Little Linkage

Short topics, small commentary today. I have a book review I’ll try to do at lunch, but this should hold you till then.

An oddity I’ve noticed: the more I post, the less you comment. There were over 400 visitors yesterday to Chasing the Wind and only 1 comment (and that one appeared to be a cut-n-paste job). Weird.

Where was I… oh yes, some links.

  • Christian Cadre reports on a Gallup poll that says 94% of all Americans think God exists.

    Some 94% think God exists.

    Only 5% feel God “does not exist” — and even most of them “are not sure” of that. Exactly 1% are certain there is no God.

    But how strongly do the believers believe? Nearly 8 in 10, in fact, say they are “convinced” God exists, although Gallup does not ask them why that is.

    Conservatives are more likely to be convinced than liberals (87% vs. 61%), women a little more likely than men (82% vs. 73%), and residents of the South more than those in the East (88% vs. 70%).

    Surprisingly, some 61% of those who seldom or never attend church are nevertheless convinced that God exists.

  • BlogHouston links to Brazosport News that the Houston Chronicle, like other major media, is starting to embrace bloggers by linking to them on their opinion page. Will Chasing the Wind ever be linked there? Not likely since I spend exactly zero time trying to get links. I just like to write. In the comments, Dwight Silverman tells what the Chronicle is looking for. Dwight has visited here before but I don’t think he’s a regular reader unless he has me on an RSS feed.
  • GOPUSA wonders why liberals celebrate murderers. Tookie Williams has been in the news for weeks now, and even though he was executed two days ago, the news media is still talking about him. He killed 4 people in cold blood and founded a violent street gang that was responsible for hundreds of deaths. I don’t understand why they celebrate Tookie, yet they want Terri Schiavo, unborn children, and Israelies to die.
  • Here’s a Big Bendy Clock. No, I don’t think this a particularly exciting product, but the technology behind it is. It’s e-paper. Imagine having a roll of wallpaper you can put on a wall, a ceiling, even a floor that’s powered by a computer. A screensaver for your ceiling, with sunshine during the day, stars at night, and thunderstorms for a romantic dinner for two. Ok, so I’m weird that way, but I think e-paper is a great idea.

In God We Trust

I find this non-ruling interesting: The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to review whether the words “In God We Trust,” written prominently in large block letters on the Lexington, N.C. county government center, violated the so-called separation of church and state.

As an aside, I’ll keep saying this until the news media gets it: there is no constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. If you think you’re suddenly converted to Christianity by walking under the words “In God We Trust,” then you’re too easily influenced. You’re not converted into a mosquito when you attend the Clute, Texas, Mosquito Festival, either.

Anyway, an appeals court said the words were fine just the way they are:

A U.S. appeals court ruled that the lawsuit failed to show that the display had no legitimate secular purpose, that it has the effect of endorsing religion or that it has resulted in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

The appeals court said Congress first authorized the phrase “In God We Trust” on coins in 1865, and Congress made it the national motto in 1956. It is inscribed above the speaker’s chair in the U.S. House of Representatives and above the main door of the U.S. Senate chamber.

Of course the opposition appealed; the opposition was two lawyers who had hired lawyers to represent them. The more time in court, the better. The U.S. Supreme Court basically said, “Nah, not interested. Next!”

I suspect that “In God We Trust” will be stricken from coins within my lifetime, but it’s refreshing to see that it won’t be happening this year.

John Roberts Replaces Karl Rove

What happened to all the Karl Rove stories? Karl Rove go *poof* as the news media gears up to oppose John Roberts for the Supreme Court.

The Karl Rove stories were just like the Tom DeLay stories. There was no meat to them, no substance, just media frenzy looking for something to damage Bush. The DeLay stories about inappropriate travel all disappeared when it was obvious the Democrats had far more egg on their collective face. Likewise, there’s no “there” there to the Karl Rove Stories. Let me summarize –

  • There may not have been a crime committed. The same news organizations pushing to fire Karl Rove simultaneously argue no crime was ever committed as they try to spring their reporter from jail. Valerie Plame wasn’t deep undercover, hadn’t been for over 5 years, all her neighbors knew her identity, her husband probably outed her in the first place.
  • Rove didn’t disclose her identity anyway. Apparently the media disclosed it to Rove, and Rove agreed with the media.
  • What about the President’s promise to fire the leaker? If the media had bothered to do their homework, they’d have discovered that Bush said no such thing.

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

No substance to the story. *Poof* So they gear up to pounce on John Roberts instead.

And pounce they will. Special interest groups are planning to spend $50 million in advertising so far to oppose his nomination.

My prediction is that there will be a lot of huffing and puffing by the Democrats, but that Roberts will be approved by October. For one thing, the Democrats have realized that the filibuster is a losing proposition and it’s giving the Democrats the image of obstructionism. And second, this same Senate approved Roberts for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2003 with Democratic support.

It’s a very strategic move by Bush – if the Democrats oppose him now, they risk exposing their hypocrisy if 2 years ago John Roberts was perfectly acceptable. And conservatives deserve a conservative to be appointed, just like Clinton deserved to have ultra-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court. Conservatives ought to get past their worry that anything conservative will send the liberals into a tizzy. As Sean wrote last night in an email this fictional White House conversation:

“Hey, Rummy, how should we spin this Roberts character tonight?”

“Damnit, Dick, I think we should line the cage with NYT metro additions and let the parrot poop land where it may!”

“Uh, Don, I don’t think I follow”.

“Look, Dick, lets tell ’em that we want to trigger a tumultuous tantrum of tremendous tripe from the left”.

“Sure Rummy, but lets loose those lousy alliterations, and I think W will wise-up well.”

“Damn, veep, no more schnapps for you, ok, but its sort of along the lines of Nattering Nabobs of Negativity, you know…sort-of.”

“Hmmm, let’s just tell the Dems to ‘bring it on’ – it worked for OBL’s boys in Iraq.”

“Sure, sure….you know, I love this job, Dick”.

“Me too Don”.