evolution

I feel sort of like a hack for writing this post, because everyone on Earth has already written their own, but that hasn’t stopped me for six solid years and three thousand other posts, so here we go.

If indeed the Jeremiah Wright thing is over, I’ll be glad. It was an issue, a relatively minor one — I went to a church as a teenager where intolerant statements were sometimes made, and I turned out okay. It’s fair to ask why he joined the church in the first place, but again that’s a minor issue as well.

What about Obama’s “connection” — some might say “working relationship” — with Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.

Now that we’re all finished with Jeremiah Wright, I’d like to see some questions asked about that.

Of course, we won’t — the full court press on his behalf has already started, and will be like a tidal wave between now and June; possibly after then.

El Borak (see original for footnotes):

The thing* I’ve always hated about McCain has been the fact that he has made his career of playing to his press peanut gallery. And the reason he has been able to do so has been that he has always been willing to go against the current trend of the GOP in the most public fashion possible. There seems to be nothing the press likes better than an anti-Republican Republican with a big mouth, or what they call a “maverick**”.

But it’s going to fun*** to watch McCain as all the perquisites he has come to count on from the press are withdrawn en todo as soon as he becomes the Republican nominee. He is no longer the maverick Republican who is willing to work with Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy****. He is no longer the principled statesman who is willing to stand up for the public good against those evil Republicans.

It’s so predictable that it’s barely even noteworthy any more.

UPDATE [19:07]: Star chickenhead: “By the way, didn’t The Times endorse McCain?” Come on, pal. Aren’t you in show biz too?

The title of this post was the first thing I thought when I read this story, the gist of which is that the Johnson County Commissioners approved the hiring of a special prosecutor to investigate alleged wrongdoing by former Johnson County DA — and current Kansas Attorney General — Paul Morrison.

The catch is that the special prosecutor will be hired by the current Johnson County DA — Phill Kline, who was defeated by Morrison handily in a general election in which Kline was (and remains) immensely unpopular.

It’s not so much a tactical error by Kline — after all, the Johnson County Commission could have rejected the request, but one wonders if the Truth™ will be served by it¹. In the court of public opinion — the only one that matters in cases like this — Kline is a sure-fire loser (with plenty of good reason, in my opinion, but what do I know). Popularity and justice are not equal — except when they are.

You just have to wonder whether this is going to end up backfiring, and whether actual wrongdoing, assuming it even exists,² is going to slide right on by, along with what will no doubt be several tons of “product” from our wonderful media organizations, some of whom have their own interests to uphold — and like Bill (who I swear if I mention on this blog one more time this week then I think we’ll be common-law married), I don’t wonder what they are.

I just hope then when my generation’s turn comes to run for these offices and write their histories that we aren’t as small, as weak, or as petty as this generation is.

1. And does it even matter? [↩]
2. I’m plunking my money down on “does exist”. Not much more than a gut feeling right now. [↩]

The stupidest newspaper employee in Kansas says so.

We’re not talking about something like, say, abortion, Randy. Abortion, or so sayeth the courts, derives from a “penumbra of rights”. Somehow I’ll bet you don’t find that “awkwardly structured”.

But gun ownership is printed in the Constitution. What part of the Second Amendment is “awkwardly structured”?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There are just too many commas in that sentence. Here it is the way I would write it (and how I believe the Framers intended it, which of course is what I ask myself any time I think about a Constitutional question):

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don’t see how it’s possible to see that simple statement - in either form - as granting a “collective right” (whatever the hell that means) rather than an individual right. It simply makes no sense. All of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. This is not different.

And this is not, as Scholfield blithely insinuates, something the wingnuts gin up every so often to torment the sophisticated literati like himself.

As for the case he refers to, I have no idea what will happen. Not granting cert will effectively overturn the D.C. gun ban — which is just wrong, in my opinion¹ without actually overturning it and setting the precedent, although you can’t underestimate certain justices’ love for making new law.

Perhaps Randy Scholfield should stick to things he knows, rather than continue to embarass himself thusly. Given his record of blog posts, I doubt it.

1. Sadly, I don’t see too many “critics”, to use the news story’s word, making that argument — rather, they legitimize the desire to ban individuals from legally owning guns as an “opposing view” by saying that gun control just doesn’t work. It doesn’t, but that’s not the point. [↩]

Attention, eateries of Lawrence: I can be bought.

Some people think that’s the problem with blogs — that it’s too easy to cover up quid pro quo. I don’t think it’s any worse than in traditional journalism (and the related problem of bloggers/journalists choosing to shill for the cause, pro bono — a problem that I actually think is worse in journalism than blogging, since most bloggers don’t pretend to objectivity).

Anyway, I am pleased to announce that I would totally shill for any Lawrence restaurant for food.

… but we don’t have this problem. At least not yet.

I was a bit out-to-lunch the last few weeks. Was there something going around about how members of the media contribute to Democrats vs. Republicans at the ratio of 9:1, and whether or not the contributions and the reporter’s political sympathies influence coverage?

Sen Thompson had role in suit against Stephan, by (of course) Scott Rothschild:

Topeka — Fred Thompson, the actor, lawyer and former U.S. senator who is creating a buzz in the Republican Party presidential race, has a link to a Kansas case involving well-recognized names.

Thompson represented Marcia Tomson Stingley, who in the 1980s sued then-Attorney General Bob Stephan for sexual harassment.

Stingley, however, was first represented by Margie Phelps, daughter of the Rev. Fred Phelps and a member of the family that has become known throughout the nation for picketing at soldiers’ funerals.

The family, including Margie Phelps, carry signs such as “Thank God for dead soldiers,” claiming that soldiers’ deaths are part of God’s punishment for toleration of homosexuality in the United States.

In the first lawsuit, Stingley accused Stephan of making sexual advances. Stephan denied the allegations but agreed in March 1985 to settle the lawsuit for $24,000 and he would help her get another job in California.

But the settlement required that the terms be kept secret. However, later in 1985, while Stephan considered a run for governor, a friend of Stephan’s divulged the settlement terms to the media.

I must say this is brilliant, even by Rothschild’s high standards of advocacy journalism. One gets to mention Bob Stephan and sexual harrassment together with Fred Thompson and the hated Phelpses, and to no other purpose. Bravo.

It may be dumb (and not that I ever watched either one of these apparatchiks), but at least it’s not fabricated.

At least, as far as we know.

Me, three nights ago, on the Ann Coulter thing:

In fact, this instinct to fight over every single thing as if it were the Great Ideological War is the hallmark of the blogospheric Leftist, and I detest it. I refuse to do it.

Others claim that those such as myself are doing this in order to curry favor with leftists in a time when many of my ideas — among them individualism, free markets, limited government, opposition to boutique multiculturalism — are unpopular†. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. There are many issues for which there is no chance whatsoever I will make common cause with most leftists; I doubt most leftists will want, no matter what I say or do, to make common cause with me on many issues. I have no chance of winning them over, and they have no chance of winning me over — nor do I believe that most leftists, particularly those found in the blogosphere, have any desire to win me over. They need “wingnuts” to fight, and are out for scalps without regard for anything whatsoever. I know that there are those on the Right who do this — Ann Coulter chief among them. My point is that I, for one, am not going to do it.

For some reason, Democrats are not going to take part in a Presidential debate — because it will appear on Fox News. Why do you suppose that is?

Do we have to have separate media now? (I guess we basically already do.) Separate restaurants? Separate schools? Separate stores (Whole Foods vs., say, Golden Corral)?

Separate bathrooms? Separate drinking fountains? Separate neighborhoods? Separate governments?

I don’t like where this is leading at all.

At the same time — I’ve read their thoughts for years now. I don’t have any desire to get along with or attempt to accommodate any of these people. I just don’t.

UPDATE: In addition to being willing to sell out anything and anyone in order to win some petty political battle, these people are stupider than sacks of monkey shit. For one, Fox is the highest-rated cable news network ever. Period. I don’t watch it because I think most of its programming is annoying, but apparently a whole hell of a lot of people find something worth watching on there. Some of these people — like John Edwards, who was the first to fold — can’t afford to pass up the free exposure. Point the second: What better way to expose “conservative bias” than to show up and make yourself a target of it?

From who else but the J-W’s Scott Rothschild.

We’ve come a long way, baby.