Bloggers are mourning the death of freelance journalist Steven Vincent. They also discuss John Roberts' pro bono work on a gay rights case and question President Bush's assertion that Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes.
Iraq death hits home: Freelancer writer and National Review contributor Steven Vincent was kidnapped and killed on Tuesday in Basra; he's the first American journalist to be murdered during the war.
Vincent kept his own blog from Iraq, In The Red Zone, and some bloggers claimed Vincent as one of their own. "[T]oday I realized that 'journalist' was exactly the right description for Steven Vincent," eulogizes Greyhawk at military blog Mudville Gazette. "It's just that it's the wrong description for many who would actually claim it for themselves. …[O]utside the 'Green Zone', away from the protection of US forces, there was one American journalist in Iraq. He was killed, and then there were none."
Others, including conservative Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters, link Vincent's murder to his Op-Ed piece in Sunday's New York Times criticizing the British military for allowing Shiite radicals to infiltrate local police forces. "His kidnappers may come from that group, rather than a Zarqawi faction," Morrissey notes. "[O]ne would suppose that the latter would have taken advantage of Vincent's notoriety in the West for a ransom demand or at least a videotaped execution and statement."
LadyBird, an Iraqi at Baghdad Dweller, reminds readers that 63 journalists died in Iraq before Vincent: "Is being an American journalist makes people more superior than the others or I missed something?"
Judging Roberts: An L.A. Times article discloses that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts did pro bono work for the plaintiffs in Romer v. Evans, a landmark ruling protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"The fact that Roberts agreed to participate in Romer at least suggests that he was not viscerally, fundamentally opposed to the pro-gay rights result that the plaintiffs sought in that case," reasons David at Massachusetts policy blog Blue Mass. Group. "And that, to me, suggests that he is not the ideologue that the Dobsonites want."
Others tried to fit this new information into the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings. "I think the effects are dual," writes Justin, a commenter at Washington Monthly's Political Animal. "[T]o soften roberts in the eyes of liberals: a true crazy right winger would stand up for their bigoted beliefs rather than represent gay activists. It will upset some on the right for the same reason. Though fewer than the number of liberals that are swayed toward yes on roberts."
Law professor Ann Althouse offers a different perspective. "Romer presented very important issues about democratic processes and the relative power of state and local government," she writes. "These issues transcended gay rights and might well have strongly engaged a person who did not care one way or the other about the gay rights movement." Commenting on the post, Finn Kristiansen adds: "Who a lawyer represents, however nobly, is important. You can really be good and brilliant at what you do, head down to the task at hand, in effect tying your intellect and skills, in oppenheimeresque fashion, to the equivalent of an atomic bomb that explodes over society."