Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

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.

What Does Judge Roberts Stand For?

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?

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.

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?

It's hard to say, but one suspects he might learn how to use that power after a while, anyway.

Some Concerns

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.

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!

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.

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.

Who Am Us, Anyway?

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.

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.

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.

A Judge for all Seasons

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.

Unlawful Seach and Seizure

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.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a WINNER!!!

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.

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.

And from the Family Research Council, you have Tony Perkins singing Judge Robert's praises.

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.

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.

I wouldn't count on that fair hearing, Mr. Perkins. There still are a few Democrats around.

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!

Just the FACTS ma'am

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.

Huh?

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?

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 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!

Fill that Mail Bag - Comments Post

Hi all. : - ))

Just a gentle reminder that we always need more mail in our mail bag. So send us an e-mail, or just leave any suggestions you have in the comments post at the bottom of this post (or any post really.

A Call to Arms

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.

Where have you gone, Harry Truman and Winston Churchill? Our nations turn their lonely eyes to you. Boo-hoo-hoo.

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.

Just a friendly thought : - )

An Outage to Democracy!

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.

Getting Along

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?

Alice 19th and Dialogue

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.

Accusing with Faint Exonerations

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.

But somebody did.

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.

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.

Monday Mail Bag

Hello Spacesters!

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 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 say, Chrity, that were I to adopt you I would first have to teach you to write in complete sentances and puncuate correctly.

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 fascinating

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!

This website is always happy to provide links, apparently.

And that's it for this week. If you have any comments or questions about this website, email them to this address - politicalcombryant@gmail.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!"

Tolerance and Multiculturalism

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.

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.

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.

So if Ms. West and other Conservatives want to see Multicultural as a dirty word, I will continue to believe in it.

When Dead Economists ATTACK

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.

Update to the Website!!!!

Hooray! Now Make me a Commentator!!! is running on all gears. We have updated the look of the website and we intend to go back to weekly quotes. And I got to pick the quote this week, so it's nice.

So have a great Sunday!