I was all set to post a defense of Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to purchase the St. Louis Rams. And on that issue alone, I stand by that. After all, this is America. If Rush wants to own a team, it’s his right to put forth an offer or be part of an ownership group. Similarly, Rush has the right to spew from his pulpit as long as there are enough ignorant bigots that want his hate-filled ideology spoon-fed to them.
While ironic, the fact that an unapologetic racist wants to own a team in a sport that’s 70% black fits into Rush’s whole self-loathing pathology. Good for him.
But Jesus Christ, his “woe is me, i’m so oppressed, liberals conspired against me…” sour grapes routine, following being dropped from the ownership group is comically childish.
When he’s not being a culture warrior, Rush extols the virtues of unbridled, free-market capitalism. Of course, he has reaped the benefits of American corporatism and capitalism for years. While despising every fiber of his disgusting being, I don’t begrudge him his success. After all, it’s America…
However, the fact that Dave Checketts dropped Rush from the purchasing group is purely capitalist. Purely American.
A few points first: I don’t think that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Colts owner Jim Irsay needed to go public with their “airing of grievances” regarding the prospects of a Limbaugh ownership group. (Goodell said Limbaugh had made “polarizing” comments and Irsay vowed to vote against him.)
But isn’t this America? If Limbaugh can equate liberals to terrorists and equate the president to Hitler, what’s wrong with these guys (and many players) expressing their reservations about Limbaugh being part of the NFL.
Irsay has a business to protect. If he thinks Rush is bad for the NFL, that means Rush is bad for his team – his business. He should vote against him. And regardless what Rush says, it’s not baseless speculation. If Rush purchased the Bears from the sleep-walking McCaskey family, I would cease to be a Bears fan and subsequently be much less engaged in the NFL. For instance, through Week 5 of the NFL season, I have attended one Bears’ game and watched every minute of the rest on TV. There’s no liberal witch-hunt by the NFL. It’s pure business.
Rush has made millions as a conservative shock-jock. He thrives on
Favre likes you.
polarization. Polarizing forces are not good for the NFL . After all, they already have destructive assholes like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder. Thus, from a business standpoint, Checketts + co. did the right thing by dropping Limbaugh from their prospective ownership group. As Checketts said:
“It has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions; endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis,” Checketts said. “As such, we have decided to move forward without him and hope it will eventually lead us to a successful conclusion.”
Rush’s response:
“This is not about the NFL, it’s not about the St. Louis Rams, it’s not about me,” Limbaugh said. “This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.
“Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we’re going to have.”
What happened to personal responsibility, Rush? Like Falwell and Robertson blaming gays and liberals for 9/11, Limbaugh can’t resist interpreting his rejection as a historic victimization at the hands of evil lefties.
And you really don’t understand why they dropped you?
Major League Baseball hasn’t narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league’s antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team.
“It’s not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world,” Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. “That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it’s one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government.”
I can’t beliiiieeeve a government official would try to interfere with this. I mean, in America??
This is not about the NFL. This is not about the Rams. It’s not about liberals. It’s about an occasion on which the free market failed Rush Limbaugh. Instead of living with the consequences of his chosen path, profession, and own words, he wants to blame someone else, and go kicking and screaming all the way home until he pops an Oxy, lights a cigar with a hundo, turns on a gay porn, and falls asleep on a bed of cash.
Long story, short: Mr. Willingham was sentenced to death for the arson-murder of his 3 young children in 1991. The forensic and eyewitness evidence was shoddy at best. Despite exculpatory evidence produced by independent fire experts shortly before his 2004 execution date, Perry signed off on Willingham’s execution.
Sam Bassett, the former chair of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, has now told the Houston Chronicle that lawyers for Perry told him the case was inappropriate, and that the hiring of a nationally known fire expert was a “waste of state money…”
Last month, Perry, a Republican, had declined to re-appoint Bassett, as well as several other commissioners whose terms had expired. Bassett has since suggested that the decision was part of an effort to stymie the Willingham inquiry.
Bassett’s replacement as chair, John Bradley, immediately canceled a hearing at which the nationally known arson expert, Craig Beyler, was scheduled to testify, and has not said whether it will be rescheduled.
Bassett told the Chronicle he had been summoned to a meeting earlier this year with Perry’s then-General Counsel David Cabrales and Deputy General Counsel Mary Anne Wiley. He described it as “progressively confrontational.”
Reports the paper:
At one point, the lawyers asked Bassett how the panel chose Beyler to review the Willingham case. Bassett said he explained state regulations, requiring the soliciting of bids, were followed. When Wiley asked how much Beyler had been paid, Bassett said he responded, “$30,000, maybe a little more.”
Wiley then remarked, “That sounds like a waste of state money,” according to Bassett.
Of course, it costs about $2 million to convict, imprison and execute a Texan, but I digress.
This looks like the cover-up of a sad, sad story. Perry is fighting for re-election and wishes not to be bothered by his criminal negligence, and overt disregard for the truth and the life of a Texas citizen. Willingham’s widow would not even let him be buried next his daughters because authorities had convinced her he was a murderer.
Indeed, Rick Perry’s actions would probably make Blago blush. But there is no joke to be made here. He’s a despicable human being who hopefully will someday reap what he sows.
Congratulations, Chicago. You won in spite of yourself. And it only cost $100 million for the losing Olympic bid. Bless you. But can we stop the ridiculous storyline that Oprah, Obama, or Ronnie Woo-Woo had anything to do with it? The fact is, the bid was bad. The fact is that the IOC has long been in a financial power struggle with the USOC. And the fact is the IOC goes where they can make the most coin.
Nothing Wrong With This.
Above all, however, is the fact that the city just wasn’t into it. While conservative media derided Chicago as this bastion of sin and corruption, other Americans wanted the Olympics to come to Chicago (84%) way more than Chicagoans themselves. Recent WGN/Chicago Tribune polls put local support for the Olympics bid at around 50%. The 3 other potential host cities had public support in the 70%-80% range. The politicians and business elite did not represent the will of the people. What a surprise.
The reveling of conservative media in Chicago’s defeat was far from surprising. Not long ago, Glenn Beck was extolling the success of Salt Lake City’s Winter Games as evidence of Mitt Romney’s presidential qualifications. Now? The gate-keepers of patriotism have decided the failure of the IOC to award Chicago the Olympics is evidence of Obama’s failed foreign policy. Would it be wrong to characterize this elation as “Anti-American?” Maybe. It’s at least a Silver Medal in the sport of Logical Gymnastics.
But alas, there will be no Michael Phelps finger-banging some DePaul student of the Le Passage dance floor. No Canadian softball player enjoying an Al’s Beef. No 12-year old Chinese gymnasts being ogled by weird middle-age men from Rockford. We could’ve had it all! Not a working contract for the CPD. Not smaller class sizes and better paid teachers for the CPS. Not a 21st Century CTA. But a 2-week athletic event-money pit we could’ve been paying off for the next 30 years. Ah, what a shame.
My favorite blogger (other than riproarious + poorluckyme, of course) is Glenn Greenwald. I was ready to give my DNOTW to NY Rep. Peter King for his ridiculous name-calling and fear-mongering regarding Holder’s decision to investigate war crimes. Greenwald does it with 1/2 the sarcasm and triple the substance. Bless him. I’ll post in full:
GOP Congressman Peter King — the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee — had this rancid outburst today in Politico regarding Eric Holder’s decision to investigate whether laws were broken by the Bush administration’s torture:
“It’s bullshit. It’s disgraceful. You wonder which side they’re on. [It's' a] declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense. . . . When Holder was talking about being ’shocked’ [before the report's release], I thought they were going to have cutting guys’ fingers off or something — or that they actually used the power drill. . . “
Pressed on whether interrogators had actually broken the law, King said he didn’t think the Geneva Convention “applies to terrorists.”
Never mind that the Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled exactly the opposite: that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees, including accused Terrorists. Never mind that the War Crimes Act makes it a felony to inflict “prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from . . . the threat of imminent death; or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering. . . .” and that these acts are therefore criminal whether or not King likes them.
Never mind that scores of people have died — not merely been threatened with death — in American custody as a result of “interrogation tactics.” Never mind that Ronald Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture which compels the U.S. to prosecute anyone authorizing torture; that the Treaty proclaims that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture”; and that Reagan himself said the Treaty “will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.” And most of all, never mind that King has no idea whether these people are actually “terrorists” because the people we tortured were never given trials, never proven to have done anything wrong, and in many cases were — as federal courts have repeatedly found and as the CIA IG Report itself recognized — completely innocent.
My email inbox and comment section are filled with King-like accusatory sentiments that to oppose Torture is to defend Terrorists, because Terrorists deserve to be tortured, and that to oppose their abuse is to be treasonous because it’s terrible to care if Terrorists are abused, etc. etc. In his 1795 essay, which he entitled Dissertations on First Principles of Government, Thomas Paine wrote this as his last paragraph:
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Can that be any clearer? Of course, Paine also wrote in Common Sense that “so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king” and “in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” And in his Dissertations, he also wrote:
The executive is not invested with the power of deliberating whether it shall act or not; it has no discretionary authority in the case; for it can act no other thing than what the laws decree, and it is obliged to act conformably thereto. . . .
For anyone who believes in the basic principles of the founding, the fact that these acts of torture are illegal — felonies — ought to end the discussion about whether they were justified.
Few things are more repellent than watching the contemporary Right in America invoke the principles of the Founders — in general — to justify their warped and lawless authoritarianism. But nothing is more repulsive than watching them pretend that Thomas Paine — of all people — has anything to do with them (Glenn Beck actually wrote his most recent book based on the explicit pretense that he is the modern day Paine). Any casual reading of Paine makes clear that, today, he would be so far on what is deemed the “left” side of the spectrum that you’d be unable to find him. Paine is nothing but what Joe Klein refers to as a “crazy civil liberties absolutist” and what Rush Limbaugh similarly calls ”far, fringe, lunatic kooks, far left radical lunatic fringe.”
The Right today argues that condemning torture is wrong because the people who were tortured were just Terrorists — barely human — and they deserve no defense, not even the force of law. Thomas Paine argued as a first principle that those devoted to liberty “must guard even his enemy from oppression.” Could the contrast be any more stark?
UPDATE: The version of the IG Report released yesterday was heavily, heavily redacted. It is now being reported that several of the redacted provisions detailed at least some of the deaths of detainees at the hands of their U.S. captors, while other detainees were simply “lost.”
People forget 37% of the Stimulus bill came in the form of tax cuts. I have no idea why the President and his crew have been seemingly reluctant to highlight this fact. Luckily, Nate Silver breaks it down:
Let’s take a look at the tax cuts contained in the stimulus package in a little bit more detail. First is the Making Work Pay tax credit. As I mentioned, this applies to single filers making less than $95,000 and joint filers making less than $190,000. Using the IRS tax tables that I linked to earlier, this means that about 102 million taxpayers, or about 92.4 percent of “working” tax filers, will be eligible for the credit.
Then there’s the AMT reduction. The Tax Policy Center has helpfully estimated the percentage of Americans who are subject to the AMT by income bracket. For instance, about 79.2 percent of earners between $100,000 and $200,000 should be subject to the AMT by this time, according to estimates that the Tax Policy Center put together a couple of years ago. All told, this works out to about 24 million tax filers according to the estimates that I linked to above, or 26 million according to newer (but unfortunately much less detailed) estimates. If we perform this calculation for each income bracket based on the 24 million figure, this includes about 6.8 million tax filers who are not eligible for the Making Work Pay tax credit.
So as the lies, hate, violence and dangerous behavior continue to gather steam on the Right, some facts still remain. Why Obama does not tout this information to combat some of the crazed fury is beyond me. Maybe bringing reason to the debate is an act of futility.
Depending on the state, this man's sign may get you registered as a pederast.
Classy statement from the guy who, according to his hat, gets government-run health care through the V.A. So apparently, this man has already had his “throat jammed.” Thank goodness he didn’t turn the sign around. The reverse side escalates to read:
…And then we’ll skull fuck you (both eyes) in 2011..
…Come 2012, there will be fisting! Painful, painful fisting.
On the other hand, this man realizes there are problems bigger than health care:
The 2012 GOP Republican primary just got more entertaining. Joining possible candidates Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee in the race to “Out-Jesus” opponents is none other than man-dog-sex enthusiast Rick Santorum.
The Future First Family of The United States of America? God bless the, um, USA.
POLITICO has learned Santorum will visit first-in-the-nation Iowa this fall for a series of appearances before the sort of conservative activists who dominate the state GOP’s key presidential caucuses.
One can only hope Tom Tancredo and/or Alan Keyes will join the parade of crazy.
The conservative base will find Santorum a sympathetic candidate. However, I’m sure they have one burning question: Where’s the birth certificate?
A 21-year-old man spent the night in jail after he allegedly punched a Chicago police horse near the Lollapalooza music festival.
The alleged offender, Pablo Fernandez, approached the officer on horseback in the block of 500 East Congress Plaza Drive at about 9 p.m. Sunday, intent on petting the horse, police said.
When the officer ordered Fernandez to move aside, Fernandez reportedly refused and punched the horse, causing the animal to panic and rear back on its back legs in the middle of the crowd present for the three-day music festival, police spokeswoman Gabrielle Lesniak said.
Fernandez, a citizen of Mexico without a local address, was charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct, Lesniak said.
First, let’s speculate and pretend to call this what it is. An illegal wanted to
Don't Tread On Me...Bro!
enjoy the benefits of Lollapalooza without paying the exorbitant $90, or whatever it is, for a one-day pass. He just sat outside the gate (irony), enjoying the atmosphere for free.
Second, 9 p.m. Sunday? Apparently, Mexicans (like 15-year olds) love The Killers. Who knew.
Third, of course people automatically take the side of the horse over a out-of-town-Mexican. Have we heard his side of the story? Maybe that horse slept with his novia.
When will someone do something about this illegal festival enjoyment?!! I say put up a huge fence, 6 blocks out from Grant Park, bring in the National Guard and demand 2 forms of picture ID!
Goddammit, this is America! Privileged young people should be able to enjoy their rights as Americans in peace. This includes the right to: (1) consume narcotics (imported from Mexico), (2) dance like assholes while listening to DJ Mom Jeans spin Top-40, and (3) pay $6 for a lukewarm beer, without the nearby presence of horse-assaulting riff-raff.
Clifton Williams arrived at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet and sat in the fourth-floor courtroom where his cousin was pleading guilty to a felony drug charge.
As Circuit Judge Daniel Rozak handed down the cousin’s sentence — 2 years’ probation — Williams, 33, stretched and let out a very ill-timed yawn.
Williams’ sentence? Six months in jail — the maximum penalty for criminal contempt without a jury trial.
Like many states, Illinois’ financial situation is dire. Will County alone projects a 2010 deficit somewhere between 10-20 million. However, this case speaks to more than just budgets and sentencing reform.
I understand the need for a Judge to keep his Court in order, particularly in a criminal court where emotions often run red-hot. However, the thin-skinned Judge Rozak seems to care less about maintaining order and more about the preservation of his ego:
A Tribune review of a decade’s worth of contempt-of-court charges reveals that Rozak jails people — typically spectators whose cell phones go off or who scream or shout profanity during sentencing — at a far higher rate than any other judge in the county. There are now 30 judges in the 12th Judicial Circuit, but since 1999, Rozak has brought more than a third of all the contempt charges, records show.
And while it is not uncommon for judges to jail people for ignoring subpoenas or court orders or appearing in court drunk or under the influence of drugs, Rozak’s charges tend to involve behavior that would not otherwise be criminal.
Judges have broad discretion under the law, which defines contempt as acts that embarrass, hinder or obstruct the court in its administration of justice or lessen its authority or dignity. As long as the sentence is not longer than 6 months, there is no review of the case — unless the offender appeals to the judge or a higher court.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume the State’s Attorney is correct in his analysis of the yawn:
Chuck Pelkie, a spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, said the prosecutor in the courtroom that day told him that “it was not a simple yawn — it was a loud and boisterous attempt to disrupt the proceedings.”
“Loud and Boisterous Yawn,” huh? 6 months?! Where is the statute detailing the differences between “loud & boisterous” v. “random muscle reflex?”
What about burps, and stomach rumblings – proceedings can certainly drag on and no food is allowed in the courtroom. And how long in jail for a loud fart? 3 months? What if it’s SBD? A week?
Anyway, what’s the problem with having a member of the Court’s security personnel escort Williams out of the Room if he’s that disruptive? Is the Judge that insecure in the ruling of his own little fiefdom?
This is not why contempt statutes are on the books. The ARDC, Illinois Bar Association, and voters of Will County need to hold Judge Rozak accountable for overstepping his role on the bench.
Most importantly, these incidents are likely to have a unnecessarily burdensome component – typically this one:
In the two-story brick home where Williams had been living with his aunt Cheryl Mayfield and caring for his 79-year-old grandmother, family members said they were in shock over the sentence but were unable to afford an attorney to appeal.
TAMPA, Fla. – An official autopsy report released Friday found that cocaine use contributed to the heart disease that suddenly killed TV pitchman Billy Mays in June, but his family called the finding “speculative” and considered getting an independent look at the results.
The Hillsborough County medical examiner’s office previously determined that the bearded, boisterous TV spokesman had a heart attack in his sleep. His wife found him unresponsive in bed in their Tampa condo June 28.
Question calling for baseless speculation: Mays’ coke use fueled by (1) Need for over-the-top, teeth-grinding energy typical of infomercial genre, OR (2) Compensation for self-loathing about having to feign excitement over cleaning supplies? Let’s talk about it.
When two people are having a substantive debate or argument and one party plays the “Nazi/Hitler card,” I’m of the opinion that this person let his grasp on rationality get away, and subsequently concedes the debate. No comparison is more falsely equivalent in American society than comparing any political cog to Hitler. Yet that always seems to be the first thing spewed from the irrational asshead. Luckily, we’ve only ever had to deal with this silencer for the past 50+ years. Imagine if the time-line was different:
Hateful White People...Cause They Did Such A Great Job With Country Music
Hamilton: Burr, you seat-stealing, nation-hating Nazi!
Burr: Kiss my ass, Al. You’re a Hitler-fellating Federalist! Let’s Duel!
Hamilton: I’m no Hitler. You’re Hitler! Commence the duel.
(I left this example historically neutral. I don’t mess with chaos theory.)
Anyway, Sam Stein touched on these protests today:
These protesters are outside the norm. But they are receiving the preponderance of media attention, which presents a tricky proposition for the GOP. Clearly, the party has reveled in the disruption of Democratic town hall events. But it also risks being perceived as tolerant of an angry mob-like mentality that freely throws out charges of Nazism against the President of the United States.
Part of me wants to agree with Stein, but I don’t think that’s the case. Indeed, I heard people on the fringe left compare W to Hitler when we preemptively invaded Iraq like Hitler did Czechoslovakia. However, this did not constitute the liberal base. Conversely, these people are now the GOP base. Actually, de facto conservative leader Rush Limbaugh had the following to say today:
“Adolph Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate.”
I thought Obama ruled thanks to a 53-46 democratic general election. Maybe that’s just a liberal interpretation of the facts.
First of all, I understand Rush & Co. do not want to debate actual issues. He talks “to” not “with.” And that is a comfortable arrangement for his spoon-fed audience. The Right loses when they don’t get to rabidly play the victim and obfuscate the facts. That’s why they can (and do) make shit up about actual legislation. The base doesn’t care. They’re out of power for the first time in years, and part of them wants to take their ball and go home. Yet they can’t help themselves but to shout over their shoulders about how the “libruls” are out to get them, led by their scary Non-Old-White-Man. All victims.
Second, not that they care, but the Wingers need to read Poli-Sci For Dummies. Someone please tell their tea-bagging base how their screams closely echo the fascist (nativist, nationalistic, corporatist) ideology they condemn by name.
When I run for office, a key part of my platform will be the legalization of public urination. Of course, I will encourage restrictions on this right. For instance, indoor peeing should generally be frowned upon (e.g. in a Church or Planetarium). Similarly, there should be no public urination within 100 feet of a school or post office.
Well, there are trailblazers in our midst – and believe it or not, some of them are in the Mobile, Alabama Prosecutor’s Office:
MOBILE, Ala. — City officials want to dismiss a public lewdness charge against an 81-year-old woman accused of urinating in a public park when she couldn’t make it to a bathroom.
Municipal prosecutors in Mobile filed a motion Wednesday to throw out the charge against Lula Mae Battle. The request came amid a public outcry over the arrest of Battle, who suffers from incontinence problems.”Thank you, Jesus. Glory, Hallelujah!” Battle told the Press-Register newspaper after learning of the city’s motion.
Municipal Court administrator Pete Peterson said Thursday the judge would likely rule on the city’s motion to throw out the case on Sept. 15, the day Battle is scheduled for trial.
I will come clean and say I had no idea what “incontinence” meant. I assumed it was a form of dementia, but that’s because I’m a recovering ageist. Fortunately, I keep a pocket Medical Dictionary close by at all times. Here’s more:
Battle has said she was at her bank, next to Bienville Square in downtown Mobile, on June 3 when a teller refused to let her use the bathroom. Battle tried to make it to a public restroom across the park but couldn’t get there in time.
The woman lost control of her bladder as she walked, so she ducked into bushes next to a small building. But the building was a one-room police substation manned by a cadet, who called for an officer and had her arrested.
The woman was taken to jail, booked on a charge of public lewdness and released on $500 bail. The charge carries a maximum penalty of three months in jail and a $500 fine.
In anticipation of a trial, Battle said she had been saving money. She wasn’t able to pay her phone bill, so the service was cut off.
“I was trying to save,” she told the newspaper.
I think I speak for public urinators everywhere when I say, “Lula Mae, we appreciate your sacrifice on behalf of all Americans. Good luck, and best of health to you and yours!”
“It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists,” Bolton told AFP when asked about Bill Clinton’s trip to secure the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee.
“I think this is a very bad signal because it does exactly what we always try and avoid doing with terrorists, or with rogue states in general, and that’s encouraging their bad behavior,” Bolton said.
SEOUL, South Korea – North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has issued a “special pardon” to two American journalists convicted of sneaking into the country illegally, and he ordered them released during a visit by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, North Korean media reported early Wednesday.
Ok, ok. It’s great these two women will be released, but what price did we pay for “negotiating?” This is not my area of expertise. Apparently, obstructing Congress’ investigation into “negotiating with terrorists” wasn’t dangerous when Bolton was at the D.O.J. But now? God help us.
In fact, Bolton’s fervent support of the Bush Doctrine would be comical if he wasn’t held in such high esteem by Conservative editorial outlets such as WaPo and the WSJ.
Joe Cirincioni writes:
John Bolton had eight years to test his theories. He failed. The Bush Doctrine he helped develop held that nuclear weapons don’t kill people, hostile regimes do. Instead of trying to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons, we would eliminate regimes. The Iraq War was the first implementation of this strategy.
Bolton and others claimed that the war was intended not just to remove an urgent nuclear threat but to deter others. When Bolton was asked in mid-2003 what lesson other nations should draw from the Iraq War, he replied, “Take a number.” The message was clear: abandon your programs or face overthrow.The strategy backfired. Both Iran and North Korea — two countries that, unlike Iraq, actually had nuclear programs — accelerated their efforts. Both made more progress in nuclear programs in the past six years than they had in the previous 12.
So why do people still treat him like some sage diplomatic and military (never served) expert? Perhaps it’s his comedic timing and cavalier attitude regarding the destruction of my hometown. Hilarious…!
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The controversy over President Barack Obama’s birthmark continues to be a hot topic in the nation’s capital, thanks to new allegations from prominent Conservatives.
On Friday, reiterating information first reported in an e-mail forwarded from some guy in Shreveport, Alan Keyes appeared on Fox News to discuss this incendiary issue.
“We have received, from a reliable source, startling information regarding President Obama’s birthmark,” clamored Keyes. ”It turns out the President doesn’t have an old-fashioned American birthmark at all. He has a mark commonly known as a ‘cafe’ au lait spot‘.”
The increasingly agitated Keyes continued, “Cafe’ au lait! That’s French. The President is a Frenchman!”
The birthmark has been an issue since President Obama disclosed the blemish during his 2008 Primary campaign. In an interview following an Iowa City campaign stop, Obama addressed the issue stating, “Yes, I have a birthmark. It’s about the size of a, uh, quarter, and it’s about 2 inches above my right hip.”
Since this time, the blogosphere and conservative media have simmered with theories and rumors concerning the birthmark. Viral e-mails have circulated, claiming the birthmark resembles, among other things, the “mark of the beast,” Lesotho’s national flag, and Stalin’s mustache.
Evansville, IN resident Betty Hathaway says she has been skeptical about the president’s place of birth for months, “Well, I was kind of surprised this mark means he’s French. I heard that it looked like Castro.”
Continued Hathaway, “But I just knew that man was not from this country.”
Keyes was not alone among conservative activists. Attorney/Dentist Orly Taitz claims this “spot” demonstrates Obama is not a natural born American Citizen, but instead, a Frenchman. ”This mark proves the President is not only a Communist, but a French Communist.”
Taitz demanded the President ” ‘Drop trou’ in front of the American People and end this controversy once and for all.”
Taitz promised to present more evidence on Monday’s Lou Dobbs’ Show.
Manassas, VA – I don’t pretend to know the whole truth behind this story, but do have a couple observations.
First: You’re really going to tase a pregnant woman? At a Baptism Party? Low-class.
Second: The initial response was over a noise complaint? The video shows it was still light outside. Pretty weak, Manassas PD.
Third: Maybe its me, but it seems like the police are a little taser-happy. Like 8-yr olds with a new remote-control-car. A remote-control-car that makes you convulse and shit yourself when it runs into you.
Fourth: Don’t worry, the grandfather who was repeatedly tasered apparently doesn’t speak English. So he probably deserved it.
Here’s another amazing finding from our poll showing that less than half of Republicans and southerners believe Barack Obama was born in the United States: 7 in 10 Americans who don’t believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S. live in the south, which has 30% of the U.S. population. Nearly 6 in 10 are Republicans, who compromise just 22% of the population.
This is incredibly discouraging, yet not real surprising. The Conservatives have come a long way since William Buckley. This manufactured story has been ongoing for well over a year. The facts are right there for anyone who wants them.
The reality? These fucking idiots choose to believe this. No amount of logic or evidence will change their minds. This speaks to the success of such media outlets as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. The truth doesn’t matter. People like the ”Birthers” only want to hear rhetoric that reinforces their ideology – bigotry and xenophobia included. Facts are often inconvenient and subsequently dismissed, or used selectively. Thus, constructive debate concerning important issues is impossible. Well done.
The 82-year-old pope fell in his mountain chalet and fractured his right wrist. He had surgery at a local hospital on July 17 and spent the rest of his two-week vacation in a cast.
“Unfortunately, my own guardian angel did not prevent my injury, certainly following superior orders,” Benedict said.
If there’s one thing Pope Joey Ratz knows, it’s following orders.
“Perhaps the Lord wanted to teach me more patience and humility, give me more time for prayer and meditation,” the pope added.
Yes, Your Eminence, the Lord may have seen this as an Obama-like “teaching moment.” On the other hand, since you’re a bad man, I think God is just not that into you. Watch your back, Pops.
Ex-Bear + punt-fumbler Bobby Wade had something to say this morning:
Bobby Wade was always an outspoken player when he was in a Bears uniform.
The wide receiver, who has been with the Minnesota Vikings for the last two seasons, remains that way today. He still has guys he considers friends in the Bears locker room, and he was roommates with linebacker Lance Briggs in college at Arizona and while they were with the Bears.
He’s probably caught their attention now. Probably not in a good way. Pro Football Talk reported that Wade spouted off about his former team and its new quarterback in a big way this morning on KFANin Minneapolis when visiting with host Paul Allen, who happens to be the play-by-play voice of the Vikings. According to Wade, he was recently in Las Vegas with middle linebacker Brian Urlacher. It’s what Wade says that came out of the mouth of Urlacher that is surprising.
“Jay Cutler is a good player,” Wade said. “Obviously, it’s a much different environment from going from Denver to play in Chicago. Chicago is a tough club to play for. What is so funny, I actually saw Brian Urlacher this past weekend in Las Vegas and we had a long conversation.
“I don’t want to get him in trouble, but it wasn’t what [the Bears] expected. Pretty much [Urlacher] said Jay Cutler was a [deleted](PUSSY) for the most part.”
That sent the radio show up in a roar and the word Wade used was deleted on the air by using what is known as a dump button. The entire conversation is on the podcast, however.
“Like I said,” Wade continued, “That’s tough if you have a little bit of that going on, it’s just not acceptable.”
Go ahead and circle the Bears’ trip to the Metrodome on Nov. 28. There might be a few people looking for Wade.
Wade says “Pretty much [Urlacher] said Jay Cutler was a pussy for the most part.”
First of all, either he called him a “pussy,” or he didn’t. Clarify that.
Second, Urlacher should stay out of Vegas. Over/Under on the next paternity suit? 11 months.
Third, Really? Bobby Wade? 7 receiving TDs in 7 years. Clearly, he’s no Justin Gage. Good luck with Tavaris Rosenfels.
Still, this distraction will be much more palatable than anything involving Orton/Grossman. Ortman?
A group called “Patients First,” a project of the lobbyist-funded Americans for Prosperity, has been going around the country and hosting tea parties in opposition to “government-run health care.” Last week, they held a symposium in Salisbury, MD, and warned about the dangers of “socialized” medicine. Yesterday, some individuals decided to protest outside Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil’s office, even though he hasn’t yet come out in favor of a public option. Protesters even hung up Kratovil in effigy.
The interesting part (beyond the quasi-threat to a public official) is that Rep. Kratovil has not come out in favor of a “public option,” or any particular health care plan. This is supposed to persuade (threaten?) Kratovil into voting against health care reform.
If this doesn’t work, the A.F.P definitely has a plan B: Sleeping with Kratovil’s wife.
What has been Christianity’s fruits? Superstition, Bigotry and Persecution. – James Madison
If you want to get me heated up, convey your support for theories of Christian Nationalism. If that doesn’t work, tell me the Bears shouldn’t have traded for Cutler.
In light of the Sanford and Ensign scandals, I’ve been reading a lot about the C-Street House, a tax-exempt house where pious Christian legislators apparently go to pray or get laid far away from the watchful eyes of their wives. It depends on the day of the week. There are even exorcisms , and on the 2nd Wednesday of every month Tom Coburn gives pelvic exams! You know, a little something for the conservative in all of us. This place is affiliated with “The Family,” essentially a religious lobbying group of powerful, skin-deep Jesus Freaks. A great backgroundcan be found here. As Jeff Sharlet writes:
One needn’t be a Marxist to findfault with the Family’s mash-up of New Testament andunfettered capitalism — Adam Smith himself would have recognized that theology as a disingenuous form of self-interest by proxy. Such interests have led the Family into some strange alliances over the years. Seduced by the Indonesian dictator Suharto’s militant anti-communism, they described the murder of hundreds of thousands that brought him to power as a “spiritual revolution,” and sent delegations of congressmen andoil executives to pray to Jesus with the Muslim leader. In Africa, they anointed the Somali killer Siad Barre as God’s man and sent Sen. Grassley and a defense contractor as emissaries. Barre described himself as a “Koranic Marxist,” but he agreed to pray to Grassley’s American Christ in return for American military aid, which he then used to wreak a biblical terror on his nation. It has not yet recovered.
Now I don’t give a shit where these guys put their St.Peters. The hypocrisy of these moralizing, Christian crusaders is obvious and well-documented. Whether these douchebags keep their jobs due to such hiccups as misappropriation of funds related to these trysts is an issue for their voters or state legislatures. While the fact that this fucking frat house qualifies as tax-exempt infuriates me, that is not the subject of this post.
Feel free to use for your band's album cover.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) is on a quest from God. This quest is to rewrite American history and falsely indoctrinate students, the naive and The Dumb as to the historical origins and governmental foundations of this country.
On may 4th, 2009 Randy Forbes re-introduced the text of the resolution, as House Resolution 397, which currently has 74 co-sponsors. This reads:
Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history andexpressing support for designation of the first week in May as “America’s Spiritual Heritage Week” for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.
Although the First Amendment might conflict with this resolution (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”), the text is fairly innocuous. What’s troubling is that the Resolution contains 75 historically dubious footnotes detailing how America is a Christian nation.
The trigger for the reintroduction of the falsified US history fussilade was, by Randy Forbes’ own statements, president Barack Obama’s April 7, 2009statement during a public appearance in Turkey, in which Obama declared that “one of the great strengths” of the United States is that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
Obama’s declaration set off a firestorm of criticism from Christian conservatives in Congress and the Senate, with GOP Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann attacking Obama, in an April 21 speech on the House floor in which Bachmann cited the falsified “Washington’s prayer” as evidence that the United States was in fact a Christian nation. Mention of the falsified “prayer” is not at all unusual in Congress. The Congressional record notes multiple citations of the “prayer” in Congress, including by Senate chaplains associated with The Family.
In a May 6th speech on the floor of the US Congress, Randy Forbes asked the questions, “Did America ever consider itself a Judeo-Christian nation?” and “If America was once a Judeo-Christian nation, when did it cease to be?” Forbes’ speech, posted as a YouTube video segment, has so far received over 2 and 1/2 million views.
In a May 7th, 2009 press conferenceRandy Forbes attacked Barack Obama’s Turkey declaration, stating,
“I suggest the overwhelming evidence suggests that this nation was born andit was birthed with Judeo-Christian principles and I would challenge anybody to tell me that point in time that we ceased to be such, because it doesn’t exist.”
Forbes went on to issue an even more explicit challenge, in a July 1, 2009 appearance on the Jody Hice Show, during which Forbes declared,
“I challenge the president or anyone else — come up, either debate me on this issue or simply tell me where that single moment in time was when you can say we crossed the threshold — we ceased being a Judeo-Christian nation — and you can’t do it.”
The problem with debating these issues (as Chris Rodda offered) is that the facts are so apparent and contrary to Forbes’ view, that even engaging Mr. Forbes gives some credence to his distorted views. Of course, sometimes a person must descend to that level and I would enjoy watching Ms. Rodda dismantle Forbes in a debate on the subject.
However, the “debate” should end with the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The rebuttal from the Nationalists usually hit 2 points:
1. The Declaration of Independence states: “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
2. The Founding Fathers were Christians and intended the U.S. to reflect their religious affiliation.
1: There is no mention of Christ, Mary Magdalene, Lazarus, our any of the other biblical characters – only a supreme force. (Also, the Constitution makes no mention of God at all.)
Which brings me to #2:
Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and James Madison is the “Father of the Constitution!” (also a Disney movie coming 2010) These two men were deists and had the most input on the political theories and actual text of the documents on which our country was founded. It’s infuriating. I’ll also throw in that Lincoln was likely a Deist/agnostic, and the Christian convictions of George Washington are far from established. Yet where does this leave the historical beliefs of our country?
Over the course of the 19th and 20th Centuries, an entire parallel historiography, based on fabricated historical details, falsified founding father quotes, quotes taken out of context, deceptive textual ellipsis, and a host of other methods, has arisen and been incorporated not only into books but also textbooks and curriculum, including that taught in the national Junior ROTC program.
That falsified American history campaign has apparently had some effect. Over the last three decades, the percent of Americans who incorrectly believe the United States was founded as an explicitly Christian nation has increased significantly. A 2007 poll from the First Amendment Center showed that 65%, nearly 2/3, of Americans believe the founders intended the US to be a Christian nation and 55% from that poll thought the US Constitution establishes the US as a Christian nation.
“The notion that America was founded as a Christian nation is a central animating element of the ideology of the Christian Right. It touches every aspect of life and culture in this, one of the most successful and powerful political movements in American history. The idea that America’s supposed Christian identity has somehow been wrongly taken, and must somehow be restored, permeates the psychology and vision of the entire movement. No understanding of the Christian Right is remotely adequate without this foundational concept.
But the Christian nationalist narrative has a fatal flaw: it is based on revisionist history that does not stand up under scrutiny. The bad news is that to true believers, it does not have to stand up to the facts of history to be a powerful and animating part of the once and future Christian nation. Indeed, through a growing cottage industry of Christian revisionist books and lectures now dominating the curricula of home schools and many private Christian academies, Christian nationalism becomes a central feature of the political identity of children growing up in the movement. The contest for control of the narrative of American history is well underway.
I couldn’t care less about cycling. Like inappropriate groping, I feel it’s something better left to the Spanish and Italians.
But I tend to get queasy when Lance is in the news. Lance likes (positive) attention and the media usually obliges him, whether he be riding a bike or diddling an Olson twin. However, prepare for the cycler’s wrath if you dare question or criticize him.
Bill Gifford’s fantastic Slate article (Jerkstrong: How Lance Armstrong is like Sarah Palin.) illuminates the odd side of narcissistic, juiced up adulterer. For those of you that don’t know, Armstrong recently returned to racing. The return was tumultuous to say the least:
Upon his return, Armstrong announced that he would subject himself to “the most advanced anti-doping program in the world,” a strict regimen of tests whose results would be posted online for all to see. Despite Armstrong having told reporters that “it’s under way,” the program was scrapped before it got started after being deemed too expensive and too complicated. Rather than trying to erase the significant, lingeringdoubts about his own ethics, Armstrong resorted to Twittering sarcastically whenever he got drug tested, as if he were being specially persecuted. In truth, he is not: Cycling has vastly increased its drug testing this year, and the sport is devoting more attention to higher-profile riders—not just the ones named Lance.
At the same time, he’s used cancer to help him avoid questions about the sketchypast and dubious sponsors of his own Astana team, at least one of whose members remains under serious suspicion of doping. When a well-respected Irish sportswriter, Paul Kimmage, questioned Armstrong’s support for convicted dopers Ivan Basso and Floyd Landis, he snarled, “I am here to fight this disease.” Armstrong then added, “You are not worth the chair you are sitting on.” (You can watch full video of the exchange here.)
I don’t dismiss the positive work Lance has done for cancer awareness and fund-raising. Similarly, I don’t dismiss the effect Sarah Palin has had on the bigoted, far-right fringe. But is it really about cancer research? Or is it really about Lance? Gifford writes:
Lance actually shares a few traits with Sarah Palin. They both react to any criticism with extreme defensiveness. They demonize their enemies while at the same time cultivating nonstop melodramas that keep them in the news. And while they both periodically issue petulant threats to quit, you get the funny feeling that neither one is going away anytime soon.
This brings me to the Tour de France – Cycling’s month-long Super Bowl. In anticipation of this grand event, Nike issued this weird ad, starring Lance. Here’s the essence of the ad (my comments in bold.):
Over somber piano music, we see black-and-white scenes of doctors at an operating table, cancer patients in hospital gowns, a bald man hooked up to a respirator, a man with one leg on a treadmill. All of this is intercut with scenes of Armstrong riding his bike. “The critics say I’m arrogant (you are),” Armstrong says. “A doper (yes). Washed up (almost). A fraud (certainly). That I couldn’t let it go (you haven’t).” Pause. “They can say whatever they want (I will). I’m not back on my bike for them.“
He’s a victim of his critics. Poor guy.
The ad also implies, disturbingly, that the cyclist’s “critics”—and that includes everyone who thinks he’s arrogant—are equivalent to cancer. It is apparently not enough for him to ride his bike and lead a positive campaign. He can’t help but go after his detractors at the same time. And you thought Sarah Palin was divisive.
Anyway, I’m not going to get into the x’s + o’s of cycling. Apparently, cyclers ride in teams and help eachother out with the wind-resistance and what-not. The likely winner, Alberto Contador, is a member of Lance’s team and widely regarded as the best cycler in the world. Will Lance have any choice but to share the spotlight?
When he was at the top of his game, Armstrong demanded total loyalty and subservience from his teammates. That’s not what Contador is getting from Lance. Take Monday’s stage of the Tour deFrance, when Armstrong ordered his teammates to ride hard on the front, leaving Contador behind. It worked, almost: The tactic not only showed Contador who is boss, but it nearly helped earn Armstrong another yellow jersey on Tuesday’s stage. If Armstrong had gotten the yellow—no matter that he stepped on his teammate’s back to get it—it would have marked a triumphal completion of his comeback, finishing the self-created narrative arc upon which every successful politician builds his career. In less than a year, he’s transformed himself from tabloid joke to cancer-conquering messiah. And if he does enter politics—after a year of fighting the press, demonizing enemies, and fending off personal scandal—at least he’ll be well-prepared.
Over the last week, Contador pulled away, almost ensuring victory. That makes me, Alberto, and presumably Cancer, very happy.
Lance is currently in 3rd (When will this godforsaken thing end? ). Will he be gracious in defeat? He gave us a preview when he grudgingly agreed to assist Contador:
“If we ride into Paris with the yellow jersey in the team, I’m cool with that,” Armstrong said. “I’ve got seven of them at home.”
Erin Andrews has been a favorite of mine for the last few years. I’m talking Top 5 Favorite and common attendee in my “photo album.” Not only is she the typical hot, leggy blonde, but she can also talk “swing offense” with Bo Ryan.
I know it’s not just me. I expect even Tebow would put down a Filipino orphan and unbuckle his chastity belt for a chance to bed her.
So I was very curious when I read someone videotaped naked Erin through her hotel room peephole in Omaha. I took a couple deep breaths, and waited it out until I was only “semi”-curious.
At this point, I have not searched this out on-line. Why? Well, while my phallic compass is pointing due north (towards viewing this tape), my moral compass has not allowed me to take a look. I don’t judge people who seek out this video, but I can’t do it. The only question that keeps running through my head is, “How would you come across on a hotel room hidden camera?” The Answer? Creepy, skinny, slothful and stained.
Examples of things I’ve done while naked in hotel rooms: (1) air-guitar w/ headphones on; (2) eaten pasta with my hands; (3) blown my nose in a hand-towel; (4) watched the live Lotto numbers while holding my tickets; (5) passed out on the floor (bathroom + bedroom). These are the PG examples. Feel free to be inspired, Pixar. These are on the house.
The argument that she “brings this upon herself” because she is a sexy public figure is bullshit. She is not posing for Playboy. She is not at some Omaha meth party with no underwear. She is not out on the town, wearing a slutty dress when someone snaps a photo as one of her titties pops out. She was not stupid enough to make a sex video with a guy who “promised not to show it to any of his friends.”
Don't despair. I still admire you as the sideline-reporting professional you are.
Public figures deserve privacy in private areas such as hotel rooms. Maybe not Marion Berry’s hotel room, but certainly in private rooms where no illegal activity is occurring.
1. Chris Berman: This stale windbag has been referring to her as Erin “Go-Bra-Less” Andrews for the last couple days. I cringe thinking of him “rumblin’ bumblin’ stumblin’ ” down the hotel hall after taking the video. Gross human.
2. Dick Vitale: Dickie V always talks about how he has only one “good-eye.” That’s all you need for a peephole. “Are you serious? That Ass is Awesome with a capital A!!” Fuck you, Vitale.
3. Linda Cohn: The female Sportscenter mainstay might resent Andrews. I don’t blame her, though. I heard menopause can be a rough time. Keep your chin up, Linda!
4. Scott VanPelt: Until now, the sensitive anchor had the best net-wide tape among the ESPN crowd (particularly after Berman had ESPN scrub the Web of his O’Reilly-esque tirade). Perhaps it was too much being known as the “painfully long, heartfelt voice-mail guy.”
5. Stuart Scott: Not the primary suspect only because I don’t think he could stay quiet for the couple minutes necessary to execute the covert taping. “Check out those cans! Boo-ya!” This dated asshead exudes creepiness. Stu, I know your contrived lingo is an attempt to come across as being from the bad-side of Bristol, but you’re as transparent as Rich Eisen’s soul.
Dick Cheney has given more interviews since he has be out-of-office than he did in his last 3 years as VP. A common theme to these speeches is that President Obama is making this country less safe by undoing (some) of Dick’s illegal and draconian measures. Dick’s philosophy helped limit this country to only 1 horrific, record-setting terrorist attack over his 8 years. So, in the alternative, who does Dick want to protect him?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s Secret Service protection has been extended for at least another six months, beginning Tuesday.
Normally, ex-veeps only get six months of protection at taxpayer expense. But Cheney asked for an extension, and President Obama – whom Cheney has excoriated in several interviews since leaving office – recently signed off.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano signed the order extending Cheney’s security detail, her spokeswoman Sara Kuban confirmed Monday.
This delusional and paranoid fucker pursued policies of preemptive war. I believe he supports American invasion of every sovereign nation, with the possible exceptions of Israel and Suriname. He is independently wealthy. He has Blackwater and Halliburton on speed-dial and an inherent dislike and mistrust of the President. It doesn’t add up unless he has some sort of death wish. Or he’s already dead. Perhaps undead.
During the (2007-present?) Presidential campaign, my old lady expressed serious contempt for NBC’s ineffectual Chuck Todd. I often found myself defending him – mostly because I never liked Tim Russert, the Beltway’s quintessential, go-along “journalist.”
From Greenwald’s article today, a reader makes a great point regarding the dangerous precedent of refusing to investigate and prosecute the architects of Bush’s torture program:
The huge problem here is precedent. In specifically directing an investigation of those who exceeded Bush’s torture authorization, our Justice Department is actually giving legal credence to Yoo, Bybee, and the Bush gang who sought to legalize these clearly illegal methods. Investigating only those who went beyond Yoo’s memos affirms, as legal basis, Bush’s detention and torture policies as the backdrop to be measured against; in effect establishing those practices listed in the memo as the legal standard.
It is less damaging to investigate no one at all than to use the Bush standard to measure those few who exceeded even those most grotesque of practices against. All we’ll end up with is a few more Charles Graners in prison, everyone above middle management getting away without so much as public acknowledgment of having done something wrong, and a de facto Justice Department affirmation that not only will Bush’s team not be investigated for having done something wrong, but that they never did anything wrong at all as those same standards become accepted baseline to measure future prosecutions against.
This is far worse than Obama’s previous “look forward, not backward” stance. This is looking backward and establishing crimes and indignities against humanity as solid legal footing.
As we’ve seen with Judge Sotomayor, Conservatives love to howl about “judicial activism.” This noise usually has nothing to do with the objective definition of “judicial activism,” but is instead a loaded term the Right throws around any time a Judge or Court makes a ruling they disagree with on policy grounds.
In 2005, two attorneys analyzed the decisions handed down by the Rehnquist Court (1994-2005). The simple question they asked with regard to the Rehnquist Court was: How often has a Justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?
While other measures can be used to analyze this issue, this is probably the most pertinent – particularly considering the amount of attention the Media has given to Judge Sotomayor and the Ricci case.
Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. We examined the court’s decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented.
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.
One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more “liberal” – Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens – vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled “conservative” vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.
People who follow the SCOTUS probably aren’t too surprised about these findings. Some people who listen to conservative media may want to readjust the tinfoil and take an earnest look at these numbers.
Personally, I have no predisposed problem with “judicial activists.” After all, it’s part of the job description. The point is that each individual decision and constitutional interpretation needs to be looked at on its own merit. Good luck finding that objective analysis.
The Ex-Governor demonstrates (1) her lack of intellectual curiosity or (2) her uncanny ability to evasively bullshit a straightforward question:
As to whether another pursuit for national office, as when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House less than a year ago, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said there was a difference between the White House and what she had experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the “department of law” would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.
“I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out,” she said.
The “Department of Law” – where all your problems just melt away. On a related note - If Palin makes it to the White House, she indicated that she, Todd and the kids would be able to start the day on a much more effective note thanks to the “Department of Breakfast.”
Nancy (Cancer), Jim Baker (Taurus), Reagan (Aquarius) Statue
A beautiful day in Washington and a crowd packed with Reagan era-policymakers looked on as a Bronze Reagan was unveiled in the Capitol Rotunda. For video of John Boehner crying, click here. I’m not kidding. He is the Orange Crocodile.
In other non-related Reagan news, I came across a fascinating article regarding the Reagans and Astrology. Veracity aside, it would explain a lot.
On one level, maybe it’s not such a big deal that Ronnie and Nancy went to weekly astrology classes and ‘zodiac parties’ in the fifties and sixties. Or that Reagan signed legislation as governor declassifying ‘licensed’ astrologers as fortune-tellers, thus allowing them to receive compensation for their, uh, ‘craft’. But sweat beads start to form when you read former advisor Donald Regan reveal that Reagan’s entire schedule was based around White House astrologer Joan Quigley’s advice about planetary alignment. This caused embarrassment for the staff more than once, when they would have to explain arbitrary changes in the itinerary without giving away the game. And there’s evidence we can thank astrology for the picking of George H.W. Bush as VP as well. Joyce Jillson says she was paid $1200 to pick the vice president from a list of seven names. The elder Bush’s response to this:
“I don’t know about that,” he said. “But I will tell you one thing: There are two edges to this sword. There are a helluva lot of people across this country that read these columns. Otherwise they would not be in the papers.”
Not sure what makes that a double-edged sword, but I’m glad he wasn’t overly bothered by the fact that he was picked for the position of second-most powerful person on the planet essentially at random. Putting aside the unnerving knowledge that the president who relied on such gobbledygook was the same man with his finger on the button, there is the high comedy of the Christian Right embracing an avid astrology buff. The same folks that love to reinvent Barack Obama as a radical Muslim utterly ignored Reagan’s enthusiastic adoption of a practice they consider demonic idolatry. Ah, well.
And in death, let us celebrate Reagan’s life in a way he would appreciate – with his horoscope via this week’s The Onion:
Aquarius Jan 20 – Feb 18
It’s okay to feel a little nervous and unsure of yourself during your first day at work. After all, it’s not as if you were even hired there.
literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any “photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States.” As long as the Defense Secretary certifies — with no review possible — that disclosure would “endanger” American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.
…What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? Read the language of the bill; it doesn’t even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.
That this exact scenario is now happening in the U.S. is all the more remarkable given that the President who is demanding these new suppression powers is the same one who repeatedly vowed ”to make his administration the most open and transparent in history.” After noting the tentative steps Obama has taken to increase transparency, the generally pro-Obama Washington Post Editorial Page today observed: “what makes the administration’s support for the photographic records act so regrettable” is that “Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government.”
While I understand that Obama entered the Oval Office following an administration that greatly expanded executive power and was criminal in its considerable violations of the Constitution and rule of law, the increased use of ”state secrets” justification is complete bullshit. Merely saving the government from embarrassment or preserving political capital are not appropriate reasons to sacrifice transparency and disclosure. Greenwald continued…
What makes all of this even worse is that it is part of a broader trend whereby the Government simply retroactively changes the law whenever it decides it does not want to abide by it. For decades, we had laws in place authorizing citizens to sue their telecommunication carriers if the telecoms allowed government spying on their communications in violation of the law, but when it was revealed that the telecoms did exactly this, the Congress simply changed the law retroactively so that it no longer applied. For decades, we had laws imposing civil and criminal liability on government officials who engaged in or authorized torture, but when it was revealed that our government did that, the Congress just retroactively changed the law to protect the torturers. And now that courts have ruled that our decades-old transparency law compels disclosure of this torture evidence, the Congress is just going to retroactively change the law — again — this time to empower the President to suppress that evidence anyway.
The debate over whether there is value in disclosing these specific photographs is entirely misplaced. That isn’t how open government works. The burden isn’t on citizens to prove that there is value in disclosure. Everything that government does is supposed to be transparent to the public unless there is a compelling reason for secrecy — and the whole point of FOIA always has been that mere embarrassment, the mere fact that information reflects poorly on our government, isn’t a legitimate ground for concealment. That’s a critical principle for open government. This new law explicitly guts that principle. It institutionalizes the pernicious notion that secrecy is justified where disclosure would reflect badly on the Government and thus “endanger” American citizens and/or our troops.
Combine all of this with the increasingly disturbing spectacle taking place in a California federal court in the Al-Haramain case — where the Obama DOJ is on the verge of being sanctioned by a federal judge for defying the court’s order to make available documents relating to Bush’s illegal eavesdropping activities — and the infatuation with excessive presidential secrecy, the linchpin of government abuse, appears alive and well in the new administration. Is there really anyone who wants to argue that defiance of a federal court’s order and enacting a new law authorizing suppression of torture evidence — the disclosure of which is compelled both by courts and FOIA — are remotely consistent with anything Obama said he would do, or remotely consistent with what a healthy democratic government would do?
As I said, Obama came into office after 8 years of utter incompetence, indifference and mismanagement. I wouldn’t be surprised if he found elephant dung under some shredded documents when he opened the top drawer of his desk in the Oval Office. Though it’s obviously way too early to judge the administration, I think he is generally moving this country in the right direction. He has been proactive in areas from health care (SCHIP) to civil rights {of some} (Lilly Ledbetter Act) and has appropriately engaged the foreign community. However, for someone who has a background teaching Constitutional Law, I am incredibly discouraged by his administration’s continuation and (in some cases) expansion of Bush-era policies in the areas discussed above.
Unlike some liberals, I was under no illusion that Obama would be the leftist-ideologue, elected to swing the pendulum 180 degrees. He never presented himself as that guy during the campaign. But as a self-proclaimed pragmatist (and student of history), he should realize that sweeping the past 8 years under the carpet only ensures that these transgressions will occur again, giving this nation the proverbial “black eye,” and ultimately eroding the fundamentals of our democracy and making this country less safe.
I was all set to post a defense of Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to purchase the St. Louis Rams. And on that issue alone, I stand by that. After all, this is America. If Rush wants to own a team, it’s his right to put forth an offer or be part of an ownership group. Similarly, Rush has the right to spew from his pulpit as long as there are enough ignorant bigots that want his hate-filled ideology spoon-fed to them. 
