Welcome, one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the ‘sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble
This is the “Need Some Gas?” Edition
- Charges against Countrywide? As we go to press, word is coming off the wires that Freind of Chris Dodd Angele Mozilo and other Countrywide officials are to be charged with fraud by the SEC. No shock since the “Wells notice”… the document usually a precusor to such charges, went out already… a few weeks ago, if I recall rightly.
- The Saga of Harry and Sonia: Seems Harry Reid… unsurpisingly, has decided to back Sonia Sotomayor’s bid for the USSC. Says Harry, she’s “got the whole package”. However, as the Knights who say “Ni!!!” pointed out, there’s one small problem. He’s not read a single opinion from the woman. He even seems proud of it: 
I understand that during her career, she’s written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven’t read a single one of them, and if I’m fortunate before we end this, I won’t have to read one of them. But — I’m not familiar with that opinion, but there will be plenty of time for people who are concerned about the Second Amendment — and there are lots of people on the Judiciary Committee who are concerned about it — they’ll have lots of time to offer her questions and she’ll proceed to answer them. But I don’t know anything about that.
So in short, Dingy Harry’s support for her is based on…. well, now, what, exactly? Certainly, it can’t be her legal chops, since by his own words, he hasn’t a clue what she’s done, and doesn’t care to find out. Is he simply following party lines and thinking that’s enough, perhaps? (Shrug) I dunno, but I think I may have decoded all of this. Reid’s reasoning may be that Sonia Sotomayor does have the ‘whole package’ and if so, I think Harry Reid wants it back. May explain why Harry sounded so much like Mickey Mouse when he delivered that line, as well.
- Remembering Tiananmen: I must admit this one wasn’t even on my ticker, for reasons I don’t understand… but several sources, including The New York Times  and The Heritage Foundation’s Monring Bell (via eamail) along with Bruce McQuain at Q&O  point up it’s been 20 years to the day since that mess started, over there. ( Hmmmm…Maybe I didn’t put it in my cal back then because we were busy planning for our wedding, 20 years ago, Donna and I. Heh… that may or may not be true, but Donna will like the idea I’m sure, so I’ll stick with that story for now. ) The response to today by our government has been, as expected, worse than useless, as The Heritage Foundation points out in their email:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement yesterday calling on Chinese authorities to “provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.”  As noble as Secretary Clinton’s sentiment is, America’s authority to lead on human rights in China was significantly undermined earlier this year when Clinton tabled human rights issues during her February trip to the country  in favor of the Obama administration’s global warming concerns.Clinton is not the only U.S. politician that has abandoned her past concern for human rights in China. Just this past month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi avoided any talk of human rights during her China trip , also prioritizing global warming over all other concerns.  And Pelosi used to be a leader for human rights in China. In 1991 she helped unveil a banner in Tiananmen Square honoring “those who died for democracy in China.” But last week this was all she could muster : “In every country, not just China and the U.S., the global climate crisis is best surmounted with transparency and openness, respect for the rule of law and accountability to the people.”Those who saw their friends die 20 years ago today, and still face persecution from the current Chinese regime, feel betrayed by the current leadership’s shift in focus. Wang Dan, who once topped the Chinese government’s most wanted list of Tiananmen leaders , told  an audience at the Heritage Foundation  Monday :
I’m really disappointed … that the whole international community has just turned their back to the human rights issue. I think that’s sad because the people inside China really had some hope from the concern from the international community because they have no other means to try to pursue democracy. If the United States really wants to keep its status as a stronger power, they cannot just make friends with the Chinese government but also make friends with the Chinese people.?
The trouble of course is that Clinton’s politics… and that of her boss, forces them to see ‘the people’ of China as it’s government. They actually think the title of ‘The People’s Republic” means what it says. Meanwhile, we see the News Media in denial, saying, for one thing that “There Was No “Tiananmen Square Massacre”‘  This ranks with Iran’s denial of the Holocaust . But there can be no doubt taht the people of China lost that day, and the government won. As usual, with victory comes the control of the label gun. That’s to be expected. But do we in the west have to buy into that lie? Apparently, we do, as long as the American soul-mates of the Chi-Comms are in power in Washington.
- More on the Blame Game: Andrew Klavan at Pajamas Media has an interesting take on the Tiller murder and the blame game surrounding it:But if we’re going to get serious, if we really want to consider-well, not a mitigating factor-but let’s say a contributing factor to this murder, you know what my vote would be? Roe V. Wade.
And guess what? It doesn’t matter a damn whether you’re for abortion or against it. The Supreme Court decision arbitrarily declaring abortion a constitutional right is the worst thing that ever happened to either faction. It was rotten and dishonest at its core-read the constitution and you tell me where the right to an abortion is-and rather than conferring a right on people, it actually stripped them of their most important right: the right to elect legislators who make the laws they want.
Hey, what the hell… it makes more sense than blaming Bill O’Reilly. And he’s got a point; Arbitrary decisions have a tendency to have consequences, particularly when they touch on morality issues. For one thing, it breaks down the trust of the people in the government, on a level that’s nigh on impossible to repair.
- What authority? This is very nearly a continuation of the last story…. Authority is based on trust. Without the latter, the former simply cannot exist. I’ve made comments  about authority in the past. In those two posts, I identify the most basic ingrediant of ‘authority’ as ‘trust’. In watching the business in England, it wuld appear the government there no longer has the trust of it’s people … and small wonder . And so, then, it’s authority is also being lost. And I wonder if we’re not looking at our own future, here.