The Early Objections...

... to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination leave something to be desired.
Megyn Fox was playing devil's advocate on Fox News this morning, but perhaps she was playing too hard for Mr. Franks, whose main argument seemed to be that he can read the president's mind. (Also, the issue of abortion, via that conveniently co-opted phrase "right to life," was, in his view, first and foremost in the minds of the nation's founders when they were drafting the Constitution.)

REP. TRENT FRANKS, R-ARIZ.: She, you know, has been touted as a bipartisan pick, but she is a reliable liberal on the Supreme Court. And I think Mr. Obama knew that, that she would probably very likely have a pro-abortion perspective that would overcome any right to life, that really is the whole foundation of the Constitution.

And there is clearly a liberal bias in her -- in her votes, and that's borne out in the -- in the record, across the board.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: But where do you get that from? I mean, I've looked back at her opinions, and granted, it hasn't been that long that we've been poring over her history, but I see no pro-abortion ruling on there. I see one ruling she issued that was actually pro-life.

FRANKS: Yes, no, I'm not -- I'm not pointing out the life issue, in particular, in any rulings that she's made, but I'm convinced that Mr. Obama knows what her perspective there is.

Warning to English Verbs: You Will Be Regularized

... according to this study by Harvard mathematicians on the evolution of the English language over time.
"Wed" is next on their prediction list of irregular verbs that will take the dominant "-ed" ending for its past tense form.

U.S. Policy on Burma: A Point for Semantics; Now What?

The brutally repressive regime of the country referred to in English by the name Myanmar (its name in the Burmese language had never changed, according to the notes on etymology in the Wikipedia article) is still known as Burma (from Bama or Bamar) by the U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, and Australia. And for good reason, I think.
Colonial history aside, the name change was instituted by an illegitimate government that has been holding the democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest indefinitely.
The U.N. uses the name Myanmar.

But regardless of what you call it, a tragedy is unfolding there, while once again the world stands by and looks on sadly, as if there's nothing it can possibly do. Where's the sense of urgency that always seems (now that "radical Islamic regimes" and their oil have replaced Russia and the Red Scare as Bogeyman #1 on our radar) to surround crises in countries a bit to the west of Southeast Asia, a bit to the north of Africa?

Buddhist monks are being rounded up by the thousands, with possibly 200 or more protesters killed.

This assessment by a Swedish diplomat is heartbreaking in its sense of hopelessness for the country's future:

Liselotte Agerlid, who is now in Thailand, said that the Burmese people now face possibly decades of repression. "The Burma revolt is over," she added.

"The military regime won and a new generation has been violently repressed and violently denied democracy. The people in the street were young people, monks and civilians who were not participating during the 1988 revolt.

"Now the military has cracked down the revolt, and the result may very well be that the regime will enjoy another 20 years of silence, ruling by fear."

So that's it? It's "over?" Just like with Tiananmen Square, only, without economic prosperity, even less hope?

AQSL, the terrorist formerly known as bin Laden...

... or, "What's in an acronym?"

First time I've heard that one.

from one of Tuesday's Senate hearings with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker:

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Why do you think bin Laden is so worried about the outcome in Iraq?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, I think -- again, as I mentioned earlier, it has been regarded by Al Qaida senior leadership, AQSL, as the central front. They are trying to give us a bloody nose, which would be an enormous shot of adrenaline in the arm of international jihadists.

The War on War

I've been thinking lately... about this so-called war on terrorism (or struggle against global extremism -- whatever they're calling it today.)
For all my shame and disgust at the way it's being conducted, do I support the idea of a struggle against violent extremism?
As a self-professed radical moderate, I can't say there's much that I support more, in principle. And there certainly are some things we've gotten right about it, in practice. But there's a heck of a lot more that we've gotten wrong.
And there are other wars that I'd support as well...

To name a few:

A war on global poverty
A war on global injustice
A war on pandemic diseases
A war on diseases that are potentially curable through support for advances in medicine
A war on crime fed by hopelessness from within communities and apathy from without
A war on climate change fed by unchecked pollution fed in turn by corporate greed
A war on willful ignorance and intolerance due to arrogance or self-hatred
A war on unwillful ignorance fed by poor access to education
A war on inequality owing to systematic discrimination
A war on contempt for the mentally ill and the elderly
A war on contempt for, oppression of, and violence against women
A war on random, unfocused violence
A war on systematic, focused violence (what we call terrorism falls somewhere in between those two extremes. All three varieties equally suck.)
A war on a warlike mindset