« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
January 30, 2007
Supreme Court TV? A Separation-of-Powers Interruption
So, does the Legislative Branch have the constitutional authority -- under the Necessary-and-Proper Clause, I presume -- to tell the constitutionally created Supreme Court how to run its proceedings? Congress sets the number of Justices. Congress has controlled the Supreme Court's appellate docket in the past, forcing the Court to hear cases (subject to the "substantial federal question" card). Congress promulgates the rules that govern the Supreme Court's operations. Congress appropriates the money for law clerks.
The First and Sixth amendments ensure public access to judicial proceedings. So at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that the Supreme Court will have argument-day walk-ups siting in the gallery -- absent a compelling need for secrecy. And there's nothing in the Constitution that would seem to prohibit a law requiring televised SCOTUS proceedings.
But let's say Congress passes such a law, and the president signs it.
What if SCOTUS won't comply, saying that for all things ministerial, they're the "deciders"? What's Congress going to do, reduce the number of number of Justices who can hear a case? Not fund their law clerks? How 'bout pass a non-binding resolution condemning the Justices' decision?
Frankly, I'd much rather see Senator Specter devote his time to explaining just what the hell he was thinking when he slipped into the Patriot Act renewel that little jewel of legislation allowing the Attorney General to fire U.S. Attorneys and replace them "temporarily" forever . . . that is, until the A.G. changes his or her mind or a new administration takes office.
Posted by shertaugh at 9:18 AM | Comments (1)
Do Duke's Women Lacrosse Players Deserve An Award?
Posted by Eric at 8:40 AM | Comments (9)
January 29, 2007
A Very Good Blogger Has A Good Day.
Posted by Eric at 9:36 PM
This Day in Super Bowl History . . . Not A Good One
Now, promptly non-competitive isn't always bad. The Bears' last visit to the NFL title game came 21 years ago against Raymond Berry's Patriots in a game that also quickly turned into a blowout -- and turned that way shortly after NE tight end Lin Dawson blew-out his knew on a deep sideline pattern and Stanley Morgan dropped a slant pass that could have gone for a TD.
But what entertainment. Every time RB Craig James touched the ball, it seemed the entire Bears defensive Front 7 met him three yards deep in the backfield. By game's end, NE had run the ball 11 times for 7 yards.I think it was the most intimidating display of defense in the game's history.
Posted by shertaugh at 1:49 PM
January 28, 2007
Admissions (of Error) Office
Posted by Eric at 10:45 PM | Comments (1)
A March On Washington, DC . . . Where's the Music?
Before yesterday, it seems to me that political marches on Washington, DC to voice a mainstream view had gone the way of the dinosaur. Starting with MLKing's "Dream" speech and cresting with the Vietnam Moratorium March-- the first one I remember -- the political establishment in Washington, especially the executive branch, had succeeded in marginalizing such events. That is, framing the political issue as one supported only by liberal fringe elements.
But the issues and protests of the 1960s did something else, too. They inspired great music (liberal music?).
Unfortunately, the zeal for protests and much of the politically charged music seemed to end after the shootings on the campus of Kent State on May 4, 1970. The government had become deadly serious about enforcing discipline among its citizenry at the end of an M-16.
Today, government discipline's not nearly so Bull Conner-ish. We have instead only widespread domestic spying . . . oops, I mean, terrorist spying . . . and political jawboning by the president, VP, and select Republican and Democrat[ ] Senators bemoaning those who embolden our enemies through that most dangerous of action, political speech. And of course there's the occasional temporary detention or rendition of the locals (see Jose Padilla and Maher Arar)
But where's the music? 'Cause when we get the music, and its at the top of the charts, it could well mean a political realignment is underway. [Unlike the '60s, however, I don't see this Supreme Court coming along for the ride.]
Posted by shertaugh at 7:31 AM | Comments (3)
January 27, 2007
This Day in Super Bowl History -- Ouch!!!
Posted by shertaugh at 6:49 PM
America -- a Treasonist Country
Cheney trotted out the same line two years later, during the run-up to the '06 midterm elections.
Here we go again. The WaPo reported today how Bush is once again trying to stifle dissent from his ride-off-the-cliff policies in Iraq.
I think it's fair to say now that this line of bullshit has lost its stench. America spoke in November '06. Bush's Iraq policy had its accountability moment. It lost. Ergo . . . it must be Americans who're to blame now for sending the wrong message to the terrorists.
Posted by shertaugh at 6:29 PM | Comments (3)
January 26, 2007
Bang!
Posted by Eric at 8:00 AM | Comments (1)
January 24, 2007
Big (Bad?) Yellow Taxi
I'd never paid much attention to the case before, so I went and looked it up after class. And as I looked at it, I sort of wanted to clean my glasses to make sure I was seeing it right. It's a 1947 case holding that taxis ferrying people from their homes to an interstate travel depot like a railroad station were outside the reach of the Sherman Antitrust Act because Congress lacked power to regulate them under the interstate commerce clause.
Yellow Cab was overruled on a different point of law by Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984). But so far as I can tell, on the Commerce Clause point, the decision has never been formally overruled, and lower federal courts were still citing it as recently as the 1980s.
Am I missing something here, or is this decision an utterly inexplicable outlier? How can it possibly be that Congress lacks power to block a monopoly in taxi cabs picking up people at their homes and dropping them at a railroad or an airport for interstate or international travel?
UPDATE: A brief email exchange on this with a friend and colleague who shall remain nameless (so as to protect the identity of Orin Kerr) leads me to update this post. A more careful reading of Justice Murphy's opinion for the Court in Yellow Cab reveals that the Court was purporting to interpret not the reaches of the Commerce power, but the reaches of the Sherman Act, when it reasoned that
the common understanding is that a traveler intending to make an interstate rail journey begins his interstate movement when he boards the train at the station and that his journey ends when he disembarks at the station in the city of destination. What happens prior or subsequent to that rail journey, at least in the absence of some special arrangement, is not a constituent part of the interstate movement.In other words, the Yellow Cab Court apparently saw the connection of these local taxi rides to interstate commerce as being so remote that Congress didn't intend the Sherman Act intended to cover them.
For my money, this reasoning comes mighty close to the long-condemned view of the Supreme Court in the 1895 E.C. Knight case that the Sherman Antitrust Act could not reach a monopoly in sugar refining because manufacture precedes interstate commerce and has too indirect an effect on it. That's why I was shocked to see it in a 1947 case. But Yellow Cab purports to be about the Sherman Act rather than the Commerce Clause itself, so that is a distinction that must be noted. (On this point, Murphy's Yellow Cab opinion did not get the votes of Justices Black or Rutledge, and Douglas did not participate. One wonders whether it would command a majority today.)
Posted by Eric at 4:24 PM | Comments (4)
Violently Pacifist.
It's alleged that a good chunk of the Guilford College (NC) football team beat up three Palestinian students on Saturday night, calling them "dirty," "terrorists," and "sand niggers." College officials -- noting that the some of the assailants and victims knew one another and were residence hall neighbors, and that alcohol was involved -- are thus far declining to label the incident a "hate crime."
The Guilford football team is, incidentally, "the Quakers."
Posted by Eric at 2:45 PM | Comments (16)
January 22, 2007
Latest WaPo Poll on Bush -- Look Out Below?
Pretty amazing stuff. But it seems that as far as Bush is concerned, America had its chance at an "accountability moment."
Posted by shertaugh at 9:48 PM
Give 'Em Life . . . Then What?
". . . and protected into law."
I invite the readers of this blog to translate that phrase, please -- especially coming from this president, whose understanding (or maybe, "view" is a better word) of the Constitution is not exactly what's taught in law school. Well, maybe at UCal-Berkeley.
UPDATE: as commenter paperweight suggests, my remarks about UCal-Berkeley were intended to be limited to classes taught by Con-Law scholar John Yoo.
Posted by shertaugh at 5:53 PM | Comments (6)
E-grieving.
I turned on my computer this morning to learn that Peter J. Wangersky, a Canadian oceanographer, died on January 7 after a short illness. I knew Pete because he was an alumnus of Brown University, like I am, and for many years was a frequent participant on an alumni listserv called Brunonia.
He was a kindly and witty participant. He shared lots of stories about himself, his childhood, his college years, and his views on politics and life in general. Always interesting. Always humble. Always respectful.
Now I learn that he's gone, and I grieve a little for a man I never laid eyes on, but somehow came to know quite well.
Posted by Eric at 10:40 AM | Comments (6)
Fauxtoshopping the Heavens.
Yesterday I posted a link to a spectacular photo of Comet McNaught, not unlike this one from spaceweather.com:
And a commenter promptly suggested that it was photoshopped.
We live in a depressingly cynical age.
That was not photoshopping, my friend. This is photoshopping:
Posted by Eric at 8:57 AM | Comments (3)
January 21, 2007
Colts Return to Miami . . . Scene of Super Bowls Past
This year's SB (I've lost count of what roman numeral it is, which has become a truly stupid symbol of the NFL's hubris) will be held in Miami -- the scene, coincidentally enough, of SB-V when the Colts last appeared in the title game and upset the favored Cowboys 16-13 in what easily was the worst demonstration of football by two teams in a championship game. [SB-V kicked off at 1:05 pm, if I remember correctly.] Miami also was the scene of the Colts calamitous loss to the NYJets in SB-III.
In perfectly good weather on January 17, 1971, the Colts and Cowboys -- who were wearing their ugly and unlucky blue "road" uniforms -- combined for 11 turnovers, 7 by the victorious Colts and only 4 by the Cowboys. The game ended on a field goal by rookie kicker Jim O'Brien after a Craig Morton pass deflected off the hands of Dan Reeves into the waiting arms of LB Mike Curtis. The game represented redemption for both the Colts and their QB Earl Morrall. [Here's Sports Illustrated's 1971 story.]
Two years earlier, the Colts of course lost to the Jets 16-7 in SB-III. But in SB-V, Morrall relieved an injured Johnny Unitas and did just enough not to lose.
SB-V marked a turning point for both organizations.
For the Colts, SB-V marked the beginning of the end for Johnny Unitas. Although he led the Colts to the AFC title game the following year against Miami, he was gone from Baltimore just one season later -- and ended his career ignominiously with the drug-scandalized San Diego Chargers. Earl Morrall was also soon let go by the Colts as part of their rebuilding process. He landed in Miami with his former Colts coach, Don Shula -- and earned MVP honors in '72 when he guided the Dolphins after Bob Griese's injury to a 14-0 regular season. Griese returned for the playoffs, reclaimed his starting job, and finished off the 'Phins 17-0 perfect season.
For the Cowboys, their failure in SB-V opened the door for Roger Staubach's run to the Hall of Fame and four more Super Bowl appearances in '70s . . . becoming -- aargh!!! -- "America's Team." Craig Morton was traded to the NYGiants for a No. 1 pick that turned into Ed "Too Tall" Jones. Morton later returned to the Super Bowl with the Broncos in 1978 -- against Staubach and the Cowboys.
It's been a long trip back to the SB for the Colts. If they can stop the Bears' powerful rushing attack and keep Manning upright in the SB, they'll win. Of course, the Saints had the same game plan going into their game today at Soldier field.
Posted by shertaugh at 10:28 PM
The Universe Is Sometimes A Beautiful Place.
Posted by Eric at 4:51 PM | Comments (3)
The Clinton Challenge
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers say she knows full well, from long and sometimes painful experience, the challenges to come. She will have to convince people that another Clinton in the White House will bring more of the successes, and fewer of the shadows and scandals, that marked her husband’s administration, her advisers say. She will have to figure out the role that Mr. Clinton will play, a question that Republicans will almost certainly highlight.
"Shadows and scandals" . . . okay, besides the Lewinsky affair--which had no direct bearing on American policy (say, like torture, secret rendition, trumped up wars, ballooning trade deficits), what are all the so-called scandals the NYTimes is referring to? Whitewater? That too had nothing to do with Clinton's White House policies.
This "analysis" -- as the NYTimes calls its article -- seems like a pretty pathetic puff piece stating so-called "conventional wisdom" that's been drummed up since January 2001 by the conservative media.
Through this entire time, McCain -- formerly known as a Straight Talker -- gets a pass.
I have no problem with any media outlet venting about Hillary Clinton's policy choices as an elected official. I don't even mind an honest look at her 1994 healthcare plan.
But focusing on the "shadows and scandals" that didn't bother the American people during an 8-year run of sustained economic growth, budgetary stability, evaporating national debt, and relative peace pretty well captures the missing intellect in the MSM.
Posted by shertaugh at 9:04 AM | Comments (4)
January 20, 2007
If I Put A Bag Over My Head, You'll Have To Get Into The Tea Chest And Sing.
For more details, see here.
Posted by Eric at 7:35 PM | Comments (1)
Who Would You Rather Have . . .
2. An extremely bright, deeply curious, politically inexperienced and emotionally open and energizing president -- with a political resume shorter than this description?
3. A conservative president who used to criticize (i) stupidity in the White House, (ii) tax cuts that are bankrupting America, (iii) deficits as far as the mind can dream, (iv) an energy policy that finances the terrorists we're trying to kill -- with a history of selling political favors to shady bankers, of spending several years as a POW, but who now just wants to be loved by the Southern Wing of the GOP?
or . . . someone else?
Posted by shertaugh at 10:00 AM | Comments (6)
X-Judge on Stimson
Posted by Eric at 8:52 AM
January 18, 2007
You Can't Really Call It A "Snow Day" When There's No Snow.
A very light snow is falling. There's a dusting on the grass; the pavements, still warm from weeks of unseasonable wintertime heat, are a bit wet.
And for this, at 6:20 in the morning, our local school administrators decide to close the public schools, throwing thousands of families' lives into total disarray.
Posted by Eric at 6:54 AM | Comments (7)
January 17, 2007
I'm Shocked That Scooter's A Family Man
Oh, and I almost forgot,
"He’s going to be the poster boy for the criminalization of politics, and he’s not even political,” said Mary Matalin, Mr. Cheney’s former political adviser.
To all this I say "Bullshit."
I've prosecuted and defended scores of people accused of serious crimes. Nearly every one of them had a wife and kids -- a supportive wife and kids. But that didn't make them any less guilty or innocent. It only expanded the group of victims.
But reading the remarks of some of Libby's friends quoted in the article, you'd think that he's somehow exceptional in this regard and, therefore, the charges less legitimate. Not so.
As for Libby's memory, I had the feeling that -- regardless of the reporter's intent -- the story will be a GOP talking point about how the NYTimes did a hatchet job on Libby. Anyone who knows poetry by heart or all 79 titles of Star Trek couldn't forget who said what when about Joe Wilson's wife. Of course, I don't know if that's true. But it may make for some empassioned discussion for a day or so about a slanted, rather than "insightful," article.
As an aside, I wonder if the prosecutor knows about Libby's prodigious memory? Would it be admissible as a evidence of a character trait? Is "memory" a character trait? How 'bout as evidence to rebut the defense's position that Libby just forgot the details of his conversations with reporters 'cause he was so busy saving the United States from Saddam?
Finally, I honestly have no idea how James Carville can pull off his marriage to Matalin. She may be a perfectly wonderful dinner guest, friend, wife, and mother. But I found her "poster boy" comment to be rich with irony.
When Libby was indicted, a key GOP and White House talking point -- for which Matalin has been a mouthpiece -- was that no one even knows who Scooter Libby is, so who cares if he's accused of perjury in a federal criminal investigation of White House dirty tricks.
On the other hand, during the preceeding administration, Matalin was among those in the GOP regularly at the studios of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC calling Clinton a serial liar and criminal because of his testimony in a civil deposition into alleged sexual harassment of someone years earlier with no connection to his Presidency who -- let's be frank here -- had a pretty shitty case. And also that Clinton's a pervert because he had sex outside his marriage . . . or was it because of whether, when, or how he reached climax.
And she says Libby is the poster boy for the criminalization of politics?! It's like someone saying the Democrats are to blame for Iraq because they don't have a plan that ensures "victory" -- whatever that is -- while extricating American troops in the next 24 hours.
Posted by shertaugh at 6:09 AM | Comments (2)
January 16, 2007
Why Cully Stimson Is Wrong: A World War II Precedent
Still, I thought a bit of historical perspective might be useful.
In World War II, the federal government and the American Bar Association explicitly called on American attorneys to undertake the legal representation of internees of Japanese ancestry -- citizens and aliens alike.
Here are excerpts from an editorial from the May-June 1943 issue of the Journal of the State Bar of California.
The California State Bar came down in favor of providing representation. Its answers to the first and sixth questions are, I think, especially interesting. Here's the answer to question 1:
So much for Cully Stimson's musings.
(To be sure, the position of incarcerated Japanese enemy aliens in World War II was somewhat distinct from the position of detainees at Guantanamo today. But that is, as we lawyers like to say, "a distinction without a difference." On the question of the proper and honorable role of attorneys in their dealings on behalf of those identified as the nation's enemies, the World War II precedent is deeply inconsistent with Cully Stimson's position.)
Of course, the World War II precedent is not all roses. Consider the State Bar's answer to Question 6 ("Does the project [of attorney referrals] contribute to the winning of the war?")
Answer (a) is noble enough, but answer (b) is a doozy. California attorneys should represent Japanese and Japanese American internees so that property of the people behind barbed wire can more quickly be fleeced.
UPDATE: Cully Stimson apologizes.
Posted by Eric at 4:34 PM | Comments (6)
This Guy's Knowledge Of The Law Is Sketchy.
What will they think of next?
Posted by Eric at 11:21 AM
January 15, 2007
The Question of a Plan
Before I ask what the Democrats' plan is, beyond a diplomatic initiative and gradual removal of American troops from Iraq to Kuwait, let me ask another question.
Is it reasonable to ask the Democrats for a detailed plan when (i) they do not have unlimited access to the Joint Chiefs, (ii) they do not have unlimited access to all intelligence information, (iii) when the Administration has shown a pattern of withholding information from lawmakers, and (iv) when it's the president who's refused to discuss an Iraqi plan with Democratic leaders and who holds all the constitutional cards when it comes to American troop movements (matters of the purse aside) and the implementation of any plan for dealing with Iraq?
To those who read this blog, please explain, beyond refusing to appropriate money or voting on non-binding resolutions, exactly how the Democrats can get any plan implemented?
Because if they can't get their plan implemented, it seems to me that the chorus of "what's the Democrats' plan" starts to sound like an argument that goes "see, we told you they wouldn't get anything done if elected; vote in '08 for the GOP."
I'm not questioning good-faith questions about a Dem plan. I'm really just wondering whether a discussion about such a plan is putting the cart before the donkey.
Posted by shertaugh at 4:02 PM | Comments (6)
Guess What I'm Describing Now
They seem wholly unprepared . . . wholly unserious in their thoughts and approach . . . they seem locked into habits that no longer pertain, and absorbed by the small picture of partisan advancement at the expense of the big picture, which is that this nation is in trouble and needs their help . . . they are sunk in the superficial.
Is it Bush and Cheney? Is it the GOP? How 'bout Big Pharma?
No, silly. It's the Democrats, of course. Peggy Noonan has it all right here.
Posted by shertaugh at 10:28 AM | Comments (2)
The Scared President
The column had a photo of George Bush delivering his speech this past week on his plan to, hmmm, surge/escalate/increase American troops in Iraq. [The photo appears in the on-line version of the column, too.]
My 7 year-old daughter peered over my shoulder as I read Noonan's column. And she said this about the photo:
Is that the President? He looks different. He looks like he's lost hair. And he looks scared.
I pulled her around, gave her a hug, and told her she's one smart cookie.
Posted by shertaugh at 10:14 AM
We Can't Handle the Truth
Here we go again. The old "as Commander in Chief" meme under which the President can pretty much do whatever he wants to American citizens whenever he wants. [Dahlia Lithwick had an interesting piece on this Administration's imperial psychosis in Sunday's Wash Post here.]
But that's not what gets me.
What gets me is the idea that Cheney believes that he and his minions -- among whom I include GWBush -- are entitled to whatever information they desire about anyone anywhere. But when it comes to Congressional oversight to ensure transparency in the Executive Branch, the American people aren't entitled to anything in the way of information except that which the President (or, perhaps, more specifically David Addington) thinks we should have.
So all together now, let's just say "thank you" and go on our way.
Posted by shertaugh at 9:56 AM | Comments (1)
January 14, 2007
Every War Has a Silver Lining
So there it is. For all of the problems we now face in the Middle East, one thing we needn't worry about is whether we have allies there. Except for Iran, all the Middle East countries that have done nothing to help stabilize Iraq are with us.
And so are their young people . . . you know, the ones holed up some where planning to blow us up with Iranian- or Korean-made nuclear weapons.
Bush and the likes of Luttwak see things that most of America -- even those privy to the dribs and drabs of classified information, presumably truthful information, shared by this administration -- do not.
I wonder if John McCain is in on this?
Posted by shertaugh at 1:12 PM | Comments (1)
January 12, 2007
Never Believe It's Not So.
The outrages here are countless. To name just one, I note the inexplicable omission of Pilot.
UPDATE: Remember that it's not a scientific survey!
Posted by Eric at 8:29 AM | Comments (1)
January 10, 2007
Dealing With Abusive Commenters
Posted by Eric at 10:02 PM | Comments (12)
Comet McNaught!
It's a beauty!
Posted by Eric at 9:58 PM | Comments (1)
January 7, 2007
Tastiest Mistake I've Ever Made
Amazing results. Think of rye bread from the corner delhi.
Posted by Eric at 9:21 PM | Comments (4)
January 5, 2007
See If You Can Do Better With Kissy Than I Did.
"Hello and a hearty welcome!" says Kissy.
Kissy's very helpful.
"Here you can find information about events going on in and around Bad Kissingen," Kissy says.
And you can also flirt with Kissy!
I tell Kissy that I thought "99 Luftballons" was a cool song.
Sweet! "There's no life without singing," Kissy says.
Emboldened, I tell Kissy that she has very beautiful eyes.
"I'm just going to take that as a compliment," replies the coquetteish fräulein.
But then I ask her what she thinks of Hitler.
It totally spoils the mood.
Posted by Eric at 11:10 AM | Comments (5)
January 4, 2007
"In Defense of Eugenics?"
Well, not to fear: that's just what they're doing over at The Corner on National Review Online.
"This is an issue that will soon (again) be with us," says Andrew Stuttaford, and "the horrified cry of 'eugenics' should not, as is too often the case, be allowed to conclude the discussion then and there."
Posted by Eric at 10:40 PM | Comments (12)
January 3, 2007
Talk About Your Bad Luck.
A New Jersey rabbi pays a couple of men to beat his wife to death. He is sentenced to a minimum of thirty years' incarceration.
I think we have a new definition of "schlimazel."
Posted by Eric at 11:01 PM | Comments (4)
"I Would Have Made This Instrumental But The Words Got In The Way."
Posted by Eric at 9:05 AM | Comments (1)
Goo Goo Goo Joob
Posted by Eric at 8:57 AM | Comments (2)
January 2, 2007
They Write Letters!
--"VDare has a right to be heard. Of course , you probably do believe in free speech...but just for you and you alone. No wonder those kids at Columbia are such morons, with professors like you teaching the young it will be amazing if this country survives at all!" -- from Mary Ellen Burke (presumably not this Mary Ellen Burke)
--"Muller, you f*cking pussy, why not take up VDare's challenge. Like most liberals you excel in the smear and childish name calling, but that's about it." -- from Lee Smith
--"Jews stick together like snot don,t they?" -- from William Martin, who titled his email "Divine Iognorance."UPDATE, 9:25 p.m. -- Damn, I posted this too soon! Because I just got the Tastykake of emails ("all the good things wrapped up in one") from Professor (retired) Andrew William Fraser:
Dear Professor Muller,In the early 1970s, I attended UNC Chapel Hill as a graduate student in History. One of my enduring memories of my otherwise wonderful experience there was the disgraceful manner in which left-wing students and faculty members engaged in sustained efforts to shut down the university and stigmatize any dissent from their anti-war views. This memory is all the more shameful since I participated in many of the anti-war protests at that time.
I also remember North Carolina as a state which was still working to overcome the tragic legacy of slavery left to it by earlier generations of greedy landowners who put their own financial interests ahead of the Anglo-Saxon majority's interest in establishing and preserving a community of memory, tradition, language, religion and blood.
Clearly, open borders fanatics such as yourself are now desperately seeking to repeat that crime against the interests not just of white North Carolinians but this time round against the interests of black North Carolinians as well. Having looked at your website, it is clear to me that your motivation is somewhat different than that of the
Anglo-Saxon slaveowners who blighted America's future back in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Your interest in flooding America with Third World immigrants is clearly less financial than ethnic.
Like many Jewish supporters of open borders throughout the Western world you aim to create a multi-racial society in the USA and here in Oz in the hope that Jews will somehow be more secure. Of course, you have no desire to see Israel go down that path to national suicide. So, in a thoroughly hypocritical unprincipled effort to promote your own particular ethnic interests, you stoop to defame anyone who defends the core Anglo-American identity of the USA-even to the point of denying them access to the media.
Shame on you! You are a disgrace to a fine university created by the very Anglo-Saxon people you are trying to replace by hordes of Third Worlders who could never create much less maintain the traditions represented by that institution.
You really should try to muster the courage to debate these issues with Peter Brimelow in an open public forum. As things stand, your cowardly efforts to silence him simply demonstrate that it is you, not Mr Brimelow, who stands revealed as the real source of hate speech in this matter!Regards,
Professor Andrew Fraser (retired)
formerly of Dept of Public Law
Macquarie University
Sydney, Australia
Posted by Eric at 7:01 PM | Comments (12)
Update from Supreme Director of North Carolina Media Establishment.
If you'd like a little more of that special VDare.com flavor, check out this post of Deep Thoughts by James Fulford.
Posted by Eric at 9:05 AM | Comments (7)
January 1, 2007
Ful(ford) of It.
Fair enough. If you don't like that one, how do the following quotes from Mr. Fulford suit you?
"How are Americans supposed to tell the difference between Meiji and Taisho? ... Does that mean that the internment of the Japanese wasn’t so stupid after all?" -- National Origins Quotas or Moratorium?"Invidious racism and hate" at VDare? Nah."Of course, there is a simple answer to these problems: a National Origins system. Discriminate in favor of immigrants from civilized, culturally compatible countries. Alternatively, don’t have any immigrants at all." -- same article
"Do you realize that if you made all the guns in the U. S. vanish, New Mexico, Texas, and California would vanish the same day? The Mexicans would just come and get them." -- Reconquista, Terrorism, and Gun Control
"Why[, since 9/11/01,] have no mass deportations occurred, or even been proposed (except by the wonderful Ann Coulter)?" -- Why No "Ashcroft Raids?" (This one is really priceless -- a defense of the Palmer Raids that followed WWI.)
"When FDR interned and relocated Japanese and Japanese-Americans in WWII, he was responding to the massive sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. He was basing his decision on the well-known fact that blood is thicker than water, and that people frequently put loyalty to family and religion over loyalty to the state." -- Er ... Why Does Bush Have An Arab Bodyguard Anyway?
"Americans should take heed: the British Isles went from a nearly homogeneous society 60 years ago, to a society which is 12 percent non-white. It’s been a disaster." -- Flashman and the Politically Correct
Posted by Eric at 9:03 PM | Comments (9)
Brad Krantz on Peter Brimelow's Falsehoods
Note that (a) Krantz confirms that Brimelow's account of his interview on WZTK is false, and (b) Krantz invites Brimelow back onto the air to apologize.
From: "Brad Krantz" bkrantz@curtismedia.com
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:28:12 -0500
To: pbrimelow@vdare.com
Subject: Fw: Re: Censorship of Peter Brimelow and VdarePeter...I've gotten many messages stoked by your enlightened fund-raising blast on VDARE. This guy's the only one I personally replied to, since it would take many hours to do so with all of them. But I used it as a template and maybe I'll just forward this to others. Possibly you may wish to come back on with us to apologize (for among other things giving out confidential phone numbers...that's a cheap tactic of intimidation as I'm sure you know) and correct the record.
Brad Krantz
WZTK
-----Original message-----From: "Brad Krantz" bkrantz@curtismedia.com
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:43:00 -0500
To: [recipient's name and email address omitted]
Subject: Re: Censorship of Peter Brimelow and VdareDear [recipient's name omitted]:
Thanks for your note. I've received many notes similar to yours, except many of them contain expletives that are beneath the level of a civil discussion. You're the only person I've decided to reply to, so far. Let me tell you this.... FLAT OUT:
Mr. Brimelow is a liar. He lied about me, my show, his appearance on it, and he lied about Eric Muller, Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. (check out Eric's blog at isthatlegal.org)
Mr. Brimelow was not CENSORED, in any sense of the word. As a well-educated man, I'm sure you realize that censorship has to do with the First Amendment, which refers to the government preventing speech. As a talk show host on a radio station privately owned, I am under absolutely no obligation to allow anyone I don't want on my show, nor any ideas if I decide I don't want them. I don't know of a successful talk show host these days who, for instance, doesn't have their calls screened. If you and Mr. Brimelow want to falsely call controlling one's show "censorship," go ahead. But you are wrong. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage do not "censor," but they discuss topics of THEIR choice and generally have callers who agree with them. That's American radio these days.
That being said, those facts don't even apply in this case, because Mr. Brimelow appeared for a full segment of our show, like most guests... for about 15 minutes. Mr. Brimelow says he was promised 40 minutes. That's just a flat-out lie. We're a morning drive show and time is of the essence.
The person who called me on behalf of Brimelow made no reference to his pedigree, which I'm sure you'll agree is far out of the mainstream of American thought on this subject. That's fine with me but I was at fault for not doing more homework on VDARE before having him on. That being said, Brimelow was NOT cut off or disallowed from expressing his views; in fact we let him ramble on without questioning him as much as we normally do. By our normal standards HE GOT A FREE RIDE. For him to complain about not being able to speak his peace on WZTK on June 20 is one big, fat, lie that he has invented as a fund-raiser for you and your ilk THREE DAYS BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR! Can't you see this for what it is???!!!
He threw you people the red meat and you bit! Big time. That he would be so despicable as to publish phone numbers and email addresses to stoke the fires is even more lame.
The fact that late in December he now decides to reach back to June to a manufactured incident on one single radio station (by the way, WZTK covers both the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill and Greensboro markets, in spite of Mr. Brimelow's lack of sophistication in calling us a "Burlington, NC" station) smacks of a desperation of monumental proportions.
Nevertheless, should Mr. Brimelow decide he'd like to return to our show to apologize for his mis/disinformation campaign against Eric Muller, my partner Britt Whitmire, and me, we would be happy to have him on again.
[Name omitted], I have no idea where you live, but I'm fairly sure it's not local here in NC. You've never heard our station or our show, and you were blindly willing to take the word of a guy you probably don't know who pushed your buttons.
I'm sorry all this has happened, but the internet is still the Wild West and people can make up all kinds of stuff and fool people with it.
Our morning show has had on, to discuss immigration issues, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, JD Hayworth... the list goes on and on.
We're a quality, very fair show. Mr. Brimelow reveals himself to be a demagogue with his fabricated fund-raising ramble.
All the best. Save your money. Happy 2007
brad krantz
WZTK
Posted by Eric at 10:02 AM | Comments (7)