Wolcott:  “At the risk of sounding impolitic, whose stunningly crass idea was it to invite those awful pigs in a blanket…?”* **** (h/t Blogometer)

In response to the Steve Gilliard “Sambo” dustup (in which Gilliard, a black progressive, posted a picture of MD Lt Governor Michael Steele, a black conservative, in minstrel makeup), Cathy Young wrote a few days back: It seems fairly clear to me that such racial putdowns are more likely to be used against black conservatives, in the same way that some progressives think sexist slurs against right-wing women are all

Woke this morning with the uncomfortable feeling I’d done something naughty to the Travelocity Roaming Gnome, who wandered into my dreams last night wearing crotchless lace panties and spiked pumps, and carrying a shepherd’s staff wound with red electrical tape so that it looked like a crooked barber’s pole. Normally I’d say such a sight is unlikely to excite me.  But dreams are crazy things—and having once spent an entire

Two things.  First, go visit SPC Jean-Paul Borda’s milblogging.com, which currently boasts links to 478 military blogs in 15 countries.  The site is searchable by country, by gender, and by author.  If you like what you see, bookmark it or add it to your RSS feed. And second, as a way to prepare myself for my ascension to the nation’s High Court, I’ve been working on writing material for narrowly

If the Democrats were determined to grab the headlines and turn attention back to the Libby indictments, they’ve likely succeeded.  In a press briefing moments ago, Harry Reid is justifying his secret session gambit, calling it a victory for the American people—followed up by a litany of leftist talking points with regard to Iraq:  the President lied about WMD; there were no Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections [an assertion disproved by the last

Harry Reid and Democratic Senators have invoked Rule 21 and closed the Senate, barring C-SPAN, reporters, etc.  Reid claims to be doing this because he is upset that the Senate has refused to hold hearings into the pre-war intelligence lies of Chimpy McHilterburton and his bloodthirsty band of warmongering neocons.  Evidently, the bi-partisan Senate report that already pronounced on such questions isn’t good enough—and, given the recent Libby indictments (which

Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff has an interesting piece in the Daily Standard on the tension between President Bush’s political pragmatism and his pledge to appoint judicial conservatives, who by dint of their judicial conservatism are compelled to eschew the kind of pragmatism that appeared to be evident in Harriet Miers’ judicial philosophy (to the point such a philosophy could be gleaned from her political positions and speeches).  From “The Pledge”: WHEN

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: In picking Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, President Bush gave his right flank what it wanted: a true-blue conservative. The question now is: Is Bush giving the country what it needs? The nomination is troubling in that 1) it’s liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the

SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito’s dissent in Casey is becoming the major battleground upon which his nomination is being fought, at least among those vying for a rhetorical upperhand in the battle over defining his ideology and judicial philosophy.  Which is why those of us who support the Alito nomination need to be vigilant and precise in our defense. Two things this morning.  First, Patterico catches the LA Times’ David Savage,