This is just too funny. The Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the New Haven Fire Department has just got the conservatives kerfuffled. They are trumpeting the case to show that Judge Sotomayor truly is a racist, she hates white men. It's obvious from her decision on the case, though you have to read between a very small number of lines.
But if you read those lines you'll find that what she, and the other members of the panel, did was to uphold the law. No judicial activism here. And what do you find when you read the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy in the case? Uh oh!
Yes. Judicial activism. Justices Roberts and Alito committing the cardinal sin. They swore they wouldn't. Every one of their conservative sponsors touted them as strict constructionists.
And they are all full of shit. Truly. They are.
At least we should now all see that there is no such thing as being a strict constructionist. That it is the responsibility of the judiciary to change laws at times. We should also see that the conservative movement is truly racist. They are all fearful of the decline in the power of the white male.
The best comment was from Mike Barnicle, an old white man. He applauded the court for eliminating employment in the workplace and ending the bias that has been applied for, as he said, these past few decades. These past few decades!
We've been subjugating women, men of color, gays, people with handicaps for millennia. More than just subjugating, abusing, torturing, killing. Long past the time when Jesus told us not to do it anymore.
And poor Mike Barnicle and the other old white males have been having to go through this for decades. Well not Barnicle, he's only been denied employment for his plagiarism.
So the Right will only stand for activist judges when it props up their racist system.
Leonard Pitts had a great column last week on the racist Right. You should read it.
On a personal note to my good buddy Glenn Beck. The US didn't buy Alaska in the 1950's, you ignorant dolt. It was the 1860's. Read a book. Hit yourself in the head with a book.
And don't try telling me that you misspoke. You were saying the reason we bought Alaska was for oil. We didn't know from oil, where to find it, what to do with it when the deal was negotiated by Secretary William Henry Seward, who may have been the last living righteous Republican.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Effective Communications
So I'm reading where Ahmadinejad is saying that President Obama is acting just like Former President Bush. Imagine what he'd be saying if Obama had foolishly listened to the Grahams and McCains and Krauthammers. He'd probably be saying the same things, but it would've made him sound believable. Quite a feat at that!
But maybe President Ahmadinejad is listening to that fatuous, farcical phony, Monica Crowley. I saw Dr. Crowley on the O'Reilly Show last night. She was actually trying to give the credit for the demonstrations in Iran to Bush. She said it is the democracies now established in Afghanistan and Iraq that are leading the Iranian people to force their own democracies. The governments in Afghanistan and Iraq were democratically elected, but with the insurgencies, the violence that has been there since, well since we started it, one could hardly hold them up as the ideals free and peaceful countries of the world are hoping for in the Middle East.
But maybe President Ahmadinejad is listening to that fatuous, farcical phony, Monica Crowley. I saw Dr. Crowley on the O'Reilly Show last night. She was actually trying to give the credit for the demonstrations in Iran to Bush. She said it is the democracies now established in Afghanistan and Iraq that are leading the Iranian people to force their own democracies. The governments in Afghanistan and Iraq were democratically elected, but with the insurgencies, the violence that has been there since, well since we started it, one could hardly hold them up as the ideals free and peaceful countries of the world are hoping for in the Middle East.
Also, we all have to remember that even if the Islamic Republic in Iran is overthrown, the people wearing the green still do not trust the United States. Even the people under thirty have heard all about the Shah and Savak. This is an area where Admadinejad does not have to lie. And we were the ones who installed the Shah.
O'Reilly had a conversation with Barney Frank on his show last night. In Bill's typical debating style, he was constantly interrupting his guest. And Congressman Frank called him on it. Bill's response was that there will always be interruptions.
He's a jerk. But at least he's an honest jerk. He openly admits that he's rude, crass and was brought up with absolutely no common courtesy.
But of course the best example of effective communications yesterday was Governor Sanford. I truly believe he was trying to put the entire crowd into some kind of trance with his stream of consciousness rantings. It might have worked if The State did not have copies of his e-mails.
I used to say that the difference between Republicans and Democrats was that they were both trying to do the same thing, but the Democrats were doing it one woman at a time. I believe the right is trying to usurp that strategy.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Fear Factor
Last week, Ed Schultz started a brouhaha when he said that Former VP Cheney wanted an attack on the US so that he could come back and say I told you so. I think Cheney is the devil. Actually I think the devil is Cheney's henchman. But I disagree with Ed. This is just part of the Republican platform, and has been for years. They just want to scare everyone, and then repeat the mantra that Democrats are soft on defense, soft on terrorism, ill-advised in foreign affairs.
That is what's going on with the Republican leadership and the neo-con talking heads in response to the President's words on the situation in Iran. He's tepid. He needs to make a stronger response. Listen to Senators McCain and Graham on yesterday's talk shows. Their statements are eerily similar. Almost as if they are just parroting proscribed talking points.
Charles Krauthammer's last column stays on message in his recent column, "Showing Weakness Toward Iran's Fate". He states that we are missing a chance to capitalize on events such as the ouster of Hezbollah in Lebanon. He says that a revolution in Iran right now would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism. His logic is a little specious, as communism as a socio-economic system has collapsed, yet the totalitarian rule in China and the former Soviet Republics is still rampant.
That political vermin, Dr. Monica Crowley, has also been cackling about the tepid response. I saw her on McLaughlin this weekend and she was bemoaning that Obama should be like Reagan in dealing with the USSR. She was impassioned in screaming how this administration could abandon those huddled masses yearning to breathe free in Iran.
One of my favorite people in the world, Lawrence O'Donnell, demanded of her that she give an example of what she thought Obama should say. She quickly started talking about some piece in the NYT, she repeated "the New York Times, even" as if to show that liberals supported her theory. Of course the piece she was talking about had nothing to do with her theory. She never did, and I'm betting never will, answer O'Donnell's question What a bitch!
Funny, for the previous two weeks the bitch was lumping every Muslim, from the nut who shot the recruiter in Arkansas to al-Qaeda to the other 1.5 billion of them into one group who were only concerned with destroying the United States. Hey bimbo! They're Muslims in Iran.
These doofi are not just preaching to their choir. They are trying to convince the independents, the Joe Six-Packs in the Democratic party that the Democrats, as the GOP has done for decades, can't handle National Security issues.
It is great that Hezbollah has lost power in Lebanon. And how did that happen, because the US hadn't intervened. Reagan challenged the Soviet Union, but not on elections. Neither Carter nor Reagan did anything when the Solidarity movement had it's roots. That's why it was successful. Had we endorsed Lech Walesa, the government would have had a reason to quash it.
We should not intervene, nor unduly comment on this situation in Iran. If for no other reason than what happened in 1953. When we intervened in "disputed" elections in Iran, and foisted the Shah on the Iranian people. Americans tend to forget that that happened, but not the consequences. The Iranian people remember it all. With hate and anger.
That is what's going on with the Republican leadership and the neo-con talking heads in response to the President's words on the situation in Iran. He's tepid. He needs to make a stronger response. Listen to Senators McCain and Graham on yesterday's talk shows. Their statements are eerily similar. Almost as if they are just parroting proscribed talking points.
Charles Krauthammer's last column stays on message in his recent column, "Showing Weakness Toward Iran's Fate". He states that we are missing a chance to capitalize on events such as the ouster of Hezbollah in Lebanon. He says that a revolution in Iran right now would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism. His logic is a little specious, as communism as a socio-economic system has collapsed, yet the totalitarian rule in China and the former Soviet Republics is still rampant.
That political vermin, Dr. Monica Crowley, has also been cackling about the tepid response. I saw her on McLaughlin this weekend and she was bemoaning that Obama should be like Reagan in dealing with the USSR. She was impassioned in screaming how this administration could abandon those huddled masses yearning to breathe free in Iran.
One of my favorite people in the world, Lawrence O'Donnell, demanded of her that she give an example of what she thought Obama should say. She quickly started talking about some piece in the NYT, she repeated "the New York Times, even" as if to show that liberals supported her theory. Of course the piece she was talking about had nothing to do with her theory. She never did, and I'm betting never will, answer O'Donnell's question What a bitch!
Funny, for the previous two weeks the bitch was lumping every Muslim, from the nut who shot the recruiter in Arkansas to al-Qaeda to the other 1.5 billion of them into one group who were only concerned with destroying the United States. Hey bimbo! They're Muslims in Iran.
These doofi are not just preaching to their choir. They are trying to convince the independents, the Joe Six-Packs in the Democratic party that the Democrats, as the GOP has done for decades, can't handle National Security issues.
It is great that Hezbollah has lost power in Lebanon. And how did that happen, because the US hadn't intervened. Reagan challenged the Soviet Union, but not on elections. Neither Carter nor Reagan did anything when the Solidarity movement had it's roots. That's why it was successful. Had we endorsed Lech Walesa, the government would have had a reason to quash it.
We should not intervene, nor unduly comment on this situation in Iran. If for no other reason than what happened in 1953. When we intervened in "disputed" elections in Iran, and foisted the Shah on the Iranian people. Americans tend to forget that that happened, but not the consequences. The Iranian people remember it all. With hate and anger.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Joe Wrote a Book!
I'm reminded of the Groucho Marx line - "From the moment I picked up your book, to the moment I put it down I was convulsed in laughter. Someday I intend reading it."
I've just been too pissed off to write the last few weeks. I've been watching a lot of Fox, so it's understandable. They have some of the stupidest people in the world on their shows. The brown haired guy who is not Steve Doocy has to be the dumbest. Two examples of things he said recently:
Talking about Chastity Bono going through a sex change he asked if a lesbian
becomes a man does he still date women.
On a story about a boy who disappeared fifty years ago, mentioning that the
boy's father had been assigned to Mitchell Field in New York, he said that is
where Lindbergh landed.
So I wind up watching more Morning Joe. For the past few weeks it has pretty much been an infomercial for his book while he was there. Fortunately, he's been whoring it around the country and has missed a lot of face time on the show. I'm not that upset.
But today, as the self-appointed new leader of the conservative cause, he got on his soap box about a new poll out that he says proves that he was prescient about the budget deficit situation. The poll shows that a majority of Americans want the administration to concentrate on reducing the deficit no matter how it affects the economy. Which is what Joe says he's been saying for months. When he was saying this, I must have been watching the Fox Nimwits in the Morning show.
Joe is in favor of reducing the deficit now. Or is it in the out years, his new favorite phrase? I'm not exactly sure how the poll question was phrased, but the answer, from Joe specifically, is crap.
I'll put it to you this way Mr. Scarborough, if you really feel we need to reduce deficits and you're not as concerned about the economic affects, let's do it. Let's start taxing the wealthy.
When I read your book, I'm pretty sure I will not find that scenario mentioned.
I've just been too pissed off to write the last few weeks. I've been watching a lot of Fox, so it's understandable. They have some of the stupidest people in the world on their shows. The brown haired guy who is not Steve Doocy has to be the dumbest. Two examples of things he said recently:
Talking about Chastity Bono going through a sex change he asked if a lesbian
becomes a man does he still date women.
On a story about a boy who disappeared fifty years ago, mentioning that the
boy's father had been assigned to Mitchell Field in New York, he said that is
where Lindbergh landed.
So I wind up watching more Morning Joe. For the past few weeks it has pretty much been an infomercial for his book while he was there. Fortunately, he's been whoring it around the country and has missed a lot of face time on the show. I'm not that upset.
But today, as the self-appointed new leader of the conservative cause, he got on his soap box about a new poll out that he says proves that he was prescient about the budget deficit situation. The poll shows that a majority of Americans want the administration to concentrate on reducing the deficit no matter how it affects the economy. Which is what Joe says he's been saying for months. When he was saying this, I must have been watching the Fox Nimwits in the Morning show.
Joe is in favor of reducing the deficit now. Or is it in the out years, his new favorite phrase? I'm not exactly sure how the poll question was phrased, but the answer, from Joe specifically, is crap.
I'll put it to you this way Mr. Scarborough, if you really feel we need to reduce deficits and you're not as concerned about the economic affects, let's do it. Let's start taxing the wealthy.
When I read your book, I'm pretty sure I will not find that scenario mentioned.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Empathy, Shmempathy
So all of the conservatives are now jumping on Jude Sotomayor calling her everything from biased to racist. They also have a problem with her supposed empathy, based on her comments about a Latina possibly doing better than a white male. They want a justice who will only use the rule of law in rendering decisions.
Bull!
No one uses only the rule of law. If it were that simple, if everything were so black and white, we wouldn't need lawyers. We could just program the facts into the matrix, and the rule of law would decide. Everyone making these legal decisions, from county judges to Supreme Court Justices, to the OJ Simpson jury, sees the same facts differently and makes different decisions. How else could Plessy v Ferguson, the "separate but equal" doctrine, have been the rule of law for so long? Because it was decided by seven white males who grew up in the 19th century and couldn't empathize with a black man.
As far as empathy goes, I love how the conservatives are handling it. They are all bringing up the now infamous Ricci case from New Haven where Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that did not remand the case back to the lower court. Every conservative columnist and talking head, from Dr. Krauthammer to Ms. Coulter, start out with the same introduction. They talk about the dyslexic fireman who had to hire people to read to him in order to study for the test he past.
No discussions about disparate impact, or the rule of law in this case. They're empathizing with the white male fireman. I know why Dr. Krauthammer empathizes with him, they're both white males. Why does Ms. Coulter do it? I'm not saying she's a white male, but I wouldn't put it past her.
On another note, I'm starting to enjoy watching Fox Nuts in the Morning. Today the news poll was if you think that George Bush will get credit for the success in Iraq. If you're wondering if there has been success in Iraq, they had already reported that the number of civilian deaths in May was at its lowest since 2003. Success is measured by a decreasing body count.
Tragically, they did not report that the US service death toll was the highest in years.
Bull!
No one uses only the rule of law. If it were that simple, if everything were so black and white, we wouldn't need lawyers. We could just program the facts into the matrix, and the rule of law would decide. Everyone making these legal decisions, from county judges to Supreme Court Justices, to the OJ Simpson jury, sees the same facts differently and makes different decisions. How else could Plessy v Ferguson, the "separate but equal" doctrine, have been the rule of law for so long? Because it was decided by seven white males who grew up in the 19th century and couldn't empathize with a black man.
As far as empathy goes, I love how the conservatives are handling it. They are all bringing up the now infamous Ricci case from New Haven where Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that did not remand the case back to the lower court. Every conservative columnist and talking head, from Dr. Krauthammer to Ms. Coulter, start out with the same introduction. They talk about the dyslexic fireman who had to hire people to read to him in order to study for the test he past.
No discussions about disparate impact, or the rule of law in this case. They're empathizing with the white male fireman. I know why Dr. Krauthammer empathizes with him, they're both white males. Why does Ms. Coulter do it? I'm not saying she's a white male, but I wouldn't put it past her.
On another note, I'm starting to enjoy watching Fox Nuts in the Morning. Today the news poll was if you think that George Bush will get credit for the success in Iraq. If you're wondering if there has been success in Iraq, they had already reported that the number of civilian deaths in May was at its lowest since 2003. Success is measured by a decreasing body count.
Tragically, they did not report that the US service death toll was the highest in years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)