Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Big Surprise, Part II
Count Ms. Goodling's silence as one more unintended consequence of the Scooter Libby case. Mr. Libby made the mistake of cooperating with the investigation into a leak he had nothing to do with, and he later found himself charged with perjury based on little more than conflicting memories of who said what and when. The prosecutor never even charged anyone for the leak that started it all.
There's no apparent underlying crime in this "scandal" either, but we'll bet more than one Democrat will soon be calling for a "special prosecutor" to investigate it nonetheless. The New York Times has already floated the idea, as usual. As Mr. Dowd put it in his letter to Mr. Leahy: "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real. One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby."
Epiphany Of The Day
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
It's all Patrick Fitzgerald's fault. And no, I'm not joking.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Great Post By DAG
Gonzales Must Go?
It's not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it...
How could he allow his aides to go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony? How could Gonzales permit his deputy to say that the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?
And why did Gonzalez have to claim that the firings were done with no coordination with the White House? That's absurd. Why shouldn't there be White House involvement? That is nothing to be defensive about. Does anyone imagine that Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys in March 1993, giving them all of 10 days to clear out, without White House involvement?...
If the White House decides that a U.S. attorney is showing insufficient zeal in pursuing voter fraud -- or the death penalty or illegal immigration or drug dealing -- it has the perfect right to fire him. There is only one impermissible reason for presidential intervention: to sabotage an active investigation. That is obstruction of justice. Until the Democrats come up with real evidence of that -- and they have not -- this affair remains a pseudo-scandal. Which would never have developed had Gonzales made the easy and obvious case from day one.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Do As I Say, Not As I Do, Part II
And please, nobody start talking about carbon credits. It's just feel-good hype, as Business Week calls it. Though I prefer the term ecological indulgences", coined by Charles Krauthammer.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Dating During Bar Prep
One question has been bugging me- is there any point in dating this June and July? On on hand, I'm assuming I'm going to be crazy busy, and there isn't going to be much time for romance. On the other hand, I think I'll lose my mind if I don't have some distraction from bar prep.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Anyone Want To Move To Alaska?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Guns, Guns, Guns, Guns
I have been waiting for baited breath for the brilliant legal scholars at the NY Times editorial board to comment on Parker v. District of Columbia, and they finally have. And as expected, it's a laugher:
The key legal precedent is a 1939 decision in which the Supreme Court concluded that the
amendment protects the private ownership of guns only when it has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” By not viewing the amendment as creating a basic individual right, the decision left room for broad regulation of gun ownership.
The 1939 decision they refer to is US v. Miller, where two bootleggers who were arrested for carrying sawed-off shotguns tried to raise a 2nd Amendment defense. The Supreme Court rejected the argument:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
So, basically, because the weapon in question was not considered a military weapon, not useful being used in a militia, it's not protected by the 2nd Amendment. (Based on the language of the Court, it would seem that heavier weapons such as machine guns and grenade launchers would be protected, but I digress).
Back to what the Times said:
The key legal precedent is a 1939 decision in which the Supreme Court concluded that the amendment protects the private ownership of guns only when it has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” By not viewing the amendment as creating a basic individual right, the decision left room for broad regulation of gun ownership.
I'm sorry but that's a complete mischaracterization of Miller. Miller only discussed the kind of weapon protected, not the right of the individual to carry a it. The only "broad regulation of gun ownership" that the Supreme Court allowed under Miller, was the regulation of guns that have no use in a military or militia context.
This case is surely going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, as there is now a conflict between the Circuits. Should be a fascinating case.
Side note- I'm not arguing against gun control. Like every other right in the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms is not unlimited. But at some point, regulation interferes with the Amendment. A regulation that neuters your 2nd Amendment rights is no different than a regulation that neuters your 1st Amendment rights.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Good News And The Really Bad News
The Good News:
TISHA B’AV – The Board is aware that the first day of the July 2007 bar examination conflicts with the religious holiday of Tisha B’av. The Board has determined that any applicant who requires a modification of the dates of the July 2007 bar examination, because they observe the religious holiday of Tisha B’av, will take the bar exam on Wednesday and Thursday, July 25 and 26, 2007. The MBE will be administered on Wednesday and the New York section will be administered on Thursday.The Really Bad News:
Due to the logistics and resources involved with administering the laptop program, the Board is unable to offer to applicants requiring the Tisha B'av accommodation, the option of using their laptop computer on Thursday, July 26 for the essay section of the bar examination. Therefore, all applicants requiring the Tisha B'av accommodation will not be able to participate in the laptop program and will be required to hand-write their essay answers.Lord, this stinks.
Daylight Savings Time Change
On the plus side, Hunter Mountain and other ski resorts are staying open an hour later, so cold weather and DST has at least one advantage.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Burning Wigs In Jerusalem
Yeah, it's an old story, but a friend came home with some videos that he took during this freak show. 20 CWY points to whoever can translate the whole thing. My Yiddish isn't great.
Not Something You Want To See As You Leave The Restaurant, Part II
From the site:
8 EAST 48 STREET, MANHATTAN 10017
Current violation points: 43
Inspection Date: 02/13/2007
Violations were cited in the following area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Not Something You Want To See As You Leave The Restaurant
As we're walking away from the door, I turn around for some reason, and I quickly realized why they were stacking the tables.
The picture isn't great, but the sign was dated 3/8/07. So basically, I ate the last meal in a restaurant right before the health inspector closed it down.
I think I'm going to puke.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Remember when John Kerry made disparaging comments about the U.S. military and then claimed, with an absurd self-righteousness, that it was all a "botched joke"? Now, thanks to Ann Coulter, we know what an actual botched joke looks like.
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, Coulter said:
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I--so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards.This joke failed, for three reasons:
* The pop culture reference is too obscure for most people to get. We knew about it only because Kathryn Lopez linked to an article about it: It seems Isaiah Washington, a TV actor, checked into a "residential treatment facility" after a dispute with a fellow cast member in which Washington used the word "faggot."Of course, every time Coulter says something outrageous, the reaction is Pavlovian all around: Liberals get outraged, conservatives get outraged, and liberals get outraged that conservatives aren't outraged, even though they are. Our favorite conservative reaction came from blogger Rick Moran, who wrote:
* Although Edwards has what people back in 2003 used to call a "metrosexual" demeanor, as well as a history of gay-baiting, it is not clear why implying that he is gay would be funny.
* "Faggot" is an ugly word, redolent of hatred even if employed without hateful intent.
I urge everyone--right and left--to take the following actions:Well, OK, I will write this 700-word post, and I will update it twice, to the tune of more than 500 words. But once I'm done with that, I will no longer be a willing cog in her publicity machine! Really!
1. Never write another blog post about Ann Coulter no matter how outrageous, cruel, or bigoted her language. . . .
I will no longer be a willing cog in her publicity machine.
Our favorite liberal response came from the Edwards campaign itself, which sent out a ridiculously over-the-top email attributed to pro-Saddam ex-Rep. David Bonior:
Did you hear about Anne [sic] Coulter's speech this afternoon attacking John? A friend just forwarded me the video and it's one of the worst moments in American politics I've seen. I can't bring myself to even repeat her comments. Her shameless display of bigotry is so outrageous you actually have to see for yourself to believe it. This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us.So it's both "one of the worst moments in American politics" and "just a taste of the filth" to come? The Associated Press reports that Edwards himself "said a remark about him by conservative author Ann Coulter reminded him of hateful speech against blacks he heard while growing up in the segregated South." And if you want to show your disgust with Coulter, go here to donate "Coulter cash" to the Edwards campaign.
Edwards seems to be striking a self-pitying tone similar to the one Kerry struck last year when he was the one who gave offense. It's funny how liberal politicians are always the victims, whether someone else says something outrageous about them or they say something outrageous about others.
In any case, you can tell Coulter's botched joke really was a botched joke by the light touch she used when the New York Times asked her about it:
Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."Now that gave us a chuckle.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Ann Coulter Is An Idiot
Me, Katherine Harris, Joe Biden, Anthony Weiner.