Vox Popoli

Instapundit quotes Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic writing:

Top of his class at Harvard Law School and a former law clerk for Rehnquist, Roberts is one of the most impressive appellate lawyers around today. Liberal groups object to the fact that, in 1990, as a deputy solicitor general, Roberts signed a brief in a case involving abortion-financing that called, in a footnote, for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But it would be absurd to Bork him for this: Overturning Roe was the Bush administration’s position at the time, and Roberts, as an advocate, also represented liberal positions, arguing in favor of affirmative action, against broad protections for property rights, and on behalf of prisoners’ rights. In little more than a year on the bench, he has won the respect of his liberal and conservative colleagues but has not had enough cases to develop a clear record on questions involving the Constitution in Exile.

Top of his class at Harvard Law School sounds a bit suspect to me, but if he is truly a strict constructionist, that would certainly be good news. Supreme Court justices are notoriously unpredictable, so any celebrating by conservatives would be premature, but it does appear that the President has at least avoided openly stabbing his base in the back again.

One Republican Insty reader, meanwhile, is rather less sanguine:
“What do I think of him? Beats me. Just searched his hearing transcripts on the right to bear arms and found nothing. How is he on federalism and other limits on government power? Beats me again.

Great. O’Connor with a penis. I’m supposed to be happy about this?

7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. 3 of them are acceptable, which shows you how incompetent Republicans are at choosing judges.

Frankly this conservative is completely underwhelmed. Bush might think he’s got some sort of mojo going on, but if Roberts doesn’t turn out to be a solid conservative, and not another O’Connor, then the GOP is screwed.

I know a lot of conservatives who have been adding up the support given, and lack of results received from the GOP. I’ve been asking a lot of conservatives to name which issues or agendas the GOP has come through on for conservatives.

It’s a damn small list.

From an actual IM session celebrating a long-awaited and significant technological breakthrough:

[17:01] f78: u got lucky
[17:01] f78: everything works, no worries about the automatic UV shit
[17:01] f78: i installed sp1
[17:02] f78: gives new options to choose
[17:02] f78: how lucky is that? lol
[17:02] bc1: Not lucky. That’s forethought. Planning is what it is.
[17:02] bc1: Good going. You deserve twice what your making!
[17:03] f78: i now have new options in the render to texture options
[17:03] f78: mapping coordinates let me choose “existing channel” or “automatic unwrap”
[17:03] bc1: Seriously, you can export automatically by baking to the diffuse texture or something?
[17:04] f78: and now under baked material i can choose output into original source instead of “Save Source (Create Shell)”
[17:04] f78: fucking wonderful
[17:04] bc1: Do you lose the oringal texturing then?
[17:04] f78: i still have to apply the texture to a new swatch but 9 out of the 10 steps i wrote to you are eliminated
[17:04] f78: this is fuckin’ tits.
[17:04] f78: 🙂
[17:05] f78: big beautiful perky implanted tits
[17:05] bc1: So no problems then? On to [reference to forthcoming feature removed]?
[17:05] f78: yeah, go ahead and do your thing
[17:06] f78: i’ll hollar if i have a problem
[17:06] f78: this looks good though. 🙂
[17:06] bc1: Fantastic! Considering I wasn’t planning on having time to address this until mid August, we are ahead of schedule. Thank you f78 and SP1!
[17:06] f78: lol

It may not be particularly edifying, but it is funny, at least to me. And, I’m in an excellent mood thanks to the quoted developments, the “hostile environment” notwithstanding.

This reminds me of when Big Chilly and I were once asked if we planned to institute drug testing for our game development company…. Big Chilly looked at the questioner in complete disbelief, then told him that we had no intention of testing anybody, since we wouldn’t have any employees left. The guys actually liked the idea of drug testing, though; they figured that if an artist managed to pass a the test, he wasn’t likely to be any good.

Freaks, the lot of them. “big beautiful perky….” I’m still laughing.

Fighting the copyright war is utterly useless. The S/D curve varies depending upon price. People will buy what they value and want to buy, not the pigs in a poke that copyright holders try to force them to buy, and the success of Harry Potter proves this in spades.

It seems to be selling just fine, despite the fact that the full text is already floating around the Internet in at least three formats that I’ve seen.

Once a Swashbuckler, always a pirate….

UPDATE: Perhaps I should mention that I have put my copyright where my mouth is. As does Charles Stross, who actually has his publisher’s approval to give out free downloads of the full text in seven different formats. Although I cannot do the same thanks to my publisher’s archaic views, you may wish to know that there are electronic versions of my novels floating around the Internet and not only does this not disturb me, it pleases me immensely. I only wish more people were interested in passing them around, as I contend that people will always support those products and artists that they like enough to support financially.

It is, as I mentioned before, yet another example of the S/D curve in action. A downloaded ebook is very seldom a lost sale, as a willingness to pay $0.00 is not the same as a willingness to pay $12.95. In any event, it is lack of market awareness is the author’s enemy, not free ebooks, which actually help combat the primary problem.

One should note that it is the best-selling books that are most frequently seen on the pirate ebook sites. As for the idea that copying an ebook or an mp3 is “stealing”, one must first accept the idea that one can steal something that doesn’t exist and leaves the producer with exactly what he had before. I find this to be an interesting demonstration of post-scarcity economics at work and given the human creative impulse, I reject the notion that it will have any deleterious effect on art of any kind.

Indeed, an elimination of the need to appeal to the lowest common denominator might well improve the general level of art being produced.

President Bush is close to making his first nomination to the Supreme Court, and Washington was abuzz with speculation Tuesday about Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans…. Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement has eased fears among some abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court “has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion” and that “the law is settled in that regard.”

Still, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that Clement’s record raises “seriously troubling” questions about her commitment to protecting personal freedom. “Unless she was able to put those concerns to rest in Senate hearings, pro-choice Americans would oppose her nomination,” Keenan said.

Her statements also are causing concern in anti-abortion circles. “We are looking to see in what context Judge Clement made those statements and do they give a window into her thinking on Roe and other decisions,” said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the conservative Christian Defense Coalition.

I don’t know how well the Love Your Enemy command translates into politics. At least, not in the give-in-to-them-everytime-they-cry manner apparently preferred by the President.

Wasn’t a pro-life Supreme Court judge the one solid reason for conservatives to vote for the President this last go round? Anyway, this may simply be a smokescreen, so there’s not much point getting all hissy about it yet.

“Why can’t we go on our plane? Is it broken?”

No, it’s not broken. It’s just that the men who are in charge of fixing it say it’s broken.

“But why would they say that, if it’s not broken?”

They’re having a labor dispute. Basically, that means they want to get paid more money.

“Don’t they already get paid money to work?”

Yes, but they want more.

“Why do they need more money? Don’t they already get paid money? Don’t they know we want to go on our plane?”

Yes, they do, but they think being paid more money is more important than us getting on our plane.

“Oh….” (disapproving shake of the head)

Some time passes…. “When are we going to get on the plane?”

CH can’t imagine that it’s wrong:

There is a nasty rumor out there that Evangelicals love George Bush more than Jesus. I invite you to inspect my family’s checkbook and calendar. Two sure signs of where our heart is. You, Chrisitanity Today and Kyle Williams have entered into dangerous territory: judging not only the Christian Right’s heart and motives, but our call from the Lord. Jesus said it best,”Before you remove the speck in your neighbor’s eye, get the log out of your own.” Do a fraction for the cause of evangelism, discipleship, and changing hearts and minds, that the Lord has allowed us to do and God will tell you,”well done good and faithful servant.” Until you’ve done that much, don’t lecture me.

Again I’m left to wonder how people manage to confuse a collective institution – in this case the Christian Right – with the individual. The Christian Right is not my neighbor, indeed, I suspect that as a right-wing evangelical Christian, most people would consider me to be a part of it, and it has no eye.

I’m not sure which I find more strange. CH’s defense-by-backpatting or her overly defensive response to the outlandish idea that perhaps salvation does not come by electing Bushes to nominate Supreme Court justices.

One great problem faced by Christians attempting to address either the Iraqi War or the War on Method – which may yet morph into a pan-al Harb War on Islam – is that it is impossible to dictate societal actions by the tenets of an individual faith. A society has no soul, it cannot forgive nor will it one day face judgment for its actions.

It is clear from the Old Testament that God’s view of war is rather different than our own. What we see, justifiably, as a form of Hell can actually be the right and proper thing to do, if it is performed in obedience to a Divine command.

But what does God command? Not this war, apparently, as the Commander-in-Chief has made no claim of receiving Divine guidance of which I am aware. I think that a decision of this sort tends to fall in the area of a judgment call, theologically different from the decision to run or pass the ball on first-and-ten only in its expected effect on the lives of others.

I could, of course, be completely wrong.

Morgan skips over half measures – and one-quarter, one-third and three quarters measures, for that matter:

I’m waiting for someone to suggest “kill them all and let God sort them out.” If somoene hasn’t written it, I’m sure they’re thinking it….*sigh*

So, there’s no middle ground between doing nothing and hoping that being nice to the Muslims will moderate the behavior of their extremist elements and “kill[ing] them all”? This strikes me as bordering on silly.

Repatriating all non-citizen Muslims and forbidding future entry would be only one of a vast panoply of actions designed to significantly reduce the problem. The problem is that the current lack of a coherent response tends to increase the likelihood of the more extreme and more violent reaction that every decent individual hopes never to see.

If anyone is thinking it, it is because they do not have faith that the authorities will take responsible and reasonable action.

From the UK Guardian:

Plans by an alliance of rightwing extremists and football hooligans to exact “revenge” on Muslims after last week’s bomb attacks are being monitored by police. The Guardian has learned that extremists are keen to cause widespread fear and injury with attacks on mosques and high-profile “anti-Muslim” events in the capital.

Football hooligans communicating over the internet have spoken of the need to put aside partisan support for teams and unite against Muslims. Hooligans from West Ham, Millwall, Crystal Palace and Arsenal are among those seeking to establish common cause.

What is the difference betweeen “revenge” and revenge? Or an “anti-Muslim” event and one that is merely anti-Muslim? Anyhow, it’s good to know that the British police will be working hard to prevent reprisals against those committing mass murder. One wouldn’t want people overreacting to mass murder, after all.

Thomas Sowell writes:

Those of us who believe in the two-party system regard voting for a third party as throwing away your vote. However, we could use two new parties to replace the Democrats and Republicans.

It’s hard to argue with either statement. The first is obviously true. So, in my opinion, is the second.