A few final thoughts on the Love My Rifle book ...
Yes, it seems, you can be a vegetarian while serving in a war zone After being upset about how long it took, why exactly did she not even mention her promotion ceremony? (A picture is supplied, after all.) She mentions various people, by name, in a bad light. Did this, you know, like cause any problems? Who exactly is Michael Staub, who you wrote the book "with" (small print on cover page)? Why not mention a little bit about the guy, except for a brief mention? [See this interesting reference. Wrote?] I like your bite ... it's a bit bitchy, not in that way (see book), but funny/impressive too. The early picture of you in your fatigues, "outside the barracks," is pretty cute. Lots of respect ... Arabic! Spanish is too tough for me.
Meanwhile, recent book store stop-bys led to views of some other books. For instance, a new book (Supreme Conflict) on the Supreme Court looks promising, including things as up to date as Harriet Miers. Likewise, it suggests that Thomas warrants more respect as a strong judicial actor, not some Scalia suck-up. I respect this -- my problem was his overall lack of judicial experience (and/or young age) plus the Anita Hill controversy. This reflects my problem with Scalia -- it is not his judicial philosophy, per se, though I disagree with it. Overall, what bothers me is his inability -- given his complaints at times rather hypocritically -- to act judicially. He acts like a bully and puts forth bluster over argument, or rather, too much of the former.
Thomas has a somewhat similar problem -- putting forth quite controversial conservative think tank like reasoning as if it was so bloody obvious. Failure to take part in oral arguments rankle as much as his "legal lynching" bit -- using the race card while otherwise so self-righteously being against it. But, his legal reasoning per se, if perhaps simplistic at times, is not really my ultimate problem with the guy. It is not why he rubs me the wrong way. Again, this is what annoys me about the approach by Sandy Levinson -- referenced already here -- that focuses on Bush's incompetence. Fine enough, but that is not really why you dislike the guy, right? You think what he is doing is illegitimate. The asshole part is just adding insult to injury. If a competent person authorized torture, you would be upset too, right?*
Kermit Roosevelt has a book out on the myth of judicial activism. A glance makes it appear to be general liberal theory (mention on Balkanization), including favoring an equal protection security for the right to choose an abortion. (Privacy is fine, guys, you just have to do it right.) Rather dismissive take on Kelo -- what's all the fuss, etc. Respects Lochner as a somewhat behind on its times, but not horrible decision for them ruling. Underlines the problems with Dred Scott is not because it upheld slavery per se.
And, notes the valid application of "substantive due process" reflects Samuel Chase's argument in 1798 that certain legislative acts are mere "acts" (nice point there) because the nature of our government only supplies it a limited legitimate sphere to make "law." IOW, SDP is in effect a charge that a certain law is not valid, which even procedurally means that "due process" is not met. Handles something deemed patently ridiculous calmly and succinctly.
I appreciated as well as his overall tone -- various things might be a problem doctrinally, but this doesn't make it "illegitimate." etc. It is tedious, if not surprising, the level of rancor out there. The fact SDP can easily be justified suggests the "uh, you have nothing" nature of some of that sort of thing. This is worse than just being wrong. It flows into being an asshole. I know that the liberal reasoning set forth in the book can be deemed very wrong-headed, making it a harder trudge for some. But, this is again different from suggesting something is inane ... that is where you go into Scalia sarcasm territory, leading to dismissive self-righteous material that ironically (if expectantly) tends to be question begging and/or downright wrong itself.
The new book on Beatrix Potter -- see recent movie -- also looks nice. That is, it has great cover art and such. A glance also suggests it might be interesting too. But, that "look" alone will probably get some sales. Nice pictures, appropriate given the subject, as well. [I might buy it ... I reserved two other books for future library pick-up, though not the KR book ... though I see I could have.]
---
* Frank Rich made a comment in his Sunday column that sorta rubbed me the wrong way too. He suggested in effect that John Edwards was going on one knee to apologize for his vote in 10/02, which FR didn't think people like HR necessarily needed to do. It's what they do from now on. Was that some sort of slam on Edwards? Why? Sure, later events showed such a vote was not quite as asinine as many people thought at the time (you know, yours truly), but I think it's a good approach.
Slate mentioned yesterday in the Today's Papers feature that HC noted that with the "judgement" of the time, her vote stood up. This sorta pissed me off. I'll take the mea culpa ... heck, I just might not vote for anyone who voted in the affirmative in the primary. But, if I did, a simple "I made a mistake" trumps the idea that someone could not use the same "judgement" as the second in command of the Senate right now, Dick Durbin, used. You know, vote against the damn thing!