Patterico's Pontifications

12/27/2004

Aargh

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 10:56 am

As I toil away on my most ambitious post of the year, the Dog Trainer Year in Review, I am about to head to a household with no computer.

I gotta get a laptop.

12/25/2004

Merry Christmas

Filed under: Real Life — Patterico @ 1:46 pm

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
(more…)

12/24/2004

Bush Will Renominate 20 Judges

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 10:25 am

The Washington Post reports here that Bush intends to renominate 20 judges, including Priscilla Richman Owen (that’s “Priscilla,” L.A. Times — not “Patricia”), Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor.

Good for him. And good for Bill Frist. Bush wouldn’t have made a move like this without assurances from Frist that these nominees will get the full support of Senate Republicans. This is the clearest signal yet that the Senate is prepared to do what it takes to break the Democrats’ filibusters of Bush’s judicial nominees. (Sen. Frist might want to remind Sen. Specter not to get in the way, as Sen. Specter’s comments in the article are not helpful.)

I’ll take this opportunity to remind Republican Senators and President Bush of two ideas that you read about here first. First, try conventional warfare before employing the nuclear option. Second, it’s time to talk Miguel Estrada into throwing his hat into the ring again — maybe this time for the Supreme Court.

(WaPo link via James Joyner.)

12/23/2004

All I Want for Christmas

Filed under: Immigration — AMac @ 11:13 pm

Is that, when record numbers of illegal aliens go back across the southern border, they stay there.

Wouldn’t it be great if the Border Patrol was stepped up by a factor of ten? Isn’t one of the main dodges by people who don’t want to enforce our nation’s laws that it is unacceptable to round people up inside the country? If so, then certainly we could, now that they’ve left, try to keep them from coming back, right?

Oh wait, I forgot, I live in George Bush’s America. Better than John Kerry’s, but still sucks.

Seipp Gorges the Trolls

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 9:37 am

I like Cathy Seipp, but I don’t think that her decision to give these guys even more attention is a particularly good idea.

Seipp notes a statement that one of them made about me — I won’t repeat it again here — and calls it an “odd insult.” It is not only odd, but also a deliberate and baseless lie. For what it’s worth, the guy who told this lie has issued a half-assed non-apology.

This is all starting to remind me of a story I have told here once before. LBJ (who was then running against Nixon for the presidency) decided that he wanted to spread the rumor that Nixon “fucked pigs.” An aide said: “Well, that’s ridiculous. Why would you want to spread that rumor?” To which LBJ replied: “I just wanna hear him deny it.”

[UPDATE: Commenter Stuart corrects me, noting that the story couldn’t have happened in exactly this way, since LBJ never actually ran against Nixon. Funny: I never thought about it before, but of course he’s right. I blame the federal judge from Dallas who originally told me the story. Commenter Bill Birmingham says that the story is attributed to an earlier campaign of LBJ’s, according to Hunter Thompson.]

One of these clowns made a false statement about me in a comment, and now it has been repeated on National Review Online, and I’m having to deny it. These guys must be thrilled. It’s my fault for bringing it up on Cathy Seipp’s site (which I did just to show what a liar this fellow is). I made the mistake Cathy Seipp is making today in a big way: I fed the trolls. But I don’t have the platform she has. I fed them. She’s gorging them.

P.S. The link to Xrlq’s post “Joseph and the Amazing Tinfoil-Colored Dreamhat” can be found here.

The Perils of Anonymous Blogging and Commenting

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 9:32 am

In these comments there is a cautionary tale for those who say nasty things about others, while hoping to remain anonymous themselves.

Happily, this particular episode ended without acrimony or irreversible embarrassment. But in another context, it might not have.

Media Matters — most selective “watchdog”

Filed under: Court Decisions,Judiciary,Law,Media Bias — Steve Sturm @ 6:59 am

Hey all — Dave Huber here from Hube’s Cube and OTLM. I want to thank Patterico for the opportunity to guest-blog while he enjoys his year-end vacation. (I’ll be on one too after today — you know us teachers and all those holidays we get … !) The following was inspired by a Patterico commentor:

Gotta love “my-whole-career-is-based-on-a-lie” David Brock’s Media Matters media “watchdog” site. They take on the incredibly “tough” job of — get this — monitoring conservative opinion. Hey, a liberal watchdog for conservative-leaning media is all fine and good, but opinion is just that, folks. (Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly is a favorite target of MM; I recently dissected a few of their “complaints” here.) Contributors to Oh, That Liberal Media have been called to the mat for utilizing editorials to point out liberal media bias, and in many cases rightly so.

I was recently (again) pointed to MM by a commentor at Patterico’s site. After perusing some of MM’s “headlines” like “Somewhere Jesus is weeping” over attacks on Bill O’Reilly (which itself was misleading — I saw the show in question and the clear message was that Jesus “is weeping” because the battle over Christmas has gotten more and more ridiculous), I came across yet another “tough” piece: Falwell wrong on 9th Circuit “eggheads” who he claimed “get their rulings overturned almost every time.” In it, MM contributor Nicole Casta rebuts Falwell by nicely utilizing selective data (my emphasis):

… according to Supreme Court litigation firm Goldstein & Howe, only four circuit courts had a better reversal record in 2003. As this chart (PDF) details, the 9th Circuit had the fifth-lowest number of reversals among the nation’s thirteen circuit courts. Six of the thirteen circuit courts — including the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — had 100-percent reversal rates.

In a July 3 Sacramento Bee article, Bee legal affairs writer Claire Cooper wrote: “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals defied its renegade reputation by having its opinions upheld at a better-than-average rate during the just-concluded [2003] Supreme Court term.” Cooper also noted that “the results have changed little in recent years but much since the 1996-97 term. A record of 17 unanimous reversals and a single close affirmance that year earned the Western circuit [the 9th Circuit] its reputation as the nation’s ‘most reversed.'”

(more…)

12/22/2004

Judge Lifts Injunction on Arizona’s Proposition 200

Filed under: Immigration — Patterico @ 5:05 pm

Reuters reports:

A federal judge on Wednesday lifted a block on a controversial Arizona law aimed at restricting government services for illegal immigrants.

U.S. District Judge David Bury said he did not believe that “irreparable harm” would be caused by lifting a temporary restraining order he had imposed late last month.

This is hardly the final word, as the case will go to our illustrious Ninth Circuit. The law’s fate will depend entirely on the makeup of the panel of judges chosen to hear the case.

But in the meantime, unless the Ninth Circuit issues an emergency stay, word will spread in the illegal immigrant community: benefits aren’t available in Arizona. Any immigrants seeking to mooch off the government will have to go somewhere else — like California.

Dave Huber to Guest Blog

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 4:19 pm

Dave Huber of Hube’s Cube will be guest blogging over the next few days, hopefully helping to keep things interesting around here during times that I am away from a computer. (I’ll still be blogging as well; there just may be a day or two when I’m away.) Dave contributes to Oh, That Liberal Media. Welcome him.

Bush Meets with NAACP’s Mfume

Filed under: Race — Patterico @ 2:34 pm

The Washington Post reports:

President Bush and outgoing NAACP leader Kweisi Mfume met at the White House yesterday in what Mfume described as a frank, “man-to-man” discussion aimed at fixing the broken relationship between the president and the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. . . . Last summer, Bush pointedly declined an invitation to address the organization’s national convention for the fourth consecutive year, calling his relationship with the group “basically nonexistent.”

Why did Bush have problems with the NAACP? There is a hint later in the story:

Julian Bond, the NAACP’s board chairman, issued a statement saying he welcomed the discussion. Bond previously has been sharply critical of Bush and many Republicans — who he once said “draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. ” Earlier this year, the IRS launched an investigation into whether those remarks by Bond violated the NAACP’s tax-exempt status.

I doubt the IRS is going to take any action against a sacred cow like the NAACP — but if they were serious about their investigation, they might want to look at some other comments made by Bond, which I told you about last year. An AP story reported in July 2003:

The leader of the NAACP [Julian Bond] criticized President Bush and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, for challenging race-conscious admissions in colleges and vowed to work to unseat the president in 2004 . . . [Bond] also said the group intended “to uproot the bigger ‘Bush’ in 2004.”

As I have previously argued, those comments were a clear violation of IRS regulations preventing tax-exempt organizations like the NAACP from engaging in “political activities” — a term that expressly encompasses “activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate, even on the basis of non-partisan criteria.”

Given the organization’s history of hostility to Bush, it’s no surprise that he refused to meet with any of the group’s representatives until now. After all, meeting with them in the 2000 election didn’t do him much good. Two months later, a (non-tax-exempt) arm of the “non-partisan” NAACP ran an advertisement carrying the NAACP logo which unfairly linked Bush to the racially motivated dragging death of a black man in Jasper, Texas.

Now that Bush has been elected, the subtext of his meeting with Mfume was this: I won, and there’s nothing you or the NAACP can do about it. If the group wants to build a relationship with this president or any other Republican, it could start by ceasing its blatant campaigning against any Republican who happens to run for the presidency.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2504 secs.