Monday, October 31, 2005

Hugo A Halloween Hypocrite

At The Cheese, we really like Halloween. KJ is known to have a whole graveyard in his front yard with bones, flashing eyes, and hanging skeletons. Children are afraid to come on his porch to trick-or-treat because KJ has been inside one of the several life sized creatures that surround his porch. So we don't like it when Presidents go dissing one of our favorite days of the year. Leave it to Hugo.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged Venezuelan parents not to dress their children in costumes for Halloween, calling it a U.S. custom that has no place in the South American country's cultural traditions.

Of course, the real reason for the anti-Halloween hysteria is probably the anti-government jack-o-laterns: In one odd incident a week ago, authorities found more than a dozen jack-o'-lanterns left in spots around Caracas bearing anti-government messages and what appeared to be bomb-like fuses.

But remember, this is the guy who dresses up his parrot.

Image hosted by

And he tells parents to not dress up their children?

What a bafoon.

Scalito Nominated

Samuel Alito, Judge of the Thrid Circuit Court of Appeals, has been nominated by President Bush as the replacement for Justice O'Conner. He has held his current job for 15 years, making him the most experienced judge when appointed to the SCOTUS compared to the current 9.

Alito is Catholic, like Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia. This would give the Pope a strong 5 vote majority of the Court.

He also has a wife and two naturally born children. There goes the new website idea.

Apparently liberals have a nickname for Alito: Scalito. This is seen, however, as racially insensitive according to some Democratic talking points. This confuses me on several counts. First, Republicans like Scalia. That would make this a positive nickname in their camp. Second, Republicans don't care about sensitivity, so who complained? Third, Democrats don't care about sensitivity if they are attacking conservatives. Just read any leftist site discussing black conservatives, and you will read every racial slur in the book to describe them.

A big thumbs up to President Bush on this one. Alito is no stealth candidate. He has 15 years of conservative opinions to give everyone some nighttime reading. He also has an accomplished resume.

Alito was U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1987 to 1990. Alito was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration from 1985 to 1987 and assistant to the solicitor general from 1981 to 1985. These are all positions that require knowledge of Federal law and Constitutional issues. Then there is that whole judge job.

Alito is the son of an Italian immigrant, but that does not necessarily mean he has ever killed anyone. He was born in Trenton and attended Princeton University. He headed to Connecticut to receive his law degree, graduating from Yale University in 1975. OK, so he went to the overrated Ivy League. You knew we'd get stuck with another one of them before this was over.

Alito will be attacked. He has voted in favor of certain state limitations on abortion, including as a Third Circuit justice in the infamous Casey case (spousal notification law prior to abortion). As abortion is the holy grail of left wing politics, his other opinions on any subject won't matter. Alito's opinion in Casey was overturned 6-3 by the Supreme Court, but Renquist quoted Alito's opinion in his dissent.

A Fox News summary of some of his decisions make him appear very sensitive to First Amendment rights, religious rights and immigrants. It won't matter.

Here is a collection of intial reactions.

Good job Mr. President. In Washington, you are always going to fight. I am glad that this time you decided it was better to fight your enemies rather than your friends.

I will be backing President Bush all the way this time.


QandO's Jon Henke tackles some of the lies and distortions already being spread by the Leftists about Alito's prior decisions. Check it out, and remember these points when you hear about Alito's Judicial opinions to require the beating of minorities and women seeking abortions.

A Holloween theme at Heigh-Ho.

The official Support Alito website of The Cheese to be named soon. Picture by spd rdr.

News In Incomplete Sentences - 10/31

Bump in road.

Louisiana budget disputes.

Stupid windows.

Fuddy duddies.

Duuuuuude ... like ... coooool!

And this is in the news ... because ....?

Friday, October 28, 2005

Bathroom Renovations

A good place to work isn't just about salaries and health insurance. We at The Cheese understand that morale includes having a nice office in which to work. For example, we recently renovated the restrooms, and morale has never been higher.

Image hosted by

Next year we will upgrade the coffee maker.

Wold Series Captions

1. As some White Sox played the hokey pokey, others started a dance train.

2. Hey, look guys, I'm the Pope!

3. In an act of desperation, the Astros tried the Statue of Liberty play.

4. Biggio's boys know that after the last playoff loss, its time for the beatings.

5. No, dude - you blow, I inhale.

6. Only four inches in the air, but a mile high.

7. That girl in the right-center bleachers is so looking at you, man.

Other captions welcomed.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Gay* Thursday 10/27

This week on Gay* Thursday, we have a photo that expresses the joy, happiness and utter jubilation that should be overtaking Chicago today. Chicago finally has a World Series Championship again, and it wasn't the annoying Cubs and their out of work, drunken bleacher fans that brought it to them.

Image hosted by

Some people were really, really excited about the victory.

*Gay: 1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits 2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY b : brilliant in color

For more Gay* Thursday fun, check out
A Guide to Midwestern Culture.


Image hosted by

Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while Senator Ted Kennedy addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

h/t: Colorado Kitty Cat


I admit that I didn't research the e-mail from CKC like I would normally do. And I should have been more suspicious. The use of naughty language is such a liberal and/or libertarian thing to do.

A comment pointed out that Snopes says this is the proper caption: Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush, on screen at rear, addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their 106th convention Monday, Aug. 22, 2005, in Salt Lake City. Moyer served in Korea and Vietnam, and in the post-WWII occupation of Germany.

Either way, "heh."

Bush Takes A Mulligan

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the SCOTUS.

I wish this was disappointing news. It isn't.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Miers deserved to have to go through this. On the other hand, I don't think she deserved to be put in the position to be the lightning rod. I think the nomination let us all down. I hope President Bush shows more domestic resolve this time around.

Many will say that this unnecessarily hurt Bush's presidency. I agree that it hurt his presidency. I disagree that it was unnecessary. Prior speeches given by Miers released yesterday may have been the coffin nails. They showed a person who would charicaturize pro-lifers, believed in quotas and thought judicial activism was an apporpriate response to "lazy legislatures." This was not the speech of a judicial conservative.

President Bush's people did not do the necessary background check. Besides, when a fight is necessary, wouldn't it make more sense to pick the fight with your enemies rather than your friends?

President Bush is not a person who should ask for trust. Not on domestic issues. Not on judicial nominees. Not given his Surpeme Court litigation record.

I supported Bush's reelection, but only because of the WOT. I want a relatively known comodity with this pick. President Clinton gave the country known comodities. Did anyone ever doubt Ginsberg's and Breyer's judicial leanings? Of course not. President Bush should to the same. It was, after all, a focus of his reelection campaign.

You got your "do over" President Bush.

Whacha gonna do with it?

Some advice I'm sure Presdient Bush doesn't want: Pick someone who has dealt with constitutional issues as either a lawyer, a judge, or both. Pick someone who is already known for his or her conservative judicial philosophy. Pick someone who is younger than 60. Pick someone who is extremely capable of teaching while speaking.

And for goodness sakes, be a conservative and pick someone without regard to race, gender or nationality. If reports are true that some of the first choices (presumably women) turned down the job, then pick the best man. Don't pick a woman for the sake of picking a woman. That was how we got Janet Reno -- Clinton's third pick for AG (all women, because he wanted to make history, I mean herstory.)

Baseball Redeemed

It is better to make the play offs than not.

It is better to win the Division Series than not.

It is better to win the NLCS or ALCS, than not.

It is best to just win the whole dern thing.

Congratulations to the Astros for a great season. You are the top loser.

Congratulations to the White Sox for erasing that whole scandal thing.

You are the only non-loser left.


Why the White Sox won: They scored more runs each game than the Astros. They have black players, unlike their racist opponents (the Joe Morgan theory). They paid the Astros to throw the series. Wild cards shouldn't win the Series. Their manager is gay (see above) -- the Astros manager seems so un-gay. The Astros hit like it was April. The Astros quit taking steroids again.
Pitchers and catchers report in February.

Israel Is So Sensitive

The Pharoh tried to wipe them off the map.

The Crusades caused a few to die.

Stalin and Hitler agreed on one goal.

Arafat played kissy face while ordering attacks.

Now Iran's President attends a "World Without Zionism" conference and calls Israel a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map."
Reacting to the Iranian president's speech, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar "speak openly about destroying the Jewish state ... and it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions."

Some people are so touchy.

I think things would improve if Israel would just play nice and jump in the sea voluntarily.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Speaking of Barbershop

Heh. What is this? Race week at the Cheese?

A "whites only" sign at a barber shop on Moss Street in Lafayette might grab your attention and take you back to the Civil Rights era.

This afternoon, a viewer called our newsroom appalled. We checked it out and found that barber Herbert Leger put the sign up Saturday morning after having to over and over again turn down customers he says he's not qualified to help.

Herbert Leger: The difference is the technique that you use and they have special technique for cutting black people's hair. Just like there's a special technique for cutting white people's hair. I don't have the training, I don't have the experience, I don't have the knowledge and the technique used in cutting black people's hair.

Leger says he did not intend for the sign to offend anyone. He also says when a customer walks in he can't help, he sends him to his barber friend across the street.
An more honest, stupid barber, there never was.

Linda Chavez On Rosa Parks

Linda Chavez, an evil conservative minority woman, writes a very nice column about Rosa Parks.

Few people in history can claim to have truly changed the world, and even fewer by one simple act. . . . Mrs. Parks' defiance was one more nail in the coffin of Jim Crow, and the United States would never be the same.

It was a long time coming.

The day that Rosa Parks went to court to be tried for violating Montgomery's bus ordinance, 40,000 black Montgomery residents refused to ride the bus, sparking a boycott that lasted more than a year. The boycott, which established the reputation of a young black minister, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., only ended when the Supreme Court handed down a decision outlawing segregation on public buses.

Rosa made MLK possible.

It took another decade before Congress acted to make racial discrimination illegal, first with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which barred discrimination in public accommodations, employment and programs that receive federal funds. In 1965, Congress prohibited discrimination in voting . . . [a]nd in 1968, Congress outlawed discrimination in housing. But in many ways, it was Rosa Parks' courage that set these events in motion.

Thank you Democrats for that delay in passing civil rights legislation.

In the 1990s, President Clinton awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and Congress bestowed its Congressional Gold Medal. She rarely sought the limelight and wore the mantle of fame reluctantly. In her later years, she even became the victim of a vicious crime by a 28-year-old black man who broke into her apartment, beat her badly and stole $53, having no idea who she was.

But for many people -- black and white -- Rosa Parks was a hero. Her quiet dignity and strength inspired others to stand up for what they knew was right. America is a better place for Rosa Parks. She will be missed by all who value freedom.

Rosa was a hero. The dignity of her personality and courage is a forgotten art in the modern "civil rights" movement. What she helped accomplish, however, will never be forgotten.

Let's Leave The Civil Rights To People Like Rosa Parks

Joe Morgan was a great baseball player. As a fan of the Big Red Machine growing up, I was a Morgan fan. In a day when second basemen were primarily fielders and didn't hit forty home runs, he played great defense, hit for average, stole bases, and did the cutest little thing with his left elbow (like he was making the fart sound, except his right hand was not stuck inside his armpit) as he waited for the pitch. Now he talks stupid on TV.

In a pure statistical coincidence, it turns out that the Houston Astros do not have a single "African-American" player on their World Series roster. Joe Morgan is troubled.

The Astros are the first World Series team in more than a half-century with a roster that doesn't include a single black player.

"Of course I noticed it. How could you not?" Morgan said while the Astros took batting practice before the opener in Chicago.

Well, gee, Joe. I didn't notice. I guess I'm an insisetive white boy who doesn't care about the downtrodden. I guess I've been too busy looking trying to pronounce the spanish and Asian names of the 60% of the other teams to notice that no one with dark skin is named after a former US President.

The white Houston Astros celebrate their lack of diversity.

Now the natural question is whether this fact indicates racism in baseball. Let's look at the numbers, shall we.

Black players accounted for just about 9 percent of big league rosters this season.

Well, that is slightly less than the typically accepted 12% of the U.S. population that is black. I guess this shows that whitey is getting all the roster spots? Hardly.

The most recent survey by the NCAA taken during the 2003-04 season, showed that only 6 percent of Division I baseball players were black. Half of the men's basketball players were black, as were 44 percent of football players.

Houston has a half-dozen Hispanic players . . . .

No, whitey isn't getting his unfair share of baseball roster spots. Hispanics are. Maybe even Asians as a percetage of the population. Moreover, baseball's "problem" doesn't seem to be seeping into other sports.

It appears that among the "big three" sports in college, blacks make up only slightly less than their population in baseball. In football and basketball, however, they make up 4 times their population percentage of the players. Is this a problem? I mean, why aren't there more white and Asian-Americans playing college football and basketball?

Who cares.

Houston has 6 hispanic players. That is 24% of their World Series roster. They also have an Asian. They are "diverse."

"There's a perception among African-American kids that they're not welcome here, that baseball is not for inner-city kids," Morgan said. "It's not true, and I hate that the perception is out there."

Where does this perception come from? It isn't the game of baseball, or Major League baseball. Unlike tennis or figure skating, it isn't money. Poor hispanics are taking over the game.

It is probably ball park space. If black atheletes come from the cities, then baseball competes with more abundant black asphalt basketball courts. Football remains popular in all aspects of society.

I don't know why baseball doesn't draw the same interest it once did, but I suspect it is simple competition. Blacks are losing to hispanics in baseball and, to a lesser degree, Europeans in basketball. Football, still a uniquely American sport, remains filled with black and white players but few others. Maybe baseball lacks the flare today that it once did.

What I want to know are where are the African-American hockey players?

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Nothing To See Here

It's just a draft constitution in an Islamic country.

Happens all the time.

Nothing to see here.

Please move along.

Cause and Effect

Do you smoke because you are stupid? Or are you stupid because you smoke? See, new study.

Are you old because you feel bad? Or do you feel bad because you are old? A discussion.

Are you going to die because your boss is unfair? Or does a fair boss make you live longer? The Brits studied it.

Is an ADD druge the cause of liver problem? Or is ADD a bunch of crap made up by pharmacutical companies that enable lazy parents? Either way, the FDA sucks.

Do women feel more pain because they have more nerve endings? Or do women have more nerve endings so it is easier to tick them off? You decide.

Finally, why is this dog afriad of pumkins?


Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks passed away at the age of 92.

Eddie: There are three things that Black people need to tell the truth about. Number one: Rodney King should've gotten his ass beat for being drunk in a Honda a white part of Los Angeles. Number two: O.J. did it! And number three: Rosa Parks didn't do nuthin' but sit her Black ass down! -- from the movie Barbershop (A recommended movie at the Cheese.)

Regardless of Eddie's position, Rosa Parks helped ignite an overdue movement for racial justice in this country, and is recognized as an icon for it.

Rest in peace.

Anne Rice Writes For The Lord

Vampire novelist extradornairre Anne Rice has written a cult following of book about vampires. Apparently, her focus is about to change.
"For the last six months," she says, "people have been sending e-mails saying, 'What are you doing next?' And I've told them, 'You may not want what I'm doing next'." We'll know soon. In two weeks, Anne Rice, the chronicler of vampires, witches and—under the pseudonym A. N. Roquelaure—of soft-core S&M encounters, will publish "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt," a novel about the 7-year-old Jesus, narrated by Christ himself. "I promised," she says, "that from now on I would write only for the Lord." It's the most startling public turnaround since Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" announced that he'd been born again.
The novels come after a great deal of research in Christian oriented or themed story telling.
To render such a hero and his world believable, she immersed herself not only in Scripture, but in first-century histories and New Testament scholarship . . . . She also watched every Biblical movie she could find, from "The Robe" to "The Passion of the Christ" ("I loved it"). And she dipped into previous novels, from "Quo Vadis" to Norman Mailer's "The Gospel According to the Son" to Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins's apocalyptic Left Behind series. ("I was intrigued. But their vision is not my vision.")
Rice's vampire novel following is not typically a Christian crowd. Rice knows that.

Rice knows "Out of Egypt" and its projected sequels—three, she thinks—could alienate her following; as she writes in the afterword, "I was ready to do violence to my career." But she sees a continuity with her old books, whose compulsive, conscience-stricken evildoers reflect her long spiritual unease. "I mean, I was in despair." In that afterword she calls Christ "the ultimate supernatural hero ... the ultimate immortal of them all."
Personally, I think Anne Rice found Jesus after yelling his name when she found out Tom Cruise would be playing her primary vampire character.

I have never read an Anne Rice novel or even watched one of her movies all the way through.

I hope she finds as much success in her career change.

Monday, October 24, 2005

How Bush Picked Miers -- per Heigh Ho

With pictures, so even . . . oh, never mind.

This is funny.

R-P-S: Not a Sport, More Exciting Than Soccer

A 29-year old Toronto lawyer named Andrew Bergel won the international championship in Rock-Paper-Scissors. He beat a California student for the championship by throwing a paper.

How could he not see that coming?

Years of training help in a sport like this.

"People spend years trying to make it onto an NHL team or making it to the Olympics," [Director Walker] said.

"Rock Paper Scissors is one of the most democratic sports in the world, where if you just show up to the world championships, then you can compete at the highest level that a sport has to offer."

The winner will get his obligatory 15 minutes.

But with greatness comes responsibility. Bergel's achievement comes with the duties of a champion and burdens of fame, Walker said. Past champions have appeared on Late Night with Conan O'Brien and The Ellen Degeneres Show.

"Now he is going to be a serious C-level celebrity," Walker said. "It's going to change his life, if not for the next 15 minutes, then for the next year."

Anyway, the "sport" is struggling for air time, but it is getting higher rating in the U.S. than soccer. As it should.

Click on the image to buy the Rock-Paper-Scissors Strategy Guide.

Applaud the Coburn Amendment Yeas

For those that missed it, the Coburn Amendment was a bill last week introduced by Senator Coburn to undo one particular huge pork project, the Bridge to Nowhere, so that the money could be used in Katrina relief instead. It failed 82-15.

Here are the brave (in some cases, at least) 15 who voted against powerful Senator Ted Steven's pork project.

YEAs ---15

Allard (R-CO)Allen (R-VA)Bayh (D-IN)Burr (R-NC)Coburn (R-OK)Conrad (D-ND)DeMint (R-SC)DeWine (R-OH)Feingold (D-WI)Graham (R-SC)Kyl (R-AZ)Landrieu (D-LA)Sessions (R-AL)Sununu (R-NH)Vitter (R-LA)

Here is short column discussing it all.

Ask why you didn't see more Republican names on this list.

Then tell me why I should send a Republican back to Congress who wasn't on the list.

Hit Parade

I don't have time to write anything insightful this morning. And no, I don't need you to question whether I ever write anything insightful. So I will touch upon some greatest hits and quick thoughts.

Brad of Unrepentant Individual found an unabridged Constitution while rummaging through his Leftist neighbor's trash. Times are getting touch in the tech world. Anyway, having the unabridged version helps explain some Supreme Court opinions that have libertarians and conservatives scratching their heads.

New Orleans, Lousiana is glad to see that its citizens are not the only lawless idiots out there giving their area a bad name.

In related news, the people of West Virginia and Kentucky and breathing a sigh of relief as this story did not happen in their state, nor during a religious ceremony. The snake was brought to school by a 17 year old boy in a shoe box. Really -- what does one do to punish such an idiot?

I hate people that can't laugh at themselves. MLB: get over it.

Gas prices drop 25 cents. Democrats struggle to put positive spin on this news.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Great game. Sorry Pile, but it was.

I don't understand this story. If they car was parked for too long, why doesn't he have to pay the ticket?

Finally, the Beatles may have put on a few pounds, but their reunion tour is ready to go.


Friday, October 21, 2005

Miers Questionaire

The Senate rejected nominee Harriet Miers questionaire answers recently. The questionaire and its responses are now public (note: pdf page).

As someone who was against President Bush's decision to nominate Miers, without being critical of Miers herself, I now find myself being tempted to add Miers to my criticism. I will hold off on that for now.

Q&O however discusses the questionaire in some detail. The points made speak for themselves.

For those who wish to compare Miers answers with Roberts (Careful on this. This will not give you any comfort if you are a Miers supporter. If these two questionaires were a youth sporting event, Roberts would win under the mercy rule.) go to Roberts answers 1 and answer 2 (also pdf pages).

Eric Discusses Constitutional Stuff, Among Other Things

Eric, who Grumbles sometimes, has an outstanding blog. He is also the fearless leader of the Life Liberty Property group.

One of the things he likes to do is remind people what the Constitution meant to the people who helped draft it.

He recently asked whether social welfare was constitutional.

Quoting James Madison: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

And Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Makes you wonder. This week alone he has tackled the meaning of the Second Amendment, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment, Miers and the Coburn Amendment.

Check out the post and his site.

Also, via Eric, can you pass this third grade geography test.

Disclaimer: This was not a paid advertisement, though contributions after the fact would be accepted.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

I looked at my monitor and sadness . . .


The blogosphere is a sadder place today. One of its shining stars has retired in her prime.

You will be missed, Cassandra.

I can only hope you keep coming back. Like a middle aged, deranged boxer. Or Roger Clemens.

ScienTOMogy Battles Cult Lawyers

Apparently there is a website out there called ScienTOMogy. It makes fun of Tom Cruise and the so called Church of Scientology ("Co$"). It includes links to Tom Cruise's real life idiocy as well as parodies of same. Please, just to annoy the Co$, go check it out.

Anyone familiar with the Co$ knows that it is famous for using bullying legal tactics to silence or intimidate its critics. Well, that is being done to the owner of the ScienTOMogy site.

The owner of a Tom Cruise-skewering Website that came under scrutiny from the Church of Scientology for its too-close-for-comfort URL has agreed to change the Web address.

"He said he would change it, so, we're waiting for him to do that," Helena Kobrin, an attorney representing the Church of Scientology, said Wednesday.

As of Wednesday afternoon, was still a valid address, and according to the site, a more popular than ever destination, thanks to recent headlines over its engagement with Scientology lawyers. But changes appeared to be in the works. A new URL, registered on Oct. 13, also was bringing users to ScienTOMogy's vault of Cruise parody videos.

The new Web address?
The new site (PassionofCruise) is also up. His traffic has grown greatly since the lawsuit became public news. I encourage all of my readers to add to his traffic.

Many people have heard of Cruise's antics, but because they work for a living, they didn't see Oprah and the Today Show and these other worthless "Entertainment News" shows. This site has many of these great Cruise performances on video. Now is the time to see them.

Mel Gipson probably will not bring suit, but that's just a guess on my part.

Southern Blog Federation

Fellow Life Liberty Property blogger Everyman has started the Southern Blog Federation. He invited No Government Cheese, among other blogs, to join.

I am from the South, I live in the South, and the Blog doesn't require me to show a Confederate Flag, so I gladly accepted.

The Federation does not have an ideological bent, so I don't expect all members will be neo-libertarians, libertarians or conservatives. I encourage you take a look at Everyman's creation. Some of the initial members will include LLPers, which is always a good thing.

Good Hygiene Is Important

One of my areas of practice is workplace relations. Normally, I am just defending the Man from clearly unjust claims of harassment and discrimination from little people who should be happy to have a job. On ocassion, however, I am asked to assist in developing policies that prevent a workplace problem from going into litigation. Even though I don't make as much money when I prevent little problems from blowing up into big litigation, I try to help.

Several clients have come to me recently to discuss office culture. My clients all try to maintain a professional work environment in which every employee is productive and underpaid. Dispruptions are not favored, and few things are more disruptive than a stinky co-worker. A recent report supports the notion that this is a growing workplace problem.

In most companies the unpleasant chore is falling to the Human Resources staff. Nearly three-quarters of the human resource professionals who responded to an online survey said they've had to confront an employee over a body odor issue.
My clients are not immune to the workplace problems of general society. In fact, I have had to discuss the problem B.O. of a client's stinky low level employee. In an effort to be effective, I prepared followed the advice and skits in order to train human resources employees.

Talk to the employee. An anonymous note, e-mail or deodorant on one's desk doesn't cut it.

Lar: *Larry opens e-mail: "Die you stinky bastard"* Hmm. I wonder what that is all about? *phone rings* Hello.
HR: Larry, I need to talk to you.
Lar: OK. Should I go to your office?
HR: No, my window is stuck. I want to be someplace with fresh air. Let's meet for lunch by the slaughter house.

Have a private, discreet conversation -- with as much sensitivity as possible -- and acknowledge before that the topic is extremely uncomfortable.

*Sitting down at slaughter house*
HR: I need to discuss something with you of a sensitive nature.
Lar: I'm sorry man. She said she was 25. How was I to know?
HR: Uh, no, that isn't it. I need to discuss that stench of body odor that emanates off of you like an early morning mist rising over a manure pile.

Realize that a diet or medical condition might cause the problem. Gently suggest a visit to a doctor.

HR: Look, this might not be all your fault. Are you French?
Lar: Uh, no, but they are a really cool group of people. I also admire hippies.
HR: Hmmm, I see.

Stress that the issue isn't merely a personal matter, as it is a workplace disruption that must be addressed.

HR: Look, Lar. It isn't personal. This has nothing to do with the cobra you found in your briefcase or the time your brakes failed.
Lar: I never told anyone about those things.
HR: That's good. And this isn't about those unfortunate accidents. This is about disruptions here at work.

Don't become upset if the employee is extremely embarrassed and tries to end the discussion as rapidly as possible.

Lar: I think I'm going to be sick. I would like to leave.
HR: Don't go yet. I just want you to be aware of this problem and that you need to work on it so that we can have a great workplace. I know this is embarrassing, being called out for smelling like a pig farm in August. But I'm here for you. Just think of me as your better smelling friend.
Lar: It isn't that. I just can't handle the slaughter of all these hogs. Can't we go back to sitting in the lobby or something?

Schedule a follow-up meeting in a few days to ensure the problem is being resolved.

HR: Look Larry. We value your minimal role here at the Institute. How about I give you two days to scrub yourself. That should knock off about 75% of the stench. Then we can meet on Friday to see if a good cologne or maybe a trip through the car wash can help people stand to be in the same room as you? What do you say.

If you think you may have read a similar post by KJ before at another blog, and that this appears to be KJ simply recycling a prior post that KJ hopes most people will have forgotten by now, I assure you that you are mistaken. KJ is also not talking about himself in the third person. You are mistaken about that also.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Saddam Almost Got Away With It

Saddam, playing games this morning in his trial, refused to identify himself to the Court:

Amin [the Judge], a Kurd, tried to get Saddam to formally identify himself but Saddam refused. . . . Amin read his name for him, calling him the "former president of Iraq," bringing a protest from Saddam, who insisted he was still in the post.

"I'm out of order, you're out
of order, this whole country's
out of order."

Later, the article reports this:

The other defendants include Saddam's former intelligence chief Barazan Ibrahim, former vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan . . . .

Ramadan also refused to identify himself to the judge.

"I repeat what President Saddam Hussein has said," he added.

D'oh. Had Ramadan kept quite, Saddam might have been let go.

H/t, WSJ's Best of the Web.

Mike Adams Hits Ga. Tech

Mike Adams is a columnist who writes almost exclusively about the liberal culture of colleges and universities. His column last week began a series on colleges to avoid if you are a conservative who cares about an education.

This week, Adams hits a school in my adopted hometown, Georgia Tech. I can't say it is unfair. Tech used to have a great reputation, but its decent into P.C. hell has been apparent from the news about the school off the sports page.

Adams also recommends Hillsdale College as a postive place to get an education. I know nothing about that school, but if I were looking for an undergraduate school, I would check it out. Then I would go to my undergraduate liberal arts college, but I'm not telling you what that is.

Georgia's Voter ID Law Declared Unconstitutional

Georgia decided enough conerns over voter fraud justified some common sense. So Georgia passed a voter ID law. It requires a photo ID that proves your identity to vote. No more stolen social security cards, utility bills and birth certificates that don't have photos.

Pro-voter fraud activists argued that the law was unfair to the poor, elderly and minorities who may not have drivers licenses, can't afford a state issued photo ID or might feel intimidated if required to show their ID. Georgia listened. The law will give, without a fee, an ID card to those who can't afford one. Give them one. For free.

US District Judge Harold Murphy yesterday ignored all that, ignored common sence and the meaning of words, and ignored the constitution, and declared the law unconstitutional.

I don't have the time to give this story the justice it deserves. This opinion is simply outrageous. When the elderly want to cash their social security checks, they don't seem to have trouble finding an ID card. When the poor and when minorities want to buy a bottle of booze, they don't seem to have trouble finding an ID card or feel intimidated showing it.

And last time I checked, if something was free, it wasn't a tax.

Want to buy a lottery ticket, a pack of cigs or can of beer? Show ID. This is simply too important to risk on not requiring a photo ID.

Want to vote? Come on in. Your belly button lint will suffice for ID, and any additional requirement is simply unconstitutional.

Does anyone really question that the Democrats (and that is who challenged the law) want voter fraud to be easier rather than harder? Now, why would that be I wonder.

UPDATE: Brad at Unrepentant Individual adds to the discussion: I’m going to have to agree with Boortz on this one. I don’t see why we should be making it so easy to vote. What’s really odd here is that Democrats, who have been screaming over the “stolen” election of 2000 are only concerned with how votes are counted, not with who’s allowed to vote. The same people who are so concerned with stolen elections are completely unconcerned with whether or not voting laws can be enforced. Go read it all.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Carnival of Liberty XVI

Image hosted by Photobucket.comGo read the many fine articles of the LLP Group and friends at Carnival of Liberty XVI.

I submitted one, but due to technical difficulties (I'm assuming) it was mistakenly omitted.

Don't be a pinko commie. Go read them now.

Tuesday Feelings News

Because it isn't the facts that matter. It's how they make you feel that matters.


More evidence that you can't trust studies for anything anymore.

The headline: Women can read road maps - study.

Sure they can. But wait - it gets better:
During most of her monthly cycle, higher levels of the female hormone oestrogen are present and these were linked to lower scores on such things as direction finding and map reading.

But when levels of the male hormone testosterone were higher, as during their period, women did better.

So women act more like men while Aunt Flo is visiting? I hope my tax dollars somehow helped pay for that study.


I swear that this is the first line of this news story:
A registered sex offender who fashioned a loin cloth from a rope and piece of lawn furniture was arrested near a high school, where he asked four girls for a ride to the mall or a motel, police said.

A rope and lawn furniture. Dressed for success.
More than an hour later, four North Medford High School girls were waiting in a car near the school when Bailey - now wearing blue jeans, but still covered in the apparent fecal matter - approached the car. He asked the girls for a ride to the Red Carpet Inn or the Rogue Valley Mall. "The girls wisely rolled up their windows and left," Moran said.

The Red Carpet Inn. Or the mall. It doesn't really matter when you are covered in fecal matter.


Ever wondered what was in Carl Rove's garage? No, me either, but that did not stop a bored, useless Lamestream Media article on the subject.


Everyone who reads this story makes the same Mary Jo Kopechne joke. Not me. At No Government Cheese, we are above such tasteless, low brow humor.


Enroll now in Irma Brown's Ass Whuppin' Academy.


The U.N. was holding the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization conference.

An important agency like the U.N. would certainly want to maintain its image. So it did something entirely consistent with its image: it invited dictators, thugs, and terrorists Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe to speak and bash America.

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez turned their speeches at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization into tirades, with the African leader describing Blair and Bush as "two unholy men of our millennium."

Chavez accused what he called "the North American empire" of threatening "all life on the planet," while Mugabe compared Bush and Blair, for their alliance in the war in Iraq, to Germany's Adolf Hitler and Italy's Benito Mussolini, who were World War II allies.

But surely such inappropriate banter at a food conference would go unwelcomed by the distinguished, freedom loving U.N. delegates?

The verbal attacks by Chavez and Mugabe drew cheers and applause from many of the delegates. The organization has 188 members.

Mugagbe, who stole farms from white land owners and gave them to people with skin a closer hue to his own, has watched his coutry's farming base colapse. Hunger is rampant in Zimbabwe since these "reforms."

I can't think of a better person to speak at a U.N. agriculture conference.

"You are the meanest son of a bitch I know."
"Oh, you are too kind, but you are the meanest son of a bitch I know. Really."

"Thank you. Can I feel your breast?"

More David L

David Limbaugh again discusses the Miers nomination. This time, he addresses the meaning of the advice and consent clause.

[Professor Bainbridge] rejects my contention that the Senate's role should be limited to vetting the nominee's qualifications and character. . . . "Nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up."

Bainbridge writes, "To be sure . . . Alexander Hamilton thought the Senate could only reject a nominee for 'special and strong reasons,' but that qualification is nowhere in the Constitution."

But doesn't an "originalist" approach to constitutional interpretation oblige us to inquire what the Framers understood the meaning of "Advice and Consent" to be? Surely Hamilton's Federalist 76 cannot be dismissed so casually if it gives us some insight as to the Framers' original understanding.

Hamilton wrote: "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."

Limbaugh points out that how the conservatives and Repbulican Senators treat Miers may impact future judicial confirmation decision making.

If conservatives do press the Senate to reject her, they better be sure to do so on grounds consistent with those they've urged rejection of judicial nominees in the past, and with those they would like to see urged in the future. Aside from whether my relatively narrow view of "Advice and Consent" is correct, I believe I can safely say that in practice, conservatives have certainly given this view de facto credence.

If Republicans thought they could properly reject the president's judicial nominees for political reasons alone, or on the basis of judicial philosophy, they've certainly done their best to prove otherwise. How else do you explain their overwhelming affirmation of the radically liberal and activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

By contrast, Democrats, since Judge Bork's nomination, have often -- though not always -- rejected qualified nominees purely for reasons of politics and judicial philosophy.

Of course, Limbaugh points out that this contrast is harmful to Republicans. It guarantees losing in the long term. But what does one do when forced to choose what is right from fighting in the mud with Democrats?

He ends seeming to endorse the tit for tat approach, which left me confused.

Perhaps someone can tell me what Limbaugh's position is at the end of the day. Follow the right path, or play in the mud with the pigs?

Monday, October 17, 2005

Investing In The Cheese

I have been very busy lately at the real job, and finding time and inspiration to blog is not always easy. I have been looking into buying a new brain recently. Right now, this is the best option I have found.

This brain though does not have all the features I would like. First, I am looking for something a little smaller. This brain does not seem to be very mobile. One with a luggage cart type attachment would be nice.

Also, I would like a brain with a GSP system. I have been told before that I would forget my head if it were not attached to my body. That got my current brain to thinking.

The current brain is inside my head, which is attached to my body. So ... follow me here ... if my new brain is not inside my head (which this one would not be) then I would likely lose it.

If there isn't a brain with a GPS system, maybe one with a clap locator.

I look forward to any help you all may have.

Blogger Light

I'm too busy today. Due today: Appellate brief and Response Brief to a motion. Due Thursday: Federal summary judgment brief. Due tomorrow: the in-laws. Due tonight: KJita soccer. I'm too swamped to screw the little guy.

So, instead, I ask you to link me to interesting stuff. I know there was a vote in Iraq yesterday. That's good. I know there were riots in Toleda over the weekend by people too stupid to ignore knuckle dragging racits socialists (huh?). I'm not covering it.

Here is some light reading if you are blogging on the john:

Eric discusses libertarians and the few that try to mix ideology with reality.

Freeh v. Clinton continues.

Kyl talks like fisical conservative should.

Star Parker discusses another racist.

Tapskott discusses media blundering of Katrina reporting.

Have a nice day. See you tomorrow.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

I'm Not Saying That

I have received a few extra hits this week from Yahoo image searches for David Beckham, whom I noted had an interesting legal battle over his tatoos here.

Now as understand it, Mr. Beckham is a British Footballer, or as we say in the States, he plays that gay, boring, stupid sport called soccer.* So, not to disappoint our great allies from Great Brittan, who get way too into that lousy sport I would not walk across the street to watch adults play, here is a picture of Beckham.

Now, I'm not saying he's gay. I don't have to. I think the picture is saying that loud and clear.

*Note: exception to that description made for 4-6 years olds, as four year old KJita scored 4 very exciting goals today.

Disclaimer (sort of): Soccer insults are not new at the Cheese. If you think soccer is a cool sport, great. Watch it to your heart's content. Why, I'll bet after a life time of watching live soccer matches, the 7 goals you saw will be burned into your memory. And don't give me crap about not understanding soccer. I do understand it. I know the rules, I have an elementary understanding of the strategy (which in World Cup play is play for the 0-0 tie) and I have friends who are/were quite excellent at it. I watch my country's team play on occassion and I've seen some college matches live when friends were playing. My total hatred of adult soccer should not be a threat to you. Get over it. And no, I do not think Beckham is really gay.

Friday, October 14, 2005

David Limbaugh Again?

I discussed David Limbaugh's last Miers article here.

I'm going to discuss his latest one -- here.

Anyone who has read my comments knows that my beef is not with Miers. It is with President Bush. Limbaugh, who apparently agrees with most of my criticism's of Bush's decision, addresses those critics who take that criticism too far.

I hate it when I am sympathetic to arguments on both sides of an issue as it threatens my image as a benevolently close-minded, dogmatic, doctrinaire ideologue. But I do think conservatives are talking past one another on the Miers nomination and that a rift is growing between some conservatives and the White House. . . .

Conservative critics of the nomination might need to be clearer about the applicability of their objections. There is a difference between criticizing the president's pick and actually advocating Senate rejection of Miers' nomination.

Which of course is true. I said at the outset that I may support Miers'* confirmation, if she gets that far. I think the Congress is obligated to confirm qualified, good character nominees constitutionally selected by the President.

It is perfectly legitimate (and healthy) for conservatives to register their disapproval of the president's selection. . . . But they best not advocate that the Senate reject Miers just because they believe she may not be the most qualified for the position. If she is qualified and of good character, the Senate must, as a matter of constitutional law, defer to the president's prerogative and confirm.

Accordingly, conservatives, unless they truly believe Miers to be unqualified, should specify that their objections are directed at the president and not the Senate, lest they run the risk of lending legitimacy to the liberal practice of rejecting nominees for extra-constitutional (including political) reasons.

Nor do senators of a president's party have an exemption from their duty under the Advice and Consent clause to affirm an honorable, qualified nominee. If they ignore this and vote not to confirm a qualified nominee, they will be as guilty as Democrat senators of usurping the president's appointment power.

I think this caution from Limbaugh is sound advice. The President is charged with the obligation to nominate Judges and other positions. Persons with the qualifications and character for the job should not be denied the appointment for purely political reasons. This is especially true of the slightly better party when it comes to hypocricy. We expect Democrats to ignore their own words with each successive administration. Every now and then, Republicans still hold up the measuring stick to their own and say -- nope, your conduct is inappropriate.

Limbaugh then tackles the whether and how Miers' evangelical Christianity should play in the debate. I'll let you go to the article and read that. He makes several fair points.

In the end, Limbaugh reminds all involved on the rules of proper discussion:

I am all for the robust intra-conservative debate, but I think both sides should tone down the personal attacks and be less anxious to jump to conclusions impugning the other side's or the president's motives. And perhaps all of us, myself included, should strive to retain an open mind until the confirmation hearings.

Given the heated debate many of us had at VC the last two weeks, we could have all heeded such advice.

But I still think it is much more fun to jump to conclusions and burn people at the stake.

*I will use an s' form for Miers name in possessive tense since Limbaugh does. I think, however, that the proper form would be s's.

Celebrate Hamadan

IMAO reaches out to the Islamofacists for Ramadan.

H/t: Dave, who isn't "here" right now.

Scalia Speaks The Obvious

Scalia recently spoke on a couple of Supreme Court issues. He spoke the obvious.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, often extolled by conservative Republicans as their ideal model of a judge, said Monday the confirmation process was too politicized and that he wouldn't want to experience it again.

Well, duh. Scalia was approved for the Court 98-0. Roberts should have been confirmed unanimously as well. That may never happen again with a Republican appointment, though Democratic appointments (see, Ginsberg) still get similar respect from Republican Senators.

After giving lip service to much O'Conner would be missed, Scalia tackled cameras in the Supreme Court.

On another issue, Scalia said he is adamantly opposed to televising Supreme Court sessions.

"We don't want to become entertainment," he said. "I think there's something sick about making entertainment out of real people's legal problems. I don't like it in the lower courts, and I don't particularly like it in the Supreme Court."

I used to be in favor of cameras in the Supreme Court, but I am starting to think like Scalia on this one. We have a society that favors style over substance, and it has become impossible to explain anything that takes more than 10 seconds to the public. The Supreme Court should remain a place where substance and not style controls. I think TV only moves us to the style side of the world. I'm not saying I would not change my mind, but I do not think we need the TV right now.

That said, I think the audio from oral arguments should go public immediately. That should satisfy the sunshine requirements.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Note To My Readers

I am grateful to have you. You are a pleasure to try to entertain most days. Your comments are welcomed.


P.S. No more public scatology.


Oh, who am I kidding. Scatology away!

Whose Your Dog?

Which Reservoir Dog Are You?

Which Reservoir Dog Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I don't do these things often, but I love this ultra-violent movie about deception, robbers and such. The possibilities are very different.

Another Hero Living For His Country

Mike Pottinger is a Wall Street Journal reporter in China. Make that was. He is a Marine in training.

Pottinger says that living up close and personal under an authoritarian government made him value freedom all the more. He remembers once interviewing Chinese workers who were protesting official corruption only to be approached by a government thug — at a Starbucks in Beijing, no less — who punched him and said: “You will get f- - -ing out of the country. Right now.” Matt, however, defied the warning and remained in China and continued trying to report the truth despite official intimidation.

While Matt Pottinger is following his father’s example of public service, the story of a young man interrupting his climb up the ladder of his career to serve us all by putting his life at risk for no financial reward is inspiring and worth sharing in this column.

We all could use a dose of his idealism from time to time. We could all use the courage to start again at the beginning and pursue our dreams, as Matt Pottinger is doing.

Dick Morris tells the story. Go read it.

Gay Thursday 10/13 -- Ig Nobel Prizes

GAY THURSDAY* -- Judge Roberts is confirmed, so we return to Gay* Thursday.

This week, Gay* Thursday celebrates fake dog testicles. Because a dog with balls is always happier than one without balls.

Ever feel sorry for you dog after being neutered? Why have the ability to lick one's self if there is nothing there to lick? Never fear. A scientist is there to help you.

The inventor of artificial testicles for dogs (one version pictured at right won an Ig Nobel prize for 2005 on Thursday.

The spoof prizes, awarded by the science humor magazine Annals of Improbable Research, are presented at a ceremony in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the winners must try to explain their work in a minute or less.

This year's winners include:

"Medicine" -- Gregg Miller [pictured left] of Oak Grove, Missouri, for inventing Neuticles -- artificial replacement testicles for dogs.

"Neuticles allow your pet to retain his natural look, self esteem and aids in the trauma associated with neutering. With Neuticles -- It's like nothing ever changed!" reads Miller's Web site at

As indicated, there were other winners. A group of Nigerian authors won the literature prize and a penguine poop measurer won as well.

"Literature" -- The Internet entrepreneurs of Nigeria, "for creating and then using e-mail to distribute a bold series of short stories, thus introducing millions of readers to a cast of rich characters -- General Sani Abacha, Mrs. Mariam Sanni Abacha, Barrister Jon A Mbeki Esq." The scams are notorious for asking people to reveal their private bank information to help fictitious characters transfer large sums of money.

"Fluid Dynamics" -- Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany, and the University of Oulu, Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Lorond Eotvos University in Hungary, for "Pressures Produced When Penguins Pooh -- Calculations on Avian Defecation," an actual study published in 2003 in the journal Polar Biology.

"Economics -- Gauri Nanda of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for inventing an alarm clock that runs away and hides.

The winners could not be reached for comment for this article. I assume they ran away to hide as well.

* Gay: 1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits 2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY b : brilliant in color

For more Gay* Thursday fun, check out A Guide to Midwestern Culture.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Our "Trust Me" President

President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers for SCOTUS. As is well documented here and elsewhere, some conservative minded folks are upset at this uber-stealth candidate. I am one of those folks.

The conservative supporters of the President's choice repeat the mantra that we should "trust" this President. After all, he nominated a few people who were "so conservative" in their judicial philosophy, and the Democrats disliked so much, that they made asses of themselves by filibustering ABA "qualified" and "highly qualified" candidates.

President Bush promised in his campaign to appoint Judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court. While I do not agree with these guys all the time, they are clearly the class of legal thought on today's SCOTUS. And I concede that Thomas did not make me excited when he was appointed, though at that time I would be considered much more liberal in my world view of Constitutional law. Not all of of those thoughts have disappeared.

Anyway, I wanted to take a quick look at the "trust me" President. Should we trust President Bush on issues of Constitutional law? Should we trust that he has picked a potential justice, in light of the fact that we will likely have nothing to work with other than her hearings, during which every candidate since Bork says the same thing? Should we trust him that in addition to his campaign promises, he also takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Should we trust Bush on this subject? In a word: NO.

Think for a moment about the Supreme Court decisions of the last few years that most upset the conservative side of the blogosphere and punditry. A few come to mind quickly. McCain-Feingold. Kelo. The medical marijuana case. Where was Bush on these?

Well, Bush signed the awful McCain-Feingold bill. Oh, he mentioned a few "constitutional concerns" in his press release.

Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.
But even those concerns were limited to individuals. Unions and corporations don't have First Amendment rights Mr. President? But no matter. Signing the bill was a campaign promise broken.

Mr. Bush's decision to sign the bill was especially disappointing because he had declared in 2000 that he would only sign something that contained several key principles. One of those, according to his campaign literature, was: "Preserve the right of individuals and groups--from the Christian Coalition to the Sierra Club--to run issue ads. Sen. McCain would protect incumbents from scrutiny by unconstitutionally restricting the rights of citizens to engage in issue advocacy." This bow to the First Amendment was one reason some people supported Mr. Bush over John McCain. Yet in the end, Mr. Bush signed McCain-Feingold even though it violated nearly all of those principles.

When the case hit the Supreme Court, McConnell v. FEC was decided adversely to the First Amendment. Conservatives were in an uproar. Surely, Bush realized what a travesty this law was?

No. The administration defended the law before the Supreme Court.

Supporters of the law, including the Bush administration, say it is designed to prevent corruption in politics. . . . In his brief outlining the government's position, Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote, "Both in campaign-finance legislation and in a broad range of other laws, Congress has limited the flow of money to federal officers in order to safeguard the integrity of government operations. Because federal elected office-holders are inextricably linked to their political parties, Congress reasonably concluded that large donations to party committees pose a threat of corruption similar to that created by large donations to candidates."
McCain-Feingold passed both houses with less than 2/3 of the vote. Who do we have to thank for this monstrosity of constitutional law legislation? President Bush, more than any single person. Thomas and Scalia, Bush's model judges, disagreed with Bush's position on this.

Next, we have the awful decision decried by every right of center and libertarian pundit out there: Kelo v. New London. This case came before the Supreme Court just last year. Surely, the conservative constitutionalist President Bush would have his administration's attorneys and the Department of Justice take a position on this groundbreaking, important eminent domain decision.

No. Thomas and Scalia dissented. Bush said nothing.

But trust President Bush. He knows what is important in constitutional law.

We also have the nice, security oriented story of Mr. Jose Padilla. Mr. Padilla is accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He is currently being detained without charge in a South Carolina military prison under orders of President Bush.

Padilla is a United States citizen. He was "captured" on U. S. soil. He has been held since May 8, 2002. No charges have been filed. No due process is being permitted. The Bush administration denies that he has any rights against the government's denial of his liberty since he is being "called" an enemy combatant. There is no public evidence that he ever held a weapon in opposition to the U. S. We are not in a declared state of war with anyone. Yet Bush declared that Padilla will be held indefinitely and only Bush can decide whether Padilla is an enemy combatant.

Now, some sincere conservatives are OK with this. Even Judge J. Michael Luttig, whom I would support for SCOTUS, ruled with a 4th Circuit panel in favor of Bush over Padilla this year. Nonetheless, there is ample conservative concern over this case in particular. Padilla is not like Gitmo. He was not captured on a battlefield or in foreign territory. He was not a foreign citizen. Each of these differences is huge.

The Constitution does not extend outside U.S. borders; immigrants can have conditional rights. Within the U.S. however, the 6th Amendment does not limit its application to subclasses of persons. The 14th Amendment guarantees all "persons" due process and all "citizens" their privileges and immunities. How is Padilla different? Trust Bush - he is.

Finally, by way of example, we have the medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich. Well articulated outrage and confusion from the conservative punditry, as well as extreme disappointment with Scalia's concurrence, followed.

Where was Bush on this case? Surely he recognized the limits to the commerce clause and the importance of federalism? Are you joking? The Gonzales in the case was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, appointed by President Bush. This case came to the Supreme Court precisely because Bush thought it important to trample federalist principles in favor of a uniform, Federal policy on drug laws. The case hearkened back to the days of Wickard v. Filburn, a case I will identify as one of the 10 worst Supreme Court opinions of all time one day in the near future *cough*.

Thomas dissented, thus disagreeing with Bush. As stated above, Scalia somehow found himself in the majority.

Well, I need to work. I could research this more, and encourage others to remind me of things I may have overlooked. Suffice it say that the Supreme Court constitutional law cases that my readers have complained about most the last few years (with the possible exception of Padilla, which has more support than the others) all have Bush on the "bad" side.

That is not the record of a President I just "trust" on Constitutional issues.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Knock Knock!

Who's there.

Harriet Miers

Harriet Miers who?


For other jokes we shouldn't be telling, and also a description of originalism that is in such poor taste I would not even recommend reading it, go to the link.

But remember, I do not recommend it.

Carnival Of Liberty XV

full size LLP buttonThe Carnival of Liberty XV is up at RG Combs' blog.

After weeks of non-participation, The Cheese has two entries this week.

Check them out of course (they were already published here), but more importantly, go check out the numerous other excellent articles and posts from the Life Liberty Property bloggers.

Go now, or you are a no count dirty stinky commie bastard.

David Limbaugh Speaks

I don't read David Limbaugh very often. I'm not sure I could tell you anything about him other than his column is published by Townhall. In any event, he paraphrases my position on the Harriet Miers nomination nicely, so I will give him press time here.

President Bush has made his selection, and it's not going to change. He's not going to withdraw his controversial nomination like Bill Clinton dumped his law school classmate Lani Guinier at the first sign of trouble.

For those that believe that Bush is using Miers as a stalking horse, which I doubt, this statement summarizes that. If Bush really thinks she won't get the votes, then he is gambling. I do not believe that he will pull her nomination. It is not in his nature.

Most of Miers' skeptics aren't insisting that nominees hail from elite, Ivy League law schools. But many did have their hearts set on one of a fairly small group of eminently qualified judges and lawyers who have, in effect, been in training for this position for years.

Many who want to support Miers pick up or twist an occassional statement from the critics and claim "elitism." The disappointed, like myself, are not being elitist. I'm happy that she is from a fly over law school outside of Chicago.

That groups consists of people they strongly believe to be originalists precisely because they have established a reputation as just that: unapologetic originalists. They have been unafraid or forced by circumstances to make their judicial philosophy known through their advocacy, scholarly writings, judicial opinions, speeches or otherwise.

The skeptics preferred those whose judicial philosophy is a matter of public record, or readily discernible, without ambiguity, because they are a far safer bet to be originalists than any other possible choices. They're also more likely to resist the pressures that compel some justices -- like Anthony Kennedy -- to "grow" over the years.

This is a fair statement about expectations. President Bush made a promise -- one we thought we would know was fulfilled by his nominees. That is certainly unclear right now, especially when some people had the guts to openly train for the position.

With 55 Republican Senators, some like me believed that a fight was a good thing. Limbaugh explains.

They [the critics] would welcome that nuclear confrontation, not because they're pugnacious sorts and not because they want to rub Democrats' noses in it. Rather, it's because they believe we're past due for a public debate on the proper constitutional role of the Court.

Others believe that the public is too stupid for this debate. Walk away from the fight and claim victory. We of course reject this scenario in every other political battle, be it the WOT or the culture wars.

Above all, they didn't want the president to send a signal with this nomination that he had abandoned his goal of picking a known originalist. Such a surrender could have a deterrent effect on future originalist judges working their way up through the system. It would also send the unmistakable signal that conservatives have unilaterally thrown in the towel over an issue that has motivated their grass roots like no other in the last 30 years.

This is the message sent by the nomination. As Limbaugh pointed out, even Roberts was partially a stealth candidate, though we had enough information to be optimistic. What he lacked in clarity of philosphy though he more than made up for with his qualifications and working for the right people. Miers does not possess these stealth overcoming traits.

And, of course, there is the signal to the young conservatives who might be judge one day. Keep it to yourself.

It appears that President Bush did not want to risk a confirmation fight, which is very disturbing because if he intends to make an impact in the balance of his term, other than in the War on Terror, he must be willing to fight Democrats on social and economic issues as well.

Indeed, the best insurance he has to guard against a lackluster second term is to approach all problems the way he has handled the War on Terror: with firm resolve and strong leadership, putting principle over all other considerations.

This is perhaps what makes the pick most disappointing. Bush knows how to show resolve and fight. But he only does it in the WOT. He is ready to pack up and go home on every major domestic issue. The only conservative domestic issue he won was in tax policy. His other "accomplishments" grew government (No Child Left Behind; Medicaid Drug Coverage, etc.). Bush is not the fighter we love in the WOT when the issue is at home.

And that disappoints many of us.

While the Miers nomination has been disappointing to many conservatives, what's done is done. As long as she's qualified (she doesn't have to be the most qualified to be confirmed), the selection is a matter of the president's prerogative. In the meantime, I hope that President Bush can regroup and approach the balance of his presidency with the same confidence and determination he has shown in the War on Terror.

I hope that, too. I will not be counting on it though.

Is That A Gun Under Your Robe, Or Are You Hearing An Obsenity Case Today?

Image hosted by Photobucket.comThe press has picked up on nominee Miers' propensity to pack heat. In the past, as Texas' Bar President, Miers made comments supportive of the right to bear arms.

It was not clear if she drew from the U.S. or the Texas Constitution for the statement (no link, just trust me on this). Kidding -- here is a link.

This will play out more as the hearings approach.

Expect some second amendment questions from those that worry that people might become self sufficient and not require the government to protect them from every single threat in life.


John Leo sums up the ridiculous reporting of the media from New Orleans in the wake of Katrina.

On September 2, a CNN report cited an unidentified police officer who said he saw bodies riddled with bullet holes and one man with the top of his head completely shot off. Another unnamed officer, a sergeant, said he had to pass by the bodies of other police officers who had drowned doing their job. So far as we know, none of this was true.

. . . Times-Picayune staffers [wrote a] September 5 article [which] began, “Arkansas National Guardsman Mikel Brooks stepped through the food service entrance of the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center on Monday, flipped on the light at the end of his machine gun, and started pointing out bodies.” Unlike the CNN report, this piece named an actual person as the source, but it was written as if the reporter was authenticating all that Brooks claimed. Brooks says, “Don’t step in that blood-it’s contaminated.” Pointing out bodies, Brooks says, “That’s a kid. There’s another one in the freezer, a 7-year-old with her throat cut.” Under great pressure, reporters sometimes forget to ask pertinent questions, such as how did Brooks know the blood was contaminated, or that the dead girl-one of the most mentioned phantom figures in all the Katrina reporting-was exactly 7 years old? In fact, the reporter saw four bodies, not the 30 to 40 that was reported, and no dead girl.

. . .The Ottawa Sun reported that “a man seeking help was gunned down by a National Guard soldier” and a man was “run down and then shot by a New Orleans police officer.” . . . The New York Times reported: “Like passengers on a doomed ship, they [Superdome evacuees] were desperate to get out of the noxious, violence-ridden stadium.” Noxious it was, but the “violence-ridden” condition is harder to pin down. The Superdome “just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done,” Maj. Ed Bush of the Louisiana National Guard told the Los Angeles Times. “What I saw in the Superdome was just tremendous amounts of people helping people.”

Post-hysteria reporting has not been kind to the general media coverage of the crisis. The state Department of Health and Hospitals counted 10 dead at the Superdome and four at the convention center. Only two of those are believed to have been murdered. (The city averages five or six homicides a week even without hurricanes.) Police Superintendent Eddie Compass, who did so much to inflame the panic, said on September 28 that there is “not one official report of rape or sexual assault.” Though rape is notoriously underreported, his sex-crimes unit investigated every rumor of rape or atrocity in the Superdome, made two arrests for attempted sexual assault, and concluded that the other attacks had not happened.

When will the media apologize for its awful job? I hope you aren't holding your breath.

Monday, October 10, 2005

This Nailed It

John the Wuzzadem described my blog world view perfectly.

As usual, I'm a child.

Smurf War News

Trust me, this is too good to pass up for more news about Brittney Spears' child.

You want hard, up close war reporting? Check out this imbedded reporting:
Combined U.N. and Belgian forces are pressing the fugitives Smurfs from the west, while the Code Pink armies, led by Cindy Sheehan drive down from the north. "We'll get those little fascist bastards," Mother Sheehan told the assembled crowd of reports. "No little blue people are going to knock me off the front page. I've got absolute moral authority!"Meanwhile to the south, three French armies have returned home after failing to find any Smurfs to surrender to.

Heigh-ho takes us where the LameStream Media is afraid to go.

I Am Tired of Hearing About the Unemployed

Why, just today I learned that Al Quaaaddeeaauuhhh is hiring.

Al Qaeda has put job advertisements on the Internet asking for supporters to help put together its Web statements and video montages, an Arabic newspaper reported.

The London-based Asharq al-Awsat said on its Web site this week that al Qaeda had "vacant positions" for video production and editing statements, footage and international media coverage about militants in Iraq and Palestinian territories, Chechny and other conflict zones where militants are active.

The paper said the Global Islamic Media Front, an al Qaeda-linked Web-based organization, would "follow up with members interested in joining and contact them via email." The paper did not say how applicants should contact the Global Islamic Media Front.

Al Qaeda supporters widely use the Internet to spread the group's statements through dozens of Islamist sites where anyone can post messages. Al Qaeda-linked groups also set up their own sites, which frequently have to move after being shut by Internet service providers.

I'm not sure why they need to advertise. I'm sure the LameStream Media in America and England would provide those propaganda services for free.