Held up by work, I missed the first few minutes of Bush’s speech, but I heard enough.

This wasn’t discussed at all by anyone in the recent past, so I can’t say I’m disappointed, but it would’ve been nice to hear something about increasing the number of green cards offered annually. Let’s face it: we’re in desperate need of more engineers, scientists, and researchers. We’re losing ground in innovation, and I blame a large part of that on post-9/11 xenophobia. It’s so hard to get into the country, some of the world’s best students don’t bother to apply to study here anymore.

Worse, those students who do make it in are interrogated to make sure they have no intention of staying in the U.S. after their graduate studies are complete. Their acceptance at the best U.S. schools is a clear indication that they’re among the smartest people in the world. Why exactly are we encouraging them to leave? I’ve read a couple recommendations to automatically offer green cards to anyone who earns a Ph.D. in the U.S. Put me down as someone in full support of such an idea.

Actually, I don’t think I have much to write about what Bush actually did say tonight. I can’t complain too much about National Guard troops taking a non-law enforcement role on the border (keeping it non-militarized), aside from the unfairness of keeping these people constantly deployed. In fact, Bush’s tame approach to border control coupled with his plan to offer a path to citizenship will be a tough sell to the conservative House of Representatives. They’ll cry “amnesty” no matter how head-on Bush confronted that term tonight.

As a pro-immigration liberal, I have no problem with enforcing the country’s borders to keep out illegal immigrants. I do believe, however, that our economy and innovative leadership depends on finding the right immigrants to come over. Raise those immigration limits, Congress, and start taking notice of the importance of bringing over highly educated foreigners.

I’m tired of Americans complaining about gasoline prices. You reap what you sow. Did you really believe that 5% of the world’s population could consume 25% of the world’s energy indefinitely? Did you believe that oil supplies were unlimited, or that no other countries in the world would begin to industrialize? Americans buy huge, gas-guzzling vehicles and use ridiculous amounts of plastic packaging. It was bound to catch up with us.

I’m no fan of the energy industry, but it’s time to stop blaming oil companies, or at the very least it’s time to stop putting 100% of the blame on them. If you want to talk about being ripped off, you should be more concerned with the 25% profit margins of the banking and pharmaceutical industries than the 10% margins the oil industry averages.

Moreover, it’s a supply and demand issue. If gasoline is outrageously priced, don’t buy it, or buy less of it. When study after study shows no appreciable decline in gasoline consumption even at these “high” price levels, how exactly do Americans expect prices to drop? I won’t dismiss the possibility of Enron-style market manipulation (great documentary), but right there’s so much scrutiny on that sector (you know things are crazy when Republicans are considering windfall profit taxes) that these companies would be insane to try anything that foolish.

Bottom line: reduce consumption. Employ some strategies to reduce fuel consumption in your current vehicle, and in the future make more intelligent decisions about fuel economy when purchasing a car. Little things like not slamming the accelerator when the light turns green, only to have to slam the brakes at the next light can help. Besides annoying people like me by tailgating more steady drivers, you’re wasting fuel.

I would love to see a Chinese-style consumption tax. It’s far too easy to overuse petroleum-derived products when you can buy a thousand plastic forks for under $20. Tax plastic utensils 100%. Tax SUVs 20%. I’ve been wanting gasoline to be taxed higher for a long time now, though that’d be politically impossible at this point.

The price of oil-derived goods will go up one way or another. By taxing the crap out of this stuff, we can reduce consumption, drive down demand, and lower the wholesale price. Better, I say, to have it go towards medical research or education than the coffers of oil companies.

Yeah, things have been dead for a long while. But life is different now and The New Wisdom is ready to rise from the ashes. Over 400 spam comments have been deleted, a number of fake forum accounts banned, and small task force ready to tackle the world again. Watch for it.

As if this site wasn’t dead enough already, I just started my new job. Who knows when we’ll update again! Anyway, hang tight and hang out in the forums.

This week The Duc Pond is hosting the 22nd Carnival of NJ Bloggers. Check it out! Way back when, Sluggo Needs a Nap hosted a Carnival that had The New Wisdom in it. Welcome, other NJ bloggers!

From Wonkette:

We hear Cheney, too. We hear “Watergate-esque.” We hear “perjury.”

Info can be found at The Raw Story. It’s mostly nothing, really. A prosecutor reknowned for his thoroughness making sure his i’s are dotted and t’s crossed. Nonetheless, it’s interesting stuff:

The investigation into who leaked the officer’s name to reporters has now turned toward a little known cabal of administration hawks known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which came together in August 2002 to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. WHIG was founded by Bush chief of staff Andrew Card and operated out of the Vice President’s office.

Fitzgerald’s examination centers on a group of players charged with not only selling the war, but according to sources familiar with the case, to discredit anyone who openly “disagreed with the official Iraq war” story.

…

Sources close to the investigation have also confirmed that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine Vice President Cheney’s role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson, more specifically, if Cheney ordered the leak.

Those close to Fitzgerald say they have yet to uncover any evidence that suggests Cheney ordered the leak or played a role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson. Still, the sources said they are investigating claims that Cheney may have been involved based on his attendance at meetings of the Iraq group. Previous reports indicate Cheney was intimately involved with the framing of the Iraq war.

While we’re talking about GOP wrong-doing, I should have thought of this myself, as I’m a huge fan of Wag the Dog. Mithras writes about the NYC bomb scare (now apparently revealed to be a “hoax” by the informant) and victories against Al Qaeda that are just too conveniently timed with investigations into Karl Rove.

I don’t know a damn thing about Harriet Miers aside from the obvious stuff noted by NPR and other major news outlets, but I know this: when conservatives threaten to filibuster their president’s Supreme Court pick, you can’t help but think maybe things aren’t so bad. Obviously they won’t, as it would instantly make them look like hypocrites to even those paying the least amount of attention, not to mention obliterate any shreds of cohesion the GOP has left. Keeping with the hypocrisy theme, won’t it be hilarious to see Republican members of the Judiciary Committee blast Miers for not answering their questions on how she intends to rule when they recently praised John Roberts for doing the same thing?

And that’s the problem I guess for both sides. Conservatives wanted someone obviously and openly Scalia- or Thomas-like in their conservative, strict constructionist views. They got an unknown instead. I’m not sure what liberals want or expect in an America where the GOP rules the White House and Congress, but I’d imagine it’d be a moderate and capable judge. They got an unknown and potentially unqualified person instead. The conservatives could have nothing to worry about if she ends up being ultra-right. The uncertainty is killing them, though.

So while many leftist blogs are calling victory, I’m not celebrating yet (I will, however, celebrate President Bush’s new lack of appetite for battling Democrats in Congress). That doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy the squirming on the right.
Instapundit’s list of unhappy bloggers
Captain’s Quarter’s disappointed assessment
Opportunity cost of this nomination

What do I really need to say?

• Tom Delay indicted by Texas grand jury; steps down as House majority leader per rules previously abolished but reinstated to avoid backlash from voters (i.e., not because majority leaders with indictments against them are of questionable morality)
• Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist being investigated by the SEC for possible insider trading; claims the order was made to avoid conflicts on votes related to health care issues; never bothered to dump the stock earlier; in fact, according to Think Progress he promised to recuse himself from such votes and conveniently chose this time to sell the stock completely
• Infighting over how much to spend and how to pay for hurricane relief
• Bush poll numbers at a record low
• Most Americans think the Iraq war wasn’t worth it

It’s not always easy having near-unchecked power.

It’d be funny if it weren’t true:

Early last month, the bureau’s Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as “one of the top priorities” of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of “the Director.” That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against “manufacturers and purveyors” of pornography — not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

Yup, the porn police. But that’s not all. The Agitator found something extremely disturbing:

FBI officials [said] during last month’s meeting that obscenity prosecution would have to be handled by the crimes against children unit. But that unit is already overworked and would have to take agents off cases of child endangerment to work on adult porn cases. Acosta replied that this was Attorney General Gonzales’ mandate.

The original article he links to was found at LawGeek, showing that this was known about since August; The Washington Post and I just caught it late. Now of course everyone’s writing about it, but late recognition is better than no recognition.

It’s beyond despicable. These people who tout free market economies are simultaneously finding weak justifications to stifle segments of it they find personally objectionable. I’ll be among the first to agree with them that porn involving beastiality and defecation is sickening, but how it deserves prosecution the same way dumping toxic waste should be (but often isn’t) prosecuted is beyond me. I’m sure we can all think of regulation that deserves higher priority enforcement. And if you’re looking for something a thousand times more vomit-inducing than urination fetish videos, try the reallocation of resources that fight child porn to fight adult porn.

If civil liberties, a fairly fettered economy (I believe in free market economies that don’t hurt people), and protecting children from sexual predators isn’t enough for ya (aha, the hurting), there’s always the old standby of George W. Bush hypocrisy. The Desert Rat Democrat has a graphically expressive reminder that a porn star attended a recent fund-raising dinner and lots of info on Republicans who have accepted money from porn profiteers. Hammer of Truth shows us just how evil the porn industry is. I’m sure many Katrina victims will object to receiving aid paid for by Girls Gone Wild.

My hope is that agents assigned to this task will conveniently find themselves deluged in their work on other cases. That might not be too hard to pull off:

“I guess this means we’ve won the war on terror,” said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. “We must not need any more resources for espionage.”

Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, “it’s a running joke for us.”

A few of the printable samples:

“Things I Don’t Want On My Resume, Volume Four.”

“I already gave at home.”

“Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves.”

Despite the many calls to action that flood my inbox from Howard Dean and truthout.org, I’m ready to let this war settle. There’s a post at Eschaton about a Washington Post editorial imploring Democrats to confirm John Roberts. On my initial read I considered the argument as idiotic as Atrios does. Then I pulled a John Kerry (it’s OK to make fun of him for “flip-flopping” now that he’s already lost) and had a change of heart.

JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

…

Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy.

…

…[B]road opposition by Democrats to Judge Roberts would send the message that there is no conservative capable of winning their support. While every senator must vote his or her conscience on the nomination, the danger of such a message is considerable. In the short term, Mr. Bush could conclude there is nothing to be gained from considering the concerns of the opposition party in choosing his next nominee. In the longer term, Republicans might feel scant cause to back the next high-quality Democratic nominee, as they largely did with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

If presidents cannot predictably garner confirmation for nominees with unblemished careers in private practice and government service, they will gravitate instead to nominees of lower quality who might excite their bases. Mr. Bush deserves credit for making a nomination that, on the merits, warrants support from across the political spectrum. Having done their duty by asking Judge Roberts tough questions, Democrats should not respond by withholding that support.

In many ways, I find these to be very valid concerns, especially as I’m a coward who’s always afraid of taking negotiating too far. But that’s not the real reason. I’m hardly afraid of Bush “retaliating” against the Democrats with an ultra-conservative judicial incompetent (it seems he’d be willing to entertain that option regardless). And I certainly don’t think the Democrats “owe” Bush anything given his years of declining to consult with them for any matters of policy and nomination. It’s just that this Roberts fellow seems to be a damn fine lawyer.

Ben reminds us that not only are judges unpredictable, but that the likeliness of cronyism is small when it comes to lifetime appointments. He also tries to remind us that a lot of people probably aren’t (consciously) out to spread some evil agenda. They just believe what they believe. Roberts is obviously a conservative. Bush would be stupider than we make fun of him for if he nominated someone otherwise. But it’s not unreasonable to think that Roberts genuinely believes in the rule of law and while his interpretation of law may be different or stricter or looser than yours or mine, it’s still a well-educated interpretation. Plus, maybe the law (and that includes the Constitution) needs modification. I know, spoken like a true conservative. But sometimes they’re right, in a strange way. Maybe the policitians don’t know what we want and it’s important we let them know.

I’m not in the habit of reading court opinions, but I have encountered a number of “conservative” opinions where I can’t help but say, “Yeah, I can see that” with plenty of conviction (all that legislation that I fully support that’s justified by the interstate commerce clause? I gotta say, it’s very shaky ground). And sometimes, the people you think you’re completely opposed to can surprise you, as Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld certainly did (he argued, as I would, that suspending habeas corpus was most definitely not mandated by Congress and continued to give examples and reasoning, as I would, explaining that the importance of that writ can’t be underestimated).

It pains me to be agreeing with all these conservative bloggers who are using this editorial to support their cause, but I think this time it finally makes sense.

[edit]

I should note that while I’m willing to let John Roberts slide through, I am in no way suggesting that Democrats (or any Senator) shouldn’t vote “no” if they are truly unsatisfied with the nominee. What I worry about is fighting the nominee simply because he is a Bush nominee. I sense that many of those who oppose him don’t really know much about him (who does?) and are putting up this big fight because other people are telling them to. Don’t waste your time or money, I say. He’s almost assuredly getting confirmed. And filibustering John Roberts will cause more problems than it’ll solve. Making a statement about your legitimate dissatisfaction, however, is always in style.