Sometimes, when attempting to analyze politics, it becomes necessary to decode the words of politicians.  Below is my (humble) attempt to do so with various passages of President Bush’s recent Oval Office speech on illegal immigration.

THE PRESIDENT

For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it." Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll." In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/05/united-93/feed/ 1 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/03/15/so-far-this-year/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/03/15/so-far-this-year/#comments Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:55:29 +0000 Isaiah Z. Sterrett http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/so-far-this-year/ Isaiah Sterrett reports on the year thus far.

My column has been inconspicuously absent for the past several weeks, so I think I have some catching-up to do. True, events of worldwide importance have been somewhat sparse of late, but commentate I must, nonetheless.

The Olympics came and went without any major problem — unless you happen to be Bode Miller, who now works as a ski-lift operator somewhere in Colorado. In figure skating, Russians swept nearly every event, but Shizuka Arakawa’s breathtaking, Gold-winning performance kept such an honor out of their reach. The new scoring system, endlessly discussed on NBC, combined with a rushed skate by Irina Slutskaya and a nervous skate by our own Sasha Cohen — not to mention the tremendous talent of Arakawa — led to a glorious victory — a sole victory — for Japan.Â

Torino’s Games complete, Americans (at least several of us) turned to the Oscars, where host Jon Stewart was funny, but not too much so, and in which Brokeback Mountain, unquestionably 2005’s most groundbreaking film, lost Best Picture to Crash, a fine movie but one hardly deserving of the praise it has received. The Oscars, like the Olympics, went very smoothly. The best thing about this year’s ceremony was that it gave us (so soon!) what will no doubt go down as one of the most absurd, delusional speeches in Hollywood history. I quote, in part, here:

And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It’s probably a good thing. Uhm, we’re the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered. And we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, uh, you know, we bring up subjects…we are the ones…this Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy. I’m proud to be part of this community. I’m proud to be out of touch. And I thank you so much for this.

Those immortal words were spoken by one George Clooney, who is now, of course, confirmably ignorant of American history. To begin with, AIDS was never “just being whispered.” AIDS was the talk of the world — and still is. Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington made a terrific movie about discrimination against AIDS patients entitled Philadelphia, but the movie was a result of a national diaglouge; it was not the start of a national dialouge. Hollywood hasn’t made a dent in the way we discuss AIDS.Â

As for civil rights, I think Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and the myriad other heroes and heroines who fought for racial equality would be interested to know that their fight was actually taking place in smoggy L.A. In fact, I believe they were focused primarily on Birmingham, Selma, and Atlanta; I can’t really recall any march on Sunset Boulevard.

Maddening as Clooney’s words are, forgetting George isn’t hard to do, once one remembers the beautiful and heartrending Best Song, “It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp.” Though I think we can all relate to the sensitive and nuanced lyrics of this particular selection, one has to believe that Dolly Parton — whose Transamerica song, “Travelin’ Thru,” does not utilize the word “pimp” — was somewhat disenfranchised. Would that her songs were as life-affirming as those of Three 6 Mafia! (Question: Do pimps ever work 9-5?)

Beyond the Olympic Games and the Academy Awards, recent news has been bleak. Currently America –or, more accurately, about fifteen people — are wetting their trousers over the thought of Dubai having business control over American ports. The problem seems to have been solved, at least for the time being, but clearly the problem should have never existed. Democrats and Republicans joining hands to oppose the United Arab Emirates in a business deal is preposterous. I mean, we’re talking about a business transaction between business partners here; it’s not as if we’re letting George Clooney run the ports. Now that would be something to kvetch about!

And now that I think about it, why is Congress worried about the ports? There are pimps out there, cold and lonely, and here we are, worried about port security! Talk about mispalced priorities.

As it turns out, contrary to the mournful screams of liberals, “Bush’s wiretaps” were (and remain) completely justified by law.  It’s true that this country’s record of civil liberties during wartime is hardly one in which we can take pride, but this current [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/12/30/bush%e2%80%99s-wiretaps-are-legal/feed/ 4 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/11/20/newspapers-in-turmoil/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/11/20/newspapers-in-turmoil/#comments Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:06:44 +0000 Isaiah Z. Sterrett http://www.intellectualconservative.com/test.php/?p=811 Consumers will only return to newspapers if they are allowed, once again, to believe what they read.

Sometimes, try as one might to adhere to at least the basic seriousness required for analysis of the media, it’s important to step back and examine — from a self-imposed distance — the state of affairs. Now is one of those times.

We have, on the one hand, my favorite newspaper, the Washington Post, substituting as the Nation’s Paper, as the New York Times is still recovering from its Judith Miller fiasco. Though the Miller story certainly does not represent a press corps shilling for President Bush, as some have laughably suggested, it does represent a press corps starving for the long-gone days of pre-Internet, pre-cable news America, in which print journalists, as the sole arbiters of truth, reigned supreme. The media are so hungry for power — or even mere significance — that they’ve begun eating their own.

On the other hand, in a very depressing development, we have the Post going absolutely daft, recently headlining a story on its Website thus: “Exercise Increases Life Span.” Check back tomorrow for “New Study Shows Rainbows Often Follow Rain.”

Even so, the Post remains superior to the Great Gray Lady. Historically, the only real reason to read the New York Times — save for maybe its coverage of the world’s more obscure regions, an area of journalism in which the Times excels — was the Op-Ed Page. Sadly, however, due to a tremendous droop in readership, one must now pay for Op-Ed, which I simply won’t do. Accordingly, my insatiable thirst for the witticisms of Maureen Dowd has been left to fester. All that remains for me is her new book, Are Men Necessary?, in which she attempts to explore female sexuality through anecdotes about neurophysiology and stiletto pumps.

It’s a world gone mad when one finds oneself turning to Maureen Dowd for measured journalism.Â

Americans, of late, have focused almost exclusively on the problems of the White House, but have failed to detect the problems of the press. The media have literally spent the last few months philosophizing about President Bush’s falling ratings while at the same time ignoring their own. The thought of Bush losing Karl “Architect” Rove has so tantalized the New York Times that the paper has neglected to address its recent loss of hundreds of employees. Â

Ivor Ries, a former business journalist and commentator, told Australia’s The Age that he “can quite confidently predict that if the big newspaper companies around the world do not learn how to turn their print audience into an internet audience they will be bankrupt.” The piece notes, further, that problems for newspapers are by no means exclusive to the New York Times. Papers forced to downsize now include Philadelphia’s Daily News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore’s The Sun, Newsday, and the San Jose Mercury News.

“The biggest herd is still in traditional media,” Ries says, “but we’re getting to the point where, with the current levels of household penetration of broadband, very soon the herd will be on the net.”

Contrary to what some would probably like (i.e., Matt Drudge), the Internet needn’t take over the media. It certainly may, if newspapers like the Times don’t act, but this is not a necessary development. The reason people have stopped buying papers is that they realize, as well they should, that newspapers are not the bastions of impartiality that they may once have been. Today, newspapers are where we find Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, and a consistent deluge of Bush-bashing editorials. Consumers will only return to newspapers if they are allowed, once again, to believe — at least to a healthy extent — what they read.Â

This will not happen overnight, but it can start tomorrow morning. Newspapers need to take a break from front-page activism. The ninety-seventh story on Scooter Libby — which is essentially the same as the first — need not be written, much less printed. We don’t need another headline screaming about Abu Ghraib or weapons of mass destruction; we need news, plainly and objectively written. I don’t know if the Times has ever been free of its current style, but maybe it should try it. In the meantime, our only hope is Maureen Dowd’s wisdom on relationships, “new love,” and “The Drag of Going Stag.”

Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee.

Email Isaiah Sterrett

If George W. Bush completely lost control of the presidency after being reelected in one of the nastiest campaigns in American history, this was the week he got back on track. It’s been a long time coming.

Katrina brought Bush far more trouble than he deserved, though the so-labeled Brownie mess was completely of Bush’s making; there is no excuse for cronyism at FEMA, and Bush was wrong to make light of its importance. That was his first mistake.

His second mistake was the LBJ-style primetime speech he gave from the Gulf Coast in which he proposed massive federal spending, coupled with massive federal spending, accompanied by, appropriately, massive federal spending. The speech and all its promises fell completely flat. Liberals didn’t blink an eye, and conservatives would rather not think about billions of dollars flowing into a local government as manifestly corrupt and short-sighted as that of New Orleans. It was a complete waste of the president’s time and the country’s time.

Just as Katrina, and later Rita, were easing away from the White House’s spotlight, Hurricane Harriet blew in, severing the Republican Party from sea to shining sea. Miers’ withdrawal is positive for the judiciary and thus the country — and, incidentally, for Bush, as well. Judge Samuel Alito is exactly what I was looking for when I wrote that I wanted a Supreme Court “oozing with brilliance.”Â

Alito will be confirmed, as well he should be. Though it’s difficult to imagine anyone performing better before the Senate than John Roberts did, Alito may give the new Chief Justice a run for his money. The same Democrats will raise the same objections to Alito as they did to Roberts, but all will be well in the end. At long last, Justice O’Connor will be able to step down — for real, this time — and our new High Court will be complete. Justice Kennedy will occupy the sole swing seat, while Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will be the judicially — though not necessarily political — conservatives. This will leave the left-leaning part of the Court to Stevens, likely to retire after this term, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter.Â

As upsetting as the Miers fiasco was for Bush and the country, it has illustrated crucial lessons for each party involved. Bush has learned that cronyism is unacceptable when it comes to the Supreme Court, and that conservatives aren’t kidding when we say we want an extremely qualified, practiced Justice. The United States has learned — once again — that we take this democracy business quite seriously. The judiciary, coequal to the Congress and Executive, is never forgotten. Harriet Miers likely knows this best of all.

At this point, Bush is left with approximately three years in the White House. The War on Terror and Social Security remain the most important national issues. Further, as abovementioned, it is quite possible that Justice John Paul Stevens, at over 80-years-old, is currently serving his final term. Some (braver and more knowledgeable than I) have also speculated that Ginsburg may leave the Court before the end of the Bush term. This leaves a great deal on the president’s plate.

On the war, Bush must, to use one of his favorite clichés, stay the course. Democrats’ desperate attempt to steal the legitimacy of our Iraq efforts should be ignored unless and until they come up with something beyond Joe Wilson’s irrelevant ramblings about African yellowcake. Harry Reid’s juvenile use of Rule 21 to throw a temper tantrum serves as testament to Democrats’ inability to lead a party, but has nothing to do with the war’s success. The passage of an Iraqi constitution is arguably of greater significance than a two-hour shut-down of the U.S. Senate.

Secondly, Bush must come back to Social Security. He took a break from the fight — perhaps out of frustration — but he should return to it. Social Security reform with personal investment accounts is politically viable and completely legitimate. It will pass, however, only if Bush is relentless in the struggle.

Finally, we arrive, once again, to the Supreme Court, which will likely change again next summer. In plotting his course on this subject, Bush should remember Harriet Miers. The right, though happy with Alito, will not rubber-stamp anyone without proper qualifications. Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, and Priscilla Owen remain possibilities.

Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee.

Email Isaiah Sterrett

Let it be known, also, that my analysis of the Miers nomination was never rooted in ideology. While some, like Senator Sam Brownback, were worried principally about Miers’ “judicial philosophy,” I was not; I was certainly concerned with Miers’ qualifications, but never with her beliefs about Roe, or anything else of similar or greater importance.

The Miers nomination, with the incredible doubt and controversy it caused, was unhealthy for America. By withdrawing her name, Miers has done a true service to the High Court and the nation at large.

What, then, will President Bush do now? What should he do?

If we accept the Coulter theory — that Bush’s nomination of Miers was a jab at the conservatives who opposed Al Gonzales’ potential nomination to the Court — we must also believe that Gonzales may well be the next nominee. I warn right-wingers now: if this is the case, disappointing as it might be, we must not complain. Miers’ questionable qualifications reflected a problem with her nomination; Gonzales’ qualifications, by contrast, are sterling. Though certainly more of a moderate than Judges Owen and Brown, Gonzales served admirably on the Supreme Court of Texas and currently serves, obviously, as Attorney General. He is absolutely qualified for the Supreme Court. If nominated, the Senate should (and likely would) confirm him.

Perhaps the principal obstacle to Gonzales’ potential to be nominated is his gender. However, assuming Bush has no problem nominating a man, conservatives would clearly much prefer Samuel “Scalito” Alito of the Third Circuit. J. Michael Luttig (Fourth Circuit) would also find easy favor among Republicans. Another choice, though obviously the least viable of the three, is Judge Thomas B. Griffith. Though he’s only served on the D.C. Circuit for a few months, he was confirmed with little opposition earlier this year. He is fairly young and a graduate of UVA Law. He also served as general counsel to the U.S. Senate.

Among women, the obvious choices (and strongest choices) are Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. If Bush’s objective is to steer clear of conservative opposition, he could do so by nominating either of these magnificent Judges. If, however, Bush remains interested in a female non-judge like Miers, an acceptable choice would be UVA Law Professor Lillian BeVier, cited recently by National Review Online as a talented member of the Federalist Society. Though probably the least qualified candidate noted here, her legal talent is obvious.

What Bush must not do, regardless of whom he chooses, is worry about Democratic opposition. Republicans are the majority in the Senate because Americans, at this point in history, prefer the GOP to Democrats. As a result, Republicans should control things. This is what democracy is. If President Clinton had been concerned with satisfying the Republican Party, Ginsburg and Breyer would not sit on the Court today; Bush must be similarly bold.

As for the “Gang of Fourteen,” they’re irrelevant. They didn’t make a dent in Roberts’ approval. Also, to state the manifestly obvious, fourteen, though a potentially significant figure, is not equal to fifty-one. They do not constitute a majority.

Washington expects a new nominee within the next several days, and this is very positive. Sooner is absolutely better than later on an issue so impacted by timing as this. The country should be thankful that Justice O’Connor is willing to sit on the Court for as long as it takes to find and confirm her replacement.Â

Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee.

Email Isaiah Sterrett

Americans opposed to the nomination of non-judge Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court now include Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, George Will, David Frum, and William Kristol.  Miers’ supporters include George W. Bush — the [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/10/14/miers-fever/feed/ 0 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/10/11/hurricane-harriet/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/10/11/hurricane-harriet/#comments Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:30:56 +0000 Isaiah Z. Sterrett http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/hurricane-harriet/ Everyone opposing Miers is apparently obliged to note that she’s a lovely person, even if totally unqualified.

President George W. Bush, alleged adherent to the judicial philosophies of Justices Thomas and Scalia, has decided — along with “Architect” Karl Rove — that Harriet Miers, a non-judge and graduate of a second-rate law school, is [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/10/11/hurricane-harriet/feed/ 0 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/09/23/world-briefing/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/09/23/world-briefing/#comments Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:51:14 +0000 Isaiah Z. Sterrett http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/world-briefing/ Around the world in 800 words.

It is rare that weather stories replace the news of the world in the media’s spotlight, but it’s happened.  Cleaning up after Katrina and bracing for Rita has (understandably) forced virtually all of America to miss stories of vast international and domestic importance. 

Mauritania Given that I remain [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/09/23/world-briefing/feed/ 0