Something went wrong.

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday June 12, 2023 · 3:45 AM PDT

2023/06/12 · 03:45

For several days now this has been the response almost every time I’ve tried to open an article here. On occasion something will open but only rarely and only a single article. The only way I’ve been able to defeat this situation is by opening something on another computer and sending it to myself. Kos is the only site at which this happens, and I have received no comment or warning of punishment. (Several weeks ago I did receive a silly warning that by putting a ‘t’ on the end of MAGA I was referring to those folks as subhuman which is a no no. I stopped doing that and have received no further warnings/notices.)

I have written Kos for help without response. Has anyone else had such a problem? Any advice? My familiarity/knowledge of things tech ranks below incompetence, so I am at wit’s end.

Replacement

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday May 15, 2022 · 7:14 AM PDT

2022/05/15 · 07:14

My thoughts on “replacement” provoked by Annieli’s column https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/5/14/2098012/-When-a-right-wing-host-pimps-white-replacement-theory-on-MSM-WTF-do-you-think-was-going-to-happen

Were I concerned about being replaced, it’s difficult to see how attempting to kill as many people as possible might enhance my holding onto that place. While those I might be able to kill (tho I probably wouldn't be much of a shot but with a sprayer gun…) wouldn’t replace me, my actions whether by prosecution or responsive shooting certainly would remove me as a place holder. Where is the logic?

Long ago I began a piece about ethnicity with a comment about my representing the melting pot which is my country’s greatest strength. Looking at our country’s accomplishments, one has to wonder how we might have fared as a “racially[/ethnically] pure” nation. The wonderful humorist Sam Levenson once recounted a few of the many contributions of Jews to medicine finishing with the observation that you could hate Jews, but you weren’t going to feel very good. Neil deGrasse Tyson whose humor wonderfully facilitates his promotion of science generally as well as his astrophysics, did a somewhat droll piece (“What keeps me awake nights…”) about the tremendous contributions to science of the Muslim world. He concluded with the explanation for why those mostly are buried in the sands of time while wondering where we might be had we the benefit of continued contribution from two billion Muslims.

These two recollections are joined by Professor Tyson’s noting the absurdly disproportionate number of Nobel prizes bestowed upon Jews and the tiny number upon Muslims. The Jewish population (15.1 million) has claimed 192 prizes compared with the 12, including three in science, by the two billion Muslims.

To me, the point is that if you think you can replace me, go for it to the benefit of both of us.

Vagrant thoughts about leaks and attendant silliness.

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday May 10, 2022 · 2:25 PM PDT

2022/05/10 · 14:25

The bits of the “Roe” draft I could stomach to read struck me as something that might have been written for The Onion. While I knew that neofascists had an affection for the old British witch burner and rape defender, the idea that he conceivably could be included in a Supreme Court draft opinion was ludicrous. That might be like seeking to plot a moon landing on the theories of Bishop Usher the young earth “creator.” Sadly, according to at least one source, ProfessorDoctor Alito has been sufficiently embarrassed that this bit of hilarity has been removed. The decision truly needs its folly.

Then, of course, there was the historicity nonsense—fifty years recency—that seemed not to have bothered his equally contemptuous brother justice when he ignored a couple of hundred years of precedent to assure that we all have an adequate stockpile of firearms. Oh well…On the other hand, abortion existed in the states in 1787 per numerous articles in the google and didn’t become more generally illegal until the 1860s courtesy of an AMA campaign; sad that Alito didn’t check in with the google. While I knew that and had read several explications for the motivations of the AMA’s campaign, I was readily able to find sources for much more thorough research of the matter.

“Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law!” Oh yeah; there’s a hill to be buried on, not that anyone will recall. Ole WillieBarrrr pontificated that leaking a court draft is an obstruction of justice. Even Megyn Kelly who long has played a whiffle ball on TV was near to a giggle. Strangely, the two time AG didn’t bother to cite any authority or other sort of violation that might be ripe for consideration. However, even if there could be some sort of stretch by which the leak might be an obstruction, the fact that the obstruction was for perhaps 30 days might make that obstruction something of a piffle.

If anyone really gives a fig as to the identity of the leaker, there are sooo many theories out there. However, recently there was an article stating the “fact” that after drafting his decision, Alito went to his benefactors at the Federalist body to tell them of his service to the cause. Given the extent of his effort and apparent pride, is it likely that he failed to share with his betters/bettors(?) the actual product of his ratiocination? Further, it has been reported that around that same time Vanky TrumpeT received some sort of report of the result…possibly another copy of the draft? In short, a significant number of people received “cconfidential” information. Two people can keep a secret if one is dead. Given the probability of the volume of leakage, why shouldn’t someone feel disclosure of the draft (even assuming it wasn’t from the supposed recipients) less inappropriate than the CJ and sundry political mouthpieces declare?

If you’re a law clerk to a justice with ALL that that entails, getting caught “leaking” a draft opinion means you never can be trusted. How the hell likely are you to do something that stupid?! The conjecture that someone wishing to cement the decision makes sense to me, but it would have to be someone with nothing to lose. The Thomases have no reason to give a good goddamn however.

Finally, the fact that the draft makes clear the many things it threatens while specifically denying it would be still more humorous were it not so grim and terrifying. Mind you, this decision deals with a subject grounded in religious beliefs of questionable validity and general non acceptance. (There surely is a reason for so many Roman Catholics on that court, no?) So, to state that Griswold inter alia (which in my stunted adolescence I like to refer to as the “rubbers case”) is in no danger is either to call or assume us fools. Moreover, it long has been apparent if not stated that the crusade was equally against contraception although in recent years some crusaders actually have been so brazen as to acknowledge the fact.

I can’t conclude without recommending the Crooked Media folks (AKA Pod Save America) for anyone not already having appreciated it. It’s an hour and a half of genuine fun mostly on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRr7G_xYhvU.

Nothing like the Dame. A few recollections of Diana Rigg

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday September 12, 2020 · 4:15 PM PDT

2020/09/12 · 16:15

Like so many boys of my age, I was enchanted by her performances as Mrs. Peel. As a one time student of acting, I regarded those performances as a wonder even in all the silliness, though of course her costumes were not lost on me. The Avengers broadcasts of my youth were late at night and seemed scattered so that only occasionally was I able to enjoy them. However, because of my interest in acting, I read about a lot of actors, especially the British variety of whom she was a favorite.

At one time she wrote a book of critical reviews by mostly British critics titled No Turn Unstoned. In it she had some of the most clever and withering commentary on turns by very notable performers many or perhaps most of which were contributed by the actors themselves as the proceeds of the book were to go a show business charity. (Unable to find my copy of the book, I can’t be more specific.)

After her introductory remarks she noted that she could not expose all her colleagues’ pain without including a dart aimed at herself. What I recall of the article was that it related to one of her Broadway performances and specifically to a nude scene therein. The author declared that she had a body like a gothic cathedral with too few flying buttresses. It has been remarked that she was especially well known for her humor. Her commentary in Unstoned and her inclusion of that review more than validate the claim.

I particularly enjoyed George Lazenby’s Bond but never forgave those folks for killing off Rigg’s character and so early. However, my favorite of her movies was The Hospital. One scene is forever burned into my memory and perhaps my soul. In it, Rigg’s character has a monologue seducing George C. Scott’s doctor in which she describes her coming of age and states that “she masturbated incessantly.” Suddenly I was 14, rivetted and gasping at the image.

For a long time we have spent most Christmases in London enjoying theater and concerts as well as other events of the season. On one of those trips Diana Rigg and David Suchet were performing in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Knowing a great deal about Rigg and only Suchet’s Poirot, I was fascinated but could not imagine his being able to stand up to the challenge. Somehow we not only were able to obtain tickets but were close to the stage.

During our visit but before seeing the play, there was a radio interview of Rigg by an ignorant young man who asked what it was like for her to perform on stage and in such a serious role. Somewhere there must be a record of her response (of which I have no recollection), but suffice it say that it was the epitome of grace and generosity.

I must include in these remarks a final adolescent reaction. Late in the play the other male actor grabbed Dame Diana as she faced the audience and forcefully put his hand between her legs. I was aghast and nearly came out of my seat!

The performance was a tour de force. It was wrenching for audience and actors alike; indeed, the actors obviously were exhausted. Mr. Suchet was magnificent.

My final recollection of that night is that during the second intermission, an older woman behind me said emphatically in her wonderfully British way (to which the printed word cannot do justice), “It’s awfully long.” It seemed the perfect comment in the land of Shakespeare!

Impeachment, Nixon, the blat machine…

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 01, 2019 · 2:06 PM PDT

2019/10/01 · 14:06

When so many of us are not gleefully expatiating upon the demise of the TrumpeT, we’re noting the comparisons of this historic time to that of Richard Nixon. Those comparisons are lost on me. Worse they seem completely inappropriate. The times were different in the extreme as my little exposure today clearly demonstrates.

By combination of gravity and receded youth, I find it necessary to engage in aerobic activity to the greatest extent and frequency possible. As anyone who’s been to a contemporary exercise facility is aware, they have multiple large screens presumably for alleviating the drudge of truly boring exertion. At this place there are three screens the nearest to me seemingly dedicated to sports (ESPN or tennis), the next is Kathy and…while the third is “news” (CNN ordinarily but too often Fake Noise). Today the third screen presented Fake Noise albeit with no viewers which seems a misdemeanor at least.

Concentrating on sports and my own endeavor, I was nevertheless drawn on occasion to the third screen as one is drawn to a catastrophe or snake or… For an extended time Professordoctor Newt Gingrich was explicating upon the current political situation. For those of mercifully short memory or existence, Mr. G., himself in the midst of an affair of the extramarital variety, once prosecuted a president for conducting himself similarly; actually it was about his lying about it which distinguished him from Mr. G who hadn’t been asked about his given that his financial affairs were not under scrutiny. That surely must have been a most riveting television experience and ever so enlightening.

On concluding my effort and concerned that innocents should not be forced to endure the travesty that is Fake Noise, I made to eliminate it from view. As I was doing so, it was brought to my attention that the next “guest” following a commercial break would be Ken Starr. Surely his explicatory ruminations would be vastly even more rewarding than those of the former speaker he having occupied for so long that moral high ground to which we all aspire. Fortunately for myself and any others, I was able to eliminate the potential exposure to the twinkly little starr.

During the great gate the public was daily exposed to the developing unvarnished truth of Nixon not torqued by mendacious media and its terrified coconspirators wetting themselves to provide “balance.” Neither Fake Noise nor the Sinclair monopoly was extant to take control of the narrative to say nothing of the fever swamps of the internet. The blat machine’s incessant assaulting of reality has too often proven effective so that now people speak and write (correctly?) of the right wing’s control of the narrative regarding the Mueller investigation and the effect of its report.

Given so much of the nation’s current tenuous hold on reality I wonder whether Nixon might not have survived in this climate. If the right does gain control of the narrative as they are so adept at doing if only to the extent of evening the polls, won’t that provide cover for the cowardly PulicanTs sufficient to allow them to avoid standing for anything but their own darkest dreams of what the founders should have done?

Given all that the present usurper of the White House has survived, I wonder whether he won’t again.

Jerry Jones challenges his players to defy him; a fan’s dilemma…

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 10, 2017 · 5:47 PM PDT

2017/10/10 · 17:47

As a contemporary of Mr. Jones and Cowboys fan from their inception (when you’ve suffered through 0-11-1 that’s a hard habit to break) I am dismayed by the posturing of Mr. Jones. It also is so sickening that I may not be able to watch some really interesting players. It needs to be noted however, that he is speaking for virtually all of ownership meaning that fans simply should be content watching the owners own. I on the other hand have no use for peppermint piety or sunshine patriotism different sides of the same disgustingly dangerous coin. Worse still though is that in adopting the posturing of the moronic usurper in the White House, he is being dishonest. He also has so far as can be determined thesame military experience in which his severe but shallow patriotism is grounded.

While Mr. Jones like the Trumpet surely does not know that on Flag Day 1943 the Supreme Court released its decision stating that no onecould be compelled to salute the flag. Interestingly that decision was the last of five only one of which had got it wrong. While neither Mr. Jones nor I was conscious when the decision was published, we did learn about what was going on that year and following. I had two uncles in the Navy and a father who mirabile dictu managed to get into the Army, and they were pleased to talk often about those times. Undoubtedly Mr. Jones did as well. The decision did not rely on religious freedom by the way but rather adopted the ACLU’s point that the right to speak included the right not to speak. Much later, the Court declared that defiling the flag was within the ambit of free speech.

So it not only is the right of people to disrespect the flag and the anthem, they can burn the flag legally. As for “respecting” the emblem, how few “patriots” have the slightestknowledge of what that entails? Given the numbers of them shredded on car antennae, the numbers flying at night unlighted, the number of people who wear it as clothing, ad nauseam, I doubt seriously whether most of us know or actually care about proper respect for our flag.

As for the anthem, I’ll bet that Mr. Jones isn’t aware that it is among the most roundly criticized pieces of popular music. Musicians claim that itis terrible, next to impossible to sing. (For myself, I justcringe at “perilous” sung as “pe roo liss.”) People who know the lyrics of the poem beyond the first verse, cringe at some of their contents. And all this to a tune said to have been an old drinking song.

What long has been a source ofcuriosity and resentment for me is what the flag and anthem have to do withsports. Just recently I read that they were engrafted onto NFL games by the league during the ‘60s as we were experiencing the racial paroxysm that lead to so much of necessary societal improvement as well as the most divisive war in our history. Good going guys!

Nevertheless, Mr. Jones doesn’t really believe that the players are failing to demonstrate proper civic righteousness. He might even be able to think that a league70% of whose players are members of minorities could feel real need to express resentment at injustice so freely visited upon them, their families and friends. But the fact is that the Trumpet has raised such emotional upset about nonsense over these simple demonstrations that people are not watching the games. So what? One estimate is that if continued, the league will lose $200,000,000. That is the real concern here rather than the stupidity of the twit in chief or even the ignorance of the owners.

Of course, the league and its owners are not in the habit of communicating with but to their players. It always has been so much easier and more effective to threaten people however silly the threats. Nevertheless, if they really wanted to fix this problem they could address the players explaining that their little boat has a leak and that all are likely to get wet. They then could work together to find ways to cure the problem as well as provide means to address the very real social concerns or at least provide means for acknowledging them.

But that is not the real world of neofascism in which wefind ourselves. So “raise high the roof beam, carpenters!” Guess I’ll take up papier mache and baking cupcakes…

On invitation I offer this repost of my healthcare rant from November 2013.

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday June 25, 2017 · 12:03 PM PDT

2017/06/25 · 12:03

An Illness and Reflections on Health Care, the ACA

Aside from this I can add little to the current condemnation except to note that those proposing this insane legislation are universally proud to proclaim their religiosity and that they supposedly follow someone who said “feed my sheep” and what you do unto the least, you do unto me. Or as Gandhi(?) said he appreciated Christ but not Christians...

Another outrageous attack piece masquerading as news.

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 23, 2016 · 1:40 PM PDT

2016/08/23 · 13:40

MSN headline: Trump Prosecutor to Probe Clinton Foundation. As a one time student of the English language and a bit of law, I understand this to mean that the prosecutor either investigating Trump or perhaps on his payroll will expand his activities to include the Clinton Foundation. Given this turn of events, I went to the article which was headlined: Trump Wants Special Prosecutor to Probe Clinton Foundation.

The two headlines are not the same. There are distinctions and differences between those two headlines. The first can only be deliberately misleading and is beyond irresponsible. Of course, making a front page headline article about spurious allegations by Trump hardly counts as responsible or journalism either. It is purely mudslinging just as is Trump’s demand.

The article also is irresponsible and simply support for Trump. The opening statement of Trump’s demand includes: as questions emerge over whether foreign donations to the non-profit Clinton Foundation influenced her decision-making while in office. The immediate response should relate to the source of those emerging “questions,” that is “BY WHO??!!!” or whence cometh those questions. Of course nowhere in the article is there the slightest suggestion as to how those questions were raised or by whom.

On the other hand the article takes precious time to rehash however briefly the email nonscandal. Although it notes that there was a decision not to prosecute, that comes happily after the reference to Trump’s call to “jail” her for the offense of using a private email server. So the authors are off to a great start before veering into several other areas not especially favorable to Trump. Thus our balance be fair, kiddies. And, of course, we can do this nonsense all day every day until the election.

So why is it that some folks say that Mrs. Clinton is a despicable human being? Certainly it can’t be in order to support a thoroughly inadequate, emotionally defective human being. Surely not.

Journamalism and the terrible Clintings

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday July 09, 2016 · 8:47 AM PDT

2016/07/09 · 08:47

This exemplifies what’s wrong with “journalism” today. “Hillary Clinton or her husband, former president Bill Clinton, push the law just short of the breaking the point, only to be bailed out by Republican overreach and self-sabotage”—Alex Seitz-Wald.

There are too many problems with that statement, and they’ve been rankling me since I read it yesterday. If you assume, lack of evidence notwithstanding, that the Clintons habitually step up to the edge of the law without crossing over it (“just short of the breaking…”), so what??!!! A transgression is not a transgression without a TRANS (“across, over”). If the law is unbroken, no matter how cute the approach, it ain’t broke and needs no fix. How then do their repeated actions, near transgressions in the eye of this beholder, warrant the continual, relentless pursuit by their enemies? The answer should suggest itself…

What in blue blazes is his reference to near offense? Whillickers how might that relate to Vince Foster’s death by his own hand per the desperately anointed Ken Starr for example?! “Travelgate?”—everything’s gotta have a “-gate” in order to diminish “Watergate.” Whitewater(-gate)? Again the answer suggests itself. Where was/has been the there there?

Since they came to prominence in Arkansas, the Clintons have been a source of inspiration to some who would seek to destroy them for the offense (apparently) of usurping or pretending to power properly belonging to others. Once in the White House family fortunes were put at the disposal of those who would dispossess them of that residence, and people came to prominence in that endeavor even as prominent people stayed in the dark. Yet excepting one relationship of extramarital sex, the first time the White House was so sullied surely, there never was a prosecutable offense nor even one worthy of the time, energy and money. Nevertheless, here is a writer stating implicitly that the Clintons invite all this attention because they don’t break the law so tantalizingly that they must be “bailed out”—since when does lack of criminality require bail?!—by PulicanT “overreach.”

My assumption is that the writer either is too young to know recent history, simply has carelessly fallen prey to the rightwing blat machine or has considerable antipathy to the Clintons. Regardless, his writing either is sloppy or reprehensible.

The Clintons always have tried to keep the rude and scoffing at bay—as have all in power during my witness—only to make them more determined to seek admission. While it’s a vicious circle, the extremes to which media and opponents (often the same, sadly) have been inspired are outrageous.

Why I love me some Trump

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday March 03, 2016 · 4:11 PM PST

2016/03/03 · 16:11

What follows are somewhat edited comments to two diaries on consecutive days proclaiming the tragedy or fearfulness of the Great Trumpet conceivably stealing a presidential nomination from a party of unassuming, unaware good people asleep at the switch. Horse…uh…feathers.

Thanks for bringing this column to my attention, Sir, as I enjoy reading Mr. Blow. However, relevance aside, there is nothing new or different here. Republican David Duke is a product of Ronald Reagan; but PulicanT racism dates (at least) to Nixon’s Southern Strategy when I believe the dog whistle was modified for politics (but one example “there will be a new Attorney General” as in no more Ollie’s Barbecues [public accommodation cases]). Aside from the Grate Communicate declaring his candidacy in a venue of historically racist renown and later talking of Big Bucks buying steaks and welfare queens, for me his greatest act was the revocation of Nixon’s executive order denying tax exempt status to racist institutions. (That revocation occurred on a Friday afternoon after the media had left on the understanding that it would be buried until Monday with any adverse wind quickly overtaken by normal news flow. Sadly someone noticed and lit a fire that quickly raged out of control. Ultimately it wound up in the Supreme Court with that Court having to appoint a lawyer to argue in defense of the EO because Raygun’s government refused; he having defended his action as essential due to excess on the part of “bureaucrats” it was important that he not be further involved.) Much thereafter, a grand dragon or wizard announced his candidacy as an adherent of the president’s party to their sudden consternation. Mirabile dictu!

What is exciting about the Trump campaign is that all the party is terrified because he says aloud what they know must only be whistled at. Racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, religious insanity, etc., long have been the primary attributes of the party of the rich, white, male because when that is your only constituency, it is necessary to pretend to all these other “concerns.” It matters not whether Nixon or Reagan truly were themselves racists because they openly pandered to racism and fed off it. The same with the rest of it. (NB Cheney never had any difficulty with his party’s homophobia until immediately after his debate with John Edwards then still later after his “reitrement.” For this he gets credit!)

Trump is a refreshing demagogue precisely because he openly incites the real strength of that party and makes us all face up to that reality. The others all attempt to do the same even today but with a softer, blurred—i.e., dog whistled—focus. The biggest danger here is that one of the lessers might be able to be made to appear “moderate” and etchasketch for the general should one of them be the nominee.

I shall be delighted to see Mr. Trump bleat and shibboleth his way thru debates with my candidate. Should he win, that is my country decide in its wisdom to elect that clown, I am of sufficiently receded youth that I can accept and survive that. Either way, their “revolution” ultimately should make us better for what we and they must face up to instead of denying the realities visited upon us by Tricky and Captain Video.

The earlier, shorter version: The reason I like Trump as the frontrunner is precisely because he is the voice for all the things that the PulicanT party has been becoming since 1968 when the dogwhistle became the principle instrument of that party’s symphony. Not saying a certain popular racist term does not make your racism any less objectionable or as claimed “subtle,” it makes it more insidious. That is precisely what is wrong with the other candidates in that race. They get credit for appearing moderate when the reality is that they are anything but. They enjoy and profit from hiding their odiousness behind the cloud of Trump while adhering to and proclaiming the worst of their party’s inclinations.

What the media find objectionable—while counting their profits from the Trump extravaganza—is that they must acknowledge the racism, homophobia, religious insanity, xenophobia, misogyny, ad naus that is the essence of a party which represents no one cobbling together enough disparate groups about which it cares not a fig so that it can win. How lovely that at long last we have Mr. Trump to show us the reality from which there is no hiding.

The wonder and beauty of Trump is that he will show us the strength and numbers of the racists, etc., that we pretend do not exist so impressively precisely because of media complicity. Sen. Sessions is not the only racist whose respectability is due to unwarranted respect for the position he holds (assumed following his demonstrated unsuitability for another position). It is past time that these illegitimi were recognized, and to that end we have Trump/Drumpf to thank.

The party of the rich, white, male represents no one else, and if you ain’t at least two of those, you are a damned fool if you support that party.

Legitimacy of Calgary Cruz

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday January 13, 2016 · 8:47 AM PST

2016/01/13 · 08:47

In this morning’s Abbreviated Pundit Roundup, Dr. Dworkin has included a tiny portion of a law professor’s WaPo op-ed column stating that Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president. Because he subsequently states that “Of course Cruz is eligible, but he’s such an asshole, we’ll say he’s not,” I was troubled and thought to toss my straw into that wind. The professor’s remarks appeared to me to be especially well reasoned and supported.

For what it’s worth there are a great many discussions readily available online should anyone care to pursue them. They all essentially follow the thinking that a statute can define (that is, alter) the meaning of the Constitution.

To the professor's comments I will add a couple of points. First the language is clear, unambiguous and means precisely what it says (rules of interpretation are that only when ambiguity exists are secondary sources consulted). Second the reason for the language is as is implicit in what the professor states but less emphatically, the framers were xenophobic. This was a newly established country that had fought a war to throw off foreign authority--"the yoke of oppression"--and they didn't want foreigners coming in and taking over.

A final point is that there is a fine problem as to justiciability. The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. So how the hell does an interpretation occur in the context of a case or controversy? The problem does not arise until one has a presidential nomination. Can the Court then issue a decision timely? What does the political party do in the event of an adverse decision? Oh and by the way, a certain Florida Congressman—and Harvard law grad—has stated that he will sue in the event that Cruz gets the nomination. Wanna bet he won’t??! So, Trump likely is correct on that score at least.

Given that the age of Obama is ended for practical purposes, the CONservs and moderates (there are no liberals on the Court) likely would ignore contrary arguments and simply accept the broad (and questionable) interpretation advanced by many including Professor Lawrence Tribe who says that the question is not settled but thinks that Cruz is legitimate within the Constitutional term(!). Can there be any doubt how that great “originalist” would decide absent the threat of an Obama?

Note that I do not comment on the fact that many (NOT all!) of the people who questioned Obama's legitimacy are happy to endorse Cruz.

The evolution of gutless irresponsibility on MSN

shagnaski

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday February 04, 2015 · 8:19 AM PST

2015/02/04 · 08:19

Shortly before four o'clock this morning MSN carried a headline for a story not in the top heads. It had to do with Sen. Paul's sacrifice of professional integrity in the cause of reckless pandering to the nutwing anti vaccination crowd. It correctly described if more mildly than here, the Senator's outrageous pronouncements on a subject in which his hipple critic oats allow him lotsa latitude. Recognizing it's error or perhaps an editor reeling in horror, MSN quickly began it's devolution into the appropriate swamp of non reportage:

"Rand Paul repeats irresponsible vaccine comments"

“Vaccine [']debate['] tricky for possible presidential candidates"

"Vaccine [']debate['] has long been a political minefield."

It is understandable that to suggest that a politician is pandering much less irresponsible must be terrifying (when it involves conservative demagogues anyway). But at the very least, why can't the pusillanimous news organizations point out that there is no debate about vaccines/vaccinations? They exist; they are effective; they are safe; they are necessary (yes, the earth prolly is round and the sky blue [more or less]). The "debate" is over whether those who wish not to partake of vaccinations for themselves or their children have the right to expose the rest of the population to the consequences of their decision. A further "debate" is whether society should allow them to expose their own minor children in which they have property rights ("own")--according to the pronouncement of a professordoctor in Congress--to those very significant risks.

Once the answer was clear, but progressively religion and stupidity have begun to permit the fringe to expose the public to such hazards as needed. And that is said to be freedom...just as it is for some Chucklehead to refer to someone's comment on the other side of the crevasse as "condescending."

Newer
Older

RSS