Two Months In: Are the Texas Rangers Legitimate?

Short Answer: who knows?

The defense is legit.
The offense needs internal improvement.
The pitching: who knows?

Pitching

The pitching will definitely be legitimate during years 2012 through 2020, will probably be legitimate during 2010-2011, and probably is legitimate in 2009. However: who really knows? No one. I expect the pitching is legitimate, but we shall see.

Most Rangers pitchers are having near career best seasons. Why?

1. Natural maturation
2. Defense improves pitching
3. Mike Maddux good, previous pitching coach bad.
4. Luck. Finally the Rangers are having some good pitching luck. They are due. 

Will the pitching regress?  

I don't see why the starting pitching would regress.

Millwood and Padilla are veterans who are pitching to their legitimate ability levels. 

I don't see that the league will "figure out" the younger pitchers. 

Feldman and Harrison are true pitchers who have ways to adjust and re-adjust during games and seasons. 

McCarthy has a giant curve and an overhand "rising" fastball (i.e. a fastball with a high rate of very vertical spin), a la Jim Palmer, which is thrown from a steep angle, a la Chris Young. Hitters never adjust to these factors. McCarthy is mentally fragile, and could think himself into regression.  Absent that, he should be fine.  Jim Palmer, initially, also was mentally fragile.  McCarthy needs an underwear commercial.

Holland throws fastballs all around the strike zone with control. He's not trying to fool anyone, and therefore there is no way to figure him out and thus defeat him. If Holland has control of his fastball, he will likely win.  If not, he will likely lose.

In a playoff series, the Rangers might suffer from lack of a dominant #1 starter. However, in a pennant race, the starting pitching will be competitive enough to potentially win.

Also: the Rangers are well positioned (in payroll and in minor league assets) to trade for a starting pitcher.

The relief pitching is fragile - both mentally and physically - and could regress. Recently, several relievers have produced admirable performances.  Veterans Jason Jennings and Eddie Guardado have both performed well.  A good sign.  Yet, I would not bet the farm on the stability of this group. Frankie Francisco's brain is semi fragile, his arm is fully fragile.  If Frankie goes, things get dicey.  Frankie and Kinsler are the most indispensible Rangers.  Their production cannot be replaced internally. 

On the other hand, if need arises: the Rangers are well positioned to make trades to improve the relief corps.  

Defense

The defense is legit, and will only improve as catchers Saltalamacchia and Teagarden mature their game calling skills.  Saltalamacchia's receiving skills are decent, and headed towards above average; Teagarden's are excellent.

The Rangers outfield possess speed throughout, and possess strong and accurate arms throughout. 

The infield is mobile and has big arms throughout. Young and Andrus have worrisome tendencies to throw inaccurately. I would like to see them concentrate on better balance in their throwing positions.

Young has sharp weaknesses and sharp strengths. His first step is slow, and thus he will never rob many hitters of potential base hits. If he gets to his second step, he ranges and throws on the run extremely well, and thus he will never give up many cheap hits on medium grounders or on slow rollers. If he can get to a backhand, he has a cannon arm, and thus an outstanding chance to throw the batter out.

Andrus' defense is spectacular. Kinsler is good. Chris Davis is good.  Vizquel is excellence personified.

Offense

The offense has underperformed, and therefore is unlikely to get worse. 

Only one hitter stands a serious chance of regression: Nelson Cruz. This is not a knock on Cruz, but rather an acknowledgment of his excellence so far, and an acknowledgment that Cruz' true level of skill can only be known over time. I expect Cruz will prove himself an offensive force to be feared by opponents.  We shall see.  Fingers crossed.

Kinsler has been spectacular at times, is a spectacular offensive player, and will not regress.

Young and Elvis have been good, are good, and will not regress.

Same with Murphy (after an initial slump) and Byrd: they are good, and should continue to be good.

Andruw Jones is streaky, and has been good so far.

Omar Vizquel has been excellent.

Everyone else has performed below expectations. Oddly, that bodes well for the Rangers offense during the second half of the season. Some talented hitters could show up in a big way.

Make the Playoffs?

I predicted, before Opening Day, the Rangers could make a midseason trade(s) for pitching, win 89 or 90 games, and make the playoffs.  I was over pessimistic.  The Rangers could win 89 or 90 games with this exact group of players, and without making any trade. Andruw Jones has yet to be exploited in this line up.  Hamilton, Davis, and Blalock have yet to catch fire.  If the Rangers begin trading, they could win 93 or 94.

I actually hope the Rangers do not make trades.  I would prefer to let all the talent ripen naturally.  I would prefer 89 wins and take my chances.  However, I estimate about an 80% chance of trades happening.

Playoff Series failure
If the Rangers make the playoffs, I expect playoff series failure from the starting pitching, the relief pitching, and the hitting.  

The pitching will fail due to various lack of talent or experience (though Padilla will fail b/c he chokes on a big stage).  I expect this is a big reason the Rangers will trade for pitching:  they know they have an excellent chance to make the playoffs; they know their pitching is not ready to succeed in the playoffs.  They will try to rectify this via trade. 

The offense will fail due to lack of plate discipline. Smart pitchers befuddle them. A 2005 Jamie Moyer or a 2006 Kenny Rogers would make a Rangers line-up look like Little Leaguers - and they would do it while almost never throwing a strike. They would throw a bunch of almost strikes which actually were not strikes. The almost strikes would destroy the flailing Texas Rangers hitters.  Grrrr.  

My team's batters are stupid much of the time.  They know how the ball rockets off their bat; they anticipate the ball rocketing off their bat; they try to force the issue, they try to do too much, and failure is inevitable.  They must learn to let the game come to them.

Metaphor: The strike zone is a castle. 

A hitter can counter any artillery or any attacker which attempts to breach the castle.  However, if a hitter enthusiastically charges out of the castle gates to chase after a fleeing enemy:  ambush occurs.  Disaster occurs.  4-2 playoff game losses occur.  This is what a Jamie Moyer and a Kenny Rogers do:  they entice the hitter to charge out of the castle and to chase the fleeing enemy.  The hitter is then ambushed by decisively lowered odds of success.  The Huns may be at the gate.  Fine.  But, for gosh sakes, don't come out of the castle and chase the Huns over the blind rise.  Disaster there awaits.  Instead: defend the castle.  Dominate the castle grounds.

65th Anniversary of D-Day

Ronald Reagan's "The Boys of Pointe du Hoc" speech. It's a classic: humble, humane, inspiring. Video and text.  

Blackfive has D-Day photos and roundup of posts.

Currahee! The Airborne goes in.

Rangers at Pointe du Hoc:

In the end, Rudder's Rangers had suffered 70 percent casualties and held off five German counterattacks.

Ernie Pyle describes the German fortifications he saw on D-Day: "A Pure Miracle".


Excerpted text of Churchill's address to the House of Commons on June 6, as the battle raged:

I have also to announce to the House that during the night and the early hours of this morning the first of the series of landings in force upon the European Continent has taken place.
[...]
So far the Commanders who are engaged report that everything is proceeding according to plan. And what a plan! This vast operation is undoubtedly the most complicated and difficult that has ever taken place. It involves tides, wind, waves, visibility, both from the air and from the sea standpoint, and the combined employment of land, air, and sea forces in the highest degree of intimacy and in contact with conditions which could not and cannot be fully foreseen.
[...]
The battle that has now begun will grow constantly in scale and in intensity for many weeks to come, and I shall not attempt to speculate upon its course. This I may say, however. Complete unity prevails throughout the Allied Armies. There is a brotherhood in arms between us and our friends of the United States. [...] Nothing that equipment, science or forethought could do has been neglected, and the whole process of opening this great new front will be pursued with the utmost resolution....
[...]
I can state to the House that this operation is proceeding in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. Many dangers and difficulties which at this time last night appeared extremely formidable are behind us. The passage of the sea has been made with far less loss than we apprehended. The resistance of the batteries has been greatly weakened by the bombing of the Air Force, and the superior bombardment of our ships quickly reduced their fire to dimensions which did not affect the problem.
[...]
But General Eisenhower's courage is equal to all the necessary decisions that have to be taken in these extremely difficult and uncontrollable matters. [...] It is, therefore, a most serious time that we enter upon. Thank God, we enter upon it, with our great Allies all in good heart and all in good friendship.

Texas Rangers Manager Ron Washington

ESPN Article

Washington is, first, an underappreciated Yogi Berra.  Washington, in the Star-Telegram: 

"I see [Nelson Cruz hitting to] the opposite field, and when you can use the whole ballpark, it opens up the rest of the ballpark."

He is, second, a profane heir to Casey Stengel and Tommy LaSorda.  Washington forces beat writers clean up his quotes.

He is, third, excellent between the final pitch of a game and the first pitch of the following game, i.e. excellent in the clubhouse and on the plane.

He is, fourth, a players manager who does not micromanage.

He is, fifth: a bad in-game manager. He is bad at handling pitchers and pinch hitters, horrible at anticipating situations.

Buck Showalter, before the first pitch of a game, had the next 27 innings and three days or so mapped out in his mind: had everything pre-planned, knew how he would attack and counterattack the opposite manager's moves. Showalter was about as good at this aspect of managing as a person could be.   Washington sometimes is not thinking 3 pitches ahead, much less 3 innings ahead or 3 days ahead.

Showalter was kind of the opposite of Washington, in that Showalter was not great either in the clubhouse or on the plane.  Players weren't sure they could trust Showalter.

Which is more important: 

Showalter's style: good from the first pitch to the last pitch? or 

Washington's style: good from the last pitch to the first pitch? 

Washington's style is more important. Players win and lose games. You can make terrible managerial decisions, yet: if players execute, you still win. And the converse also applies.

Further:  Washington is becoming better at in-game decisions, and will continue to improve.  It's easier to improve yourself in the dugout; more difficult to improve yourself in the clubhouse.

Some Repub politicians have lost their nerve; Palin hasn't

Ace:

Some Republicans are so [mentally] shocked they jump at any moderately-loud noise. They're spooked. Their nerves are shot. [...]  They hear [disagreement] of any kind, and they jump to the ground and extend their hands over their heads in prone surrender.

These people need to realize their nerves are shot and that they are no longer suitable [for politics].

Sarah Palin is not spooked. This audio is the first time - since she has been liberated from the McCain operatives - I've listened to her make remarks about philosophy of governing. I've no idea what her political fortunes will be. I can say this: she is unafraid. If that sinks her: so be it, it's part of what I love about her. Her media understanding may remain nascent, yet her understanding of how to govern human beings is dead on target. She is a stud of a human being and a stud of a governor. 

Democrats, both in Alaska and in the lower 48, want to eliminate her political legitimacy: via any method, at any cost.  It looked like they might have damaged her via the Saturday Night Live/she's stupid advertising campaign.  Yet, she now seems to have weathered it - which is only fair, b/c Sarah Palin is smart.  It's fantasy to believe her accomplishments have largely been due to luck and happenstance.  

If Governor Palin is politically damaged by media and big money efforts, Repubs have outstanding contenders available:

Jindal
Romney
Pawlenty

just to name a few. There are more.  Rumors of Repubs' death have been greatly exaggerated.  Wolverines!

Detestable Cairo speech

This happened yesterday:

Heather, a military veteran herself, sees her husband off at 3:00 AM so he can ship off to Iraq.  She knows the danger.  She loves her husband.  She is sleepless.  She is weepy.  She has the TV on and she listens to The President of the United States in his Cairo speech:

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity.
[...]
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

So, Heather called the Mark Levin radio show, and she said, in so many words:

What the heck?!  Why is my President condemning my husband's mission? Why is my President apologizing for Iraq? What is my husband fighting for? Will he die in vain??!!

Audio link.

The President is throwing his Muslim listeners a bone: Iraq, for purpose of wooing Muslims to our side.

Well, bull. He's throwing a bone at the expense of every American who fought and bled to keep America free and strong. We didn't go into Iraq on a humanitarian mission, and we ought not be there now on premise of a humanitarian mission.  If Iraq turns into an Iranian satellite nation: our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are at risk.  

If Iraq is a humanitarian mission, then the ongoing cost is too high in every respect, and we ought pull out with utmost rapidity.  And I mean UTMOST.  Leave some equipment behind.  It's cheaper just to get out. We've no business continuing to rip parents away from entire years of their children's lives.

Iraq is not a humanitarian mission.  Muslims know it's not a humanitarian mission.  Even our President knows it's not a humanitarian mission.  When he says it's a humanitarian mission (as he did say in Cairo): he knows he's lying, and most of his audience knows he's lying.  He ought know he is stripping honor from every American who is currently fighting in Iraq.  Most of his audience - no foolish Ivy League graduates they - understand the President debased every American who is fighting or has fought in Iraq.  His lie: that Iraq is primarily a humanitarian mission, was a sign of weakness and a conscious prostration before the audience.  The lie was detestable and sickening.  Excuse me while I puke.

What is the President doing?  

Why would he debase our nation and our military personnel?

The President wants to mediate with Muslims: wants to find a lawyerly middle ground.

Bull again. WE do not want to immorally walk towards any bogus shared middle ground.  

Parts of Islam are immoral.  A moderate Muslim is a Muslim who is distancing from the actual  exhortations of the Koran. I love moderate Muslims for distancing. But they are, in actuality, either covertly or unconsciously creating a reformed religion, i.e. a sort of Reform Islam - though no one calls it that, because they would be apostates who were subject to having their heads chopped off.  The moderates are declaring an Islam which distances from significant portions of Koranic instruction. That is very brave. They are brave and decent people.

Yet, we are not going to walk away from morality and towards them; and we damn sure are not going to walk away from morality and towards extant Islam and it's murderous Koranic exhortations. We are going to stand for morality, and we are going to give them space to choose to walk towards us.

And we don't do that by throwing them a bone. We don't throw a bone to moderate Muslims who we hope will continue walking towards us, and we don't throw a bone to fundamentalist Muslims. Throwing a bone dilutes our moral strength, dilutes our integrity, and makes it less likely Muslims will walk towards us.  Throwing a bone works against us; makes it less likely we will achieve our goal. Our goal is to maintain our morality, as opposed to compromising it via  

1. walking toward them, or
2. dishonestly pretending we are walking towards them. 

You only walk towards them if their morality is equal to your morality.  Then you are not compromising your own morality via walking towards them.  In this case, their morality is inferior to our morality, though our own President might have difficulty discerning why this is so.

The Cairo speech was an historic speech.  It is currently playing to mixed reviews.  One day, and sadly for the entire world:  it will be looked upon as an abomination.

Update:

Jonah Goldberg, in August 2008:

[Obama is] a very left-wing politician with almost no experience, who often sounds like his campaign slogan is: “People of Earth! Stop Your Bickering. I Am From Harvard, And I’m Here To Help.”

h/t

Scarlett Tanager

I've never wanted to be a birder, ever, except, just for a moment, when reading this recollection about Scarlett Tanagers.  And now the moment is gone, and we ought know who we are, and I are not a birder.  Yet, the fiery image of the Scarlett Tanager remains imprinted upon my brain.

h/t Maggies Farm

Natalie Suliman, Nigella Lawson

23 year old, 5'8" Brit Natalie Suliman is stunningly beautiful. Yet, I want to point something out: allure is in the eyes, and somewhat in the face - in the sense that the face reveals a seemingly happy and well adjusted person, and not an embittered, angry person.

If we didn't sense something alluring behind Ms. Suliman's eyes, we would look at her and go "Wow, she's really pretty, and ... whatever." She would be like cotton candy: quickly melted away and forgotten.

Yet, she is not easily forgotten. It is her eyes, and it is the seeming happiness and lack of bitterness in her face. The girl is touched by God.  I don't want to deny that.  Yet, it takes a bit more to be memorable.

Do you sense anger, or bitterness, in Nigella Lawson's face?  I would bet Nigella has a healthy temper.  Healthy.  Passionate.  Expressive.  But not bitter.

What do you sense behind her eyes? Joie de vivre! An appreciation of enjoyment and pleasure. I like Nigella a lot.  Nigella:

This is terrible to say, but: if I were to go out to dinner with a man who ... didn't look like he enjoyed his food, I would know: this is never gonna happen for me.

Notice, also, Nigella Lawson knocks the block off of every other female in this post.  She's pictured amidst five beautiful and more youthful girls.   But Nigella exudes a life force which knocks the five beautiful girls to the ground.  Nigella knows how to live.  Maybe, as the five beautiful girls mature, they will acquire some of the grown woman mojo which shoots off of Nigella Lawson.

Happy Slip (in yellow) and girl friends: made up, hair fluffed, dressed attractively. Still, their best assets are unembittered faces which indicate well adjusted and happy persons.


Notice the third girl from the left, with the purse strap slung over her shoulder. She is probably a knockout. She is probably about as attractive as any woman would ever hope to be. However, she doesn't really knock the viewer for a loop, and that is because we cannot see her eyes very well. If we saw a photo which well captured her eyes, she would likely be not easily forgotten.

Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 Berkeley speech interpreted

Update: A new End Zone post, Sonia Sotomayor Rejects Lady Justice' Blindfold, cites Sotomayor's Berkeley 2001 statements about current and future Supreme Courts harboring racial and gender bigotry which stands a solid chance of affecting legal decisions. These Sotomayor quotes are not accidental asides or accidental misspeaks. Sotomayor's entire point is that some Justices do not care about other genders or races, and therefore are bigoted, and therefore a racial and gender blend of Justices must be in place to counterbalance (via power of numbers) such unavoidable bigotry. In Sotomayor's formulation, racial and gender blending is necessary, because bigotry exists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I read Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 Berkeley Latina vs. White Man speech. She is, in some cases, reticent to directly state her opinions, and therefore encircles her opinions with all manner of hints which fall just short of being forthright statement of opinion. Rather than excerpting her meandering paragraphs, I'm going to cut to the chase of what she was variously overtly and covertly saying. Believe me, you are thankful.

Ms. Sotomayor proceeds from a premise that truth is relative; to implication that America - including the SCOTUS - is significantly bigoted, and is plagued with rigidly doctrinaire principles and values; to assertion that women and people of color would be less bigoted than white males; to a conclusion that an affirmative action salad bowl of many ingredients is a requirement for achieving justice.

This was a written speech. This speech was later published in a law review. Law review procedure is to allow changes before publication. Sotomayor presented the major elements of this speech seven years before - in a speech she gave in 1994 (copy of the 1994 speech) - a speech from which she copied much exact phrasing for her 2001 speech. The 1994 speech included this: "I would hope a wise woman, with the richness of her experiences, would reach a better conclusion."

In the both speeches, Sonia Sotomayor promotes affirmative action above all else. Paraphrasing: Sotomayor says she is animated by her vision of changing America's wrongheaded, rigid and narrow-minded, white male principles and values. She sees the judiciary as a force for effecting needed social change. She is not as blunt as my paraphrase, yet that is what she is saying. She doesn't believe most judges are bigots, yet she believes a significant enough number are.

Judge Sotomayor explicitly promotes multi ethnicity and gender as a necessary condition for achieving justice. To her, racial and gender and cultural understanding must be present on a court before any resume excellence may take precedence in the selection of nominees. Such understanding is only available, in significant heft, if actual racial and gender representatives are either on the court, or are represented amongst a petitioner's legal team (in order to facilitate explanation of racial, cultural and gender oppression to a significantly clueless Judiciary). One wonders if Ms. Sotomayor believes an Eskimo's civil rights are likely to be effectively understood and defended before the SCOTUS by a white lawyer? Must a transgendered American Indian be represented before the SCOTUS by a transgendered American Indian? Must a paralyzed Hindu be represented by a paralyzed Hindu? Maybe we should expand SCOTUS to include 50 Justices? 100 Justices? 375 Justices? Would even 375 Justices be sufficient to properly understand all the various racial and gender and cultural and physical backgrounds of various petitioners before the SCOTUS?

Judge Sotomayor promotes women and minorities moving into the judiciary in greater numbers - which is wonderful. Not so wonderful is her fuzzy reasoning: women judges and minority judges push bigots out of the judiciary. She makes the fundamentally racist assumption that whites are bigoted more often than non-whites; she makes the fundamentally sexist assumption that men are bigoted more often than women.

2001 Judge Sotomayor:

"[A]s a group we [women and persons of color] will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women.

I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"[O]ur gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

A shocking statement. A philosophy which can ruin a nation. Consider: How do citizens then know what the law is? A citizen must follow one law if their Federal and SCOTUS judiciary will be of one one racial and gender composition, and another law if their Federal and SCOTUS judiciary will be of different racial and gender composition. Citizens are forced to follow the composition of the various judiciaries as they follow the composition of the Boston Red Sox line up, only with more attention paid to race and to cultural heritage. Is David Ortiz' heritage African, Cuban, Dominican, or Venezuelan? It would make a difference in the way Judge David Ortiz would rule about the law. Are David Ortiz' parents of different cultural heritage? It would make a difference in the rulings of Judge David Ortiz. Was David Ortiz raised in the U.S. or outside the U.S.? It would make a difference in the relative and shifting truth of the law.

Even after studying all this information, citizens would still only be guessing about the composition of constantly fluctuating laws which are dispensed artfully and relatively, as opposed to clearly and distinctly.

"[T]here can never be a universal definition of wise...."

There is, however, a right and wrong conclusion about whether or not a particular American's rights have been violated. Justices may disagree, but only one side will be righteous and correct. A wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion about whether or not rights have been violated. If either of the old man or old woman reach the wrong conclusion: then that old person is, in this instance, not so wise. Only one conclusion is right. A is A. By definition, civil rights either have or have not been violated.

Ms. Sotomayor is trying to argue that truth is relative: that truth is one thing to a Latina, another thing to a white male.

It may be correct that consciousness of truth is relative, yet truth itself is separate from consciousness about it. Truth exists. In the case of a civil right: either a violation occurred or it did not. Only one conclusion is correct. There can be and are disagreements as to what is the correct conclusion - yet both opinions cannot be correct. Objective truth exists, even if some Justices cannot ascertain it.

2001 Ms. Sotomayor believes she is required to judge when her prejudices ought and ought not appropriately be inserted into her decision-making. Also, she hopes she can make best decisions, even though best decisions are significantly based upon cultural and gender understanding. Morality is relative; is not based upon bedrock legal principle:

"I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering."

Ms. Sotomayor proceeds from a premise that truth is relative; to implication that America - including the SCOTUS - is significantly bigoted, and is plagued with rigidly doctrinaire principles and values; to assertion that women and people of color would be less bigoted than white males; to a conclusion that an affirmative action salad bowl of many ingredients is a requirement for achieving justice.

Mary Graber is funny: Ms. Sotomayor is that annoying college professor you thought you had escaped forever - but now she's back in your life.

Andy McCarthy says Sotomayor would be bounced out of a jury pool for cause:

Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?

Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?

Victor Davis Hanson is relevant and excellent:

Modern day labyrinth of race makes affirmative action impossible.

Marine William Long's father speaks with dignity

Former Marine Daris Long, of Conway, Arkansas, father of assassinated Marine William Long.

This is difficult to watch, yet infused with dignity. God Bless this family.


Update: Am moved by the comaraderie and devotion of Marines. A Semper Fi story

Man's response to the reality of unknowables: morality

The viper's seduction in the Garden of Eden:

"Ye shall be as gods."

Man is not God. Man cannot know the unknowable: cannot see the future, cannot know the full "Butterfly Effect" consequences of actions.

Our response, to not being God, is morality. Moral action protects us: we act morally and let God sort the consequences. Moral action is worship; is expression of humility in the face of Unfathomable Greatness.

It's possible Dr. Tiller's assassin forgot he was not God; forgot he could not know if assassination would ultimately be a good thing or a bad thing for the world; forgot he could not predict full consequences generating out of his action. It's possible he forgot that man's response, to the reality of unknowables, is moral action. It's possible he forgot that no man can stand up to Satan, but can only be delivered from evil through faith.

I empathize with the assassin in this respect: I've acted upon every mistaken conception he acted upon. It is by God's grace that my mistakes have not led down a path to murder. My mistakes have certainly led to agonizing sin.

Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.
.

Planned Parenthood is breaking the law, promoting aborton, abetting felonies

At LaShawn Barber's place, I learned Planned Parenthood Clinics around the nation have put up photos of UCLA student and anti abortion activist Lila Rose, in hopes their employees might recognize if and when Ms. Rose comes into their clinic with a hidden camera. This is, on the part of Planned Parenthood, clear consciousness of guilt. After Ms. Rose exposed eight instances of Planned Parenthood attempting to break and evade the law, one would think Planned Parenthood would make efforts to clean up their act and properly comply with the law in future. Instead, and sadly, by putting up photos of Ms. Rose in their clinics, Planned Parenthood is announcing their intention to cover up and hide future lawbreaking.

Planned Parenthood receives over $300 Million of federal taxpayer subsidies per year.

Ms. Rose documented, on hidden videotape, in eight separate clinics, her telling Planned Parenthood she was 13 or 14 years old and had been impregnated by a 30 year old. In the states in which Ms. Rose conducted her stings, the alleged father would be a felon. Planned Parenthood workers instructed her to lie; to say the father was a 14 year old whom she had seen around school. They instructed her to have the 30 year old felon drive her (a 13 year old) to neighboring states which could legally perform abortions for her. All of this would occur without her parent's knowledge. Planned Parenthood workers would announce to her that they did not want to know her age and did not hear her say her age; they did not want to know the father's age and did not hear her say the father's age. Ms. Rose says their agenda was, first and always, to get her an abortion as the absolute best solution, and as quickly as possible.

Website with Lila Rose's embedded undercover videos. New camera technology makes citizens part of law enforcement: whether it is cellphones dissuading police brutality, or Lila Rose using digital video to hopefully dissuade future Planned Parenthood felonies.



Last: how is the media responding to Lila Rose's excellent undercover reporting? Media is responding almost not at all, except for this (from LaShawn Barber):

U.S. News and World Report blogger Bonnie Erbe wants to know why the pro-life crusader hasn’t been arrested for trespassing or fraud....

Summer! and American Ideals

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness

Excellence, Creativity, Humanity



h/t


American Indian schools in Oakland:

Three no-frills charter schools in Oakland mock liberal orthodoxy, teach strictly to the test -- and produce some of the state's top scores.
[...]
But the schools command attention for one very simple reason: By standard measures, they are among the very best in California.
...

Among the thousands of public schools in California, only four middle schools and three high schools score higher. None of them serve mostly underprivileged children.

At American Indian, the largest ethnic group is Asian, followed by Latinos and African Americans. Some of the schools' critics contend that high-scoring Asian Americans are driving the high test scores, but blacks and Latinos do roughly as well -- in fact, better on some tests.

That makes American Indian a rarity in American education, defying the axiom that poor black and Latino children will lag behind others in school.

First graduates

On Tuesday, American Indian's high school will graduate its first senior class. All 18 students plan to attend college in the fall, 10 at various UC campuses, one at MIT and one at Cornell.

"They really should be the model for public education in the state of California," said Debra England, of the Koret Foundation, a Bay Area group that has given more than $100,000 in grants to American Indian. "What I will never understand is why the world is not beating a path to their door to benchmark them, learn from them and replicate what they are doing."
[...]
A Lumbee Indian who grew up poor in North Carolina and later struck it rich in real estate, Chavis took over American Indian in 2000, four years after it was founded with a Native American theme.

He began by firing most of the school's staff and shucking the Native American cultural content ("basket weaving," he scoffed). "You think the Jews and the Chinese are dumb enough to ask the public school to teach them their culture?" he asks...

h/t


Aptera
It's a sad fact that the creator of the Aptera (below) was forced to design it to be classified as a motorcycle. Because of oppressive government regulation, he could not have created the Aptera as an automobile: he could not have incorporated the design features he sought. Oppressive government regulation used to be un-American, and absolutely IS an obstacle to life, liberty, excellence, creativity, and humanity.






h/t

Sadness

228 persons on Air France flight likely went down in the Atlantic.

2 soldiers shot outside Little Rock recruiting office: 1 killed, the other "serious" - young men, just out of basic training. Tragic. My aunt lives maybe 2 miles or so from this shopping center. I've visited this section of Little Rock maybe a dozen times.

Assassination of Dr. Tiller

Princeton University Professor Robert P. George:

“Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. [...] No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws."

I pray that the pain of Dr. Tiller's family may ease.


Addendum:

Wichita Eagle Beacon:

With his death Sunday, George Tiller became the eighth person and the fourth doctor killed in abortion-related attacks.

It was the first killing of an abortion provider in more than a decade. Before Sunday, the most recent killing of an abortion provider was on Oct. 23, 1998, when a sniper shot Barnett Slepian in his New York home.

Have the national conversation about race: put reverse racism on trial

Andrew Breitbart:

[T]he price for Judge Sotomayor's sin should be that Americans finally get their long-awaited national discussion on race - in the form of a confirmation hearing that puts this culturally and politically acceptable "reverse racism" on trial.

But don't bet that will happen.