January 31, 2006

through with buzz

1/31/06

Today's blog is cancelled due to a blinding migraine, a flight at 6:40am tomorrow morning, and a moment of silence for the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. I know it's all very funny to smug conservatives who think progressives will never win anything, but to the rest of us, days like today make us very, very sad.

Posted by Ian Williams at January 31, 2006 8:01 PM
Comments
Posted by: Lee at February 1, 2006 5:47 AM

I would also like to add that I am now completely incapable of listening to our current president without yelling "BULLSHIT" at the TV every 2 minutes. It is like some kind of pavlovian conditioning, W speaks and I scream out "Bullshit."

Posted by: Bozoette Mary at February 1, 2006 5:50 AM

Hope you feel better very soon. (I'm counting on The Daily Show tonight to help ME feel better.)

Posted by: scruggs at February 1, 2006 6:09 AM

Chris, from yesterday: Ian writes : " On another note, the vilification of Cindy Sheehan is one of the saddest, cruelest things the Bush Administration has ever done "

Ian, perhaps you could provide us some quoted-statements or actions taken by the Bush administration where they vilifed Cindy, I do not remember any.

Karl Rove, President Bush's top political advisor and deputy White House chief of staff, spoke at businessman Teddy Forstmann's annual off the record gathering in Aspen, Colorado this weekend. [sept 05] Here is what Rove had to say that the press wasn't allowed to report on.

On The Anti-War Movement: Cindy Sheehan is a clown. There is no real anti-war movement. No serious politician, with anything to do with anything, would show his face at an anti-war rally...

And last night, though not vilified, she was certainly "oppressed."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

ok, I am not familiar with the rules as to not being allowed to wear an anti-war t-shirt to the speech. If that is indeed the case, then so be it. And I would have not been surprised if, during the speech, she had shouted something and been disruptive. But does the woman need to be taken away in handcuffs for wearing a t-shirt? "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- sounds more like a pro-education/math question to me.

Posted by: lee at February 1, 2006 6:14 AM

Hey, who's that first Lee?? That's not me, Lee.

Posted by: Kevin from Philadelphia at February 1, 2006 6:14 AM

On the topic of the SOTU, I am more than a little disgusted that the "opposition party" applauded so often along with the Republican sheep. Seriously, just fucking stand up while everyone else is seated and listening, and turn your back on him. Capitol police want to escort a Senator or House memeber out of thier own office, let them try.
The one highlight for me was the mention of Chimeras (human-animal hyprids) . . . .does a movie review of "The Island of Dr Moreau" really belong in this speech? Personally, I welcome our soon-to-be manimal overlords, and remind them that I always keep a few cans of dog food in the kitchen pantry, top shelf, in the back.

Posted by: Lara at February 1, 2006 6:33 AM

Although I couldn't yell "bullshit," as I didn't want to upset our somewhat neurotic dog or wake our baby, W did receive the double finger several times during the course of his speech. Especially when he called for courteous, "bipartisan" efforts to clean up messes for which his administration is entirely responsible (i.e. Iraq, the deficit, Katrina response, etc.).

Posted by: dean from Bub's and Troll's at February 1, 2006 8:15 AM

Ian: hope you feel better. I never intended to be a "smug conservative" with my postings yesterday. I honestly believe that political discourse (and the entire nation) would be better served if there were fewer idiots on both sides -- folks who do nothing but bitch, moan, or insult the other side. With that being said, my main point yesterday was that the minority (liberals) would have a brighter political future if they'd give me a reason to vote for them instead of merely yelling at Republicans. Yes, there are plenty of reasons to yell at Republicans (I find myself doing it too!), but I simply don't think it is a good way to broaden one's voting base. Hope that makes your headache feel better and I look to hearing from you soon.

Posted by: Kevin from Philadelphia at February 1, 2006 8:37 AM

Dean, how does this work for you, off of the top of my head:

Posted by: Kevin from Philadelphia at February 1, 2006 8:38 AM

Fiscally conservative by keeping good, middle class jobs ( read as 35-70K/year + benefits) in the US, and fair and progressive tax system, and a true national college grant system in order to better educate our workforce, not to mention ensuring that businesses (especially the ones who see multi-million/billion dollar profits) pay their fair share into the national coffers as well.

Socially liberal by recognizing and ensuring equal/civil/minority rights, a structured and fair immigration policy, a legal system that supports people over government/business, and a realization that the Constitution is a framework, not a straight jacket.

This is my ideal party . . . basically a Democratic party that can control its spending and TRULY protect the everyday worker. If we get that, everything else can be found through comprimise.

*I speciafically left out national security because it is NOT a political issue, all Americans want to be kept safe.

Russ Feingold in 2008?

Posted by: craighill at February 1, 2006 9:01 AM

kevin you're a socialist. fyi.

Posted by: Pearl at February 1, 2006 9:16 AM

Migraines are nasty. Hope is recedes fast.

Posted by: Greg from Winston Dorm at February 1, 2006 9:18 AM

Have I done something to offend? My post attempt (and I would have been first, I tells ya) this morning was blocked due to content. Which, considering the f-bombs that get dropped on here daily, seems rather odd.

Is my voice being blocked?

Posted by: J.Boogie at February 1, 2006 9:19 AM

tough day for the libtards like Ian

Alito goes to the Supreme Court, and nutjob Cindy Sheehan is led out in handcuffs. Ian is still too ignorant to realize that the baby-killing and gay agenda isn't getting his party too far, even Canada has given up on the perverted left-wingers. Ian is just an old bloated left-over 1960's socialist dinosaur. Go back to your iPod Ian

Posted by: dean from Bub's and Troll's at February 1, 2006 9:24 AM

Kevin -- the devil is always found in the details. I dont think anyone would have any problem with your description, depending on the definition of some of your qualifiers: "fair & progressive", "true national grant system", "truly protect worker", "structured and fair", etc.

I believe that everyone agrees on such general propositions. But, I imagine that you and I would disagree regarding what is "truly", "structured", etc. The main problem I currently have with most political discourse is that it does not concede the first premise: that everyone wants what is best for the country. For example, screaming that Bush is a racist instead of articulating that some of his policies may disproportionately affect the poor and underprivileged makes it hard to have a positive discussion. Similarly, for a conservative to say that Kerry is a flip-flopper (or whatever) avoids the need to have a constructive hashing out of ideas. It is intellectually lazy when either side does it and it only serves to inflame the people that already agree with you.

I have beliefs that are likely different from your beliefs, but I am also certain we share many beliefs. But, this series of posts was never intended to be about me or about you. I simply wish that folks of all stripes would move away from their respective crazy talking points and discuss the merits of each side. I am 99.9% sure that I could enjoy a cold drink with you at a Franklin Street bar and could agree (or calmly agree to disagree) on everything.

And, of course, TV and the media in general only makes it worse. You can watch Hannity & Colmes, Chris Matthews, Daily Show, et al and there is never any reasoned debate. I have turned them all off. This is why I think there are so many voters just like me that are ripe for the pickin': if a calm, cool & collected politician can make his positions clear without such ugly vitriol, he'll (or she) likely get my vote.

So for now, Kevin, you and I can simply agree to agree that there is one universal truth: dook SUCKS!

Posted by: Kevin from Philadelphia at February 1, 2006 9:54 AM

Oh Dean, I am afraid we will have to Agree to disagree about Duke. I am the lone Cameron Crazy that posts here. Sorry.

Posted by: dean from Bub's and Troll's at February 1, 2006 10:02 AM

I did not think anything you said about any of your politics was out-of-bounds, but a dookie? Oh my God, you freak! At least liberals have some redeeming qualities (hell, if nothing else, they can be amusing), but a dookie has none. Freak!

Posted by: Kevin from Philadelphia at February 1, 2006 10:05 AM

My best friend is a Nuclear Heel fan, so it evens out.

Posted by: dean from Bub's and Troll's at February 1, 2006 10:25 AM

When you confessed you were a dookie, my reaction was similar to Scarlett O'Hara's "Yankees!? At Tara?! . . [swoon]"

Given the make-up of dook's student body, that ain't a bad analogy (don't tell my NJ wife I said that).

Posted by: Piglet at February 1, 2006 10:42 AM

Bush saw his shadow.

Six more years in Iraq.

Posted by: CL at February 1, 2006 11:36 AM

Not trying to say anyone HERE does this. But useful:

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70124-0.html?tw=rss.index


Posted by: J. Booger at February 1, 2006 11:41 AM

J. Boogie, why do you even come here?

You don't contribute anything to this blog except the same tired Right-wing spin and fabrications time and again.

You point fingers at the name-calling from the left, then use quaint terms like "libtards".

I know it's been said before - and certainly more eloquently - but why if you hate Ian so much, why don't you fuck off? You won't be missed.

Posted by: Kevin from Philadelphia at February 1, 2006 12:17 PM

J. Boogie is EXACTLY the kind of person that I, and I think maybe Dean as well, hate. If you haven't got anything nice to say . . .

Posted by: CP at February 1, 2006 12:22 PM

ian,

chin up, my lad. on the bright side, neither matt, j. boogie or the real badbob have accused you of being a stooge this morning. being a bit of a stooge myself, I don't like it when a) I'm reminded of that fact, and b) non-stooges like you are mistakenly and callously misrepresented as such, so I believe this is what is generally referred to as "progress".

but seriously, I read this entry at like 11:30 my time (pacific) and there was more to it and it fucking rocked. where'd it go?

I know. enjoy what you can, while you can, while doing what you can. despite being reminded on a daily basis that we're all going straight to hell in a handbasket while also being cursed with the vision to actually see that, all hope is not lost. feel better.

Posted by: Ian at February 1, 2006 12:49 PM

This blog has some peculiar spam filters that occasionally block a comment or two - Greg from Winston Dorm mentioned the card game you play with chips - so here it is with that taken out:

***
Buck up little camper, you should have a great Carolina pool table light waiting for you when you return to NY.

As for Samuel Alito, I suspect the liberal fears about his appointment to the Supreme Court may be a bit premature. Alito certainly has writings and some work history which suggests he could become "Scalito". That might be what Bush supporters hope for. If you listen to what his colleagues say about him and what the more scholarly pundits say about him, however, Alito
is his own man.

Those who know him say he is a judge's judge and an all-around great guy and has been so since his earliest years, right out of college. I attended a seminar where a UNC-CH law school professor, Michael Gerhardt, explained how both John Roberts and Alito answered their questions during the whole vetting process. Both men stated that they decide cases from the
bottom up.

This is in direct contrast to the perceived way that Scalia and his flunky, Thomas, like to apply their philosophies to any cases, as they both seem to decide according to their preconceived framework. In other words, they decide cases from the top down. Those in the know say that Alito prefers to
let the underlying facts of the lower courts shape his opinion on each case. From the bottom up.

Maybe Alito has been well-coached or well prepared. I don't know. I do know, however, that I like the idea of a judge, especially a Supreme Court justice, coming to the bench with an open mind and a clean slate when it comes to deciding cases.

Both he and Roberts also went through pains to state how much they believe in precedent. Roe v. Wade is precedent. And, it has survived more than 30 years as precedent. It's not that easy to overturn it. So, by their own stated philosophies, neither man is hell bent on going in with an agenda.

I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. In this situation, however, I do not feel as though the world is going to hell in a handbasket just because the sitting president got two of his nominations through. If anything, I think we got a couple of "just the facts", no-nonsense judges.

The way I see it, I bet Alito becomes one of those rare justices who cannot be pegged on the issued by the pundits beforehand. I suspect he'll one day piss off Bush or the Republicans because he'll decide a case on the facts that may not be in line with the party's politics. Similarly, I suspect he'll alienate the other side of the aisle with some of his decisions because he was not moved by their rhetoric.

And that is the very definition of what you would like to see in a Supreme Court justice. When you think about it, regardless of what side you are on, do you REALLY want a justice on the bench who can tell you today how he or she might decide a case one year, two years or 20 years from now?

I wouldn't.

I'm betting Sam remains Sam and when Scalia and Thomas invite him over for cards, I betcha he takes all of their money and leaves them both shaking their head, muttering: "Dang, that guy has no 'tells'! He took all of my money and I still can't get a read on him."

Ian, I hope your head gets better.

Posted by: Ian at February 1, 2006 12:54 PM

I Heart J.Boogie. Every time he posts, he makes everything better!

Posted by: xuxE at February 1, 2006 4:19 PM

i think the scariest aspect of alito is his pro-government power stance.

i don't care if he says he is a bottom up nose picker without any overarching ideas - i think he has a philosophy whether he cops to it or not.

anyone who consistently votes one way on any particular issue has a view - it is no cooincidence if you ask me. i think people want to believe in santa and want to give him the benefit of the doubt. plus maybe he believes his own bullshit so he truly thinks he's objective and judges on a case-by-case basis.

but i just think how you vote is who you are, talk is cheap.

Posted by: kent at February 1, 2006 8:45 PM

I'm all for political discourse, and I like to think that I make up my own mind. I cringe when people just spew mean things without anything to back them up.

But we're talking about Bush, here. I don't know how anyone could think he's doing a good job. He's been the front man for a power grab by a group of dangerously deluded and incompetent neo-conservatives, who finally found a patsy that will let them experiment on the world with America's military. I think Bush is sincere, and in his mind, he really does want the best for us. But he simply hasn't shown himself to have a firm grip on the facts, or the patience to do due diligence on the things done in his name.

By any objective measure, Bush is leading a failed regime, and the damage he's doing to our country and the world need to be stopped. I'm not entirely happy with the Democratic Party, but I'm a Quaker, so I'm not happy with either party being militaristic.


Posted by: Matt at February 3, 2006 9:07 PM

"chin up, my lad. on the bright side, neither matt, j. boogie or the real badbob have accused you of being a stooge this morning."

C'mon, CP. I've never called Ian a stooge, or any other name for that matter. Sheesh.

I up and move to DC and check in here for the first time in over a month and you're still talking about me. If you're so unaccustomed to honest politcal disagreement, and my comments are so distressing to you, you really do live in an echo chamber and need to expand your intellectual conversations a bit more.

Posted by: Ian at February 3, 2006 9:50 PM

Hey Matt - welcome back. Where in D.C.?

Posted by: Matt at February 4, 2006 6:15 AM

Actually Alexandria (Old Town neighborhood), but I work in DC now. And thanks for the welcome back!

Posted by: Burgess35Eloise at September 8, 2011 1:14 AM

When you're in uncomfortable position and have no cash to go out from that, you would require to receive the loan. Just because that will help you unquestionably. I get commercial loan every single year and feel myself OK just because of it.

Post a comment





(We won't show it.)




Remember personal info?