Saturday, 18 August 2007


I leave you this fine evening with a column by Fred Barnes, who says—I kid you not—that if Republicans continue to “bash” illegal immigrants (note the tendentious term), they will lose the Hispanic vote. I don’t get it. Are Hispanics lawless? Are they unable to distinguish between legal and illegal behavior? Are they too stupid to grasp that wanting to prevent people from coming into this country without permission is not an attack on Hispanics? Republicans should show respect for Hispanics by assuming that they are just as patriotic, just as intelligent, and just as committed to law and order as anyone else. Barnes makes it sound as though Hispanics are too dense to care about anything other than ethnic solidarity.

Addendum: Note another of Barnes’s assumptions: that the Republican Party should do what’s best for the party rather than what’s best for the country.

Addendum 2: Barnes calls opponents of illegal immigration “emotional,” which implies that his side is rational. How’s that for stacking the deck? There is nothing quite so emotional as a businessman who has to abide by the law.


Is anyone besides me tired of feminist whining? It would be one thing if there were something to whine about, but there isn’t, so feminists have taken to whining about women’s inability to have it all. Men have never had it all, so why should women have it all? Life is full of choices, trade-offs, compromises, and settling. Men (for the most part) do these things without complaint. It’s time women did the same. Here is a perceptive column by Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Yankee Watch

In yesterday’s action, the Boston Red Sox split a doubleheader with the Los Angeles Angels, while the New York Yankees beat my beloved Detroit Tigers (to even their four-game series at one game apiece). Today, both the Red Sox (74-49) and the Yankees (69-54) won. Boston’s magic number to eliminate New York is down to 35. It must frustrate Yankee fans to no end that their team can’t gain ground on the Red Sox. Ten days ago, the lead was also five games. My advice to Yankee fans is to abandon ship.

Richard John Neuhaus on the Progressive Movement

[Zev] Chafets quotes (without attribution) the observation of the late Milton Himmelfarb that “American Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” That is often taken to mean that Jews, being liberal and altruistic, vote against their own interests. Chafets has a different interpretation. “Voting Democratic is a Jewish interest,” he writes. Jews have, he says, a major stake in the fortunes of the party that reflects both their economic concerns and their cultural and ideological sensibilities. “Internationalists like George Soros and show business figures whose foreign income is dependent upon American popularity abroad tend to take a ‘European’ view of the Arab-Israel conflict. Less exalted, grassroots Jews often belong to ‘helping’ professions, the trial bar, or academics—all areas with a direct interest in big government.” (It should be noted that Soros emphatically distances himself from any connection with Judaism and, as for Zionism, told the New Yorker, “I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence, but I don’t want to be part of it.”)

Chafets’ inside Democratic operative tells him: “Jews contribute more than money to the party. We’re a necessary piece of the progressive movement. We are its leaders, in fact. The Ivy League is one third Jewish these days. MoveOn is funded by Jews. All the major advocacy groups—People for the American Way, the ACLU, the human rights organizations, NOW, even some of the labor unions—rely on Jewish leadership. Take the Jews away from the progressive movement, and what’s left?”

(Richard John Neuhaus, “The Public Square,” First Things [May 2007]: 57-72, at 59-60)

All Fred, All the Time

I’m glad to see that my old friend John, from Brisbane, Australia, supports Fred Thompson. Great minds think alike! Some of you will recall that I jumped on the Mitt Romney bandwagon early on. Let me be clear: I think highly of Mitt and would be happy to support him if he were the Republican nominee. I just have a nagging suspicion that many Republicans will stay home on election day if Mitt is the nominee. The reason? Mitt’s Mormonism. It’s tempting to say, “Mitt’s religion is irrelevant and will not (therefore) influence my vote.” Can we afford such high-mindedness? What if it gets Hillary Clinton elected? She must be defeated. I have said that I could support even Rudy Giuliani if he is the Republican nominee, despite his softness on matters of importance to me (such as illegal immigration and homosexual “marriage”). I think Fred Thompson can beat Hillary, and I like him better than any other candidate (with the possible exception of Newt Gingrich). Go Fred!

From Today’s New York Times

To the Editor:

While acknowledging that Jose Padilla is a terrorist who belongs in prison, you write that his conviction should not be seen as “vindication” for the Bush administration (editorial, Aug. 17).

Question: When has The Times ever found vindication for the president’s policies in any undeniably good news—whether the remarkable military turnaround in Anbar Province, the record tax revenues that have accompanied lower tax rates, a robust economy or six years without a terrorist attack on American soil?

Howard F. Jaeckel
New York, Aug. 17, 2007

Note from KBJ: Touché.


Read this editorial opinion by The New York Times. The Times writes (boldface added):

The fear is that if too many people convert to bottled water, there would be even less political support for such spending [on aging water-distribution systems].

I would have written it differently:

The hope is that if enough people convert to bottled water, there would be less need for such spending [on aging water-distribution systems].

I like mine better. How about you?

A Year Ago

Here. As I predicted, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed (i.e., vacated) Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s decision (order). The ground was lack of standing by the plaintiffs (which included the American Civil Liberties Union). See here for the ruling, which was handed down a little over a month ago (on 6 July 2007). In effect, the appellate court reprimanded Judge Taylor for not following the law. As for why she didn’t follow the law, you be the judge. I suspect it had to do with her politics; but that would be cynical of me, wouldn’t it? Incidentally, you didn’t hear a lot of crowing about the reversal, did you? Progressives mistook a skirmish for the war, and they are losing the war.