Patterico's Pontifications


Vote for Me and INDC Journal

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 9:18 pm

After you vote for me, you should vote for INDC Journal.

I am currently 28 freaking votes behind Totten. Your vote makes a difference.

UPDATE: Make that 21 votes.

UPDATE x2: Make that 14 votes.

UPDATE x3: Meh. The gap has widened.

That Brutal American Government

Filed under: Terrorism — Patterico @ 4:07 pm

Let’s say that you are about to board a plane, and you learn that one of your fellow passengers is a Muslim who publicly suggested that Israel was behind 9/11?

Don’t answer yet. What if you also learn that (as documented here), this same fellow:

  • Compared Islamic terrorists to American revolutionaries?
  • Justified Hizballah’s bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut by calling it a “military operation” rather than a terrorist attack?
  • Criticized the U.S. policy of opposition to Hamas?
  • Refused to call Hizballah a terrorist group?
  • Declared that Israel has no right to exist?
  • Complained that the Muslim community viewed as a “provocative act” the killing of a terrorist who had just completed a terror mission in Israel?

How disturbed would you be if such a person were asked to step aside and answer a few questions before being allowed to board? I’m not talking about the government detaining him for hours, or pulling him off the plane — just asking him a few questions.

How disturbed would you be if that didn’t happen? Because it didn’t — at least not before he boarded the plane. U.S. officials waited until the guy got off the plane before asking him questions!

Here is an op-ed by the individual in question, whining about his experience in the L.A. Times. The Times, of course, doesn’t clue you in to any of the context I just gave you, but rather allows this clown to pretend that he’s just an innocent citizen who is “Guilty of ‘Flying While Muslim.'”

The only problem I have with what happened is that it didn’t happen before he got on his first flight.

(Hat tip to LGF via reader Jim W.)

Cornyn’s Letter Published

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:13 pm

I noted this in an update to a post below, but it’s probably worth a new post. Senator Cornyn’s letter to the L.A. Times was published today.

As published, the letter reads:

Chemerinsky and Gerhardt praised the use of filibusters to prevent the confirmation of federal judges and criticized efforts to reform its unprecedented use against nominees. Their own academic writings, however, contradict those views. In 2000, Gerhardt published a book critical of super-majority requirements to confirm judges, stating that such rules “would be more likely to frustrate rather than facilitate the making of meritorious appointments” and are “hard to reconcile” with the Constitution. Likewise, Chemerinsky has previously written that the filibuster rules can be changed by a majority vote — the very tactic that he now derides as a “nuclear” option. In a 1997 Stanford Law Review article, he wrote that the filibuster rule “is unconstitutional” and that “a majority of this Senate could eliminate the filibuster if a majority wished to do so.”

The filibuster is not sacrosanct. There are dozens of laws on the books that prohibit filibusters on a variety of measures. Senate Republicans want to restore Senate tradition by ensuring that filibusters cannot be used where they were never intended: against a president’s judicial nominees.

Sen. John Cornyn
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights

Astute readers will recall the observations about Chemerinsky’s hypocrisy from this post.

By the way, it’s interesting to compare the version published in the paper to the original, to see what was edited out.

(Thanks to Kevin Murphy for the heads-up.)

Rehnquist Will Administer Oath of Office to Bush

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 11:01 am

SCOTUSBlog has the report.

(Via Howard Bashman.)

Bainbridge Conclusively Refutes a Column by that Poorly Educated and Not Very Bright Fellow, Jonathan Chait

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 9:43 am

Jonathan Chait became irrelevant in my view the day he wrote a column arguing that only Republicans engaged in conspiracy theories about stolen elections. Any guy who can tell a Lie that Big, I figured, should be written off entirely.

So I just shrugged my shoulders the other day, upon reading Chait’s column in the L.A. Times arguing that there are few Republicans in academia because Republicans are stupid. The column was obviously junk, but there are only so many battles you can fight in one day.

Luckily, Professor Bainbridge is up to the task of demolishing Chait’s silly column. Bainbridge uses these things called “facts” to pop the balloon of Chait’s supercilious assumption that Dems are just brighter and better educated.

An excellent post.

New L.A. Times Blogs

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 9:29 am

In case you weren’t aware, there are two more blogs out whose primary mission is/will be to keep an eye on the L.A. Times. I’m not worried that either one is going to put me out of my job as your favorite L.A. Times critic, but these blogs are still worth checking out.

The first is titled Take Back the Times. It’s written by Ken Reich, who was a reporter for the paper for years. He had a pretty good observation in his post criticizing the Times for not putting a story about Hamid Karzai’s inauguration on Page One. But Reich loses credibility with this comment: “For the most part, the news coverage remains fairly straight.”

The second blog is slated to start Monday, and is titled View From the 3rd Floor. The main page has a preview of upcoming posts, and it sounds like a lot of them may be petty complaints about creature comforts at the building and such. I’d much rather read an insider view about how the truth gets squashed by editors with an agenda. But I’ll withhold judgment until I see the actual posts.

(Both blogs were brought to my attention by LAObserved.)

“Stolen Elections”??

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 8:23 am

This is muy aggravating. Michael Totten’s post, in which he whines about how I pulled ahead in the Weblog Awards for about two seconds yesterday, is titled No More Stolen Elections!.

“Stolen elections”?

Aside from Al Gore’s failed attempt to steal the 2000 election, there have been no stolen elections in this country in recent memory. [UPDATE: At least, there have been none stolen by conservatives. The Clam reminds me of John Thune’s loss in 2002.] Yet this logic is apparently motivating the leftist shock troops out there, as Totten is now almost a full percentage point ahead of me.

That’s still only about 50 votes. If everyone who subscribes to me on Bloglines were to go to this link and vote for me, I would close that gap and pull ahead by an even greater margin.

Don’t let Totten’s misguided liberal rhetoric about “stolen elections” allow him to walk away with this one.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1927 secs.