A possible move?

I am thinking of moving bRight & Early to my own web space. I've been working on the layout for a few hours (ok, many hours) now. Please take a look and leave your comments here or at the new site. You can go to
http://brightandearly.1southernyankee.com to take a look.

Loose End Wrap Up

Just a few short comments and a few loose ends to wrap up.

First, I wanted to let you all know that the second part of Stan Guthrie's interview with David Limbaugh is posted. In it Limbaugh lays out his thoughts on different components that make up conservatives.

Ankle Biting Pundits has several great posts (as always), including ones on the Boston Longshoremans Union story, the Senate GOP and Social Security, and the always popular Judge Elihu Smails "Buffoon Of the Week" Award.

Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters (another daily read) helps shine the light on a little discussed portion of the Amnesty International press release accompanying their annual report. No, not the ridiculous "gulag" comment, but what is in my opinion an even more outrageous statement. Read "Did Amnesty International Call For Kidnapping Of American Leaders?"

Michelle Malkin consistently finds links to the best stories on the net. Read the stories linked in "A Chance Reunion" and "The Eternal Vigilance Society" as well as any of the others on her site. Great stuff there always.

The three "uncontested" judges (Owens, Brown, and Pryor) from the "Memorandum of (Mis)Understanding" have been confirmed along with Griffin and McKeague. Confirm Them has links to the vote tallies for all five.

Finally, I received my first negative comment on my "Voices from the left" post. I found two things about the comment a bit ironic. First, she started out with the word "Typically". Now, if she is referring to this blog, that's a little hard to understand as I only started blogging here two weeks ago. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was talking about us "racist, bigot, homophobes" in the general sense ;) . What I found really laughable is her statement that "you don't say that quotes are wrong, just that they're shrill." What? You can read my response by clicking on the comments link on that post. What do you think? Have a great weekend. I'll see you Monday if not before.

Congressional Comparatives

Do you remember learning about comparatives in grade school? "An adjective or adverb expressing the comparative degree." You know. Big, bigger, biggest. Happy, happier, happiest. You can also use more and most as in talented, more talented, most talented. I recall learning that an adjective or adverb could apply to a large group of objects (The kids have big dogs). The comparative limits the size of the group (Dick, Bill, and Condi have bigger dogs). And here is my point, the superlative can only refer to one object (George has the biggest dog).

"That's your point?" you may ask. It is. Think of it as a public service reminder to the Senators debating judicial nominees. Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor, Jr. have all been called President Bush's "most extreme" nominees. Now I understand that grammatically you can group objects together and apply the superlative to them (Dick, Bill, and Condi have three of the biggest dogs). However, as the grouping becomes larger the specifics of the point you are trying to make diminishes. If you add Myers, Saad, Kavanaugh, McKeague, and the other Presidential nominees to the group that are "Most Extreme" the effect of the superlative shrinks even further. I urge the Senators to remember that when they invoke (and you know they will) the "Most Extreme Circumstances" clause of the Memoradum of (mis)Understanding.

Judges Owens and Brown have been confirmed. Debate has been closed on William Pryor with a vote to follow soon. My optimistic side thinks that the rest should be easy, right? The cynic in me expects to hear the phrase "most extreme" from the Senate floor both soon and often. See you tomorrow.

Voices from the left

Reading some of the quotes that are coming from leaders on the left leaves me with raised eyebrows and a mouth agape. That they say them is dumbfounding, but that they believe these things is downright scary.

Here are a few examples:

"I hope the president recognizes that he has an obligation (to provide the document requested by the Senate minority)" - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid

"They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party" - DNC Chairman Howard Dean

"There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda," - NY Senator Hillary Clinton

"Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." - Dean

(Republicans are trying to) "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" - Reid

"I think this guy (President Bush) is a loser." - Reid

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." - Dean

(Tom DeLay) "ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence." - Dean

"I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth." - Clinton

Sadly, these are but a few recent quotes. Like a lot of you, I'm torn between being outraged by the shrill rants and encouraged by the obvious implosion of the left. They remind me of school yard taunts. No matter, the real truth is that people of ideas will trump those who can only jeer and tear down. Let's get on with ideas. See you tomorrow.

The Vote on Janice Rogers Brown

The senate is scheduled to vote today on the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown, who has been waiting in limbo since November of 2003, is the second "controversial" nomination to come up for a vote. Priscilla Owens was confirmed several weeks ago and sworn in Monday. Detractors portray her as a judicial activist with a record of supporting limits on abortion rights, limits on corporate liability, and opposing affirmative action. In my opinion, all good reasons for moving her on to the DC Bench. In reality, however, her record is one of judicial restraint and the belief that judges should interpret the law, not create it.

Here is the thing that astounds me. In most, if not all, of the rhetoric surrounding the President's nominees the left appears to argue that if the judges decline to rule in a proactive way that supports their agenda then they are activists. What? If you can read between the rhetorical lines you see that what the left tries to disguise as an argument against judicial activism is in fact just an argument against anti-liberal bias. It has become a merry-go-round mind-set that sees anything contrary to the support of liberal doctrine as right-wing activism and any mention of judicial activism from the right as interference with an independent judiciary, "radical" dogma, and creating an atmosphere of violence against judges. The inconvenient fact that none of that is true does little to stop the incessant calliope music that accompanies this ride to nowhere.

Their arguments against Judge Brown are based mainly on speeches she has given rather than decisions she has rendered. One argument that is repeatedly presented is her dissent in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco. Peter Kirsanow examines this, along with other issues surrounding Brown, in this NRO Article.

"Taylor suggests that Brown's dissent from the majority opinion upholding the law indicates she "would invalidate laws redistributing wealth from one group to another." Obviously, such invalidation could affect much New Deal and Great Society legislation, including Social Security and Medicare.

But Brown's dissent is not nearly so expansive. Rather, it's wholly consistent with mainstream (although, admittedly, libertarian-leaning) jurisprudence that holds that broad societal burdens may not encumber the property rights of a discrete or insular class of individuals. Moreover, Brown was referring only to laws pertaining to real property rights, not legislation that may otherwise have the effect of redistributing wealth (Social Security, etc.)."

Finally, Brown is among the "protected" group of nominees on the "Memorandum of (one-sided) Understanding". It will be interesting and perhaps informative to listen to the left as they reluctantly, but benevolently, "allow" this nominee to receive the vote she deserves. I think that the quote from Harry Reid is particularly telling. "We've spent weeks and weeks debating radical judges," he said. "But we haven't spent a single day debating a health care plan, or a jobs plan, or an education plan that will help hardworking Americans. Radical judges don't deserve our attention."

I can't get the Calliope music out of my head. :-)

Ronald Reagan

It's been a year since we lost one of the greatest voices for America in the person of President Ronald Reagan. The connection I feel toward him has two additional threads; He an my mother shared February 6th as their birthday and he gave the commencement speach at my high school (Glassboro High School-Glassboro, NJ) on June 19, 1986, even if that was a dozen years after my own graduation. I'd like to take a moment to look at a few things he said in that speach. The entire text can be found at: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/61986e.htm

"You know every generation is critical of the generation that preceded it and feels it must discard many of the mores and customs of those who had gone before. Our generation felt that way, and so will yours. But in casting aside the old, don't throw out those values that have been tested by time just because they're old. They're old because their value has been proven by many generations over the years and, yes, the centuries."

He made a very accurate distinction between our customs and our values. This is a valuable lesson for all generations. At times we can be overwhealmed by the changes that occur around us. From advances in technology to changes in styles, these things only represent customs. Values are unchanging. We can not let our outward changes allow us to stray from the unchangeable values.

"Certainly the American story represents one of the great epics of human history. Yet ours is a story of goodness as well as of greatness."

Another subtle distinction. Ours is a great nation, but it is also a good one. We have strength, but we also have compassion. We have military might, but we also have a nation of compasionate, giving people. Our history is repleate with examples of us reaching to those we have defeated and helping them back to their feet. Reagen, in his address, quoted former Prime Minister of Australia John Gorton: "I wonder if anybody has thought what the situation of comparatively small nations would be if there were not in existence the United States, if there were not this great, giant country prepared to make those sacrifices.''

His conclusion conveyed what I believe is one of his most outstanding attributes, his unbridled optimism.

"There are moments, indeed, when those of my generation fear that your youth and health and good fortune will prove too much for us -- too much for us who must tell you that good fortune is not all that life can present, that this good fortune has come to you because others have suffered and sacrificed, that to preserve it there will come times when you, too, must sacrifice. Then our fears are dispelled. It happens when we turn from our own thoughts to look at you. We see such strength and hope, such buoyancy, such good will, such straightforward and uncomplicated happiness. And if we listen, before long we hear joyful laughter. And we know then that God has already blessed you and that America has already imprinted the love of peace and freedom on your hearts. We look at you, and no matter how full our own lives have been, we say with Thomas Jefferson, "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.''"

We thank God for gift we had in Ronald Reagan. He is missed but in no way forgotten. Ours is "a story of goodness as well as greatness." He was both.

An open letter to Howard Dean

Dear Dr. Dean,

Your remarks at the Campaign for America’s Future yesterday were amazing. So amazing that I have to ask, do you have any idea whatsoever what the majority of Americans think, how they live, or what they believe in? I take personal exception to many (if not most) of your remarks. Let me just mention a few.

You said, “We need a new president and a new Congress who will fix the private pension plans.” And, “Pension plans ought not to be controlled by companies.” Are you kidding? The last thing I would want, and I think the worst thing for working Americans, would be for government to have any say in my company pension. That’s not to say that there haven’t been abuses by some companies. Still, I like my odds a lot better with most companies than with the government. So please, keep your hands, and your regulations, off of my money. Nothing good can come from letting government, especially a democratic party controlled government, anywhere near my retirement money.

On voting you made some very confusing comments, like “I think every single American ought to be able to vote!” Dr. Dean, I’m pretty sure that they can. All they need to do is follow the election laws, show up at the right place, and be able to push the right button, check the right box, or pull the right lever. Can there be difficulties? Sure. Are there systemic issues that can be better? Of course. Still, none of these things takes away a persons right or ability to vote. I have been voting since the 1976 Presidential election. I’ve voted absentee. I’ve voted on paper ballots that were hand counted. I’ve lived in precincts where I’ve been in and out in minutes and in ones where I’ve waited for hours. No matter what the situation was, I was able to vote. It almost seems as if you are saying that if the Democrats don’t win there must have been a problem with the election process.

But most disturbing of all was your comment that, “Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.” You’re kidding, right? I guess the question is what do you consider an honest living? I realize that you only said, “a lot of them,” so I’m sure you weren’t talking about people like me who work at an hourly job (and still make time to vote). Maybe you were talking about those who are rich and work for a large salary, but that can’t be it since I’m pretty sure that it’s not dishonest to have a high paying job. Could it have been people who have inherited their wealth and live on that income? Wait, that’s legal too. So, I guess you were just talking out of your hat. Do you have any idea who makes up the right?

Finally, I have to admit you did say something I agreed with. “The greatest blow to America that we have suffered in the last four-and-a-half years is the descent of cynicism and the belief that propaganda and manipulation will actually succeed in America.” The only problem is that you don’t seem to have the slightest clue that it is the left that have used propaganda and manipulation, turning them into a new art form. So, Dr. Dean, keep talking. Nothing could be better for America than for the left to listen to you. It’s one way to insure that the right will continue to move America forward.