Pangloss

I've heard this as well, that they don't look black at all. Here's a photo you often see floating around the 'net. The smaller girl up front is the one he dangled over the balcony. They look pretty white there alright, but then you see pictures like this of the older pair and have to wonder a bit more: Not only do they look more black there but they also look more like Jackson. (shrug) Dunno. I don't think it's a matter for science, though -- if you want to explore that you'll have to set Jackson aside and look at it more hypothetically. Even the paparazzi probably don't know enough to answer this one.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't serve the purpose of making the United States a prosperous and successful nation, they serve the purpose of making it a free and equal one. They don't guarantee or promise squat when it comes to putting bread on your table and cash in your wallet. We make this compromise all the time, on a myriad of issues. When it comes down to fundamentals, seatbelts and airport security are no different from drug bans. And if what you say is true then NO drug should be illegal for ANY reason, and I don't hear anyone on this forum advocating that position. Not one person.

But aren't there even better fibers? Is the real point just to get people to grow weed? Just asking, I don't know. It just seems like an odd coincidence that hemp is some kind of magical plant that will save the fashion world (at least to hear Woody Harrelson talk).

How does that make opponents of the Iraq war hypocrits?

Interesting op/ed piece that basically says that Blago's 6th Amendment rights are being violated if his appointment to the Senate is not allowed. The point being that he's innocent until proven guilty, therefore he should maintain all of his existing powers until that happens. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-Rod-Blagojevich-s-sixth-by-Mary-MacElveen-090101-36.html

Why is hemp better than cotton? Just curious. Anyway, I agree there's a lot of spin surrounding this issue, but it's also spin to dismiss these arguments as moral policing. Reasonable arguments are being made here regarding impact on society that have to be taken into consideration as well. We can be totally free to F ourselves up, or we can compete in the global economy -- or we can try to figure out the right compromise that allows a reasonable degree of both. That's the real choice. Stamping our feet about specific freedoms is probably not going to be a winning solution in the 21st century. For good or bad, it's going to be about compromise, I'm afraid. BTW, it's not just the right-wing Bible-thumpers who are "moral molesters". The organized special interest groups on the left are just as bad as the ones on the right in that regard. If you don't believe me, take off your seat belt the next time you get pulled over and see what happens.

I always figured it was more like the implication that they're "walking all over them".

Yeah that was a bit odd.

If you mean does he have the political support, the answer appears to be "yes", since Democrats are a wall at the moment and Republicans agree (though if it drags on a while they unanimity could change). But I don't think there's going to be such a vote. I think the Democratic leadership, with support from Republicans, will just refuse to allow him to enter the building (etc), and Burress will keep suing in various courts, some courts will listen but the Supreme Court will ignore the case, and it will go nowhere until the Blago issue is resolved and then Burress becomes the nominee from a more acceptable source (since not doing so would be a snub of a black politician). So an unqualified and little-known appointee gets the job because of politics. Shocking, I know.

Apparently the addition has caused problems for owners of Microsoft's "Zune" music player, causing the unit to lock up until after noon in 1/1. Shades of the 2000 changeover.

Faster, more personal freedom, etc.

I'm not sure that that's a correct interpretation of Powell v McCormack, having read over the Wikipedia entry. It seems to support the possibility exclusion on a number of different fronts, and explicitly supports that clause in the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack

That's probably a better spot anyway, given its well-documented purpose and history over at the Wikipedia. (Of course, if I were going to set up a phishing site, I'd certainly start a page at Wikipedia documenting it!)

It has negative connotations due to derogatory use (or the perception thereof) in popular culture at various points in history. The politically correct term is "African American", but in general it's socially acceptable to say "black".

The media is just eating this up. Check out the opening of this AP wire story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-CKHJCHa23Nx7aUCc8v-396YEcAD95DMRNG0

I claim victory! Thank you for all your support!

True, though it begs the question of who's going to pay for this "cheeseburger charity". Obviously it would have to be significant and long-lasting aid to overcome the local influence of Hamas. They're not being rejected the way Al Qaeda has been in Iraq. You're touching on a key point, though, and a lot of observers (particularly Fareed Zacharia and Thomas Friedman) feel that the Middle East's tragic absence from the economic boom of the last few decades is a main component in the current problems.

Like Karl Rove I learned my politics during Watergate. (cof)

So today the beleaguered governor of Illinois appointed Obama's successor to the US Senate. Immediately thereafter, all heck broke loose. Quite interesting to follow. Here's an article for background: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB85LurXB_6l62s2jbh5OhLWkMGAD95DBMD81 Since the governor hasn't been convicted of anything yet, he has the authority to do this, and it sets up an interesting conundrum at the federal level that doesn't appear to be fully addressed by law, mainly because it's never happened quite this way before. The Senate can try say "we won't seat him", but there is a constitutional question of whether they have that authority in this case. The appointee has apparently done nothing wrong, so they can't accuse him of ethical violations. And there are some very good reasons why the Senate isn't allowed to decide who gets to represent each state -- that goes right to the heart of the Constitution. But the Senate does have the authority to validate the election of a new member of the Senate. From the article linked above: That would seem to support their authority over this matter. Senate Democrats were instantly outspoken on this event, saying that while they respected the appointee, they would not allow this to happen. They were supported by a statement from the President-Elect saying the same thing. And it's likely that Senate Republicans would agree, since they have in the past. And I suppose if the appointee is a good appointee, they can always put him up again after the governor is ousted. I'm sure that was a factor in their thinking today. Interesting politics.

If you're looking for some acknowledgement, I think it's a perfectly valid point, in so far as it goes. The CSM is one of the few newspapers that actually does reporting, representing a very different (but still conservative, just not aligned with eastern Republicans), western-states-minus-California perspective. So it's not unusual to see them reporting on a political story that hasn't been carried by other outlets. Doesn't mean you don't have a point, though. -------------- Interesting points from john5746 and npts2020 above. (Says Pangloss90210.)

Thread closing in 30 minutes.

I think I see where you're coming from there, Saryctos, but it doesn't quite cross that line with me.

Interesting post. That was an interesting point comparing it with "Betrayus". I remember being on the other side of that argument but your point gives me pause. Also I thought your point about not denying that race figured into your vote was interesting. I'm not sure if this is the same thing, but I've heard others put it along the lines of "it got his foot in the door". I've heard this used against him too, suggesting that he wouldn't have even been in this thing if he weren't black, but I think that ignores the fact that there are many African Americans with his degree of qualifications -- what got him into the running has to be something further -- something that sets him apart from the crowd.

I remember that song. That album rocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_the_Magic_Negro I think the point of this song, which first became widely known after airing on the Rush Limbaugh show in 2007, is to suggest that many (most?) white people voted for Obama because of "white guilt". I happen to think that there were many good reasons to vote for Obama, and think that criticism remarkably short-sighted and shallow, but I see nothing wrong with the writer expressing his opinion on the subject. It's distasteful, but it doesn't seem to contain the suggestion that people shouldn't vote for him because he's black (after all, the singer is pretending to be Al Sharpton, complaining about Obama coming in late to the party). It's in the news again currently because it was used on a promotional CD by one of the candidates for the leadership of the Republican party, which apparently is currently up for grabs. What do you all think? Offensive or not? There's also a political side of the problem. I think the resurgence of this song is a strangely daft move by Republicans right now. The Chicago Tribune editorial page put it succinctly: Put another way, are they insane? What do you all think?