Thursday, 5 July 2007


I leave you this fine evening with a column by George Will.

It’s Terrorism, Stupid

Here is an interesting column by Daniel Henninger.

Elizabeth Powers on Boomer Women

As Orenstein’s Flux has documented, ambivalence is not uncommon among ambitious women born at the end of the Boomer generation. These women stepped easily into the professional life that awaited them, but, while they are prepared to work eighty-hour weeks as a lawyer, they will not spend thirty minutes washing dishes, because that smacks of gender oppression. They see motherhood as limiting, because they view their own homemaker mothers as limited, but they are themselves trapped by feminist expectations—the biggest of which is that parenthood should be planned.

(Elizabeth Powers, “Thoroughly Modern Mommy,” review of Waiting for Daisy: A Tale of Two Continents, Three Religions, Five Infertility Doctors, an Oscar, an Atomic Bomb, a Romantic Night, and One Woman’s Quest to Become a Mother, by Peggy Orenstein, First Things [April 2007]: 37-40, at 38-9)

From Today’s New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.’s” (front page, July 3):

The Bush administration’s misinformation campaign in the lead-up to the Iraq war, as well as its use of torture, make it difficult to trust any reports that could lead us to war with Iran. There will always be reasonable doubt about the administration’s veracity.

No war should be justified on the basis of doubtful intelligence. The Bush administration has made any military commitment subject to serious doubt.

Because of George W. Bush, the American people can no longer trust the commander in chief. He has jeopardized a central pillar of nationhood.

Daniel J. Urbach
Portland, Ore., July 3, 2007

Note from KBJ: I hope the letter writer isn’t relying solely on President Bush for information. There are other ways to find things out. This was true prior to the invasion of Iraq as well. I think many progressives relied solely on President Bush for their information about Iraq so that, if the war turned out badly, they could blame him for it. (“He misled us into war!”) This is an evasion of responsibility. Each of us must make reasonable inquiries to ascertain the facts before forming an opinion. By the way, Iran denies the Bush administration’s claim that it helped Iraqis kill American soldiers. The letter writer says he doesn’t trust President Bush. Does he trust Iran?


This editorial opinion tells you everything you need to know about The New York Times. The Times doesn’t want the Supreme Court to enforce the values that are written into the Constitution or statutes; it wants the Court to enforce progressive values. In other words, the Times wants the Court to accomplish certain goals, even if they’re not in accordance with law. This is result-oriented jurisprudence, which is to say, not jurisprudence at all. If the people of this country want to amend the Constitution to achieve progressive ends, they’re free to do so. The Constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again. If Congress believes that its statutes have been misconstrued by the Court, it can amend them to make its intentions clear. The Court’s job is to interpret and apply the law, not make it.

Addendum: I detect the following reasoning in the editorial opinion:

1. Many of the cases this term worked to the advantage of the privileged.


2. The Court’s aim was to advantage the privileged.

This is fallacious reasoning. Alas, it is all too common among progressives. They infer motivation from outcome. If a certain policy works to the advantage of whites, for example, it can only be because those who implemented the policy are racists. If women, as a class, earn 75% of what men earn, it can only be because of sexism in the workplace. If a series of Supreme Court rulings benefit the wealthy, it can only be because the Court sought to produce that result.

Best of the Web Today



I have two words for fans of the New York Yankees: It’s over. You’re not going to win the East Division title this year. Not even Roger Clemens can save you. As of this morning, the Boston Red Sox were 52-31 (.626). The Yankees were 39-42 (.481). The lead has ballooned to 12 games (11 in the all-important loss column). Here are some suppositions:

1. Boston plays .500 ball the rest of the way. The Yankees will have to go 53-28 (.654) to tie. Projected over a season, that’s 106 victories.

2. Boston plays .550 ball the rest of the way. The Yankees will have to go 56-25 (.691) to tie. Projected over a season, that’s 112 victories.

3. Boston plays .600 ball the rest of the way. The Yankees will have to go 60-21 (.740) to tie. Projected over a season, that’s 120 victories.

4. Boston plays .626 ball the rest of the way. The Yankees will have to go 62-19 (.765) to tie. Projected over a season, that’s 124 victories.

I’m sick to death of Yankee optimism. It’s over. Admit it.

A Year Ago