I made the mistake of venturing into the painful world that is broadcast news - CNN, MSNBC, (fox), and whatever else occupies channels 28-34 here in central Jersey.
Michael Jackson may have raped a baby, he may not have. At this point, with the jury 6 days into deliberations, I think it would be fair for the media to back their coverage off a bit, maybe to a meager 21 hours per day.
Natalee Holloway, the 18 year old Alabama honors student who got abducted at an Aruba nightclub more than 10 days ago, is the other reason I want to kill my TV. The coverage is mind-boggling. Like intense media focus in the US is going to convince some predatory skeezebag in the Carribean to come forward and admit his guilt. The only thing slightly redeeming about this coverage is that the main suspect's last name is 'Van der Sloot,' but even that loses its quirky charm after hour 3.
In the meantime, this is what you've missed out on:
1. A tropical storm is going to hit Florida
2. A surfer in Jersey got bitten by a Great White (okay, I know that's not major, but its cool)
3. US fatalities in Iraq is about to hit 1700
4. Citigroup added $2billion to the pot of Enron settlement payouts.
5. Nationalized health care was seriously challenged in Quebecois court.
6. Bolivia may collapse into civil war
7. The US and Britain made a huge step towards 3rd world debt relief.
8. The closing of Guantanamo is becoming inevitable
9. President Bush's approval ratings have shot into the shitter
10. The Senate has confirmed 3 ridiculous human beings as appelate judges, and will likely send Bolton to the UN
Fuck it. Just read Rudepundit next time you feel an urge to reach for the remote. If you want entertainment instead of news, at least you'll have a chance at learning something.
Just out of curiousity - let's say the Dems refuse to allow a vote on Bolton until Bush turns over some papers - what would happen if Bush said, okay, then I'm not going to send an ambassador to the UN? I'm not saying he should do that, I'm just kinda wondering is all.
ReplyDeleteI think its improbable, because everyone would look bad. Bush would really look like a lame duck, and the Dems would never shake the title of being obstructionist. Nobody wins.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the Bush administration has already invested too much ego in the nomination of Bolton, and would lose face if Bolton were retracted in favor of someone more moderate and reasonable.
The Democrats, I think, know they will lose this fight, but want as many people as possible to understand just what it is that Bolton stands for.
Yeah you retarded fool, putting out provocative statements in academic speeches or conferences automatically makes Janice Rogers Brown a ridiculous human being. The fact that as a daughter of a southern share cropper and single mother she's been able to rise to the top of her law school class at Cal, get elected (by over 75%) to the State Supreme Court of Cali, get a qualified rating by the ABA, and put out brilliant law is obviously just a sham and tells nothing about her character.
ReplyDeleteThe reason you don't deserve anything except vapid idiotic news is because that's apparently also the way your mind operates.
Hey, did I ever fucking say that Janice Brown didn't overcome adversity?
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference, you shmuck.
Part of the problem is that, if the media is going to discuss Brown at all, they bring up her pretty amazing past, and then state that her nomination is controversial, without explaining why.
This was a post about something entirely different, but, fine, let me explain to you why she does not "put out brilliant law," and why the ABA has ranked her a "qualified," instead of "well qualified."
Justice Brown is extremely far to the right, and while I would never nominate her, I'd still regard her as qualified if she used a legal basis for her decisions instead of her ideology.
Instead, you see the same exact language in her public speeches recycled in her decisions.
She views all government regulation as part of the socialist revolution of the 1930s, and a path to kleptocracy. She calls race a suspect basis for classification. There are examples, one case after another, of her completely disregarding Supreme Court precedent when convenient, having a double standard on interpretation of constitutional language so she can support business but attack affirmative action, she doesn't trust juries for cases where a business could be harmed, but doesn't mind when a criminial defendant's life is at stake...
The point is, Brown might have an incredible life story, and she may actually be quite intelligent or well-read, but her judicial opinions are often on very shaky legal ground, but in her own mind, solid ideological ground, and that makes her a ridiculous human being.
Next time you open your mouth make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about.
Check this out
ReplyDeleteIts a good summary of why, if Brown isn't a ridiculous human being, she is at the very least, a ridiculous nominee.
She's rated as "not qualified" by a substantial minority of the ABA, and when nominated for the California Supreme court, the California Judicial Commission ranked her "not qualified."
Well put Spinal Tap dude.
ReplyDeleteI actually did dredge up an opinion here or there that, in my meager knowledge, I found to be ridiculous, but that might have been self-confirmation of what I found on the partisan sights.
And yes, Browns the worse of them.
I could've done a more informed job with talking about the nominees, but at the time that was big issue, I was taking final exams, and I didn't really mean to delve into it so deep in this post.
besides, its LGB man. hyperbole is key.