FlaSoxxJim

I've just given up on Leno for good.

You're right, of course. But Miller's involvement just pisses me off to no end. And you are right that she was a shill. She was promised some exclusive scoops and she ate it up. I guess the NYT ombudsman has reccomended she not even be allowed on the newsroom anymore. Has anybody ever had a Pulitzer Prize revoked before?

My first professional music composition gig was scoring and performing some rushed music for a near no-budget production of Everyman on the steps of the Foellinger Auditorium in Champaign. My years spent listening to Jethro Tull and Fairport Convention had finally paid off. I think I made a whopping $100 on the deal. And soxman352000, all you really need to know about the play is that Lenny accidentally killed the baby rabbit and Curley's wife, and that whole living on the fat of the land thing is not all it's cracked up to be.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Nov 1, 2005 -> 04:06 PM) OK, seriously, why the hell is dimming the lights part of this process? Standard operating procedure for when people get ready to f*** each other I suppose.

Judith Miller got Bush his war almost single-handedlhy. The WHIGs tell her that some aluminum tubes are for weapons-grade uranium enrichment and an 'independent' source from Chalabi's gang verifies it. The WHIGs tell her to go get some WMD information and a guy in a baseball cap points to a spot n the ground in the desert and Chalabi verifies at and says 'yup, the weapons evidence is buried here.' Way to verify a story. Way to get played, Judy. Thanks for the war. NYT is going to have to spend years living up to its 'liberal rag' hype before it even comes close to making up for the bulls*** they ran as news that helped push America into war.

Give 'em Hell Harry!

Oh, those wiley Dems. The thing is, this is exactly what is important about the Plame leak investigation. How was the WHIG working, and was there an intentional, coordinated effort to cook the Iraq intelligence books and then to out Plame as retaliation against Joe Wilson when his reports undermined the WHIG attempt to sell the war? On NPR's All Things Considered last night, Daniel Schorr absolutely nailed it down and reminded listeners what the real issue always has been. Here's a link to the audio archive: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4983462 If it takes piddling perjury and obstruction charges to reveal the lengths the WHIG went to hoodwink the public and Congress into backing the war, then that is what it takes.

But is't not as cut-and-dried as that JUGGS. The husband is not always so dearly beloved. And in fact if the marriage in question was happy yand functional, then the woman would likely be trying to figure out how to keep the child despite whetaver perceived obstacles there are. But there are a helluva lot of abusive spouses out ther as well. If a battered wife in a no-way-out abusive relationship decides an abortion is better than subjecting another human being to the tortures she is subjected to, the decision is understandable and morally justifiable. A law mandating that a husband such as the one in this scenario be notified of her wife's pregnancy and intentions is illogical, short-sighted, and morally reprehensible.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Nov 1, 2005 -> 09:32 AM) For a minute there I thought there was another really bad porn coming out again..... Darn, you beat me to it!

Yeah, this is kind of an important chunk of the letter to leave out. The fact that he was re-upping for a third stint certainly implies he beleived in the justness of what he was doing, but omitting the rationale given in his own words seems to be a disservice.

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 04:13 PM) no love for pinhead? Now why you gotta be hatin' on poor Gage like that?!? I Kid Because I Care ®

happy Birthday, youze two guys!

Really? What city, Ancient Rome?!?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 03:54 PM) Interesting that many conservatives love the Constitution, but when the checks and balances come in and the judicial branch uses their Constitutionally granted rights and responsibilities, conservatives rail against it. That is something I have stumbled around trying to say in similar threads before. Thanks for being more eloquent than I. The judicial branch is exists as a Constitutional check against abuses of power by the exutive and legislative branches (and vice versa). But when a judicial entity excercises such power in the manner they see fit they are labeled "activist judges" etc.

When people like Wes Craven and Clive Barker say the Audition is a rough one, I know to stay away. And seeing just the trailer to Ichi the Killer convinced me that if I saw the movie it would probably f*** me up for life.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 01:29 PM) Yeah, there’s just nothing like a good wife-beating joke to put a smile on my face. Yup. I'm sure the main reason I don't believe in Hell is because if I did then I'd also have to accept that there's a seat on the express train with my name on it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 01:20 PM) Good deal. I think that's the prudent thing to do is look at what he's supported that you can back, and then make a better decision. The smear campaign has already began on this, as we all knew it would. It's so unfortunate. It will be very unfortunate. And the truth is that the ultra conservatives spoiling for the fight are going to win even if their guy goes down. It galvanizes and energizes the conservative base, puts their cause into the spotlight, and will be a vehicle by which they raise 10s of millions of dollars. There will be political fallout come election time, but the social conservatives are looking to be paid for their loyalty to the GOP the last few election cycles.

The spousal notification dissenting opinion came up on NPR this morning right after the nomination was announced and it immediately had me concerned. If Alito doesn't think that cases where a wife is choosing to have an abortion rather than bringing another victim into the home of an abusive/possible rapist husband is worthy of consideration, then he will see parental notification as an absolutely black and white issue as well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 12:39 PM) I think there's a difference between an amendment process, which indeed does reflect upon societal changes, and striking down laws or upholding them on some basis of societal norms. Therein lies the difference to me. Then perhaps I'm am "originalist" as well. I don't like gray areas that can be interpreted ery different ways by different justices either. I don't like that there is support for a federal gay marriage ban amendment, but I don't believe that the Constitution is immune to such atttempts at amendment (In that particular case, however, I think the Constitutional freedoms ostensably granted to all citizens would supercede). But, again, with clarity of hindsight bad amendments can also be repealed. Abortion is still the flash point issue though. Roe v Wade probably remains part of the 'gray' interpretive landscape because ther is a tenuous balance of people who would very much like to see a federal amendment protecting abortionand those who are equally eager to see a federal amendment looking to ban it. A large swing of SCOTUS in either direction is worrisome to the 70% of moderate Americans that are not at the extremes.

If this has been floating around out there I hadn't run into it until I saw it on a friend's White Sox blog. Brilliant!! The Chicago White Sox have tied Bobby Brown's record by beating Houston four times in one week.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 11:29 AM) I 1000% disagree with the statement that our constitution should be called upon to reflect upon societal changes of today. . . The courts were originally set up to interpret laws written and base those laws against the US constitution as a standard, not some societal norm that might change again in 50 years. But if the Constitution as written was set in ston and covered all the bases for all time, then why is there an amendment process? Even the Bill of Rights are a set of amendments to the Constitution as originally drafted. Even though a right to the pursuit of happiness was present, the inheritors of the Constitution knew that an end to slavery had to be spelled out (Amendment XIII), a rights of black and women's suffrege had to be spelled out (Amendments XV and XIX), etc. Sure, the inheritors of the constitution can and do get it wrong, as with XVIII and prohibition, but mistakes can also be corrected as with XXIand its repeal of the "Noble Experiment." Here's a sincere question, Kap, because I am ignorant of the precise definition of the term despite how much it is being thrown around lately. What makes a a person a Constitutional "originalist" if they concede that the existing amendment process is necessary to keep the Constitution fully relevant in the face of changing society. Does it have something to do with the gray areas of interpretation prior to the creation of a clarifying amendment?

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 11:56 AM) This story has been around for many, many years. I can't even remember if it started out as a true story... Er, uhmm. . . , er, I mean . . No! No, there is absolutely no truth to this story and it had NOTHING to do with my moving out of pumpkin country.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 10:57 AM) I've never been an originalist with the Constitution. They could not begin to comprehend today's world and I believe changes can be made to improve and to keep up with the world we live in. That battle sometimes comes down to party politics, which unfortunately pollutes the discussion and debate. Folks demanding that SCOTUS appointees being originalists forget that the framers of the Constitution were slaveowners, and apparently they never noted an ethical conflict, so certainly we as a society have conceded that the Constitution has been open to interpretation since day 1 and is also not beyond ammending. That is the nature of a living document. That said, to the framers for drafting a document that seems prescient to maybe 95% of societal issues 220 years later.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 10:43 AM) All the early rhetoric appears to be leading to the 'nuclear option'. Buckle in, folks, this is likely to be the most politicized event for some time. In all likelihood, everybody had better get ready to rumble, but it's not yet a foregone conclusion. Moderate republicans in Congress are goinng to be key here. There's just a handful of them, but they are largely pro-choice and also in favor of social equality. Rhetoric can maybe stay civil if Alito's disappointing decisions on issues of sexual equality in the workplace are illuminated and not just his potential hostility to Roe v Wade.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 10:36 AM) Your distorted representation of Christians make all us suffer. But that is precisely what happens when the horrific, barbaric acts of a minority of Muslims is casually passed off as something mainstream Mislims approve of. It's a distorted rrepresentation of a religion that is at it's heart a religion of peace. Like Christianity. Fringe segments of both denominations defile the core beliefs of their religion to their own twisted ends.