The Theory of Constructive Idleness

I assume I'm not alone in sometimes getting a bad case of the "don'ts". Those days when you try to grind it out but the inertia is just too great. I don't relish those times but they happen to me - the older I get the more they happen.

I'm a great believer of the idea that some is better than none and that you need to produce something, even if it isn't as much or as fruitful as what you would like.

With this in mind I have developed my "Theory of Constructive Idleness".

First, knowing my gas tank doesn't hold as much fuel as it once did and whatever is supposed to pump sometimes doesn't, I try and compensate somewhat for it. In the morning I make a list. It's not etched in stone but it reflects the things I hope to get done that day. Since I don't know when my motor will start to sputter, I put the "must do's" first and then go on from their in descending order of their importance to me.

Sooner or latter I'm going to stall. What then? Well if you stop and think about it there are a lot of small things that you never get around to. These are things that are more grunt than challenge. As an example there are things to file which have never gotten filed. Often those are in my sacred stacks, which I protect with my life and have knowledge of each thing in them. But sooner or latter the stacks have to be addressed so you will have a place to put your coffee cup. An idea candidate for constructive idleness. I have reference service up-dates which are still in the box. File them. There may be some personal items hanging such as researching a stock or calculating the value of your investment portfolio - get with it. You might have a thought that hit you last night during your two a.m. bathroom trek of something you thought you knew but are a little fussy on - look it up. As a last resort you can always "google" - or worse yet, as I'm doing now, blog. It works for me.

A Specter Hangs Over the Confirmation Hearings

None of us know what a Justice John Roberts would be like. We live with the memory of Souter in our minds. We have a different deal in that Roberts is more of a known than Souter. He has gained conservative credentials with prior service in Republican administrations and has shown good poise and judgement in his two years on the appellate bench.

The idea though, that the Dem's will give him a free ride is fantasy. The left wing organizations have their knives sharpened for his castration. Kennedy, Shumer et al are salivating. No one that Bush could nominate could avoid this. First, because the only thing the left has going for it is to get what they want through the courts, avoiding the legislative process. Second, as with every thing else, this is about George Bush and the conservatives of this country. This is another way to vent their wrath at the fact they are in control.

All in all, you still would think his chances of confirmation are good. He doesn't seem to have visible baggage that could be dragged before the public. He was only two years ago confirmed for the Appellate bench with a 16-3 committee vote and a voice vote in the Senate. He knowingly hasn't been controversial since. Because of these facts, it would seem that the seven Dem's who thwarted the nuclear effort would look rather bad if they reneged and declared Roberts an extremist in order to block his confirmation.

Still a "Specter" hangs over the proceedings. Arlen Specter is about as dependable as a long range weather forecast. A closet Democrat, he could be the fly in the ointment by conducting a hearing which allowed the Kennedy-Schumer smear to drag on and by not standing up for his party and his President's nominee. If he lets this turn into another Clarence Thomas freak show or Robert Bork lynching he should be at least relieved of his committee chair, if not drummed out of the Republican party.