Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
The Wandering Law Professor was once like you and me, but she swore a blasphemous oath, and now her half-visible shade is doomed to take pictures in bars until the Day of Judgment.
If Wisconsin is known for all of its bars and taverns, why is Minnesota known for all of its treatment centers?Maybe Germans feel less guilty about being drunk than Norwegians and Swedes do.
The KAGAN!!!! is released!!!
Ever play around with a pair of these?I got my kids an Eyeclops a couple years ago (I swear the price has doubled since). They're pretty cool. They make playing hide and seek at night a whole lot harder.Of course you can play advanced games like Silence of the Lambs too.
It would be interesting if Ann did a post on premier conservative legal eagle Ted Olson and why he has become a costitutional champion for gay marriage. Also, I predict that not only will Anthony Kennedy will uphold this ruling but so will Roberts. They will not want to go down in the history books as modern day supporters of a Dred Scott decision.
@EPR, those are cool.
Many of these beer labels are so faded by the sun that you can't tell how artistic they are.I have one of these hanging in my garage. The poster has a hundred or so of the best German beer labels. They are arranged geographically in the sense that the southern German beers at the bottom, the Czech-influenced beers at the lower right etc. I still remember a cool "Bierwitz" based on some of the names which I'll recite if anyone gets bored enough and can understand German.
Yes, Madame. I could see you as a bartender. I've known several women who tended bar and you are much like them: high-spirited, good-natured, and you know how to handle men.And, yes, that's a compliment.phil said... It would be interesting if Ann did a post on premier conservative legal eagle Ted Olson and why he has become a costitutional champion for gay marriage. Also, I predict that not only will Anthony Kennedy will uphold this ruling but so will Roberts. They will not want to go down in the history books as modern day supporters of a Dred Scott decision.Dred Scott?You mean bondage is the next frontier for homosexual rights?Don't tell garage.PS Interesting how the Lefties suddenly find a Conservative a premier anything if he agrees with one of their talking points.
Go into the brown room where all the brown bottles areSink into the brown room drown in the brown bottlesAnd drink away time forgotten here suspended hereIn the warm gloom where a man can drown in the brown.
That's the first really decent photograph you've posted since I don't know when.
Nice compostion. I especially like the lampshade..;)
Bring your own lampshade, somewhere there's a partyHere it's never endin', can't remember when it startedPass around the lampshade, there'll be plenty enough room in jaillinkage
Señor Real Chicken, Those Eyeclopse infrared night goggles are what I got my housekeeper's son for Christmas last year. She reported the boy's uncles had a blast with them and that's the last I heard. I also got the boy extra batteries and a charger because reviews said it eats them up fairly quickly.
Cool photo. Is it photoshopped? If so, how?
99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer...Scott - good one! I think there's some truth in that...
"... reflect upon the image you present."I present dozens of fascinating images that can be yours for a mere 40 dollars!
These days there is always a camera watching you!
Also, I predict that not only will Anthony Kennedy will uphold this ruling but so will Roberts. They will not want to go down in the history books as modern day supporters of a Dred Scott decision.My prediction is that the only votes to uphold it will come from Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
The Anchoress found this gem of a story. It demonstrates the Chicago Way. I find it analogous to the Obama Administration.
Revenant,What about Kagan?Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer will be solid votes to uphold. Kennedy will recognize that he does not want to have a black mark in the history books (as has happen with the justices who decided Plessy v. Fergeson and Dred Scott) and be associated with the wrong side of the greatest civil rights cause of his generation. With that Roberts will listen to his good friend Ted Olson and hear the conservative case for upholding. Roberts also will not want to be judged to be on the wrong side of history and will chose to write the opinion to uphold.Does anyone doubt that these justices fully recognize that within twenty short years to have been on the bigoted side of this issue will only bring you scorn?
There is a creepy, skull-like face floating below the "Bodega" sign. That happened in "The Excorcist" a few times, incidentally.
RELEASE THE KAGAN!!!
with all due respect to Methadras for thinking it up.
edutcher wrote "PS Interesting how the Lefties suddenly find a Conservative a premier anything if he agrees with one of their talking points."Listen you twat, in an earlier thread I acknowledged that Rush Limbaugh is the premier voice of the republican party and I don't agree with any of his talking points.Do you deny that Ted Olson is a "premier conservative legal eagle"?I am glad that most conservatives are too dumb to even consider that there might be an honest conservative argument for upholding the Cali decision. Please continue to relegate yourself to the wrong side of history. It is good for us real Americans.
BTW, that is why I encouraged Ann to do a post about Ted Olson. Given his long career in the conservative cause maybe it would be fruitful to consider what his argument is concerning gay marriage and the constitution.Why am I not surprised that the reaction to the above is for some conservatives to put their hands over their ears and close their eyes and spew non sequiturs?
Another BTW,There are still a few conservatives roaming around claiming that Brown v. Board was wrongly decided for many reasons spewed on Althouse today. But they are now considered cranks.
What about Kagan?During her solicitor general confirmation hearing, Kagan stated that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It is possible that she lied, of course, but I see no reason to assume that.
I don't care for being noticed.. except when I'm buzzed.so its safe to say that in order to be here i would have to be bussed.
Perhaps phil would like to give us a post on Barack Obama's position on same sex marriage since Barack Obama is a premier liberal legal eagle.
According to National Review Online"A Wall Street Journal article today on controversy over Supreme Court candidate Elena Kagan’s stances on gay-rights issues quotes Kagan as stating (in a written answer during her confirmation process for Solicitor General), “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” Unfortunately, the passage fails to make clear, as Kagan clarified in further follow-up, that she was merely describing the current state of the law, not offering her own view how the Constitution should best be read."Revenant, you need better talking points.http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49134/elena-kagan-same-sex-marriage-and-other-gay-rights-issues/ed-whelan
And Meade this is why civil rights issues, like this one that affects your step-son, should be handled by the courts.
Kennedy will recognize that he does not want to have a black mark in the history books (as has happen with the justices who decided Plessy v. Fergeson and Dred Scott)Gay marriage bans will never be considered the moral equivalent of slavery. Arguing that they will just makes you sound silly.With that Roberts will listen to his good friend Ted OlsonAnd maybe the Democratic justices will listen to Barack Obama. :)
JFK was also slow in his presidency in being willing to put political capital behind civil rights. But in the end he did. President Obama is doing the same.But, once again, this is why the rights of the minority should not necessarily be determined by the ballot box. That is actually both a liberal and conservative idea.
Revenant, you need better talking points.It wasn't a talking point, I just wasn't aware of the follow-up. That puts her back in play, but there is still no reason to assume she'll vote to uphold. Ginsberg and Breyer aren't even guaranteed; they rejected the equal protection clause approach in Lawrence v Texas.
Wrong phil. The Lawrence case was arguably a legitmate one for the courts because it dealt with criminalizing gay sex. The prop 8 case? No friggin way. Same sex marriage is a new construct. I support it. I would vote for it. But proponents of it have to sway a majority and do the heavy legislative lifting. Andrew Sullivan claims that history is on the side of this passing. Fine. Nothing is stopping...say David Geffen from funding an effort to get a new proposition on the ballot in California and getting the public to support it. It is not like Prop 8 passed in a landslide. If the trend is toward gay marriage, then pass it democratically. Judge made laws suck.
@Palladian..I know this guy that makes his living strictly as an artist.. we used to work together before he decided to give his complete time and attention to his art.I would love to show him your site if you give me permission.meantime you can check him out..NY Studio Gallery
Revenant wrote "Gay marriage bans will never be considered the moral equivalent of slavery. Arguing that they will just makes you sound silly."I never argued that they were morally "equivalent." But nice try at a straw man. (Not really.)They are qualitatively similar if quantitatively different.
Fred4Pres wrote "Judge made laws suck."Like Brown v. Board?Overcoming bigotry against a minority should not require the consent of the majority.Jim Crow maybe would have been broken if the Court had just waited for the electorate to become more enlightened. But it was best for young black childern who lived then to have the court step in. It was also best for our country that they did so.
Hey Meade, I am curious, do you support equal rights for your Step-son? If so what are you doing to help achieve them?
Is Ann providing any pro bono legal work?
phil, Brown v. Board was not judge made law. There were laws and amendments that were not being enforced. The court did not make it up, it based its opinion on the 14th amendment and the reconstruction civil rights laws. It overturned Plessy, which was judge made law.
phil, many people think of marriage as being one man and one woman. They believe this. Now I would support you marrying another man. I would support a law allowing it. But people who disagree are not necessary homophobic.
Fred4Pres wrote "There were laws and amendments that were not being enforced. The court did not make it up, it based its opinion on the 14th amendment..."The 14th amendment states "no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."It is great that the courts are now enforcing the law in the case of gays and lesbians being denied equal protection!
phil said... edutcher wrote "PS Interesting how the Lefties suddenly find a Conservative a premier anything if he agrees with one of their talking points." Listen you twat,...Well, there's projection for you. He's the one pushing homosexual marriage.
It is truly amazing the amount of sweat and toil some conservatives are willing to put into denying equal rights for gays and lesbians. Ten years from now most of you (and I realize many of you will have died of old age by then) will not acknowledge that you took this position much less wasted good time defending it.
phil: The 14th amendment was focused on race, not sexual orientation. But if the language of that amendment is as broad as you claim, why did we need the 19th amendment to guarantee women the vote?Due the heavy lifting and get your law passed democratically. I will vote for it.
Just so everybody knows: Phll here will be in charge of payback, shaking down the treasury for reparations after SCOTUS proclaims the equivalence of gay and black civil rights.
Now understand phil, every man and woman has the right to marry someone of the other sex. I recognize that may not appeal to those whose are oriented same sex. Which is why I would support changing the social construct of marriage to accomotate you. But if the trend of history is on your side and the public is turning on this issue, wouldn't it be better to pass it democratically? Judicial activism is cheap virtue.
My bad. Do the heavy lifting...
Fred4Press, others civil rights should not rest on getting your vote at the ballot box. Sorry, your desire to play "the decider" with others basic human rights does not trump in this case.
Fred4Pres, "the social construct of marriage" up until forty years ago did not allow marriage between whites and blacks.
Fred4Pres, can we also count on your vote for inter-racial marriage?
phil, that was wrong. I would argue the 14th amendment should have trumped state marriage laws blocking different races of men and women from getting married. But you are proposing a new constuct of marriage. Something that has never been recognized (even in ancient Greece and Rome gay marriage as you are defining it was not recognized). Now I support it. But to say 19th century equal amendment clauses are the basis of judge made law now is wrong. What you don't get is the ends do not justify the means. We are a nation of laws with separations of power. Judges should not be in the business of deciding social policy.
The basic difference between liberals and conservatives...
Did anyone notice the Tom Barrett sign in the tavern?
. . . to the left of the Black Lab dog.
Fred4Pres, where does the 14th state that it is limited to race? Also, it is great that you can look back and say that the prohibition of inter-racial marriage was wrong. Well, twenty years from now your offspring will be saying the same thing about the prohibition of gay marriage.
Sorry Fred, Prof. Bainbridge lost me when he didn't have the cojones to name his nemesis and instead had to refer to her as:A poorly educated ex-sportwriter who served half of one term of an minor state governorship is prominently featured as a -- if not the -- leading prospect for the GOP's 2012 Presidential nomination.Truly gutless.
Also, forty years ago inter-racial marriage for most Americans was mor shocking and a ''redefining of marriage'' than gay marriage is today.
Concerning your link Fred4Pres to ''Difference between ...'' It makes you look like a dink. You are the one falling back on superstisions and old bigotry. Do me a favor and go read the 14th.
Fred4Pres, are you one of those conservatives that believe that the 14th applies to corporations but not to gay people?
Fred4Pres,You're wasting your effort. For people such as Phil the only possible explanation for the existence of differing opinions on this matter (and most likely a great many others) is bigotry. He cannot and will not accept the possibility that people don't think it's a good idea to alter a cultural institution that is several thousand years old.And on a side note, are we sure that "Phil" isn't just one of the usual trolls going by a different name? Between the accusations of racism and the saturation bombing of this post it just seems familiar. I'm too lazy to check but it's happened before.
Phil is the anti-Dale Carnegie if you know what I mean. It doesn't matter what the topic is, it's his technique & style.
Gay marriage will eventually be legal or whatever they want to call it.eventually we will also flip a switch and pass new laws.. the way phil here wants.everybody will be happy then... don't quote me.
a drive thru legal process.that's the ticket.
OK, I've reflected: sometimes shiny, sometimes fractured, sometimes smokey and sometimes like those mirrors in you find at carnivals or children's museums.
Wait. Did I accidentally post this on one of the gay marriage threads?So, add sometimes scattered to the list.; )
we didn't wake up one day and saw that a large segment (very large) of straights were living together instead of getting married. the phenomena just happens more and more until it looses its fancy.. maybe gays, aside from loving the person hey want to marry, are also sending us a message.. we think you ought to marry to.. like in the last century. in this case gays would be euphemistically called squares..how do you like that?
InstaPundit doesn't have comments, so I sometimes post my comments on his fave blog:InstaPundit links to a conservative blogger who is a member of conservative versions of Journolist (funny how he never minds that on the right), to say: "DAN RIEHL: Video: How Desperate Is Letterman In Breitbart Attack? This Desperate. “Watch him go on about getting the facts right, while getting them completely wrong.”So, what facts did Letterman get wrong? I clicked on the video of Letterman and Maddow discussing slimeball Breitbart's bullshit about Sherrod and they have it right. Meanwhile, did InstaPundit ever care that he was, on Breitbart's prompting, calling Sherrod a "racist" who deserved to be fired? Instapundit then went directly into Defend Breitbart mode, without a care about BReitbart's integrity.
Gays that want to marry each other are conservatives.. i think.
Dear Jayne Cobb, for thousands of years, up until recently, women had an inferior status in society. We have radically changed this in the West in particular. I hope you know that your place is in the home and that you are not upsetting thousand of years of cultural norms. Should you even be on the internet? Does your husband know?
Time is the great equaliser.could the rush to make it legal be out of fear that 10 years from now most gays wont want to anymore?they've only been asking for less than 10. i'm just saying.usually the things that come easy are of little value..
Slimeball Andrew Breitbart employed Dr. Kevin Pezzi to write smears against Shirley Sherrod.Media Matters exposed him: Meet Breitbart's Sherrod writer: Racist sexual "expert" and inventor (who cured cancer)Andrew Breitbart responded by firing the lunatic he had hired to smear Shirley Sherrod:Earlier this week, we read an on-line column which provided one of the most thorough and well-researched examinations of the many controversies surrounding former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod. We asked the author of the column for permission to reprint his article. Since publishing the articles, we have been made aware of other writings from this author which do not reflect the principles and values of this site. Because of this, we have removed the articles from Big Government. While we stand by the information contained in the articles we published, we do not wish to see the underlying issue confused or diminished by other work the author has done. We regret the error.The right-wing blogosphere is still working hard to smear Shirley Sherrod. They're trying to prove she's a racist, a terrorist-lover, etc etc. All part of Althouse's call for a further expanding of the context, or whatever. But, let's take a closer look at some of the kooks these right-wing bloggers post shit from (click on the first link, above):In two posts on Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment website, Dr. Kevin Pezzi smears Shirley Sherrod as a racist, claiming that “if someone deserves to be put on a pedestal for overcoming racism, it isn’t Sherrod.” The racism criticism is ironic coming from Pezzi, who has repeatedly used racial epithets like “Japs” and “Chinks,” and claimed Native and African Americans should have been grateful for their subjugation by whites. Pezzi, who says that “Breitbart asked me to write for BigGovernment.com,” has a peculiar self-described history. Pezzi claims to be responsible for “over 850 inventions” and schemes such as a “magic bullet” for cancer, a “robotic chef,” and sexual inventions like “penile enlargement techniques” and “ways to tighten the vagina” (because “men like women with tight vaginas”). Pezzi has started multiple websites, from term paper helpers to a sexual help site that answers “your questions about sexual attraction, pleasure, performance, and libido” (Pezzi is qualified to do so because “No doctor in the world knows more about sexual pleasure than I do”).Pezzi also claims to have “beaten Bill Gates” on a math aptitude test, turned down a blind date with Katie Couric, and says he’s “bigger than some porno stars.”I'm glad that Andrew Breitbart decided to get rid of this lunatic, but why was he posting smears about Sherrod from him in the first place? Oh, that's right, to give us a fuller context (read: more smears) on the woman he defamed. InstaPundit, who gives his two cents on virtually everything in the news, had no comment on this. Instead, he tells us Letterman got his facts wrong, though he won't tell us what facts Letterman got wrong.
From the comments over at Big Government: why did andrew breitbart hire someone who claimed he had cured cancer, beaten bill gates on a IQ test, and called Chinese people chinks? Why did he hire a certified lunatic to discuss politics and current events about our country?Good question. Another comment: The problem I have is Breitbart didn't do two cents of research on this fool and posted his writings as "one of the most thorough and well-researched examinations of the many controversies surrounding former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod." That wraps it up for me until Brietbart can prove to me, beyond any doubt (period), that he's not running a freak show for idiots.I would advise anyone with any common sense and a shred of decency and values to do the same. I agree.
Well, that's an update on the wonderful right-wing blogosphere, folks. And, needless to say, they're also mad this week about the big court ruling, because they hate gay people.
There does appear to be an increasingly strong, developing pattern of lack of before-the-fact due diligence. I know it's not safe or politic to say so in a number of circles, but there it is. Forced prioritizing cuts both ways.
A different flavor alone does not a different thing make.
P.S. Will althouse find it blog-worthy to do a post about the lunatics writing articles at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government? Meet Breitbart's Sherrod writer: Racist sexual "expert" and inventor (who cured cancer)Let's take a closer look at the nutcases running on the right-wing blogosphere. Oops, no, you might get blackballed from InstaPundit for that.
because they hate gay peopleAnother example of a POV based in shallowland.
To repeat: A different flavor alone does not a different thing make.
Oh, I'm sorry. I was supposed to be fooled into thinking the conservative opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in a hatred of gay people? Well, I'm busy right now LOLing at the lunatic who was publishing anti-Sherrod hit pieces on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog: Meet Breitbart's Sherrod writer: Racist sexual "expert" and inventor (who cured cancer)That's some funny fucking shit!
I guess I'm alone in finding Andrew Breitbart's anti-Sherrod writer hilarious! Oh yeah, these are the commenters who told me last month: If you are a straight male, and you find that you suddenly have a fleeting crush on Andrew Breitbart today, you should know that this does not indicate that you are truly gay, only that you recognize awesome.Oooookay.....
Loafing Oaf: The minute I followed a link from one of my Twitter lists and found myself at the Pezzi article, I recognized the author. This puts me both in the camp of not being "shocked, shocked" AND in that of those who are apparently more aware than the entity that put up that piece. (And also in the camp of those who'd "check first, only then publish," though in this particular instance I didn't have to check first...though I did research to verify. Blame it on a quirky, old-fashioned habit.)Oaf, you do whatever you have to do. So do and will I.
What is summer without 99 bottles of beer on the wall and a group of tune deaf campers relentlessly singing off key?
What is summer without 99 bottles of beer on the wall and a group of tune deaf campers relentlessly singing off key?...not to mention following the beats of different drummers?; )
They are qualitatively similar if quantitatively different.In the sense that a radish is qualitatively similar to a hippopotamus.Let me put it another way, so you don't get confused and start accusing me of building straw men: nobody is going to care, ten or twenty or thirty years from now, if a justice held that there's no right to gay marriage in the Constitution. It isn't an important issue to 95% of the population, and it never will be.
What the Pezzi saga tells us about Breitbart
I love Bodega! I used to live in LaCrosse (Seattle now). Your blog just rocks, and I so enjoy your photographs. (Happy anniversary to you and Meade, by the way!)
Cripes, Oaf's really flogging the leftie talking points tonight.
Libtard: am glad that most conservatives are too dumb to -Says the guy who ascribes opposition to homosexual marriage as "bigotry". Lets play it again: to have been on the bigoted side of this issue will only bring you scorn?Gee Libtard, must be nice to divine motive of those you disagree with. And how do you manage to throw around words like "dumb" when you're not intelligent enough to understand the other side's argument? Yeah, keep telling us how "smart" you are. And we'll pretend you're not insecure about your own intelligence...
And on a side note, are we sure that "Phil" isn't just one of the usual trolls going by a different name? True. Its likely an AlphaLibtard/Jeremy sock puppet, since those handles have already used up their credibility for the month.
This link - What the Pezzi saga tells us about Breitbart has a screenshot of Dr. Pezzi's BigGovernment.com bio before they scrubbed their site of him and his articles in the wake of these revelations. It shows what a reckless and absurd web site Breitbart runs, and how Andrew BReitbart will just continue with his bullshit because it's making him money. Bloggers like InstaPundit and Althouse, who are Breitbart supporters, will not call him out on it. Why is that?
Its likely an AlphaLibtard/Jeremy sock puppet, since those handles have already used up their credibility for the month.He hasn't accused anyone of licking balls yet, so that rules out Jeremy. He doesn't have the aura of basic stupidity that surrounds Alpha at all times. My money's on Ritmo, he has the same passive-aggressive style.
Revenent: If you want "talking points" just look at Althouse's in-the-tank, coordinated posts on the Sherrod incident. Rather than criticize Andrew Breitbart, she encouraged the right-wing blogosphere to find dirt on Shirley Sherrod. This agenda led to Andrew Breitbart employing an absolute lunatic to write anti-Sherrod hit pieces. They're hell-bent on further defaming Shirley Sherrod, I guess, even though her only "crime" was giving an anti-racism speech to the NAACP. Breitbart did zero research on their writer, even though the bio on him they published on their site had contained plenty of red flags that he was a psycho. Breitbart has now scrubbed his site of this crackpot (who was possibly a troll). It is not "talking points" to be concerned about what is going on in the right-wing blogosphgere. They have gone HELLA crazy and off the deep end. I know you won't read about it on Althouse, though. She depends on conservative blogs for hits, and earns money off a conservative blogads outfit that has a history of kicking people off for not conforming.
Revenent: If you want "talking points"... I'll start reading your posts?You've posted the same two links a total of five times, and your big revelation is that *one* of Breitbart's hired writers is almost as much of a racist nut as the folks Obama has surrounded himself with for the last 25 years. Honestly, now, I'll be generous and assume that this guy is as bad as MediaMatters makes him out to be. But the fact that he's a fruitcake doesn't magically make Sherrod and her husband sane and decent human beings.she encouraged the right-wing blogosphere to find dirt on Shirley SherrodBut what really infuriates you is that they found so much of it. The good stuff wasn't even in the NAACP speech -- it was in the interviews she gave in response to it! Delicious irony, really.
If I'm alive 20-30 years from now--a big if--what I suspect I'll be more interested in is the state of the marriage between individuals and the government, which institution has existed from birth to death for a very long time now.
What was it that InstaPundit told us? Oh yes: "WHAT BREITBART PROMISED, BREITBART DELIVERS: Video evidence of NAACP racism."This was when InstaDunce and Althouse were deceived by Breitbart into thinking that Sherrod was a massive racist descriminating against white folk in the USDA. This was gonna be their big follow-up to their claims that the DOJ is infested with anti-white bigots. All that shit about Sherrod being a racist at the USDA was revealed to be a bunch of bullshit and lies. So, InstaDunce and company went into defense mode for their rising star, Andrew Breitbart. He's gonna prove she's a racist one way or another, DAMMIT!!!! And a terrorist-lover to boot!!!!! And he's got more damning NAACP videos coming, both InstaPundit and Althouse assured us! No, here's what Breitbart had in the wake of that smelly bunch of shit: Breitbart writer Kevin Pezzi's sockpuppet MySpace haremCheck that shit out. That's what Breitbart delivers. ROFL!!! The right-wing blogosphere is pretty comical. If you haven't yet become acquainted with Kevin Pezzi, the racist doctor/sex "expert"/robot chef builder who now writes for Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, you'd be well served to click over to Media Matters' profile and explore the many bizarre and disturbing facets of Pezzi's background. The man is quite clearly a huckster, and basically everything he does is aimed at selling copies of his e-books, which deal largely with sex. To that end, he's apparently created at least six fake MySpace profiles of women -- most of them featuring badly photoshopped stock images of models with large breasts -- claiming to be enthralled with Dr. Pezzi and his sex books.Andrew Breitbart's kind of journalist! LOLOL!!
Yeah, Ann Althouse told us to brace ourselves, cuz video after video was about to be released by Andrew Breitbart showing all the racism going on at the NAACP. What happened to that?
Loafing Oaf: God, you're such a twin son of lazy different mothers. You deserve each other, you focusing-on-the-wrong-things, sons-of-bastards.
I'm just amused at the idea that there is some lingering doubt that racism exists in an "association for the advancement of one particular race".
I'm reflecting on the appearance of journalism.
Loafing Oaf,"So, what facts did Letterman get wrong? I clicked on the video of Letterman and Maddow discussing slimeball Breitbart's bullshit about Sherrod and they have it right."Dude, you don't get out much, do you?
Wow, it looks like Sarah Palin's pussy has finally, mercifully released PinchingLoaf's leg. Unfortunately, it now seems that Andrew Breibart's pussy has latched itself to his other leg.
WTF? A new pussy-clenching meme that will no doubt disallow any, every and all things in its wake (regardless of). Aww, fuck it. Uncle. Here goes: Andrew Breitbart is the best goddamn reporter and researcher and editor ever and the best refutation ever of the notion that honest reporting and researching and editing isn't possible. Also: Diarrhea doesn't splatter, and memes don't have consequences.wv: wingsSeriously, that's the wv. Thanks, Palladian, for contributing to the winds beneath certain sorts of ill-directed ones.
I'm finally convinced. There is no such thing as good reporting, no such thing as good researching, no such thing as good editing, no such thing as good journalism. No such things are possible. There simply are no such things. There is only advocacy and polemic.So, let's stop bitching about all of those things. We're agreed. There are no such things. It's only and all, all and only, advocacy and polemic.I'll even go one step further, and correct Trooper York's endless refrain:"The only thing worse than a lawyer is a journalist."
I propose: No more linking here (only in comment threads, of course; Althouse's posts are a different matter on account of it being her home, after all). Whatever it is that you link, we already know both what it is and what is not [what it always is and what it cannot be] from the get-go.You're on your own and ought be able to go it, and go at it, on your own. So do that. Just do it.
And no more requests for citations (or the bastardized "cites," either). We all know that such requests are no more than rhetorical flare. And we already know that even when such citations are given, we will already know both what they are and what they are not [what they always are and what they cannot be] from the get-go.Let that stuff go, folks. Just let it go. We all know it for what it is, anyway.
Hey, Althouse, upon second reflection, I've changed my mind. Screw the mirror. It's the engraved images I'm more concerned about.wv: preferiLOL. Yes. Well, exactly.
Crack Emcee, you don't get off the right-wing blogosphere much. I clicked on your link and, while that site disagrees with Letterman's subjective opinions and conclusions, I didn't see anything at the link that showed that anything Letterman said was factually inaccurate. Certainly everything that Letterman said was way more factually accurate than anything you'd read about the matter on blogs like InstaPundit and Althouse. BUt why don't you just post what it is that you feel was factually inaccurate? I'm tired of seeing people like you and InstaPundit linking to some right-wing blog and saying "Look how Letterman can't get his facts straight" when actually the blogger they are linking to is getting many facts wrong. I realize you think shit like "Shirley Sherrod - and her husband - have since been revealed to be racists" are established facts, but they aren't.
Wow, it looks like Sarah Palin's pussy has finally, mercifully released PinchingLoaf's leg. Unfortunately, it now seems that Andrew Breibart's pussy has latched itself to his other leg.I think Sarah Palin is a crap political leader and Andrew Breitbart is a crap journalist. You haven't shown me why I'm wrong. Congrats to Breitbart for publishing the articles of a total lunatic (and probable TROLL) to further smear Shirley Sherrod. What was Sherrod's crime again? Making an anti-racism speech at the NAACP? She must be a terrorist-lover, though, if you read the bloggers InstaPundit links to!
I realize you think shit like "Shirley Sherrod - and her husband - have since been revealed to be racists" are established facts, but they aren't.One wonders when these scumbuckets will leave Shirley Sherrod alone. The couple whom Sherrod referred to in her speech have spoken out strongly in Sherrod's defense. Why do people like Crack Emcee continue to enthusiastically demand that Shirley Sherrod be further defamed by slimeballs like Andrew Breitbart? Is this all a game to low-morals partisans like him? If this is your much-hyped right-wing blogosphere, you can shove it right up your asshole!
What was the big factual error that Letterman made in that clip? I don't see it. He seems like a decent man taking the decent person's position on the matter. Far be it from me to think that it might be InstaPundit and Dan Rhiel who are rather propagandistic partisans on the matter. No, they are truth-tellers! They are madly in love with TRUTH and FAIRNESS! LOL! As they further smear Shirley Sherrod. *spit*
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie lie lie lie.
How about a location update. Are you two still on the road?
Phil,Given your comments about my "husband" I'm going to assume that you have never seen the show Firefly or the movie Serenity. But on the plus side your mistake at least prevented you from using the racism canard (variety being the spice of life and all that).But more to your point, judges didn't decide that the roles of women were suddenly subject to change. The particularly empowering changes came as a result of use of the Amendment process and the legislative process. The women's movement convinced most people of the merits of their arguments, they didn't just attempt to go through the courts.You want a better analogy look at abortion. There was a large difference in the feelings of when life began at the time. Then bang a court comes in and decides to tell the nation what its morality should be, thereby trumping the will of the people in many cases. Due to the manner in which it was approached (e.g. penumbras) the issue has become more polarizing than anything else in American politics.
Jayne, the 14th and the courts were also used to advance equal rights for women. Also, it did not hurt that women are also a majority.
Phil,Women didn't get the right to vote until the constitution was amended. A court didn't order it. A court didn't cite any changing views over what constituted a "man" while ignoring the majority of the country's views on the subject.In other words they got the ultimate political power in a representative govt. by convincing the necessary majority that they were right. And as a consequence there is no actual controversy surrounding the subject anymore.To go the court route is going to turn this into a new version of the abortion debate, which is to say that even many who support gay marriage are going to oppose this.
To put it another way:Women had less political clout on a national level than the current gay population does (i.e. they had no votes). And yet they still managed to convince enough people of the rightness of their position to actually amend the constitution. Incidentally a constitutional amendment is far more difficult to achieve than what is necessary in California, or in most states.
Jayne,I suspect you are young. You do not know your history.The fight for equal rights for women did not begin and end with the 19th amendment. Many of the advances in terms of property rights, personal rights and other areas of equality occurred in the courts and the 14th amendment was heavy relied upon. Many of these advance remained controversial up until even twenty years ago.While I realize that it fits your world view to claim that all of the above occurred at the ballot box and through legislation and hence was not controversial, that is not the way it really happen.
reader_iam said...I'm finally convinced. There is no such thing as good reporting, no such thing as good researching, no such thing as good editing, no such thing as good journalism.FINALLY!!!!I have been telling you that for years reader.The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
I want one.
reader_iam wrote: So, let's stop bitching about all of those things. We're agreed. There are no such things. It's only and all, all and only, advocacy and polemic.Why is that neccesarily bad? I happen to think it reflects an earlier more dynamic era of journalism. The Internet is the reason for this of course, and so long as everybody has access to all sides of the story what's the problem? (Oh you mean people may have to search and think for themselves?)Just do it.I love it when the Nike tigress in reader comes out to play. Grrr-rrrow!
to el pollo real i have not played with those but i have played with a set of kids night vision goggles they are very cool.
Post a Comment