I figured I'd look to the bloggers in the diversosphere I admire most when it came to the Sonia Sotomayor nomination, so I checked out the blogs of the editors of the recently received NAM Journalism award for journalism in ethnic media, Sanctuary.Sure[...]
Read The Full Article:
Republicans -- they're never satisfied.
It was only a matter of time until the tapes came out. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
In a Nov. 13 conversation recorded by the FBI, Roland Burris told Rod Blagojevich’s brother he feared he’d “catch hell,” with the public if he gave the governor money at the same he was lobbying for a Senate seat appointment.
Still, Burris ends the call with a promise: “I will personally do something and it will come to you before the 15th, OK?”
So, the man without enough money to buy a Senate seat probably kinda-sorta did.
The really fun part is that it appears Burris was going to pay the Blagojevich operation $1,500, but never mailed the check.
There's a "you get what you pay for" joke in here somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
It's bizarre. But it does show how twisted - and sexually screwed up - the religious right is. Who knew that so many religious right leaders were just aching to cheat on their spouses.
How does your neighbor?s same-sex marriage undermine your marriage?Note how the bigots assume that gay marriages are per se non-monogamous, and that straight marriage are. It's the same argument the religious right's racist forefathers used to try to ban inter-racial marriages and support slavery, among other things (i.e., black men are lustful animals, they're not like you and me).
Traditional societies depend on shared morals. Unfortunately, in modern times, democracies have traded absolute truths and collective morality for personal freedom.
Legal recognition for openly non-monogamous gay unions would effectively destroy the taboo on adultery. The result is a continual downfall of families and society.
Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at Stanford University explains: ?What we need to understand ? but do not ? is that gay marriage will undermine the structure of taboos that continue to protect heterosexual marriage ? and will do so far more profoundly than either the elimination of sodomy laws, or the general sexual loosening of the past thirty years. Above all, marriage is protected by the ethos of monogamy ? and by the associated taboo against adultery. The real danger of gay marriage is that it will undermine the taboo on adultery, thereby destroying the final bastion protecting marriage: the ethos of monogamy.?
Daveinchi wrote an essay, Conservatives will lose the Plains next. It has some great numbers that give the Democratic Party hope for a sustained movement.While the numbers look promising, they tell only half the story... By the 2006 mid-term[...]
Read The Full Article:
Used to be, dense white guys exercised their sexism against uppity females with condescending epithets like "little lady." That was how they addressed little white ladies, of course. Minority females were lucky to get called something not obscene but merely demeaning, like "Mammy." Anita Hill didn't even rate that courtesy, getting labeled a cunt.
Federal Appeals Court Judge and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor presents a unique challenge: a Hispanic woman born to the lowest of the low - Puerto Rican from the Bronx projects - who achieved one of the highest posts in the nation.
What the fuck to call this uppity-est of the uppity bitches?
Mike Huckabee hit on a brilliant ploy by calling her "Maria." No, he didn't just blurt out the only Hispanic female name he could think of; this was deliberate.
"Sonia" is the intelligent, educated, lovely-mannered European wife of your upper-class suburban neighbor.
"Maria" is your illegal maid. The fat one. Who whores around.
Backwoods Alabama pig-fucker and "Senator" Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions calls her "Ms. Sotomayor."
Every time he does that, Judge Sotomayor should say this: "Ms. Sotomayor is my mother, Mr. Sessions. You can call me Judge."
Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.
Read The Full Article:
You know, if I hadn't been a reporter and didn't know how heavily politicized (and blind to actual justice) most prosecutors are, I might actually swallow this horse hooey:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has overturned a long-standing ruling that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.
The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.
The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
There's a good reason for this. In case you haven't noticed, criminals are rarely intelligent and they're often easily coerced. You know that bit on cop shows where they use a copy machine as a "lie detector"? Some cops actually do that.
The court's conservatives overturned that opinion Tuesday, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance interests and (as we have described) is ultimately unworkable."
Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Scalia said.
I don't know where Scalia grew up, but apparently his life experience is very different from mine! I knew too many kids who got arrested and coerced into confessions to give this much credence.
The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.
"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."
Don't worry, Justice Stevens. We lost confidence in the "reliability and fairness of our system of justice" a long time ago!
Did Rush Limbaugh finally get to David Brooks? How else to explain Brook's about face on Obama, whom Brooks has repeatedly praised for his thoughtful, measured, and centrist decisions -- i.e., those that David agreed with -- but whom Brooks now subtly[...]
Read The Full Article:
Yep, kids, the one we have all been waiting for: Norm Coleman has chimed in on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the bench. And...really...the words in bold type are all that you need to know.
"When debating judges, I was firm that I would use the same standard to evaluate judges under a Democrat President as I would a Republican President. Are they intellectually competent, do they have a record of integrity, and most importantly, are they committed to following the Constitution rather than creating new law and policy. When I am re-elected, I intend to review Judge Sotomayor's record using this process. Certainly, the nomination of a Hispanic woman to the nation's highest court is something all American's should applaud."
Hunter had an immediate reaction to Coleman's two cents:
"Aw, he's so cute. He's like our own little litigious LOLcat"
Coleman can haz opinion about SCOTUS!!!!
After a hard day of waterboarding, there’s nothing that freshens up a tired, sweaty Junior Torquemada better than a spritz of 24 The Fragrance. That’s right, direct from the master parfumers of Dubai comes 24 The Fragrance, a new masculine scent that will drive the female prisoners wild with a desire to confess to anything - and we mean anything!
That’s right, 20th Century Fox (why is it always Fox?) came up with the brilliant idea to license the name of Jack Bauer’s neo-con television fantasia 24 to the land of exotically weird architecture. But the oddest part is where they plan to sell the stinky stuff - exclusively in the Middle East.
Now I’m no marketing major, but selling perfume based on an infidel American who tortures Arabs might not have the big “potent brand synergy” Fox expects.
Although there’s no important connection between this stink juice and real torture, it’s amazing that companies can have such a tin ear. In our society’s quest to brand everything from political parties to online casinos, we’re getting a little carried away.
What’s next, Nuke ‘Em Till They Glow aftershave?
24 jack bauer perfume torture politics dubai