The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Tank]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2009/06/the_president_packs_the_press.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html

Arianna is a douche, but she's right. Milbank spends half his post complaining about this break in sacred press conference protocol before noting

The Huffington Post writer's question -- "under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad?" -- was a perfectly legitimate one

I think this is a pissy White House press corps issue more than a ZOMG! HUFFPOST LIBRUL PLANT! issue.

This is kind of a special case, considering Pitney has been actively soliciting emails directly from ordinary Iranians and was positioned better than other reporters in the room to ask a question on their behalf. Obama acknowledged as much before calling on him:

"Nico, I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran," the president went on. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "Yes," Pitney said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

I suppose there's a bit of PR stage management involved in the White House's desire to field a question "from an Iranian" in the first place, but that doesn't take much away from the fact that the question was a tough and direct one (and not, apparently, itself arranged or scripted beforehand):

Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working for?

As for the Spanish-language reporter... is that all that unusual or conscience-shocking considering the visit of the Chilean President later in the day?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nico-pitney/debating-the-iran-questio_b_222001.html

Dana Milbank: played in real life by Ed Helms.

Related: Old Media comedy FAIL.

[RV]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2009/06/the_president_packs_the_press.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html

Arianna is a douche, but she's right. Milbank spends half his post complaining about this break in sacred press conference protocol before noting

The Huffington Post writer's question -- "under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad?" -- was a perfectly legitimate one

I think this is a pissy White House press corps issue more than a ZOMG! HUFFPOST LIBRUL PLANT! issue.

This is kind of a special case, considering Pitney has been actively soliciting emails directly from ordinary Iranians and was positioned better than other reporters in the room to ask a question on their behalf. Obama acknowledged as much before calling on him:

"Nico, I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran," the president went on. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "Yes," Pitney said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

I suppose there's a bit of PR stage management involved in the White House's desire to field a question "from an Iranian" in the first place, but that doesn't take much away from the fact that the question was a tough and direct one (and not, apparently, itself arranged or scripted beforehand):

Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working for?

As for the Spanish-language reporter... is that all that unusual or conscience-shocking considering the visit of the Chilean President later in the day?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nico-pitney/debating-the-iran-questio_b_222001.html

Dana Milbank: played in real life by Ed Helms.

Related: Old Media comedy FAIL.

You're such a dick.

[Gil Gunderson]

So, I'm reading through the Ricci decision now, and I must confess, alot of this confuses the hell out of me (I'd like to hear a more experienced employment lawyer like Stew offer his opinions on the decision).  However, at first glance, and this is an initial analysis, this decision does seem to turn disparate impact claims on their head, a significant area of Title VII cases.

Essentially, Kennedy begins with his summation of the case, which is that New Haven considered the race-based effects of the testing and rejected the test on that ground and that this was taking an adverse action because of an individual's race.

In order to reconcile this dichotomy, Kennedy asserts that a good faith fear of a disparate impact lawsuit cannot be enough to justify acting because of an individual's race.  Then, analogizing the affirmative action cases within the meaning of the 14th amendment, Kennedy noted that affirmative action created the same kind of conflict in its EP decisions.

So, like the good moderate that he is, Kennedy strikes a balance.  Once a hiring or promotional process has begun, an employer may not deviate from that process over concerns that the process discriminates unless there is a strong basis in evidence to believe that the practice would not survive a disparate impact lawsuit. Employers can act before there is a "provable, actual violation," but only if there is this strong basis in evidence to believe that there is a provable violation.  This is a more strenous standard, and may nullify many Title VII decisions.

In the final analysis, while this does turn disparate impact cases on their head, in the end, it simply muddles the Title VII case law more so than it already is. Employment discrimination law just moved from college-level calculus to elementary particle physics.

[Tank]

So, I'm reading through the Ricci decision now, and I must confess, alot of this confuses the hell out of me (I'd like to hear a more experienced employment lawyer like Stew offer his opinions on the decision).  However, at first glance, and this is an initial analysis, this decision does seem to turn disparate impact claims on their head, a significant area of Title VII cases.

Essentially, Kennedy begins with his summation of the case, which is that New Haven considered the race-based effects of the testing and rejected the test on that ground and that this was taking an adverse action because of an individual's race.

In order to reconcile this dichotomy, Kennedy asserts that a good faith fear of a disparate impact lawsuit cannot be enough to justify acting because of an individual's race.  Then, analogizing the affirmative action cases within the meaning of the 14th amendment, Kennedy noted that affirmative action created the same kind of conflict in its EP decisions.

So, like the good moderate that he is, Kennedy strikes a balance.  Once a hiring or promotional process has begun, an employer may not deviate from that process over concerns that the process discriminates unless there is a strong basis in evidence to believe that the practice would not survive a disparate impact lawsuit. Employers can act before there is a "provable, actual violation," but only if there is this strong basis in evidence to believe that there is a provable violation.  This is a more strenous standard, and may nullify many Title VII decisions.

In the final analysis, while this does turn disparate impact cases on their head, in the end, it simply muddles the Title VII case law more so than it already is. Employment discrimination law just moved from college-level calculus to elementary particle physics.

Intrepid Reader: LA Gil

My job sucks, bro.

[Gil Gunderson]

So, I'm reading through the Ricci decision now, and I must confess, alot of this confuses the hell out of me (I'd like to hear a more experienced employment lawyer like Stew offer his opinions on the decision).  However, at first glance, and this is an initial analysis, this decision does seem to turn disparate impact claims on their head, a significant area of Title VII cases.

Essentially, Kennedy begins with his summation of the case, which is that New Haven considered the race-based effects of the testing and rejected the test on that ground and that this was taking an adverse action because of an individual's race.

In order to reconcile this dichotomy, Kennedy asserts that a good faith fear of a disparate impact lawsuit cannot be enough to justify acting because of an individual's race.  Then, analogizing the affirmative action cases within the meaning of the 14th amendment, Kennedy noted that affirmative action created the same kind of conflict in its EP decisions.

So, like the good moderate that he is, Kennedy strikes a balance.  Once a hiring or promotional process has begun, an employer may not deviate from that process over concerns that the process discriminates unless there is a strong basis in evidence to believe that the practice would not survive a disparate impact lawsuit. Employers can act before there is a "provable, actual violation," but only if there is this strong basis in evidence to believe that there is a provable violation.  This is a more strenous standard, and may nullify many Title VII decisions.

In the final analysis, while this does turn disparate impact cases on their head, in the end, it simply muddles the Title VII case law more so than it already is. Employment discrimination law just moved from college-level calculus to elementary particle physics.

Intrepid Reader: LA Gil

My job sucks, bro.

Slow day.  End of the month and I finished all my cases early.

[Gil Gunderson]

DPD, but reading the comments on the Huffington Post articles about the Ricci decision is delightful.  I never knew that the issue of affirmative action is so internally polarizing on the Left.

This article is pure shit, in my opinion, especially the "gazebo" reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-kapor/redefining-bias-in-the-21_b_222302.html

[Brownie]

Climate change regulation is hard, sayeth John Boehner of Ohio.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/boehner-zomg-climate-change-legislation-is-complicated.php?ref=fpb

All together, not too unexpected, coming from today's modern Republican.

Sorry, Gil.

Boehner is on the right side here. This bill micromanages too much, effectively puts a tax on all production and consumption. It also picks the winners and losers.

Henry Waxman dumped an additional 300 pages into this bill Friday at midnight. It passed at 7 pm that day. And the gall of Boehner to point out some of the crap in the bill.

Boehner can be bombastic at times, but he's 100 percent right. Forgive some of the incendiary remarks on this site, but the 60 minute Boehner speech is the balls.

[MAD]

Climate change regulation is hard, sayeth John Boehner of Ohio.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/boehner-zomg-climate-change-legislation-is-complicated.php?ref=fpb

All together, not too unexpected, coming from today's modern Republican.

Sorry, Gil.

Boehner is on the right side here. This bill micromanages too much, effectively puts a tax on all production and consumption. It also picks the winners and losers.

Henry Waxman dumped an additional 300 pages into this bill Friday at midnight. It passed at 7 pm that day. And the gall of Boehner to point out some of the crap in the bill.

Boehner can be bombastic at times, but he's 100 percent right. Forgive some of the incendiary remarks on this site, but the 60 minute Boehner speech is the balls.

Did it give you a Boehner?

[Gil Gunderson]

Climate change regulation is hard, sayeth John Boehner of Ohio.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/boehner-zomg-climate-change-legislation-is-complicated.php?ref=fpb

All together, not too unexpected, coming from today's modern Republican.

Sorry, Gil.

Boehner is on the right side here. This bill micromanages too much, effectively puts a tax on all production and consumption. It also picks the winners and losers.

Henry Waxman dumped an additional 300 pages into this bill Friday at midnight. It passed at 7 pm that day. And the gall of Boehner to point out some of the crap in the bill.

Boehner can be bombastic at times, but he's 100 percent right. Forgive some of the incendiary remarks on this site, but the 60 minute Boehner speech is the balls.

I agree with Boehner in that the bill is shit.  A carbon tax would have been much more effective and straightforward.

[Gil Gunderson]

So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery

[Gil Gunderson]

TPD, but this VF article on Sarah Palin is amazing.

Palin has disappointed many of those who once had the highest hopes for her. She has stumbled over innumerable details. But as she said to Andrew Halcro years ago, "Does any of this really matter?" Palin has shown herself to have remarkable gut instincts about raw politics, and she has seen openings where others did not. And she has the good fortune to have traction within a political party that is bereft of strong leadership, and whose rank and file often demands qualities other than knowledge, experience, and an understanding that facts are, as John Adams said, stubborn things. It is, at the moment, a party in which the loudest and most singular voices, not burdened by responsibility, wield disproportionate power. She may decide that she does not need office in order to have great influence—any more than Rush Limbaugh does.

What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life's injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?

Palin is unlike any other national figure in modern American life—neither Anna Nicole Smith nor Margaret Chase Smith but a phenomenon all her own. The clouds of tabloid conflict and controversy that swirl around her and her extended clan—the surprise pregnancies, the two-bit blood feuds, the tawdry in-laws and common-law kin caught selling drugs or poaching game—give her family a singular status in the rogues' gallery of political relatives. By comparison, Billy Carter, Donald Nixon, and Roger Clinton seem like avatars of circumspection. Palin's life has sometimes played out like an unholy amalgam of Desperate Housewives and Northern Exposure.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/sarah-palin200908?currentPage=1

[powen01]

So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery

If only we were less promiscuous, the sun God would smile on us and make our crops grow.  Let's go kill some virgins!  Amirightfellas?

[Oleg]

So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery

Those are all good things though.

[Quality Start Machine]

So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery

If only we were less promiscuous, the sun God would smile on us and make our crops grow.  Let's go kill some virgins!  Amirightfellas?

I call killing the ones in DeRosa jerseys.

[Tank]

So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery

If only we were less promiscuous, the sun God would smile on us and make our crops grow.  Let's go kill some virgins!  Amirightfellas?

Something like that...

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord," and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.

Say... before you kill all those virgins...