[U]nion thugs join together in creating a pigsty -- and we know that they create pigsties, especially compared to Tea Party rallies. You look at any public grounds where these people have been: The trash is littered everywhere, trash cans are overturned, beer cans, bong pipes. Hell, it's all over there. The Tea Party people, you don't find anything. Not even a discarded tissue....
The Democrats and the media want you to think it's just a bunch of average, hardworking out of working, valiant teachers, firefighters and so forth, and it's a bunch of slobs. Maggot-infested, dope-smoking, damn it, hell, longhaired, the whole nine yards. You got longhaired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM rock 'n' roller types, exactly who they are. Bong pipes, you name it.
Now, that's just ridiculous. I've lived in Madison, Wisconsin for 25 years — and I've gone over to the protests nearly every day — and I've never seen a used Kotex anywhere. I put up a post showing trash on one of the first days of protest, but ever since then, I've been impressed that they are picking up trash. They care about the impression they leave and are making a big effort about that. They are putting up signs, taping them up and sticking them in little snowmen outdoors. And there are piles of belongings, such as bedding that are piled up in a way that isn't aesthetically pleasing. But that's not trash. And I haven't seen any beer drinking or beer cans or pot smoking or pot paraphernalia anywhere. The last time I was in the building, I didn't think it smelled, but Meade was there more recently (for the Governor's Budget Address), and he says it smelled. People are living in there, the human body is what it is.
Oddly, the name Koch appears 10 times in this Washington Post article. It appears that some lawprof brains are aboil with worries about the nefarious Koch brothers. Kochophobia rages on, and these furious minds seem to imagine themselves overcoming the evil that is Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — as if their "ethics" plan — assuming it could be put in place — couldn't possibly backfire and oust their favorite liberal/swing justice.
The professors said in their letter to the committees that their goal is not to second-guess the activities of any individual judge but to create "mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court." An influential British judge declared in the 17th century that "no man may be a judge in his own case," the letter said, but "inexplicably we still allow Supreme Court justices to be the sole judge of themselves on recusal issues."
And what man will be the judge of whether these law professors are truthfully reporting their motives?
Under the ethics code that the lawyers consider their model, approved and regularly updated by the nation's chief appellate judges under the chairmanship of the chief justice, lesser judges are prohibited from accepting travel reimbursements from outside groups if they "give the appearance of influencing the judge" or "otherwise give the appearance of impropriety."
Nan Aron, director of the liberal group Alliance for Justice, said that if these rules were extended to the Supreme Court, none of the justices could attend "overtly political meetings or events" like those sponsored by the Kochs.
And who will be the judge of which meetings and events are overtly political? If they're sponsored by the Kochs, they're political. So far, we know that. Thanks a lot. I love the irony. It's obvious that this proposal is overtly political!
At present, said Ellen Yaroshefsky, director of the Jacob Burns Ethics Center at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, "we have standard-less standards" at the court that she struggles to explain to students.
She said it would be straightforward for the court to appoint an independent body of retired justices or other experts to adjudicate recusal and ethics controversies.
Oh, wonderful! An independent body of retired justices or other experts. Yes, wouldn't it be great to have an independent body of retired justices or other experts decide which Supreme Court Justices got to participate in particular cases?
So... retired Justices Souter, Stevens, and O'Connor might step up to decide who to disqualify in — let's say — the case about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Maybe you think that skews a tad liberal, a tad too anti-Scalia-and-Thomas. Well, first, that's not a bug, it's a feature. And, second, whoever is setting up the "independent body" could always balance it with those "other experts." You know where to get them, don't you? Elite law schools! Begin with the names of those 100 professors who signed that letter to Congress.
It's all so delightfully inbred — isn't it? — in the feverish fantasy life of the Scalia- and Thomas-haters of legal academia.
"But the deal is, I've got to work out every day, and I work out hung over if I'm hung over... I live my life as I want to, and creatively... It's about the cross-training and keeping yourself inspired. I have to say, I do a ton of yoga."
Said Lady Gaga, either telling the truth or cleverly inserting a promo for her boyfriend's book — "The Drunk Diet" — into the viral media.
District Superintendent Dan Nerad made the announcement at 11 p.m. Tuesday after 40 percent of the 2,600 members of the teacher's union had called in sick and more were expected to do so through Wednesday morning.
"At this ratio we have serious concerns about our ability to maintain safe and secure school environments," Nerad said in the announcement....
Earlier Tuesday, Nerad said teachers who take a sick day will be asked to show proof of a medical reason. Those who don't could face sanctions such as docked pay. Teachers aren't able to take a personal day with less than three days' notice.
Okay, now, everybody go to the demonstration! The kids won't have school, but you can learn a lot of things outside of school. Some of these things are even taught by the teachers who are not there. For example, it's okay to call in sick when you're not actually sick, but you just have something that you think is really important.
Nerad's decision came after Madison Teachers Inc. executive director John Matthews said the union was contacting members and urging them to call in sick and instead attend a rally scheduled for Wednesday at the Capitol in opposition to Walker's collective bargaining proposal.
The campaign is the first coordinated absence by Madison school employees in 16 years, Matthews said.
I remember that. My sons were in the public schools here then. There was a lot of talk about whether it counted as significant dishonesty to claim to be sick when you were not and what kind of example that set for the youngsters. Many local people took the position that "sickouts" are a known and understood labor strategy and therefore not to be understood as actual lying lying. The obvious follow-up question on that argument is: What about the children — do they understand that? You will be considered very annoying around here if you advance to the confrontation level of asking that question.
It's unclear whether school will be held Thursday or Friday.
Also Tuesday, nearly 800 Madison East High School students — half the school — walked out to participate in a demonstration at the state Capitol. Students at West, Memorial and at other schools around the state — from Shullsburg to Sheboygan — also participated in demonstrations during school hours.
Well, the entire week is shot, isn't it? Oh, but the students are learning about political engagement and activism. I kind of agree. In fact, I've toyed with the idea that there should be no organized schooling at all. Why gather and trap the kids in buildings all day long? (Think of the carbon emissions if the imprisonment alone doesn't trouble you.) All the lessons and more could be put on the internet. Let all the students creatively or bumblingly pursue their own education according to the path they find for themselves, the way life itself works outside of school.
Other demonstrations and protests at schools in Wisconsin are scheduled for Wednesday.
East High senior Ona Powell, whose mother is a Madison teacher and father is a professor, coordinated the walkout through Facebook and word-of-mouth at school on Monday.
"I felt outraged that unions are being attacked and didn't want my mom hurt by this," Powell said.
As teachers beamed and offered thanks, student organizers in the hallways handed out signs identifying each as a "future worker, future voter," proclaiming this was a "Walk out for Walker out," and calling on the Legislature to "kill this bill."
Anyway, isn't it interesting how well the students used the internet to organize their political activity? Why not close all the schools altogether and let the students romp and play and be political and speak and learn via the internet and internet-organized activities... forever?
School's out for the day? School's out for the week? School's out forever!
In a world where it depends on what the meaning of is is, all the government needs to do is interpret. Regulating interstate commerce includes forcing people to buy things they don't want to buy, and smoking includes not smoking. You can make anything you want be true, if you only believe. And "you" means "the government," and "believe" means "dictate."
E-cigarettes are plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales. A tiny light on the tip even glows like a real cigarette. They have prompted debate over how risky they are and whether they're even legal....
Numerous videos on YouTube show passengers using the devices on airplanes. ... [S]ome passengers have interpreted flight attendant instructions to mean that the devices were only prohibited when other electronic devices were not allowed during takeoff and landing.
It sounds like the passengers are doing a pretty good job at interpretation. It's an electronic device, not a smoking device.
Many airlines already have begun informing passengers that the devices are not allowed on flights, but [Senator Frank Lautenberg, author of the 1987 smoking ban] said there had been confusion over their use and wanted to make sure officials were solidly opposed to opening the door to e-smoking on planes.
Opening the door? How dare a politician talk to us like that! The doors are open until they close them with laws.
"I understand from an airline's point of view the hassles it could create," [said Jason Healy, president of e-cigarette maker Blu Cigs.] "It's not the actual product, it's the disruption and explaining to everyone else that it's not smoke."
Not smoking does not become smoking because you have to keep explaining that it is not smoking. If the disruption of people thinking these things are smoking is important enough to deny the physical needs and pleasures of the individuals who use them, then summon up the political will to ban them explicitly. And quit lying.
People need to quit smoking and quit lying. If you're trying to quit smoking, maybe it will help you to have an e-cigarette that delivers some of the satisfaction you get from smoking. There is no corresponding device to wean you off your lying. Oh, but you say you're not lying, you're interpreting. Hey, your interpreting looks more like lying that an e-cigarette looks like smoking, and I'm going to grab it right out of your mouth with my blog. How dare you disrupt me like that!
"... against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
That's the wording of the oath of office taken by members of Congress, used yesterday as Chief Justice John Roberts "presided over a closed-door ceremony in the offices of the soon-to-be House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, to swear in his staff a day before Republicans are scheduled to take control of the chamber."
I'm linking to the NYT, where the first comment is "did he cry?" Boehner, famously, cries easily, and I think the oath actually is the sort of thing that would move him to tears. Read it. Seriously. Does it reach you in a deep place that gives rise to tears? If not, why not?
How many members of Congress take that oath with mental reservation and purpose of evasion and don't even feel a twinge of conscience when they say those words? How many members of Congress take that oath and it's just words — written more than a hundred years ago — and they don't even have a spark of awareness of what they are promising to do, so the purpose of evasion doesn't even flicker across a synapse?
IN THE COMMENTS: The Crack Emcee says:
And, after all that, you're surprised how I talk about marriage?
I would never have said this out loud, but I couldn't help thinking how interesting it was that Feingold shaped his whole lecture around the sanctity of the oath, when just a few days ago he announced that he was getting a divorce, his second. Was I the only one who thought how strange it was to hear a man piously invoke a passionate fidelity to an oath when he had -- so conspicuously -- gone back on the marriage oath twice?\
But I like Senator Feingold. I do think he's a good man. I don't presume to know what happens to people in their marriages, and I am divorced myself. Nevertheless, he could have discussed his devotion to the Constitution from some perspective other than the fact that he'd sworn an oath. Taking an oath to the Constitution, after all, is not the strongest reason to support it.
The White House denies it: "The president hasn’t said anything remotely like that and has never spoken with Mr. DeFazio about the issue." Denies even speaking to DeFazio?
There's a discrepancy. Maybe both are lying, but both can't be telling the truth.
The quote from the White House has internal indicia of dishonesty. The spokesman (Tommy Vietor) is asserting, with respect to another person (the President), that things have never happened. Vieter makes 2 extreme statements in rapid succession: 1. "The president hasn’t said anything remotely like that," and 2. The President hasn't even "spoken with DeFazio about the issue." How can a person who cares about the truth make such expansive statements?
That doesn't mean DeFazio is honest. He goes on TV — the Eliot Spitzer show — and portrays Barack Obama as a big drama queen: "The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls, the president is making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal." DeFazio is against the tax deal, and he's trying to sink it by acting like Obama's desperately and selfishly obsessed with his own interest in prestige and reelection.
Police in Idaho have arrested a woman who impersonated a plastic surgeon so she could carry out breast exams to random strangers....
The victims said they believed [Kristina] Ross because she used medical vocabulary.
She said Ross even gave them a phone number to an actual plastic surgeon's office in order for them to make follow-up appointments.
Ross is charged with a felony — "practising medicine without a licence." Oh, blech, it's the Daily Mail. Why do I keep reading that lurid trash! The charge is practicing medicine without a license. Oh, what bullshit. She wasn't practicing medicine. She was lying to ladies in a bar.
The Daily Mail also makes a big deal out of the fact that Ross's "gender category" is "male to female."
It violates free speech and due process, she wrote, rejecting the arguments made by the Department of Justice lawyers who fought against the change... change that President Obama promised a year ago that he would deliver. Here, watch him — it's chilling to witness now:
"It's important to be honest among friends," he says at 0:24 and then literally puts his tongue in his cheek. He was lying and he knew it. Lying about being honest.
But what damnable luck for the Democrats to have this thrown at them 2 weeks before the election! It's such a bad issue for Obama. He hasn't done what he promised, and he's fought against constitutional rights that he ought to be actively pursuing, whether he'd made promises or not. He's going to have to rest on the argument that he was always all about Congress making the change. But why hasn't his Congress gone his way? And do Democrats in Congress want this issue forefronted now? They've only made everyone unhappy — people who want DADT repealed and people who don't. And then there's the additional issue of "activist" judges.... (Phillips was appointed by President Clinton, who, of course, signed the original Don't Ask Don't Tell statute.)
So once again, we will have the political prospect of the Obama administration simultaneously legally defending the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell in court, while politically saying they oppose both...
Yes, the GOP is the main party to blame. But no, this does not excuse the extra-cautious, gays-are-radioactive mindset of the Obama administration...
The GOP is convenient, and the Obama and the Democrats have taken advantage of that. I think they are deeply responsible for the failure here. Obama's administration is actively fighting against gay rights.
UPDATE: The Obama administration, continuing its active fight against gay rights, will appeal the decision in the case about the Defense of Marriage Act.
"Duke Winces as a Private Joke Slips Out of Control," reads a NYT headline. I wondered what Duke winced? John Wayne is too dead to wince, and who cares what some Euro-aristocrat feels? Turns out it's Duke, the University, and the article is about that college girl who made big, detailed PowerPoint presentation about her sex conquests and sent it out to "a few friends" by email, whence it migrated to the web, purportedly to her shame and dismay. Supposedly, the young woman — Karen Owen — didn't mean for her hilarious writing to go viral. Is that so? My experience with writers is that they want readers. But that's a side issue ignored by the NYT, which is fixated on Duke University:
On campus, students were abashed, if not a bit fatigued by the notoriety.
Just four years ago, the Duke men’s lacrosse team was embroiled in scandal when a woman falsely accused three Blue Devils players of having raped her at a party where she was to perform as a stripper. One year later, the charges against the players were dropped and the prosecutor in the case, Michael B. Nifong, was disbarred.
What?! Why liken real sex between consenting individuals to a false charge of rape?! "Notoriety" — that's a ridiculous umbrella term.
Seven of the 13 athletes Ms. Owen wrote about were — or still are — on the lacrosse team. This incident has angered many of those who are already sensitive to their image, according to students and alumni who know them. The lacrosse players contacted would not comment.
Huh? So... those 7 guys aren't the ones who were falsely accused of rape, are they? And are the lacrosse players really so "sensitive" that it bothers them for people to know that they had actual sex with classmates?
On campus, other students had plenty to say.
Kishan Shah, 18, a pre-med student from Carmel, Ind., said the university should not revoke Ms. Owen’s degree, but “they should let her know that she has disgraced the school.”
Who suggested the crazy punishment of revoking her degree? And since when do we punish people for talking about their sexual encounters? If she's lied about someone, maybe they have a defamation claim, but it's hard to see how a young man is hurt by the rumor that he had sex with a woman, even if she thinks he wasn't a good enough lover.
Mike Lefevre, a 21-year-old senior and the president of the student body, said that people were not sure whom to be more concerned about. “Should we be more worried about the young woman’s privacy or worry about the individuals who were named?” he said. “It’s not so clear to us who was the victim, and who we should reach out to.”
Give me a break. If you do things with people, they can talk about it. These days the talk is on the internet. Get used to it. If you don't like it, try limiting your sexual encounters to people who love and respect you. And quit whining.
2. And speaking of "you," the Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell, known for her spooky assertion "I am you," is in trouble for claiming that her father was Bozo. TPM has untangled the web of possible lies. Why would you claim to be the offspring of Bozo if you weren't?
3. Clowns stage a protest against the anti-clown bigotry. "It's very unfair to portray us as evil. I have always been a clown, I have grown up around clowns, my father and my grandfather were clowns and we are not evil."
... and if there were any students not bright enough to notice that they were hearing lies, the lies, in their particular cases, were, ironically, bigger lies. Check it out:
Nobody gets to write your destiny but you. Your future is in your hands. Your life is what you make of it. And nothing -- absolutely nothing -- is beyond your reach, so long as you’re willing to dream big, so long as you’re willing to work hard. So long as you’re willing to stay focused on your education, there is not a single thing that any of you cannot accomplish, not a single thing. I believe that.
If you believe that, you are so dumb that your chances of controlling your own destiny are especially small. But it's absurd to tell kids that if only they dream big, work hard, and get an education, they can have anything they want. Do you know what kind of dream job kids today have? A recent Marist poll showed that 32% would like to be an actor/actress. 29% want to be a professional athlete. 13% want to be President of the United States. That's not going to happen.
Even young people with more modest dreams — like getting a decent law job after getting good grades at an excellent law school — are not getting what they want. To say "nothing -- absolutely nothing -- is beyond your reach" is a blatant lie, and Barack Obama knows that very well. The assertion "I believe that" is on the level of Tommy Flanagan, the Pathological Liar, adding "Yeahhh! That's the ticket!"
And even if economic times were not so miserable, Barack Obama's political philosophy would not be "Your future is in your hands. Your life is what you make of it." That's the sort of thing Rush Limbaugh likes to say. If Obama believed that, he'd be all about reducing the role of government and unleashing private enterprise. He'd be a big right winger. Does he look at a poor person and say, his life is what he made it? Of course not.
The judge is a Clinton appointee, Susan Bolton, and I remember, after it was reported or learned that she was a Clinton appointee, I remember everybody said, "Ah, but this woman, she's not a political judge. She's really not partisan judge. She's a fair judge." Oh, yeah, right. Right, right, right, right....
This judge has not ruled on the law. There is no racial profiling. We didn't make a [big] deal of it because we figure a judge is gonna look at the law, not the stupid media in making her decision. But she listened to the media. She had to ignore the high bar that was not met in staying the law. This underscores why Sonia Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court. This underscores why Elena Kagan should not be on the Supreme Court, because they are activists. They have no judicial temperament, judicial experience, they're not judges. Well, Sotomayor pretended to be one on TV, I guess, but she's not....
This is all reacting to the sudden news of the opinion, which he hasn't read. It's 36 pages long, and "there's no way that I'm going to be able to go through all 36 pages prior to the program ending, but I know what went on here":
[The judge has] bought the notion there was racial profiling and discrimination and all this happy horse manure that's part of the American left these days. So that's pretty much it. I guess the judge is saying it's not in the public interest for Arizona to try to defend itself from an invasion. I don't know how you look at this with any sort of common sense and come to the ruling this woman came to. But, she didn't. She's a leftist and she made an activist decision, not a judicial decision.
So... Judge Bolton just looks at the hot-button issue and emotes without attending to the text that should govern her opinion... asserts Rush Limbaugh as he takes a glance at the news of the decision and let's his feelings flow.
To quote Rush, out of context, from the middle of that rant: "Nothing, nothing in the media is real. There is nothing real. Media is not real. [Political ideology] is not real. It's all spin; it's all fake; it's all lies."
"'Rashomon' got a workout back when the Senate deliberated over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
From an essay I published back in 2000 that raises some ideas I've been thinking about in connection with the accusations against Al Gore.
I was reading the transcript of the accuser's statement to the police and thinking about how you could film that story — exactly that — in 3 versions: 1. Gore as a violent, misogynistic monster, 2. Gore as an awkward man in search of love who has little sense of the furious thoughts in the massage therapist's mind, and 3. A complex story of 2 imperfect adults.
ADDED: In "Rashomon," the 4 versions of the story are built around a set of external facts: a dead Samurai whose sword and dagger are both missing. In my proposed 3-act play, what will remain the same is the set of outward facts in the accuser's transcript. Yes, in real life, the woman may be lying. I want to assume that every word she says was spoken was in fact spoken — release the second chakra, etc. — and every action she says took place — the hug, the chocolates, etc. — in fact took place. That is, I'll write a screenplay with all the internal dialogue and feelings stripped out. Then 2 highly skilled actors play the script 3 times, with the 3 directions stated above. I think it can be done, and I think it would be a fascinating study. What does that have to do with the real question of what Al Gore did? It would get us away from the woman's subjective experience and allow us to focus on Gore's culpability — his subjective experience. Of course, it's still possible that the woman is lying or has some of the facts wrong. I'm not trying to brush that aside. I only want to try to figure out whether, if what she said is true, Gore might not be as bad as he seems when you read the transcript that is, unedited, filled with internal dialogue and descriptions of her feelings.
