists who have indicated solidarity with Terrorist Groups. But the vast majority of American Liberals are sickened by the use of terror as a political tactic.
I think that, from Mr. Prager's point of view, the use of terrorism invalidates any position the terrorist might take. If a terrorist claimed that "Dogs make good companions," we'd all have to become Cat people. Obviously this doesn't apply to terrorists who blow up abortion clinics or who kill doctors. So the fact that leftists believe that Palestinian Terrorists are worthless murderers and also believe that the Palestinian people have legitimate grievances against Israel, well that just blows their minds. : )) So they have to lash out at us.
Looked at in that light, I guess Mr. Prager's anger is a bit understandable. But I don't think that excuses blaming us for international terrorism.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Hello Spacesters. It's Space Lobster again. "I will crush Captain Starfaller with my mighty pincers!"
This weeks mail-bag is a little sparse, which I find surprising. After all what other website gives you the chance to have your letter read and responded to by a mutant space lobster? And if that is too time consuming, simply leave a comment in one of the posts, and check back on Monday. Odds are good I will respond!
At any rate, let's get to today's letters. The first is from a Ahmed Bello in Sierra Leone.
I KNOW THIS PROPOSAL LETTER MIGHT BE A PLEASANT SUPRISE TO YOU AS WE DO NOT KNOW OUR SELVES BEFORE. I AM MR.AHMAD BELLO,A SIERRA-LEONIAN BORN 30 YEARS AGO,NOW SEEKING ASYLUM IN DAKAR-SENEGAL UNDER (UNHCR). I CONTACTED YOU AS A CAUSE OF MY SERIOUS SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON THAT CAN HANDLE SUCH A CONFIDENTIAL TRANSACTION OF THIS NATURE.First of all, I had hoped that by this stage in human evolution you would have devoloped the lower case letter. I see other's of your time and species have; maybe you should learn from them Mr. Bello.
Secondly, If you think I am A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON you must be using the terms in a way I am unfamiliar with. I'm a lobster, not a person. I'm a space villain, so I'm not really trustworthy. And need I reference #1A31 when Emperor Reptilion trusted me to guard Captain Starfaller and he talked me into letting him go, and giving him the keys to the Emperors private space limo? That's doesn't sound very trustworthy to me. So I think that maybe you should return to the drawing board.
It was a pleasant surprise to get your letter though, I do have to give you that. It had been several days since someone had asked to use my (non-existent) bank account.
The other letters this week seem to have been in Chinese which I do not read or speak. I do read Space Candadian and Lunar Valley Girl, so it's not that I'm not good at languages.
So please send me some real letters so I can respond to them. This is Space Lobster, saying, "I will crush Captain Starfaller with my mighty pincers!"
One of Liberals biggest complaints about the Iraq War (along with their OUTRAGE that America would actually defend itself from TERRORISTS) is that the President has failed to sufficiently provide for the war. Liberals decry President Bush's fighting the war on the cheap.
Of course President Bush's reply has always been that he would give the Generals what they needed to successfully prosecute the war. Anything America's fighting men need to win this war, they will have. Kind of shuts up that argument, doesn't it?
But Joseph L. Galloway has come up with an answer to that, in an article reprinted at Commondreams. Apparently America's Generals and Military Leaders are all cowards. Who says Liberals don't love the American fighting man?
Apparently America's Military leaders are so overwhelmed with President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, they are afraid to ask for the men and tools they need. Maybe President Bush should try smiling more.
Really, if this is the best Democrats can do, it's no wonder they are where they are electorally speaking.
Good Morning ! :)
Just read a very touching article over at the New York Times, comparing the sacrifices of previous generations of soldiers with the sacrifices of today's soldiers. While the sacrifice is generally the same, the respect shown that sacrifices is considerably less, it seems like.
Only 135,000 men and women in American uniform are fighting - volunteers, members of the National Guard, reservists. There is no draft. No threat of a uniform hangs over the citizens of a nation of nearly 300 million who, in polls, support the invasion of a remote country upon whom our government would pin guilt of 9/11 ... and then attack. An invasion that was ordered by an expertly trained but combat-innocent fighter pilot and a draft-deferred character with "other priorities" during the Vietnam War.Anyway I thought it was a good article.
Remember we will be doing our Monday Mailbag after lunch, so if you have any comments about the weblog, post them in the comments section, or send them here!
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Hope you are having a nice weekend - just a note to let you know we updated the blog again - Grumbly got to pick out the quote this week.
Also remember, if you have any comments on how we might improve the website, send them to firstname.lastname@example.org or post them in one of the messages and our mailbag correspondent will respond to them tomorrow.
Friday, July 22, 2005
This is Irwin J. McIckleson, fictional 1910's plutocrat, welcoming you to another edition of Round the Horn. My fourth if memory serves. I'm afraid that today's may be a big abbreviated. We are having a bit of a celebration. I just fired my thousandth worker. I was so tickled I gave him bus fare home.
Apparently President Bush has nominated someone to the Supreme Court, a Judge John Roberts. All Facts and Opinion has some information on this gentleman, and I must say, he sounds like a delightful fellow. According to this, he is opposed to environmental protection and he's in favor of excessesive arrests, both strong plutocrat positions.
corrente has some additional information about Judge Roberts. Apparently he may or may not have been a member of a secret society (called the Federalist Society, although I assume they are also an occultist group, what with the mention of elves), and he gave advice to the Presidents Brother on helping his Brother win Election (although we do not know what said advice consisted of.
Liberty Street has some more information on Judge Roberts and also suggests that liberals fight as if they want to win, rather than being satisfied because President Bush could have picked someone worse. I must say, she has a point. In my negotiations, it's always important to set your goals high, forcing the other person to stretch.
Perhaps an experience from my past might help illuminate my point. A couple of years ago, some of my die cutters went out on strike, demanding a pay increase from a pittance to a pittance and a quarter. I put a stop to that. I had some associates collect bee-hives from around my summer cottage and we did thrust them into the midst of the striking employees. That put a stop to their lawless ways in hurry. And it was all because I refused to compromise on my desire to pay them only a pittance.
Bark Bark Woof Woof has some more information on this Rove blackguard we keep hearing about. Apparently there is some discrepancy between what Rove and a gentleman associate have said and what reporters, testifying in the case, have said. This could leave Rove vulnerable to the charge of perjury. I find, in my various legal troubles, that it's best to be strictly honest and upfront with the court. And then bribe everybody and their mothers out of the courtroom.
bloggg has a discussion on finding exactly the right purse or handbag to carry. I must say the designs are a little different than in my day, but they seem sturdy enough.
Dodecahedron has a suggestion for bloggers - we should all take a month off from watching television news. That will be quite easy for me, as the Television has yet to be invented here.
Science and Politics has a post on a recent literary release, a book about a person called Harry Potter. It sounds interesting enough.
Musing's Musings is traveling through the American Southwest and visiting Shakespeare and Marlowe performances. The mind boggles at who could be performing Shakespeare among the sagebrush, but perhaps the area has become more civilized in the intervening century.
And that is it for another week. One of the secretaries bought in some Anise and Almond Cake to celebrate my 1,000 firing, so I'm going to go get a taste. And them I'm going to fire her, as she obviously has too much time on her hands.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Good Afternoon all! : )
There is a very interesting review of Supreme Court Nominee Judge Roberts over at the New York Times Website. It warns against using the cases he's argued as a barometer of his judicial reason. When you are hired to argue a case, you argue the case, even if your personal feelings don't match up with the opinion you are required to express.
In fact, the fact that he has spent so much time as a lawyer and so little time as a judge my strongly affect how he operates on the bench.
In the confirmation hearings for his appellate judgeship, Mr. Roberts said he was bound to apply the Supreme Court's precedents. That was a good answer at the time, but it is no longer terribly relevant: as a Supreme Court justice, he would be free to overturn the court's earlier rulings. Would he read precedents broadly or narrowly? And under what circumstances might he vote to uphold precedents with which he disagrees?I think of this a little like a battle. As a lawyer, Roberts had to fight his courtroom enemies on the legal terrain created by the law and by precedents. As a Supreme Court Justice he will have the power to change the terrain. Will using that power come naturally to him?
The truth is that Judge Roberts probably doesn't have a well-thought-out theory of stare decisis. As an appellate lawyer and judge, he had no need or occasion to develop one.
IN fact, very few Supreme Court justices have developed a theory of stare decisis that is entirely satisfying. At one extreme there is Justice Thomas, who, according to his colleague Justice Scalia, is willing to overturn any precedent he thinks is inconsistent with the original understanding of the Constitution. At another extreme have been justices like John Marshall Harlan, who, in the name of judicial continuity, are very reluctant to overturn precedents, even those with which they disagree.
It's hard to say, but one suspects he might learn how to use that power after a while, anyway.
While I generally approve of President Bush's selection of Judge Roberts, some of the articles I've read this morning do raise legitimate questions. Ann Coulter, for example, points out that we really don't know very much about Judge Roberts.
Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It's as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.This is a legitimate question; we do have congress. President Bush could have had any nominee he wants, so why pick a consensus candidate? Why not take the moment to rub their noses in a candidate who represents the beliefs of those who sent him to the Presidency? Does President Bush assume that a bunch of WISHY WASHY MODERATES and LIBERALS sent him there? No the people who voted for him wanted him to do something.
If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
Ben Shapiro, in his latest article, underlines what the people hoped he would do.
Yes, Roberts is a political conservative. His track record amply demonstrates that. But politics is no guarantee of jurisprudence: Just ask Earl Warren. Politics is no guarantee that the Constitution will be upheld: Just ask Warren Burger. Perhaps Roberts will turn out to be a Rehnquist. That will be satisfactory, politically if not constitutionally. But President Bush had the once-in-a-presidency opportunity to nominate a clear originalist. Instead, he abandoned absolute adherence to the Constitution in favor of political expedience.I'm not as pessimistic as Shapiro. I am sure that President Bush and Judge Roberts had long conversations in which Roberts impressed President Bush with his desire to uphold the Constitution.
Still I do find myself wishing that President Bush had picked someone a little more cut and dry. One of the more troubling aspects of this debate is how the Liberals are taking this news. They seem to think that Judge Roberts is acceptable. I might be reading too much into this, but the mere fact that Liberals aren't going off the rails about this nomination might indicate he's not really the man of the hour.
But I trust President Bush, so I'm willing to forego judgment for a little while.
Good Morning Sunshines!
Just read an inspiring article by Bill C. Davis. His main question is what does it mean to be an American, and he answers it in an inspiring way.
Malcontents, dreamers, rogues, persecuted minorities, people "yearning to breathe free", even broken-hearted lovers – pack up, shake the dust of their homeland from their itchy feet and make tracks for the canvas of America.He also talks about the many Hispanic and Mexican come tot his America with this passion to work and build new lives for themselves. We, as Americans, should recognize and respect that drive to better this country.
America, as a nation and a concept, invites the troubled geniuses and the ambitious architects – the hungry and the disinherited - into the great casino. The one thing anyone passing through the actual and metaphorical Ellis Island has to have, then and now, is a passion to work.
Consider this for a moment. How much wealth does government regulation create each year? Note the term wealth, which is not the same as money. Wealth indicates something of value has been created, as opposed to lawyers fees which, in reality, add no value to anything.
The truth is regulation creates no wealth. It can't. All it can do is prevent wealth from being created.
Larry Kudlow, in an article reprinted at Townhall, suggests that our new Supreme Court Justice understands this principle.
Roberts is a genuine free-market judge, someone who will not assume that business is always guilty until proven innocent. He should land on the side of limiting damages for personal injury and product liability settlements, which hopefully will include asbestos, medical malpractice and phony securities lawsuits. He may also be sympathetic to corporate patent-holders of intellectual property, while seeking to oppose local regulators in areas of telecom access, energy development and production, and streamlined power utilities.SELFISH WORKERS, ZEALOUS REGULATORS, and CRAZED ENVIRONMENTALISTS have all had their day in court. Now, with Roberts on the Bench, perhaps it will time for those people who create the wealth in this country to get their (FAIR!) day in court.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Hi all! :)
I've been doing some research on this Judge Roberts that President Bush nominated last night.
Imagine something with me. You are sitting on the bus with some fast food in your lap. You reach into and nibble on a french fry. Suddenly you are arrested, hand-cuffed and searched. Your shoelaces are taken away from you. You are finger-printed and detained. Now imagine you are 12 years old while all this is going on.
This is what happened to a 12 year old girl riding a Washington DC Bus. Apparently the city had a zero tolerance policy on french fries.
Judge Roberts said that the policy was not a violation of this young girl's rights. The fourth amendment says, in part, that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . . " I don't know if eating a french fry makes an unreasonable search reasonable. But Mr. Roberts apparently does. He ruled that the girl had not had her rights trampled on.
Mr. Roberts thinks that this would not have been seen as an unreasonable search when the constitution was adopted (in 1791), so it shouldn't be seen as an unreasonable search now. Well there's lots of things that were seen as normal in 1791 that wouldn't be seen as normal now! Like Slavery, for example. If you want to read his decision in this case, here it is.
Anyway, I haven't made up my mind on Roberts yet, but this doesn't look very good to me.
Well, President Bush has announced his candidate for the Supreme Court, Judge John G. Roberts. First of all, let me say how focused and principled President Bush. With all the NONSENSE around Karl Rove, it would be easy to push this particular fight off until later. But President Bush isn't one to put political expediency over the need of the nation. Instead he is willing to fight for a Supreme Court Nominee he believes in, while this other confusion is going on. So BRAVO, Mr. President.
Let's see how the Conservative world is reacting to Judge Robert's nomination. The Heritage Foundation likes him.
President Bush promised the American people that he would nominate Supreme Court justices who would not legislate from the bench and would be in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.And from the Family Research Council, you have Tony Perkins singing Judge Robert's praises.
He has fulfilled that promise tonight, with the selection of a judge of unquestionable integrity and proven fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.
President Bush has chosen an exceptionally well-qualified and impartial nominee for the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts is widely respected for his fair judgment, intellect and integrity, all things qualifying him to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice. I believe that Judge Roberts will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.I wouldn't count on that fair hearing, Mr. Perkins. There still are a few Democrats around.
Judge Roberts is well-qualified and experienced and he deserves a fair up or down vote. There should be a fair hearing for this fair minded judge.
Bill Kristol, at the weekly standard, approves the selection as well.
The occasion was an opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court. Bush seized the opportunity, in two ways: He moved the Court a solid step to the right (to speak vulgarly), and he elevated its quality. It's true that Roberts is a Rehnquist, not a Scalia or a Thomas. He'll be a little more incremental, a little more cautious, than some of us rabid constitutionalists will sometimes like. But he is a conservative pick, and a quality pick--and, to my surprise, a non-PC, non-quota pick.Yes I must say I also think it's nice that he didn't stoop to PC posturing. President Bush might have felt some pressure to nominate a minority or a woman to replace O'Conner. While I certainly don't mind more (conservative) women on the bench, I think the President should pick who he thinks is best for the job. And, I think, he picked the right man for the job!
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Just read something over at the Huffington Post I found interesting. Let's look at it.
Then Fund went on to say (astonishingly people can speak after a lobotomy) that Ambassador Wilson’s claims regarding yellowcake uranium were proved false.This is the world Democrats inhabit; a world where any roadblock in their agenda can be eliminated with a wave of a magic wand and a mention of the missing WMD's.
Did I wake up in a world where WMD’s were found and a democracy was born in the Middle East while the entire war paid for itself in oil?
Did Joe Wilson claim that WMD's wouldn't be found, that Democracy wouldn't be born in the Middle East, and that the war wouldn't pay for itself with oil money? He may have; certainly there have been enough DEMOCRATIC DOOMSAYERS around.
But his chief claim was that President Bush lied when he spoke of Saddam seeking Enriched Uranium in Africa. As far as I know that claim has never been proven true and Wilson was in no position to know one way or another. He couldn't know what happened in other parts of Africa, and he couldn't know what BRITISH INTELLIGENCE discovered.
But that's a good strategy for Wilson. When you are proven FALSE, just claim you predicted something else!
Hi all! This won't be a very upbeat post, just to warn you. : - (
Here's what Blair should say to the Muslim leaders: "The onus is on you guys. You find and shut down the terrorists and their network. You turn those who incite, plan and encourage violence over to the authorities. If you don't act, we will by closing and bulldozing the mosques and schools that incubate and instruct the killers, prosecuting the terrorists we find and deporting them and their clerics, and closing our borders to anyone from countries that harbor and teach terrorists. Those who are British citizens will be stripped of their citizenship."This is from Cal Thomas's latest article, in which he pretty explicitly calls for Britain (and America, I'd guess) to outlaw Islam, unless all terrorism immediately stops. I don't know if that's very likely.
To make us feel better and allow us to "get on with our lives," we make believe the jihadists are a tiny minority and not "mainstream Islam." But what if they are mainstream - part of an elaborate conspiracy designed to dupe the West while the infiltration of Britain, America and all of Europe continues unabated?This is the kind of statement one should be embarrassed to make, I think. You are encouraging suspicion and hate, Mr. Thomas, based on nothing. Of course we need to protect ourselves against terrorists, but does that mean we need to become as hateful an genocidal as they are?
Wake up, America and Britain! The jihadists are after us and they will stop at nothing until we all live under the banner of Islam, either by fear or by force.Churchill and Truman went after those who had attacked us, Mr. Thomas. They didn't go after people who happened to dress like the people who attacked us. So maybe you should rethink this call to arms, and refocus it on those who are our real enemies.
Where have you gone, Harry Truman and Winston Churchill? Our nations turn their lonely eyes to you. Boo-hoo-hoo.
Just a friendly thought : - )
What is an outrage to Democracy? One would guess it had something to do with the will of the people, as expressed through their votes, was not followed. Thus if the American people voted for President Bush in hopes that he would nominate a constitutionalist judge, well it would be an outrage to Democracy. Or at least that's how I see.
But, as is often the case, Liberals see things very different from me. Paul Loeb, in an article reprinted at Working For Change, argues that letting the President nominate someone like Alberto Gonzales is an outrage to democracy.
We may not win in challenging Gonzales, but at least we will make clear why giving him a lifetime appointment is an outrage to democracy. We can highlight the profound destructiveness of the values that he and this administration represent. We can challenge the Republican "moderates" to stay true to their word and maintain the option of the judicial filibuster.Well I agree, that Gonzales is no conservatives first choice to fill the court. After 70 years of judicial activism dividing this country and taking it away from Constitutional principles, we need a fighter. Gonzales is a good person, but he's not going to fight for conservative, constitutional powers.
And, obviously, this article points to the ABJECT FOOLISHNESS of trying to nominate a moderate candidate in order to placate these Liberals! If Gonzales is worth a filibuster, if the Attorney General represents "extraordinary circumstances," well, we'd have to nominate Bill Clinton to avoid a liberal meltdown.
And if we are going to incur their wrath anyway, why not put a strict constitutionalist on the bench, someone who will set us on the path back to a constitutional America.
Good morning everybody! : )
David Limbaugh's latest article has the uplifting title "Let's all Get Along." Unfortunately the article itself isn't as uplifting. Instead of arguing in favor of getting along, he urges President Bush to ignore all such please and to nominate a staunch conservative to the bench.
Mr. Limbaugh is sort of pretending that more than half the country voted for President Bush because they wanted him to nominate an extremist to the Supreme Court. I think President Bush won more on national security than on the Supreme Court, but what do I know.
I do know, though, that calling people jokers is not a good way to make friends. And it's kind of sad to complain about Democrats "dedicating their lives to maximizing political acrimony," when your brother said, once, "Enraging liberals is simply one of the more enjoyable side effects of my wisdom."
Maybe getting along could start at home, eh, Mr. Limbaugh?
Monday, July 18, 2005
Hi all! : )
Got a new manga over the weekend - Alice 19th by Yu Watase. It's pretty good so far. But she takes a side bar to talk about what inspired her to write Alice 19th, and I thought her words were very meaningful.
Well, the world is in a pretty sorry state (since September 11, 2001). There's no telling what will happen, so we'll just have to wait and see. But war is wrong! That much I can say with certainty! Dialogue was never more important than now. We should take a lesson from Gandhi's non-violent approach!I really like the part I bolded. Because it's true. All over we see people being more aggressive and less willing to sit down and have a conversation. In a way, that's why I like participating here; it gives us a chance to talk across political boundaries.
Well, maybe Rove isn't as guilty as we all thought. Geov Parrish, liberal commentator, has suggested something anybody with half a brain already knows. The liberals are so eager to make their case against Karl Rove, they haven't noticed that said case doesn't hold water.
Nice of one Liberal to pick up on that. But then he ends with this bit.
It's easy, and fun, to imagine Karl Rove in handcuffs. It's far more damning to get to the heart of what actually happened here. In all likelihood, Rove did not do what he is accused of.Well, first of all, it's very possible that Valerie Plame's status was well known around Washington at that time. It's possible she wasn't an undercover agent (as defined by statute). It's possible that whoever leaked this information did not know her status. So it's possible no crime was committed at all.
But somebody did.
While this article seems like it's exonerating Rove, in reality it is clearing him so that the Democrats can go after the Bush Administration as a whole. That's the mindset of the Modern Liberal; the ENEMY isn't the terrorists. The ENEMY is the President and his Administration.
This is Space Lobster back after a long haitus. Some of you may not remember my escapades along with the Collision Crew against that hideous man-creature, Captain Starfaller! My adventures, along with my allies Rangthor (the Gorilla from Ganymede), Emperor Reptilion, and Queen Buzz (leader of the Wasps from Eos), were broadcast on WEXN out of Philidelphia from 1953 to 1955.
Since that job ended some five decades ago I've been bouncing around, doing legitimate theatre and bit parts in music videos and the like. Anyway it's truely marvelous to have this opportunity to speak to my fans once again. If I can dust off an old chestnut, "I will crush Captain Starfaller with my mighty pincers!"
Anyway this week's letters seem to come exclusively from Africa, where this website is apparently very popular. Let's see what we have.
The first e-mail is from a gentleman by the name of Waheed Azeez.
My name is Waheed Azeez a merchant in Dubai, in the U.A.E.I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have onlybout a few months to live, according to medical experts. I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone (not even myself) but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous,I was always hostile to people and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world.First of all let me say, have you ever actually had all the money in the world? I have, although briefly. In episode #1A33 "The Great Space Bank Roberry" me and Spydrogirl succesfully took over the First National Bank of Space and had all of it's money. I have to say I found holding money in my pincers and throwing it up in the air was extremely satisfying. So I would say hold onto your dream of having all the money in the world!
As for your request for access to my bank account, as a semi-fictional character I do not have a bank account.
Now for letter number 2, this one from a Chrity Albert.
Dear,Good day.I have to say, Chrity, that were I to adopt you I would first have to teach you to write in complete sentances and puncuate correctly.
I know that this mail might be a surpriseing to you but do consider it as an emergency. In a nut shell, My name is Chrity Albert.from the republic of Sierria-Leone in west Africa.The only child of late Dr.Williams Albert. I am looking for someone who can take me as a child or friend I promise to be obidient to you and I will bring happiness to your life,My late father was the managing director of Rainbow Gold and Diamond company in (KENEMA)Sierra-Leone.But he was poisoned to death alongside with my mother by his business associate, On one of their outing to discuss a business deal in oversea,However, after their death I managed to stay alone and when the war broke out in my country. I escape to near by village here,with every important files of my father.He has the sum of (US$5.2M)Five million two hundred thousand U.S Dollars only. This amount was deposited by my late father in one of the leading security company, Presently, I am saddled with the problem of securing a trust worthy foriegn personality to help me.
I have to admit I do have some experience in parenting. When Electrobrain used his personality reversal ray on Starkid, Captain Starfaller's ward (in episode #2A19 "My Ward, My Enemy"), he joined us in the Evil Gang for a while ("Evil Gang," by the way, not my idea). But I don't think that qualifies me to be a good guardian, as most of my parenting consisted of saying "Yeah yeah, hit him again" when he fought Captain Starfaller.
And, as previously discussed, I'm a semi fictional character, and don't have a bank account.
Our final "letter" actually comes from our comments. In response to the antiquated Irwin J. McIckleson's round up of links, one of the linked parties left this comment.
although he does not seem to find it all that fascinatingThis website is always happy to provide links, apparently.
hey! i do too find it facinating!!! i just meant to say that because everyone else was covering it so well, i didn't feel i had much to add.
oh, and thanks for the link!
And that's it for this week. If you have any comments or questions about this website, email them to this address - email@example.com. Or leave comments in the individual posts and I may respond.
For now, let's end this with my fabled warcry! "I will crush Captain Starfaller with my mighty pincers!"
Good morning everybody! I hope you are all having nice Monday Mornings! :-)
Somewhere along the way, "multiculturalism" turned into a dirty word. I always liked the idea of finding out something about other cultures. Learning how different people lived. I love world music, and I'm fond of many different types of cuisines. But apparently Multiculturism is dooming western civilization. :-(
This is the subject of Diana West's latest article, in which she takes on the idea that being overly nice to Muslims is a bad thing.
. . . we also prevent ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.I think this is a very narrow way of looking at people. People are more than just the sum of their parts; narrowing a person down just to a label is not only wrong, it's also stupid. You miss out on the chance to learn more about individuals and cultures; to see their good side as well as the bad side.
Notice I didn't say "Islamists." Or "Islamofascists." Or "fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam -- the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" enables or "extremistly" advances jihad -- with the West.
So if Ms. West and other Conservatives want to see Multicultural as a dirty word, I will continue to believe in it.
Well, technically I'm not sure Marx even counts as an economist. Mare of a hack, really. Marx and his philosophy led directly to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot and so on and so forth. And since the Soviet Union rejected Communism in favor of free markets and since humanity is rightly horrified by the crimes committed in Marx's name, you might think Marx is pretty much gone.
You'd be wrong.
At least according to Francis Wheen, writing in the Observer/UK (reprinted at Commondreams). Wheen can scarcely hide his pleasure at the idea of a world giving the old snake oil another try.
Hey the first go-around with Marx took the world to the brink of NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION and pitched the United States and the Soviet Union into a decades long cold war. Who knows what the second taste will do.
Predictably Wheen sticks closer to the critiques of capitalism and away from the insane solution Marx proposed. Obviously it's more enjoyable to TEAR DOWN CAPITALISM than to risk revealing Marx's intellectual bankruptcy.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Talia (Ra's Al Ghul's Daughter: "And where will it end, Father?"That's Ra's Al Ghul in a nutshell right there. That's from an Issue of the Justice League of America and it accurately sets Ra's Al Ghul's agenda. He's an INSANE ECO-TERRORIST. Unless of course you go see the new Batman movie.
Ra's Al Ghul: "Where it rightfully should, Talia. With a healthy
planet no long abused by the Human Race."
Movie Ra's Al Ghul: "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."You see what they did? They took a nice eco-terrorist villain, a left wing tree hugging mass murderer and made him into right wing tough on crime nut, who wants to kill criminals rather than coddle them.
And some people think there's a liberal bias in Hollywood.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Hi all! :)
I was listening to Rush while driving around at lunch today. Apparently before I started listening he said that us liberals were motivated by a seething hatred of President Bush (something he's said before). A nice liberal lady called in to challenge that statement. She said that we didn't hate President Bush, and referred to how the Republicans had talked about President Clinton.
According to Rush, he never hated President Clinton. His differences with President Clinton were over policy and over the fact that President Clinton lied. He didn't have any problem with President Clinton personally.
That's kind of nonsense. Rush seems to want it both ways. He and other Republicans can go after President Clinton with every weapon in their arsenal, and then say that there is nothing personal. On the other hand, when Democrats disagree with President Bush it can only be motivated by seething hatred. Kind of a rigged system Rush.
Maybe you'd be better off admitting that conservatives did have a visceral dislike of Clinton. And conversely acknowledge that Democrats have a few policy disagreements with President Bush (mixed in with all their "seething hatred").
Just something to think about.
I apologize; my grandchildren took me to a wild west show last night and it has produced unfortunate giddyness and wild westism.
Anyway the first of our cowpokes is It's Craptastic, who has some words about the death penalty. The Republicans of your time are apparently in favor of something they call the Culture of Life. That's one of those phrases that seems to mean something until you think about it and it really does not.
Echidne of the Snakes has some words on Karl Rove and President Bush. I don't fully understand this Karl Rove situation, but he sounds like a bit of a bounder. And apparently President Bush is too loyal to let the bounder go. It is hard to discipline the help, but a smart plutocrat always does so. Better to solve a problem right off the bat than let it grow into a monster problem.
Consider this. The first time this Rove character lied and defamed a political opponent of President Bush's, President Bush should have taken him to the woodshed so to speak and gave him a taste of the lash. Then Rove would have learned not to act in a way that is displeasing to President Bush. Instead, President Bush, through a sense of misplaced loyalty, tolerated Rove's antics and is now in serious trouble because of it.
Rubber Hose has corralled up a bunch of links to articles on this situation on Karl Rove, although he does not seem to find it all that fascinating.
firedoglake finds the Rove situation more interesting apparently, and he has put together a list of links for those who are new to the Rove situation. Very interesting stuff.
Pen-Elayne on the Web has a section of reviews of Comical Books of the year 2000. Apparently they are still very popular, which is nice. I like Little Nemo in Slumberland myself.
Scrutiny Hooligans has a story on an agitator named Michael Moore who visited Utah and created some kind of ruckus in the community there. Apparently there has been a film made of it, so one can see what happened.
Speedkill has a piece on the 100 people who are screwing up America, and this Michael Moore person is first on the list. It is good to see that future America places an appropriate value on their plutocrats. In my day there were a lot of weak sister who would complain about how we treated our workers or safety or the like. In your future the people know better than to attack the plutocrats.
President Bush has done one thing that makes sense, according to THE NEWS BLOG. He has priorities the needs of the worlds Opium Producers. Opium, according to the latest scientific evidence, is a wonder drug. It increases muscle relaxation while enabling the mind to make logical leaps unheard of. I am surprised that this future world isn't enjoying the beneficial effects of opium constantly.
The Invisible Library has a story on night terrors that sit on your chest and keep you from moving. Apparently they aren't really monsters but some sort of disorder of the humors that keeps you from moving, and then your mind creates the monsters to explain why you can't move. This seems too complicated to me; I suppose you future people don't remember Occam's razor, but it says that the most simple explanation is most likely true. The simplest explanation is obviously that there really are a lot of monsters and hag sitting on people in the middle of the night. That's why I keep my night butler in my bedroom closet; to ally any potential night time problems.
At any rate that's another round of links. Go and read them. And then read this blog some more too. I'm going to mosey on off into the sunset now. Yippie!
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Hi all! : - ))
Just read a very inspiring post by Cenk Uygar over at the Huffington Post. Apparently Mr. Uygar used to be a Republican but he is dissatisfied over the direction his party is taking, just like a growing number of Americans. He feels like the war in Iraq was a disaster before it even began and he's angry at a party that supports such actions.
Anyway he's a sharp guy and worth looking at.
So, do I still call myself a Republican after all this?
Hell no. I care too much about my country to put a political party over the interests of our nation. Could there come a time again when I go back to supporting Republicans? Of course. When they go back to representing what we used to believe in and when they go back to representing the ideals of this country.
As for my comment earlier, about a growing number of Americans seeing through this administration, apparently only 41% of the American people give President Bush high marks for honesty; down 9 points from January. According to NBC and the Wall Street Journal.