Hurricane season 2005 is God's vengeance for "Revenge of the Sith." Discuss.

You are not All That. Nor are you a Bag of Chips. Discuss.

If you're going to stick a shiv in a man, the honorable way is to look straight in his eyes when you do it. Discuss.

Hip-hop is indefensible. I have no link. The thought occurred to me after enduring nearly four hours of the stuff at a party last night. Indefensible! More indefensible than 12-tone composition! More indefensible than free jazz! More indefensible than Yanni!

Comment all you like. You'll still be wrong. Unless, of course, you agree with me.

"Watchmen" is the greatest graphic novel of all time. Discuss.

Coldplay is the most overrated band ever. More overrated than Radiohead and Nirvana even. Discuss.

John McCain is the next President of the United States. Discuss.

1) "All Wood and Stones," by John Batdorf and James Lee Stanley
2) "Cream: Live at Royal Albert Hall," by Cream
3) "Guitar Noir," by the Aqua Velvets
4) "Positively 12 Stiff Dylans!" by Nob Dylan and His Nobsoletes
5) "Hefty Fine," by The Bloodhound Gang
6) "Suspicious Activity?" by The Bad Plus

1) I Predict a Riot by Kaiser Chiefs
2) Beautiful by Clem Snide
3) Revolution Blues by The Waco Brothers
4) Black Is Beautiful by Roy Budd
5) Apple Tree by Wolfmother
6) First Wave Intact by The Secret Machines
7) I'm Against It by The Ramones
8) Nesbitt's Lime Soda Song by Negativland
9) F.U.N. Song by Spongebob Squarepants
10) The Cool People Know Who the Cool People Are by The Clint Boon Experience

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Billboard.

(Any political implications in this list -- e.g., metaphors for the Miers nomination -- are purely coincidental.)

Listen to this. And bear in mind, Lileks is trashed, and I am trashed, and you are trashed when you hear it. Listen to Berlioz, you brutes, and despair.

Hey, Hugh? You are totally wrong about Harriet Miers. Don't be such a hack.

Went to the bookstore tonight with the Little Monkey. He wanted a muffin from the coffee shop, but they didn't have muffins on display (they were in the back), so he got a chocolate chip cookie instead. He was reasonably happy with the choice. Little Monkey likes the bookstore, I think. He likes the kids' section, even though I think much of the selection is dreck. But, at least he's interested in reading.

Read me a story, he said. And I did. It was a commercial tale about a chicken that is little. I think a movie is coming out. He asked me to read it again. Of course I did. What else would I do?

Read me another story, he said. And I did. It had something to do with dinosaurs, I think. What do dinosaurs eat? Depending on the dinosaur, the answer is a) plants or b) other dinosaurs. But I think the answer in this book was c) filet mignon with a bearnaise sauce, oven roasted new potatoes, and baby asparagus, washed down with a nice pinot noir. Or maybe cabernet savignon. I don't remember. Anyway, he asked me to read it again. Which I did.

Read me another story, he said. And I did. But I confess, I was getting a bit impatient. Sure, I can read just fine. And sure, he can barely read a word. But why should I do all the reading? So I finished reading this dopey adaptation of the newest Lilo and Stitch movie ("Stitch has a Glitch" -- it's called a franchise that has outlived its usefulness), and I said:

"Read me a story."

"But I don't know how," Little Monkey replied. Well, I wouldn't expect that he would. He's barely three, and apart from his A-B-C's, cannot read a word.

"OK," I said. "Don't read to me. Tell me a story." I pointed to the book. "Tell me this story."

And so, I pointed to the pages. And little by little, he told me what was happening. Some of it had to do with the story, some of it was simply his own imagination.

I find fatherhood to be excruciatingly difficult. First, it demands patience. I have little. Second, it demands wisdom. I have some, but barely enough. Third, it requires temperance and fortitude. I can fake that much, some of the time. The boy is fiercely independent, like his mother. He wants to do everything on his own. He's fearless. Good for him. It forces me to reassess my limits. He is not me, and thank God for that. He's willful. It drives me crazy some days. But then I imagine what he'll be like when he's 20, and I think he will be cunning and resourceful and probably make out pretty well.

I think he will have a lot of good stories to tell his old man some day. Can't wait.

University of Texas Law Professor Lino Graglia on the Hewitt show Monday:

I think Constitutional law is nothing but an expression of the judge's preferences, and [Miers] can do that absolutely as well as anyone else. Now whether she's a Scalia and a Thomas in the sense of being restrained is uncertain. We don't know much about her, but we don't know much, really, about anything.

Nope, nothing at all. That, friends, is about the nicest summation of right-wing nihilism you will ever find. Read it a couple of times to get the full flavor. Graglia is refreshing that way. Totally, utterly, dangerously wrong, but refreshing all the same. By all means, read the whole thing. Incidentally, Hugh put Graglia on the air to make the case for Miers.

...is like a day without sunshine. What in the world would Cheney do?

I hope the link to the Wall Street Journal story still works in the next day or so. I don't know who is responsible for it, but the story almost reads like a Rove plant. Really. "Mr. Rove is the administration's indispensable man, the connective tissue between the policies and constituencies needed to win elections and govern." There is no such thing as an indispensible man. Let no one question Karl Rove's talent, and his particular genius. But if Rove were hit by a bus tomorrow, the Republic would survive. Hell, even the Bush presidency would endure. Given some of Rove's questionable advice, the administration might even prosper.

Ah, who am I kidding? If Rove goes, we're as good as dead.

The other day, I said we should take a breather from the Miers debate. "We need to read what she's written. We need her speeches." Thanks to Southern Methodist University and University of Michigan Law School (via Beldar), we have some Miers to read.

I haven't read everything yet. The Texas Bar Association stuff is cliched and not-too-insightful, which is about what one would expect from an institutional newsletter. I haven't dug into the briefs yet. Ugh.

I sure hope her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is better than what little of her previous writings I've seen so far. But don't take this anonymous ape's word for it. Please, click on the links and read -- and enjoy! -- for yourself.

Also, here is a useful summary of the arguments for and against the Miers nomination so far.

The 2008 presidential election is more than three years away, but it's never too early to start handicapping the race. I was a Ronnie James Dio man in '04, and I had hoped he would build on the success of his last campaign in '08. Evidently not.

With Dio out, I am looking seriously at Christopher Walken. His "more cowbell" platform appeals to me. But I could easily see myself voting for Zod.

I think all that can be said about Harriett Miers right now has been said. Now, we need to hear from the nominee. We need to read what she's written. We need her speeches. We need to listen closely to her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And then we judge. Maybe she acquits herself. Maybe conservatives immolate themselves. Who knows? But until I see something new from the nominee herself, I'm done with the Miers debate.

In my professional life, I've had the soles of my feet pummelled by cruel Asian gentlemen in an effort to purge my copy -- and my mind -- of cliched thinking.

Truth be told, it hasn't worked.

But I have acquired a visceral loathing for certain buzzwords and hackneyed phrases. One of them comes up every election year, and it's come up again with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Maybe it bothers you, too: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

On Betsy's Page today (via Hugh Hewitt):

One of my favorite expressions is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Bush isn't perfect, but, for a conservative such as myself, he sure is a helluva lot better than his opponents in 2000 and 2004. Just envision the type of person that a President Kerry would have nominated after Rehnquist's passing. When you're done shuddering, suddenly Harriet Miers doesn't seem so terrible.

By that standard, Betsy, any Bush pick would demand conservative approval, right? After all, President Kerry's pick would be much, much worse. Julie Myers to head ICE? Check. Thomas Quinn and his idiotic dress codes at the Federal Air Marshals? Check. "Brownie"? Check and mate.

And in the venerable Chicago Tribune on Tuesday:

in his second nomination to the Supreme Court, Bush showed a rare pragmatic side. The calculus seemed to be that Miers would prove conservative enough to keep his base quiescent, if not happy, and yet not so conservative, at least in any readily discernible way, to warrant a full-scale war with the Democrats. This was Bush as Americans have rarely seen him, in effect saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." For a number of prominent conservatives, "good" was not sufficient.

Right, not good enough. I've been reading as much of the debate in conservative circles as I can. I think I can sum up the general disappointment this way: Miers is an opportunity wasted.

Let's assume for a moment that everything the pro-Miers side says is true: she's a smart lawyer, a virtuous woman, "a nominee who understands real people", a born-again Christian conservative, and a public official with "a record of achievement in the law, as well as experience as an elected member of the Dallas City Council" who has "served at high levels of both state and federal government."

With certain caveats (i.e., the Dallas City Council thing), couldn't that be said of many government functionaries of either sex?

A Supreme Court nominee doesn't come along very often. Every American understands that the Supreme Court is something special. A lifetime appointment! Bush has been given two chances to transform the culture of the judiciary for a generation, to elevate someone to the High Court who truly understands the promise and the limits of the Constitution. He may not get another chance.

Worse -- worse? Well, maybe worse -- the President insults our intelligence: "I picked the best person I could find." Where? In the Oval Office waiting room? In the West Wing?

The Democrats understand very well what they're arguing against. Do Republican loyalists understand what they're arguing for?

I don't know. But I do know this: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is not an argument. It's an excuse.

Hugh Hewitt is a good man. One of the best I've ever known. His greatest virtue is also his greatest weakness: Loyalty. That's something he has in common with President George W. Bush. Loyalty is a great thing. But it isn't the only thing. And there is a fine line between loyalty and gullibility.

I'm pessimistically optimistic about Harriet Miers. That is to say, I don't know enough about her to condemn her or endorse her. And that's coming from a fellow who goes by a nom de plume of "Anonymonkey." So take this for what it's worth, right?

Not knowing enough is an odd thing to say on this end of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, low as we may be on the food chain. Remember when Bush the Elder nominated Clarence Thomas? He was a known quantity within certain circles. And so, those who knew could feel confident that Thomas would be a fine Justice. Indeed he has been. And will continue to be.

It's different now, isn't it? With the blogosphere and all that? I found it interesting that within two hours of the Miers announcement, I had received two e-mails from the GOP defending the nominee against vague "myths." Yet I hadn't seen a word -- not one word -- from the usual suspects. (They've since caught up.) Isn't that odd? Miers's name was in the news last week. Why weren't the interest groups ready?

That's what bothers me about this whole thing. We -- and by "we" I mean the people who actually follow this stuff, Left and Right -- tend to "misunderestimate" President Bush. (Sorry, Ken: Guilt by association don't cut no ice with us.) But who the hell is Harriet Miers? Is she supposed to be the evangelical justice? Is that any more appropriate than the woman justice? Or the Hispanic justice? I don't think so. I don't buy any of the diversity nonsense. Truth is, I don't buy most of the excuses for Miers.

This is serious business. Too serious for risk taking. So I think it's a weak pick. And I think that Bush made a mistake picking her. Because if a real opposition takes hold -- hey, why not? -- and Miers is voted down, then his presidency is exposed as impotent. That is not good for a president in the middle of a war.

What do you mean, we can't just print money at will? I though the president said money is no object when it comes to rebuildiing the Gulf Coast. And what is this woman talking about? Doesn't she know that the Republicans are going to govern forever and ever and ever?

Oh, dear Lord. I just noticed I have $2,058.63 worth of music in my iTunes shopping cart. Somebody get me a doctor!

And $2,058! I can probably scrape together the other 63 cents on my own...

What's that you say? Hurricane relief?

I hate every last one of you.

...and totter towards the tomb, I find that I care less and less, that I use the same tropes over and over again.

Crap. That doesn't scan at all.

President Bush's speech tonight? Eh. Not like you can declare war on hurricanes, although the weather is almost as abstract as terrorism. Bush was right to say that disaster preparedness should be a national security priority. Then again, so is immigration. But as more of us are realizing, the Homeland Security Department just about as diligent as any other federal bureaucracy.

Be prepared, America. Our government clearly is not.

Hugh, of course, thought the speech was first rate. It was fine. Look, the president is doing the best he can, but whether he deploys one Inspector General or 1,000, Bush is a lame duck. Reconstruction of the Gulf Coast? Out of his hands. That giant sucking sound you hear is the grifters and the political hacks descending upon the Big Easy.

$60 billion is just a down payment...

No, no... the last four years have been some kind of dream. Or a waking nightmare. The towers weren't knocked down by terrorists in hijacked planes. There is no Global War on Terror. No, no... it's just a way for Bush to bulk up the profit margins for his corporate crony pals. Just like he's doing right now in New Orleans. He had to destroy the city to save it, don't you see. The jihad is not real.

President Bush announced this morning that he will nominate John Roberts to replace the late William Rehnquist as Chief Justice. Well, at least the vetting process is out of the way.

But I wonder -- I have no idea, just thinking out loud here -- if the move complicates Roberts confirmation chances? Everyone knows he's a fine lawyer, and seems to be a decent judge. But it's one thing promote a man to an associate justice's chair, quite another to give him the chief's seat. I haven't looked at the history -- I haven't even had a cup of coffee yet this morning -- but it seems to me the last relatively inexperienced jurist to be promoted to Chief Justice of the United States was John Marshall.

UPDATE: John Hinderaker, who has obviously had his morning caffeine infusion, explains the new and improved Roberts nomination better than I can.

Robert Hilburn in the excreble Los Angeles Times:

By censoring Grammy-winning rapper Kanye West's remarks critical of President Bush during its West Coast feed of the program Friday night, the network violated the most moving and essential moment in an otherwise sterile, self-serving corporate broadcast.

Yes, because the most "essential" moment in an effort supposedly dedicated to helping people was the part in which a hip-hop artist railed stupidly against the President. Shut up, you has-been hack. Just shut your pretentious gob.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is dead after a year-long battle with thyroid cancer. Rehnquist died at home tonight, surrounded by his children.

Obviously, Rehnquist's death comes at a terribly difficult time in our nation's history. A major American city is mostly under water. A swath of our territory slightly larger than the state of Idaho is more or less destroyed. A highly contentious confirmation for another justice is a few days from getting underway. Barring a revelation of some terribly perverse nature, Roberts' elevation to the court is all the more imperative now.

President Bush is weakened by a series of disasters not entirely of his making. But we cannot deny these are perilous times in our politics. The quarreling will begin before Rehnquist's body is cold...

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt offers an eloquent paean to Rehnquist and the genius of 1789. Oh, and he hopes Bush names Michael Luttig to the chief's seat.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline laments the passing of a giant, but notes ruefully that "it's a bit misleading to refer to" the Rehnquist Court. "If Nixon, Reagan and Bush-I done a better job picking Justices, the Rehnquist court would have been a fitting memorial to the man." Oh, Mirengoff thinks Luttig is a good pick, too.

Now is not the time for political recriminations. No, save that for later. And, believe me, George W. Bush will not top the list of the guilty. Not even close. In a just world, half the politicians in Louisiana and two-thirds of the civic leadership in New Orleans would be gutted like fish and left to die slowly in the sewage of the Superdome.

But, again, the recriminations are best left for another day.

The most sobering lesson of New Orleans post-Katrina is the precarious state of self-government in the United States today. Are we not free people?

Just finished Nicholas Lehman's profile of Hugh Hewitt in The New Yorker. It's a good read. And that's all I'm going to say, because if you want to read it, you should go to your nearest purveyor of fine periodicals and purchase a copy. (But hurry -- the new issue hits newsstands in about 10 hours).

Hugh is left to wonder why the profile does not appear on the New Yorker's website. "It is inexplicable that the New Yorker doesn't have an article about blogging and new media available online when half its magazine is." No, it's perfectly explicable: The old media still matters. If you want to know why, read the New Yorker's profile of Hugh Hewitt. If not, don't. No skin off my nose, Bubba.

Chad the Elder offers a crucial piece of marital advice: "Never yield an inch of the garage." Where were you when I needed you... some years ago?

I think Dennis Prager offered similarly sound advice when it was too late. Paraphrasing: Men, buy your stereo equipment before you get married. Otherwise, it's too late.

Yes.. well. No kidding. (Though, I suspect Dennis is an exception that proves the rule.)

Let me offer my own advice about marriage, sure to be ignored. Work harder at it than you think you need to work. Because it's worth it. Odds are, she will make you a better man.

Hugh Hewitt makes the case for why Harvard must be destroyed. Oh, and the New York Times has a story, too.