Dick Morris will be on today to discuss his ongoing efforts to recruit Condi Rice into the 2008 presidential election, and why he thinks we'll be wake up to President Hillary! Rodham in 2009 if he's unsuccessful.

At Rightalk at 4:05 Eastern Time.

Call in at 1 866 844 8255.

Posted by: Ace at 11:48 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

British poll names deranged linguist Noam Chomsky the world's "top intellectual."

Once again, anti-Americanism is just a passive-aggressive form of patriotism. Europeans are too "nuanced" to engage in genuine nationalistic chauvanism (except the French-- the one thing I credit them for), so they instead sublimate their national pride, which cannot be openly expressed ("That's just not done, Old Man"), by simply bashing America. It's the politically-correct, sophisticatedly neo-Marxist way to say "We're Number One!!! Hooo-yahhh!"

When you bash something, you are nearly expressly calling yourself superior to the object of your scorn.

I think relations between America and Europe could improve a bit if Europeans could get over their passive-aggressive "anti-jingoist" form of jingoism and simply say, as Americans do, that they're proud to be citizens of the countries of their births.

Is there much national pride left in Britain? Seems to me a lot of the people making a strong case for Britain's quite-noble and proud role in world history are Americans, not the British themselves.

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 AM | Comments (132)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Interesting:

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro- abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.

Okay, maybe Bush isn't so dumb.

But:

"A candidate taking a political position in the course of a campaign is different from the role of a judge making a ruling in the judicial process." said Jim Dyke, a White House spokesman.

He's spinning there, trying to mollify the pro-Roe absolutists in the Senate. Problem is, what he's saying is also quite true. It's a somewhat easy call for a politician to support an Amendment with virtually no chance of passage, especially when running for office in a pro-life state.

What she will do on the court when left to her own "conscience" remains anyone's guess.

Still, those who have insisted that we should "trust Bush" have marginally improved their case.

But... She gives a confusing answer about a case so famous that even politically-attuned non-lawyers know about it to Arlen Spector.

Maybe Ramesh Ponnunu is being churlish here -- as he himself admits, conservatives are on treachorously brittle ice when attempting to field questions about Griswold v. Connecticut -- but one would have hoped she could give a smooth and coherent non-answer about the case without additional time to "bone up."

This is a tricky one. The law that Griswold v. Connecticut struck down was an odious and outdated bit of blue-nosery, making it illegal to purchase contraceptives, even for married couples. Strict constitutionalists are quite right to point out that nowhere in the Constiution does it guarantee one's right to buy a jimmy hat.

But...

How does one argue there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution while also sort of agreeing with the (softer form of the) liberal position on this-- that the, ahem, "spirit of the Constitution" is generally one of freedom from government coercion in most matters except those directly harming other people or society generally?

If you admit there's a "right to privacy," then that pretty much allows any and all social-re-engineering by the Court to remake society into a more sexually-liberated kind of place, with lots of big velvet throw-pillows and ointments and light bondage and one of those sex-transporter machines from Logan's Run.

On the other hand-- are there some laws which so egregiously interfere with human freedom, without good cause, that even a conservative can say, "Sorry, but, you know, there are some minor, tiny little weak-form penumbras and emanations somewhere in that document that say you can't play Sex Nannies to married couples" ?

I do wonder this about the Court. In some rare cases, there will be laws which most of society feels are perfectly ass and yet they never get repealed, because few politicians are willing to take up the grand cause of free access to dildos.

If there is a real and genuine dysfunction in the system -- where the political wishes are the majority are being thwarted not by a noisy minority per se, but by their own sort of don't-rock-the-boat cowardice -- is that a legitimate basis for intervention by the Courts? If it is, how do we justify it on Constitutional grounds without making up new fakey rights? And how do we limit that power so that progressive, agenda-driven judges don't use that limited escape-hatch of judicial repeal of goofy laws to attempt to remake society as they wish it would be?

Hypothetical:The good Dr. Reo Symes wants to know if this "spirit" of the Constitution is like a "penumbra." Well, yes, and I say so in the post. But I'm arguing for a very weak-form of that idea, just enough to dispose of the most egregiously interfering laws.

Let's say a very-liberal state, like Vermont -- "for the children" --mandated "compatibility screening" before issuing marriage licenses, and required hours and hours of "sensitivity and interpersonal skills" training and "don't punch your wife" classes as well. And maybe some community service, too, on the theory that 1, you're getting state benefits from marriage and ought to "give back" and 2, that a strong community spirit will help foster a strong marriage.

Obviously, a jackass law, and one that would make conservatives' teeth grind.

But it doesn't violate any specific clause of the constitution.

Is there absolutely no room at all for any kind of substantive due process analysis from the right? Is the Constitution's general bias towards freedom of restraint from government a good enough basis to strike down a freedom-limiting law?

I'm just asking the question. I'm conflicted on this. I'm a strong believer in strict constructionism.

But like a strong believer in pacifism, there is always some amount of wiggle room. Like when you're talking about Nazis.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.

They're considering setting up central order-taking centers and diverting orders, via phone, to them.

McDonald's Corp., the world's largest restaurant chain, is testing the use of remote call centers to handle drive-thru orders in an effort to improve service.

Company officials said the idea, being tested at a small number of restaurants in the Pacific Northwest, is aimed at reducing the number of mistakes at the drive-thru window.

"If you're in L.A. and you hear a person ... with a North Dakota accent taking your order, you'll know what we're up to," McDonald's Chief Executive Officer Jim Skinner said during a presentation to analysts Thursday in New York.

CBS News Radio Correspondent Lou Miliano reports the strategy is based on the theory that mistakes come from the order-taker, not the cook line. Sending orders directly to a call center and back to the grill could also allow McDonald's employees to focus on delivering better customer service, the company said.

"You have a professional order taker with strong communications skills whose job is to do nothing but take down orders," said Matthew Paull, the chief financial officer.

First of all, half of the problem is with the poor quality of the speakers and receivers.

Second -- this plan will be scrapped because it's racist.

Trading LA order-takers for North Dakota ones "with strong communication skills"... what do you think they're saying there? Doesn't matter really if they mean to be racist or not; Oliver Willis will threaten to boycott McDonald's, and trust me, when Oliver Willis boycots McDonald's, they're going to notice that on their bottom line.

I'm not sure why most orders can't be completed by just pushing buttons anyhow. A bunch of buttons and a computer screen to view your order and confirm-- no mistakes.

You'll need someone to take orders for older folks that can't comprehend this crazy new cheeseburger computer system, but most orders can be taken that way.

Posted by: Ace at 09:55 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Are you kidding me?

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department aims without exception to expel all those who enter the United States illegally.

"Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions.

"It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year," Chertoff told a Senate hearing.

Posted by: Ace at 09:43 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

That was ABCNews' headline for the story about the mayhem in Ohio.

There were Nazis. There were blacks. Obviously the MSM (and most other people) would like to pin the rioting on the Nazis.

Trouble was-- it wasn't them. Which was quite obvious to anyone watching the video feed of the rioting, unless one postulates that the Neo-Nazis' miniority outreach-and-recruitment efforts have been much more successful than previously reported.

Didn't stop ABCNews from running that headline anyway. They see the world as they wish it to be. Which is fine. Trouble is, they're in the information business, and they're trying to get you to see the world how they wish it to be, too.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

From Star Trek IV to an Air Force jet near you:

Transparent aluminum.

(via NRO's Corner)

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 07:31 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

The Houston Chronicle has the latest in the Texas hold ‘em tournament involving Tom Delay and Ronnie Earle:

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's lead attorney Monday said Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle offered to let the congressman plead guilty to a misdemeanor but indicted him on a felony when DeLay refused.

The plea offer was mentioned in a letter to Earle from attorney Dick DeGuerin of Houston that accompanied motions to dismiss the indictments against DeLay. Â…

DeGuerin said Earle made the plea offer in the context of DeLay keeping his House leadership post.

"You tried to coerce a guilty plea from Tom DeLay for a misdemeanor, stating the alternative was indictment for a felony which would require his stepping down as majority leader," DeGuerin wrote.

"He turned you down, so you had him indicted, in spite of the advice from others in your office that Tom DeLay had committed no crime."

Delay’s attorney seems to be playing up the notion that Earle's later felony indictment was a vengeful move by the prosecutor – a D.A. spitefully going overboard when his original offer was refused. In fact, pre-indictment plea bargaining isn’t all that unusual, especially in white collar crime cases.

What is interesting though, is that the refusal seems to stand as fairly objective evidence that Delay thinks Earle’s case stinks, not just the usual “their case is the worst brought before any court, ever” lawyer blustering.

Now, it might be argued that Delay’s refusal was out of concern that admitting criminal wrongdoing, even a misdemeanor, might strengthen the cases against Jim Ellis and John Colyandro - Delay’s political associates charged in the same overall ‘scheme.’

But to turn down a misdemeanor? And that wouldnÂ’t have even required you to step down as House Leader?

In poker, that kinda shows you donÂ’t think much of your opponentÂ’s hand.

Posted by: Dr. Reo Symes at 06:37 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Despite what your local newscasts - your ‘Freeway Chase Channel 7’s and ‘Warehouse Fire Fox 13s’ - might lead you to believe, seems we’re living in relatively safe times:

The nation's murder rate declined last year for the first time in four years, dropping to the lowest level in 40 years. Experts said local rather than national trends were mostly responsible.

The rates for all seven major crimes were down and the overall violent crime rate reached a 30-year low, according to the FBI's annual compilation of crimes reported to the police.

I’m not saying this means you can now sleep with the door unlocked, or that it’s now a good idea to tell the wife, “You ain’t got the guts to pull that trigger,” (never wanna play that scene that way, no matter what the rate is) but… it is kinda nice to see a societal trend headed in the right direction, that the world doesn’t necessarily have to spiral into anarchy.

Good news is news too.

Posted by: Dr. Reo Symes at 09:26 PM | Comments (35)
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeahp-- instead of eating parts of endangered animals which supposedly increase virility, impotent men are just popping the little blue miracle pill:

The spread of Viagra, the wonder drug that promises to cure erectile dysfunction, is saving endangered species as many men switch from using animal parts to treat the malady, claims a new survey.

William von Hippel, a psychologist from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his brother Frank von Hippel, a biologist from the University of Alaska in Anchorage, showed that the Western treatment for the sexual problem seems to be replacing traditional medicines, including potions made from seal penises and reindeer antler velvet.

Wait-- I was supposed to make a potion out of the seal penis?

I guess that's why they say to read the f'n' manual.

Posted by: Ace at 04:43 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.