Daily Update 10/5/05


Daily Update

Thoughts on Harriet Miers
It's a Miscellany post. This week, sadly, there is a retraction from a previous post.

And heads up on a new reality show for people who are broke.

A tribute to Sam Weisenthal.
It's the first edition of the Fish Awards.

There's ten awards in total. We've got flounder, sharks, hammerheads and, of course, Bottom Feeders.
West Wing premiers in a new time slot and with new candidates for President.

Here's a fresh review of the series.

Which one of the West Wing characters is really John McCain?

Daily Update Below.

Image hosted by

Who the Hell Is Harriet Miers?

I've read the Bloggers and I've listened to Rush. Today I sat and listened to the President himself as he waxed on about how his supreme court nominee and his personal counsel, Harriet Miers, was a fine lady with a keen mind and a devotion to the constitution.

Which could describe me and most all other fine American females across the fruited plain.

A million questions flutter through my mind, some of them not so politically correct.

Then my mind starts to debate the issues and by now I'm a mental mess.

I was one of those good Americans who actually believed that Clarence Thomas went around putting pubic hairs on coke cans. I believed it because a nice soft-spoken lady testified that he did and at the time I did not believe that people would lie about such a thing.

Being just one of the great unwashed carrying this country on our backs at the time, as opposed to now being a great unwashed Blogger, I didn't understand why anyone would care who got appointed to the supreme court.

A bunch of judges, la-di-da, is how I saw it.

The biggest surprise to this addled mind is the notion that anyone can be nominated for the Supreme Court. Bush could have nominated ME for the supreme court.

Indeed there is not even a requirement that only attorneys can ascend to the mightiest court in the land.

Since the days of the Thompson hearings which filtered lightly through my busy mind, I've learned quite a bit.

This past June the Supreme Court ruled it was quite fair for local governments to scarf up my house and sell it to a developer. Should said developer have a better plan for my house as deemed by the local authorities.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the government can take from one citizen and give to another! Justice Stevens cited "Foreign law" in his opinion.

This infuriated me. Foreign law has no business being mixed up in American law, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Within all the chatter of these past few days, frequent references to Justice Souter and the great disappointment he was to George H. Bush, nominator of Souter, were made.

Surely this Souter fellow hears this, eh? Surely he watches TV or reads a newspaper. How does it feel to be considered a BIG disappointment to those kind enough to nominate one to such a fine position?

Justice Souter is, of course, a moonbat out-of-control left-wingnut, a mediocre judge, hardly any great legal scholar. But hey, he gets invited to happening Georgetown dinner parties.

I've also heard many variations of the term "legislating from the bench". Which The Wise I does understand in that the courts are not supposed to be making laws as deemed by our founding fathers. Elected legislators are supposed to making laws. We the people can then un-elect said legislators should their laws not be to our liking. We the people cannot un-elect nine Darth Vaders who decide, based on foreign law, based on acceptance into the elite social spectrum, based on God knows what but it's only nine damn people who should NOT be able to dictate law.

Do any of the current supreme court Darth Vaders hear these persistent references to "legislating from the bench"? Do you think maybe they get it? Do you think they know that we know what they're up to? Do they even have the slightest bit of guilt? Shame?

As the notion of appointing a Supreme Court nominee who is not only unknown, but had never even been a Judge, settles into my brain, well I'm still confused.

Like so many other conservatives across the land, I want to know why Bush didn't just bring in the big dogs, roll the dice and call for a free-for-all, and nominate a Priscilla Owens, a Janice Brown, or any other of the judges that he suffered through their nominations to just the circuit court.

Sleeves across the land were being rolled up, both on the right and the left. A knock-down, drag-out fight was anticipated. "Filibuster" T-shirts were being printed by the thousands.

That same debate had been anticipated over the Roberts confirmation. In due course it was ascertained by the bloviating senators that Roberts was just too damn good and too qualified to waste the precious and politically risky filibuster on.

But President Bush nominates a personal acquaintance for which little is known.

I've a theory on the President's logic but it's nothing more than a theory.
Image hosted by

I don't think Bush wanted to engage in that knock-down, drag-out fight. For quite a few reasons as I surmise.

One, I suspect the Republican Senators expressed great concern over a filibuster fight. We must recall that the so-called "gang of fourteen" took over the operations of the senate during a confirmation of an earlier circuit judge. Seven Republican senators, full of themselves and most having future political ambitions, just boom, made a deal with seven Democrats. Just like that, the power of 100 was reduced to 14.

Two, the last thing, the very last, last, last thing this country needs is six to eight weeks of watching these senatorial clowns act like monkeys and asses, all in an attempt to prevent a straight up and down vote on the nominee. The entire soap opera would give the Democrats a world stage to get in the gazillion moonbat sound bites. The Arab sons of camels would agree, naturally, with the moonbats and would use the joke of a confirmation process as anti-American propaganda.

We've got a major American city just annihilated by a hurricane. Heck, we're STILL in hurricane season. We've got a war going overseas. We've got money to be allocated and distributed for hurricane relief and we've got thieves in charge of the state that needs it most.

Most important, the trial of Saddam. Tada!

Saddam's trial was scheduled to begin on 10/15/05. Indeed they've even built a big and impressive court just for the trial.

The trial of Saddam is going to be a big battle in the propaganda war. The moonbats that hate America will see just how bad a despot can be. The Arab sons of camels who don't want to let go of their ill-gained oil wealth will suddenly realize this might be them someday. Millions of Muslims will witness the trial of a distant dictator and slowly, but most surely, will realize that their own leaders do many of things for which Saddam is on trial.

Bush believes that the trial of Saddam, I opine, is a major step in promoting freedom across the planet. The Iraqis will try their former dictator in a fair court of law, note NOT the U.N., who made a joke of Milosevak's trial.

Truth will be presented in a solemn and serious matter. Tongues cut out. Arms cut off. Living humans thrown into industrial shredders. People will be testifying to this.

The Kurds will testify to Saddamn's attack with Sarin gas that killed thousands. Oh yes, ladies and gems, testimony to weapons of mass destruction, USED. Sarin gas is a weapon of mass destruction. The testimony will prove this.

The last thing we need going on is the yip-yap of the America haters and their bought and paid for senators over Joanie's right to have an abortion.

The upcoming Saddam trial will change history.

Rebuilding New Orleans will take focus, debate and concentration.

We do NOT need the hystericals all over the TV sucking up space when hey, nominate Miers and move on.

Miers simply will cut off the hysteria and bloviating senators at the knees. She's only one of nine for God's sake. And hey, we lived through Souter.


Here's a Blast from the Past. Back when we cared about a Runaway Bride and Club Gitmo.

Copied in its entirety.
As a self-admited political junkee, how could I not tune in to "Commander in Chief"?

Who is Geena Davis playing the first woman President.

No, I don't think she's Hillary. She's too nice.

Here's a TV review of this new and intriguing series.
Farts are more a juvenile subject of jokes than for more mature adults.

But this week's Fishgiggle is a fart joke told with, ahem, class and dignity.

It's the most hilarious of them all.

TV Events of Note
So You Think You Can Dance?
FOX Wednesday, October 5 8:00 PM
Reality, Dance

Winner is announced.

Executive Producer(s): Simon Fuller, Nigel Lythgoe, Allen Shapiro

Original Air Date: Oct 05, 2005


Monday's Daily Update-10/3/05

Tuesday's Daily Update-10/3/05

No comments: