Tuesday, February 28, 2006

SCOTUS Decision

Interesting RULING today. Puts to rest something that’s been a thorn in the pro-life movement’s side for years and years. (Actual ruling text HERE.)

The case was 8-0. Here’s something that makes me curious:

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.

Why would that be? Maybe because he didn’t hear the original arguments, but the unanimous nature of the ruling made a re-hearing of the case unnecessary?

Posted by Father Barry in 22:16:37 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Polls

I hate these things. They’re so rarely honest.

THIS one from CBS suggest that Bush is in real trouble. 34% approval rating is very low, isn’t it? Dangerous, to say the least. “Lame duck,” anyone?

The actual poll is HERE, in PDF format.

But hang on a second. Newsbusters has an interesting THOUGHT, just in case you haven’t gotten down to Page 18 yet. (I’m sure you would have. That’s a riveting read, I know. But I’m just moving you ahead a little bit…)

Here it is, in black and white:

Total Republicans: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted

Total Democrats: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted

Now, I’m sure there’s a rational explanation for that, though it might be as simple as “CBS wants Bush to look bad.” But I’m guessing talking to over 20% more Dems is going to slant your poll results just a little, no?

An NRO reader and pollster adds this:

They also used a split-sample methodology, which is legit (we’ve used it ourselves), but which also INCREASES the margin of error for those questions (a fact that is usually glossed over).

Could you try to be a bit less obvious, CBS? Just a bit?

 

Posted by Father Barry in 21:11:26 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth: Iraq…

…is not cooperating with the MSM, REPORTS BlogsforBush. And lest we forget our history, here’s a little REMINDER from Captain’s Quarters.

Posted by Father Barry in 20:33:34 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Da Vinci Cad?

I rather doubt THIS will go anywhere, but it’s interesting none the less.  It would be somehow gratifying if Brown didn’t come up with most of that material.  Though I guess it would mean that someone else had been thinking all that absurd vitriol before him.  Which would be depressing.
Posted by Father Barry in 01:44:06 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Cheney, SCOTUS, and the Boxer rebellion

THIS piece from Insight is really making the rounds. I continue to think it’s absurd. Makes no sense to my. If Scooter does get himself (or Cheney) in actual serious trouble, then it might start to make more sense. Still not very much, but more. And I don’t buy the “Bush and Cheney are drifting apart” stuff. I can remember hearing that sort of thing 2-3 years ago.

A nice SUMMARY of Scalia’s talk from a couple days ago. The writer’s dead-on about the unfortunate fact that the media pretty much only paid attention to the hecklers. (And HERE, from ConfirmThem, is a piece on the new O’Connor book. Doesn’t make Starr look good. Or O’C, for that matter.)

Last two links are from California Conservative. The FIRST details that the “civil war” cries about Iraq recently may be turning out to be a bit “wolfish.” Big surprise. The fact that I assume the MSM is wrong pretty much 100% of the time on Iraq can’t be a good thing, can it? But that’s where I am at the moment.

The SECOND is nice for several reasons. “My” senator, Barbara Boxer, gets taken to task. By a major newspaper. “My” Los Angeles Times, no less. Strange and wonderful times, though I don’t expect them to last.

Posted by Father Barry in 01:27:12 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Monday, February 27, 2006

The Background GOP Players

For some reason, the GOP doesn’t seem to be going “all-out” in an effort to back up Bush.  I’m a bit confused, for a couple of different reasons.  The first is that I think they’ve been taking the wrong side a bit of late.  Ports are just one example.  But it also doesn’t make much sense to me strategically.  Reminds me of Earl Weaver’s Fifth Law:

If you play for one run, that’s all you’ll get. 

Not a great move, really.  Bush wants all the marbles, and his cohorts seem to be playing for one run.  The idea is not to join the Dems, guys.  It’s to create some distance between the two groups.  Now that doesn’t mean you need to back everything Bush does, but it does seem that you might want to be a bit more unlike the Dems.

Posted by Father Barry in 22:43:29 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Monday Morning

A bit of Hillary stuff over the weekend.  DRUDGE has a nice collection of things.  (I almost said “facts,” but that’s not always safe with Matt.)  And HERE is an article from TBO.com begging her not to run.  When Rove and the newspapers start to agree, you know they’re on to something.  Hillary is NOT impressed.

Blogs for Bush has a POST on the “real civil war,” which ties nicely into Mary Katherine Ham’s PIECE on the “Midwest Heroes” commercials.

SOMETHING from SwannBlog about the role of race in the PA elections.  This match-up continues to capture my attention.  Fascinating dynamic, I believe.

Baseball America’s “Top 100 Prospects” LIST.  Two Dodgers in the top 20.  And four Diamondbacks.  The top systems really look to be the Angels, Dodgers and AZ.  Right in line with John Sickels’ thinking.

And last, but not least: Dennis Weaver is DEAD.  Pretty much the only watchable pat of Gunsmoke, and his role in Duel is one of the most memorable I have ever seen.

Posted by Father Barry in 21:25:00 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Getting Back to My Roots

The Courting of Emer

“I swear by the oath of my people,” said Cuchulain, “I will make my doings be spoken of among the great doings of heroes in their strength.”

“What is your strength, then?” said Emer.

“That is easily told; when my strength in fighting is weakest I defend twenty; a third part of my strength is enough for thirty; in my full strength I fight alone against forty; and a hundred are safe under my protection. For dread of me, fighting men avoid fords and battles; armies and armed men go backward from the fear of my face.”

“That is a good account for a young boy,” said Emer, “but you have not reached yet to the strength of chariot chiefs.”

“But, indeed,” said Cuchulain, “it is well I have been reared by Conchubar, my dear foster-father. It is not as a countryman strives to bring up his children, between the flags and the kneading trough, between the fire and the wall, on the floor of the one room, that Conchubar has brought me up; but it is among chariot chiefs and heroes, among jesters and Druids, among poets and learned men, among landowners and farmers of Ulster I have been reared, so that I have all their manners and their gifts.”

“Who are these men, then, that have brought you up to do the things you are boasting of?” said Emer.

“That is easily told,” he said. “Fair-speaking Sencha taught me wisdom and right judgment; Blai, lord of lands, my kinsman, took me to his house, so that I have entertained the men of Conchubar’s province; Fergus brought me up to fights and to battles, so that I am able to use my strength. I stood by the knee of Amergin the poet, he was my tutor, so that I can stand up to any man, I can make praises for the doings of a king. Finchoem helped to rear me, so that Conall Cearnach is my foster-brother. Cathbad of the Gentle Face taught me, for the sake of Dechtire, so that I understand the arts of the Druids, and I have learned all the goodness of knowledge. All the men of Ulster have had a hand in bringing me up, chariot-drivers and chiefs of chariots, kings and chief poets, so that I am the darling of the whole army, so that I fight for the honour of all alike. And as to yourself, Emer,” he said, “what way have you been reared in the Garden of Lugh?”

“It is easy to tell you that,” said Emer. “I was brought up,” she said, “in ancient virtues, in lawful behaviour, in the keeping of chastity, in stateliness of form, in the rank of a queen, in all noble ways among the women of Ireland.”

“These are good virtues indeed,” said Cuchulain. “And why, then, would it not be right for us two to become one? For up to this time,” he said, “I have never found a young girl able to hold talk with me the way you have done.”

“Have you no wife already?” said Emer.

“I have not, indeed.”

“I may not marry before my sister is married,” she said then, “for she is older than myself.”

“Truly, it is not with your sister, but with yourself, I have fallen in love,” said Cuchulain.

Posted by Father Barry in 21:04:49 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Saturday, February 25, 2006

A Strange Combination

Take one part “fantasy literature from a writer I enjoy only sporadically,” combine with a dash of “slow-moving foreign trailer with no real iconic imagery,” a pinch of “irritating Japanese pop song,” and a twist of “extreme anime-style caricature.” The result? A film I really want to watch. And I really don’t know why.

That’s sort of like adding 2+2 and getting 29. I have no idea what’s going on. The film is called Gedo Senki. (That’s “Tales from Earthsea” in English.) Based primarily on the third volume of Ursula K. Le Guin’s Earth Sea trilogy. Definitely the worst book of the batch. And yet, I remain excited.

Completely irrational.

Posted by Father Barry in 19:41:00 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Krauthammer and Rice

Charles Krauthhammer, over at the Washington Post, has some more THOUGHTS on the whole port issue. It does seem to me like the more information I get, the less this bothers me. Or at least the less it seems like Bush and Co. made a mistake.

Not that my opinion matters all that much. The Dems seem to be making some real political hay with the matter. Despite the best efforts of people like Charlie K.  Check out THIS from Podhoretz.  64% vs. 17% is not a good split.  At all.

And THIS is an interesting tid-bit on the Iraq situation. Bush’s comments seem fairly straight-forward. But there was something from Rice that really caught my attention. (Courtsey of All Things Conservative, by way of The Corner.)

I don’t think we do the Iraqi people any good, or really that we are fair to them, in continually raising the specter that they might fall into civil war, when it seems that the only people who want a civil war in Iraq are the terrorists like Zarqawi.

This is an important point. Problem is, the MSM can’t simply report the fact, even if they wanted to. What they say actually has an impact on what goes on. Sure, there may be “journalistic integrity” issues, but maybe we could try to find a balance of some kind?

And THIS is not really what I was thinking of. 

(Darn that box! I hate change!)

Posted by Father Barry in 00:19:03 | Permalink | Comments (1) »