Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:08 AM ET, 02/ 5/2011

Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

Enjoy.

By Greg Sargent  | February 5, 2011; 9:08 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Sunday Open Thread

Comments


Obama is trying to hand a piece of the Egyptian government over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

That is a formula for a disaster: the act of an unqualified and inexperienced person who has zero idea what he is doing.

ONCE the Muslim Brotherhood comes into the government in any form, there is little to PREVENT them from taking over completely - or exercising significant control.

This is extremely serious.

Obama has zero idea what he is doing. He has not made sure the intelligence community has adequate resources in the Middle East. The US intelligence community messed up - same thing happened under Clinton. The democrats treat the intelligence community as near-criminals, and usually tries to STARVE them by cutting their budgets.


Clinton did the SAME THING.


Clinton is guilty of negligence with regard to 9/11. Clinton did not fund the intelligence community properly, and Clinton allowed/directed the withdrawl of many intelligence resources out of the Middle East.

NOW who does Obama have in charge of the CIA? A Clinton person.

Getting back to Obama - he has zero idea what he is doing.


WE CAN NOT ALLOW THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO ENTER THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT


If Obama allows that, his LOYALTY to American national security interests HAS TO BE PUT INTO QUESTION.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard and Robert Kagan on CNN go after Beck in a rather serious and appropriate way...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/stand-freedom_541404.html

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/even-neocon-robert-kagan-has-had-enough-be

Meanwhile, Hannity and Bozell do the Beckian fear-mongering (not quite so crazy, but close) gig during a different time slot...

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/hannity-and-bozell-bash-media-especi

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

Thanks for the links

Is there a guarantee from you that the quality of the information in the links far exceeds the quality of your comments?


Because if those are about the same, the links are worthless.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 9:19 AM | Report abuse

@ABC, Ims, 12bar and other fairer types... I think you'll find this graph of interest...

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/gender-and-philosophy/

Also, Conor at Sullivan's blog wrote something earlier on the "women in wikileaks" story. I'll try to find it later for you.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Dear mother of god...please save us from politicians and media personalities who are this unbelievably stupid. Please. I'm begging.

"LIDDY: Is there any chance that you fellas can talk to [House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred] Upton and get our light bulbs back, for heaven’s sake?

McCOTTER: Yes, yes. I saw that some on the left were praising the end of the incandescent bulb, at the very time they’re talking about an innovation economy. The irony is striking. One of the greatest innovations in American history was the incandescent bulb and I think we got to put it back where people can use them again."

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/04/mccotter-light-bulbs/

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Pretty surprising coming from Kristol.

What he fails to note is that Krauthammer isn't really thinking of principles conservative or otherwise, and he certainly isn't thinking about what's good for the people of Egypt.

No, Chuck is only worried about Israel.

The vox pop in Egypt doesn't mean cordial relations with the Occupier; it doesn't necessarily mean the Muslim Brotherhood, either, but it does put Israel in a bit of a pickle, since Egypt is its only regional ally. And at a time when the world is ceasing to accept the legitimacy of Israel, and for good reason, as yet a other massive settlement project is announced for East Jerusalem. Netahyahu never met a settler he didn't like, and his foreign minister is a thug who would make Himmler turn pale.

Note that Krauthammer tiptoes genteelly around his loyalty, scrupulously not even mentioning Israel.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Incandescent bulbs waste the bulk of their energy on heat. Those guys are morons.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

ON LIGHT BULBS


Are you aware if one breaks one of the new light bulbs, it has mercury in it which can be spilled?


If those bulbs are in a child's room, such a spill can be highly dangerous.

One cost from an actual breakage in a child's room was $15,000.00 for cleaning the room.


Sometimes liberals ARE IDIOTS.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

This is fun...Limbaugh gets a good caller, is flummoxed, then cuts the line and tries to dig out...

http://www.starkreports.com/2011/02/04/rush-limbaugh-chats-wme-about-ronald-reagans-legacy/

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

A kilowatt metal halide bulb puts out more than twelve times as much light as ten 100 watt incandescent bulbs. And halides still get pretty hot.

There's a good reason why box stores like CostCo and Home Depot have abandoned incandescents.

Leave it to paranoid conservatives to see tyranny in energy efficiency. Someone get those guys a pacifier.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Common Cause claims impropriety in Citizens United since Scalia attended a Koch fundraiser:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/opinion/05sat1.html?ref=opinion

Mark, care to comment? This roundly contradicts yesterday's post.

Save the snark, QB, we can write it ourselves.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

That chart was pretty interesting. Philosophy and Religious Studies behind Mathematics even. My daughter is at what is basically considered an engineering school or at the very least applied science and it's about 3 to 1 male dominated. Unfortunately, she's been too busy to really enjoy those odds, LOL.

I noticed as well that Political Science and History were below the 50th percentile, interesting numbers. Thanks

Posted by: lmsinca | February 5, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Cao

Are there protections in place for the little boys in the village where you are?

I'm just asking.....


Also, I didn't see your answer to the question: IN WHICH STATES ARE YOU REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?


I have a feeling it is more than one.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 10:01 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham, I'm sure that some people like the new light bulbs, but some of us liked the old ones. Why not allow BOTH? This is the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 10:01 AM | Report abuse

@Cao - on the prior thread, I linked to a Ha'aretz piece on Lieberman's present panic and the 180 degree turn he's taken on Mubarak. It's just what one could predict an authoritarian to say and do. Krauthammer (in this case) and Bolton and many others are doing the same - stability over peoples' wishes.

One of the reasons that the neoconservatives could make the progress they have made over two decades is because there's at least one aspect of their foreign policy vision which has a corollary in liberal notions - that we have a moral duty to lessen the suffering of people living under oppressive regimes. Thus we were all available to feel some sympathy for an attack on Saddam and his boys. Now, there's lots to argue past that (100,000 to one million dead innocents, for example) but whether we see that empathy for suffering as sincere (I do, for the most part) or not, we ought to at least be alert to this correspondence between neoconservativism and liberalism.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

It is clear that the liberals do NOT understand the Constitution.

You take a guy like Greg Sargent - he is talking about things in the newspaper which he has NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.


Even worse, Greg seems to be searching for Professors, or any dude off the street, who will support his position with a quote - ZERO REGARD FOR THE TRUTH OR WHETHER HIS OWN POSITION IS VALID.


This is propaganda. This is spreading untruths, half-truths and INACCURATE information in the newspaper of a major American Daily.


This is what the SS did for the NAZIS


YES I AM GOING THERE. Finally, the garbage and inaccurate propaganda from Greg Sargent has been too much.


There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 10:09 AM | Report abuse

and on that idiot's notions re incandescent bulbs and "innovation economy"... the only way I can make any coherent sense of what he said is that innovation is good when it happened quite a long time ago and proved effective. That's no far from the way a lot of conservatives appear to think... the old stuff (real or delusional or mythical) is wonderful but the present and future are bloody scary.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse

YES I AM GOING THERE. Finally, the garbage and inaccurate propaganda from Greg Sargent has been too much.


There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

It's a shibboleth, Bernie.

Sorry but conservatism is too historically cozy with dictators for me to buy this. The neocons' beliefs about democracy are fanciful, more resembling Trotsky's about Communism than anything realistic.

The world isn't America hidden behind oppressors any more than a fat man is a thin man struggling to break out. I don't believe neocons any more than I believe conservative prolifers.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Charles Blow presents a really cool graph on countries ripe for uprising:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/opinion/05blow.html?ref=opinion

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence - I suppose I'd recommend that you put your attention on liberty issues of consequence (government spying on you etc) rather than on a truly silly matter such as this. But in any case, here's your facts on what is happening in the US and in other countries on incandescent bulb legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Palin: fear! hate! rage!

Ron Reagan: she's a soap opera

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/05/AR2011020500828.html?hpid=topnews

What a ditz

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham, you must only hang around liberals if you aren't aware that real Americans have a bigger problem than just "innovation is good when it happened quite a long time ago" with losing the incandescent light bulb. Did you skip right over the post about a $15,000 clean up cost? CFL are completely inefficient in little-used closets and attics.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 10:22 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne, if you're around this is relevant to what we were discussing yesterday. I still say it remains to be seen what the outcome will be but hopefully the people of Egypt will be able to prevail. I've also read other reports that coalitions are forming to push back against the "Suleiman" scenario. It's beginning to feel like they're reaching a tipping point, but then it's felt that way all week so who knows.

""The day after the Day of Departure, everyone wants to speak for the Youth Protesters in Tahrir Square.

Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke today of events in Egypt and seemed to want to make Tahrir Square over in the image of Tehran but the Muslim Brotherhood were quick to push back, writing on their newsite, Ikhanweb:

12 :50 MB responds to Iran’s Islamic Leader Mr Khamenai: The MB regards the revolution as the Egyptian People’s Revolution not an Islamic Revolution asserting that the Egyptian People’s Revolution includes Muslims, Christians, from all sects and political

This statement certainly seems close to capturing the message of the Youth.

A Committee of Wise Men – including 18 intellectuals and businessmen has declared that “the main demand of protesters in Tahrir Square was for President Hosni Mubarak to step down and transfer his authority to Vice-President Omar Suleiman.”

And The Arabist (a very valuable resource) writes of another statement (or as the Arabist notes, “yet another!”) issued by a group of influential “establishment government, business, academia and NGO people” calling for:

The President must delegate to his Vice President the responsibilities of managing the transitional period that began yesterday and will be completed by the end of the president’s current term.

These efforts seem surprisingly* close to the trial balloons floated by the Obama administration. The Washington Post outlines the plan:

In Washington, the Obama administration launched an urgent effort to persuade opposition groups to participate in talks with Suleiman in a meeting scheduled for Saturday morning, and called on the army and respected leaders from across Egyptian society to step forward and bless the dialogue.

*… or not so surprising at all""

http://firedoglake.com/2011/02/05/everyone-wants-to-speak-for-tahrir-but-are-they-listening-to-tahrir/

Posted by: lmsinca | February 5, 2011 10:22 AM | Report abuse

HONESTLY


There is little difference between the tricks Hitler pulled to gain control of the Reichstag - and the RECONCILIATION pulled by Obama and the liberals.


This health care bill is ILLEGITIMATE.


Allow me to challenge the legitimacy of Court cases in Minnesota which seated Al Franken - what happened with all that evidence and why were those ballots allowed to be counted in that way?


Allow me to challenge the legitimacy of the new law in Massachusetts - to allow Obama to keep his 60th vote. This was clearly AGAINST the will of the People, as evidenced by the ELECTION.

Also, why should a legislature be allowed to change the rules AFTER the vacancy has been created?

ALL ILLEGITIMATE


Then, RECONCILIATION - another illegitimate act OFFENSIVE TO DEMOCRACY ITSELF.


Obama and the liberals have been acting like Little Nazis, not worthy to walk the halls of American Democracy.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I guess Jake would like to drive a car with a two-cycle engine, too.

Freedm. Oh say can you (cough cough) see though all that blue smoke?

Of all the stupid things to get wrapped around the axle over .. better light bulbs. And these guys wonder why we don't take them seriously. No wonder they don't believe in evolution, it hasn't done anything for them.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

ruk: ""I went to your blog and discovered like me you are a cat lover. Aside from that however I was unable to find your "comments" section so I could see how it works...at least comments besides yours...comments from outsiders who had just wandered onto your blog and left their opinions or "takes" on a subject.""

Below each posting, to the right of the timestamp, there's a link that says "**n** comments" -- click any one of those to pull up the commenting system (called FortyToo, written by Stephen Banks).
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

For the mercury in one of the new bulbs to be dangerous you would have to break it open in a small box around the child's head and somehow exchange the oxygen and carbon dioxide without letting any mercury escape. And even then you wouldn't have much toxicity.

Keep it up, trolls, this is more entertaining than death panels without the poor taste.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

More, from the link you just provided:

There's "panic buying" of incandescent light bulbs, with 72% of Americans saying the government does not have the right to ban them. Medical societies representing patients with light-sensitive conditions like migraines and lupus are against the ban too.

You obviously don't, but I consider this issue more politically devisive than government spying on its own citizens (polling shows that to be the case). The Republicans have a winning campaign point here.

By all means, keep up your side's PC push for a ban.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse


YES I AM GOING THERE. Finally, the garbage and inaccurate propaganda from Greg Sargent has been too much.


There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 10:34 AM | Report abuse

This looks like an interesting book for those of you who are interested in the obligation our press has to report the news and evaluate their sources, and do some in depth investigations. Of course there were some alarms sounded but no one was really listening. A lot of us feel we're not getting the best deal from the Fourth Estate.

""Depending upon your ideological predisposition, the crisis owes to the greedy bankers who turned home loans into casino chips, or to the federal regulators who abdicated authority, allowing Wall Street to turn itself into a gambling parlor. It was homeowners who treated their mortgages like winning lottery tickets, cashing in through repeated rounds of refinancing. It was politicians who championed expanded home ownership with reckless tax incentives and mandates forcing banks to lend even to borrowers with sketchy credit. It was the Federal Reserve which kept interest rates too low for too long.

But one segment of American society has largely evaded scrutiny in the search for the source of the disaster: the financial press. This is a dangerous oversight, argues journalist Anya Schiffrin in an intriguing and thoughtful new book, "Bad News: How America's Business Press Missed the Story of the Century."

As the crisis begins to fade from memory, and as acute fear is predictably replaced by complacency, a rigorous accounting of what actually transpired is imperative. Schiffrin aims to impose that accounting on those of us who make our living writing about finance. Her findings are not comforting, suggesting that coziness with sources and a lack of financial acumen made many reporters vulnerable to bogus assurances that nothing was wrong.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/bad-news-new-book-financial-crisis-press_n_819033.html

Posted by: lmsinca | February 5, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

You obviously don't, but I consider this issue more politically devisive than government spying on its own citizens (polling shows that to be the case). The Republicans have a winning campaign point here.

===

You are a dope

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""we ought to at least be alert to this correspondence between neoconservativism and liberalism.""

Funny, but when I pointed this out to you last year in a thread about the origins of neoconservatism, you didn't seem to be all that "alert" to it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse

(continued from the link that bernielatham so helpfully provided above)

Many retailers in Britain, Poland, Austria, Germany and Hungary have reported bulk purchasing, and in Germany, sales rose by up to 150% Two-thirds of Austrians surveyed stated they believe the phase-out to be "nonsensical", with 53.6% believing their health to be at risk of mercury poisoning. The Czech Republic President, Vaclav Klaus, urged people to stockpile enough incandescent bulbs to last their lifetime.

The phase out has been referred to as "light bulb socialism".[46] The consumer preference for light bulbs in the EU is for incandescent bulbs, with many complaining of the ugliness[41][50] and the cold, flat, unnatural, dull light emanating from CFLs. Not to mention what CFLs do to priceless works of art. Museums and galleries have been stockpiling incandescent lightbulbs across Europe too.

On the unemployment front, here at home, GE has already shut down its incandescent light bulb factory in Winchester, Virginia. How many jobs were lost there?

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse


YES I AM GOING THERE. Finally, the garbage and inaccurate propaganda from Greg Sargent has been too much.


There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Also for ruk, should he appear: Steve and I **will** contact Greg regarding FortyToo, but since it's not established, I doubt we'll get very far. Right now, the user interface is kinda scary (as good a developer as Steve is, his visual design skills are, well, programmer-like, to be kind). As a career UI designer and usability guy, I'm offering to help him clean it up and make it more user-friendly.

The whole thing depends on Adobe Flash, which you might think is a drawback, but it also has an auto-detect feature so that if you hit it via smartphone or iPad, for instance, it presents you with a HTML version -- but you lose a lot of the cooler features (like the user filtering) without Flash.

The plus -- it's very fast and bandwidth-light, as all the comments don't have to be reloaded each time a new comment arrives. And it was designed for use with blogs with high traffic, where the commenting system is often used like a chat room. I've seen threads using FortyToo of over 1000 comments, and as long as the comments window stays open, it's very fast all the way.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Let's go over to Egypt for a moment. We can continue a bit later on how Obama, the liberals, the Journo-list propaganda artists have been using NAZI TACTICS to get their way, and IMPOSE THEIR IDEALOGY ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


In Egypt, it is clear that the NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE is to PREVENT the Muslim Brotherhood from taking any share or participation in the government in Egypt.


If Obama disagrees, then he is not in line with the true national security interests of America.


This is serious.


To ALL - if the Muslim Brotherhood is allowed into the Egyptian government, they will take control - or have significant influence which will be UNACCEPTABLE TO AMERICAN INTERESTS.


This includes their support of TERRORISM IN MANY COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, EUROPE AND IN NEW YORK CITY.

THIS IS WAR.


Let me be CLEAR: We will be at war in Egypt.


There will be no avoiding war in Egypt, maybe not right away. Maybe after the liberals leave office.


HOWEVER, we WILL be compelled to go to WAR IN EGYPT if we go down this road.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Ims:

Looks like Mubarak stays
The US won't pull the aid money which would force him out
There will be sham "reforms" overseen by Mubarak's henchman Sueleman
The only other way is a bloody revolution
Status quo it is

Greens in 2012 (they're good for you)

Posted by: wbgonne | February 5, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham, did you skip right over the post about a $15,000 clean up cost? You really think that all of these concerns are silly? Tell that to the pregnant women exposed to mercury from broken CFLs. Tell that to the laid off workers and their families. Tell that to the art curators!

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Has the Tundra Tramp weighed in on tungstengate?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:58 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham, I'm sure that some people like the new light bulbs, but some of us liked the old ones. Why not allow BOTH? This is the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 10:01 AM

..........................

Bernie,

Some of us like Whale Oil Lamps, as well as Electric Light Bulbs. Why not allow both? This The Land Of The Flea Brains, And The Home Of The Knave.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

clawrence

Since Cao refuses to answer my question about how many States he is required to register in as a SEX OFFENDER, should we just take that refusal as an admission?


I think many on this blog have taken his reasoning at face value, however a primary reason for his move to Southeast Asia could be his desire to escape the jurisdiction for the SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY.


In fact, perhaps, if Cao was registered in the State where he lived in the US, we can find his picture still on that State's sex offender registry. What is his real name, Is it Christopher Fox ?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Adam should like this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/05/jennifer-rubin-israel/

"Washington Post ‘Conservative’ Blogger Aligned With the Pro-Israel Far Right

Our guest blogger is Eli Clifton, a New York-based journalist who blogs daily on U.S.-Iran relations at LobeLog.com.

Jennifer Rubin, who authors The Washington Post’s “Right Turn” blog, claims that her blog offers coverage of “politics and policy” for “conservative readers.” But you’d be excused for thinking that her foremost interest is Israel’s conservative politics and policy.

Rubin, a prolific blogger, has published 415 posts since she started at The Washington Post at the end of November. Her blog categorizes her posts by topic and shows that: 29 were about “Israel;” 11 were about “American Jews,” and 16 were about “Iran.” In just the past few weeks, she attacked the signatories of a letter calling for the Obama administration to support a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction in the Occupied Territory. Rubin also attacked HSBC for an advertisement which the bank was running to call attention to the high number of female filmmakers in Iran.

Now, her hard work on behalf of the Israel right has earned her a free trip. “In the interest of full disclosure,” she revealed yesterday, her trip to Israel’s Herzliya Conference, an Israeli strategic confab, will be paid for by the Bill Kristol front group, The Emergency Committee For Israel (ECI).

The ECI first came to attention in July 2010 when it began running attack ads against politicians who it deemed insufficiently tough on terrorism or who had dared to criticize Israel. The group is directed by neoconservative upstart Noah Pollak and board members include: Kristol, Rachel Abrams, and Gary Bauer. Former Bush White House official Margaret Hoover has registered the ECI’s domain name. ECI was briefly housed at Orion Strategies, a consultancy which has advised Sarah Palin and served as the home of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group which played a key role in pushing for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and promoting Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress.

The Washington Post’s claim that she is representative of the conservative movement is deeply misleading. Her close relationship with ECI, her gleeful promotion of the “military option” against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and her proclivity towards smearing her opponents as “Israel-bashing” show that Rubin represents the interests and ideology of the hawkish, pro-Israel right-wing. While the Post claims that her blog is representative of conservative politics and policy, her posts have shown a very different focus."

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising, I don't even bother with him anymore, but yes that's his real name and he lived in Washington State before leaving the country.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

clawrence


OK, Greg Sargent has been allowing this guy to run wild on this blog - with little reason.

Maybe a little research will turn up something.


CAO, would you like to come clean before we do this research???

It might be easier on you.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I found this interesting article from 2001 but thought it was worth a reminder AGAIN, that Reagan wasn't "all that" when it come to his conservative bonafides.

""A sober review of Reagan's presidency doesn't yield the seamlessly conservative record being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued. Reagan broke with the hardliners in his administration and compromised with the Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized; instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised.

All of this has been airbrushed from the new literature of Reagan. But as any balanced account must make clear, Reagan acceded to political compromises as all presidents do once in office--and on many occasions did so willingly. In fact, however often unintentionally, many of his actions as president wound up facilitating liberal objectives. What this clamor of adulation is seeking to deny is that beyond his conservative legacy, Ronald Reagan has bequeathed a liberal one.""

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

I'm working today, playing catch up, so have a good Saturday all, get to your Super Bowl shopping. :)

Posted by: lmsinca | February 5, 2011 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Reality Check:

The Republican Party Is Going To Bat, to allow Freeloaders who can afford to pay for Insurance, to not do so. What next; Will the Republicans go to bat to allow deadbeat dads to not pay child support?

If most healthy people opt out of purchasing insurance, the health care Insurance Industry, and most likely the Medical Providers system will collapse.

The Insurance Industry is based solely on having a large number of low risk, healthy people in their pools, to allow them to skim large profit margins, large salaries/bonuses, and operating expenses off the top of their premiums receivables. It is really a Ponzi scheme. Pay us when you are healthy, and we will drop you, if you look like you are going to start asking for a payout.

So who are the Republicans going to bat for, with their efforts to repeal the individual mandate? Isn't it mostly a bunch of free loaders, risk takers, or dead beats?

It has to be, or else the Insurance Companies would have already gone out of business.

So why are The Republicans going to bat for that minority of people, who just do not want to contribute their fair share?

They are still going to seek to medical care, as needed, but they just are not prepared to contribute to covering the over all costs of the system.

Should we also let them show up at restaurants, when ever they run out of food, and be allowed to eat for free?

I am not talking about people who are so poor they can not afford the premiums. The reform bill already addressed that issue. I am talking about people who can afford the premiums but do not want to pay anything for coverage, but still will seek medical care, when ever the get injured or become seriously sick.

It still strikes me, that all The Republicans are doing, is going to bat for that class of freeloaders.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I know it's printing money to put someone on the radio to say Conservative Things, but who the hell decided to give GG Liddy a radio show?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Probably PETA did to keep him busy, so he would not keep biting the heads off of small animals.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Ims and qb1 - good stuff.

I agree with qb1's examples but do not think they go far enough, and I have a slightly different take on their genesis. Politically liberal and conservative Justices will approach tough cases from the same direction if they are both believers in judicial restraint.

If they are both activists, results can be widely divergent.

The politically conservative Harlan voted to uphold liberal decisions when they were backed by a line of cases because he was a champion of restraint. The politically liberal White voted against liberal activism when he was on the bench.

R. v. W. is an example of liberal activism, as qb1 says. I think it has two strands of reasoning within the case, one of which is truly suspect [briefly, established medical ethics is relevant to establishing a constitutional limit on a state's regulation of medical practice], the other of which is solid, but need not have been reached [Wade's office argued in its brief in response to Weddington's assertion that fetuses were not "persons born" for 14th A. purposes *that personhood begins at conception*]. When the Court dealt with that issue raised by the parties, it established a middle ground that fetuses had rights beginning at viability outside the womb, equating viability outside womb with "born". Well, I think that issue did not have to be reached, but at least the reasoning involved is pretty solid.
OTOH
Scalia has pointed out that the reasoning could allow an immigration lawyer to stay the deportation of pregnant illegal alien after 5 months pregnancy or so.

Flash forward to "Citizens United" where CU only argued against the thirty day ban as applied to the HRC movie, and probably would have won on that basis a near unanimous vote. Activist conservative group of justices asked for a question not presented by the parties to be briefed and thus dealt with a question that should have been avoided, IMO.

More recently, NASA won an 8-0 decision that it could require background checks for contract workers. Scalia and Thomas concurred, but wanted to decide a constitutional issue that was not required to be reached to decide the case.

I don't care if Js are political liberals or political conservatives, but I have a practitioner's bias against activism, because I want to tell my clients with some high probability what the law's application to their activity will be. I cannot do that when judges are activists as well as I can when they show restraint.

A personal story at the local level in my next post.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 5, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Mark what is the Constitutionality of banning late term abortions? Can it be done? And what defines whether a fetus can be viable outside the womb? When you are talking about the early 20 weeks, it's possible, but not with any sort of consistency. The earliest case is about 20 weeks, but it is pretty rare for a fetus to survive being removed that early. Does that matter or does one documented case mean it's viable at 20 weeks?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

lms,

The battle for Reagan is apparently on. There's a good piece in the current National Review taking on the position represented by the piece you linked.

Conservatives have discussed the shortcomings of his presidency and the "contradictions" he embodied for years. But the liberals' claim to him is a bit of a stretch (to say the least).

He was reviled and mocked and condemned at the time just as GWB was. There's an amazing quotation from Tip O'Neil calling him evil and uncaring about ordinary people. Hated as a stupid and reckless extremist then, soul of moderation and crypto-liberalism now.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, thanks for the Yglesias link with the chart. Lots of interesting ways to go with it. Neurosciences stuck out for me as a place where women had a higher percentage than I might have expected.

But for the purposes of the conversation here, I have two main points.
First, the number of women in history and political science who might be expected to be in the pool of people providing political info and opinion is substantially greater than the percentage of women who seem to be actually doing it, whether by editorial or personal choice. Secondly, given the dominance of women in English, that VIDA report about the greater number of men publishing in even literary magazines and having more of their books reviewed is even more striking.

I'm still in speculative mode about all this, but I'm wondering if there's a lag factor that means at some level there's still an idea that men will be more professional and have better ideas and should of course be foregrounded. Old assumptions die hard, maybe even for many of the women who need to not only do the good work that develops their ideas but to find the confidence to put them out there. Or men may still feel that if they publish one woman or give her another platform,
they've done enough.

There's of course still the factor that many of the women who are pushed forwarded are offered as some sort of distraction as in the
Republicans' recent flock of Ditzy Chicks.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 5, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama is trying to hand a piece of the Egyptian government over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

That is a formula for a disaster: the act of an unqualified and inexperienced person who has zero idea what he is doing.

ONCE the Muslim Brotherhood comes into the government in any form, there is little to PREVENT them from taking over completely - or exercising significant control.

This is extremely serious.

Obama has zero idea what he is doing. He has not made sure the intelligence community has adequate resources in the Middle East. The US intelligence community messed up - same thing happened under Clinton. The democrats treat the intelligence community as near-criminals, and usually tries to STARVE them by cutting their budgets.


Clinton did the SAME THING.


Clinton is guilty of negligence with regard to 9/11. Clinton did not fund the intelligence community properly, and Clinton allowed/directed the withdrawl of many intelligence resources out of the Middle East.

NOW who does Obama have in charge of the CIA? A Clinton person.

Getting back to Obama - he has zero idea what he is doing.


WE CAN NOT ALLOW THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO ENTER THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT


If Obama allows that, his LOYALTY to American national security interests HAS TO BE PUT INTO QUESTION.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

""Some of us like Whale Oil Lamps, as well as Electric Light Bulbs. Why not allow both?""

Apparently Liam is under the impression that whale oil lamps disappeared because of government regulation. Buggy whips, too?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

I'm not sure how well I got across what I tried about lmsinca's questions. Simplied and without trying to be partisan, my main point was that, one answer to the question "If the law is black and white, why to judges disagree and come out on partisan sides," is that one "side" one side simply views "the law" as more black and white than the other. They both think their approach is the correct one.

One thinks that looking for clear, bright lines and following them wherever they go is the proper approach. The other thinks that looking at things as having a range of possibilities and choosing the more "right" result based on higher purposes is the better approach. Camp A looks at Camp B as lawless activists, Camp B looks at Camp A as secretly or unconsciously doing the same thing, or as inhumane and hidebound.

Now, these are obviously simplifications. But these are the kinds of issues argued in the "rules versus standards" and "text versus living constitution" debates carried on between Scalia and Breyer and many academics (Duncan Kennedy).

Whether one views the relationships as inherent or circumstantial, the Scalia view tends to be identified with political conservatism and the Breyer view with the other side, and these rough lines of division seem to be clear in the current Court lineup. You're absolutely right that most cases don't bring out these differences, but the hot-button ones tend to.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

President Reagan was not a bad old sort. I did not agree with almost all his political views, but he was willing to sit down and toss down a jar or two, and exchange stories, and negotiate legislative proposals with Tip O'Neill.

I understand why he was very popular. He was a likeable guy, who always had a twinkle in his eye.

I say; let the Republicans celebrate The Gipper's life and times. We should be big enough to not begrudge them that.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse

There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg has been pushing, non-stop, the Liberal Agenda, without basing much on facts or reasoning. Everyday - links to far-left writings. Everyday - nonsense printed as fact. If this blog is supposed to be all opinion, Greg does little to make that clear.

The harassment and disrespect shown to opposing views is inappropriate in a major American daily.


Greg has even threatened to murder his readers - just like the Nazis.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

LED bulbs are going to soon replace Fluorescent bulbs, so all you Luddites; get ready to start tearing your hair out once more.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Did I mention that Journo-list operates the same way the Nazis did?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

qb/Mark:

I am curious. In constitutional law circles, is there a wide consensus that Roe was a good decision, bad decision, or does it remain highly contentious? And by good/bad I mean supported/not supported by the constitution, not whether it is a good/bad law.

I have read a few articles in which even supporters of abortion acknowledge that Roe has little constitutional merit, but I have no idea whether those represent a wider consensus or not.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"Apparently Liam is under the impression that whale oil lamps disappeared because of government regulation. Buggy whips, too? "

And you're under the impression that Liddy's argument had something to do with government intrusion as opposed to it being around because an American invented it.

Good reading comprehension, dude. I guess that you could actually string words and phrases together makes you the Smartest Conservative Ever.

(also that you understand that humans and cats and dogs are different organisms!)

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3 -- Do you know which president refused to veto the Energy Independence and Security Act of 200_?

:lol:
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"Bernie:-""we ought to at least be alert to this correspondence between neoconservativism and liberalism.""

Scott: Funny, but when I pointed this out to you last year in a thread about the origins of neoconservatism, you didn't seem to be all that "alert" to it"

I have no recollection of what you speak of here. But I began studying neoconservatism over a decade ago and have been aware of this correspondence since then. In reality, the matter is more complex (Elliot Abrams' history is relevant and shows the "realist" side of neoconservativism when it achieves power).

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Liam is under the impression that whale oil lamps disappeared because of government regulation. Buggy whips, too?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 12:25 PM |
.......................

You used to use Buggy Whips for illumination? Now I understand why you are always in the dark!

Buggy Whips provided green clean energy, so of course there was no need to regulate them. The Amish energy bills are always very low.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Did I mention that Journo-list operates the same way the Nazis did?

Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA = Journolist.


Really simple.


Anyway - there is little difference between Nazi tactics and Reconciliation -

The complete lack of legitimacy is the same.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

TO.......RainForestRising

I don't read comments here (or post here) all that often, and I don't know how to use the software gizmo to put you on ignore.

I gather that the regular comment readers/posters do have you on the "electronic ignore" b/c they cannot take your posting bombardment (at least), and even pre-gizmo they ignored you in their own individual ways.

So it seems that the only persons you MIGHT reach with your posts are those occasional readers/posters like me. But any sentient being reading the comments quickly figures out that whatever of value you might have to say is not worth the effort of wading through your bombardment.

(On the issue of "saying something of value" I should note that I have never seen any such from you, but I look at the question "Does he have valuable things to say" based on the infinite monkey theorem which holds that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.)

Anyhow, do you ever think about volunteering at a charity, or taking up meditation, or going for long walks, or seeking psychatric help? Why don't you think about the infinite possibilities?

Any of those things has gotta beat the dreadful existence you have established for yourself posting on a comment board where the regulars have you on "electronic ignore" and the others like me just skip over your posts because of the sheer volume and the fact that you seem to say the same things over and over.

Sincerely,

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence “Why not allow BOTH?”

By your logic why were we forced to buy cars with a catylitic converter after a certain date? What about CAFÉ standards….how does the stinking government get away with telling auto manufacturers they can’t manufacture a fleet that gets 3 miles to the gallon.
Freaking socialists!!!!

@lmsinca “A lot of us feel we're not getting the best deal from the Fourth Estate.”

As a once proud former member of the 4th Estate may I suggest it’s more than feel you have lmsinca…it’s real.

This is just one of the reasons I go nuckin’ futs when any moron tries to equate Fox News being “Fair and Balanced” with virtually ANY other organization. They are not only a joke on that issue of fairness and balance…they have led the way in the dumbing down and destruction of our 4th Estate. Toss in a political campaign where the directors hid a Vice Presidential candidate from even ONE open press conference with genuine journalists…a tactic they freely admitted to at the time…and post election gave the actual reasons..the candidate was embarrassingly unprepared to serve in such a high position and so they deliberately hid her to prevent Americans from ascertaining she was unqualified. Some patriots eh?

For me as a “former journalist” I look at intellectually lacking, or perhaps simply intellectually dishonest folks who try and pretend Fox is anything but what it is…FAR from fair and balanced with much the same feeling an Astro Physicist might have upon discovering that Ivy League schools are going to begin teaching that the earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth. That man who spent his life learning better would I suspect be just as upset with that horrible science as I am by Fox’s horrible disservice in passing themselves off as “Fair and Balanced” or journalists period…they are not!

Another disservice of Fox is the “Fox Geezer” syndrome. Remember that link Greg provided earlier in the week that was the opinion of 8 CONSERVATIVES..two of whom actually served in R Administrations. When noticing how incredibly and irrationally hostile( can you say rainman, Clawrence, KDE, ?) their parents had become towards Obama they wondered why? One of them spent a week visiting his folks where Fox TV blared all day on the TV. His conclusion as a CONSERVATIVE…if he watched Fox news all day he’d be really pissed off too. Nothing like lying, distorting, and preying upon their target audience..mostly older folks..worst fears. I’ve described what it has done to my own 85 year old mother..herself a “Fox Geezer” and it pisses me off big time. I get that people enjoy watching “what they want to hear” but calling it fair and balanced or even suggesting it’s journalism simply reveals the incredible ignorance of the person holding that opinion.
As Forrest said so simply…”Stupid is as stupid does”. Fox lovers come pre identified!

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I have grown accustomed to STRF.

He has become Plumline's Ronnie Woo Woo. ( Cubs fans will understand that reference.)

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

as Forrest said so simply…”Stupid is as stupid does”. Fox lovers come pre identified!

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 12:48 PM
.............................

Luddites like Claw/AKA JakeD, love to live in the past.

" Do you want to go see Cher?"

"No"

"Why not?"

"Because it is not 1975"

Ricky Gervais.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Did I mention that Journo-list operates the same way the Nazis did?

Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA = Journolist.


Really simple.


Anyway - there is little difference between Nazi tactics and Reconciliation -

The complete lack of legitimacy is the same.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

@smd1234

Thanks for trying to help us with rainman! Doubt that you’ll have much luck since regulars here from both the right and the left have tried repeatedly without success.
You made a wonderfully cogent case however…we can always hope.

However smd1234 “the infinite monkey theorem”…that was classic. I love it.
Does that also mean smd1234 that if we hang around here long enough, the laws of probability and statistics mean..if we have INFINITE patience one day we might stumble upon a post from rainman that made sense and was actually worth reading? :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

smd

I'm not sure what you would consider "of value"

As for the regular posters, they have already made up their minds. They have never been my target audience - and never been my following.


Greg gets a great deal of readers because of my hyperbole.


MY only question to you is why do you hate hyperbole ?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Liam

I have met Ronnie Woo Woo

I have known Ronnie Woo Woo


And let me ask you - what is wrong with Ronnie Woo Woo.


He is a good man. He is friendly, probably never hurt a fly in his life.


What is wrong with you to bring up such a topic.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

ruk -- I addressed some of your questions from last night, above.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Cubs Woo! Harry Carey Woo! Cubs Woo! Ron Santo Woo! Cubs Woo! STRF Woo. Cubs Woo! Hyperbole Woo! Cubs Woo! Doormat Of The National League Woo!

A Dying Cubs Fan's Last Request.(God rest Steve Goodman)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xBxZGQ1dJk

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Liam

Please be specific

Because you are apparently saying something negative about this person without basis

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

TO......ScottC3

Hope this helps.
The criticism of Roe that "it created an abortion right out of whole cloth" is unfounded.

THIS article (below) from Harvard Law Review in 1890 IS NOT about abortion but is an early exploration by some brilliant scholars (and Brandeis was later on the US Supreme Court) concerning the right of privacy.

From the constitution the Court in Roe found there is a right of privacy - - building on what the Court wrote in the Griswold* case mainly - - and from that the right to be free TO A NOT UNLIMITED extent from the efforts of government to regulate what a woman DECIDES about her own body.

*(see Wkipedia . . . Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy.)

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

excerpts from the article:

It is our purpose to consider whether the existing law affords a principle which can properly be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual; and, if it does, what the nature and extent of such protection is.

. . .
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the protection afforded to thoughts, sentiments, and emotions, expressed through the medium of writing or of the arts, so far as it consists in preventing publication, is merely an instance of the enforcement of the more general right of the individual to be let alone.
. . .
We must therefore conclude that the rights, so protected, whatever their exact nature, are not rights arising from contract or from special trust, but are rights as against the world; and, as above stated, the principle which has been applied to protect these rights is in reality not the principle of private property, unless that word be used in an extended and unusual sense. The principle which protects personal writings and any other productions of the intellect of or the emotions, is the right to privacy, and the law has no new principle to formulate when it extends this protection to the personal appearance, sayings, acts, and to personal relation, domestic or otherwise.

Samuel D. Warren,

Louis D. Brandeis.

BOSTON, December, 1890.

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

@jprestonian

Thanks. Yes I saw your answer. Alas as I have mentioned to Kevin and Tao, you guys are way above my paygrade when it comes to computer skills.

Still I appreciate your efforts now if we could just convince Greg to try your program out here at the WaPo. I suspect Greg has only marginally more influence over WaPo techies than we do...otherwise I'm sure he would have already had a solution implemented.

Greg is a smart man and he knows from posts like smd1234's above that his blog participation suffers because of the lack of ability to ID and let software skip over the blog idiots instead of us having to manually scroll.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

qb

""But the liberals' claim to him is a bit of a stretch (to say the least).""

I'm certainly not claiming him, I thought the point of the piece I linked to was that he was not in actuality quite as conservative as he either wanted to be or was able to be and left the door open for liberal policy.

The reason I find it interesting is because he is such a shining example of true conservatism from many of the Tea Party members and candidates, which is relevant as we head into primary season don't you think?

Posted by: lmsinca | February 5, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

rukidding

Comments like Smd are ASTROTURF

Do you know what that is?

It is the Obama paid trolls attempting to SILENCE AMERICAN CITIZENS with bogus comments.


And bogus complaints.


WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU????


Never seen a smear you didnt SPREAD, RIGHT?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

STFR:

Specific in a hyperbolic way?

Or hyperbolic in a specific way?

I just wanted to ask you to clarify, on behalf of those legions of readers who come to Plumline, just to digest your huge servings of "Hyperbole". Woo Woo!

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Liam

Thousands, thousand, hundreds of thousands

All crying out -

Liam - what do you have against Ronnie Woo Woo -

Seriously - you decided to smear this individual


So what is the basis of these negative comments - seriously man.


Let's hear it.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Van Morrison - Tupelo Honey - Live with great solo by Pee Wee Ellis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5GMHzPeEyA

If you do not love this, someone should call your local coroner immediately.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 1:34 PM | Report abuse

mark

If I can ask a clarifying question, are activist judges ones who expand the matter before the court, is that what you're saying? In other words both RvW and CU were decisions that went beyond the matter as it was presented or does activism also contain an element of political persuasion? I'm just asking for your opinion on the matter and not as an absolute obviously.

qb

""One thinks that looking for clear, bright lines and following them wherever they go is the proper approach. The other thinks that looking at things as having a range of possibilities and choosing the more "right" result based on higher purposes is the better approach.

Camp A looks at Camp B as lawless activists, Camp B looks at Camp A as secretly or unconsciously doing the same thing,""

This begs the question, how did we get the justification for torture from Camp A? I'm not trying to start a fight, it's something I never understood.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 5, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

smd:

""Hope this helps. ""

Thanks, but it doesn't. I wasn't looking for a justification for Roe. I was curious if there was a consensus in constitutional law circles regarding whether it was in fact justified or not.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

TO.......RainForestRising

There is nothing in the earlier post I directed to you indicating that I hate hyperbole, and I'm not going to debate nonsense with you - - and nonsense is precisely what I deem any statement that asks me to recognize inherent value in hyperbolic posting.

You might wish to revisit what I said, after pointing out that the regulars have you on "electronic ignore" i.e., "any sentient being reading the comments quickly figures out that whatever of value you might have to say is not worth the effort of wading through your bombardment."

I believe your statement "Greg gets a great deal of readers because of my hyperbole" is merely part of an entire life-construct you have imagined, based in self-delusion, HOWEVER, if you have evidence of that please do post it so I and others can assess it and perhaps reevaluate.

For the moment I am 100% skeptical of what you say.

As to the question of value, see above my repeat of my earlier statement, i.e., it doesn't matter if there is what you consider "value" in the hyperbole - - if no one bothers to read your posts due to "the sheer volume and the fact that you seem to say the same things over and over."

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

ruk: ""Thanks. Yes I saw your answer. Alas as I have mentioned to Kevin and Tao, you guys are way above my paygrade when it comes to computer skills.

Still I appreciate your efforts now if we could just convince Greg to try your program out here at the WaPo. I suspect Greg has only marginally more influence over WaPo techies than we do...otherwise I'm sure he would have already had a solution implemented.""

Well, Steve's the guy who wrote and conceived of FortyToo -- I had some input, given that we both visit the blog for which it was originally intended. For reasons unknown, that blog's owner never implemented it.

I can't program anything -- I can do HTML and CSS, but even writing original JavaScript is beyond my ability. I make stuff look good and/or more user-friendly. Much of the time, it's little things, like not installing the brake pedal on the right, since people are used to that being the place for the gas pedal. :)

Interested in your take on FortyToo, if/when. http://jprestonian.blogspot.com -- keeping in mind this is the original, non-spiffy interface.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

SMD

the regulars you are referring to are the liberals - who will be nasty and mean no matter what. They are cruel to people who do not agree with them.

I have little use for these kinds of uncivil people.


They are not the only ones who read these comments. So, I am writing for everyone else - those who are not frozen in their flawed liberal thinking.


Sorry to disappoint you.

If you want to read comments from all people who agree with you - seek that out.

Otherwise,


Otherwise this is AMERICA We have Freedom of Speech.

The basis of Freedom of Speech is TOLERANCE, NOT CONFORMITY.


If you wish conformity, perhaps North Korea is the place for you.


The other problem around these parts is the Obama paid trolls - constantly manufacturing "complaints" about people with whom they do not agree.

This is an attempt to SILENCE AMERICAN CITIZENS for their own political purposes.


I find these people scum who will be in hell.

In any event I find any attempt to discourage anyone from exercising their Freedom of Speech to be OFFENSIVE TO DEMOCRACY ITSELF.


I hope you understand where I am coming from


If you don't like the Speech, tolerance is the way to go.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

SMD

The week I left Cillizza's blog, the readership feel off dramatically.


Sorry but that is true. People can still post there - but the place is now roadkill.


I really don't care - I just want to state my mind. I don't care if people are reading or not. The liberals make such a big deal about whether they are going to read or not.


Half of them are Obama paid trolls - so why should I care? When the payroll funds dry up, they are gone.

There is a guy named Ethan who disappeared one day. Probably a paid troll.


So, please just stop -


I actually believe you are an Obama paid troll - however I figured I would take a few moments to explain this to you, on the remote chance you are a genuine innocent party who just showed up one day.

However, that is unlikely - you are probably just another paid troll trying to SILENCE someone.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

TO.......ScottC3

"constitutional law circles"

There are various.
MOST constitutional law professors would agree with the results in Griswold and in Roe but they HAVE A NON-STATIC view about constitutional interpretatio (the opposite of Scalia and Thomas, who are really FOS in my opinion, and their approach is waaaay outside the mainstream).

The professors are where the SCHOLARSHIP comes from, though whether you credit the rigor of the individual work is case by case.

The bottom line is that folks who have a POV because their politics or their livelihood depends on it - - esp. the paid lawyers and organization directors - - come to their opinions from a far different place than tenured professors who have a higher level of independence simply by the nature of their work.

JMHO

smd

look here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/sg_con.htm

and
http://www.constitution.org/cs_organ.htm

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm...when claw flipped out the other day about Obama taking away our incandescent light bulbs, I knew there must be a new wave of rightwing butthurt coming. By next month, it will be everywhere. It will be just as stupid as most other rightwing episodes of outraged butthurt, because it will not only be based on the demonstrable lie that it's all Obama's fault (the new efficiency standards were passed in 2007) but also because it's more likely that incandescents won't be going anywhere. As noted here: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/can-incandescent-bulbs-be-made-efficient/ and many other places, the new standards have prompted research into what can be done to make incandescents more efficient. Not to mention that there are already a number of efficient alternatives to the CFL (which I personally can't stand) on the market - go to the Philips website and you'll see a number of alternatives to CFL which meet the new efficiency standards, including incandescents.

Your free market at work, dude. Though sometimes it has to be goosed by an "artificial" outside force to spur innovation...given human nature, you'd never get rid of the energy wasting bulbs as long as they remained available, since consumers don't notice the energy savings on their electric bill as readily as they notice that the inefficient bulbs cost $.50 at the store as opposed to the efficient one costing $5. They save in the long run thanks to the lower energy usage and longer life of the bulb - but most of us are built to notice what's right in front of us and will keep reaching for the less expensive option whenever it's presented in the here and now.

I realize that it's horrible government oppression to make you pay more for a bulb that does the same thing and costs less in the long run to operate, but the sky isn't falling quite yet, Chicken Little.

Posted by: JennOfArk | February 5, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

SMD

Well - if you think you have a great deal to add "of value" go ahead, let's see it.

However, all most of the liberals post here is complete garbage and nonsense.


Illogical "nuances" which ignore political reality are Greg Sargent's speciality.

Greg Sargent is also a specialist in repeating himself - somehow thinking that if he would just post the same thing one more time, all the flaws in his thinking would instantly vanish.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

TO.....Liam

There have been great remasters of Van Morrison, check out the live albums also.

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I have used only Mini CFLs for the past six years, and I love them. Not one of them has failed yet. I found them on sale for just a dollar each.

The LED bulbs are being worked on, by several companies, so they will be improving and the prices will keep dropping. At this time they are still far too expensive, and they have not yet gotten rid of the blue light cast that they shed.

One thing to keep any eye out for, in the not too distant future; is OLED, as a relatively inexpensive, and super energy efficient way of illuminating living spaces.

OLED. Organic Light Emitting Diodes.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

TO.......RainForestRising

Regarding your posts
1:56 PM
2:00 PM
2:11 PM

I just posted:
it doesn't matter if there is what you consider "value" in the hyperbole - - if no one bothers to read your posts due to "the sheer volume and the fact that you seem to say the same things over and over."

AND YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD AND PROVE MY POINT.

MY G_D MAN,

A. you are a dolt
B. you need help

GET HELP.

smd

1:56There is nothing in the earlier post I directed to you indicating that I hate hyperbole, and I'm not going to debate nonsense with you - - and nonsense is precisely what I deem any statement that

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

SMD

I suppose you should be able to find significant value in hyperbole as you grow.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Santelli on the unemployment rate:


"Oh boy, guys! 16.1 [percent] is probably the unemployment rate. That's cause celebre," Rick sarcastically shouted on the trading floor of the Chicago mercantile exchange.

"But it fell from 16.7," Liesman insisted.

Santelli continued to criticize the spin: "You know what Steve? You and I both know that the unemployment rate, the labor force moving in and out, those giving up, is really probably your best statistical reason for the drop to 9.0 (percent). And in terms of jobs, you, Mr. Steve Liesman, said if you work just one day. If you stay home but you get paid you're counted in the data …"

"Right - it shouldn't be weather," Liesman acknowledged. Some of the panelists including Moody's economist Mark Zandi had blamed weather for drops in construction and other sectors.

"So this is probably less distorted," Santelli concluded.

But the fact that the two different economic surveys conducted by the BLS were moving in different directions was baffling to many. Even the liberal Economic Policy Institute noted on its blog that the picture was "muddled."


Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

smd:

Thanks.

BTW, if Scalia is so far out of the "mainstream", how did he manage to get confirmed by the Senate 98-0? And didn't he have the ABA's highest rating when he was nominated?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

TO.....Liam

There have been great remasters of Van Morrison, check out the live albums also.

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 2:12 PM |

.........................

Thanks,

I already own a CD collection of almost all his records.

Have you listened to Listen To The Lion? It is also available on Youtube.

I used to be able to watch the video of his Austin City Limits appearance, online, but I can no longer find it.

It was a PBS show, so I will see if they have offered a DVD copy off the show.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 2:26 PM | Report abuse

SMD

I find you to be lying about who you are. Rarely would someone come onto the blog and start a fight with someone else.

So, you might be someone posting under a different name.


OR you are some pathetic Obama paid troll, like a drug dealer, pushing the Obama nonsense of the day.


We don't need people like you around.

First, I attempted, nicely, to explain things to you.

Second, you have now launched into the nasty comments, ad hominem attacks.


Again, not the actions of a new person, but a paid troll, working for some pathetic organization trying to push their lies onto the American People.


If you would like to blog only with people who agree with you - go find that place.

Perhaps North Korea you can find people who are all uniform in what they say.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

@ABC - re neurosciences, I guessed that one related to the surge in women going into medicine (and their longer tenure in the various psychotherapies - the psychoanalytic community follows advances in neuroscience very closely).

Re the other surmises, it's a tough set of questions. The primate studies I did leads me pretty inexorably to a genetic factor in here but clearly culture can, to some degree, over-ride what seem to be inherent propensities. Outside of the roller-derby types, women seem to avoid spheres of conflict and politics is one of those. As I prefer your gender to my own, my hope is that we'll continue to see women moving into politics. Any differences won't relate to competence but rather to the aggression/dominance/conflict stuff that males fall more easily towards. Thus I'd have zero objection to formal or informal quotas.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

SMD

You have claimed you are new. AND you claim that you have your idea of a standard for comments on this blog.


Well, other people also have their ideas.


You really have no point. If you have such HIGH STANDARDS for comments, let's see it. POST.

Let's see how fantastic your comments are.


Many of the liberals who post here, and complain have ZERO content to their postings beyond the "party-line talking points" All they do is repeat the party-line like a bunch of Communists out of Stalinist Russia.


________________

However, the analogy - that the liberals have adopted tactics like the NAZIS - that seems to be most fitting.

Journo-list, Reconciliation, changing the law in Massachusetts, all the games with the ballots in Minnesota, turning off the credit card controls on the Obama campaign computers - ALL NAZI TACTICS


Give us a break.


You can take your attitude elsewhere.


AND like I said, if you have such high standards, for comment, LETS SEE IT, POST AWAY.


By the way, complaints about other people are not quality comments. Attacks on other posters are not high quality comments.


And in generaly, whining is not a high quality comment either.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Smd is beginning to sound alot like.... 12Barblues.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3
The history is here*, good enough for a start.
1. Being in the mainstream never matters depending on the national mood - this was 1986. And, as best exemplified by Thomas, one need not be a scholar to be put up for appointment.
2. Scalia is brilliant
3. Conservatives LOVED him, and he had relatively little paper trail. He was part of the right's effort to stack the court to overturn Roe and the New Deal.
4. There IS a group of originalist constitutional scholars, of which Scalia is the most prominent, so he is/was not out there alone. And there is a lawyers group the conservatives formed to incubate conservatives for court appointments - See Federalist Society.
(Thomas is a moron and a wack-job, with really no scholarly credentials.)
5. Scalia looked good compared to the other guy on the short list, a true wack-job named Bork, whose later nomination to the court was actually defeated (President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987.)
6. When Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Scalia's nomination opened in August 1986, he faced a committee that had just wrangled over the Rehnquist nomination.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia

smd

PS-

For anyone interested in the right of privacy, you can listen to the oral arguments in Griswold

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496

Facts of the Case:

Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question:

Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion:

Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for Griswold, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""As I prefer your gender to my own, my hope is that we'll continue to see women moving into politics. Any differences won't relate to competence but rather to the aggression/dominance/conflict stuff that males fall more easily towards. Thus I'd have zero objection to formal or informal quotas. ""

How might such quotas in politics work? Would you want a law stipulating that in half of all electoral districts, only females are allowed to run for office? How would you pick which ones would be female only? Would the others be male only? Would each state get one male Senator and one female Senator? Would each presidential ticket require a female as either the presidential or the vice-presidential nominee?
Would "roller-derby types" be disqualified from fulfilling the female quota regulations?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 2:56 PM | Report abuse

smd:

Well, if you think Thomas is a "moron" and Bork is a "whack-job", you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your judgment of things all that seriously.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

@Liam

Thanks for the Van Morrison link...he is a "special" vocalist. In fact at the risk of irritating you a bit...consider my age:-)...
The two greatest vocalists IMHO to come out of what we Yanks called the "British Invasion"...I know perhaps a bit crude to insert a Celt in a "British" invasion but I trust you get my meaning...Anyway...love Van Morrison but I'm also a huge fan of one of his contemporaries Eric Burdon.
Van probably gets higher marks on "intrepretation" but Burdon does have an incredible voice and he too can use it with feeling. If you listen much to the old Animals you also realize he sings about topics that touch our "shanty" Irish
"working class" hearts...even if he was English.:-)

Lately though I've been listening to the guy I believe to be one of the greatest artists to come out of the 60's U.S. music scene...Sam Cooke. What a performer..."Bring it on home" "You Send Me" "Chain Gang" and what a writer...I spent yesterday listening to Sam's greatest hits and I had forgotten just how powerful and timeless "A Change is Gonna Come"...

A link for a great piece of music...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQU4torUz-Q

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

@smd1234

Wow...another person with a brain on this blog. We are assembling quite a few and when they gather at once it's easy for me to absorb some much needed humility.

While I agree with your posts that's not really essential to my appreciation. There are several righties here able to post cogently in a manner that reveals their ability to think critically. And perhaps Mark in Austin an attorney also agrees with at least one part of your SC posts...yesterday he said 8 of the 9 current Supremes were brilliant. Mark is too nice and even handed a man to name names..but I suspect we all have pretty much the same guess..but Mark obviously can speak for himself if he wishes to "out" the Supreme who is not brilliant.

At any rate I hope you'll stick around and join that small but growing crowd of folks here with some impressive intellects who whip out very cogent posts.

Soon however you'll bore of rainman and be happy to engage more worthy posters...just sayin'.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Rukidding,

I love Sam Cooke. He passed way too young. I also loved Jackie Wilson.

Jackie Wilson's unique version of Danny Boy.

If you haven't discover it already; you should check out Van Morrison's double disc release: Hymns To The Silence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0RbiZNqQU

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Rukidding,

I think this one is right in your wheelhouse:

The Ballad Of The Ordinary Man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsmAMKUIXbE

I am off to visit some relatives, so have a great weekend all.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Why is the Left so happy to talk about Egypt ? Sarah Palin ? or civility ?

U.S. UNEMPLOYMENT AT 9.0% +36,000 JOBS...
CANADA +69,200...

GALLUP: Unemployment actually at 9.9%...
'Under-employment' at 19.2%...

Labor Force Participation Plunges To Fresh 26 Year Low...

Ah !!

Posted by: pvilso24 | February 5, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

TO.....ScottC3

There are plenty of conservative scholars with credibility who think clearly, and add meaningfully to our national debates, and to our debates within the field of law.

BORK is a professor at a law school that US News and World Report ranks in the fourth tier - Ave Maria School of law. HEARD IF IT? I doubt it. Before that he was on the gravy train of conservative think tanks.

Here is a Wikipedia tidbit on a Bork decision many years after Griswold and more than a decade after Roe:
"One of his opinions while on the D.C. Circuit was Dronenburg v. Zech, 741 F.2d 1388, decided in 1984. This case involved James L. Dronenburg, a sailor who had been administratively discharged from the Navy for engaging in homosexual conduct. Dronenburg argued that his discharge violated his right to privacy. This argument was rejected in an opinion written by Bork and joined by (now U.S. Supreme Court Justice) Antonin Scalia, in which Bork critiqued the line of Supreme Court cases upholding a right to privacy. In rejecting Dronenburg's suggestion for a rehearing en banc, the D.C. Circuit issued four separate opinions, including one by Bork (again joined by Justice Scalia), who wrote: "no principle had been articulated [by the Supreme Court] that enabled us to determine whether appellant's case fell within or without that principle." "

COMPLETELY DISINGENUOUS !!!!!!!

Thomas is certainly not in the group of conservative scholars with credibility.
With Bork it is a bit debatable, but his writings are inconsistent and he should never have been put up for the Court. He was an ideological choice, well out of the range of realistic discussion, not even one of those conservatives whose presence would have improved the thinking and decision-making of the Court's liberals.

See how legal scholars/thinkers are cited, and one measure of quality is a conservative whose thinking is respected enough to be cited by scholars across the political spectrum. Neither Thomas nor Bork would rank highly on that scale. I'd venture to say Thomas' "thinking" is almost never cited except by other ultra-conservatives, and Bork is not often cited.

So there. Disagree all you wish, but I stand by my "hyperbolic" characterizations. LOL

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

""Why is the Left so happy to talk about Egypt ? Sarah Palin ? or civility ?""

Look no further than the GOP-controlled House to see what the conservative priorities for the nation happen to be.

* Redifining rape
* Repealing PPACA
* Threatening to place the U.S. in default on its debts

Jobs? Not so much... or, not at all.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

@Scott - First, I'd allocate the placement of roller derby types to a personal guard corps for Andrew Breitbart and as flight attendants on Rush's Gulfstream. Any left over can be accommodated within the Teamsters or hired on as referees within the Canadian junior hockey system (we're an inclusive nation).

But yeah, working out quota systems is always tricky in practice. So informal is the better word in my earlier statement. But I'm far less concerned with stipulative legislation on such a matter than I am with the effective marginalization and disempowerment of one gender in governance. Now, if there was a meritocratic argument here (as in, for example, distance peeing) then a restriction on such placements would have weight. Otherwise not.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

TO.....rukidding7

Thanks for the kind words of welcome. I have been here before and posted every so often.

I read much more than I post.

Nice to see some non-polictics posts peppered here and there by Liam and others.

And I am very pleased that my posts today have been taken to heart by RainForestRising who apparently has decided to take a position crafting word salad for SarahPalin™'s upcoming efforts at coarsening our national debates.

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

TO.....rukidding7

Thanks for the kind words of welcome. I have been here before and posted every so often.

I read much more than I post.

Nice to see some non-polictics posts peppered here and there by Liam and others.

And I am very pleased that my posts today have been taken to heart by RainForestRising who apparently has decided to take a position crafting word salad for SarahPalin(TM)'s upcoming efforts at coarsening our national debates.

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

smd1234 -- You may have seen the link before, but:

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

smd1234 -- You may have seen the link before, but:

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"For me as a “former journalist” I look at intellectually lacking, or perhaps simply intellectually dishonest folks who try and pretend Fox is anything but what it is…FAR from fair and balanced with much the same feeling an Astro Physicist might have upon discovering that Ivy League schools are going to begin teaching that the earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth."

No, you really don't. It isn't science, and you look at it as a partisan. That's obvious to anyone who reads these increasingly hyper screeds of yours.

I don't really even like Fox. I think all the TV "news" is low quality. But you've simply let partisanship run away with your judgment if you think Fox is somehow different from MSNBC or any of the rest. You just have a different POV.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

As a further note on the Kristol Weekly Standard alarum that some folks on the right are getting too nutty, here's something from Mike Allen quoted by Laura Rosen at Politico...

"BEHIND THE CURTAIN -- CONSERVATIVES PLAN TO USE EGYPT TO ATTACK OBAMA NEXT WEEK – E-mail with subject line “Developing story idea for you,” from Joe Brettell of CRC Public Relations, which represents many conservative policy groups: “Dear Mr. Allen, Given the confluence of stories in the last couple weeks regarding Egypt and the Middle East, rising oil prices and challenging economic numbers, I wanted to suggest a story that looks at the parallels between the challenges faced by President’s Carter and Obama. Obviously, there have been whispers about the similarities, but not a lot of actual stories that have taken it on objectively; it’s a brewing angle and I think you should be the one to write it…. You can expect a big push on this from conservatives in the next week or so.” (Joe and I know each other, so the "Dear Mr. Allen" was the tip-off it was a mass pitch, not a personal e-mail. Let's see who bites!)"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0211/Behind_the_curtain_conservatives_plan_Egypt_attack.html

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Let's see here...back to reality...ok, I ca see right away the Egyptian military will control the transition, no surprise there and also no surpsise, GOP always and forever fronting Ronald Reagan hagiography so to distract their voters from the party's intellectual bankruptcy...did I miss anything?

Canada is cold and beautiful and ice climbing is harder than I thought and I thought it was hard. But skiing in the modern gear is a breeze, not as pretty as the old days, but oh so easy on the knees (and quads). That is important because modern lifts are so fast and the Great Recession has eliminated lift lines, so you can get as much vertical as you can handle.

Hope everyone had a good week. Talk to you soon.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 5, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, I'm not for quotas for all the reasons people are not for quotas. What I'm concerned about is the loss to our broader conversation about politics when women's voices are marginalized in this area for whatever reason--their own avoidance of the fray, subtle or overt bias by those who make editorial choices, whatever the reasons might be. And maybe one way to start addressing the discrepancy is by pointing out that it exists. Transparency and all that.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 5, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

@ABC

Just a note of thanks. I've hit Amazon and ordered "The Age of Grief". Amazon of course let's you have a free "sample" of any book you're considering. The first page convinced me of Smiley's writing prowess.
She is very talented. I'm looking forward to the book's arrival next week.

My wife the Dentist is also looking forward to reading. My wife is not a writer but she does appreciate good literature...as well as some bad :-). She loves a good story and Smiley's writing will be a bonus.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Vitter screws up on his link in this tweet...

"The Hill: Vitter says Obama favors ideology over science, is 'attacking traditional energy'. Http://bit.ly/icUlX"

But it's the "attacking traditional energy" bit that I love. What about steam? Way more traditional. The water-wheel? Slave power?

This movement encourages and validates (and funds) stupid.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

"Well, if you think Thomas is a "moron" and Bork is a "whack-job", you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your judgment of things all that seriously."

Probably a good idea. smd### seems to have limited familiarity with the subject matter on which he's proclaiming. Like this:

"BORK is a professor at a law school that US News and World Report ranks in the fourth tier - Ave Maria School of law. HEARD IF IT? I doubt it. Before that he was on the gravy train of conservative think tanks."

Bork must be a real loser, huh? Except that, before he was nominated to SCOTUS and "Borked" he was

-- judge of the DC Court of Appeals (considered the second highest court)

-- Solicitor General of the US (considered the most prestigious advocacy job in the US)

-- Full professor at Yale Law School (where he taught Bill and Hill)

He went to Ave Maria for reasons other than having nothing better to do. You can judge your current instructor's level of knowledge by the fact that he apparently didn't know any of this.

His dismissal of Thomas as moron is preposterous. I doubt he has ever read a Thomas opinion.

I don't think there is any real answer to your original question of how Roe is viewed in con law circles, because that's a universe that really can't be given any definition. Law school faculties have been heavily weighted to the left, like most academia, for decades mainly out of self-selection and then perpetuation. Nonetheless, it's still true that many stalwart liberals have admitted or all but admitted that Roe is dubious (and its antecedent Griswold). Even more tellingly, you have to look long and hard at this point to find credible "scholars" who hold up Roe as a good example.

The old privacy article smd### cites is not much of a basis for any argument, because Roe concerns whether there is a federal constitutional right to abortion. There plainly is nothing in the text that even suggests that there is. And we can set aside the major conceptual problem with casting something called "privacy" as protecting a procedure like abortion. (Ever scratch your head when people talk about "the government in your bedroom" if Roe were reversed?)

The Warren/Brandeis article is talking about a concept of privacy in the common law. smd tells you it didn't concern abortion, but even more importantly it didn't concern the Constitution or constitutional rights.


Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 4:34 PM | Report abuse

@ABC - Understood. I am quite happy with divergent notions on the quota thing and recognize that I can go rather further in that direction than many.
And here I'd go further than you. A minimal step, serious campaign to shame.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

TO.....ScottC3

EVIDENCE re THOMAS –
A bright Justice is curious, engaged, and views the highly skilled advocates appearing at argument as helpers - - as they typically have had a LONG time to think about the issues

A bright Justice wants to know how the skilled advocates deal with questions that elucidate the issues, probe the practical implications of questions before the Court, probe the boundaries and limits, and potential contradictions.

THOMAS doesn’t ask questions during arguments:

Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers
October 05, 2009
WASHINGTON -- A recast Supreme Court kicked off its new season Monday, with novice Justice Sonia Sotomayor immediately taking center stage.
In just an hour, the court's newest justice asked more questions than Justice Clarence Thomas has asked over the course of several years. Sotomayor's aggressive role in a Fifth Amendment case, in turn, underscored how she could put her own stamp on a court whose 2009-2010 docket is still taking shape.
"The Supreme Court is already off to a notable start, and there is so much more to come," Caroline Fredrickson, the executive director of the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers organization, said even before inaugural oral argument Monday.
. . .
The court heard two hourlong oral arguments Monday morning and postponed a third, which involved a water rights dispute between North Carolina and South Carolina. Though the cases marked the formal start of the term, Sotomayor first participated last month in a hearing on a campaign finance challenge that was carried over from the last term.
In last month's hearing, as well as the first case Monday, involving so-called Miranda rights to stay silent unless represented by an attorney, Sotomayor proved herself a dogged questioner. She spoke nearly three dozen times Monday during the argument in the case called Maryland v. Shatzer.
"Could I have a clarification of the facts for a moment?" Sotomayor asked at one point, and then pursued the attorney with four specific follow-up questions.
Thomas, as is his habit, was silent throughout the morning session.

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

JIMMY CARTER!!

Please call the White House, immediately.

Prez Barry needs some advice on:

Whatsup with Egypt????

Please hurry!!

Posted by: battleground51 | February 5, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Ims, very briefly, "activism" can include deciding a case on other than the issues presented, or readily discarding a body of case precedent law because one never thought it was correct, or writing with an active skepticism of legislative prerogative. In practice it includes all three.

Judge Reinhardt of the 9th Cir. is a liberal activist. J. Scalia is a conservative activist.

Think of a swimming pool in which the shallow end represents restraint and the deep end represents activism. Reinhardt and Scalia swim to the deep end [for opposite political beliefs] with some frequency. Brennan and Warren *often* did, too. Stevens did it sometimes. I suppose everyone does it sometimes.

Swimming on the deep end does not always change the practice of law but wading on the shallow end never does.

Scalia led the swimmers on a criminal procedure case recently where he made up/legislated a rule about custodial interrogation and the shelf life of a non-waiver of rights after a Miranda warning. I think he said "two weeks" [QB1, do you recall?]. I don't think either prosecutors or defense attorneys were discomfited, so that was activism without a price, and I am sure the Circuit Courts liked the clarity it imposed. A restraint oriented Justice might have seen this fellow, who was reinterrogated two years after his original Miranda warning, who then waived counsel and blabbed, as having no right to suppress his confession too, on a "rule of reason".
But she might have called for the Congress to establish a reasonable time frame for the "shield effect" from the warning.
Making it up from the bench is activism, although in this case, harmless, IMO.

Scott, R. v. W. is not held in high regard for its purely legal reasoning by most, regardless of their politics. But it is now precedent. It will not be expanded, I predict, and has the seeds of its own practical unmaking, as viability "outside" moves to ever earlier stages of development with advances in science.
FWIW, framing the matter as *"when can a state deny a woman health care and when can a doc be punished for giving it?"* does raise a constitutional question of the state's power vs. the liberty interest of the patient and the property and liberty interests of the doc. So the questions presented were not trivial. In the case of the abortion of a fetus, it was clear that the woman's health was not the only interest - there was the life of the fetus. Every attempt to balance was going to be difficult and I do not think R.v.W. was a trainwreck. It was more like a fire drill. You should read it.

Ddawd, a state can, it seems to me, value a third trimester fetus's life above anything but the life of the mother and as a practical matter that horrible balancing act may never occur in reality - but a doc should speak to that.


I'll tell the personal story about judicial activism another time.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 5, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

battleground: ""JIMMY CARTER!!

Please call the White House, immediately.

Prez Barry needs some advice on:

Whatsup with Egypt????

Please hurry!!""

That wouldn't be nearly as hilarious if conservatives could figure out whose side they're on in Egypt, these ten days hence.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow! That Sonja Sotomeyer is doing pretty darned good for an affirmative action, politically motivated appointee with so-so experience.

Just like a woman though.....

....yack, yack, yack!!

I hope the guys have good earplugs. They gonna needum.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 5, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

TO MY CRITIC quarterback1

Perhaps you realized this when you posted, but
I NEVER said the Warren/Brandeis article was addressing the Constitution directly, but
a. it was an early exploartion of the law's recognition of the right of privacy
b. in our republic, prey tell, what is the source of this notion of liberty they are addressing:
"The individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the new demands of society. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.
. . .
Still, the protection of society must come mainly through a recognition of the rights of the individual."

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I would be in favor of banning RainForestRising when the new comment system (?) arrives. I'm not against wacky conservative views, but I am against abuse and off-topic barrages.

Also, constant insults of the blog owner is bad form.

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Further to Scott:

Here is an argument I offer about the larger context of constitutional law that has created problems like Roe.

The Constitution and BOR set up a federal government with limited powers that was not intended to legislate in many areas it now does, and certainly not in matters like abortion. This is mainly why, for example, Madison and others argued that the BOR was unnecessary: the limited powers of the new government would not give it room to violate what were considered natural (unalienable) rights.

And note that the BOR originally applied only to the federal government, not to the states. Application of the BOR and other consitutional rights against states only came through the 14th Am and judicial interpretations of it.

States, of course, historically retained much broader powers, and were meant to. But now, after 14th Am "incorporation" of the BOR against the States, we had people coming into federal courts and claiming federal "rights" to be free from traditional state law powers of regulation.

What they really are claiming are a version of what they assert are natural rights. They aren't in the text, but people argue that they are somehow bound up or implied in notions of rights that are in the BOR, like freedom from unreasonable searches, or simply are "rights" that we as an "evolving" free society should recognize.

So, what I'm trying to say is that this phenomenon of federal courts declaring rights like abortion is an unintended consequence (and in my view an abuse) of the fact that, after the 14th Am, we had federal courts reviewing issues and rights claims they were not originally intended to address, arising from the much broader regulatory powers of states. I.e., it isn't a coincidence that an issue like Roe or Griswold arose out of state law, or that the Constitution said nothing about them.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and decided it was free to start filling in new "rights" to nullify state laws with which it disagreed.

That was a clumsy effort, but the transformation of the Constitution through the 14th is key to all this. The case that the 14th was intended to effect all this is exceedingly weak to nonexistent imo.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

@different POV? LMAO

In my entire 63 years I have never seen behavior like this except from ONE NETWORK!

During the "Ground Zero Mosque" debate...a debate ginned up by some wackjob NYC woman long after all the appropriate official hearings had provided approval for the subject.

One and only ONE network tried to milk anti-Muslim fever to the max. ONE and only one network was unconcerned that this continual Muslim bashing under the guise of the "memory of 9/11 victims" was actually helping to throw gasoline on a fire of virulent anti Muslim behavior across our land..from threats and intimidation from Cypress California to West Kendall Florida with dozens of other incidents spread across our great nation.

Against this backdrop ONE and only ONE network continued the bleating against Muslims. Because this ONE network has zero journalistic credibility (and is studied and derided in University Journalism Departments across our nation) they fell victim to their own IGNORANCE.

While Steve Dueschbag was p&mping for this ONE network..running the line...Where did the money come from for this "Mosque"? Did Dueschbag ask where the money came from for any Southern Baptist churches? Catholic Churches? Jewish Synagogues?
Of course not it didn't fit in with the narrative this ONE network was trying to PUSH! We get down to the sinister looking Arab Sheik...and he looked like one scary dude...because that is this ONE network's complete modus operandi...scare the bejeesus out of the bluehairs and baldies.
Dueshbag...where did the money come from?
Look at this scary "terrorist supporting" Arab Sheik. Be afraid...very afraid.
Oh..only problem was that scary picture of the Arab Sheik was just one pic of him...others existed that this ONE network could have used...as in a pic of this "suspected terrorist" Sheik hugging G.W. Bush. But it gets better! Where did the money come from? This Sheik also happens to be a major investor in Rupert Murdoch's various holdings including a substantial holding in...wait for it..this exact same network asking ominously..Where did the money come from? It literally came in part from profits of the very network doing the whining! Only ONE network fails this miserably.

In as much as checking sources, being impartial...as in not literally promoting and funding political rallies like the tea party..in as much as thinking the truth matters..is an "opinion"it is a widely..virtually universal "among" serious journalists, University Journalism departments, that this ONE network stands alone in it's total disregard for actual journalism.

Only ONE network showcases several Presidential candidates all from the same party. Balance? Really here is another "opinion". To borrow a name first bestowed on skippy...anybody who suggest fox news is fair and balanced is an "effing moron"!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

TO MY CRITIC quarterback1

"His dismissal of Thomas as moron is preposterous. I doubt he has ever read a Thomas opinion."

Anyone who fails to recognize and honestly acknowledge the miniscule intellectual heft of Clarence Thomas is either
-uninformed;
-an ideologue; or
-both

Anyone who wants to directly critique another poster rather than engage on the substance and provide contrary evidence, as you did in your post about me

e.g. ......smd### seems to have limited familiarity with the subject matter on which he's proclaiming

does not deserve my respect or my time in engaging in debate.

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

ruk--I hope you and your wife enjoy the read. I'll be interested in your impressions of Smiley's handling of the first person male voice. For me, I think men can write women and women can write men very effectively (we'd have a pretty poor fiction if everything written were limited to portraying characters of one gender!). I think the challenge in writing in the first person of the opposite gender doesn't have to do with the acuity of observation but the fact the reader's disbelief is stronger at the outset. Think Anna Karenina. If Tolstoy had written it in the first person, his observations would have been no different but there would have been an initial and perhaps recurrent reader wariness to overcome.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 5, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

smd,

No, you didn't say the 1890 article concerned the Constitution. You also didn't point out that it didn't, or why that is quite important to -- an a major hole in -- your argument.

You are in effect simply asserting that (1) criticism of Roe is unfounded because (2) common law roots of things now called "privacy" can be identified, as in the Warren/Brandeis article.

That of course skips over the entire problem faced, which is located such a right IN the Constitution. There's no question that in Roe the court was in fact just asserting a right it thought should be recognized, and coopering together whatever rationalization it could to link it to shadows of the Constitution.

And that is a role and a power the Court simply was not given under the Constitution.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Re torture, those "torture memos" are floating around out there on the web. I don't think I could add any explanation.

What I can say is that essentially all of the denunciations I've seen of them as supposedly containing no rational legal analysis, etc., appear to me to have been written by people who must never have read them or who are are simply charlatans and liars. Agree with them or not, they contain just that, pages and pages of textual analysis seeking to answer the questions posed from the statutory sources.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I agree with QB1 that the incorporation doctrine of the BOR through the 14th A is the critical turning point in this line of jurisprudence.

I also think "incorporation" was historically unavoidable.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

can be taken to mean that the BOR protects individuals against state as well as federal action. That takes no great leap of faith.
Congress cannot establish a religion but Utah can? Gets pretty messy without incorporation, IMO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 5, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

@ABC

I certainly accept and respect your opinions on first person writing done by the opposite gender.

I certainly do not believe it to be impossible, but it is fraught with many traps. I pointed out the example of our writing group moderator trying a first person story written from the POV of a male hockey player. She really was unable to gather the feeling of how "guys" relate in athletic competition. But perhaps that is a simple mistake by one writer. Again I'm not disagreeing with you, perhaps just pointing out IMHO it brings on some additional challenges. 3rd person writing about the opposite gender also could present some of the same problems of "authenticity" or believability.

Maybe I'm simply sensitive because our writers group routinely grills any contributor for any hint of "unbelievability".

It is somewhat ironic in my case to worry about "credibility". I took a creative writing course several years back at Eckerd College...a little known but excellent private school in St. Pete.
The prof critiqued one of my stories as too concerned with "credibility." He felt that my "creative" writing skills had been damaged by my journalism career and a simple pursuit of the truth using the infamous 5 W's..who,what,where,when,why.

I took his criticism to heart but didn't allow it to discourage me. Not to be arrogant enough to compare myself to Hemingway, but his start in journalism certainly did not damage his fiction.
Still it was great criticism of my work.
I have since fell in love with Steinbeck and sometimes marvel at a single sentence because of it's structure and masterful expression. BTW I found one of those sentences in Smiley's work on the first page.

Thanks for the recommendation and I'll share my thoughts with you on next week's open thread where I think these type of conversations are OK. Again if the attorneys can bore us with all these precedents and case law we can return the favor with our discussion of literature.:-)

BTW That wasn't an insult attorneys'..glad we have some of you guys to fight through what bores many of us...somebody has to do it.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Harrowing account of reporters being held by the Egyptian police...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/weekinreview/06held.html?_r=1&hp

A regime the US has been supporting.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

QB

If the writers of a Constitutional Amendment wanted to include a "right" why wouldn't they just spell it out?

Why do the Courts have to constantly search?


I can see in cases which are honest disputes in interpretation, however many of these court cases are way beyond that.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

@ABC

Please forgive all the grammatical and spelling errors and misused words and tense and...well there are plenty of mistakes in my posts. Scott has justifiably critiqued my posts as "stream of consciousness" and I do not argue his point, Scott is correct.

I look at blogs more as "conversation" than serious writing. I would never use ..... or :-) or all the shorthand acronyms like IMHO, BTW, FWIW etc. in any genuine attempt at "serious" writing. So please forgive my sloppy construction and many other gross errors.

BTW I thought of your health during one of my meditations. Best wishes!

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Gems from RUK7:

======================================

"While Steve Dueschbag was p&mping for this ONE network..."

"To borrow a name first bestowed on skippy...anybody who suggest fox news is fair and balanced is an "effing moron"!!!!"
-------

Way to elevate the conversation. But,uh, aren't you the one who doesn't stoop to insults and name-calling?

-------

"Wow...another person with a brain on this blog. We are assembling quite a few and when they gather at once it's easy for me to absorb some much needed humility."

Thank you. You're definitely right about the humility, but I haven't noticed it yet. Your new buddy also provides some indepth analysis:

-------

"Has the Tundra Tramp weighed in on tungstengate?"---cao

"Count me as unimpressed by debate through credentials.

"Right wing crap seasoned with "I'm a lawyer so my opinions are more meaningful than yours" is still just right wing crap."---cao

Cao impressed with someone who actually knows what he's talking about? Not on your life.

Face it RUK, can there be any doubt that your new best friend fashions lampshades and other household items from human skin while the mummified corpse of his mother dangles from a meat hook in his spare room? He probably wears his mothers wigs, dresses, fishnet stockings and crotchless panties while he bottoms for his Mongoloid lover.


Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"Face it RUK, can there be any doubt that your new best friend fashions lampshades and other household items from human skin while the mummified corpse of his mother dangles from a meat hook in his spare room? He probably wears his mothers wigs, dresses, fishnet stockings and crotchless panties while he bottoms for his Mongoloid lover."

Brigade I shall not call you an "effing moron" Not because I'm trying to turn over a new stone and elevate the conversation..but because honestly you do not rise to the level of an "effing moron".

That is simply the singular most disgusting paragraph I have ever read on this blog, and that includes rainman, clawrence, bilgey, I confess I wasn't here when Col Kurtz? was here.

But that is so beyond the pale...just put me on T.B. or scroll by as I most certainly do in the future for you.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I would also be in agreement with banning Brigade. His last posting is clearly over the line of what should be allowable on a WaPo blog.

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:02 PM | Report abuse

In Roe there was a governmental interest that kept the privacy interest from being absolute. That made the case harder, but the right of privacy was not invented in Roe.

In Griswold . . .
OPINION OF THE COURT:

Coming to the merits, we are met with a wide range of questions that implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overtones of some arguments
suggest that Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, should be our guide. But we decline that invitation, as we did in [PAST CASES CITED].

We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation.

The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice -- whether public or private or parochial -- is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.

By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, [cite]) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v. Updegraff, [cite]) -- indeed, the freedom of the entire university community. [PAST CASES CITED].

Without those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure. And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases.

In NAACP v. Alabama, [CITE] we protected the "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations," noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, we held, was invalid
"as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association."
Ibid.

In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. In like context, we have protected forms of "association" that are not political in the customary sense, but pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the members. NAACP v. Button, [CITE]. In Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, [CITE], we held it not permissible to bar a lawyer from practice

CONTINUED

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, you were seeming very reasonable on the thread the other evening. Why do you do this ugly hate thing? It certainly has nothing to do with ideas.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 5, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

RUK7
"I confess I wasn't here when Col Kurtz? was here."
=======================================

Col Kurtz is cao, idiot.

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Here, this is funny

"More than a quarter of Goldman Sachs’s partners used hedging techniques from 2007 to 2010, fueling concerns that executives have broken the ties between compensation and company performance."

Executives/Politicians broke the ties between compensation and performance a long time ago. That is why what we have today is called crony capitalism. The only question is whether one party crony capitalism, now called state capitalism, like China, all Arab countries, Russia, Nigeria and so on) will dominate our two party crony capitalism, or not.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 5, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

ruk--Journalism has been a terrific background for lots of writers. Your instructor's comment may have actually been more about thoroughness than being credible--that is about a perceived effort to cover the waterfront when, with stories, you need to cut the non-essential. But the reporter's ability to draw a scene, differentiate characters, look for the telling detail, make dialogue believable, and much more all provide a great tool set for any writer. (And hey, I'm not a grammar and punctuation coach.)

I like the lawyers' comments. I find them very interesting.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 5, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Brigade's reliance on nastiness and name-calling is detrimental to a healthy blog discussion.

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Good minds, good science (or the converse if speaking of Bill O'Reilly). Nabokov and butterflies...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/weekinreview/06held.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

If the Ninth Amendment doesn't allow for Judicial enumeration of "rights reserved by the people", where or how are those rights found/defined? The other branches?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | February 5, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

AllButCertain and Amminadab,

Another of cao's rants:

"I won't speculate about whatever the wh*re who squatted and grunted and expelled you into the pile of fish guts she was busy cleaning thought about while she caught her breath, perhaps it was an idle speculation about which of the hundreds of seven dollar clients contributed the curdled tapioca that included the other half of your genes."
========================================

Anyone want to speculate on whether the person who made this post should be banned? RUK7 has already demonstrated an utter lack of principle by defending it while accusing me of posting something "so beyond the pale". But we already knew that he does not put a premium on principles, which is why he has begged me not to target him with insults as he blithely goes along insulting others.

Caothein9 has proven himself capable of fighting his own battles without the help of butt-kissing trolls like RUK. What about you Aminadab? Cao's taunts are okay but mine cross the line?

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Brigade's reliance on nastiness and name-calling is detrimental to a healthy blog discussion.

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:29 PM
========================================

Just mine? C'mon troll, show us how principled you are.

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

Please let cao speak for cao, you are responsible for your own postings. What I have seen from you today is solely ad hominem and reprehensible. Do you take responsibility and correct your error, or do you disregard and point to someone else?

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

Please let cao speak for cao, you are responsible for your own postings. What I have seen from you today is solely ad hominem and reprehensible. Do you take responsibility and correct your error, or do you disregard and point to someone else?

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:43 PM
========================================

There's nothing to correct. I target those who deserve targeting. Would you care to take this opportunity to condemn all nasty posts, or simply come back with the idiotic "let cao speak for cao" dodge and tell us that you've never actually read any of his nasty posts? In other words, are you the typical liberal blog troll or do you have principles?

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, now you point your name-calling at me? Is that just a pillar of your conservative values? Really? Do you have no self-control? No sense of what is right? Perhaps you are just having a bad day?

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

In other words, are you the typical liberal blog troll or do you have principles?

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 6:47 PM
========================================

Brigade, now you point your name-calling at me? Is that just a pillar of your conservative values? Really? Do you have no self-control? No sense of what is right? Perhaps you are just having a bad day?

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:49 PM
=========================================

You've answered the question and not in a way that flatters you.

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, you target those who "deserve" targeting? Really? That is your justification for nastiness? And I now "deserve" your name-calling because I had the nerve to call you on your nastiness?

Does that really make sense to you? I am not your enemy, and I am not a troll. I just expect higher standards from serious commentors. Obviously you are not serious. I would support you being banned, your nastiness adds nothing to serious discussion.

Posted by: Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The unfair, cruel, irrational, and just mean-spirited persecution of Rush Limbaugh...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/weekinreview/06held.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Gee guys, it's like grade seven again. But without any of the good music, cute girls and fun. How about we grow up, eh?

And oops, I see I put the wrong link in re Limbaugh. Here's the right one...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/82813/the-persecution-rush-limbaugh

And Ed Kilgore on Huntsman...

"But Huntsman has one big problem: his prescription, before the 2010 mid-terms, that the solution to the Republican Party’s political woes was to move to the center. This idea generated great publicity back in 2009, during earlier talk of a Huntsman candidacy. But it ended up being more or less 180 degrees away from the direction the GOP chose in the mid-terms, which pushed the party far to the right. Now, as he again gears up for 2012, Hunstman’s move-center strategy could come back to bite him."

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/82626/Huntsman-Romney-Republican-President-Primary

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

In Griswold . . .
OPINION OF THE COURT (continued):

In Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, [CITE], we held it not permissible to bar a lawyer from practice because he had once been a member of the Communist Party. The man's "association with that Party" was not shown to be "anything more than a political faith in a political party" [CITE], and was not action of a kind proving bad moral character. [CITE].

Those cases involved more than the "right of assembly" -- a right that extends to all, irrespective of their race or ideology. De Jonge v. Oregon, [CITE]. The right of "association," like the right of belief (Board of Education v. Barnette, [CITE]), is more than the right to attend a meeting; it includes the right to express one's attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by other lawful means. Association in that context is a form of expression of opinion, and, while it is not expressly included in the First Amendment, its existence is necessary in making the express guarantees fully meaningful.

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, [CITE] (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, [CITE], as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." [*] We recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, [CITE], to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup.Ct.Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw.U.L.Rev. 216 (1960).

We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e.g., [CITES]

CONTINUED

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

In Griswold . . .
OPINION OF THE COURT (final):

These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307. Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [p486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Reversed.

* The Court said in full about this right of privacy:

The principles laid down in this opinion [by Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029] affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence -- it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden's judgment. Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods is within the condemnation of that judgment. In this regard, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other.

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Ban trolls yourself!

Kevin Willis' Troll Hunter: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who wants to dismantle Roe must be up to the challenge of dismantling Griswold, which foreshadowed Roe.

It is always galling to me to listen to people ranting about
"it's not there in the Constitution"

then decry government meddling in their lives, yet refuse to recognize that there is little worthwhile about an America where a citizen cannot ENFORCE the right to be left alone from gov't interference SUCH AS gov't attempts to MANDATE (in today's parlance) that a woman MUST LIVE FOR MONTHS CARRYING AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY TO TERM.

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, I didn't care for Cao's comment either and see you worked hard on your rejoinder. I just wish the two of you could take this outside.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 5, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely DO NOT forward this to Glenn Beck!

"Hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens remain stunned today after China’s official government television news station Xinhua made their unprecedented January 4th announcement that the American President, Barak Obama, was preparing to announce to the world the existence of extraterrestrial races currently on our planet and fueled by what they called was a “extraterrestrial disclosure race” now developing between China and the US.
Unfortunately for the American people, their propaganda media outlets have refused to allow them to know of this historic event, and even worse are keeping from these people the grave and dire situation facing our entire planet as we near what the ancients called “The End of Days”."

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/millions-of-chinese-stunned-after-government-makes-obama-ufo-statment/

And Assange is involved too!

http://www.ufodigest.com/article/julian-assanges-secret-messages-released-vancouver-wikileaks-ufo

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Amminadab, and whoever else wants people banned, go download the troll hunter script. Ut works real well. I don't see brigade or rain forest. The only way I know they are posting is because of the people who respond to them. If you want to block people from sight, then download it.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Chinese people never heard of fish?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 7:56 PM | Report abuse

TO.... ChuckinDenton

RE 9th amendment ....."The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The rights can come from anywhere, not from any specific source.

The 9th amendment is generally not considered a source of rights, but establishing a rule of construction, i.e., how to construe the Bill of Rights and more generally, the remainder of the Constitution.

But other views exist. It was used by Justice Goldberg in his concurring opinion in Griswold.

This is the most common view:

Professor Laurence Tribe shares this view: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."[8] Likewise, Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed the same view, in the dissenting opinion of Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000):

The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.

If you are interested this is a very good overview, then you can drill down if you wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

''''''''
If the Ninth Amendment doesn't allow for Judicial enumeration of "rights reserved by the people", where or how are those rights found/defined? The other branches?

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks everyone for all the legal interpretation, it's given me lots to think about. I love how we can come here to an anonymous blog and ask questions without feeling like complete idiots, at least most of the time, and even if you are, who cares.

qb

I think I'll have to re-read the torture memos with your Camp A/Camp B analogy in mind, I'm not convinced.

Off to dinner, have a good one everyone.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 5, 2011 8:24 PM | Report abuse

"Chinese people never heard of fish?"

They aren't the only ones. Consider, if you will, the biblical flood. Noah got busy and collected up two of all the animals who marched dutifully up the gangplank and then the rain and the rising waters and everything animalish and peoplish got drowned.

What about the fish?

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

@ABC

"I like the lawyers' comments. I find them very interesting."

I'm glad you enjoy them. Mark in Austin has certainly gotten off a few interesting posts where he explains all this stuff in layman's terms...I loved his use of the swimming pool analogy..I thought it made his point without all the old case so and so was considered by this court which lead to this "(fill in the blank)" case which was determined by this justice...

I do understand their interest, especially in Constitutional arguments and the Supremes...it's just the details that bore me. Again though I realize the devil is in the details and we need attorney types to work through it all. I certainly mean no disrespect when I say all of the case precedent and history bores me...that's my issue, not a reflection on them or attorneys in general, just personal taste.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"Imagine people’s height being proportional to their income, so that someone with an average income is of average height. Now imagine that the entire adult population of America is walking past you in a single hour, in ascending order of income.

The first passers-by, the owners of loss-making businesses, are invisible: their heads are below ground. Then come the jobless and the working poor, who are midgets. After half an hour the strollers are still only waist-high, since America’s median income is only half the mean. It takes nearly 45 minutes before normal-sized people appear. But then, in the final minutes, giants thunder by. With six minutes to go they are 12 feet tall. When the 400 highest earners walk by, right at the end, each is more than two miles tall."

http://www.economist.com/node/17929013?story_id=17929013

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

smd### said:

"Anyone who fails to recognize and honestly acknowledge the miniscule intellectual heft of Clarence Thomas is either
-uninformed;
-an ideologue; or
-both"

Powerful argument, indeed. Seems not to comport with the next part though:

"Anyone who wants to directly critique another poster rather than engage on the substance and provide contrary evidence, as you did in your post about me"

Your assertion, without evidence you've ever read a word he's written, that Thomas is a "moron" shows you to be . . . something short of a serious and knowledgeable person. End of story.


"e.g. ......smd### seems to have limited familiarity with the subject matter on which he's proclaiming

does not deserve my respect or my time in engaging in debate."

By all means, to waste any more. But don't think that your ignorance of Robert Bork's background, while you pretend knowingly to discuss him, did not reveal you for the poser you are.

I don't mind nonlawyers talking law. I think it's great, actually. I'm just a working lawyer myself. But it gets a little obvious when someone pretends and pontificates without understanding.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

Huntsman's problem vis a vis us extreme far right wackos, has more to do with the fact that he's a complete unknown to the base. Him working for Barry doesn't help his standing, along with his strategic decision to preach more "centrism" after the 2008 election. How would a Democratic Presidential contender have fared in the Democratic primaries if they had worked in the Bush administration.? Would we be able to lay the base's obvious disfavor with a candidate like that because of the base's "extremism?"

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 5, 2011 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Ban trolls yourself!

Kevin Willis' Troll Hunter: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140
.
==

Essential. Once you've set it up and created your ignore list you'll have about 40% of posts blocked. No RFR, no Brigade.

But just imagine what it's like for newcomers here, seeing these two guys with mental problems writing so many posts. Small wonder new arrivals like smd are so uncommon.

Just install it, create your ignore list, and go placidly amidst the noise and haste.

Bork? We dodged a bullet with that weirdo.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 8:41 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Ask yourself this: do critics of the "torture memos" start with a premise that X must be deemed torture? I think the answer is clearly, yes. They start with that premise before they've even seen or considered the laws at issue. But what if the legal definitions don't actually cover X, even though you find it wrong?

Then, if you actually intende read the memos again, look for what evidence you see that the authors had a pretermined result and ignore the text of the laws, rather than trying analyze the text. The law doesn't always say what you think it should or wish it did. I know you are more than sophisticated enough to know that.

I frankly was shocked when I read the memos after having read a number of second hand accounts demonizing them. Having read thousands of court opinions and briefs and other legal analyses, the claim that these memos rose to a high level (or any level) of malfeasance is ludicrous to me. I wouldn't be at all afraid to argue that any number of Supreme Court opinions are far worse in their legal reasoning.

I think the most vociferous critics are engaged in purely result-oriented argument: waterboarding has to be torture, ipso facto no legal analysis can properly say anything else. But that is no legal argument at all.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

TO.....quarterback1

sad to say that in all likelihood I've been practicing law a LOT longer than you, as I was sworn in years before the presidency of Ronald Wilson Reagan, who must be one of your heroes.

If you don't recognize the difference between my comment and yours, it's probably because of something related to your reading comprehension.

smd

''''''''''''''''''
smd### said:

"Anyone who fails to recognize and honestly acknowledge the miniscule intellectual heft of Clarence Thomas is either
-uninformed;
-an ideologue; or
-both"

Powerful argument, indeed. Seems not to comport with the next part though:

"Anyone who wants to directly critique another poster rather than engage on the substance and provide contrary evidence, as you did in your post about me"

Your assertion, without evidence you've ever read a word he's written, that Thomas is a "moron" shows you to be . . . something short of a serious and knowledgeable person. End of story.


"e.g. ......smd### seems to have limited familiarity with the subject matter on which he's proclaiming

does not deserve my respect or my time in engaging in debate."

By all means, to waste any more. But don't think that your ignorance of Robert Bork's background, while you pretend knowingly to discuss him, did not reveal you for the poser you are.

I don't mind nonlawyers talking law. I think it's great, actually. I'm just a working lawyer myself. But it gets a little obvious when someone pretends and pontificates without understanding.

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

How would a Democratic Presidential contender have fared in the Democratic primaries if they had worked in the Bush administration.? Would we be able to lay the base's obvious disfavor with a candidate like that because of the base's "extremism?"

==

Do you see a log of liberals trashing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? He came from the Bush administration.

It's not symmetrical. Democrats aren't ideologically calcified like you guys are.

I'm happy to see the GOP base and the teabaggers setting the party up for a repeat of 2006 and 2008. And two years of symbolic votes, frivolity, no-compromise rigidity, and investigations coming from the GOP will go a long way toward returning the House to the Democrats.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

@Troll

Fair points all. Just curious about your opinion of the fact that Barry decided to keep Georgie's Secretary of Defense. Does that make Gates a RINO or simply a man trying to do the best he can for his country? Funny that Barry can have enough smarts and confidence to trust two Republicans with very key positions..I mean really..Secy of Defense and Ambassador to China are hardly ceremonial positions or a token nod to bi-partisanship. But then the Dems are trying to actually govern and so Barry not being a rigid ideologue like the vast majority of right wingers goes with people he thinks will do the best job regardless of party affiliation. Wow what a concept eh?

Meanwhile the R party is so dysfunctional they can't even use people from their own party unless that person passes all the correct litmus tests...you know hyper religious..Christianity only of course...and capable of mind numbing hyperbole and lack of trustworthiness..as in a Party that would propose two pieces of legislation (perhaps more but I know of two specifically) only to have the Pres say OK good idea and then watch the R's vote against their own legislation.

Can you tell why we're very irritated Troll? :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

I don't entirely share the same view of incorporation. But the real point I was trying to make is a more subtle one about the dynamic it created because of the states' retention and exercise of broader powers than the federal government.

It put the federal courts in the business of entertaining "rights" challenges to broader state police powers, setting off the quest for judicial enforcement of unenumerated rights, which I don't believe was ever the intention of the Constitution.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

Speaking of bipartisan officials, there's Ben Bernanke of the Fed who stayed on with the Obama Administration and entered his second term in Feb, 2010.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 5, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

TO.....quarterback1

RE: your comments on how highly you regard the quality of the torture memos

HUH?

Now, Jack Goldsmith does not have the credentials of the Bork-man you love (i.e., Prof. at Ave Maria Scool of Law), but

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=559

The torture memos .... from a John Dean post (easiest way to give a capsule of Goldsmith's criticism):

Jack Goldsmith reports in his book, The Terror President: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration (2008) that it was Yoo who recommended him for the post.

Nonetheless, Goldsmith found Yoo's formal opinions "unsupported," and "argued without any citation of authority," and noted that they contained "questionable statutory interpretations," "errors," "unusual lack of care and sobriety in their legal analysis," reached an "extreme conclusion [that] has no foundation in prior OLC opinions, or in judicial decisions, or in any other source of law," offered "cursory and one-sided legal arguments," adopted a "tendentious tone," "lacked the tenor of detachment and caution that usually characterizes OLC work," and commented that their "legal arguments were wildly broader than was necessary" – to name a few of the problems with Yoo's work that were mentioned by Goldsmith, who says he did not want to render "a painful stab in his [friend's] back."

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

"If you don't recognize the difference between my comment and yours, it's probably because of something related to your reading comprehension."

I comprehend just fine -- the comments of someone who stridently calls Justice Thomas a moron and tries to portray Robert Bork as a mediocrity consigned to a fourth rate school, all while pontificating about privacy rights.

If you are a lawyer, you might want to get in touch with the idea of measured and careful argument again, because you've definitely lost it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 9:16 PM | Report abuse

What motivated the torture memos? Clearly there was push to enable torture and it didn't come from the intelligence community; they knew thT torture is unreliable. It didnt come from the military; they didn't want to open that door and see the same thing done to captured American troops. It didn't come from the policy establishment; they knew that America would be disgraced, as indeed it was. It will take generations for American respect to recover.

No, the push to torture came from a few seriously sick men, sadists, men who were aroused by thoughts of pain being inflicted on people physically restrained. Men like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

smd,

Arguing from authority, brilliant. I don't happen to need to defer to Goldsmith's judgment. I can read for myself, and I did. I doubt you did.

I see you are back to Bork being a mediocrity, too, since he's at Ave Maria. And a shout to John Dean -- tells me a lot.

Let me borrow from you: you are a moron. Goodbye.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Quarterback, you remind me of a line from "Flatliners."

"pathetically competitive"

Nobody here can discuss law without you trying to claim the whole arena as your very own. And for a buy who supposedly debates for a living, you sure have a short fuse.

Yoo's memos have been criticized from many quarters all over the ideological spectrum. They were a disgrace to the nation and enabled a shameful episode.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 9:31 PM | Report abuse

"Clearly there was push to enable torture and it didn't come from the intelligence community; they knew thT torture is unreliable."
==========================================

Of course this is all code for waterboarding, which sensible people do not regard as torture. Everything is unreliable to a certain extent.

Think waterboarding doesn't work? As Kahlid Sheikh

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

"Clearly there was push to enable torture and it didn't come from the intelligence community; they knew thT torture is unreliable."
==========================================

Of course this is all code for waterboarding, which sensible people do not regard as torture. Everything is unreliable to a certain extent.

Think waterboarding doesn't work? As Kahlid Sheikh

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

"Clearly there was push to enable torture and it didn't come from the intelligence community; they knew thT torture is unreliable."
==========================================

Of course this is all code for waterboarding, which sensible people do not regard as torture. Everything is unreliable to a certain extent. So?

Think waterboarding doesn't work? Ask Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, not some liberal blog troll.

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

TO.....quarterback1

Perhaps you want to disclose the basis for your developed knowledge of and sensitivity to the work of OLC, and for your pretension to understand Yoo's effort better than now-Harvard Professor Goldsmith - - a conservative BTW - - who yanked the memos back.

It sounds like you pine for your old times at Ave Maria School of Law, and resent my calling Bork out for what he is - - because he was your favorite teacher there.

Were you able to graduate from Ave Maria too, or did you have to finish at a school that didn't even make the 4th tier of the US News ratings?

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"Fair points all. Just curious about your opinion of the fact that Barry decided to keep Georgie's Secretary of Defense."

I think it says more about Barry's belief that "the center" does not trust the Democratic party when it comes to an ongoing war.

"Does that make Gates a RINO or simply a man trying to do the best he can for his country?"

I think it makes him the latter until he's seen to be siding with Barry on policy that is unadvised. I bet he threatened to resign unless Barry increased troop levels in Afghanistan. I think that scared the Administration and now they're in a pickle. They've taken his advice, changing course against his advice would look partisan. They have to wait until he resigns before they can really control the war themselves. If it comes out that he wanted something and Barry said no, and he stayed on anyway, the RINO label comes out and sticks. Right now he's a conservative hero protecting out troops from the machinations of the leftwing extremists. Though I think the DoD, and Gates himself, may be the only Cabinet and person that gets "dispensation". YMMV.
(cont)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 5, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

(cont)

"Funny that Barry can have enough smarts and confidence to trust two Republicans with very key positions..I mean really..Secy of Defense and Ambassador to China are hardly ceremonial positions or a token nod to bi-partisanship.

I agree that SECDEF is probably, along with SoS, the posts that are not ceremonial. The position of Ambassador to China is obviously important and either Barry appointed him to it as an attempt to disqualify him as a Presidential contender among the extremist rightwing base, or, he thought he was the most qualified. If it was to disqualify him, what's that say about how Barry values a good relationship with China? If it was because he thought Huntsman was the most qualified, what's that say about Barry's opinion of his party's stable of Ambassadors to Exceedingly Important Countries?

"But then the Dems are trying to actually govern and so Barry not being a rigid ideologue like the vast majority of right wingers goes with people he thinks will do the best job regardless of party affiliation. Wow what a concept eh?"

If the Democrats in the Executive branch call what they're doing "governing", than God help us all (no offense bernie). I also think Barry is a rigid partisan ideologue.

"Meanwhile the R party is so dysfunctional they can't even use people from their own party unless that person passes all the correct litmus tests...you know hyper religious..Christianity only of course...and capable of mind numbing hyperbole and lack of trustworthiness..as in a Party that would propose two pieces of legislation (perhaps more but I know of two specifically) only to have the Pres say OK good idea and then watch the R's vote against their own legislation."

On the one hand, i agree the party is dysfunctional. It shellacked in 2006 and 2008. Also, it did not have enough discipline to prevent the Maine sisters from voting for the Porkulus. On the other hand, it had enough sense to embrace align itself with the Tea Party and deliver to the Democratice party, a defeat not seen in 70 years. As far as Lithmus tests go, so what? I disagree with your framing, but I think there has to be some level of minimum Conservative positions adopted before I'd vote for them.

"Can you tell why we're very irritated Troll? :-)"

Well, not really.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 5, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like you pine for your old times at Ave Maria School of Law, and resent my calling Bork out for what he is - - because he was your favorite teacher there.

Were you able to graduate from Ave Maria too, or did you have to finish at a school that didn't even make the 4th tier of the US News ratings?

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 9:42 PM
========================================

LOL. Remarkable how quickly his response tailed off into the sort of snark Liam might have posted after Quarterback called him out.

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

did anyone see this?

too funny

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2011/02/04/sarah-palin-trademark-refused-why-she-didnt-sign-the-application/

Posted by: smd1234 | February 5, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't see brigade or rain forest. The only way I know they are posting is because of the people who respond to them. If you want to block people from sight, then download it.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 7:53 PM
=======================================

I'm sure we're all really impressed with DDAWD. He comes on at least once a day to inform us who he isn't reading and sometimes, amazingly, to respond to those very people. Sort of like his soulmate, cao. They were the two most toxic and reviled posters at the Fix. Anyone who calls either of them on the frequent lies will soon go "unread". Go figure.

Posted by: Brigade | February 5, 2011 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Man, there are so many racist terms out there to demean black people. Can't Conservatives at least show some originality in THAT regard? Racism is racism, but reading Barry over and over again is just dull and unimaginative.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"Were you able to graduate from Ave Maria too, or did you have to finish at a school that didn't even make the 4th tier of the US News ratings?"

Haha, yeah, I called you right. Nothing but a poser.

I think you'd be disappointed by the answer to your question.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 10:13 PM | Report abuse

On the other hand, it had enough sense to embrace align itself with the Tea Party

==

There's no evidence anywhere that the electorate wants what the tea party is selling. Republicans were elected to fix the economy, and they're wasting time on posturing and playing to the red meat crowd.

Most TP candidates lost and the ones who won are short-timers, digging in their heels and refusing to work with their new colleagues.

Yeah, litmus tests. Dog whistle for "lie with a straight face."

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Barry ought find another Republican for Diplomatic missions. At least Huntsman kept the Chinese money flowing.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-administration-distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 5, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Man, there are so many racist terms out there to demean black people. Can't Conservatives at least show some originality in THAT regard? Racism is racism, but reading Barry over and over again is just dull and unimaginative.

==

Well the poor dumb brutes have never really recovered from the Civil Rights Act and the loss of respect for racism. Don't forget, you're talking about people who used to use the n-word at Thanksgiving dinner and still got to be regarded as gentlemen.

Seeing a brown face behind the presidential seal .. their ears are ringing, they're seeing auras, their hearts pound in panic. And now "openly" gay men in ... in the military!

Let them call him Barry, they're in agony and licking their unhealing wounds. We both know what they yearn to call him.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

@smd1234

Just remember the "intelligent" "attorney" you've been debating consistently defends Sarah Palin's intelligence stating on at least one occasion she is as intelligent and qualifed as Obama.

If that isn't enough to show his masterful critical thinking skills, he believes a network that employs and showcases ONE party's Presidential candidate is actually fair and balanced.

You're shooting fish in the barrel smd1234.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 10:31 PM | Report abuse

"Let them call him Barry, they're in agony and licking their unhealing wounds. We both know what they yearn to call him."

Well, that's my point. Why don't they call him those other things? It's no more offensive and might at least add some spice to life.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I think you'd be disappointed by the answer to your question.

==

You spend a lot more words alluding to and bragging about your intellectual power than you ever write demonstrating it.

I don't care about Bork's ability one way or they other, I'm just glad his nominationation was rejected. He would have sided with power and privilege unreservedly and been truly bad for the country. His rejection deferred the damage for many years, but it arrived anyway and now America is descending to second rate and accelerating.

But hey, if Bork is such a scintillating intellect, it IS fair to ask what he's doing at some backwater law school.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:34 PM | Report abuse

The position of Ambassador to China is obviously important and either Barry appointed him to it as an attempt to disqualify him as a Presidential contender among the extremist rightwing base

==

Yeah that must have been it. Up until that appointment it looked like Huntsman was a shoo-in for 2012.

Now of course it's Palin.

Sheesh.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 10:43 PM | Report abuse

@Troll

Let me guess...you're going to suggest that both times in my life when the economy absolutely went into the crapper, the fact that a Bush was President is just a COINCIDENCE! Ohhh it'll be fun but I'm sure you'll figure some way to spin your way out that and it will end up being the Dems fault.

And the fact that the two greatest economic catastrophes to befall our nation were a result of pretty much the same thing, little or poorly enforced regs with rampant speculation on Wall street..and the other common denominator...REPUBLICAN Presidents..again though Troll just a COINCIDENCE. Or that our nation has just witnessed the largest wealth REDISTRIBUTION(isn't it funny when it's middle class tax cuts you call it socialism..when it benefits the wealthy excluively..you call it free enterprise) since 1929 as a result of R trickle down policies and our absurd tax structure, which favors the wealthy. Of course who wanted a nation where the middle class was actually growing...certainly not you Troll since you support the policies that have lead to a shrinking middle class and a MASSIVE transfer of wealth to the rich.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha, he doesn't "shoot so good" then, if that's how he shoots fish in a barrel.

Stick with your new pal, smd, you have a lot in common intellectully. You should get along well.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

@Cao

ABC and I have been having a writer's discussion on the difficulties facing an author who wishes to write a first person story from the perspective of the opposite gender.

ABC posits, and I agree with her, that talented writers should be able to manage that assignment. I add the caveat that yes, I agree with ABC but it is very difficult fraught with credibility or believability traps.

What say you about a straight man, or woman writing a first person novel from the gay perspective. Possible? Or do you believe the gay experience is unique in terms of harassment, discrimination etc.
Perhaps a black straight man could actually have an easier time of it having also suffered discrimination...although obviously different since AA's have no opportunity to remain in the closet. But as a writer that in itself fires off my imagination...I suspect, without any experiential knowledge...that the choice is not necessarily advantageous. It must create tremendous cognitive dissonance in some individuals.

Understand that I agree with ABC that a good writer should be able to write from any perspective...I'm simply talking about degree of difficulty. Have you actually read novels from a gay 1st person perspective?

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, I agree that he is one of the worst. Funny though that none of them address the substance of our "unread" posts, just the supposed style mistakes. There was not one rebuttal all day to the fact that GE had to shut down its incandescent light bulb factory in Winchester, Virginia. How many jobs were lost there?

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse

"Let me guess...you're going to suggest that both times in my life when the economy absolutely went into the crapper, the fact that a Bush was President is just a COINCIDENCE!"

What a genius. This guy is 63 years old and thinks the economy went into the "crapper" twice in that time, under both Bush presdiencies. Of course, he also thinks Jimmy Carter's term was the pinnacle of American prosperity and success.

Hasn't occurred to him that there's another big "coincidence" about his to economic crashes -- Dems countrolled Congress both times. ruk = unthinking ideologue

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha, he doesn't "shoot so good" then, if that's how he shoots fish in a barrel.

Stick with your new pal, smd, you have a lot in common intellectully. You should get along well.

==

(avuncular chuckle)

"there you go again"

Why don't you roll out that blue-hot intellect and explain how you know Palin has what it takes to lead the free world despite being unable to demonstrate the civic understanding of a middling bright fourth grader.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1, I had you pegged for AT LEAST 3rd tier law school ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 5, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

"Let me guess...you're going to suggest that both times in my life when the economy absolutely went into the crapper, the fact that a Bush was President is just a COINCIDENCE! Ohhh it'll be fun but I'm sure you'll figure some way to spin your way out that and it will end up being the Dems fault."

For this particular recession, there's plenty of blame to go around. How young are you? There was a fairly severe recession in the early '80's, and the one in '46 had been the worst one, up until our current predicament. I missed the '46 but was around for the one in the early '80's.

"And the fact that the two greatest economic catastrophes to befall our nation were a result of pretty much the same thing, little or poorly enforced regs with rampant speculation on Wall street..and the other common denominator...REPUBLICAN Presidents..again though Troll just a COINCIDENCE. Or that our nation has just witnessed the largest wealth REDISTRIBUTION(isn't it funny when it's middle class tax cuts you call it socialism..when it benefits the wealthy excluively..you call it free enterprise) since 1929 as a result of R trickle down policies and our absurd tax structure, which favors the wealthy. Of course who wanted a nation where the middle class was actually growing...certainly not you Troll since you support the policies that have lead to a shrinking middle class and a MASSIVE transfer of wealth to the rich."

If you know my answer, why ask me a question?

""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana"

I have seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness" Allen Ginsberg.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 5, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

@ruk:

I honestly don't think that faking another person's perspective can ring as authentic as the genuine. Not something I've really thought about past the role of devil's advocate, one I've never been able to play.

As for gay perspectives, I'm going to surprise you. While there is no question that gays are discriminated against, and that this remains legally sanctioned, I think a lot of the personal experience of bigotry is deliberately summoned. There is nothing whatever about being homosexual that requires anyone to act the part, and I've known too many men who upon coming out deliberately adopted mannerisms and stereotypical behaviors they had never exhibited before. I did it too .. for about a month, then I snapped out of it and went back to acting like myself.

Agreed in advance, people should be able to act fruity without getting their teeth knocked out, and happily this stuff is pretty much in the past. Now we have loving couple photos with our partners on our desks at work and anyone who objects is escorted out of the building.

Anyway, returning to your question ... not sure I even agree there are intrinsically feminine or black perspectives, only variegated human experiences, variously unique, variously syndromic. I think the lack of feminine voices in these blogs is wholly explained by the competitiveness exhibited by so many male posters, and the distasteful ugliness it leads to.

Who'd want to join in quarterback's one-upmanship or Brigade's potty mouth insults?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

"Of course, he also thinks Jimmy Carter's term was the pinnacle of American prosperity and success."

Nothing like the tricks of a small mind that is desperate to win no matter what. Simply lie and distort. But why should that be any surprise..what rigid, right wing, ideologue does not lie when it's expedient.

Let's see how a small mind works...

I make the point that job creation under Jimmy Carter was double Ronald Reagan's first term..which means of course it blew away the two Bushes...ALONG with the point that Clinton was even more successful at job creation and that taken over the past 50 years..job creation..statistically..factually has been better with a D Pres than an R Pres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

I make the additional point that if we wish to discuss the deficit that Carter ran a surplus while every R President since then has run a deficit including St. Ronnie! I of course also pointed to a balanced budget under Clinton..realizing that according to Troll/Q.B. and some other righties that this is all just one big COINCIDENCE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

And so pointing out that Carter created double the jobs of Reagan's first term..I also pointed out Clinton's success at job creation...I pointed out that Carter did something no Republican has done since...balance the budget..I added that Clinton however also managed a balanced budget..something that has eluded R Presidents..but Troll and Q.B. still wish to vote for the R's?

Those two factual points, linked to credible sources are described by our brilliant attorney as....

". Of course, he also thinks Jimmy Carter's term was the pinnacle of American prosperity and success"

Does anybody think pointing out two FACTS is the same as characterizing the "pinnacle of American prosperity and success"
Charitably I could call that hyperbole, in reality it's simply more right wing distortion coming from a rigid ideologue so captured by that ideology that he has surrendered all independent critical thinking.

As the man once said....

"If you are a lawyer, you might want to get in touch with the idea of measured and careful argument again"

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 11:23 PM | Report abuse

'78-'80 were very, very bad:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854-10,00.html

Highlights!! 18% inflation, 18% interest rates. (Kinda made working sorta, um, frustrating: get a nice raise...lose money.
Awesome! Thanks Jimmah!!)

{{{btw: the Time piece is in-depth, balanced, lengthy, and substantive. They clearly didn't think, as today, the issue was going to be read on the can}}}

Posted by: tao9 | February 5, 2011 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I have seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness" Allen Ginsberg.

==

"I SAW the best minds."

And I'm watching the greatest nation on earth being destroyed by a madness called conservatism.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Not your concern, bro.

As if you gave a damn.

Posted by: tao9 | February 5, 2011 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Tao, why are you so scared of Jimmy Carter?

And suppose you weren't. How would you convey that??

Posted by: DDAWD | February 5, 2011 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Cao,

Thanks for the answer..as always very interesting.

I find it amusing that several posters here can't seem to get over you. I understand that heinous insults have been exchanged in the past. I've been guilty of calling someone and "effing moron"..not a proud moment of mine...especially in light of the wonderful lady posters here..as well as considerate gentlemen like Mark in Austin and others...but putting insults aside for a moment...

My mother and I share many common traits and one of them is what a person can do to offend us most. We can handle people calling us names but do not BORE us.

Alas some of the blog malungins cannot figure out that between any name calling, you are a very interesting dude with plenty of life experiences.

I found your take on newly outed gays sometimes turning on the flamethrowers very fascinating. I also admire your honesty in confessing your own experience with this phenomenon. As a non homophobic straight person...this seems quite natural to me..kind of an explosion of all that pent up anger and eff you feeling gays must feel when confined to the closet.
But I'm only guessing.

I think at heart it is the writer/journalist in me that wants to understand the human condition. e.g. I'm fascinated by what is taking place inside Hosni Mubarak's head. I mean the really "human" thoughts he's having. I have difficulty relating because one would imagine a man past 80 must be getting tired, ready for retirement, already a billionaire...WTF is the point...his son's succession to the throne? On a truly base human level I have difficulty understanding Mubarak right now, but again my life experience does not include that much power...and we've heard power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...ahhh but being raised as a working class stiff I've never been corrupted...at least by power. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Highlights!! 18% inflation, 18% interest rates. (Kinda made working sorta, um, frustrating: get a nice raise...lose money.
Awesome! Thanks Jimmah!!)

==

Beats the hell out of dropping our of the middle class to temping at McDonald's. Awesome! Thanks, Dubya!

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Time to leave...SNL has Dana Carvey...
The "Church Lady" had just introduced the "Holy trinity of sl8ts..the Kardashian girls.

I'll have to check back later to see if the trolls can match Carvey for humor...well they do think Sarah Palin has a brain and that's pretty freaking funny!

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 11:51 PM | Report abuse

What's your frequency, Kenneth...I mean DDAWD?

What are you on about?

Posted by: tao9 | February 5, 2011 11:52 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: I don't understand why I'm such a lightning rod for these guys. But it's a long experience .. I had a four year battle with a troll who went by Uncle_Meat (Zappa reference) who dogged me from one forum to another, and put so much effort and time into it that his wife divorced him.

Quarterback says I'm the most vile voice in history, Jake wishes me dead in orthopedic surgery (I survived), Brigade says, well, who cares what Brigade says. Maybe it's because I'm "openly gay," maybe it's because I don't do those disqualifying asides, who cares. I yam what I yam, says Popeye.

I'm not even that strident a voice on here. Yeah we all succumb to exasperation sometimes, so what.

I used to be more involved in gay politics than I am in this stuff here, a lot more, and I finally lost interest, the big reason being I got tired of watching radical gays derail progress to call attention to themselves. There is this core value in them that demands to be marginalized, that would regard being accepted as unacceptable, that seeks validation in being found offensive. I don't understand it but it ain't me.

Re: Mubarek: power as proxy for potency. By holding onto power he denies death. It's pathetic.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 11:57 PM | Report abuse

like I was trying to mock Sarah Palin the other day and you said I was clearly scared of her.

But that's not really what I want to convey. I want to like...mock her. I thought I was, but I was conveying fear, apparently. Can you teach me how to mock someone?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2011 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Let's ask a final quick question...

Who was the ONLY post World WarII President to keep us out of war?

No wonder the righties hate him...what kind of President would not force our "exceptionalism" down everybody else in the worlds throats.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 6, 2011 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Not your concern, bro.

As if you gave a damn.

==

I'll concern myself with whatever I please, "bro," and if it gets your knickers in a twist then don't read my posts.

And yes I do give a damn. Politics is the only bit of ephemera I care about, and if I want to take a break from studying the relativistic Lagrangian to post here that's none of your concern.

May surprise you but I was once very proud to be American, I grew up in the cradle of the nation, visited the colonial reconstructions till I knew my way around blindfolded, and yeah I believed a lot about American goodness that turned out to be false but at least back in the 60s those illusions were sustainable.

Not any more. Not with what used to be conservatism fallen to an incoherent doctrine of hate and mockery, all respect for truth boiled out of it, with educated people lying their heads off in unison and pushing the country into barbarism and poverty.

You guys owe more to the social order of insects than to Jefferson.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 12:16 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

I wasn't objecting to mockery.

Although it is #5 in the dirtbag rad playbook:

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

I was referring to the fun death, rape, misogynistic, and sexual dainties tossed at Ms. Palin by your fellow enlightened.

And I don't recall addressing you individually about it. If I did, please carry on and have at it. But I'll reserve the perquisite to see obsession as a form of fear.

No dust on my sandals.

Posted by: tao9 | February 6, 2011 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Amminadab | February 5, 2011 4:57 PM

This is an open thread


I am in favor of banning you for not paying attention.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I was referring to the fun death, rape, misogynistic, and sexual dainties tossed at Ms. Palin by your fellow enlightened.

==

Please provide one (1) example of any of these. Thanks in advance.

All I've seen aimed at Palin from we Enlightened is a general sensevof being appalled at the suggestion that she's presidential timber. She's so evidently an idiot that we figure you guys are suffering some kind of mass hallucination. ODS doesn't begin to explain it.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 12:26 AM | Report abuse

"And yes I do give a damn."

You vote absentee ballot?

Posted by: tao9 | February 6, 2011 12:29 AM | Report abuse

TO.....rukidding7

Thanks, there were telltale signs in every post my interlocutor directed toward me.

BTW there are 2 very interesting aspects of Bork's career.

1. from June 1973 - January 1977 Bork served as the Solicitor General, the Justice Dept. lawyer who argues cases before the US Supreme Court on behalf of the US gov't. Unlike most who serve as Solicitor General, Bork DID NOT have much of a career arguing cases before the Court AFTER he was no longer Solicitor General. Since 1977 he has argued only 5 cases before the Court. http://www.oyez.org/advocates/b/r/robert__h_bork

2. In October 1973 Bork played a significant role in the "Saturday Night Massacre", when Nixon sacked Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The firing followed Cox's request for the tapes of Nixon's conversations in the Oval Office. Nixon initially ordered Elliot Richardson, his Attorney General, to fire Cox. But Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus also resigned, making Bork the Acting Attorney General. When Nixon reiterated his order, this time to Bork, Bork complied and fired Cox.

Posted by: smd1234 | February 6, 2011 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Just so ya'll know there's not going to be any democracy in Egypt. There is no revolution. Time magazine and most of the American media are stupid. There will just be a new autocrat that comes to power and business as usual will continue. Same in Tunisia. New autocrat same story. All of this talk about transition to Democracy is total BS. Even Hillary is now backing Suleiman. Mubarak and Suleiman will control the transition. Protests are small now. A few thousand. Nothing they can't deal with.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | February 6, 2011 12:32 AM | Report abuse

These people come on the blog - with new screen names.

And all of a sudden they think they can start passing judgement on who should be banned.

First, they are misrepresenting themselves, because obviously they have been here before.

And if they were new, they wouldn't be talking that way.


The liberals break the rules FAR MORE than anyone else.


If there are to be rules

1) The rules must be clearly defined

2) If the liberals break the rules, they get punished too.


3) You can't enforce rules ONLY against people whose views you don't like - that starts nasty lawsuits and ends careers.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Amminadab | February 5, 2011 6:29 PM |

Why don't you just address the topics -

instead of talking about what you think about the quality of other posters


You are getting to be a joke.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 12:38 AM | Report abuse

ruk and ABC, why should a good writer be able to narrate successfully from any perspective? That assumes a wealth of human experience beyond the ken of most.

Or are you merely proposing that the good author, assuming a faux personality far removed from her experience, must research the different posture thoroughly before writing the narrative? That would be analogous to method acting. Is that what you meant?

I think of Conrad who was Polish, and learned English in the merchant marine. You'd never guess that from his narratives. He also swapped narrators - woman for man - half way through "Secret Agent". The scene of the swap was remarkably disconcerting, as I recall.

Mark Twain used the device of a male narrator who was in Joan's entourage as a witness to history in "Joan of Arc". That did not detract from the writing, at least not for me.

Is there even a correlation between good fiction writing and the ability to narrate from a different gender or sexual orientation?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 6, 2011 12:39 AM | Report abuse

one (1)

Dr. Andrew Sullivan, ObGyn, PsyD, DDS;
Oakeshott, Dish, Creamy & Glute P.C.;
NY, London

Posted by: tao9 | February 6, 2011 12:43 AM | Report abuse

TO.....rukidding7

You said the QB regularly talks up the intelligence of the 0.5-term governor of Alaska.
I just realized this comment of mine is what got the QB sniffing at my ass:

"And I am very pleased that my posts today have been taken to heart by RainForestRising who apparently has decided to take a position crafting word salad for SarahPalin(TM)'s upcoming efforts at coarsening our national debates."

smd

Posted by: smd1234 | February 6, 2011 12:45 AM | Report abuse

ALL,

I suspect that SMD is 12BarBlues


12Bar and Cao are working together.


They have each other's emails and they are corresponding. They defend each other on the blog.


Notice how 12 Bar is never upset with Cao (they migh just stage something tomorrow to get us to believe something different.)


Sorry, but I have been on these blogs for over 3 years - the Obama paid trolls are all over the place - pushing their talking points like drug dealers.


ALL the sentiment to push people out starts with the Obama paid trolls - they are anti-First Amendment, and they hate the Constitution because it allowed slavery.

Yea, the Obama people are still angry about slavery and the Jim Crow era


They won't let go -

The talk one line - but really they just want to lash out at white people -

They LOVE FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM, it lets them lash out their anger.


These people should be removed from government and SENT OUT OF THE COUNTRY.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Incoherent as usual.

A quote on this blog, please. That someone out in the whole wide world made a nasty crack about Palin isn't a data point. Besides, Sullivan is a conservative, even if he's not a quadruped.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 12:49 AM | Report abuse

ALL,

I suspect that SMD is 12BarBlues


12Bar and Cao are working together.


They have each other's emails and they are corresponding. They defend each other on the blog.


Notice how 12 Bar is never upset with Cao (they migh just stage something tomorrow to get us to believe something different.)


Sorry, but I have been on these blogs for over 3 years - the Obama paid trolls are all over the place - pushing their talking points like drug dealers.


ALL the sentiment to push people out starts with the Obama paid trolls - they are anti-First Amendment, and they hate the Constitution because it allowed slavery.

Yea, the Obama people are still angry about slavery and the Jim Crow era


They won't let go -

The talk one line - but really they just want to lash out at white people -

They LOVE FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM, it lets them lash out their anger.


These people should be removed from government and SENT OUT OF THE COUNTRY.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Why narrow it to a quote on this blog?

http://vodpod.com/watch/5329880-sarah-palin-death-wish-frenzy

You know what they say about roaches, "If you see one...."

Posted by: tao9 | February 6, 2011 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Tao, I never wished death on Mrs. Palin. I do mock her a lot. That is what you cited as evidence of fear. You were talking about US. So I think extrabloggal material is out of bounds. So yeah, you kind of need to narrow it to a quote on this blog.

I pretty much miss everything that goes on this blog while I'm working, so I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of what people say, but it seems like 75% of the non-Conservatives WANT Mrs. Palin to be the 2012 GOP nominee. Kind of hard for that to happen if she's dead.

So cut the dishonesty, please. Keep it to this blog.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2011 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Mark, we'd have to back the conversation up a bit to cover what ruk and I were talking about with regard to writing in the first person when the first person in question is far from your own experience. He was amazed that a woman in his writer's group was writing a first person male and also thought she was getting things wrong because she'd never been the actual male hockey player she was depicting. He asked if I could imagine trying that and I said I wrote main characters as often as not who were male but in the third person and recommended a Jane Smiley novella in which I think she masters the challenge of writing a first person male character. I also pointed out that it's harder for the reader to suspend disbelief initially when a writer tries this, so the writer really has to establish the voice quickly.

It's obvious that a fiction writer has to be able to depict all kinds of characters. The first person suggests a deeper level of knowledge of a character's experience, and I don't think a writer could pull off doing that with just any character, particularly if the experience is very far from his or her own. But part of that has to do with the depth of interest a writer has in portraying a given character. If it's strong and the writer is good enough and is willing to do serious research and imagine that character's experience very deeply, I think it can be done.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 6, 2011 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Great Frank Rich column up at the Times about how we know nothing about Egypt. And why.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 6, 2011 1:40 AM | Report abuse

"Great Frank Rich column up at the Times about how we know nothing about Egypt. And why.

Posted by: AllButCertain"

Yeah, Egypt has always struck me as a topic that everyone needs shut their Godd**m mouths and just read and learn.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2011 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Why narrow it to a quote on this blog?

==

Because that's who you were taking about, you weaseling JakeD-clone twit.

And, as you've plain,y shown, you were lying.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Why would liberals want Palin dead? She's the albatross around the neck of thevRepublican Party, the destructive, divisive, toxic waste they can't get rid of but desperately need to.

Wish her dead? Shut yo mouf. We want her to act as Perot II in MMXII. She's dumb enough to think she can pull it off and her fans are dumb enough to go along.

10 PRINT "Sarah Palin IS the Republican Party."
20 GOTO 10

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Careful, tao, or the Enlightened Ones will accuse you of being JakeD too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 6, 2011 2:12 AM | Report abuse


The Refi Plus program will waive the normal credit score requirement for a refinance; it will have reduced documentation standards for proof of income; and it will allow for computer-based appraisals, which tend to inflate the value of a home and make it easier to qualify for a refinance. Search online for 123 mortgage refinance they are the best and fast.

Posted by: damonpaylor | February 6, 2011 2:25 AM | Report abuse

"And I am very pleased that my posts today have been taken to heart by RainForestRising who apparently has decided to take a position crafting word salad for SarahPalin(TM)'s upcoming efforts at coarsening our national debates."

==

Hope you realize that if you really are reign posts by RFR that makes you his one and only reader, aside from JakeD (clawrence), who doesn't matter.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 2:40 AM | Report abuse

Of course, we don't have real presidential debates, with extemporaneous back and forth. We have recitals of canned responses to known questions. We've ha too many presidential nominees who've too boring (Gore, Kerry) or too stupid (Bush) or hot-tempered (McCain) to speak off the cuff.

But let us imagine, just for the comedy and cruelty potentials, of the Harvard Law intellectual against the half-term bimbo. His staid, deliberative responses versus her winks and one-liners and serial cliches. Heartland this, common-sense that. She'd be hopping up and down on one foot before it was over.

Her supporters would still say she'd won.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Damned iPad spellchecker .. reading, not reign.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 2:54 AM | Report abuse

Interesting News! I just now printed Coupons of my Favorite Brands and saved!! search for "printapons" online and save instantly, it is free

Posted by: trinamiller | February 6, 2011 2:56 AM | Report abuse

Well, Tao aint respondong/ I'll guess his taunts are just Conservative Things and my pointing out of her lack of accuracy are...accurate...

Posted by: DDAWD | February 6, 2011 3:37 AM | Report abuse

A lot of tao9's post sound to me like he's on acid. Florid confusion of a few ideas, like zooming in on a fractal. And heaven only shat he's saying inside those curly braces.

He's supposed to be one of the better uh conservatives (OK, you know what I mean) but that Palin accusation was a flat out lie.

I just love it when things conform so perfectly to my expectations, don't you? Makes the world a coherent place.

OT: I really wonder about the Dark Matter. I mean, if the cosmos really started out as 50.0000001% matter and the rest antimatter then wouldn't it be just a-loaded with neutrinos? And we know they have mass. I really don't want to believe in supersymmetry, I DON'T.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 4:12 AM | Report abuse

You know, I can understand stupid conservatives. That makes sense. I can understand dull people who resent the educated with their rapid talk, mysterious vocabulary, and half-sentences whose meaning is taken before being done.

I can understand mental-case conservatives, people whose thinking is as abortive as those sentences, people like zouk and Brigade who can't get through a syllogism before their thoughts are shattered by a surge of hate. That too makes sense.

What I for the life of me can't understand are educated bright people apparently free of crippling emotional disorders, people like tao9 and Kevin on here, people with the sense to know better but who still buy into the conservative thing. Logic should rear its head. Why doesn't it? Yeah, I know, compartmentalization, got it, but why? It's like when you learn that not all racists are complete idiots, a shattering discovery.

Only explnation I can come up with is that they're what my dad called "joiners," they need to belong to something, and sure enough they self-refer in the plural a lot.

I wish there was some pill we could give them.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 4:34 AM | Report abuse

Cacellation of Bsh's Switzerland trip s the purest sweetness.

Expect much snarling about "leftist" this and "terrorist" that.

Stay in Texas, George. Clear some brush. Make some defiant remark.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 5:23 AM | Report abuse

"You said the QB regularly talks up the intelligence of the 0.5-term governor of Alaska.
I just realized this comment of mine is what got the QB sniffing at my ass"


And yet I didn't respond to that comment and said not a word related to Palin. At first I noticed that your arguments are sloppy, your thoughts careless, and your knowledge strangely patchy. No this is becoming a serial exposition of stupidity on your part.

ruk,

btw, I just realized that you currently are showing lots of respect for TMW. Which is funny because he is and actual supporter of Palin for President and has boldly proclaimed it here. But your are outraged that someone else has scoffed at your absurdly overwrought insults of her.

Just another week the dizzy world of ruk.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 6, 2011 5:56 AM | Report abuse

For a guy so quick to demean others' intellects, QB, you sure are taking your time getting around to demonstrating any of your own. Matter of fact it seems like insults are all you can manage.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 6:01 AM | Report abuse

ruk said:

""Of course, he also thinks Jimmy Carter's term was the pinnacle of American prosperity and success."

"Nothing like the tricks of a small mind that is desperate to win no matter what. Simply lie and distort. But why should that be any surprise..what rigid, right wing, ideologue does not lie when it's expedient.

"Let's see how a small mind works...

. . .

"Those two factual points, linked to credible sources are described by our brilliant attorney as....

"". Of course, he also thinks Jimmy Carter's term was the pinnacle of American prosperity and success"

"Does anybody think pointing out two FACTS is the same as characterizing the "pinnacle of American prosperity and success"

"Charitably I could call that hyperbole, in reality it's simply more right wing distortion coming from a rigid ideologue so captured by that ideology that he has surrendered all independent critical thinking."
______________________________

Actually, ruk, what I had in mind was this statement of yours, which was part of one of your long peaens to Carter:


"At least get the dates right. Our zenith was actually just before 1980 and trickle down economics when the wealthy began to trickle on the heads of the middle class.

. . .

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 23, 2011" 6:01 PM | Report abuse"


My humblest apologies for saying you called Carter the "pinnacle" rather than the "zenith" of our economic prosperity.

I should have remembered the word you used, because I was wondering whether you were thinking of your wood console Zenith color TV.


Posted by: quarterback1 | February 6, 2011 6:06 AM | Report abuse

Give up QB an insult coming from a mental like you is like water on a duck's back. You think ruk reads one of your clever responses and needs to go lie down?

Anyone can see from your posts about Palin and Fox that you don't own the deed to your own mind.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 6:16 AM | Report abuse

clawrence,

"quarterback1, I had you pegged for AT LEAST 3rd tier law school ; )'

What is interesting about these (errant) putdowns by the liberals is that they always follow the same pattern. I've never come to this blog and said, "I'm a lawyer, so I know . . . ."

It's rather always some liberal who starts blathering about "what would YOU would know about law," or the old "I bet you went to a lousy law school" putdown. (I know some very smart lawyers who went to lousy schools, btw.) They want to start challenging credentials or get into a credential contest, and invariably they start claiming you cited credentials.

There've been several other libs here in the past who were downright obsessed with this. They desperately wanted to know. After they hounded me long enough, I once gave them some good clues and narrowed it down for them, but no more. I rather enjoy their frustration at refusing to tell them what they want to know and instead simply sticking to the substance of the arguments, which, the more they fail at the more insults they hurl.

I finally at one time offered one of them a bet of a lot of money (his could go to charity) and offered to send Greg a copy of my diploma to settle the matter. And that was the end of that. He whined about how it was too much money.

Some things never change.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 6, 2011 6:29 AM | Report abuse

I see smd has been doing more "research" on wikipedia overnight, too, filling in more of the gaps in his knowledge of Robert Bork.

"Unlike most who serve as Solicitor General, Bork DID NOT have much of a career arguing cases before the Court AFTER he was no longer Solicitor General. Since 1977 he has argued only 5 cases before the Court."

Indeed, he wasn't in private practice. Before he was SG he was a full professor at Yale Law School, as I noted earlier. He returned there after his SG service. From YLS he was appointed to the DC Ciruit, considered the traditional "feeder" court for the Supreme Court, where he served with Scalia among others.


smd has also discovered on wiki that it was SG Bork who fired Archibold Cox. Which is relevant to . . .?

After he was Borked by Ted Kennedy, Bork left the DC Circuit and became a public intellectual for a number of years. He had something of a unique perpective to share, having come through that ordeal and exercise in absurd liberal politics -- the "politics of personal destruction."

Oh, and while he was a full professor at YLS he became one of the most influential writers on antitrust law, usually considered a complex field of law.

You can agree or disagree with Bork's constitutional approach (I've found most who attack it know little about it). But smd's attempt to portray him as a dullard reveals nothing but smd's own fraudulence.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 6, 2011 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Come on guys. Cao, you are guilty here too.

Observing someone write more than one or two sentences over the course of a day devoted to insulting another specific poster is as interesting and up-lifting as watching some drunken doofus at a pub yelling at this girlfriend.

Invitations to act badly don't have to be accepted.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 6, 2011 7:29 AM | Report abuse

"Only explnation I can come up with is that they're what my dad called "joiners," they need to belong to something, and sure enough they self-refer in the plural a lot."

Funny, my Dad told me if I quit something I'd committed to I'd be a quitter all my life.

{{{heh}}}

Posted by: tao9 | February 6, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

And cao, our self-absorbed wee commie Iago, the reason you find me incoherent is the same reason my cat is puzzled by television.

{{{sorry Bernie}}}

Posted by: tao9 | February 6, 2011 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Cats are puzzled by television because they see the scanning. Their eyes are much better at perceiving motion.

Thanks for the compliment.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 8:04 AM | Report abuse

So you don't understand the written word because the letters don't move?

Fascinating.

Posted by: tao9 | February 6, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Bernie I'm imperfect in disposition. I lapse once in a while. Point taken, however.

I just get tired of QB's endless tiresome ragging on rukidding. He's always pounding his chest about how brilliant he thinks he is but then he dishes out insults like any exceedingly thick-witted nobody. I happen to think ruk contributes more here, a lot more and much if it quite original, while QB is just a completely predictable blowhard.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Give it up, Tao you're too for this stuff and really I'm not interested. Your opinions come out of a can.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Apparently some people on this blog believe that their offenses have been so great that they are going to be banned once the new softward comes in.

Among those: 12BarBluesAgain, who brought Cao to this blog, knowing full well what he would be like. She did this with a destructive intent, and she has admitted as such.

So, thinking she is smart, has created a new name for herself and is attempting to hide when the new software comes in.

Nice try, but we ALL see you in the open.

_________________________


Part of the problem here is the moderation policies are not spelled out - guidance has to be given.

There needs to be an "active warning system" to guide people when they have crossed the line. People don't get warnings, or even comments back stating clearly they have crossed the line.

The result has been that all the bad behavior has become the de facto guidance as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Also, moderation policy can not be influenced by political beliefs. There simply can not be the impression that liberals or conservatives are getting away with things that are enforced against the other side.


GUIDANCE - one easy way to do the "active warning system" would be to require all posters to stick to the issues - and avoid making personal nasty comments. These personal attacks have flared up recently. For me, I try to state my my opinions and CUT through the personal "ad hominem" attacks. People complain about that - however that is how I have dealt with the insanity here.


___________________________

If there are to be rules

1) The rules must be clearly defined

2) If the liberals break the rules, they get punished too.


3) You can't enforce rules ONLY against people whose views you don't like - that starts nasty lawsuits and ends careers.


Clearly

GUIDANCE - one easy way to do the "active warning system" would be to require all posters to stick to the issues - and avoid making personal nasty comments. These personal attacks have flared up recently. For me, I try to state my my opinions and CUT through the personal "ad hominem" attacks. People complain about that - however that is how I have dealt with the insanity here.

WASHINGTON POST - really should do something about the Obama paid trolls. There should be some contact made between the paper and Axelrod as to the ground rules BECAUSE if the Obama paid trolls start to harass people again like they did in 2008 and 2009, there will be a response.


.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 8:19 AM | Report abuse

There wasn't a nanogram of "personal destruction" in Bork's rejection, no Anita Hill, no pubic hairgate. His rejection was 100% based on his law history and positions, and his rejection was well deserved.

QB, maybe you should look things up before you post crap. I don't need to wikipedia this, I remember it. Funny you don't.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

@ABC
Quite right, the column by Rich this morning is excellent. I'd argue (weakly) on the social media point but the following is really worthwhile (the middle paragraph in particular)...

"The noxious domestic political atmosphere fostering this near-blackout is obvious to all. It was made vivid last week when Bill O’Reilly of Fox News went on a tear about how Al Jazeera English is “anti-American.” This is the same “We report, you decide” Fox News that last week broke away from Cairo just as the confrontations turned violent so that viewers could watch Rupert Murdoch promote his new tablet news product at a publicity event at the Guggenheim Museum in New York.

Unable to watch Al Jazeera English, and ravenous for comprehensive and sophisticated 24/7 television coverage of the Middle East otherwise unavailable on television, millions of Americans last week tracked down the network’s Internet stream on their computers. Such was the work-around required by the censorship practiced by America’s corporate gatekeepers. You’d almost think these news-starved Americans were Iron Curtain citizens clandestinely trying to pull in the jammed Voice of America signal in the 1950s — or Egyptians desperately seeking Al Jazeera after Mubarak disrupted its signal last week.

The consequence of a decade’s worth of indiscriminate demonization of Arabs in America — and of the low quotient of comprehensive adult news coverage that might have helped counter it — is the steady rise in Islamophobia. The “Ground Zero” mosque melee has given way to battles over mosques as far removed from Lower Manhattan as California. Soon to come is a national witch hunt — Congressional hearings called by Representative Peter King of New York — into the “radicalization of the American Muslim community.” Given the disconnect between America and the Arab world, it’s no wonder that Americans are invested in the fights for freedom in Egypt and its neighboring dictatorships only up to a point. We’ve been inculcated to assume that whoever comes out on top is ipso facto a jihadist."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/opinion/06rich.html

Posted by: bernielatham | February 6, 2011 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Cao

So what is your position on the etymology of the verb "to be borked"


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

You all have to understand that SMD is 12barblues, dumber than a doornail.


She doesn't understand what she is posting - she posts long, long passages hoping that someone else will understand the topic and explain it to her.


She has this little method of asking questions and getting people to explain things to her.

If she doesn't like you, she then uses that explanation to attack you.


Everyone HAS to understand that 12Bar/SMD is close friends with Cao - AND they are emailing each other off-blog and working together.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"The significance of Tunisia’s revolution was to demonstrate that change is possible in the Arab world; it was a spark that found ready kindling in Egypt and elsewhere. The import of the events in Egypt is different: the legitimacy of military-backed Arab republican regimes in place since the 1950s and 1960s has evaporated, but they too are learning from the Tunisian example and will stop at nothing to maintain their position. The question now is no longer whether Mubarak will survive as Egypt’s president, but whether the regime he represented – his generation of military officers were the immediate successors of the men who had participated in the coup that overthrew the monarchy – will be able to continue."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2011/02/05/issandr-elamrani/why-tunis-why-cairo

Posted by: bernielatham | February 6, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

first, you can got to Al Jazeerah's website

next - the Radicalization of the Muslim Community

There is a LEGITIMATE public safety issue here. THERE ARE people in this community who have built bombed and shot at Americans - all legitimate concerns.


There has to be a "pro-active" efforts.


Unfortunately, in America there is an issue with Freedom of Religion -


AMERICA needs to have a FIRM POLICY that houses of worship are NOT recruiting centers or places for radicalization.

IF a house of worship CROSSES that line, there should be firm, quick dramatic response from the authorities.


This would allow religious leaders to partner - to self-police - and have a clearly defined line which EVERYONE can live with.


__________________

The Muslim world has, collectively, brought this onto themselves. Blame bin Laden. Touch if they don't like it.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 6, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I missed a lot being out yesterday afternoon and evening. A few comments to various responses to me...

Bernie:

""But yeah, working out quota systems is always tricky in practice. So informal is the better word in my earlier statement.""

How would an "informal" quota system work in an election?

qb:

""You can judge your current instructor's level of knowledge by the fact that he apparently didn't know any of this.""

Or perhaps he knew but ignored it. Which also helps us to judge.

Thanks for your thoughts on Roe.

Mark:

""You should read it.""

I have, actually, although some time ago. Thanks for your thoughts on Roe as well.

""Gets pretty messy without incorporation, IMO.""

But don't most (all?) states have their own constitutions? Doesn't incorporation make those redundant or messy themselves?

smd:

""THOMAS doesn’t ask questions during arguments""

Oh, well, that proves it then. He must be a moron, that can be the only explanation.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 6, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"The federal budget is $3.8 trillion.

The Republicans have just come up with their plan to cut the federal budget. They've found $32 billion of cuts.

Their fiery campaign rhetoric, fierce determination, righteous indignation, and bloviated anger have summoned forth a hairball..."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/04/why_the_republican_budget_plan_is_a_hairball/#more

Posted by: bernielatham | February 6, 2011 9:07 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh Open Thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/sunday_open_thread_20.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 6, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

""THOMAS doesn’t ask questions during arguments""

Oh, well, that proves it then. He must be a moron, that can be the only explanation.

==

Well it doesn't sound like a guy trying to do a thorough job, does it. Not that it matters, all that's at stake is the *highest court in the country*

The guy is an incurious lump and the assessment of his mediocrity is very broad. But I guess a bunch of blog-haunting eternally wounded-acting ideologues with monumental persecution complexes know better.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Funny, right alongside Frank Rich ridiculing the preoccupation with the role of social networks in Egypt is Thomas Friedmann, once again using current events to boast about his frequent flyer miles and hooting about, yup, Twitter and FaceBook.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 6, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

"How would an "informal" quota system work in an election?"

In the US, the only viable means is through broader cultural change and a reformulation of the social contract. Activism, information dissemination, organization etc to bring about a situation where consensus shifts because an injustice is newly recognized or more broadly recognized and where reactionary notions (and legislation based upon it) are effectively swept into the past. As I suggested to ABC yesterday (and as the Catholic church and my wife well understand) shame is an effective tool.

And as I said to ABC earlier, I'd go further but the US would have to change significantly for my ideas to gain hold. I'm in favor of maximal gender equality in representation and far less concerned about how that gets achieved than most of you folks. Competence/meritocratic concerns are, obviously, of great significance for any post of responsibility but clearly those aren't the criteria by which most elections are settled anyway so I can't imagine much further negative consequence from mandated gender balance.

For related info:

"Top 10 – gender equality according to The Global Gender Gap Report 2010: 1. Iceland 2. Norway 3. Finland 4. Sweden 5. N. Zealand 6. Ireland 7. Denmark 8. Lesotho 9. Philippines 10. Switzerland"
http://blogs.sweden.se/staffblog/2010/10/13/gender-equality-in-sweden-yes-says-the-world-economic-forum/

I'm sure there's lots of good studies on how these nations managed to arrive there.

And did anyone know there was a wikigender.org?

http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/Gender_Equality_in_Sweden

Posted by: bernielatham | February 6, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020407034.html?nav=hcmodule

I don' disagree with Lieberman and Collins and maybe this is an attempt to create too fine a distinction, but there is a natural desire to politicize the "ticking time bomb" and what to do about it. Whether it is Hasan, Cho, or Loughner, most crazy and or depressed, angry at the world, etc. people give lots of signals of their intention to do harm. I think we'd do a better job identifying and doing something about the detection, assessment and overall appreciation of the threat posed by individuals if we took an apolitical approach to the problem.

Obviously, politically organized criminal or terror groups are another matter. They are much better at hiding their intentions. It is precisely the inability of most unstable people to keep their imminent danger to others a secret that makes our inability to intervene so atrocious. We have to do better and I believe we can without letting the civil liberties of the harmless slip away.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 6, 2011 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Brigade, you DON'T want to know what caothien9's dad called homosexuals. May he rest in peace.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 6, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for your response smd-

Late on my part. I read the same Wiki article. Seems to me that its almost a circular argument, then. If rights are not specifically enumerated, they will eventually end up before the Courts where we'll find that they....were not specifically enumerated.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | February 6, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company