People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, July 05, 2010

Blog Interrupted

I was called away for a while.  A dozen head of cattle escaped this morning  and were heading back the turnpike.  Just got back, soaked from the knees down, from an old-fashioned cattle drive.

All's well.

Though the cows seem bemused by the whole thing.

A Fair Point, Except ...

E. J. Dionne, he of rabidly liberal Washington Post fame, gives fair warning (in "A judicial change to believe in") to conservatives, one that is, honestly, quite fair:  Don't chastise the Supreme Court for being "activist" and then expect it to be activist. The key point:
But far more than she was given credit for, Kagan did lay out a clear judicial philosophy that (1) sees courts as having an obligation to defer to the choices of elected officials except in the most extreme cases and (2) puts the lie to Chief Justice John Roberts's notion that judges are mere "umpires," as if their task was, in Kagan's cutting word, to be "robotic." And it was Republican senators who seemed to be begging her to be a judicial activist and overturn the enactments of Congress. Thus did Sen. Tom Coburn ask her whether she would rule against a law requiring Americans to eat a certain number of fruits and vegetables. 
I saw only a brief portion of that question-and-answer exchange, so I can't explain Coburn's reasoning behind the query.  Perhaps his expectation is that the Court should put limitations on the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, as many scholars have suggested.  Whatever the motivation, Dionne has a point.  The Supreme Court should not be expected to bring sanity to legislation brought about by our clinically insane elected representatives in Washington.

November 2 will be used to rectify that situation.

- - -

As to the "except": Did you ever read something that was so incongruous that you want the author to devote a second column to explaining just what the heck he meant? (And shouldn't the first rule of column writing be to make sense?

Take this (portion of a ) sentence: "Kagan ... puts the lie to Chief Justice John Roberts's notion that judges are mere 'umpires,' as if their task was, in Kagan's cutting word, to be 'robotic.'"

In a thousand words or less I'd love for Dionne to explain what's robotic about umpiring.  There may be some connection.  But it's lost on me.

Want Some Hypocrisy?

A commenter recently accused me of being hypocritical for supporting the war in Afghanistan back when we were there to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban, but now being in opposition to Obama's effort there, whatever that effort is.  I replied that I didn't see it as being hypocritical at all.  I was for the war when it was a war with clearly defined goals (the primary one being victory) and I'm opposed to our "overseas contingency operation" there now in part because our primary goal seems to be to get the hell out.  Call me erratic, if you will, but don't call me hypocritical.

Want some real hypocrisy?

From MSNBC, September 9, 2007 ("Biden: Petraeus ‘dead flat wrong’ on Iraq"):
Washington — President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home. [link]
In the news yesterday:
Jul 4, 2010 The Vice President is spending his Independence Day in Iraq. Speaking from what he described as Saddam Hussein’s hunting lodge, Biden celebrated the toppling of the former Iraqi ruler, saying, “I find it delicious that that’s happened.”
And of his role in winning the war?  This:

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this [the Obama-Biden] administration."

That, friends, is hypocrisy.

Or lunacy.

Or idiocy.

You can choose one or all of the above.

It's Just a Matter Of Time

Now that Republican Party chairman Michael Steele has been tarred and feathered (mostly by his fellow Republicans, naturally) (but yet to be ridden out on the rail; that'll come soon enough), reality slowly starts to set in.  He had a point.

Michael Steele had a valid point.

Don Surber:

Oh crap, I agree with Ron Paul

The Michael Steele controversy has me siding with Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul.

President Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the “real war.”

It’s his.

Congressman Paul agrees.

From Congressman Paul’s press release: “I would like to congratulate Michael Steele for his leadership on one of the most important issues of today. He is absolutely right: Afghanistan is now Obama’s war. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was out in front in insisting that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. Obama called for expanding the war even as he pretended to be a peace candidate.
To anyone paying attention in recent years, this isn't a blow to the side of the head.  Obama, along with all the other foreign policy shining lights in the Democrat Party were saying, at the height of the Iraq conflict, that we were fighting the wrong war; that we should have been focusing on Afghanistan instead.

Now Obama has his way.  We are fighting in Afghanistan instead.  And as much as he and they would like to, they can't shift focus again.  They can't blame Bush anymore.  They own it now.

Let's hope they decide what they want to do with it.