As soon as I saw this I knew I had to look into what Barney had been saying during the whole "nuclear option" shindig a while back. Here's Barney showing us why he's been a federal legislator for 28 years: Now that the Health Care legislation is in jeopardy the filibuster must go!
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who publicly crusaded against Senate filibusters 12 years ago, now says he opposes banning filibusters against judicial nominees - the so-called "nuclear option'' fueling a bruising Capitol Hill showdown.
``I would vote against changing the filibuster rule right now,'' Frank (D-Newton) told the Herald in a telephone interview Thursday. Frank explained he still supports an ``across-the-board'' ban against all filibusters, but he opposes the Republican ``nuclear option'' because it only outlaws filibusters against judicial nominees.
In 1993, Frank led a public fight to end Senate filibusters, asserting in a Washington Post op-ed piece: ``I believe legislative bodies should scrupulously abide by two principles: complete openness and majority rule. The filibuster is a godsend to potential gridlockers.''
Massachusetts will elect its Senator today to fill the seat left by Ted Kennedy. With the election might go the fate of the Health Care legislation. Intrade and a variety of polls have Brown up:
For those with a battle of the sexes sense of humor:
In the summer of 2008, a shopkeeper in the Afghan city of Ghazni noticed a strange sight: a woman in a burqa drawing a map. In a region where nearly all females are illiterate, he found it suspicious and called the police, according to an Afghan intelligence official.
(Insert joke about women reading 'n learnin stuff just causing problems here.)
The majority of the article goes on to explain what a great case she's going to have in a civilian court. Look for this one to last 10 years over the course of its appeal lifetime.
Siddiqui’s family, including her sister, Fowzia, a Harvard-trained epilepsy specialist, publicly accused the United States of secretly detaining and torturing Siddqui at the US military base in Bagram.
She offered little evidence of that claim, except a report that a former prisoner had seen her there. The charges have sparked deep outrage in Pakistan, where Siddiqui is widely viewed as a victim.
She went to MIT and her sister went to Harvard. It's like we're just forcing them to become terrorists.
From the NYT. It includes this interesting graphic:
The figure on journalists is interesting too and matches the difference between liberals and conservatives in this Pew poll from 2004, which said in part:
About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans.
Many people have noted the 34/7 number for the National Press and that liberals outnumber conservatives by about 5 times there. This stands in stark contrast to the numbers for the general population where conservatives outnumber liberals 33/20. Keep in mind that this is also a self described survey.
From the University of Texas: Research Shows Personality Differences Between Cat and Dog People.
In a paper to be published later this year in the journal Anthrozoös, Sam Gosling finds that those who define themselves as "dog people" are more extraverted, more agreeable and more conscientious than self-described "cat people."
Fans of felines, on the other hand, are more neurotic but also more open than their canine-loving counterparts.
This photo is making the rounds. It shows a Weekly Standard reporter being knocked to the ground by someone associated with the Coakley campaign while Coakley herself looks on:
When asked about the incident Coakley reportedly said she didn't see it. Hmm.
I am certainly no fan of Harry Reid or his policies but I don't think he should resign his seat over his recent comments:
...American voters would embrace a “light-skinned’’ African American who speaks “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’’
With the exception of actually committing a crime I don't believe there are really any good reasons for a Congressman or woman to resign their seat. That's what elections are for. I don't believe Reid's comments warrant his resignation of the majority leader post either. That's not to say though, that the comments are irrelevant or not newsworthy - they are and there are plenty of things in the statement for one person or another to find offensive or just plain stupid. Even so, I don't think Reid should have to step down over them.
Tactical considerations in the world of hardball politics make the Republican criticism understandable though. Harry Reid is a vulnerable Majority Leader and this is an election year when pivotal issues are at stake; Republicans aren't going to pull any punches. Democrats do the same thing, of course. The faux outrage in these scandals is only as strong as their opportunity to make political hay from whatever they are supposedly upset about though. Democrats and the left have very successfully cornered the race market and only the anointed have the right to speak - sometimes regardless of the offensiveness of any statements. Even fairly innocuous statements in the Race Orbit can be twisted, packaged, and mainstreamed into a club with which to bludgeon your political opponent with. So, in that sense, the gander gets what's coming. While the Trent Lott non-controversy involved statements that were arguably higher on the racism-o-meter the difference between the reactions of the so-called enlightened in the two situations is telling. The defense he gets is fairly straightforward: Reid gets a pass because he is Race Approved.
As with many issues though, the actual realities of the situation don't really matter. What matters is what people perceive rather than what actually is. And people in America perceive that race is a huge problem. I'm not saying that racism isn't a problem - I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether it really is or not because as a society we have decided that it is been told it is by those that know things. Totally by coincidence, I'm sure, those same people have a solution ready: talk about it, endlessly. Well, theywill talk about it, we just need to listen.
Many of these pundits, mostly on the left, maintain the importance of the "conversation" on race or racism. However, they don't mean the type of conversation that most of us think of with a give-and-take and a meaningful sharing of opinion. Instead what they mean is they want a chance to lecture and tell you what they think. You can speak and take part in the discussion as long as you agree with them and parrot their social justice memes.
I saw an interview with Morgan Freeman once in which he said that to end racism we should stop talking about it and I think he's mostly right. The more we talk about and emphasize the small things that make us different rather than the large overarching things which make us the same the more we will perceive those differences and the more they will influence our personal decisions and governmental policies.
"One can say my depression was twofold: I was depressed because I really wanted to live in Pandora, which seemed like such a perfect place, but I was also depressed and disgusted with the sight of our world, what we have done to Earth. I so much wanted to escape reality," Hill said.
Posts
