Apparently pointing out the indisputable fact that the Bush administration lied in the run-up to the Iraq war is now, according to one of the Kagans who pass for a Republican foreign policy intelligentsia, a “conspiracy theory.” Of course. if Kagan knew anything about anything that would be “elitist”, and he’s nothing if not a man of the people by that standard.
The most annoying part of having to take off my shoes (besides the sense that I’m taking part in a ritualistic humiliation of my entire culture, with creeping authoritarian undertones), is the reminder that I really need to buy some new ones.
And if you purchase LGM merchandisewithin the next 15 minutes you can make that dream a reality.
Although, in fairness, when Lafferty asserts that “Sarah Palin supports women’s rights, deeply and passionately,” one can see her point. Palin does clearly support such cherished women’s rights as their right to be subject to state coercion forcing them to bear their rapist’s child, their right to have no viable legal remedies if they get unequal money for equal work, their right to pay for your own rape kits, etc. If you define “feminism” as “bog-standard reactionary Republican anti-women policies…supported by a woman!” then you have to admit Palin qualifies. As for the value of using this standard, you’ll have to use your own judgment…
Before you consider blowing your next paycheck on t-shirts festooned with pictures of my cat shamelessly buggering Cookie Monster, you might take a gander at the “Sarah Palin: Promise for America” store, which provides further evidence that Palin’s advocates have pretty much decided the campaign is over. Here’s the pitch:
PalinforAmerica.com is proud to release the Sarah Palin: Promise for America series of gifts. Regardless of what happens on election day, we can all take heart that Sarah Palin has helped to begin a movement, a restoration of our nation to the American Promise. These gifts will help us all remember her message and her mission; and we’ll tell the world that we stand with her as our leader.
Yes, by all means let’s remember Sarah Palin’s message.
Are you the kind of deviant who has always wanted to festoon your home with pictures of a cat attempting to copulate with a muppet? Your search is over; LGM now carries of wide range of cat-attempting-to-copulate-with-a-muppet related products.
Are you a wanna-be-hipster who has tired of having to seek out t-shirts from ever more obscure bands in order to impress your wanna-be-hipster friends? Look no further; the LGM logo is guaranteed to strike a powerful blow in the struggle for most obscure pop culture reference.
Are you a social misfit who resents the notion that you need to buy your “friends” and “family” “stuff” that they “like” for “Christmas?” The LGM Shop is the place for you; it’s highly unlikely that anyone you know will actually “want” or “be happy with” any of the products we feature.
That’s right; LGM now offers products. You should buy them. Make this Christmas “A Very LGM” Christmas. We’re pretty much in uncharted territory with this, so suggestions and requests are more than welcome.
A) John McCain: 53% (39) B) Barack Obama: 47% (34)
2) Do you think Sarah Palin has been a plus or a minus to the ticket?
A) Minus: 9% (7) B) Plus: 91% (68)
3) How do you feel about Sarah Palin as a candidate?
A) I really like her!: 80% (61) B) She’s so-so.: 12% (9) C) I’m not a big fan!: 8% (6)
4) The Republican Party did poorly in the 2006 election and even if McCain wins is on track to do poorly again in this year’s Congressional races. If you had to choose between these two options, do you think that’s because they were…
A) Too conservative: 9% (7) B) Not conservative enough: 91% (67)
If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.
Admittedly, not all of these are equivalent. The idea that the Constitution says nothing about the size of punitive damage awards, for examples, is held by such un-American Trotskyites as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and it’s hilarious to see Calabresi get finished complaining that Obama’s judges will write their notions of economic policy into the Constitution and then claim that his own right-wing economic views can magically be found in penumbras and emanations from the 14th Amendment. At any rate, some of these positions would in my view be defensible, others would not, some are just crude, unserious demagogy (“mass freeing of criminal defendants?” “a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities”?) but for most of these the idea that the median Supreme Court justice would support such judgments after an Obama administration is silly. One can say the same thing for the idea that “the left” is poised to “capture” largely Republican-dominated federal courts. And the whole piece is based on idiotic claims that to disagree with Steven Calabresi’s highly contestable views is to reject constitutionalism altogether.
Anyway, on how does Calabresi justify his claims that Obama would pack the Supreme Court with justices that would have to turn right to see Thurgood Marshall? By, like many Drudge-driven hacks before him, quoting his (perfectly accurate) claims that the Warren Court wasn’t particularly radical, while leaving out some rather key information, such as his skepticism about the courts as tools of social reform. The idea that Obama is going to appoint a bunch of judges far to the left of the current mainstream is, for better or worse, almost entirely unfounded. And I somehow doubt that this attempt to create panic about the possibility that after winning the popular vote in 4 out of 7 elections the Democrats might get more than 2 Supreme Court appointments is going to be very politically effective either.
Right. Selig was unequivocally right not to want to have the World Series determined by a 5 1/2 inning game, and I can’t believe that any serious Phillies fan would want to win the World Series that way.
Bizarre situation in Philadelphia, where the fifth game of the World Series has been suspended after six innings and the game tied (it will resume tomorrow night). Apparently the ownership of both clubs agreed with the commissioner’s office that no game would be less than nine innings. This is a basic modification of the rules of the game, which consider any game official after five innings. The really bizarre part is that it doesn’t appear the managers or the players were aware of this agreement until it was just enforced. This is pretty amazing, given that all kinds of tactical decisions turn on whether a game can be called after less than nine innings.
On the other hand, the regular rule for inclement weather is one that makes no sense in the context of a potentially championship-deciding game. So I can see the argument for making an ad hoc modification in the official rules. But it would be nice if they had told the people actually playing the game what the rules were.