There has been all manner of speculation, by minds much more politically astute than mine, over what sinister motives lie behind this move. Ultimately, though, we on the left appear to agree that the motives must be sinister. How could they be otherwise given Miers's woefully obvious lack of qualifications?

I won't even touch upon Harry Reid's unfathomable backing of this nominee, other than to suggest that his stated rationale--that it would be good to have a practicing lawyer take a seat on the Supreme Court--is bogus as hell.

A career in corporate litigation in no way prepares a lawyer for a gig on the Court. One of my favorite law school professors, who pretty much invented close-corporations law, frequently told his classes that "Constitutional law is not important." He was only half joking, as corporate lawyers spend negligible time wading in constitutional waters. Much of the meat of Supreme Court jurisprudence--such as the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, where criminal cases play out--may as well, from the corporate lawyer's standpoint, be part of the Constitution of Iraq.

Also, wouldn't one expect the career of a Supreme Court Justice to be unblemished? Is that so much to ask? And isn't at least a pimple on the ass for Miers's firm, while she was co-managing partner, to have paid $22 million to settle allegations of assisting a client in defrauding investors?

There are over 1.1 million lawyers in this country. I posit that there are several who are familiar with constitutional law and untainted by sleaze. However, it could well be that Harriet Miers is the only one in 1.1 million who would ever say that George W. Bush is the most brilliant man she's ever met.

That star-struck teenybopper loyalty is no doubt key to this nomination. Here, I think, are some of the things the Bushies expect her to help accomplish:

Put the kibosh on investigations. What the Burger court refused to do for Nixon--recognize a sweeping Executive privilege that would prevent release of the White House tapes--Bush must hope that the Roberts court will do for him and his. Once those Plame indictments come down, expect a piling on of defense motions to quash subpoenas and suppress evidence. The most secretive administration in history will want to hold on tight to its secrets.

Make the world safe for ginormous multinational corporations. During the early days of the New Deal, the Court's restrictive interpretation of the Commerce Clause blocked several key pieces of legislation, leading a frustrated FDR to propose packing the court. Who better than a corporate lawyer to take on the task of dialing back the Commerce Clause, hamstringing the ability of Congress to regulate corporations? Environmental laws, wage and hour regulations, you name it--they hinge on the Commerce Clause.

Support the big power grab. If you're going to continue to steal elections and establish an imperial presidency that can be passed from one Republican figurehead to another, you need a cowed (or sheeped) and intimidated populace. Ergo, the constant refrain that the solution to all (yes, all!) of our problems is to give good ol' boy Dubya more power to send in the troops. 9/11 gave us the Iraq war, torture, the Patriot Act. Katrina? The Feds would have taken care of things if Blanco had signed Louisiana over to Bush. Avian flu on the horizon? We need troops imposing quarantines or else we'll all die. Bush needs some window-dressing support from the Court for all these steps leading to the police state he wet-dreams about. I may be getting a little tinfoil-hatty here, but Dubbers is awfully damned slap-happy where use of the military is concerned.

Feed the theocrats. I think this appointment is mostly about securing money and power for Bush, his cronies, and his caste. But as a bonus, Harriet is a fundy. She'll give the wingnuts the red meat they're howling for on Roe v. Wade and other social issues.

Miers is disgustingly loyal to the Bush cadre. She's built her career defending the powerful and privileged. She's a church lady. To carry out Bush's evil designs on our country, she does indeed appear to be the most qualified person for the job.

One caveat--Bush likely needs one more Court seat to carry out the most nefarious of the above schemes. But that's too damn close for comfort.

The only thing that would have made me happier would have been for Sen. Salazar to ask Bush to resign.

Every senator and representative with half a conscience should be writing these letters. They need to stand en masse on the Capitol steps and demand a wholesale housecleaning at FEMA and Homeland Security.

And who do we have to thank for this proposal to replace peace, quiet, and preservation of wildlife with Six Flags Over Yosemite?

Hoffman is the moron who blocked removal of religious plaques from the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and insisted on stocking the park bookstore with a book espousing a creationist view of the park's history. Sounds like the second coming of James Watt, doesn't he? Another one of the "use it all up because Jesus is coming" ilk.

Preservation of our national parks is way up high on the short list of genuinely inspired federal policies. Anyone who wants to further endanger those precious lands so rich cronies can grab a few extra bucks deserves to roast over a slow fire until the end of time.

There is no end to the greed of these people and no depth to which they will not sink in order to squeeze another buck. This bastard Hoffman wants to rape what's left of America's natural legacy and replace it with mines, cows, and condos. Elk and bison would have to make way for assholes on snowmobiles, chatting on their cellphones.

I sincerely hope that the ghost of Edward Abbey slips quietly into Hoffman's bedroom and pisses on his head.

A pair of stories today on msnbc.com have me seething. First there's this report about a study by Britain's Institute for Social and Economic Research:

So why didn't they also examine whether married women earned more if their husbands stayed home and did the chores? Why does the front-page link to this story read "Men, want to earn more? Keep wife at home"? Why doesn't it read instead "People who have someone else do their housework earn more money--Well, duh!"

One reason for the discrepancy may be that it's easier for men who have stay-at-home wives to convince their bosses to pony up a raise. If the little woman is working (tsk tsk), the boss has an excuse to turn down the raise because the family doesn't "need" the money. It's the same excuse women in the workplace have always encountered--Joe gets the promotion because he has a family to support.

Plus, it's a lousy three percent difference (Compared to the ongoing gender gap in pay). But hey, it's another way for the media to pander to sexism--and they don't miss many of those opportunities.

The other "just shoot me now" story is this one:

Yeah, yeah, auto racing is as good-ol'-boy sexist as it gets. But do you think for a minute that this man would still have his job if he referred to a Mexican driver as a wetback? Anyone remember the late Al Campanis, who was fired after blurting on "Nightline" that African-Americans lacked the "necessaries" to be baseball managers and executives?

I am so everlastingly tired of this shit. I'm tired of hearing it from men and I'm tired of hearing it from women--the most sexist boss I've ever encountered was female.

I was tired of it when I watched the ERA die at the Illinois State Capitol almost 30 years ago.

I was tired of it during college when a journalism professor suggested it might be easier for me to get a job if I put my picture on my resume. Yes, I was a little cutie then.

I was tired of it in high school when my mother expected me to take courses in typing and office machines so I could always "fall back on" being a secretary if (i.e., when) I couldn't find work as a reporter.

Yep, I'm tired. But no, I won't go take a nap. I think I'd rather open up a can of whoop-ass and start taking names.