3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
The more I read about John Roberts, the more I like his style. Take, for example, this exchange, found in the Reagan library and detailed in a Washington Post article today:
The Reagan-era memos portray a cocksure young lawyer whose writing was clear, highly attuned to political realities and occasionally sarcastic.
Take, for instance, Roberts’s response to a request sent by then-Rep. Elliott Levitas (D-Ga.) to Reagan. In 1983, the Supreme Court struck down laws that contained provisions for Congress to veto actions taken by executive departments and agencies. Levitas wanted to meet with Reagan to determine “the manner of power sharing and accountability within in the federal government.” The request offended Roberts’s notion of the proper separation of powers.
“There already has, of course, been a ‘Conference on Power Sharing,’ ” Roberts wrote, sarcastically referring to the convention at which the Constitution was drafted. “It took place in Philadelphia’s Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell Levitas about it and the ‘report’ it issued.”
Somewhat sad that the Post had to explain to its readers that Roberts was referring to the Constitutional Convention. The date and location should really be enough for any American with a half-decent education. Roberts is looking more and more like an originalist, his lack of recollection about the Federalist Society notwithstanding.
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
I think I need to take a break. When I saw a post titled Potter vs. Smith in the Redstate RSS feed, I thought it was about the other Mr. Potter, not Trevor Potter at an FEC hearing. But I couldn’t figure out why Redstate would be writing about Harry and Zacharias Smith.
The actual post is interesting if you’re into that sort of thing:
Well, you don’t often see fireworks at FEC hearings, from what I understand. But the Commission just released the transcripts from the June 28-29 hearings on the internet rulemaking. It was with great personal disappointment that I missed Trevor Potter’s appearance before the Commission so I’m excited to share with you the exchange between Commissioner Bradley Smith and Campaign Legal Center President and regulator extraordinare Trevor Potter.
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
Why in the world would the Washington Post print this, even in the Style section?
An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated
There they were — John, Jane, Josie and Jack — standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues — like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack — having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother — enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother’s skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes….
In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. “John-John” Kennedy Jr.
Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi.
Dressing appropriately is a somewhat selfless act. It’s not about catering to personal comfort. One can’t give in fully to private aesthetic preferences. Instead, one asks what would make other people feel respected? What would mark the occasion as noteworthy? What signifies that the moment is bigger than the individual?
But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual — and his family — to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it.
Damn you, John Roberts, for not dressing your four and five-year-old kids immodestly, based on “trends” and “popular culture”. My kids have light-up shoes (does that make me hoi palloi?), but you can be sure that if I’m ever nominated for anything important, they’d be dressed appropriately for the occasion. And appropriate in most cases is going to be something timeless (or old-fashioned if you’re the Post).
And “old money”? Where does that come from? As has been beaten to death, it’s not true of Roberts. And it doesn’t even make sense. Let’s go shopping. Khakis and a polo at Gap Kids? $43.00. A seersucker suit? Here’s one for $50 (though you could certainly spend more). Does that really make the former hoi palloi and the latter Old Money?
[via Captain’s Quarters]
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
Jeff Jarvis endorses random bag searches on NY subways. Given what’s happened two days in a row and three times since July 7 on London subways, not that surprising. Unfortunately, he does so by playing the “if you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to fear?” card.
And what precisely is the privacy problem? If the cops catch you carrying something illegal, well, you shouldn’t be carrying anything illegal. If they catch you carrying the latest Playboy — or, more embarrassing, Radar — then don’t worry; they’ve seen worse.
I’m not actually all that troubled by bag searches in specific defined instances. I know that when I go to Six Flags, the rent-a-cops are going to search the diaper bag. Now I know that the NY transit police may search by backpack. I always have the choice to go to the park instead of Six Flags, to take the bus or a cab or walk next time I’m in Manhattan if I object to the searches. But Jeff’s logic trades liberty for security, and does so in a way that leaves him no room to object to random searches on the street or in his house or at his job. It’s not a slippery slope issue – bag searches on the subway do not inexorably lead to “Your Papers, please!” on the street. It’s a mindset issue, a political philosophy.
“If you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to fear?” has more in common with this:
than with this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
Pizmo Games makes weird and strangely addictive Flash-based games.
In Sugar Crash, bounce the toddler with your sugar cube to pop all the balloons. If your toddler’s sugar level gets too high, bounce him into bed for a nap.
Inwordz is a word game that gets increasingly difficult. You can move inward on the grid to choose letters, but not outward.
In Happy Pill, line up your pill capsule to bounce off walls and turn frowns upside down. Too much of a good thing makes the happy faces sad.
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
According to Google, my height is equal to 1.07462687 Smoot. What is a Smoot, you ask? A Smoot is a distinctly MIT unit of measure:
Smoot - A unit of length equal to the height of Oliver Smoot ‘62, most commonly used for the Harvard Bridge (364.4 Smoots plus 1 ear).
The conversion is courtesy of Google’s calculator feature, which can also calculate pi, the square root of pi, and lots of other useful stuff.
But just what is a company founded by Stanford alums doing converting to an MIT unit of measure? At least it can’t convert volume to Brunos.
[reminder about the Bruno courtesy of Pennywit]
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
I kind of gave up on The Daily Show after the last election cycle after it appeared that Jon Stewart had let partisanship take over humor. At some point he got his take-on-both-sides groove back, if this exchange about Judge Roberts is any indication:
JON STEWART: What has been the reaction in Washington?
ED HELMS: Liberals are outraged by Bush’s choice. They have been for weeks.
JON STEWART: Ed, they just found out about Roberts last night.
ED HELMS: That’s not the point. The Left wishes the president picked someone they wanted, not someone he wanted. I mean who gave him the authority? It’s abuse of power.
JON STEWART: I think it’s in the Constitution.
ED HELMS: What the Democrats are saying is they wish they had won the last election.
[via NRO’s Bench Memos]
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
The biggest problem with illegal drugs is that they make lawmakers act like they’re high. Reacting to the “scourge” of methamphetamine, Oregon lawmakers are poised to require a prescription for over-the-counter cold remedies.
SALEM — Oregon would become the first state in the nation to require a doctor’s prescription for many types of cold medicines under a bill overwhelmingly passed Wednesday by the House as part of the Oregon Legislature’s attack on the methamphetamine scourge.
Backers of the bill, sent to the Oregon Senate on a 55-4 vote, said such drastic steps are needed to help curb availability of ingredients used to make a drug that’s ruining lives.
Supporters said they expect the measure to pass in the Senate, and it has the backing of Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.
“A plague has spread across America,” said Rep. Greg Macpherson, D-Lake Oswego. “This is what we must do in this state to get this problem under control.”
The bill would require prescriptions by mid-2006 for medicines containing pseudoephedrine and two similar substances.
So an Oregonian with a head cold will have to make an appointment with a doctor, wait around until the doctor can see them, pay the doctor for an office visit, and then go to the drugstore, all to get a product that the FDA has determined is safe for use without medical supervision. And they’ll have to do this not because the product itself is unsafe, but because a handful of bad actors use the product to manufacture illegal drugs. The law will have virtually all its impact on law-abiding Oregonians – do lawmakers actually believe that a meth manufacturer is going to say “well, can’t get Sudafed in Portland anymore, so I guess I’ll fill out that application down at the Wal-Mart” rather than importing cold medicine from Washington?
Of course, as with all such legislative follies, punishing law-abiding adults is deemed OK because it is For The Children:
About 12.3 million Americans ages 12 and older reported trying methamphetamine at least once, according to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
“I’m going to vote for that inconvenience,” said Republican Rep. Wayne Krieger, a retired state policeman and a leading architect of the bill.
He said 4,900 children are in foster homes around the state because meth has destroyed their families.
Oregon is going in precisely the wrong direction. We need more over the counter drugs, not less.
[via Catallarchy]
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
Despite what some people may tell you, do not go to YTMND.com if you are reading or plan to read Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. People who post spoilers suck. Make me wish the Dark Arts really worked.
Share This
3 years, 4 months ago,,
by Fred (,
Tags: none yet
,
I actually didn’t notice the President smirking or Mrs. Roberts looking embarrassed, but I fully appreciation their motives for each:
Anyone with a four-year-old can understand.
[via Michelle Malkin]
Share This
