Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
A still life with American silver...
So... anyone see any interesting testimony involving the DOJ this week?
I was bored the other day, so I looked up the web sites that would correspond to the names of our cats, in other words [cat's name].com. One advantage of being in a multi-cat household is that there were plenty of sites to check. Anyway, the results.There are no sites assigned for Ralphy.com, Sherbert.com, Dipsy.com or Maggie.com.Princess.com was fairly obvious, being for Princess Cruise Line.Tiger.com is an electronics retailer.Toby.com is a Texas equipment-rental company.Merlin.com is, oddly enough, a Latin American telecommunications company.Baci.com was the strangest one by far. It was not the site for the Italian chocolates, as I had expected, but instead is a semi-NSFW site that sells skanky underwear.Peter
Deprivation...not much there for the birds. Does that make me a glass is half empty person?
ironrailsironweights, I also have a "Baci," and I've made the same mistake.I suppose it's because "Baci" means "kisses."
All I can make out is a vortex of some sort.
How does one make a clickable link, please?
Really nice, Professor.
You know what that upside down clay acorn looks like, dontcha?It looks exactly like an upside down clay acorn, that's what. The colors of the leaves are beautiful. Here in Colorado such a fuss is made about the Aspens changing and it is a sight to behold but honestly it is nothing compared to that. It cheers me and causes me to think of hot homemade soup.
< a href= " http://www.yourlink.com "> Here's my link < /a >(remove all spaces in the above text and that's how you make a link)
anyone see any interesting testimony involving the DOJ this week?Yes, but that was days ago. We missed the blog-boat on that one.But if memory serves me, there was testimony indicating that the DOJ has a racist agenda, that is, they will take no affirmative action to protect the rights of white voters.In a related development, I believe I read something about Malik Zulu Shabazz urinating in or on the Lincoln bedroom - at the invitation of the President.Also related, Michelle Obama told us to eat our brussel sprouts. While she stuffs her face with Häagen-Daz.
Palladian wrote: A still life with American silver... with a link to his other sketches. I recently bought a print of this photo from him and I'm just delighted with it. I highly recommend that you all look through his work and if something catches your eye don't hesitate to contact him.Ars gratia artis
"So... anyone see any interesting testimony involving the DOJ this week?"I actually watched (technically I listened to it in the background) a good chunk of it after reading con comments here. [The comments I read occurred while the hearing was being shown live on C-span, i.e. the weren't today in a tread where they were OT.] Some cons here were playing it up as though it was extremely devastating for the DOJ.But, it was obvious that Coates was politically motivated when the lead D questioner laid out how Coates had slow walked every other investigation, but this particular investigation was put on warp speed. And, there was an internal email showing that one of the R attorneys stated they were pushing this so that they could quickly create the most beneficial narrative, from their perspective. I agree w/ the R vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who has said that the commission's hearings into the Justice Department were part of the "fantasies" conservatives on the commission had to "topple" the Obama administration and their "wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president."I don't get why some of you cons are so excited about this. You have an R (who knows way more about this situation than any of you hyped cons) stating that this is BS. And, during the hearing she gave her time to the lead D questioner, so obviously she is still convinced that this is BS.With a highly anticipated electoral victory on the horizon, shouldn't you cons be less desperate. Lame.
Message to Fen: Dude, don't you realize you're acting like a troll? Remember how, say, Jeremy or AlphaLib would self-righteously, stridently pester and accuse, j'accuse! Althouse for not (yet) posting on a certain topic-- e.g. some Bush-era scandal-- and disrupt thread after thread, again & again, with over-the-top indignation? Yeah, what you're doing is kind of like that. (Even if I agree with you that it's a very important topic, and I would be very interested to hear Althouse's take on it.)Step away from the computer and take some deep breaths.
I don't get why some of you cons are so excited about this.We're not.But we do believe the specifics of the case would be instructive to the electorate. Not that voters need additional evidence of the incompetent and racist administration, but as a telling lesson in discretionary law.
Yashu said...Message to Fen: Dude, don't you realize you're acting like a troll?Disagree. Under the circumstances, Fen made a reasonable case.
Almost Ali, I'm referring to multiple comments on different threads which have now been deleted by Althouse. Often the very same comment, which he kept reposting after it was deleted, multiple times-- basically challenging Althouse to ban him.His case may well be reasonable, but his behavior was not.
But we do believe the specifics of the case would be instructive to the electorate. Not that voters need additional evidence of the incompetent and racist administration, but as a telling lesson in discretionary law. Not only would the specifics of the case be instructive, the public would also find it interesting. So of course it will utterly ignored by the media.And my initial thought is that the failure to prosecute this case says far less about the Obama administration than it does about the type of lawyers who apply for jobs at the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. I believe that very few attorneys specializing in civil rights would be interested in prosecuting discrimination against white southerners.
AA,I don't think you and many of the other cons here realize what it means when Thernstrom is saying that the Rs are on a political witch hunt.Do you know who Thernstrom is? Back in the day when Clinton appointed Mary Frances Berry to run this commission it was Thrnstrom who was in charge of ripping apart the D positions. And, she was ruthless, tough, and effective.When you cons have Thernstrom (who knows much more about this situation than you do) saying that this is a political witch hunt you are sunk.Any reasonable American who knows that Thernstrom is against this BS will quickly (and correctly) conclude that the Rs are trying to use this situation to whip up white resentment against minorities in order to gain a political advantage.Lame.
There's a reason Coates wanted to ask applicants whether they were interested in enforcing civil rights law in a race-neutral fashion.I suspect many of these would-be civil rights attorneys see themselves as protectors of black people, full stop.
BTW,Do you cons think it's pretty cool they way Bush had folks change their political registrations so that he could stack the commission w/ Rs?Do you think that W may have stacked this commission because he wanted it to go on political witch hunts?Do you think the rest of the country is so dumb that they wouldn't recognize this BS when they saw it (even if Thernstrom was there to raise the red flag)?
His case may well be reasonable, but his behavior was not.I see it a little differently - like the difference between a lawyer/litigator vs. a law professor. For example, a litigator thrives on disagreement, while the latter does not, at least not generally (see: Alan Dershowitz). A litigator must win his case, while a law professor simply states the case; open and shut. No room for genuine debate.Of course, the litigator must consider the specific venue - the judge, the jury, and public opinion. And if I may digress, I vividly recall taking a course in real estate law. The professor was very dispassionate about it - well, "he" didn't write the law, but taught it as mundane gospel.My concern centered around what was known as Contract for Deed, wherein the mortgage was [then] no more than a retail contract; miss the last payment by one day, and you lose the property. Maybe 10-15 years of payments down the drain. It was once a popular, legal ploy, particularly among Florida land developers. I think Fen missed his last payment.
1jpb:Let me ask you something: Do you think the case has merit, that voters were in fact intimidated by the NBPP?
Nice profile pic of the professor's profile -- goes with the "View my complete profile" blogger boilerplate.Nice billboard promoting the value of a good public education -- only the vendor apparently skipped one of his spelling classes:Ah, just go to wsbt.com and search on Billboard.Paul Krugman's Friday column ponders Pledge; wonders why the GOP gave up trying to make sense:So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties isn’t even trying to make sense? The answer isn’t a secret. The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, “so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” In short, say whatever it takes to gain power. That’s a philosophy that now, more than ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html
Clay acorn birdbathThis made me think of the second American Idol. Now I'd like to see a Clay Aiken birdbath.
A birdbath with no birds, little water, dead leaves, and a fake acorn. And yet, it is beautiful to look at.
Birdbath with bird.
1jpb,He "slow walked" other investigations? Yeah, right. You obviously didn't watch the testimony. Either this career lawyer/bureaucrat/ACLU supporter is the best liar in history or the Dept. of Justice has deliberately divided our country into separate legal classes, "White" and "Other". That's just reality.Watching Rep. Yaki sloppily trying to kill time, impugn Coates' motives, distract with references to cases long ago resolved, etc. was the best indicator that the Dems know how big this is. Their years of ginning up racial animosity are about to come home to roost. It won't matter that the Libs pull out all the stops to change the subject or excuse the disgusting perversions of the law perpetrated by the racial revenge specialists in this Administration. Subpoena power is right around the corner, and if we can use it to expel some of the foul race-profiteers from the U.S. Government, that will be a meaningful contribution to our future.
What do squirrels do for fun??
ACORN.The thing looks like the mess that Obama has made of his mind.ACORN is at the center of his mind, and it's spinning us all down the toilet.
@1jpbOne must be either for equal protection under the law, or against it. I see you are against it. I keep hoping for a colorblind society, but that will never happen as long as racism against whites is the official policy of the executive administration. Coates made that abundantly, as well as incontrovertibly, clear.
So Palladian. I never heard why the house returned to its previously inflamed state?
A.A. and Lf,I'm calling BS until underhanded R stacking of this commission is undone. And, I'm calling BS until Abigail Thernstrom stops saying (after an extremely effective attacker of libs on this commission and being on the inside of the Rs on this commission) that this is a witch hunt.And, I'm calling BS until Coates can explain why all the other cases took well over a year or two, but this one took forty five days, and there is an email from an R staffer who says this situation needs to be pushed quickly in order to create the ideal narrative.You cry babies can be pretend to be all worried that black folks are out to get white folks and the DOJ is supportive of this. But, based on the above I'm calling BS.P.S.How funny was it during this hearing when it was shown that Coates, w/o any pressure at all, requested a transfer to South Carolina. Coates shared his reason for requesting the change, and then one of the R questioners said "I would imagine in that situation that 'this and that' would cause me to make a request to be transferred. Then, Coates says "yes in fact 'this and that' were additional reasons for me to request the transfer." I'm no lawyer, but that does seem like leading the witness. Regardless of what it's called, it was genuinely funny--I, literally, laughed out loud.BTW, I think the excuse, was that if Coatse didn't request the nice post in SC, he may be forcibly transferred to a less desirable area, never mind that Coates admitted that there was never even a hint that he was going to be transferred anywhere. Obviously, this guy was asking for the transfer, because he knew the BHO folks weren't going to reappoint him for this position, which is really not a big deal w/ a change in administration. If you cons disagree, you should read all of my first first link in this thread. Then, you'll see how the W administration had, as part of it's overt mixing of politics w/ DOJ, had identified Coates a true believer.
You're calling "BS" on totally unrelated distractions. Try to keep it simple: Do you believe that the Dept. of Justice deliberately and repeatedly refused to enforce the law in a race neutral manner?Nixon, Clinton, etc. all cried "witch hunt" and all picked out opposite Party villains to point back at, so I understand your need to retreat to the classic defensive partisan posture. But the facts are what they are. The men intimidated voters (on film) and weren't prosecuted. When people asked why, they were told that it was because the defendants were not "traditional", meaning White. All of that really happened. Doesn't matter what red herrings the "White's only" prosecution proponents hide behind. They are done, and the nation is richer for it. Just a matter of time now.
@1jpbIf I read you correctly, you are saying the Bush administration is criminally at fault for making political appointments to political positions. Will you apply that standard to the Obama administration when it "stacks" the Commission in January? Are you aware that Coates was a Clinton appointee? Do you believe blacks are entitled to break the law, as long as whites are the victims?
"Do you believe that the Dept. of Justice deliberately and repeatedly refused to enforce the law in a race neutral manner?"No, I don't think white folks need to get all worked up, especially when Fox lies to them about the facts.But, I do think that it is undeniable that Coates is a selective-whistle-blower. I guess that armed home raids aren't much of a reason to get worked up, according to cons.TS, Do you know what W did to this commission? Trust me, you don't need to put quotes around "stacked." I don't think the cons are even trying to deny that they rigged the commission, how could they?
@1jpbDo you always anwer a question with a question?
@1jpbDo you believe blacks are entitled to break the law as long as whites are the victims? A simple yes or no will do.
So now it's Fox News fault? You poor folks have a one page playbook. Racial hatred is the one thing Dems have been able to effectively grow in the last two years (not counting our national debt), and it's appropriate that their bubble should burst right before the election.Once the race warriors in the Dem Party have been relegated to minority status in the House, the clean up will begin. Until then we should watch for firings/resignations at the DoJ. See who manages to get out before the subpoenas/special investigators come in.
TS,I already gave you a two letter answer, and I followed my answer w/ an explanation.BTW, I've asked plenty of questions in this thread. But, don't worry, I have zero expectations that you cons will answer them.
But, I do think that it is undeniable that Coates is a selective-whistle-blower. I guess that armed home raids aren't much of a reason to get worked up, according to cons.Well, whistle-blowers tend to be "selective". Some of them even have impure motives for their whistle-blowing. But what matters is the underlying truth of the whistle-blower's allegations, not whether the whistle-blower himself is some flawless paragon of virtue.Mark Felt was selective and had (very) impure motives, but that doesn't mean that breaking into the Watergate Hotel wasn't a crime worthy of the public's attention. And it doesn't matter that the Dems undoubtedly pursued the Watergate case to gain partisan advantage because a crime was committed.Attacking the messenger is a pretty weak response to a serious allegation like this. Either the DOJ enforces the law in a fair and impartial manner or it does not. Coates doesn't have to be an angel for the DOJ to be wrong in this case.
What's a con? What is it supposed to mean? Is it a good thing? Am I a con?
@1jpb"BS" is not an answer.You obviously don't have the balls to own the position you are taking.Are blacks entitled to break the law as long as whites are the victims?
hd house-Ummm, chase after links that don't work?So basically I'm the squirrel or somethin"?linky no worky.
1jpb said...I'm calling BS until underhanded R stacking of this commission is undone. The commission is not the issue. Coates' testimony would be the same if delivered on a street corner.So the question remains: Do you believe the NBPP in fact intimidated would-be voters - that is, wholly apart from Coates' testimony, which goes to motivation, not commission.
AllenS-con- short for conservative.You are definitely a con. Especially when you are algonquin-which was a name I used on a blog that went-basically-CABOOM!One of the hugest blog fights amongst co-bloggers evah!!1OK probably not as big as the Big Tent Demo/Cubano fight at DailyKos or whatever the hell that was.
Allrighty then, it's a good thing!
We're all cons now.
Well let me just be serious for a moment.Voter disenfranchisement bugs the hell out of me. I might be avoiding the hell out of the thing because basically I don't want my blood to boil.Some broad sweeping generalizations.Democrats have been stealing elections for YEARS.DECADES.How many of our young liberals here even now the history of Nixon vs. Kennedy the first go around?Anyways, in 2000 I was living in the panhandle of FL and I watched those bastards challenge every military vote. It was gross.But here's the thing-big Dem cities have been ripping of the vote for decades and you don't hear squat about it.St. Louis. Detriot.To get to the more important point- remember when Democrats were all up in arms about Republicans trying to organize-Poll Watchers. Then the liberal media turned that into an ominous thing. Republicans were going to intimidate the poor voters and make them fearful to vote.Well I actually went to one of those meeting in Las Vegas-you know the one thing, and only thing they -the Republicans-wanted people to do above all else?The very basic ,first thing they wanted was for Republicans to volunteer to go into the tougher neighborhoods-believe me in Vegas they got 'em-and make sure that the-voting machines were zeroed out.Apparently they have union guys that are all around those things and they rig it so that hundreds of votes are in them before the day even gets started.Second after that was simply to try and make sure that the voters were registered.But in Vegas that was a really low priority.Anyways.Remember how they use to scream how Republicans had Diebold rigged?Talk about projection.btw-notice how the Diebold conspiracy just slipped away?Ghee how did that happen?Anyways I have to roll to a game, but if you want to make a huge difference this election-volunteer to go into an inner city precinct and simply make sure things are on the up and up. That the machines are zeroed out in the morning.
@FLSYou lazy punk! Palladian posted directions for making a link upthread and you still couldn't be bothered to make your URL clickable. Pathetic!
@1jp"bs"OK, let me expand this for you in order to help you find your true feelings on this.Suppose two muscular white skinheads sporting swastika armbands and nightsticks were loitering in front of that Philadelphia polling place. Would you construe that as voter intimidation?Now posit that two muscular black men with black supremacist uniforms and nightsticks were loitering in front of that same Philadelphia polling place. If case "A" is voter intimidation, then case "B" most certainly is.This has nothing to do with the political makeup of the Civil Rights Commission, or Chris Coates' transfer to South Carolina. Neither is it a "con" position. It is a rule of law position. I believe liberals have little regard for the rule of law unless it can be throttled into furthering liberal causes.So I ask you again, do you believe that blacks are entitled to break the law as long as whites are the victims?
What an intriguing name for a dog.
What do squirrels do for fun??sorry for the bad link.
Post a Comment