Light Blogging Ahead
Stay safe 'til then!
The fact the national guard is keeping people from FOOD shows we are NOT living in a democracy,the Rich people's THINGS must be protected from starving people!! Remember the french revolution,the rich make sure the lower class suffers and is desperate,the middle class is scared of poor people,the soldiers are bribed obedient and loyal,. That is how they say rich and on our backs.Someone should rob this guy blind, so he can call the "pigs" for help.
**** all the corporate pigs. ****ing ********!
Disaster shows us the true use of our military is to PROTECT PROPERTY of corporations above human life, to keep the rich secure people DIE.
I say Eat the rich people if they will not let you get food.
Roast them on a spit and share the bounty.They have been fed on the finest organic foods.*sarcasm*
**** I am pissed. Let the people EAT..What happened soldier to defending life? Life comes before property IF you are not a sociopath scum bag.
Don't obey wealthy scumbags posing as"leaders".Sheesh.
BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ: THE MOMENT HAS COME TO DECIDE WHETHER TO WITHDRAW (translated from the Japanese-language Asahi Shimbun's editorial published Aug. 26)The last line, of course, is simply made up -- but how would the Japanese who read this paper ever know that? Sheehan is indeed having great success in her primary objective: demeaning America.
''Why did my son have to die?'' This simple question from a bereaved mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq is fueling growing war-weariness across the United States.
Already, three weeks have passed since the mother, Cindy Sheehan, 48, set up camp near President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he is spending his summer vacation.
Last April, Sheehan lost her son, a 24-year-old army specialist, in Iraq. Since early August, she has been asking to meet the president in person and calling for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.
Once the national media started covering the story, Sheehan began picking up supporters who pitched tents alongside hers.
Waves of anti-war demonstrations have spread across the country.
A memo to staffers in the Capitol: if you're photocopying a sensitive document--especially one that may be political in nature (and not official government work)-- you might want to remove any paper jam and take the crumpled copy with you when you leave.A while back a top Dem strategy session went out over a speaker phone to Repubs. They never learn, but they keep holding onto the California legislature.
That would have been good advice to follow for the staffer yesterday who was making a copy of what appears to be a political strategy memo from the Latino Legislative Caucus, a caucus of Democratic Latino lawmakers.
Three pages were reportedly found jammed in the machine, and made their ways into the hands of the California Republican Party, who then distributed them to reporters.
While some of the printing fell victim to a lack of toner, you can clearly read passages about the caucus' efforts to defeat the initiatives of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That includes spending more than $2.7 million on everything from a campaign to encourage Latinos to vote absentee to a phone bank to call Latino voters.
The memo's summary says "the Schwarzenegger initiatives to cut programs, control legislative redistricting, and to rob teachers of the needed benefits of tenure along with the right-wing initiatives to attack working families are the greatest threat to progressive politics in the history of politics."
The issue, say Republicans, is that the memo seems to be political work being promoted (or copied, to be accurate) on the taxpayer's dime. The chief of staff to Latino Caucus chair Senator Martha Escutia (D-Whittier) says the senator has never even seen the memo, but admits that the mystery staffer clearly made a "mistake" by using a government copier-- one she says won't happen again.
A 2003 episode of the short-lived Fox comedy "Keen Eddie" features a woman described as a "filthy slut" who is hired to "extract" semen from a prize thoroughbred. "That's not natural," the prostitute protests. "Think of it as science," says the man offering to pay. Though the episode featured no actual extraction -- off-camera the woman lifts her shirt and the horse suddenly drops dead -- some Americans complained, finding the scene inappropriate for prime-time television.
The Federal Communications Commission disagreed. In the majority opinion, the commission decided the sequence was not intended to "pander, shock, or titillate." The decision, however, was not unanimous. Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, whom President Bush has since appointed FCC chairman, thought Fox stations should be fined. "Despite my colleagues' assurance that there appeared to be a safe distance between the prostitute and the horse, I remain uncomfortable," Martin wrote at the time.
As well he should. Fortunately, Martin held on after losing this battle and now appears likely to win the war, as the FCC will begin clamping down on basic cable and network offerings (panderings?), and provide parents the opportunity to break up basic cable packages so we don't have to let the discover-all-about-sex channels in with the Discovery Channel.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, some commentators said that jihadists were now targeting the West because they were "fighting somebody else's war." This is utterly wrong. The intellectual father of jihadist Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, who was executed in Cairo in 1966, made the message crystal clear: Jihadism is a "permanent Islamic world revolution" aimed at decentering the West in order to establish "Hakimiyyat Allah," or God's rule, on a global scale.
Saw this linked by HH.Nine Questions For The Global Fund
As shown in the graph, Uganda had a prevelance rate of 30% long before anyone heard about "AIDS in Africa", because it was still a poorly treated condition in the US. By the time it was treatable in the US and "Africa had an AIDS Crisis", Uganda's prevalence was declining. It is documented by an-exHarvard PhD named Green, I believe. The program was indigenous to the Ugandan people, even if some of them are, (cover your ears....Christians...aaahhh!!).
In addition, I know several families that have been working in Uganda since the early 90's. From what I hear from them, if there is a problem in Uganda's administration of the program it was selected out from the others because the program was run well enough to find the irregularities!!
In addition to the data above, they have shown a rise in the age of first sexual experience, and a decrease in the number of sexual partners.
Revolting and disgusting. I could have seen a decrease in AIDS funding under the "they don't need it as much because they are doing well", but aarrghh!!!
I'm not sure that I understand what you understand. The Ugandan program has always been ABC - abstinence, be faithful, use condoms. Its always been a three legged stool, not one above the other. But, I could be wrong...The post is particularly interesting because it underscores the deep roots of Uganda's formula for success -- success the Global Fund is jeopardizing by suspending the country's $201 million in AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria grants.
Why was Uganda's response so effective?
The approach used in Uganda has been named the ABC approach - firstly, encouraging sexual Abstinence until marriage; secondly, advising those who are sexually active to Be faithful to a single partner or to reduce their number of partners; and finally, especially if you have more than one sexual partner, always use a Condom. A number of factors helped to encourage people to take up these strategies.
It seems that the message about HIV and AIDS has been effectively communicated to a diverse population by the government and by word of mouth. Ugandan people have themselves to thank, in part, for the reduction in the HIV prevalence rate. Much of the prevention work that has been done in Uganda has occurred at grass-roots level, with a multitude of tiny organisations educating their peers, mainly made up of people who are themselves HIV+. There was considerable effort made towards breaking down the stigma associated with AIDS, and frank and honest discussion of sexual subjects that had previously been taboo was encouraged. There is a high level of AIDS-awareness amongst people generally.
Very early in the course of the epidemic, the government recruited the Ugandan people to help themselves in the fight against HIV/AIDS. One of the first community-based organisations to be formed was TASO, the AIDS Support Organization founded in 1987, a time when there was still a great deal of stigmatisation of people with HIV.
"The founders met informally in each other's homes or offices to provide mutual psychological and social support. Cohesion among these individuals was strengthened by the fact that they were either directly infected with HIV or implicitly affected because their very close familial associates were infected".
TASO now provides emotional and medical support to people who are HIV positive and their families. It also works with other smaller organisations to educate the public about discrimination and about the dangers of HIV/AIDS.
A Cambridge University study in 1995 showed that 91.5% of Ugandan men and 86.4% of women knew someone who was HIV positive, and that word of mouth was the method by which most people were informed about HIV prevention. This indicates that one of the main reasons for people's behaviour change was their alarm about the risks and the extent of the epidemic. Many villages are experiencing several deaths each month, houses stand empty, and grandparents are looking after their orphaned grandchildren. Put simply, people are more likely to avoid risky behaviour if they know people who have died of AIDS-related illnesses.
In the early stages of the epidemic, the government responded swiftly, giving out simple messages about abstaining from sex until marriage, staying faithful to one's spouse, and using condoms. The key message was "Zero Grazing", which instructed people to avoid casual sex. More complicated messages about risky behaviour and safer sex were not spread until later, when there had already begun to be a decline in HIV figures.
Since 1986, when Uganda's health Minister announced that there was HIV in the country, there has always been political openness and honesty about the epidemic, the risks, and how they might best be avoided. In that same year, the President toured the country, telling people that it was their patriotic duty to avoid contact with HIV. This was a brave approach, as many politicians are reluctant to talk openly about sexual issues, but the openness paid off.
The president encouraged input from numerous government ministries, NGOs and faith-based organisations. He relaxed controls on the media and a diversity of prevention messages - including 'zero-grazing' - spread through Uganda's churches, schools and villages. This frank and honest discussion of the causes of HIV infection seems to have been a very important factor behind the changes in people's behaviour that allowed prevalence levels to decline.
This contrasts sharply with countries like South Africa, which have lacked this political leadership in the fight against the epidemic. Uganda's entire population was mobilised in the fight against HIV and were made aware of the consequences that risky behaviour could have for their country. It is largely due to the Ugandan people, motivated by their leaders, that the epidemic appears to have been so well addressed.
CARACAS, Venezuela, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Monday his government plans to sell as much as 66,000 barrels per day of heating fuel from its U.S. Citgo refinery to poor communities in the United States.
The offer, made after populist Chavez held talks with U.S. civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, would represent 10 percent of the 660,000 bpd of refined products processed by Citgo. The deals would cut consumer costs by direct sales.
Venezuela's Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said officials were still working on the details on how the oil would be sold from Citgo, a unit of the state oil firm PDVSA.
"We are going to direct as much as 10 percent of the production, that means 66,000 barrels, without intermediaries, to poor communities, hospitals, religious communities, schools," Chavez told reporters at a press conference.
My bet is that regulation and restrictions kill this bright idea, that Chavez and Jackson are well aware that this will happen, and it's all a set up for them to turn the poor against the Republicans and Bush.
I have been covering the Global Fund’s curious suspension of all grants to Uganda on my blog, Cheat-Seeking Missiles. My posts are being picked up by a number of prominent bloggers, so thousands are reading the questions I am raising about your action.I will share with you what I hear when I hear it.
I have raised a number of questions about the suspension, would appreciate your comments on them.
I very much look forward to your prompt response.
- In reviewing the 122 releases posted on your site, I have found no examples where multiple grants to a country were suspended in this manner. The only two relevant cases, Myanmar and Senegal,did not involve charges of corruption. Have no other grants been suspended for corruption?
- If the problem was allegedly with the AIDS/HIV program, why did you also suspend tuberculosis and malaria programs, which appears to be an action that needlessly puts lives at risk?
- Releases on your site indicate that for a period of at least two years, Global Fund has been working with South Africa regarding problems with its grants. Why did you immediately suspend the Uganda grant, when it is evident that you are willing to work long-term with a country that is having trouble meeting your expectations?
- What is the nature of the problem you experienced, or are experiencing, with South Africa?
- Are you currently monitoring, or have you previously monitored, any other grant recipients as you monitored Uganda, i.e., with an outside firm like Pricewaterhousecooper?
- Given the countries you lend to, it is evident that many governments with long histories of corruption receive funds. Why hasn’t the Global Fund seen it necessary to take similar actions against other countries? Is the Global Fund saying by its action against Uganda that problems encountered there were much greater than what you deal with regularly?
- What part did Uganda’s emphasis on monogamy and abstinence have on your decision to suspend its grants?
- What is Global Fund’s position on monogamy and abstinence programs?
- What is Global Fund’s position on “safe sex” and condom programs without a monogamy and abstinence element?
Emphasizing Abstinence: Abstinence is the only sure way to prevent sexual transmission of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the President's 2004 State of the Union Address, he called for a new emphasis on abstinence-only education, and doubling the funding for abstinence-only programs.Note: Reader Steve points out the subhead says "Emphasizing Abstinence," while the text says "abstinence only." I apologize for the confusion. However, the Uganda program is an "ABC" program -- Abstinence Before Condoms. It emphasizes abstinence, but clearly supports condom use as superior to no protection, as the recent order for 145 million condoms by the Ugandan government makes clear.
We have enough condoms. We just procured 65 million condoms about two months ago and another 80 million is on the way, so there is no shortage of condoms in the country.Reuters counters this:
But Jodi Jacobson of the U.S.-based Center for Health and Gender Equity said the about-turn in Uganda's previous policy to promote condoms was having a real impact -- reducing availability of condoms and cutting consumer confidence in them.
"They are kow-towing to the (U.S.) fundamentalist right on this issue," Jacobson said.
Jacobson's employer is a South African NGO which has few mentions of Uganda on its Web site, and none that are critical of the country's programs. It is funded by a number of national and private sources, including noted US liberal foundations Ford and Rockefeller.
"Iran is a fascist-style tyranny based on a fundamentalist version of Islam. We join with progressive Muslims to denounce the fundamentalists and to support democratic and left Iranians striving to topple the Ayatollahs."I'm not sure who Mr. Lock is, or what LGBT is, but it's good to see that at least some in the gay community are realizing what's at stake in the war on terror -- not just stopping terrorist attacks, but reforming a hateful, harmful, bruttal application of Islam.
"Without an end to the fundamentalist regime, there can never be justice for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transexual) people, women, trade unionists and minority religions and nationalities in Iran."
"The lack of liberal and left support for the victims of the Iranian tyranny is truly shocking. We deplore the absence of international solidarity with Iranians fighting for freedom," concluded Mr Lock.
What is Starbucks’ position on putting material with sexual content on cups that could, quite literally, be in the hands of minors?
Thanks for your interest in "The Way I See It." To answer your question, the best place you can find the other quotes is in the stores.
At this time, we can't post all of the quotes on our website. The reason is that, as we negotiated usage rights with the various authors, not everybody has given us permission to use their quote online.
Some of the other quotes do appear on our website in the "letters to the editor" and "featured author" sections. But for the most part, we have to keep this as an in-store experience. I hope that answers your question. If not, feel free to call us at (800) 23-LATTE. Thanks again!
Starbucks Customer Relations
Thank you for answering the first half of my question. I certainly understand the complexities of licensing … plus its fun to see what quote you get on your cup.We shall see.
You did not, however, answer my second question: What is Starbucks’ position on putting material with sexual content on cups that could, quite literally, be in the hands of minors? I raise this because of the Maupin quote about homosexuality, but would be just as concerned about a heterosexual message going out to little hot chocolate drinkers.
We have enough condoms. We just procured 65 million condoms about two months ago and another 80 million is on the way, so there is no shortage of condoms in the country.Bottom line for this morning:
Human Rights Watch accused[Ugandan] President Yoweri Museveni and his wife, Janet Museveni, of falling under the influence of U.S. Christian conservatives and placing millions of young Ugandans at risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.Christian-influenced or not, the results of Uganda's AIDS/HIV program are hard to ignore:
Uganda, one of first countries in Africa to experience the impact of HIV/AIDS and still one of the countries most affected by the virus, is also one of the continent’s great success stories in terms of reducing high HIV infection rates. HIV prevalence among pregnant women in urban areas has declined from a peak of 30 per cent in 1992 to 6 per cent in 2001. This and other successes in the field are widely acknowledged to be the result of high-level political commitment to HIV prevention and care, involving a wide range of partners and effected through an aggressive anti-HIV/AIDS campaign involving virtually all sections of society. Nevertheless, Uganda is still confronted with a serious HIV/AIDS epidemic, including rising numbers of people needing care and support.The release seems to acknowledge the different approach Uganda was taking, even then.
Very high HIV prevalence—often exceeding 30% among pregnant women—is still being recorded in four other countries in the region, all with small populations: Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. There, comparisons of prevalence levels at selected antenatal clinics have shown no evidence of a decline. In Swaziland, for example, HIV prevalence among pregnant women was 39% in 2002, up from 34% in 2000 and only 4% in 1992. Elsewhere in the subregion, HIV infections in pregnant women appear to be stabilizing at lower levels—around 18% in Malawi (2003), 16% in Zambia (2003), and 25% in Zimbabwe (2003)—but there is little evidence of an impending decline. (source)No Comparable Actions
The May news release came nearly two years after a June, 2002 statement clarifying negotiations with South Africa.
Both parties were satisfied with the outcome of the meeting and agreed to keep the public and all relevant stakeholders informed regarding progress on the issues, and to work tirelessly to find quick and lasting solutions to these challenges, but not to conduct these discussions via the media.Obviously, things have been sour between the Global Fund and South Africa for some time. Yet despite South Africa's poorer performance, its grants remain in place while Uganda's were cancelled. (South Africa's infection rate is about five times higher than Uganda's.)
The Ugandan cancellation came immediately upon publication of the Pricewaterhouse report, whereas Global Fund has seen fit to negotiate for at least three years with South Africa to work out problems there. This is strong evidence that PC politics, not corruption, is behind the Ugandan grant cancellation.
The first link below shows that the US is by far the largest contributor to the Global Fund. The Bush Administration should use its clout to force the Fund to drop the suspension until an independent review of the situation can be completed.
"You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire." I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.
In January 2001 the Brazilian government announced its plans for "Avança Brasil" (Advance Brazil). This is a US$40 billion plan to cover much of the Amazon rainforest with 10,000 km of highways, hydroelectric dams, power lines, mines, gas and oilfields, canals, ports, logging concessions and other industrial developments.In other words, they want us to believe that Brazil intends to wipe out up to 1,050,000 square miles of rainforest!
Scientists predict that these planned developments will lead to the damage or loss of between 33-42 percent of Brazil's remaining Amazon forest.
What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem.
Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct.
What about the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerulasem? Don't they represent Islam's third most holy sites?
No. In fact, the Quran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem -- with good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem.
So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Quran, the seventeenth Sura, titled, "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.
Before September 11, a lot of soldiers were happy to just enjoy the benefits. Since that day, those soldiers have left. That is fine and not the disaster that defeatist reports are making it seem. Such soldiers were never the types to want to go on long deployments and face combat. Yes, they were heroes for signing up and being in a job that could go that direction, but they had other priorities that made their service contingent on enjoying the benefits rather than serving in war.It's too bad this ran in the WashTimes instead of WaPo the NYT..
That changed on September 11. Now, just as we are told to expect when joining, we are going to combat and many soldiers are getting injured and killed. This is our job, and it is what we know can happen. I don't know why the media insists on trumpeting the idea that all of us are tired and worn out and just want to stop fighting. I don't, and I am not alone.
The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.
From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan each year. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat
An investigation carried out for the Global Fund said it found a shortfall when grants in dollars were converted into Ugandan shillings.Certainly, suspicion is always in order in matters like this, but no details have been released regarding what the investigation by Price, Waterhouse Coooper found about about the $41 million Uganda has received so far on the grant. The UN has not posted a promised news release on the matter on its Web site. I requested it tonight, but am not holding out hope.
A spokesman for the Global Fund said it still wanted to continue working with Uganda's National Aids Commission directly, so the provision of condoms and anti-retroviral drugs would not be interrupted.Reworded, the Global Fund wants to keep pressuring Uganda to drop its morality based program, which it blames on "American Christian conservatives," and replace it with the Global Fund's desperately failing, but PC, sex and condoms approach. No country following the Global Fund's approach has an HIV infection rate anywhere near as low as Uganda's 5%.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG [Liberal-Moderate]What? No "staunch liberals?" All moderate liberals? Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
DAVID H. SOUTER [Liberal-Moderate]
ANTONIN SCALIA [Conservative-Staunch]
JOHN PAUL STEVENS [Liberal-Moderate]
CLARENCE THOMAS [Conservative-Staunch]
STEPHEN G. BREYER [Liberal-Moderate]
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST [Conservative-Staunch]
ANTHONY KENNEDY [Conservative-Moderate]
Now the question is whether Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will, like those two justices, commit himself to recapturing a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers or whether, like the justice he would succeed, he finds himself comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin.As Betsy puts it, "Omigosh! How amazingly terrible for a judge to want to be faithful to the 'original intent of the framers' rather than reflect currents of 'modern legal thought.' Her derision for the originalist view is so clear yet there is no reason given why this is so.
Both Republicans and Democrats said that the speeded-up timing - administration officials had at one point told reporters to expect an announcement in the last week of July - would have the effect of pushing news of Karl Rove and a federal investigation into who leaked the identity of a C.I.A. officer off the front pages, at least for a time.Today on Michael Medved, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card detailed how the announcement timing was worked out with Dem and GOP Senators to ensure confirmation before October. As the Captain (who gets a hat tip for this entry) said of people who think the Senate has plenty of time to confirm Roberts: "[T]hose people obviously did not watch Senator Pat Leahy speak with the press last night, along with his colleague Chuck Schumer. The two Judiciary Committee members made it clear that they will not allow this nomination to move forward expeditiously at all; both insisted that his earlier and overwhelming approval to the DC Circuit appellate bench made no difference at all."
"The issues at stake are not abstract. They have to do with the government's power to protect the environment, to safeguard civil rights, including the rights of the disabled, and to provide protections for employees and consumers."It's the same list every time, and it's alway "government's power to protect." It's never "government's power to overstep." And the positions of the Souter's and Ginsberg's of the Court are always "mainstream."
15. O'Connor endorsement quoted out of context. Patterico caught this in the 7/21 LATimes. Here's the original quote from O'Connor on hearing of the nomination:
... the entire theme of the story, as indicated by the headline, is that Senate Democrats have not been critical of Roberts. But the story does not quote Dick Durbin, who sounded a bit critical in this Fox News story:
“The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts’ name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who was one of three Democrats who voted against Roberts in 2003.
I guess not all Democrats have chosen to "forgo discord.”
Her first words were unequivocal: “That’s fabulous!” she said. She immediately described John G. Roberts as a “brilliant legal mind, a straight shooter, articulate, and he should not have trouble being confirmed by October. He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”And here's the LAT take:
16. Federalist Society ... Not: Here's a partial list of the MSM outlets that incorrectly reported that Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society: AP, CNN, WaPo, Salon, BaltSun, SFChron, USAToday and this from BosGlobe, which is typical:
Some women’s groups said they were disappointed Bush had not named a woman to replace O’Connor.
Even O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, expressed some discontent on that point.
On a fishing trip in Idaho, she told the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review: “He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”
Roberts is also a member of the Federalist Society, a fraternity of legal conservatives whose members often espouse the view that the Constitution should be interpreted literally and oppose "activist" judicial decisions that find implicit but unwritten rights in the document including the unwritten right to privacy from which abortion rights are derived.Why the interest in his alleged membership in the Federalist Society? Oh, sure, it might be a legit quest for information to flesh out his thin record. But if that were all there is to this little mistake, ask yourself if the media made such a big deal of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's true ACLU affiliation? And would they have written it up like this:
Ginsberg is also a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, a fraternity/sorority of liberals, mostly attorneys, whose members often espouse the view that the Constitution should not be interpreted literally and support "activist" judicial decisions that find implicit but unwritten rights in the document including the unwritten right to privacy from which abortion rights are derived.Update: This issue continues to capture MSM's attention with this 7/25 report that maybe he was a member of the Federalist Society.
It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.That's a nasty way to say they weren't all dressed in NARAL rally black, isn't it? (h/t Betsy)
There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers...
Why are Catholics always "repressed?" Hmmm. Well, it is interesting that her source's source was the NYT, which deliberately chose to put these paragraphs in its profile, butsmartly left them without Wonkettish commentary:
Wonkette operatives have alerted us to some details in John G. Roberts background. We're not making any conclusions here -- we wouldn't want to comment on an ongoing investigation -- we're just laying out the facts: He is a graduate of an all-boys Catholic school where, as a member of the wrestling team, he regularly grappled with other sweaty, repressed boys. That is when he wasn't the drama club playing Peppermint Patty, for God's sake. He was also an editor of the school newspaper, "The Torch."
And yet the Right still asserts that "he's no flame-thrower."
We like him more and more.
Besides being an academic star, he was a scrappy athlete, a captain of the football team despite his mediocre play, and competed in wrestling and track. In a small school of about 125 students, John Roberts was also on the student council executive committee (he lost the race for senior class president to his best friend), the student activities committee, the editorial board of The Torch student newspaper and the drama club.
The school yearbook from 1972, his junior year, shows he played Peppermint Patty in the production of "You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown."
Note the indefinite modifiers. They don't even have anyone on record whose interest is being drawn. This is just a totally made up story so that the New York Times can talk about his wife on the front page. What shoddy journalism.20. Dems Were Surprised: WaPo picked up without criticism or illumination the official Dem line that they must be neutral because they the GOP did such a good job of keeping Roberts' nomination under the veil of secrecy:
By not reporting the obvious -- that Roberts was on highly publicized speculation short lists since even before O'Connor retired, WaPo is complicit in the Dem strategy: Appear reasoned for a moment, then be vicious.
"We were playing basketball blindfolded," said an aide to a senior Senate Democrat, who asked not to be identified to speak freely about internal planning. "The other side knew what moves they were making and we were necessarily reacting. . . . "
Many Democratic strategists concede that Bush won the opening round of the confirmation battle, through his choice of a nominee who has been praised for his intellect and temperament and by a skillful unveiling that kept everyone guessing about the nominee's identity until an hour or so before Bush and Roberts appeared in the East Room of the White House.
Excuse me? EXCUSE ME??
"Now, I hope Senator Leahy is not trying to demand documents that the president has not even seen as part of their lines of attack against the president," McClellan said.
"That's a big mistake," Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said of the White House position. "There's precedent for these kinds of documents being released in the past.
"And why are they always looking for a fight?"
The article also takes Roberts to task for misspelling "Marielitos." Oh, my. A hat tip to Betsy, who commented, "Well, stop the confirmation hearings right now."
There was also the time he offered a snide analysis, in an internal White House memorandum, of a proposal from a member of the House, Elliott H. Levitas. After the Supreme Court struck down efforts by Congress to veto actions taken by the executive branch, Mr. Levitas, a Democrat from Georgia, proposed that the White House and Congress convene a "conference on power-sharing" to codify the duties of each branch of government.
Asked to comment on the congressman's proposal, Mr. Roberts mocked the idea, and him. "There already has, of course, been a 'Conference on Power Sharing,' " Mr. Roberts wrote in a memo to Mr. Fielding. "It took place in Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell Levitas about it and the 'report' it issued."
It wasn't until the very bottom of the article, 20 paragraphs later, that Egelco allowed any balancing to occur:
"This case calls into serious question his views on the scope of the (Constitution's) commerce clause ... which might have serious implications for other environmental laws and health and worker protection, civil rights and consumer laws,'' said Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer with the environmental advocacy
The issue Roberts raised is "huge in the broader context of all environmental laws,'' said John Leshy, a law professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. If the federal power over interstate commerce doesn't extend to protecting an isolated species within a single state, he said, then other questions arise: "Can the national government protect air in local communities or protect water in isolated rivers?''
Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor and a leading property rights theorist, said the case was being overblown.
Even if Roberts forms part of a Supreme Court majority to limit the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws, Epstein said, that would mean only that "some fraction of (environmental regulation) would be left to the states.''
24. Wishful thinking. When the press reported John Kerry's call for the White House to release all Roberts-related documents because "we cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record," don't you think some mainstream reporter might have mentioned the repeated unanswered calls for candidate Kerry to release his military records?
25. Making an mockery of objectivity. How's this for a summation of Roberts' history in the solicitor's office? From an 8/2/05 story by AP:
Many of the memos paint a portrait of a politically savvy attorney who encouraged his bosses to restrict affirmative action, Title IX sex discrimination lawsuits and prisoner appeals in federal court, which he said "made a mockery of the entire criminal justice system."26. Where are the Roberts supporters? This AP story, also cited in #25, was headlined in the SacBee as, "Groups take Roberts campaign to voters." OK, that's fair enough; it should present what groups for and against the Roberts nomination are up to, right? Nope. Eleven of the 22 paragraphs in the story tell what MoveOn.org, NARAL, and People for the American Way are up to, comlete with quotes negatively characterizing Roberts. Four paragraphs, including the last two, cite the activities of supporting groups -- and their quotes are process oriented, not directed to the nominee's credentials.
By the way, [David] Savage’s story appears to be an exercise in linking Roberts to [Kenneth] Starr, whom Savage clearly believes is hugely unpopular due to his involvement in President Clinton’s impeachment. If you want a good drinking game, read the article and drink a beer every time Savage uses the words “Roberts” and “Starr” in the same sentence. If you count the headline, you’ll blow through a twelve-pack before you’re done.
30. Setting up the "good cop." So Kennedy and Schumer will be the bad cops and Leahy will be the "good cop." In a profile of the particularly nasty Sen. from New Hampshire, the NYT said:
Just before Congress adjourned for August recess, two Democrats on the judiciary panel, Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenged Senator Leahy after he made concessions to Republicans in exchange for a September hearing date.
"Pat is not a person that puts confrontation up front," Mr. Kennedy said in an interview.
Mr. Schumer put it this way: "At his core, Patrick is just a very decent, honorable man who wishes everybody could get along, and he tries to make that happen as best he can."
Who does the NYT think it's kidding? There are so many Nasty Leahy stories, it's hard to pick just one. How about this one, from NRO:
Leaking confidential FBI files. What a gentleman.
[Judge] Saad was nominated on November 8, 2001. He received a confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee on July 30, 2003. Democrats boycotted the hearing — and made no public reference made to any background problems. The committee approved Saad in a straight party-line vote on June 17, 2004.
Before the vote, on June 3, 2004, Sen. Patrick Leahy, who was angry that then-chairman Orrin Hatch was pushing the Saad nomination through the committee, and who had access to FBI material on Saad in his role as ranking Democrat on the committee, made a public reference to Saad's background check, saying it contained allegations of a "very serious nature." Leahy did not elaborate.