Top 11 reasons Chad’s new son will blog

I’ve waited for Sisyphus at Nihilist in Golf Pants to jump on this, but now that he’s watching the Real World on television it might be awhile. Therefore I’m borrowing the automatic Top 11 generating computer to commemorate the arrival of Chad the Elder’s new son, and the tyke’s imminent appearance as a Fraters contributor.

11. Has already received Hugh Hewitt autographed diaper bag and copy of “Blog.”
10. Don’t let the babyface fool you; it hasn’t hurt Brian “St. Paul” Ward.
9. Falls asleep listening to NARN broadcasts (perhaps that’s not so unique).
8. Already knows the difference between a tax and a fee.
7. Every bit as cute as David Strom and Margaret Martin.
6. Had Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” read to him in utero.
5. Already knows what Wellstone would do, and doesn’t like it.
4. His custom onesies have Ronald Reagan’s face on the front…and Ted Kennedy’s on the butt.
3. Not intimidated by Atomizer’s “Rock Solid” award.
2. MOB pool has him as the 3-1 favorite in the race to see who will post next between him and JB Doubtless.
1. He has to be ready to respond to whatever Nick Coleman’s new baby writes.

A little girl’s prayer

I can’t talk much yet about the things that are happening with my wife and daughter and their little group, but lately I’ve been reminded of something I received in an email a few years ago. It’s an account by missionary Helen Roseveare of God’s wondrous provision and encouragement. This story moved me so that I wanted to confirm it’s authenticity, and with a little research I found out more about this remarkable woman and the tremendous impact she had in the Congo – at great personal cost. (See this link for more information.)

The story still moves me, even though I know it practically by heart. And it is always on my mind when we pack a Christmas box for Samaritan’s Purse or put together a care package for our Soldier’s Angels soldier. Sometimes all you need to do to be part of a miracle is simply listen…

And your mother dresses you funny

Michelle Malkin noted this article from Robin Givhan at the Washington Post. It included this:

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were — John, Jane, Josie and Jack — standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues — like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers…

And this…

In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. “John-John” Kennedy Jr.

Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi.

OK, they’re having trouble so far getting political traction against the nominee, they’ve tried “outing” his wife as a radical Catholic who volunteers in her church and for pro-life organizations, and now it’s time to go after the kids by saying, “you’re too perfect and your mother dresses you funny.”

Look, the president didn’t invite the family to drop by the White House for a cook-out. Perhaps the family’s thought process went, “Hmmm, president, White House, cameras…flip-flops or church clothes?”

Here’s another thought (which puts me at least two ahead of Ms. Givhan): how about Ozzy Osbourne for Chief Justice?

Good on ya, mate!

Hugh Hewitt posts Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s comments in response to the latest terrorism in London, and whether Australia has made itself a target by supporting the war in Iraq:

“The first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the venacular, and no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq? And can I remind you that the 11th of September occured before the operation in Iraq? Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor? Are people by implication suggesting that we shouldn’t have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? When Sergio DeMillo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplmat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that DeMillo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don’t know the minds of the terrorist. By definition you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts. And the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective fact is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq and indeed all the evidence as distinct from the suppositions suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion, that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.”

99 – 0

I have to be up and out earlier than usual Wednesday morning so the unfinished post I’m currently working on will have to wait until tomorrow. I hope you’ll ultimately think it is worth the wait, but in the meantime I’d like to direct your attention to this Tuesday evening update from Varifrank on President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, who was previously confirmed unanimously by the Senate for his present seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:

UPDATE: Judge John C. Roberts Jr.

NOT – The two Ediths.
NOT – Alberto Gonzalez.
NOT – John Cornyn.
NOT – A Woman.

Don’t Pundits have some sort of a shelf life if they continue to guess wrong?

UPDATE: Confirmed by 99-0 in the Senate. That means Schumer voted for him, Boxer voted for him, Reid voted for him. Kerry voted for him. What are they going to say? Oh we didn’t mean it? Oh, but look at his record? We have concerns? How does Schumer get to say “I didn’t vote for him in committee but I voted for him in the full Senate?

I have no doubt that the left will now paint this excellent pick as the spewed-from-his-forehead-spawn-of-satan himself.

See, Winning counts.

With Justice Roberts’ previous confirmation it is going to take a lot of Poligrip for certain senators to get those fangs back in their mouths. Not that they won’t try, of course (and special interest groups will be rushing boxes of the stuff to their offices). In the meantime, count on a lot of gums flapping and lips sputtering.

I don’t know much about the Judge Roberts beyond the initial information, but on a political level this is a breath-taking stroke by the man the left considers too stupid to be president.

The horror, the horror

Saw this over on Amy Ridenour’s National Center blog:

Regarding Gitmo Torture Allegations…
…if wearing a bra and being forced to stay awake 20 hours straight constitutes torture, 99 percent of all mothers of newborns qualify as torture victims.

Just think what information we could get from the detainees if we threw in a couple of screaming two-year-olds and also made them cook breakfast for the rest of the camp. And if that didn’t break them we could then send in … the breast pump.

Bulletin: France raises terrorist alert level

I received this story today in my e-mail:

Be aware that the French government announced yesterday that it
has raised its terror alert level from ‘Run’ to ‘Hide’. The only two higher levels in France are ‘Surrender’ and ‘Collaborate’. The rise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France’s only white flag factory, effectively paralyzing their military.

I haven’t been able to conclusively verify this story, but it could be true.

16th century blogging

While browsing an estate sale last weekend I came across a small book entitled “The Art of Wordly Wisdom,” a collection of aphorisms from the works of Baltasar Gracian (Martin Fischer translation). How could I pass on all that when it was only a buck?



Gracian, a Jesuit scholar and advisor to the royal court, was frequently on the outs with both his order and the court and eventually was imprisoned and had his books banned. The book I picked up consists of brief excerpts from his writings that can be read at random. Here are a couple:



Hold to nothing too violently. Every fool stands convinced, and everyone convinced is a fool, and the faultier a man’s judgement, the firmer his conviction; even with proof on your side, it is well to make concession, for your reasons are known and your gentlemanliness is recognized; more is lost in contention than can be gained in consummation; for such does not defend the truth, but only exhibits bad manner; blockheads are difficult or impossible of conversion; for when conviction is joined to obstinacy, both are indissolubly married to stupidity. Inflexibility should lie in the will, and not in the judgement. Yet there be exceptions when you may not yield without danger of being twice conquered; first in your decision and then in its execution.



Sounds like a case for being a moderate, but I like the part about “inflexibility should lie in the will and not in the judgement”, which to me means we should hold fast to principle over politics, especially since there are “exceptions” such as mentioned in the last line above. These exceptions would no doubt include the following:

The world is in chaos. Right dealing is finished and truth is held the liar; good friends are few; good service is underpaid, poor service is overpaid. Whole nations are committed to evil dealings; with one you fear insecurity, with another, inconsistency, with a third, treason; wherefore, let this bad faith of others serve you, not as an example, but as warning. The peril of the situation lies in the unhinging of your own integrity: accepting less than your best, being overly tolerant of stupidity, forgiving incompetence, fraternizing with the nonspiritual. The man of principle never forgets what he is, because he clearly sees what the others are.



Go here for a brief biography of Gracian.

American History Quiz

Here’s another easy American History question that was somehow left off of Keegan’s trivia quiz last Thursday (in which the Night Writer, Tiger Lilly, Policy Guy and Water Cooler Wisdom team was 25 for 25 in the main quiz and 2/3 in the tie-breaker).

Who made the following statement on October 8, 2002?

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

A: George W. Bush
B: Kofi Annan
C: Hillary Clinton
D: Alfred E. Newman

This is one of the interesting tidbits you’ll find over at John Hawkins’ post “Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq”. The post includes the facts and history behind commonly accepted and unchallenged statements such as: 1) George Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; 2) A study released in March of 2003 by a British medical journal, the Lancet, showed that 100,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the US invasion; 3) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11; 4) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century; 5) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq; 6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism; 7) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and; 8) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.

Check them out. (HT: Mitch Berg at Shot in the Dark.)