A Journalist?

And all this time I've been thinking that Garance Franke-Ruta was a brand of Italian shoes!

Turns out she's a writer who can't distinguish between a hypothetical example of a bad argument and advocating it.

I hope the Bali bombers weren't reading this

[There's been another terrorist bombing in Bali. Tim Blair is tracking it.]

LGF notes a despondent post on the Daily Kos Apparently this guy is upset that his activism hasn't changed the world:

We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots. Activism didn’t prevent 60,000 deaths in Vietnam. All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. Segregation may not be the law of the land anymore, but it’s still the de facto state of America.

When y’all want to start throwing molotovs and sniping from windows come and talk to me.

And I thought I felt bad when Goldwater lost to LBJ!

Heh.

Right Wing News has polled some bloggers on who Bush will nominate next, and who he should nominate. The favorite is Albert Gonzalez and two first round picks, but I liked the suggestion in the comments, start a few rumors about John Ashcroft and watch the aneurisms explode! Or maybe John Bolton. It'd be fun to watch the reactions if it were Tom DeLay or Newt Gingrich, too.

I suppose Robert Bork is too old now.

If we're getting whimsical, I'd pick Christopher Hitchens just for the fun of reading his dissents. Most of the people I know anything about are too political to be judges. I'd rather have somebody who doesn't even think about her ownpolitical considerations.

Will Geena Rodham Davis win in 2008?

I wonder if there'll be a scene with Geena shrieking curses and throwing lamps. Not if this whole show is a campaign contribution. Now that's what I call soft money!

If you can't handle spam, you shouldn't be using email.

It takes a lot of gall, or more likely just real ignorance, to demand answers to emails when you have one of those stupid "I don't take email without your jumping through hoops to earn the privilege of communicating with me" filters.

I use Mozilla. It has a message filter that lets you kick out mail from addresses that aren't in your address book. How difficult is that to use? Morons. I think the first time I got one of those, there'd be a new filter to block me from sending email to that address again. That's a hint to you coders out there.

When I read Glenn's post it was as if I heard a swelling "Amen!" from all over the internet.

Bill Bennett shouldn't think out loud

When you think about it, aborting all white babies would lower the crime rates, too. In fact, I've heard speculations that lower crime numbers may be partially due to the number of abortions in the past 20 years. But is reducing crime a valid basis for adopting a policy of abortion on demand?

That was probably Bennett's point. Maybe he threw in the "black" in order to demonstrate how obnoxious such an argument could be. And it's a valid point, because it's exactly the kind of reasoning used to justify the Holocaust. He just put it into more contemporary terms, as it might be used by modern Nazi types. But he failed to catch how it would sound out of context. Most casual listeners wouldn't have been following the point about justifying abortion very closely, but that phrase aborting all black babies was bound to catch the ears of listeners, just as kill all Jews would have.

Of course, having politicians and the media ready to take their side any time against any Republican, logic is not a requirement. An unfortunate side effect of using federal power to overrule state and local governments in the Jim Crow states, is that anybody who doesn't constantly speak of blacks with the "not that there's anything wrong with being black" kind of self-editing, will incur resentment for not being sufficiently sincere in treating blacks like anyone else. In fact, treating them like anyone else will get you branded as a crypto-racist. This is exactly what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton trade on in their discrimination extortion rackets. It's so easy to give anybody bad PR just because it hasn't gone out adjusted its workforce to the right mix of races, that just the accusation can ruin one's business.

It isn't safe to be too candid these days. Eventually, the rest of society will get fed up with this extortion, as is happening when blacks bring up reparatiosn for slavery, and they'll have to accept that there is only so much the law can change. After that, it's the individual who is responsible for lifting himself.

Lock her back up.

Power Line was suspicious of Judy Miller's deal. I had just assumed that she wanted Libby not just to release her but beg her to testify so she could impress her fellow "journalists." I'd think the Times would want to let go of this tiger's tail, without trying to get the last bit of flesh out of the transaction.

But then there's this, submitted by a P.L. regular reader:

Re: your post this evening regarding Judith Miller. Her change of heart may have been prompted by the prosecutor's agreement to refrain from questioning her not about other sources in the Plame matter, but about another matter in which the same prosecutor filed a motion to compel Miller's testimony before the grand jury.

I wrote you about this several months ago. U.S.D.J. Robert Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) denied Fitzpatrick's motion to compel Miller to testify before a grand jury relating to a leak to Miller about a warrant issued to the FBI for a search of a New York Muslim charity's offices. A source leaked this information to Miller, who, incredibly, promptly contacted the Muslim charity and revealed the warrant prior to the search. Fortunately, no FBI agents were injured when they searched the offices the next day, in what clearly could have developed into a very dangerous situation.

If this is true, why wasn't she charged with obstruction of justice?

The fact that this story doesn't sound beyond belief is a sad commentary on the attitude of the media these days--above the law, above the government, above question. I wonder what would happen if people started complaining to sponsors.

Update: I just saw Michael Isikoff on Chris Matthews aharing a moment of thanksgiving that Miller's Passion is finally over, after which the topic went back to whether Scooter Libby could still be hung for Plamegate. Matthews introduced Isifkoff as "the best in the business" and I thought, that doesn't say much for the business, does it? These guys are comparing Libby and Rove to Haldeman and Ehrlichman! Don't they understand that to indict either one of them over the Valerie Plame "leak" would be sillier than Ronnie Earle's case against Tom DeLay?

Can this get any more bizarre?

Am I wrong . . .

to think that reporters in this country are more loyal to other reporters and their opinions than they are to their duty as citizens. I see nothing in the First Amendment that authorizes the press to ignore subpoenas or refuse to testify when the court requires it to. To place their own jobs and frienships ahead of the law.

The smarter media are starting to analyze Katrina

John Leo has obviously not succumbed to the media's Katrina goofiness. Some very calm, level-headed, sound analysis. This is the first I'd heard that 76% of NOLA's black babies are born to single mothers. Isn't this a kind of polygamy without any kind of accountability?

Why delay the necessary?

I guess the GOP has to oppose the bald attempt by Democrats to depose Tom DeLay by extra-political means (is anything really beyond politics?), but I wouldn't mind it much if he declined and lost his next election. He has engaged almost defiantly in behavior that is just offensive to voters who see the influence of money in politics as at best as a neccesary evil. You may have to play some games to win in politics, but you don't need to enjoy them so much.

This is the plot of the Andy Griffith movie, A Face In the Crowd, but it occurs so often that it's become a cautionary fable, like the tale of the fisherman and his wife. DeLay should drop the "Democrats do it all the time!" defense and leave it to his attorney. It sounds too much like he thinks that acting like a Democrat is acceptable behavior.

Architeuthis dux!

This is so cool! Japanese scientists have captured the first live photos of a giant squid. Sashimi!

Seriously, this is a major accomplishment. They got a series of still photos which show a 25-30 foot squid attacking a suspended bait ball off a southern Japanese island known to attract sperm whales, which prey on these squids. One of its tentacles got tangled in the cable and more photos were taken while it tried to get itself free, which it finally did when its tentacle was severed.

Next, moving pictures!

These things captured my imagination a long time ago. They have to be one of the most frightening real-life monsters I've ever heard about. A Komodo dragon bite or a cone-shell sting or one of a variety of snake or spider bites would probably be more deadly, but the idea of sucker arms with teeth on the suckers just creep me out. This thing sounds like it was created with a goal of scaring little kids half to death, like the creature in the Alien or Predator series. This was eventually bound to happen as new technology became available and more was learned about the creatures' behavior, but this is still really thrilling to see.

Saint Judy's Comet

has now passed its peak of brightness and is heading back into the blackness of space. It drove a lot of people nuts, but at least there were no mass suicides like with Hale-Bopp.

Where are the peaceful Muslims?

Before the rise of Muslim terrorism, I had always heard Islam described as a religion of peace, in which the devout were modest, did not drink alcohol, and were friendly and tolerant of others. This came from Americans who had lived in Muslim countries.

Then we go to know the Palestinians and Papa Yassir. Now one thinks of the whole group as paranoid, obnoxious, violent and touchy. Certainly Hamas and the radicals place no more value on the lives of their young people than they do on a shipment of munitions. It seems that the more education, especially Western education, some young Arabs are given, the more they adopt the worst characteristics of western societies, such as profanity, and become disdainful, resentful, even full of hatred for the West. Others decide that the West is where future prosperity and development are, and move there and go into technology or science or start a business.

As this piece points out, every effort to reach out to these people these days seems to be greeted with some kind of screwy response. How soon before these people really do get persecuted?

Someone finally refuses Microsoft's "offer they can't refuse."

I hope this is a harbinger of the end of Microsoft's monopoly. I think that people are starting to recognize that getting a commercial OS bundled with a new computer is not a determinative reason to use that OS. I started with a variant of CP/M, on which MS-Dos was based. I learned to run computers from the command line prompt. I was never that impressed by the idea of a GUI, because it means constantly having to switch from the keyboard to the mouse and back again.

If the author of CP/M had gotten his way, the OS would have been opensourced from the outset of personal computing and MS would still be one of a group of pretty good software vendors, instead of the 21st Century version of Standard Oil. People worry about standards, but the initiatives described in the article are

The Dems may be down, but

Jim Pinkerton is correct that the Republicans ignore illegal immigration at their peril. The Dems are in disarray and can't win on their own, but another third party based on that issue could make Hillary! our first female president.

Why so sad, Sonny?

Howard Fineman looks worried.

Andrew, go lie down and take a nap.

Did you know there is a children's book called Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!? Me neither. Why Andrew Sullivan is so upset by this, I can't imagine.

Speaking of Andrew, he's enraptured by Captain Ian Fishback My favorite quote from Andrew's blog today, is this: "Only McCain can save us now." Sa-woon!

Oh, their delicate little psyches!

In Britain, reports the BBC "A West Yorkshire hospital has banned visitors from cooing at new-born babies over fears their human rights are being breached and to reduce infection." How would you like being pointed at and talked to in baby talk? How would you like being exposed to the world wearing only a pair of nappies? And for that matter, how would you like lying there toothless and helpless without muscle control, incontinent and dazzled by bright lights, for complete strangers to gawk and point at, while being kept incommunicado and isolated from your family?

Next issue: Why are ducks being allowed to run waddle around without pants?

Somebody is holding too many meetings.

Howie Kurtz today

Howard Kurtz delivers a scathing critique of MSM's failure to disclose who is really behind the anti-war protests in Washington.

Note to self: Communists should not be described as "progressives"

When the Columbia Journalism Review, of all people, says ANSWER is affiliated with the World Workers Party, why would reporters in the MSM ignore the information? It's hard for me to believe this was just laziness.

-- Kurtz is pretty tough on Michael Brown, too, but why has nobody in the MSM noted the childish behavior of his insquisitors? I didn't care for Brown's criticism of others in the administration. He could have just said, "We should have made more satellite phones available to critical people involved in the response effort. That should be addressed in t he future," or he could have pointed to the fact that the technology isn't all that reliable yet. I could probably find a lot more things that could be improved in FEMA's practices, but refusing to essentiallly depose the elected civil officials of Louisiana and NOLA isn't one of them. His criticism of them was entirely accurate and appropriate and the suggestions by several Democrats that he should have been prepared for that strikes me a stupid and potentially dangerous to the principles underlying the Posse Commitatus law. I also found repelling the implication that the looting of Walmart and other stores in Mississippi was part of Brown's emergency plan.

This was a CYA hearing, an opportunity for Congressmen to pour blame on Mr. Brown. That's what they all did. Why is only Mike Brown being singled out for criticism? Because he refused to sit still for all the character assassination. And why does anybody think he should have committed ultra vires actions in this situation?

-- "Maureen Dowd scoffs at Bush's new conservation message." So do I, but I don't consider it worth an entire column.

More grief for Times Select

The New York Times' scheme to charge internet readers for access to its Op-Ed Page, is getting slammed by Mickey Kaus for hypocrisy. If they're after more revenue, why not charge for the Sports Section? Or is this a way to lower the amount of criticism from the blogosphere of MoDo and Kludgeman?

All the news that Emily Litella gets upset over.

Scroll down to the correction. He didn't write the memo? Well, that's different! Never mind.

Lions and tigers and dolpins! Oh, my!

For the record, I am firmly opposed to dolphins being give concealed carry permits or being allowed to go armed. There's too much violence below sea level as it is.

Geraldo a narcissist?

Did anybody need the New York Times to report subjective impressions from a reporter watching a a television report, in order to prove to us that Geraldo Rivera is a showboat? I can't stand the man. He's smarmy, egotistical and hasn't changed much from his days as the host of a TV talk show with standards slightly better than those of Jerry Springer. He sensationalizes everything, even things that are perfectly sensational to begin with.

All that being said, reporters aren't supposed to use their reporting to attack their personal pet peeves. Let bloggers do that. They have more credibility.

Ham Sandwich Indicted

Tom Delay, whom the MSM has already convicted for being a combative, effective Republican Representative, has now been indicted by a grand jury in Texas for conspiracy to contribute money within 6 monts prior to an election. I think.

I'm shocked, shocked to learn that money is involved in politics. I'm sure no Democrat would ever do anything like this.

Let this be a warning

Those breast implants can really cause pain, as this photo illustrates.

How to forget the land of opium dreams

Joel Kotkin (subscription required) argues that the first step to recovery from Katrina is to get out of New Orleans. What's that they say about doing the same thing but expecting different results. I think it's swamp gas poisoning.

The piece ends with some sensible advice:

A less extreme but equally sensible course can be applied throughout the Gulf region by steering new development -- through either environmental or insurance restrictions -- further out into the interior.

More broadly, as a nation, we may want to consider ways to encourage greater development further inland. Americans have been crowding into the coasts for generations, even though one of our great assets is the broad interior hinterland. Our continued population growth -- from 310 million now to 400 million by 2050 -- may make repopulating the hinterlands more economically viable. Instead of offering "homesteads" or funds for repeated rebuildings on the crowded, and sometimes dangerous, coasts -- particularly in below-sea-level New Orleans -- it might make more sense to encourage settlement and investment deeper into our nation's interior.

This was the essence of much of 19th-century federal policy, which gave incentives for canals and railroads, as well as providing cheap or free land on the Plains. This could also bring new life to parts of country that have been losing jobs and people for a generation, but may now be ready for revival. With the Internet and small-jet travel, some of these areas, such as the Dakotas, are already showing signs of becoming more competitive in the national and global economy. It is a trend worth boosting, and may come to be the most attractive strategic lesson to emerge from Katrina and Rita.

I wonder what James Lileks would think of the proposal.

Compounding stupidity

After his state's coast has been crushed once more by a hurricane, the Mississippi attorney general is trying to assure that the rest of us will pay to rebuild the houses and buildings smashed by the next hurricane.

The case for living in squalor

David Remnick in The New Yorker:

Kalamu ya Salaam [a writer from the Ninth Ward in New Orleans] told me that he thought the suffering was far from over. Hurricane Rita has made recovery even more difficult. For the moment, people are focussed on the grace of their own survival, and are grateful for the small and large acts of compassion that have come their way. And yet, he said, “you are going to see a lot of suicides this winter. A lot of poor people depend entirely on their extended family and their friends who share their condition to be a buffer against the pain of that condition. By winter, a lot of the generosity and aid that’s been so palpable lately will begin to slow down and the reality of not going home again will hit people hard. They will be very alone.

“People forget how important all those Social Aid and Pleasure Clubs are for people. It’s a community for a lot of folks who have nothing. Some people have never left New Orleans. Some have never seen snow. So you wake up and you find yourself beyond the reach of friends, beyond the reach of members of your family, and you are working in a fast-food restaurant in Utah somewhere and there is no conceivable way for you to get back to the city you love. How are you going to feel?”

Hey! Utah's not that bad. It's well above sea level and the sewers work by gravity, mirabile dictu. It was settled by evacuees, you know, who had lost their homes three times in Missouri and once again in Nauvoo, Illinois, but not because of flood. Most of them were from the Eastern U.S., Britain and Scandinavia. If they can do it, anybody from New Orleans can too; and he/she won't have to start from scratch. The Mardi Gras here is pretty lean, though.

If you don't listen to the people who hate Mormons, you'll find a friendly, if dull, community. Salt Lake City's mayor would like to make the city more like New Orleans, but he's pretty frustrated.

I like this quote better

At the Reliant Center, in Houston, Patricia Valentine, a fifty-four-year-old woman from Treme, a black neighborhood near the French Quarter, told me that her area was “waist high” in water and the restaurants down the street “got nothing.” She was sitting in a wheelchair and said that she had no intention of returning home. “They can have New Orleans,” she said. “It’s a toxic-waste dump now. I was in Betsy forty years ago: September, 1965. And the levee broke. What are we, stupid? Born yesterday? It’s the same people drowning today as back then. They were trying to move us out anyway. They want a bigger tourist attraction, and we black folks ain’t no tourist attraction.”

She ought to run for Governor.

Cool Mom!

This is one of thoses stories that leads you on and on. "41-year-old Silvia Johnson was injured in an accident.

A woman who authorities said had sex with high school boys so she could be a ''cool mom'' was injured while riding in an SUV that veered off an interstate a day before she was to be sentenced. The driver was a 14-year-old girl.

Sentencing for 41-year-old Silvia Johnson, who pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor sexual assault and nine felony counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, was postponed. A review hearing was set for Oct. 6. She could be sentenced to 58 years in prison.

If that doesn't make you want to read the rest, I don't know what it would take. The idiocy of some people is just wondrous to behold.

Politicians Passing the Buck

Something tells me that Louisiana's politicians are losing the PR battle.

I listened to Mike Brown's testimony before the House committee looking into what went wrong in New Orleans, as Democrats struggled to blame him for not predicting that Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco would be derelict in doing what was necessary to let FEMA work, let alone being positively obstructionist, and prepared to work around it.

I think Brown made most of the same points I've made about this debacle: FEMA is not a first responder, it's job is to coordinate emergency responses. But when the local elected officials have no response, or one that makes matters worse, it is not legal for FEMA to bypass them or overrule them. He made the point forcefully, after being called names and accused of forcing people in Mississippi to loot stores in order to survive, that it is not possible for FEMA to have troops waiting outside of people's homes handing out MREs and fresh water. It takes about 72 hours! I thought he must have been reading this blog!

The Democrat attempts to excuse the dismal performance of local authorities (Democrats, btw) and blame Brown for not anticipating all the things that wouldn't be done or would be done wrong, were absurd or downright offensive like a Mississippi representatives charge that Brown was expecting residents to loot stores for food and supplies until he could get to them, and another complaining that FEMA didn't distribute 5 gallon cans of gasoline to every household before the storm.

Brown did admit to some mistakes and failures, but they seemed either like the kind of screwups that happen during every disaster (inadequate communications equipment, inadequate funding, etc.) or they were buckpassing, ass covering and weasely, blaming his problems on higher ups in the DHS and not having enough money.

The major things about this "inquiry" that only a fool could miss was the massive struggle to exculpate one's own party and blame the other. It was like watching 6 year olds. How this will help future responses, I can't see. I'd like to see Congress try to dictate how state and local authorities have to work with FEMA. Obviously, it can't do so directly, but they might be able to tell them that failure to make timely requests and refusal to follow strong recommendations of FEMA officials will be grounds for delaying or withholding funds. Nobody really wants people to suffer because they have elected inept officials, but when they elect fools, there really isn't anything anybody else can do except try to rescue them. However, it strikes me as rewarding foolhardiness to help them move back into the same perilous setting that destroyed all they had.

Sometimes, you just have to make a new life in a safer place. If you aren't willing to do that, I don't think you should ask the rest of the nation to subsidize your risky behavior. Tradition and charm aren't a good enough reason to live that way.

If it were up to me,

Saddam Hussein would receive the same kind of justice he dispensed to others. I understand the need for respecting rights, etc. but I think there are some cases where "a full and fair trial" is just a waste of time. He deserves the same trial that Nicolae Ceausescu got. Release him to a mob of the relatives of those in those mass graves or who died in the streets of Halabja.

I predict his defense will be "I was only giving orders. I didn't know how they were being carried out."

The War to Let Iraq Make Itself Free

Michael Barone shows why you don't get the big picture through a TV screen, even the new wide aspect ones. Largely it's because they don't want you to see it.

David Ignatius explains why the Bush strategy of keeping American presences in Iraq small makes sense in light of the main goal, which the anti-war folks always seem to ignore.

Sadow for Governor!

Of Louisiana, that is.

Poor William Perritt

He bought some private land in Southeastern Utah that was surrounded by BLM land. Now the government is conducting seismic studies on its lands to discover gas and/or oil under it, and he's gone to the media for sympathy.

I'll bet he won't feel quite so injured if they discover gas and end up paying him a royalty for pumping it out from under his property.

You don't say!

Apparently, the violence at the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center was overstated in the media. What's the world coming to.

Don't go near that Clift!

Eleanor Clift thinks the left is crazy to try to block John Roberts, as do I, but I think her idea of running him for president is kind of nutty. Judges don't necessarily make good policymakers or executives. The requirements of the position need to be considered. I don't know Roberts well enough to tell whether he'd be a good politician, but my feeling is that he is too squeaky clean and straight arrow to make it. Besides, why would conservatives want to give up a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court for a chance at 8 years in the White House. If Roberts is as good a justice as I hope, I wouldn't want him to go into politics.Anna Quindlan asks

How could senators complain that they had not learned enough about the nominee when so many of them had wasted their allotted time giving pocket stump speeches?

The role of academia

James Piereson documents the process that has brought us to the point where our children are being trained by people who hate this nation. He concludes that the way to redress the problem is through persuasion and activism, which I don't minimize, but I think this is too important. Parents must get involved and demand change.

What's worse than Rebuilding the Gulf Coast?

Requiring the rest of us to subsidize people who build in dangerous locations. There are efforts afoot to outlaw insurance policies that exclude flood coverage. This would cost the rest of the nation far more than any federal program.

The point of a memorial.

Hillary wants to "can" the International Freedom Center planned for Ground Zero. Good. I'm not inclined to give any small group, whether it be political correct planners or the families of the victims of 9/11, the right to define what should be built at Ground Zero. My preference would be to have the owners of the site construct more commercial buildings, with a small central part of the area devoted to a memorial of the events that destroyed the original World Trade Center. It should not be a political statement or primarily a tribute to those who died, although a tribute to those who responded would not be amiss. It should be a true memorial to help visitors remember what happened there and who was involved.

I don't know why people feel a need to turn every monument into a statement about or interpretation of an event. The purpose of a memorial is to bring events to remembrance. This close to the event, and in the climate of dispute over its meaning, it would be wise to focus on creating an accurate commemoration of the event itself, including a sense of the enormity of the shock, horror and brutality of the attack and the incredible bravery of those who responded to it. It should avoid questions of whether we brought it on ourselves or whether the war that followed was proper or properly strategized. Leave those things to those who visit.

The Vietnam Memorial is a good example. It does not make any overt statement about the reasons for or justice of the war or the way that it was ended. It just reminds us that it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, individuals like everyone of those who visit it, and the many individual stories that could be told. Whether they were heroes, villains, dupes, victims or anything else is left to the thoughts of those who look at those names on that granite wall. In a way, this is a national grave marker for all of those who

Take politics out of the Judicial Branch.

I seen a lot of commentary like this, discussing the strategic options for selecting a nominee to replace Justice O'Connor.

I think that Bush, in nominating John Roberts took the correct approach. Find the best qualified and justice, without regard to his or her record of political activity. I hate political hacks as judges. They bring the wrong attitude to jurisprudence, i.e. the idea that their function is to determine what kinds of laws are best for the country, rather than determining what those laws are and how they were intended to function. The Constitution sets restraints, it is true, but when you view it primarily as a means of promoting the Bill of Rights, rather than of carrying out the purposes stated in the Preamble, you turn it into a club to bludgeon the states and the people and deny them the rights to define basic society. This is the result of 50 years of focusing on individual civil rights over democracy and the rights of society.

We all have different ideas about what individuals should be allowed to do, but the general rule is that we submit to the will of the whole rather than doing whatever we feel like doing, such as respecting the property of others, controlling our anger, lust, covetousness, and rowdiness. At the same time, the general rule is also that people should be free to seek happiness in their own way, provided they do not become a burden to others.

What I admire about John Roberts is that he understands what the limits on judicial powers should be, and that those limits must be imposed and enforced by the courts themselves. There is no body provided by the Constitution capable of setting aside overreaching judicial rulings. Until there is a Constitutional Amendment enabling some check on such behavior, we need to appoint justices who believe in judicial restraint.

Bush should focus on finding other justices who understand and apply that standard, not their race, sex or other political criteria. He should use the objections by Senator Feinstein as a guideline for how not to select a justice. Her criteria might be appropriate for selecting legislators, but they are utterly inappropriate to judges. A compassionate judge is an inconsistent and illogical one, because such judges look to results rather than the logic and applicability of the law as a goal in reviewing decisions. In short, pick judges with the ability to comprehend the flow and structure of jurisprudence and the understanding that the Supreme Court is meant to superintend a system which does not impose the policy views of judges, but imposes the constraints of the Constitution on the policies of the other branches only to the extent those constraints are clearly stated. The majority of its job is to interpret and apply laws to specific facts, not to dictate to those who make laws as to what laws are wise, fair or ill-advised, only to try to make them work as intended. Any law which leaves too much room for bureaucrats and judges to make policy decisions is a bad law. Find justices who understand that, and they will save the republic.