Racist or Clueless? Chief Judge of Montana Under Fire For Obama Joke

Chief U.S. District Judge of Montana Richard Cebull is under fire for a joke that he sent to friends from his court email. The email has been denounced as racist and “compares African-Americans to dogs.” He insists that it was not for public circulation and reflected his dislike for the president, not black people.

Judge Cebull sent an email entitled “A MOM’S MEMORY.” It opened with the statement “Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.” It follows with this “joke”: “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

Cebull says that it was only sent to six other people as well as his own private emails. It appears that one of the six other people sent it along to the media.

Cebull insists that the email simply shows that “I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan. I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.”

We previously saw Chief Judge Alex Kozinski involved in a controversy over pictures and jokes sent to friends over a personal website.

The case raises the question of how to respond to such an email. Some have called for his resignation or removal. Others for judicial discipline. There are two likely ethical charges. One is the misuse of the court computer and the other is the transmission of a racist communication.

First, judges routinely use their work emails for private communications. We all tend to use office email for a variety of purposes. I do not see how this judge can be severely disciplined for simply using office email for a private communication. If Cebull is punished, what about the fact that probably 90% of judges use their office emails for private messages as the rest of us do (the other ten percent do not use email).

Second, there is the racism charge. Cebull insists that this was anti-Obama and not anti-black. It is still a stupid joke. However, I am not sure it is fair to assume that the judge is a racist from this one joke. It could simply show that he is entirely clueless and thoughtless. That is never good in a judge, but the question is whether it warrants the actions demanded against him.

Working in his favor is the relatively small number of people who received the email (though one always has to anticipate re-transmissions or forwarding of emails). He was sharing a bad and racially loaded joke with friends. We have discussed the trend toward punishing public employees for private emails, postings, and activities. Of course, a judge is required under ethical rules not to conduct themselves in a way to bring contempt upon the court. Canon Two states “a judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The comment Canon 2A does seem to have some relevance here:

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

While I certainly see why this type of joke raises serious and legitimate concerns, I am not convinced that it warrants punishment beyond the current (and justified) public criticism. The judge is claiming that he thought he was sending this to a handful of friends. It would be akin to a bad joke at a party being repeated later. He clearly failed to appreciate that “the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.” That would include racially-charged jokes that get out. Yet, the question is whether it warrants an actual reprimand or more serious punishment. There may be a sense that, given the use of the court computer, an admonishment is needed — just as Chief Judge Kozinski was admonished.

Cebull received a B.S. from Montana State University in 1966 and a J.D. from the University of Montana Law School in 1969. After a long stint in private practice, he served as trial judge of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court from 1970 to 1972. He then served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Montana from 1998 to 2001 before being nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Montana. He became chief judge in 2008.

Source: Politico

456 thoughts on “Racist or Clueless? Chief Judge of Montana Under Fire For Obama Joke

  1. I’m going with reprimand. While both stupid and offensive, it doesn’t rise to the level of misconduct meriting firing. It should, however, put both prosecutors and defense attorneys on notice going forward as to what kind of intellect they are dealing with in his court.

  2. Is 42 years as a sitting judge in various venues not enough to teach this guy the necessary temperance in speech about his boss? about other racial members? is this attitude what led to the carelessness with the Qurans in Afghanistan, the I-dont-give a … about common sense repercussions, I’m just going to sound off in print on a publicly funded computer to friends who turn out not all to be so friendly. I think this guy is senile, his other faults are typical rightwing meanness. Also the joke is not funny. He should be furloughed.

  3. I agree with Heather. The judge is getting old. Acting old. Now how many black defendants did he sentence since becoming a federal judge? If he sentenced me and did not like me for being a White Democrat then I would not like that. If he gave breaks to the guys from the country club that he and Bushie types go to then I would not like that if I was a defense lawyer and the breaks were going to the country club types. He is old enough for social security and his pension and a retirement are now appropriate. Just dont send him to the beach area in North Carolina where I live.

    It is also a dog joke. He equates blacks with dogs and vice versa. I bet he does not have a dog or if he has a dog its miserable. If they dont take his job away, take his dog.

  4. There are rules governing feds’ use of email which may be a basis for discipline. The idea that judges blend personal and work email is pretty weak–many people are far discreet about this sort of thing.

  5. I agree with Elaine that this judge is a racist,plain and simple. What a creep. He needs to be thinking about going back to private practice.

  6. I don’t see the racism aspect of this: based on the joke the mother is saying she had sex with a dog and a black man. For anyone who is not a fan of bestiality, it is likely to be seen as disgusting, but how is it racist?

  7. Disgusting. Racist. No doubt about that. Perhaps justice could be served by photoshopping this judges head on the body of a very ugly dog pass it along to his friends.

  8. It was racist, misogynistic AND clueless. The “joke” suggests that – if the President’s mother would sleep with a black man – she’d sleep with anything. The equation of interracial marriage with bestiality is utterly contemptible. Ditto the implication that President Obama was an illegitimate child. Since many birthers consider Mr. Obama to be an illegitimate president, this is a pretty obvious dog-whistle.

    That the judge would send such a disgusting e-mail on to others reveals that this is who he is – he’s denying and backpedaling simply because he got caught. The fact that he’s not an outright white supremacist isn’t enough to absolve him of the charge of racism. He admits it was a racist e-mail – and he approved of it by passing it on to multiple people. Racist is as racist does.

  9. If you represent a black person before this judge, move to recuse; if you represented a black person before this judge and it didn’t go well for your client, seek appropriate review. Anything less appears to be a failure to zealously represent your client.

  10. “It is also a dog joke. He equates blacks with dogs and vice versa.”

    I absolutely do not agree. Your statement is not supported by logic.

    If we read the text of the joke without prejudice, we understand:

    – The mother went to a party
    – Also attending the party was at least one black man.
    – Also attending the party was at least one dog.
    – The mother had sex with a black man (as evidenced by the pregnancy).
    – The mother could well also have had sex with other men – whose race is indeterminate
    – She was in such a condition at the party that she thinks that sex with the/one_of_the dog(s) would have been a possibility.

    That’s it.

    There is nothing in the story that equates black men and dogs.
    The party might have been attended by numbers of caucasians, africans, orientals, asians, native Indians, etc
    The party might have been attended by a number of dogs or even a number of different animals.

    We do not know how many different races/nationalities or different animals the mother might have had sex with at the party. Neither does she apparently. Her memory of events is not clear.

    The story in no way denigrates black men. The boy is simply lucky that he was not the issue of sex with a dog.

    Let this be a lesson to all of us not to go wild at parties.

  11. As a trial lawyer in Michigan I am not shocked by the Judge’s actions. We have Republican appointed judges here that make this moron look like Blackstone. Their world is not of “the street”. “Doesn’t everyone have a tuxedo in their closet?”

  12. He’s old enough to retire. Let him retire. Strongly encourage him to retire. Let him know that, if he fails to retire, every case he has ever adjudicated will be reviewed for racial bias. That should do it.

  13. Henceforth, this “judge” needs to recuse himself on anything remotely or obviously related to the President, his policies, his Departments, etcetera, etcetera.

    Talk about “self-branding”…

  14. The story could be taken as a racist slur of course.

    The story would be labelling *white* women as sluts.
    So it’s an anti-white joke.

  15. I read that as both misogynistic and racist. That a white woman that had sex with a black man would also have sex with a dog is the cross over between the two. But it could also mean that a white woman having sex with a dog would produce a black child.

    AS for the passing of Andrew Dimbart – he is in a better place now . . . and so is America

  16. Racist, or totally insensitive to the possibly racist interpretation.

    The judge apparently presided over the Northern Cheyenne Tribal court from 70-72. I wonder if that made him more, or less, racially aware and sensitive.

    Anyway, being just a civilian slob, I thoroughly resent another example of exalted political types being such lowlifes, or doing convincing imitations thereof.

  17. Talkin’Dog, if he does, then you be the one who pees/s—ts on his sleeping back/towel/bag, etc.

    Elly, good summary.

    Trebuchet, that’s why logicians don’t write jokes; they don’t understand them.

    All who defend the judge as a non-racist. I can guess what your color is.

    As for the sentence: Crucify him. Or burn him on a cross, with men in dog costumes around him.

    Just making an innocent joke, you know.

    PS Did he mention a wand he planned to use? Call the SS. (Isn’t it peculiar that they share initials with a certain group?)

  18. “I don’t see the racism aspect of this: based on the joke the mother is saying she had sex with a dog and a black man. For anyone who is not a fan of bestiality, it is likely to be seen as disgusting, but how is it racist?”

    mahtso,

    You lack a clue.

  19. I’m sorry, but to me, while the joke is tasteless and not really funny, I don’t see where anyone is compared to a dog. To me, the “joke” is that the mother got drunk at a party and had a lot of sex, even possibly with a dog (or guys who resemble them). I see no racial defamation here.

  20. Mike S. There you go dignifying the clueless with an answer. But then you were kind to me also—-so better keep quiet.

    Len If you don’t see racism, calling his mother a slutty bitch, and aligning themselves with sexist men and dogs; you obviously don’t hang out at the same country clubs as they do. Which is good, in itself. Or you’re just innoculated against such infections.

  21. I know far too many people like this judge. Some of them are judges, some are in other professions. Anyone who is not offended by that “joke” has something wrong with them.

  22. They are all easy when you know the answer, Mr. Spindell. Clue me in, how is it racist? idealist707 is saying it is because the woman is made out to be a slut. Can it be that simple? It is silly to over-analyze a joke (even one in poor taste), but that is what this is: a joke.

    Many jokes are offensive without being racist. Just last week there were jokes about a man’s sexual orientation on this blog, including one by idealist707. There was also a comment involving the man’s pistol by dredd that I assume was also a gay bashing joke. Offensive? Clueless? I can see how people would find it so. But I also know that vast majority of what passes for comedy today has an offensive element to it.

  23. Len, you, too, seem to lack a clue.

    If you haven’t hung around, been the object of, or worked in environments that sensitize to racism I suppose you could miss it. I’ll explain: it’s racist because the “joke” is 1) based on racial premise 2) demeaning 3) plays into current stereotypically perjorative themes 4) could possibly have been formulated to neuter the most offensive aspects.

    Knowing all that, one assumes, the judge/lowlife endorses the funny.

    The “joke” should have been on excessive drinking; the gratuitous slam/personalization on Obama does nothing but activate the hormonal prejudice further. (full disclosure: I am no fan of Obama and think he has falsely ridden on the backs of many people of color and other minorities)

  24. However, I am not sure it is fair to assume that the judge is a racist from this one joke.

    Sorry, but that is a dodge.
    No, we can not see into his heart of hearts or have a racist-radar which will “prove” that he is a racist without looking as his actions. But that is an impossible standard, because we can’t look into any persons heart or have some kind of objective “racist blood test”.
    The *only* way we can judge a person is by their actions. “Racist” is shorthand for “person who does racist things” not some kind of all encompassing judgment of their character (yes, racists can still be good fathers and mothers, love dogs, and even have black friends and let them use their bathroom).

    Look at what Judge Cebull did: he looked at a very painful moment in the life of a black child raised by a white family, and it didn’t make him see the basic humanity in the politician he despised, but used it as a cudgel instead.

    No, it is not OK if you’re only racist against people you don’t like. That is the very nature of racial slurs: they’re not only hurtful towards the person you’ve targeted, but to all persons of that group.

  25. Mike,

    I’m going to have to agree with mahtso on the construction of the joke. It’s dumb. It’s tasteless. It’s not terribly funny. But it’s not prime facie racist either. As a matter of construction, a joke needs a premise, an exaggeration and a punch line. Sometimes the exaggeration is in the premise, sometimes it’s in the punchline. Here, it is in the punchline. The exaggeration isn’t the black man. The exaggeration is the dog. This is why I didn’t mention race in my initial comment and think that jumping to the conclusion the judge is racist when he’s merely stupid and offensive is a bit of an overreaction based on a sample space of one incident.

  26. mahtso,
    Please do repeat my jokes and arguments in toto rather than extracted terms.
    That is if you want to use them as arguments.
    You pick the words, present them out of context, and without obviously understanding the implied human weaknesses they expose. In other words you could be clueless, How fully clued in do you think you are.
    I have no pretensions thereby, but like to call attention to foibles anyway.

    Have fun. If you don’t get it, keep trying. Even I have learned something here. And don’t reply that you have too, that’s no replique. (sp?).

  27. Gene, I can agree with your conclusion “jumping to the conclusion the judge is racist when he’s merely stupid and offensive is a bit of an overreaction based on a sample space of one incident.”, to some extent. However, would you agree that the JOKE is racist? I’m not sure you were disputing that as well. The rest, as they say, is history.

    I suppose we could call it race-baiting; or quasi-racist; or racially insensitive. None of which helps much.

  28. Gene H.
    Have you hung out with racists? You’d be scratching your head all the time with them, if it was your first time there.
    Similarly, how many of you understood what the casting of shoes at GW Bush implied. Jokes are cultural, not always analyzable. And the model you use…..ho ho ho, say the script writers, Now go ahead and hate or deflate me.

    Disagreeing is the point of it all here as I see it. When your kids shoot you down, are you coming here for solace and comfort?

  29. If that “joke” isn’t racist, it would work with a white guy like Judge Cebull too, right?

    “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m white and you’re white?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Cebull! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

    It doesn’t work, because the premise of the joke is: “White women who sleep with black men would also sleep with dogs.”

  30. DonS,

    See, that’s the thing of the language in this joke. Its imprecision makes calling it outright racist not really accurate. Does the joke have racial overtones? Certainly. Unfortunately, the unhelpful terms you mention while unhelpful and probably a more accurate description of the language. Connotation is not denotation. Connotation is always subject to the perception of the audience and the preconceptions and prejudices they internally bring to bear on their interpretation. Because of this, some will take this as a racist joke, others will not, but as a structural matter it is not racist by denotation.

  31. You know what keeps blowing me away with all these type of comments is its like all of sudden some people have awaken to the fact that we have a black President.

    “Elaine M.
    1, March 1, 2012 at 10:21 am
    Off Topic:

    Andrew Breitbart passed away early this morning.”

    “”I admired @AndrewBreitbart’s fighting spirit. Thoughts & Prayers to his family. He was my friend & I will miss him,” Herman Cain wrote on Twitter.”

    Just makes you shake your head on both fronts.

  32. Sardonically* accusing the President’s mother of bestiality while a sitting judge is grounds for removal in my book even if the “joke” was “private.” Isn’t judgment and impartiality the essence of “judging”? If a judge can’t maintain that simple standard, I think he or she is not acting with “good behavior,” as Article III requires.

    *Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat(“What prevents me form saying the truth with a smile?”~Horace)

  33. Berliner,
    I’d guess that you have a PhD in joking. Finally an analyzer who understands jokes.

    And Gene H. the connotation part I got and agree with, but you lost me with denotation, but never mind.

    Eniobob, some of them have two heads, both of which lie. (yes it was your head you were talking about, i know)

    White man speak with fucking tongue. No impediment obviously to imperial challenges.

  34. Gene, if I understand your point, I agree, it’s probably “as a structural matter it is not racist by denotation.” Yet, most jokes, also, of course don’t depend on explicitness; they depend on connotation, reading into, internally getting the unspoken meaning. So I think the “joke” can easily be characterized as racist”.

    That said, “racist” is undoubtedly, both a loaded word and an imprecise word, and I’ve had my share of experiences when I thought the term misplaced and used, in itself, as a perjorative. Perhaps it can’t be effectively used as a descriptor, but mainly as an emotional hook.

    A person in the judge’s position, should have been able to figure all this out and have the discretion to use caution even in his “private” communications. That’s why I call him “lowlife” (in my own self righteous way!). He throws caution to the wind and chuckles along with those whose minds are in the gutter.

  35. Gene,

    I’m going to disagree with you. I think it IS a racist joke. Many jokes are meant to be taken in more than one way. They can have a literal meaning–and an implied meaning. A black child asks his mother why he is different from her. The joke implies that a white woman who’d have sex with a black man is a woman of loose morals and/or one who might also have sex with a dog. I find it extremely offensive.

  36. Are not all jokes or humor at the expense of someone or something? If you don’t like the messenger, then one is free to ignore them. This person has a right to free sppech. It’s not like he slept with the dog. You have to remember they are revered in Montana. They like their ewe old pudding.

  37. “However, I am not sure it is fair to assume that the judge is a racist from this one joke.” Yes, it is “fair” to assume that the judge is a racist! However, it reflects the state of civil discourse in the society which the rightwing feel perfectly justified to express, time and again!

  38. idealist707:

    “Eniobob, some of them have two heads, both of which lie. (yes it was your head you were talking about, i know)”

    Well its good you know for I have no clue as to what you are trying to say,since “YOU” know tell me.

    ” (yes it was your head you were talking about,”

  39. id707,

    I spent much of my youth in the South. I’m very familiar with racists. Humor has cultural context, but that’s why a joke is funny, not how a joke is funny. The basic linguistic construct of all jokes (other than practical jokes) is premise/exaggeration/punchline. They have to be this way because jokes rely upon puncturing your perceptions. You set them up to knock them down. To see this in action, compare a minimalist joke writer like Rodney Dangerfield to a more free-form comic like Robin Williams. Different forms, same mechanic. Dangerfield’s jokes are all almost nothing but that skeleton: “I told my son about the birds and the bees. (premise) He told me about my wife and the mailman.” (exaggeration/punchline). Williams takes the scenic route, embedding multiple jokes into a story line usually building up to the best/strongest joke as the zenith or penultimate punchline. George Carlin used this “jazzier” method too, but at the bottom of it all, they were/are using the same mechanic as Dangerfield.

    Berliner,

    The joke does work with two white parents, it just doesn’t work very well. This points to the fact that it’s a stupid joke first and foremost. The exaggeration is simply not strong enough to support the joke in itself. The premise of the joke isn’t that a woman who would sleep with black men would sleep with dogs from a structural standpoint. The premise is broader than that. It’s simply a “Your Momma” joke. “Your momma is such a slut (or sexual degenerate of some sort) that she’d sleep with a dog.” That is why the joke has a racist connotation created by making one of the parents of a different race, but the denotation isn’t racist because the exaggeration still rests on the dog (and the mother’s sexual predilections to a different degree although technically that’s part of the setup that highlights the exaggeration).

  40. Gene H. – the reason you can’t see the racism, is that you’re assuming that the word implies conscious, malign intent. And sometimes it does – but not always.

    Unfortunately, racial microaggressions that betray internalized racial biases have largely taken the place of overtly racist acts in “polite” society (if you’re not familiar with the concept, here’s an explanation: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/microaggressions-in-everyday-life/201010/racial-microaggressions-in-everyday-life ). You may see this as a “sample space of one incident,” but the people who are constantly on the receiving end of such incidents do not.

    Even if you still can’t see the racism, surely you can see the cruelty and dehumanization? As Ta-Nehisi Coates put it: ( http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/in-veritas-vino/253832/ ) “What stuns you about this “joke” is the sheer embrace of cruelty. Here is a woman who lost her life to cancer. And what touches your heart is imagining her son as the product of bestiality.”

  41. DonS/Elaine,

    Don’t mistake my analysis of the language as a defense of the judge’s behavior. He deserves every bit of heat he is catching. My point is simply that unless a joke is overtly racist, you are relying upon implication for meaning and that the implication in this joke really isn’t strong enough to say it’s definitely racist based on inference alone. And you are totally bypassing “the party” part of the joke, Elaine. To me that’s critical in examining the joke as being more implicit about the woman’s sexual mores and carrying more weight in the setup than race. As we can see by the turn this thread has taken, reasonable minds can disagree about the degree of racism expressed even though there seems to be unanimity in the people finding the joke stupid and tasteless. What I will say is this though: the judge’s bad judgement in retelling such a joke does merit looking into past cases for evidence of bias and if such evidence is found, he should be removed from the bench forthwith. That being said, the exaggeration is still the dog.

  42. Well, doesnt this make Obama a special breed? After you think about it, he is president who happens to be half white, or was that right?

  43. Elly,

    I didn’t say I don’t see why people see the joke as racist, only that as a structural matter it isn’t racist in denotation and that the connotation is of questionable quality. It’s still not a good joke. However, that being said, comedy can be a rough game. People will be made the butt of a joke. This is why intent is critical. It’s also why being an insult comic is one of the harder acts to pull off successfully. Even Don Rickles has always had an “We’re all the same” moment in his act.

    Also, ‘You may see this as a ‘sample space of one incident,’ but the people who are constantly on the receiving end of such incidents do not.” Then they have a problem in evaluating evidence objectively. This is the only such event causally connected to this particular judge being reported. Should other events appear, his comments should be analyzed in that context. Until then, this is still a sample space of one and a sample of one is not a trend.

    However, Ta-Nehisi Coates comment is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. That Obama’s mother died of cancer is irrelevant to the incident or the joke proper.

  44. Gene H.,

    it would be a “Yo Momma” joke if Judge Cebull was a pal of Obama and told him that joke to his face.

    “Exaggeration” of what? An exaggeration of the “sexual mores” of Ms Dunham? What sets her apart? Really not racist?

    And you ignore that Judge Cebull admitted that at least he saw the joke as racist:

    “I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is.

  45. Eniobob said”Andrew Breitbart passed away early this morning.”

    “”I admired @AndrewBreitbart’s fighting spirit. Thoughts & Prayers to his family. He was my friend & I will miss him,” Herman Cain wrote on Twitter.”

    Just makes you shake your head on both fronts.
    ====================
    If you don’t understand then neither did I.
    Consider this a retraction. Only you always hits the mark. Right?

  46. Berliner,

    That shows Cebull’s perception of the joke – the connotation. That he sent the joke after having that perception points only to his bad judgement, but it is still a sample space of one. Racism is a pattern behavior. He had another rational explanation of his actions albeit one that doesn’t override the bad judgement he exercised in sending it on. Is he stupid and lacking in good taste? Sure. Is he a racist? I don’t have enough evidence to say “yes” based on this one instance. I’m more than willing to consider other evidence though.

  47. gene h.
    you are a joke expert but miss my point let me say that jokes don’t always have the form you say they must. Some are based on feeding old prejudices, such as the fabled sexual immorality of blacks, the prowess of their men, and the sluttishness of all women—but especiallly those who sleep with black men, enhancing the white men’s inferiority complex.
    It also renders therefore the black man and the loose living white woman as being beneath contempt and less threatening

    Actually, on my part can’t recall any black jokes, nor jewish ones, nor catholic ones or any based on bias—but the explanation of this is another story, which has been told in part earlier.

    hope you can abandon your love of enunciating precisely the structure of all things and realize that even the most knowledgeable are just sounding vessels. And should be beaten often. (just joking on a spontaneous basis, as the words flow)

  48. Gene H.

    Come on, you say:

    “That being said, the exaggeration is still the dog.”

    In the racist minds who read the “joke”, the dog is no exaggeration to them.
    It is a literal expression of their prejudices and something confirming their reasons for hating and despising the blacks.

    In your mind you can see it as an exaggeration. But you don’t share their mindset. Understanding the mind of a stalker, a racist, a priestly pedarast, a whatever is often impossible.

    I think Elly has the best take on how racists can adapt themselves to PC requirements, outwardly at least, but remain in full congruency with their playmates through code words. and a non-retrenchment of racially motivated employment decisions, etc etc. of economic consequences. Not to mention psychological.

    If I was a black, I’d consider seriously moving to Europe—no paradise that. Can say more about blacks in Europe, but let that wait for another time.

  49. Berliner:

    first off let me say that your explanation about a painful memory is right.

    Secondly you could say:

    “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I like Mozart and you like Adam and the Ants?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Cebull! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you arent a peacock!’”

  50. Gene H.
    You write: “This is the only such event causally connected to this particular judge being reported. Should other events appear, his comments should be analyzed in that context. Until then, this is still a sample space of one and a sample of one is not a trend.”

    Now you’re being all too lawyerly. It was the judge and the joke and the context of its delivery. Not whether this proves in a lawyerly context anything.

    Let us realize that the judge is NOT trying to establish himself as a humorist, particularly an original one. His obvious intent is putting out a joke, we men you know heh heh heh; which will be instantly understood as to its intention to denigrate as it will land on grounds already sown with such seeds for many generations—–see my earlier comments as to women (especially white ones), sluttishness and negro sexual prowess.

    This must be judged in the light of what every prejudiced person or non-predudiced one has heard for decades. Not as an isolated occasion, and thus of no judicial value. This won’t go to trial here. But we must weigh it in relation to where we stand ourselves. You’re not a lawyer only, you are also a human, and must weigh it in that context instead.

  51. And to the ladies, please understand I am referring to the patriarchs worries as to the “legitimacy” of their children.
    A lady friend said in confirmation of their concern:
    “Mama’s baby, Papa maybe.”

    So it’s an expression of their ancient worries, not of women’s looseness I was talking about.

    The whiteness of the “black” in America is irrefutalble proof that white men used their power to take what pleased them for the moment, but took no responsibility for their natural offspring.

    So these men, were concerned that “revenge” would occur in an obvious way.

  52. “Clue me in, how is it racist?”

    mahtso,

    Easy by analogy: Old Joke

    “A Jew, and Italian and an Irishman go into the bar, how to you tell which is which? The Jew has a long nose, the Italian is greasy and the Irishman is drunk.” Same level of vile, stereotypical humor. If you don’t get it the you are part of the problem.

  53. “Cebull insists that the email simply shows that “I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan. NOTE:[ I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is.] I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.”

    Gene,

    If you send a joke knowing it’s racist the you are a racist.

  54. idealist707:

    “If you don’t understand then neither did I.
    Consider this a retraction. Only you always hits the mark. Right?”

    I don’t always hit the mark,neither do I comment on every thread that is presented here on this blog.For I don’t profess to know everything.

  55. Gene:

    Don’t be fooled by the tan in my avatar – as someone who’s a whiter shade of pale, I wouldn’t presume to question – let alone challenge – POC on whether they’re capable of analyzing their direct experiences with overt/covert racism “objectively.” That would be pretty damn insulting. Likewise, I would not try to create “rules” (i.e., we can’t call someone racist unless there’s evidence of a trend) that don’t exist for other categories of misbehavior. For example, I have no problem with calling the person on Craigslist who attempted to rent a property to me that s/he did not actually own a “scam artist,” even though I had only the one incident to go on.

    But whatevs… rather than continuing to argue with you over something you’re determined not to see, I’d like to leave you with something to ponder. As you claim, you don’t see the racism. Ok… from where I sit, there are two possible approaches you can take from here:

    1. The one you’re taking: you don’t see the racism, so therefore it doesn’t exist (or, as you’re framing it, the sample size isn’t large enough yet to make that determination).

    2. The road not taken: if you can’t see the racism, you should consider that perhaps it’s due to something that you’re missing.

    It certainly wouldn’t hurt you to spend more time LISTENING to various POC and allies to broaden your perspective. The fact that you’ve spent the last couple of posts analyzing the structure of the “joke” rather than considering the actual human beings it was targeting suggests this would be a valuable use of your time.

  56. Gene,

    I’m not bypassing the party part of the joke. This is a personal joke about two known people. I’d say the joke questions Obama’s mother’s sexual mores. She was a white woman who had sex with a black man who fathered her child. I see that as racist. That was my point. I’m reading the joke in the context of our country today–a country in which many people still harbor racist feelings…a country in which many people can’t seem to accept the fact that a black man was elected to the highest office in the land.

    Would anyone but a racist find the joke funny? I think not.

  57. id707,

    “you are a joke expert but miss my point let me say that jokes don’t always have the form you say they must.”

    Actually, they do and it has nothing to do with me saying so – that’s just how it is. Jokes at their barest form are a setup and a punchline. That’s simply the form. Usually the punchline (but sometimes the setup) exploits some kind of exaggeration. These can be cultural exaggerations, situational exaggerations or exaggerations about human nature.

    The rest of what you say has to do with connotation, not denotation.

    “hope you can abandon your love of enunciating precisely the structure of all things”

    Not likely to happen. It was good advice when Marcus Aurelius admonished us to “ask of each and every thing, what is it in itself” and it’s good advice today. You cannot properly define relationships without first defining objects to be in relation.

    “In your mind you can see it as an exaggeration. But you don’t share their mindset. Understanding the mind of a stalker, a racist, a priestly pedarast, a whatever is often impossible.”

    Often is not the same as always. I understand racists even though I’m not one. I see the exaggeration because in dissecting the joke, the dog at the party is the exaggeration. I see the potential racism in the joke’s connotation. I don’t the explicit racism because it simply isn’t in the construction of the joke. The racism in this joke is all implied and inferred. That racists can and do use implication and inference to avoid criticism is not being questioned. The question is you seem to be willing to label someone a racist based on an implication.

    “Now you’re being all too lawyerly. It was the judge and the joke and the context of its delivery. Not whether this proves in a lawyerly context anything.”

    Less lawyerly than scientific. The evidence is of one episode. Racism is a pattern behavior. One data point is not a trend let alone a pattern of behavior. A non-trend and no evidence of pattern combined with an implication? That’s what I call really shaky evidence.

    “This must be judged in the light of what every prejudiced person or non-predudiced one has heard for decades. Not as an isolated occasion, and thus of no judicial value.”

    Logical fallacies: fallacy of division and presentism. Something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts is not a true statement and present morality much be considered in the present even if that morality is based upon the past.

    “But we must weigh it in relation to where we stand ourselves. You’re not a lawyer only, you are also a human, and must weigh it in that context instead.”

    And I do. I’ve stipulated that 1) it’s a stupid joke, 2) it’s a tasteless joke 3) it’s poorly constructed, and 4) that the judge deserves every bit of heat he is catching for his bad judgement alone. But as an evidentiary matter, I’m not willing to call the man a racist without further evidence. If the joke were denotationally racist? Perhaps. But it was connotationally racist at best. If there was more evidence of racism – either explicit or covert? Sure. But as it stands – with the information presented? I’m willing to go no further than to call the man stupid and tasteless.

  58. if the jokes premise starts off with race, it’s by definition racist. Without the introduction of race here, there is no joke, plain and simple.

    “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m tall and you’re short’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

    “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I like ‘less filling’ and you like ‘tastes great’? His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

    “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m mildly neurotic and you’re somewhat clinically depressed? His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

    no, nothing racist in a joke that suggests that the result of bestiality would be a black child

  59. Although I agree with Gene on the grounds of construction, I think the joke is racist on the grounds of a racist assumption, which I infer as: The only way a white woman would have a black child is if she was so drunk she was having sex with anything that moved. I think the implication that she could not have been in her right mind when impregnated by a black man is what is racist; the secondary implication that a black man impregnated her without her full consent is also racist.

    I do not think it is explicitly racist, I think it is implicitly racist.

  60. Elly,

    It certainly wouldn’t affect your tan if you actually read what I wrote.

    I didn’t say I didn’t see racism. I said I didn’t see overt racism and that rushing to judgement based on one episode of covert racism at best to label someone a racist in fact is a hasty judgement.

    **********

    Mike,

    Again, I’ll refer to Heinlein’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.” I haven’t ruled out malice. I’m saying there isn’t enough evidence of a pattern of behavior to make that call on the evidence presented. Is it evidence that he could be a racist? Sure. Is it evidence that he is a racist? No.

    ***********

    Elaine,

    “I’m not bypassing the party part of the joke. This is a personal joke about two known people. I’d say the joke questions Obama’s mother’s sexual mores. She was a white woman who had sex with a black man who fathered her child. I see that as racist. That was my point. I’m reading the joke in the context of our country today–a country in which many people still harbor racist feelings…a country in which many people can’t seem to accept the fact that a black man was elected to the highest office in the land.”

    All of which is subjective. It’s the connotation you take from the joke based upon current cultural context. As pointed out, the joke structurally works with a white man, just poorly. And yes, only a racist would likely find this joke funny, but likely isn’t certainly. Stupid and tasteless people might find it funny, but stupid and tasteless are not states necessarily equivalent of racism (although racism is pretty damn stupid). My point isn’t about how people perceive the joke beyond pointing out that perceptions are different from person to person and that will influence any connotative values derived from the joke. My point is about the structure of the joke itself and its value as evidence that the judge is in fact a racist. As I said to Mike, “Is it evidence that he could be a racist? Sure. Is it evidence that he is a racist? No.”

  61. I do not necessarily agree that it is racist in the same breath…..I do not know if he is the racist either…. I do think that it will open every case that he has ever handled to major assed scrunity….. I think he will be challenged on cases that he has before him….. It’s one of those 60 minute moments……

  62. CEK,

    All of those examples you listed technically conform to the requirements of a joke. That they are all bad jokes is beside the point. Well, actually, it’s not beside the point. Rather it illustrates that form and function don’t always follow. What formally is a joke by form may not be funny in operation.

  63. Gene:That they are all bad jokes….

    well I suppose that explains why I’m never the hit at parties

  64. Gene:

    Oh, I read what you wrote, all right. And I consider it progress that you at least now see “covert racism” as opposed to insisting that the joke “…isn’t racist in denotation and that the connotation is of questionable quality.”

  65. Well I’m glad you see what was there all along as progress, Elly.

    Reading and comprehension are not the same thing.

    The very fact that any racism present relies upon connotation in itself makes the racism of a questionable quality because it relies upon individual perceptions instead of explicit statement.

  66. Gene:

    “To paraphrase Montgomery Scott, “I like this thread. It’s exciting.”

    ****************************

    Personally, I’d quote Montgomery Clift (with a little paraphrase):

    “Look, I’m not odd. I’m just trying to be an [lawyer]; not a [judge], a [lawyer].”

  67. Gene H.
    I think if you addressed what you yourself called a racist joke to others, then calling it a “tender” (or whatever excuse he gave) moment, is just simply BS.
    I think Elly and Elaine M made the point more simply and better in their post prior to your reply to me.
    So want belabor the issue more. You refuse to engage with reality. And obviously that is a determined choice on your part.
    Leaving you to having the last word, as you seem to need it more than I for peace of mind.

  68. Gene: ..dashing and debonair…

    I think you misheard that, she said I had a rash and was dumb as a sack of air

  69. Eniobob,
    You comment on my commenting on most (all?) threads on this blog and seem to think I claim knowledge of everything thereby.

    I have earlier said that my knowledge, while broad in its sources, is superficial. Just so are my comments. It amuses me to use my mind to analyze and comment. A new discovery and exercise never availed me previously, and thus perhaps over used as far as commenting is concerned.

    Does my frequent commenting disturb you? Why?
    Do my opinions not find favor with you. I hear no rebuttals from you.
    To not rebut, but then attack later in a general way, seems weird. Can’t find a better word for it.

    I haven’t categorized you as yet, but you’re helping me in that task.

    As I’ve said just minutes ago to Gene H. I did not come here to find agreement nor seeking solace or comfort. Although some have offered both, for which I am grateful.

  70. Gene,

    The joke is about black and white. C Everett made the point better than I when he wrote the following:
    “if the jokes premise starts off with race, it’s by definition racist. Without the introduction of race here, there is no joke, plain and simple.”

    Of course, a joke is about perception. I heard a lot of dumb “Polloch” jokes when I was growing up. My Irish friends–most of my friends were Irish because I attended Irish Catholic schools–thought the were funny. I didn’t. I wonder how many black people would find the joke about Obama and his mother funny.

    I pointed out the context because it speaks to the racism we see in this country today. I think the racism that had been simmering under the surface for years bubbled over when Obama was elected president. This isn’t the first racist joke about our President that we have heard. It will still be a racist joke fifty years from today. Or do you think time will change its meaning–or how people perceive it?

    I’m not an expert in the structure of jokes–but I think I can spot a racist joke when I read it.

  71. Sometimes a joke expresses underlying hostility and that is what I feel emanating from this particular jest. Those who find it humorous are bonding through a shared hostility.

  72. idealist707:

    “Does my frequent commenting disturb you?”

    Not at all.

    “I haven’t categorized you as yet, but you’re helping me in that task.”

    TOUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  73. Gene H.

    Re your comment.

    “My point is about the structure of the joke itself and its value as evidence that the judge is in fact a racist. As I said to Mike, “Is it evidence that he could be a racist? Sure. Is it evidence that he is a racist? No.”

    Well, I would contend that the judge is pandering to a group of racist buddies. and also hiding his pandering behind the “tender feelings it engendered in him” as a PC BS cover. Would he send only one such missive in his life to this racist group? Not likely. So scientifically/lawyerly you are correct. But you are denying reality. You win the case but he brings disrepute on the bar. And not certainly for in the publics eyes as a one-time offender. They know what reality is, it kicks them every day. And don’t say it is law which is supreme, not human judgement. Humans are, that’s why the rules are there for judge conduct, and why we have juries.

    You, on the other hand, just cling to your logic. It’s your choice. And there we differ, and well that.

    I can think how you were as a debating team member, you never saw your opponents, only their arguments. Unfortunately there may be many judges with similar faults.

  74. Gene:

    “The very fact that any racism present relies upon connotation in itself makes the racism of a questionable quality because it relies upon individual perceptions instead of explicit statement.”

    Wow. This is just… sad.

    Seriously: you really, really need to scroll up and read the article I linked to about racial microaggression.

  75. Gene,
    you say:
    ““The very fact that any racism present relies upon connotation in itself makes the racism of a questionable quality because it relies upon individual perceptions instead of explicit statement.”

    I testify that I see you killing your father. And you reply, why that is only yóur perception. I was in fact embracing him.

    Now how does the court decide this in ancient Rome. By discounting initially the perception and the explicit statement. They will look for facts.
    But in some cases, a famous one: the cui bono is used to decide where perception and explicit statement collide.

    Now laugh, it is funny, my playing at being an advocate and schooled in law and its history. But I hope the implicit meaning signifies something to you.

  76. Elaine M.
    1, March 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    “Excerpt:
    “The judge acknowledged that the content of the email was racist…”

    *****

    Need I say more?”

    NOPE!!

  77. id707,

    “You refuse to engage with reality. And obviously that is a determined choice on your part.” I didn’t know living in Sweden made you the final arbiter of reality. But refusing to engage in reality? You mean like the way you’re refusing to engage in the reality that the joke isn’t overtly racist and are willing to label someone a racist based on one incidence of what is at best (or worst depending upon perspective) an example of covert racism?

    That’s the evidence based reality of the matter here.

    You’re ready to attribute mens rea – and guilt – to a questionable, statistically isolated incident of a variable connotation. That’s simple political correctness. And the impulse, though ethically correct and laudable, is not changing that your analysis is superficial. In other words, simple. It’s also prejudicial and knee jerk.

    If you think there is enough evidence to label him a racist? Go right ahead. That would simply make you as prejudicial as you claim him to be.

    There is plenty of evidence to indicate he could be a racist. Not that he is a racist. But don’t let that stop your assumption of guilt.

    *********

    Elaine,

    Let me offer you a counter-example that illustrates that not all jokes that start off with race are racist.

    A couple of lumberjacks working in the far northern wilds of Canada are out drinking away their payday in the company town one Friday night. One of them turns to the other and says, “Pierre! I’ll bet you a week’s pay you cannot drink a fifth of this Red-eye Rotgut and then go kill a polar bear and make love to an Eskimo.”

    Pierre says, “You’re on.”

    He drinks the booze and staggers off into the night. The loggers all think they’ll find him passed out somewhere in the morning, but lo and behold, morning comes and no Pierre. They look for him, but a week goes by and still no Pierre so they figure he’s wandered off a cliff or was just too embarrassed and moved on to another camp. Two weeks, still no word and no Pierre. They figure he’s dead through misadventure. That Friday night, Pierre shows up at the camp town bar. He’s bitten and bloody and mauled and just as red-eyed as when he left.

    He says, “Okay. Now where’s that Eskimo you wanted me to kill?”

    See? Although “if a joke starts with race, it’s racist” sounds like rational criteria, it’s not always true. This joke is really a perfect example because it not only involves race as part of the premise, it involves bestiality as the exaggeration.

    You think the joke is racist. Okay. I’ve said all along that was perceptual and I haven’t invalidated the perception because it may indeed be true. But the question is is the judge racist? It comes back, like most bad actions society define as bad or criminal, to having both an intent and an action component. In the instant case, we are talking about an implied action (no matter how likely true) rather than an overt action, in isolation, as proof of mens rea. He presented a perfectly rational alternative motive: being Anti-Obama. Absent other proof that he’s lying about that alternative motive, I simply won’t move beyond calling him stupid and tasteless and into calling him a racist.

    I need more evidence to make that assertion in good faith.

  78. Appreciate your comments, Elly.

    Interesting thread in that it exemplifies in some ways the disconnect between the “legal” approach to life and, let’s call it, the “psychological” approach, I’ve had some ‘wow’ moments here due, I think, to just that.

    I think it’s also one of the disappointments I encountered studying law, and trying to relate it to justice (of course I was studying during the Vietnam era, so nothing was particularly just at that time). I did not pursue the lawyering route after the bar, and maybe missed out on a world class career [ : ) ], perhaps because I wasn’t able to make the appropriate connections with how to use the law more compatibly with my personal orientation. Or maybe I just didn’t work hard enough, care enough, and get the right breaks :-) Pardon my personal riff.

  79. id707,

    “You win the case but he brings disrepute on the bar.”

    Did I ever say he didn’t bring disrepute to the bar?

    No. His stupidity, which I would go so far as to call callous stupidity if not overtly and blatantly racist stupidity, in itself brings disrepute to the bar and the bench.

  80. There are people that pass these anti-Obama racist emails around on the internet all the time. This judge just happened to get busted. They are sickening and so are the people that participate. This one included sexism along with the racism. Have been traveling most of the day. When it comes to sexism and racism there is a group on this blog I usually agree with and another one that I don’t.

  81. DonS,

    “Interesting thread in that it exemplifies in some ways the disconnect between the “legal” approach to life and, let’s call it, the “psychological” approach, I’ve had some ‘wow’ moments here due, I think, to just that.

    I think it’s also one of the disappointments I encountered studying law, and trying to relate it to justice”

    Then my work here is done. Learned Hand once described the law as the “shadow of justice”. We see exactly what he meant within the confines of this thread.

  82. BTW., I live with a very well educated lawyer and a 2L, and they both think it is racist, sexist and misogynistic.

  83. Smom,

    It is an explicitly sexist and misogynistic joke. The “laugh” (such as it is) comes at the expense of gender (“your mom was a dog loving party slut”). I don’t think anyone has argued against that point. Honestly, I’m a bit surprised not to see more outrage on that overt part of the joke (although there was some in the comments section eniobob linked to) than the covert racial aspects.

  84. It’s interesting, I am not here to argue with you, but you must accept the gospel that I am correct and anything you say is wrong.

  85. Here’s the Huffington Post on this:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/richard-cebull-judge-obama-racist-email_n_1312736.html

    “Montana’s chief federal judge admitted on Wednesday that he forwarded an email comparing African-Americans to dogs and implying that President Barack Obama’s mother had sex with animals. ”

    Well heavens to Murgatroyd!

    The writer is either
    – being mischievous and intends to whip up hysteria , or
    – actually believes this – which indicates that their anal-retentiveness has run out of control and developed to the point where implosion is imminent.

    Time to call bullshit.

    Just spend a few minutes in a search engine. This is an old lame joke that’s been around a long time. Way back when and since, it just didn’t include the word “Barack”

    The joke is the punchline. It works (wiggling my fingers here to indicate those quotes marks) for any significant difference between child and mother. It works if the child is Chinese and the mother is African – and v.v. It works if the child is white and the mother is black.
    It’s not a racist joke – as in a joke intended to ridicule any race. It’s a joke that depends on a difference. It does not put down any race. It does not pass judgement on race.

    It does not compare dogs and Chinese, dogs and whites, dogs and asians, dogs and anything.
    It does not imply that the mother – of whatever race is attributed to her – had sex with animals.
    Anyone who believes that the joke does either of those two things is in need of help from a psychologist or some other professional with expertise in the treatment of raving hysterics who have lost touch with reality.

    Somebody took an old lame joke and put a “Barack” in it just to take a cheap shot.
    Nothing to see here – apart from a judge forwarding stupid jokes using his work email.
    Move along please. Keep moving please.

  86. I remember when I was a young lawyer here in Orange County, California trying my very first felony case almost forty years ago. It was before a judge now retired. It was a shooting case and my client a young black man was charged with shooting a convenience store clerk in Santa Ana. There were two percipient witnesses: the victim who claimed my guy shot him and his co-worker who was standing about five feet away from the victim who testified my guy was definitely not the shooter. During the course of the defense portion of the trial I called a witness to the stand who was female and black and a local minister of some sort. My examination of her took entirely too long. At one point the judge called the prosecutor and myself into chambers and directed the reporter not to accompany us. When we were all seated in chambers the judge asked me: “Are you going to have Aunt Jemima on the stand for much longer?” That’s when I learned to always take the reporter into chambers. Thankfully the jury hung.

  87. Quite frankly, I saw the hostility as female directed and would be most uncomfortable in the company of this man and those who appreciate his humor. In saying that I am not denying the racist aspect of the content.

    It is up to the judicial system to decide what to do with him but no female or person of color should look upon this man with anything other than complete disdain … which seems to me would present a real problem for the Bench he occupies.

  88. JohnMichael
    1, March 1, 2012 at 6:14

    “I remember when I was a young lawyer here in Orange County, California trying my very first felony case almost forty years ago”

    . “Are you going to have Aunt Jemima on the stand for much longer?”

    I can’t even imagine how that made you feel.

  89. Gene,

    “Honestly, I’m a bit surprised not to see more outrage on that overt part of the joke (although there was some in the comments section eniobob linked to) than the covert racial aspects.”

    I thought the main focus of this discussion was about whether or not the joke was racist. You stated earlier in this thread that you didn’t perceive it as “prime facie racist.” Some of us have disagreed with your opinion.

  90. A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m white and you’re black?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!

    A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m Chinese and you’re Japanese?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!

    A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m Japanese and you’re Chinese?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!

    A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m Arab and you’re Jewish?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!

    A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m Jewish and you’re Arab?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!

    etc.

    Great. In a few lines, I’ve
    -implied that whites, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, Martians, Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs, Jews, whatever are the same as dogs
    – all their mothers had sex with animals

    The judge is a bit of a dick. That’s all.

    I’m fascinated by the hysterical mobs that are building fires around this around the Net.

  91. First let me say that I haven’t read all the comments on this topic, so I’m sure it’s been said that this man, however old, is a Judge. Not just a judge but a Chief US Disrtrict Judge. His judgement is clearly lacking and for that alone should lose his job. How can he render sound judgement to someone when he can’t give it to himself. And might I add the judge is a federal employee. I wonder who his boss is. This jugde is an idiot.

  92. Speaking of racism–here’s a new artcile from The Nation:

    Right-Wing Racism: Past, Present—and Future
    Eric Alterman
    February 29, 2012
    http://www.thenation.com/article/166524/right-wing-racism-past-present-and-future

    Excerpt:
    Does Barack Obama look like a “skinny ghetto crackhead” to you? Did Whitney Houston’s death inspire the thought that Representative Maxine Waters needs to “step away from the crack pipe?” If so, then Fox is the cable network for you. (The quotes belong to Media Research Center president Brent Bozell and Fox News host Eric Bolling, respectively.) But if you prefer your news by radio, then perhaps you’d best stick with Rush Limbaugh, who explains that President Obama “talks honky” around white folk, while his wife feels entitled to abuse public funds as payback for centuries of white oppression of black people. And finally, if you like your racism live and in person, then no doubt you would have been right at home at the recent CPAC convention, where Ann Coulter told the assembled crowd, “Voters with forty years of politically correct education are ecstatic to have the first black president. They just love the idea of it, even if we did get Flavor Flav instead of Thomas Sowell.”

    Comparing the president of the United States and the most senior female black member of the House of Representatives to rap artists/reality-TV clowns and drug addicts is apparently unremarkable for conservative media personalities, but presidential candidates need to be more subtle. When Newt Gingrich, for instance, calls President Obama America’s “food stamp president” and promises to “talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” he is engaging in similar signaling, though one with built-in deniability. For Gingrich this has the added benefit that when he pretends this is not the case in the face of media questioning, he gets to attack yet another enemy of the Tea Party types whose confused causes he professes to represent.

    It has become a depressing ritual of American politics that when one is confronted with evidence of one’s racism, the proper response is to insist that while old-fashioned Bull Connor–style racism has disappeared, liberals and journalists—and rarely is any distinction made here—remain obsessed with this now-imaginary phenomenon as a means of persecuting conservatives for telling it like it is. For instance, Coulter insists that “liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race.” Bozell complains of the alleged (Clarence Thomas–style) “high-tech lynching” of Herman Cain by those who accurately reported what the former candidate actually said and did. And, um, ditto Limbaugh, who responded to the same reporting and commentary of Cain’s actions by knowingly explaining that it “tells us who the real racists are.”

  93. “Chief District Judge Cebull has publicly acknowledged that he has acted inappropriately,” the statement said. “By letter to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, Judge Cebull has initiated the process by which a complaint of judicial misconduct will be brought against him.”

    The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is expected “to act expeditiously in investigating and resolving this matter,” it said.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/us-judge-obama-montana-idUSTRE82100720120302

    Given the present political climate, this is probably the best way to avoid possible impeachment hearings

  94. Gene

    your example =/= the one in question

    race plays no part in your joke, the Eskimo isn’t the butt or subject of the joke, just part of the set up. This joke can just as easily be told using two guys, a rottweiler and a pretty girl in a bar or BooBoo, Cindy, Yogi Bear and a muskox in Jellystone Park.

  95. Blousie,

    “Given the present political climate, this is probably the best way to avoid possible impeachment hearings”

    Let’s not forget who is in charge of the House . . .

  96. PS to may comment above,

    . . . and I cannot imagine it would ever come to that, even given or super-hyped, Fox all the time, made-for-Teevee government . . .

  97. I also see the joke as lame, but not really racist. The emphasis is not on race, but on there being “any” sort of difference between the child and mother The punchline is (technically) supposed to be funny (even though it’s such a bad joke it’s not) due to reveal of the mother’s wild partying, and that being something we arent expecting… since mothers are not usually “wild partiers who get so wasted they might end up having sex with multiple men in the same evening, and even possibly with animals…”

    A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m blond and you’re brunette?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!

    Same bad, stupid joke.

  98. Elaine,

    “I thought the main focus of this discussion was about whether or not the joke was racist.”

    And I agree. My comment about the sexist/misogynistic concerns (or general lack thereof) that I saw both here and in the comments sections of coverage elsewhere and pivoting off of Smom’s comment.

    That you (and others) disagree with my analysis of the racist angle of the joke is not only acceptable but expected. It’s an emotional hot-button subject and I knew I was going to get dissent the instant I came to mahtso’s defense on the construction point. Quite frankly, if I had gotten uniform agreement, I would have been stunned and amazed. As Mike so often points out, if we all agreed all the time, this would be a pretty boring place instead of the vibrant salon that we all do so enjoy. Victory is not always winning. Sometimes victory is in a vigorous and well played contest.

  99. So judge jokes are off the table….teacher jokes are off the table…. Any ethnic jokes are off the table…. I suppose hillbilly jokes are off the table as well…. Jeff Foxworthy give your money back…. Redd Foxx give your money back…. Archie Bunker…. I shall not watch any reruns….. We have become so diverse that these types of humor are no longer acceptable….. Or have we?

    I had a client in the junk/scrap metal business….. He said you know….where you see junk…. I see my fortune…. 8 years later he sold his business for 175 million…. Who had the last laugh…..

  100. I think the qualification for being a federal judge have been impuned since Bebee was appointed and confirmed…. If he still serves….then so shall Cebull…. You can get much lower than that in qualifications….. At least that’s what I think….

  101. Gene,

    Racism should always be an issue of utmost concern. I’d add that it is not just an emotional issue but one that should be of concern to anyone who is a moral individual.

  102. CEK,

    As others have pointed out, race in the present joke isn’t making the black man the butt of the joke either. Race is, as in my example, simply a contrast for/in setup. Specifically, see Antnor’s blond/brunette version, your own short/tall version and even Bron’s Mozart/Adam & the Ants/peacock variation. The butt of the joke in all of these is still the mother. That’s the very reason this joke may or may not be racist – since the racism is all implied and not specific and the butt of the joke is the woman (no matter her race), there is an argument to be made that the joke isn’t necessarily racist.

    Perception and structural reality are not always the same thing. The reason the jokes are equivalent in how race is utilized for difference is this: both joke use race to create a dichotomy (black/white & Eskimo/Canadian). This difference – this is setting up the perception that is to be punctured. In the judge’s joke, this was punctured by the exaggeration/punchline of the dog. In my joke the perception was punctured by an exaggeration/juxtaposition/punchline of the polar bear. The contrast in both cases are setup, the animals the exaggeration and the butt of the joke is the woman/the Canadian logger.

  103. C.Everett Kook: “…if the jokes premise starts off with race, it’s by definition racist. Without the introduction of race here, there is no joke, plain and simple.”
    ———-

    Gene: “It’s simply a “Your Momma” joke. “Your momma is such a slut (or sexual degenerate of some sort) that she’d sleep with a dog.” That is why the joke has a racist connotation created by making one of the parents of a different race, but the denotation isn’t racist because the exaggeration still rests on the dog (and the mother’s sexual predilections to a different degree although technically that’s part of the setup that highlights the exaggeration).”

    **********************************

    That it was a joke at the expense of a woman struck me initially (as it did others) and the subtext was that a mixed-race child would come from such mindless promiscuity was a substantial bonus. It’s a twofer’ in that regard.

    That the judge isn’t being questioned about what he had in mind regarding women shows a lack of sensitivity on that front, or a level of comfort with ‘Yo Mama’ jokes (as they are characterized up-thread and generally) that is inappropriate. They all imply that the child of the female is of lesser value or bears a stigma because of some attribute of their mother. The foundation of the joke though is a flawed female, you can plug in almost any group or individual as the target for denigration by proxy.

  104. Elaine,

    I agree. I also think hasty judgments on scant evidence should also be a concern of ethical people. None of which changes racism as a topic tends to evoke emotional responses as well as intellectual responses.

  105. Elaine M.,

    Racism is bullying…..bullying is not a good thing…. Some judges are bullies…. Some teachers are bullies…. Does that make jokes about some judges and some unacceptable…..

  106. Gene H:

    I think you are right, the Judge is a dick but not enough info to know if he is racist.

    Sling Trebuchet has it right with his/her analysis.

  107. Eniobob,

    I could not agree more…. I was talking to a friend of mine today that has some acreage in Montana….. He confirmed that yes there are lots of racists in Montana….. So are a lot of racists in Massachusetts…. Didn’t they used to have signs that if your irish you need not apply…..

  108. Bdaman,

    Where Arpaio’s investigation is likely to end up is precisely nowhere. The birther game has no legal merit and it is dead in the water. Apraio’s “probable cause” theatrics are to distract people who are easily distracted from the fact that he’s still being actively investigated and is not free of the specter of Federal indictments for very real charges for a variety of official misconduct.

  109. Intentional, open publication of an ingrained racial prejudice.

    We now KNOW that no minority individual can get an unbiased trial in front of this particular judge.

    All past judgements against minorities are now suspect.

    Impeachment. Removal.
    Why should citizens pay for the cases that must now be appealed because of this racist individual?
    Why should citizens allow openly racist jurists at all?

  110. Bron,

    Nice of you to say so. I also liked your Mozart/Adam & the Ants/peacock variation. Not only colorful, but noisy.

  111. Elaine,

    Just for the record, does it make one a racist because people don’t respond to other people’s comments on here? Or because they do respond and then are bullied because they disagree with some poster….. I may not agree with slot of things people say….. But most generally they have the right to say them if them if they are not doing it to a nonpublic figure…. They have no real right to an expectation of privacy…..

  112. lottakatz:

    it could just as easily be about a West Virginian and sheep.

    I used to work out west and we were driving home one night through a flock of sheep and one of my coworkers asked the other guy riding with us if he could hear that sound, the guy says no what is it and the worker said daaady, daaady.

    It really isnt about race or sex, it is just a stupid joke. Although I laughed at the reaction from the other coworker.

    Or the one about the Royal Marine who is staring at a punk with a multi-colored mohawk and when asked why he is staring says “I was just wondering if you were my child, I had sex with a peacock once.”

  113. Gene,

    I have heard from someone they have or are ready to indict arapio and about 7 cohorts….

  114. AY, I take what I think is your point about our hypersensitivity. That may or may not be related to the present circumstance.

    Whole lot depends on context doesn’t it?

    I doubt we’ll ever know what is in judge Cebull’s heart, and what might affect his judgment.

  115. Don S.

    It’s not that I “lack a clue” it’s that you just happen to be one of those who tend to make something automatically racial because it involves a “minority”. I may not be a lawyer or lawyer wannabe, but I know racism when I see/hear it, and this does not fit the bill.
    The only people who’d call this blatant racism are those who look for racism in everything around them (ala the PC).
    Rather ironic that you are guilty of two of your four points of which you denote the joke as racism. Your “lack a clue” remark is demeaning (#2) and you could’ve left that part out to avoid making your rebuttal offensive (#4).. It’s hard to respect anyone who thinks that they are so smart, that they use patronizing and condescending tones in what are supposed to be intelligent conversations.

  116. Give Us…..

    You better be careful….. They have ways of finding your ip address….. You really have very little anonymity here….

  117. DonS,

    I take your point … both of them.

    But, in my opinion, given its placement in time, this thing has legs.

  118. Len,

    Thanks for your response.

    I’m sorry if you thought I was condescending, which perhaps I was. In defense, I was responding to your argument, not to you as an individual.

    My ultimate test of real racism may be similar to yours and is based on face-to-face contact. Since we lack that in this forum, we are reduced to words.

    Anyway, demeaning anyone, is wrong. Though, as a wise friend of mine once said, it is not wrong to hate the odious.

    Cheers.

  119. I’m not Black but I totally get how disgustingly racist this so called joke is!! Anyone defending this judge is at best incredibly insensitive and most probably as racist as the judge himself. The continusing disrespect for our intelligent, hard working president is just plain evil and people perpetuating statements like the ‘joke’ forwarded by this Montana Federal judge is sickening. Many sick souls have somehow attained positions of power in our country and it scares me, an average citizen. People of reason, with a degree of awareness and an understanding of civility must take our country back.

  120. Bron: “daaady, daaady.

    It really isnt about race or sex, it is just a stupid joke. Although I laughed at the reaction from the other coworker.”

    ——–
    The classic would have been about Montana and their affection for sheep but moving it to W. Virginia works too. It’s not about sex or race but it’s about rural and urban, another fount of jokes. That joke wouldn’t have worked nearly as well if you were driving through Detroit and passed a children’s petting zoo featuring sheep and goats.

    The physical context would have been changed to make it specifically personal to the person being told the joke – ‘you are a sheep ******’ v. a cultural indictment of a region’s population. It was funny because you were in W. Virginia. It’s not funny once you get out of a rural or frontier setting.

  121. lottakatz:

    just the thought of moving that joke to an urban setting makes me laugh. That is so incongruous, a petting zoo. Indeed.

    A well heeled New York stock broker is traveling past a petting zoo and asks his associate if he hears that sound, no what sound is that. Stock broker-“faaather, faaather.”

  122. I have been lurking and watching the comments. My take is that it was tasteless, unfunny, right wing bigotry in all its unvarnished transparency.

    That is not a new joke. It has been making the rounds via folks I know to be right wingnuts and racists for the past couple of years. Interesting fact; I never have gotten anything like that from anyone I know to be a progressive or liberal.

  123. I don’t think I would hold Larry Flynt up to be a paragon of good taste and manners, or an example to be followed by anyone. But more important, Flynt is not a sitting judge.

  124. Based on her actions we all know what Obama’s mama was and am sure her parents were very proud of her and the person she selected to provide them a grandchild. That joke not about race and/or Obama it is about her decisions, etc.. Are you people soft?.

  125. DLG — regarding the person she selected. And what would that be that caused you to react as you did? Hmmm?

  126. Don’t ask the tough questions OS. This joke is disgusting. I have also seen similar jokes being passed via email and the sheer number of them, along with their content, is disturbing.

  127. I’ve also been lurking and reading all comments. Some small additions to my earlier comments to the effect this joke was racist and even the Judge deemed it so.

    Racists today will jump through hoops to assert they are not racists. When called racist they will claim that their accusers are racists.

    People who use the term PC are usually bigots or fools.

    Bdaman, Joe Arpaio? Really?

  128. I read this joke to mean Obama’s mother fucked a dog and the result was Barack. As Barack’s mother is white, that means his father was a dog -which resulted in mulatto offspring, i.e. Black man equals dog.

    That’s not obvious? It was my IMMEDIATE understanding of the joke. Without thinking it through at all. Again, is that not what was intended?

  129. “Cebull received a B.S. from Montana State University in 1966 and a J.D. from the University of Montana Law School in 1969. After a long stint in private practice, he served as trial judge of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court from 1970 to 1972.”

    Perhaps time dragged for him, but 1969 – 1970 is not all that long a stint. :-)

  130. Gene H.
    Yes you are correct in that it is my perception, prejudices, judgement based on experience and the probability that the recipients of the email were not members of a club who enjoy “touching stories” with racist content.

    You got the logic and the lawyerly weighing of evidence—–BUT are you denying probable reality? You know the reasonable judgement, and not the guilty beyond all reasonable…….criteria.

    Getting back to reality we started with: will this bring judges in general in question? Will the public regard him as having “judged” racially?
    That’s for his superiors and or peers to decide.

    But it’s the publics final call. Who knows maybe they are so prejudiced in MONTANA that they will elect him governor, or much, much worse positions.

  131. Gene H.
    Your blindness becomes more clear by the post. You say:
    “Smom,
    It is an explicitly sexist and misogynistic joke. The “laugh” (such as it is) comes at the expense of gender (“your mom was a dog loving party slut”). I don’t think anyone has argued against that point. Honestly, I’m a bit surprised not to see more outrage on that overt part of the joke (although there was some in the comments section eniobob linked to) than the covert racial aspects.”

    Geez, Gene, the “sexist and msiogynistic joke” is old and boring routine.
    Don’t you understand that? Wow, if not.
    And so what’s special? It’s the President and his mother which makes it special—-and of course the black component.

    Now even your logic of jokes is weakening.

    Using Eniobob as a referency only ´confirms your blindness.
    Eniobob has shown what he values most, but do you seek confirmation in his arguments or his ruling? Which?

  132. Sling the basket
    I’m fascinated by the hysterical mobs that are building fires around this around the Net.

    Please give me links to the festivities. Want to add my C4 to the pile.
    A popular general attack it what this country needs to attack racism.
    Lots of other benfits as well, but space is limited.

  133. C. Evert Kook
    Succinct, and complete. You shot a drive through hole in the joke logicians big enough to drive through. He should wave the white flag now, but like all such missiles they leave him equally dumb and alive as before.
    An ordinary mortal he is not.

  134. Gene H.
    No, living in Sweden does not make me final arbiter of reality, nor did I think so, nor did you think that I thought so either—-but you use it as the usual garbage to throw at me, cheapening the value of anything else you offer.

    You know that the “von oben” attitude exists far more prevalently there than its counterpart in Sweden. One sanctioned by world dominance; the other by some self-viewing as the moral center of the world.

    All that aside, we all ultimately choose our POV as the final arbiter
    Now don’t we?

  135. Elfi: “That’s not obvious? It was my IMMEDIATE understanding of the joke. Without thinking it through at all. Again, is that not what was intended?”

    How did you first come to read or hear the joke?

    These are possibly two extremes for the circumstances in which one might first read the joke.
    1. Someone sent you an email, with no more background other than “LOL” or “Look at this”
    2. You read it after reading an introduction such as that offered by the Huffington Post – “an email comparing African-Americans to dogs and implying that President Barack Obama’s mother had sex with animals.”

    The chances are that anyone reading that joke for the first time today or the past few days would be doing so after a prejudicial introduction similar to or approaching the HuffPo one. A mob mentality is building.

    The story of the joke can be told this way:
    “Mommy. Who is my father”
    “I don’t know. You were conceived at a wild party I went to. I was totally wasted. You could have been the son of anybody there. All we know is that they guy was Chinese” (As the boy looks Chinese in this version)

    Adding something like “Lucky you don’t bark” is just hyperbole. It does not actually imply that there were animals present or that there was any bestiality. It just over-reinforces the ‘wasted’ bit.
    “Bark” would give the hyperbole a measure of plausibility. Dogs are common household pets.
    “Baa” might limit it to an audience in some rural areas.

    The only story in all of this is that the judge is a bit of a dick.
    1. He forwarded a silly joke
    2. He used his work email to do that
    3. His work is of a nature that he has a duty to hold himself to a higher standard than many others.

    By all means criticise a judge for being an ass. It’s possible that an examination of his work email account would show a pattern of silly forwarding of all sorts of nonsense.
    Joining in with the likes of the HuffPo is just hysteria.

  136. Give Us…..

    You better be careful….. They have ways of finding your ip address….. You really have very little anonymity here….

    Hmmmmmm I wonder if this had anything to do with past pet projects of a certain few.

    go on ……

  137. SwM,

    “Think the differences are cultural rather than lawyer vs non-lawyer”

    Interesting thought.
    How would you label/describe/denigrate these cultures?

  138. Gene H.,
    “Sometimes victory is in a vigorous and well played contest.”

    And sometimes a “joke” stinks so badly that most at the salon will
    will exchange glances and look down in shame as sharing the blame jointly for that expressed by one there at the party.

    In this case, you took the Professor’s bait, as did we ALL.
    JT knows how to keep the salon amused and lively fighting over the bone he casts..
    He and Jon S and Bill M have lots in common, as audience players.

  139. Gene,

    Yes, you heard it right.

    The message being sent to you is that in order to engage in reality you must abandon logic.

    After all, how can you expect to write incomprehensible stream of consciousness if you have something as inconvenient as logic, much less any care for prose or the reader, weighing you down?

  140. Gene H.

    Some in AZ say he is a teabagger favorite, and bucking to run for governor.
    Of course, replacing the finger-wagger they have now is difficult,
    but he’s trying. Maybe they have some law limiting terms of service, but not degrees of idiocy.

    The distraction element just never enters their mind. Nor my contact’s either.
    Good shot.

  141. Bob,

    Logic escapes most….. Some folks logic is as simple as their thinking…. And they don’t do too much of that either….. Except to attack the messenger…..

  142. S oak and Ay,
    Good points.
    The sad thing is lacking a legal basis for over 150 years, it still persists.
    Reason? One could be “if you get them down, never let them up to where they can really oppose you and fight,”
    Maybe that’s why Obama being there makes them have bad dreams.

  143. OS
    Welcome back. You obviously write spontaneously, as I do.
    You wrote: “Interesting fact; I never have gotten anything like that from anyone I know to be a progressive or liberal.”

    Well are you saying they are innocent which proves it’s a conservative racial joke? Or are you saying they did not know you were a racist and would have enjoyed receiving it; or that your conclusion as to their ideological orientation might be doubted?

    Confused……….again……..as usual.

  144. Bob,Esq.,

    Who has sent Gene the message that he should abandon logic? Do you think those of us who disagree with Gene’s opinion that the joke is not racist have abandoned logic?

  145. Bob, Esq

    There you are again with Plato and the boys.
    I thought we’d abandoned them for reality, the ultimate, not the ideal, a long time ago. Except for those disdaining reality since it’s ultimate mysteries did not respond to the logical tools they possessed. Logic, so beautiful, so excluding all nuances except those defined by some wise mind. Warm, fuzzy feelings abound in Bobs cocoon.

    As for stream of consciousness, and disregard for the prose and the readers.

    I do it my way, but you may have a point there. But disregard for the prose and readers. No, don’t agree. Cheap shot.

    That you and Gene rebut is proof enough for me. Fools are usually ignored.
    Try that instead if you dare.

  146. Elaine M.
    I think Bob,Esq is referring to this and also my previous attacks on logic not being functional in reality.
    ======================
    “Gene H.
    Re your comment.
    “My point is about the structure of the joke itself and its value as evidence that the judge is in fact a racist. As I said to Mike, “Is it evidence that he could be a racist? Sure. Is it evidence that he is a racist? No.”

    Well, I would contend that the judge is pandering to a group of racist buddies. and also hiding his pandering behind the “tender feelings it engendered in him” as a PC BS cover. Would he send only one such missive in his life to this racist group? Not likely. So scientifically/lawyerly you are correct. But you are denying reality. You win the case but he brings disrepute on the bar. And not certainly for in the publics eyes as a one-time offender. They know what reality is, it kicks them every day. And don’t say it is law which is supreme, not human judgement. Humans are, that’s why the rules are there for judge conduct, and why we have juries.

    You, on the other hand, just cling to your logic. It’s your choice. And there we differ, and well that.

    I can think how you were as a debating team member, you never saw your opponents, only their arguments. Unfortunately there may be many judges with similar faults.”
    ===================
    My other posts attacking Gene’s attachment ot logical interpretation of jokes as opposed to others use of other forms of recognising racism, were more extensive, but this is one I found after a quick skimming.

    See my admission of stream of consciousness writing but not of other sins am accused of . Of course their leaving off an addressee is typical bully style. But what the hell I will gladly rise to the bait.

  147. I’ve been busting ass to reply to that written while I slept. And now you meet my posts after a nights sleep. Coping with time zones is difficult.
    If you’re not there to engage in real time, most of the pleasure and effort is wasted I fear. Perhaps not replying is not more “fruitful”.
    It’s my choice.

  148. Elaine:

    if you look at it logically, it is a slam to his mother who is white.

    If the man in question had been Herman Cain, Alan Keyes or Thomas Sowell there would have been no “outrage” on the left.

    By the way, I have read all sorts of nasty things said by people on the left about these 3 men. No one ever calls that racist.

    So I am not sure where the moral authority comes from to denounce this judge for a stupid joke which belittles the president’s mother.

    I cringe when I hear attacks on Thomas Sowell, he is an intellectual giant of this and the last century and deserves far better than what the left says of him. But since he writes against the left in matters of race and economics, anything goes, no insult is too outrageous. It isnt racism they say because we dont like his views, how could we, as progressives, be racist?

    When I see the left apologize to Thomas Sowell for all the outlandish things which have been said against that fine man, I will believe the “moral outrage” shown here.

    The one good thing about the judge, we all know he is a bigot/racist.

  149. AY
    You wrote: ”
    Bob,
    Logic escapes most….. Some folks logic is as simple as their thinking…. And they don’t do too much of that either….. Except to attack the messenger…..””””””
    =====================
    Good shot!
    My limitations are my limitations. OK? But am not force to agree, but willinglly admit am not in Bob’s class. But in spite of that, I spend my time on what I see as holes in their reasoning. I don’t “attack the messenger”, rather the message.

    But some mistake the one for the other. Particularly those assuming an elite position to assert their ideas from. Mc Luhan said something about the media is the message. Is it therefore that some perceive message attacks as messenger attacks

    Lastly, I wonder why you used this sneaky way of delivering criticism, ie by not naming who you are criticizing. This, “we know who we are talking about—he he he he!” Don’t you recognize this as a bully tactic.
    This is denigrating yourself, I feel. Your mind and ideas are worthy of better.

    You’ve at least stopped accusing me of being an imposter. (???? or have you abandoned that???).

    Countering a malice spreader is difficult. And reforming is apparently impossible. But in contrast to myself, you have so far to me never shown anything of yourself. You could just be a computer voice. This, other than the above said, is as far as I can go in characterizing you. So what are you hiding.
    And why refuse to call me by name? Are you saving the argument that I’m confusing general remarks for a personal attack, expressing my paranoia only. Again, the same methods used by racists. As Mike pointed out.

    You know racists are bullies too. Where do you stand on the joke’s and the judge’s intent? Have you expressed your position?

  150. Bron,

    “If the man in question had been Herman Cain, Alan Keyes or Thomas Sowell there would have been no “outrage” on the left.”

    I disagree.

    We should be able to criticize individuals for their actions and statements–not for the color of their skin…their land of origin…their ethnicity. I have been critical of some of the things that President Obama has done myself. So have many other people on the “left.”

    There have been a number of racist emails sent and racist statements made about our President–not because of what he’s done–but because of who he is.

  151. There is a dog in our dog pack who will remain un-named who hails from another planet and is “down here” (his term not mine) as a “reporter”. I was trying to explain that the Cialis commercial he saw on television did not exactly explain “how sex is performed and babies are borned in America”. He was confused by the duel bathtubs in the back yard at the end of each commericial with the contented couple basking therein. But to the point here about the judge. BarkinDog says that he thinks that the Judge might be an American Indian since he was a judge on the Northern Cheyanne Tribe Court prior to being a U.S. District Court. BarkinDog asked if that gave him “cultural privilege” in Montana to make a racist/doggist joke, or to convey someone else’s racist/doggist joke on the internet to friends, not to the public. BarkinDog says that our President is a true African American since his father was an African (not a citizen) and his mother a caucasian American. BarkinDog says that our President should be considered White not Black or African American since he is half White and was raised by the mother in the White world of Hawaii. BarkinDog says that the part of the so called joke about the dog is not taken correctly. I asked him not to report back to his planet on this one because if they could not figure out the two bathtubs in the backyard in the Cialis commercial that they would infer way too much into this story. BarkinDog says that from his point of view the judge should not have internet privileges or bathtub privileges for one year.

    Just a DogTalkin here.

  152. Bron they will never get it.

    If the man in question had been Herman Cain, Alan Keyes or Thomas Sowell there would have been no “outrage” on the left.

  153. The only story in all of this is that the judge is a bit of a dick.
    1. He forwarded a silly joke
    2. He used his work email to do that
    3. His work is of a nature that he has a duty to hold himself to a higher standard than many others.

    By all means criticise a judge for being an ass. It’s possible that an examination of his work email account would show a pattern of silly forwarding of all sorts of nonsense.
    Joining in with the likes of the HuffPo is just hysteria.
    ———————————————————-

    1) He forwarded a stupid low racist joke about the Commander and Chiefs’ mother in a time when the Country is extremely polarized and every nuanced thing is politicized.

    2) He used his work email to do that, Emails are considered to be company property if they are sent using the company’s computer system. Additionally, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57388838/federal-judge-says-he-sent-racist-obama-email/
    to be a Federal Judge and verbalize regrding the President of the US in this tone and manner suggests a deep disrespect for the authority and position of the elected officia and a willingness to spread that disrespect . Employees are fired for less.Clinton wasaccused of nastiness and ‘fired’ or at the least rendered ineffective using the same twisted and weakening manner…why would it go less for a judge?

    3 )His work is of a nature that he has a duty to hold himself to a higher standard than many others. Yup.

    Joining in with the likes of the HuffPo is just hysteria, SO, luckily, opinion is not the end all indication of ‘joining’, and ‘hysteria’ used in this context is nothing more than the same undermining picture painting finger pointing as demonstrated in that sad ugly joke.

  154. Bdaman,

    Both images are racist.

    Image.1
    Bush has a hang-dog posture and looks dejected.
    Gonzales is looking at the camera and taking it like a man.
    The clear message is that White Anglo Saxons are a bunch of pussies.

    Image.2 is racist on at least two counts.
    a) See the look that the guy on the left is giving the black guy?
    That a gay look.
    The clear message is that all blacks are gay.
    (This is attacking blacks and gays at the same time)

    b) The black guy is captured by a band of Al Queda types.
    Not to be beaten, he has fashioned an improvised Stars and Stripes using his underwear – with part of his tie for blue and his own blood for red. He waves it proudly.
    The clear message is that only black men can be true patriots. It’s anti-white.
    There is also a message that black men wear sensible underwear, and not ridiculous skimpy speedos of the cross-dressing g-string type.

  155. Idealist, If one was doing a voting analysis of this small sample, one could conclude that those that have professed that they could never vote for Obama end up on one side of this discussion and the rest of us on the other side with maybe one exception.. At one time I studied voter surveying and polling and I like to find patterns. I am on vacation and won’t be on much for the next few days.

  156. “To say that this type of behavior is indefensible and deeply disturbing is really to scratch at the surface of a deeper issue,” said Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez, D-Texas, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “His defense of his actions reveal that he clearly does not even understand that comparing interracial marriage to bestiality is racist, and no matter what his intentions were, his actions were racist.”

    Missouri Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II, who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, called Cebull’s email “beyond disrespectful and ignorant.”

  157. SwM
    Tell us where you’re at so we can sigh longingly. And don’t say you’re visiting relatives/in-laws or we’ll be forced to offer condolences.
    Some meaning concealed in poorly done humor. But……

  158. id707,

    Oh where to start with your line of inane babbling bullshit . . .

    I was simply going to ignore it because you are indeed a fool, but since you been so prolific with it, it would be a shame to let it go to waste.

    “Getting back to reality we started with”

    There you go again implying that you have the corner on reality when it is becoming increasingly evident that your connection to the concept is nebulous at best.

    “Geez, Gene, the “sexist and msiogynistic joke” is old and boring routine.
    Don’t you understand that? Wow, if not.
    And so what’s special? It’s the President and his mother which makes it special—-and of course the black component.

    Now even your logic of jokes is weakening.”

    Oh yes, logic and evidence are such an old, boring routine. That you’re too dense to grasp that the woman is the butt of the joke as a structural matter is your failing in understanding logic and language, not mine in applying it to analysis.

    “Using Eniobob as a referency only ´confirms your blindness.
    Eniobob has shown what he values most, but do you seek confirmation in his arguments or his ruling? Which?”

    Learn to read. I referenced comments in an article Eniobob cited in relation to a tangential subject (those oh so old boring topics of sexism and misogyny), but by all means, make that into an attack on my values. That’s a fine display of logic, evidence and argumentation. (Pst! That was sarcasm.) I get it. You think I’m blind to reality which is just a polite way of calling me delusional. I know you’re irrational as a matter of your arguments lacking logic and evidence and I think you are possibly suffering from senile dementia. Let’s call it even.

    “Please give me links to the festivities. Want to add my C4 to the pile.
    A popular general attack it what this country needs to attack racism.
    Lots of other benfits as well, but space is limited.”

    Even when the racism may not really exist in the instant case. Again, your prejudice applied to determining judgement is no more right than a racist’s prejudices applied to determining judgement. You were offended so automatically the judge must be a racist. You don’t give a damn about evidence, mens rea or actus reus. Your idea of justice is all about you and your reactions. Except that justice isn’t really all about you, is it? Equity is a key component of justice and equity is a relationship between two or more parties.

    “C. Evert Kook
    Succinct, and complete. You shot a drive through hole in the joke logicians big enough to drive through. He should wave the white flag now, but like all such missiles they leave him equally dumb and alive as before.
    An ordinary mortal he is not.”

    Yes, that’s why no substantive rebuttal was made after my last point to CEK. Instead of dragging others into your irrational attack on me, might I suggest you taking that white flag and sticking it up your anonymous ass? I’ll concede superior logic (and evidence) when I see it, but so far, I haven’t seen any on this thread. Why don’t you try to drive a hole in my arguments using logic and evidence instead? Oh, that’s right. You can’t because so far your arguments are all based on appeals to emotion and your feelings of indignation instead of evidence and logic.

    “No, living in Sweden does not make me final arbiter of reality, nor did I think so, nor did you think that I thought so either—-but you use it as the usual garbage to throw at me, cheapening the value of anything else you offer.”

    Actually, you really shouldn’t tell me what I think as I’m perfectly capable of expressing myself. If you don’t want people to get the idea that you think you’re the final arbiter of reality? Then stop acting like your version of reality is the final one. Offer evidence and logic to back those assertions rather than opinion. Telling me your version of reality is correct is not the same thing as persuading me your version of reality is correct. I could give a damn about your opinions absent persuasive evidentiary proof and logic to back your position. Again, all I’ve seen in your position here is a rush to judgement based on insufficient evidence and your personal feelings of moral indignation.

    “All that aside, we all ultimately choose our POV as the final arbiter
    Now don’t we?”

    Speak for yourself. Some people prefer evidence and logic and the final arbiter of reality. My visual perception from my point of view tells me the world is flat. The evidence and logic and subsequent knowledge gleaned from science tells me the world is round. I like my world round. It has the merit of being the truth.

    “And sometimes a “joke” stinks so badly that most at the salon will
    will exchange glances and look down in shame as sharing the blame jointly for that expressed by one there at the party.”

    You apparently cannot distinguish between speaker and subject. I’m no more jointly to blame for Cebull’s stupidity and tastelessness than I am for your willingness to jump to a guilty verdict based on insufficient evidence. Those two albatrosses came to the party with you boys. I would be responsible if I were to make a judgement Cebull was in fact a racist based on insufficient evidence. However, I’m not making that hasty judgement so I have nothing at all to feel shame about.

    “So scientifically/lawyerly you are correct. But you are denying reality.”

    No, I’m just denying your version of reality because your version of reality doesn’t match the evidence. You could have just started and stopped with “you are correct” instead of couching it in the rest of your inane and irrational babble.

    “I can think how you were as a debating team member, you never saw your opponents, only their arguments. Unfortunately there may be many judges with similar faults.”

    First, judges aren’t supposed to see anything but the arguments and evidence. They are supposed to be impartial triers of fact. What you would consider a fault in a judge is actually a prerequisite for being an impartial trier of fact.

    Second, if you do not see your opponents in adversarial process, you are going to miss some of their arguments and/or misread their strategy and tactics. You mistake detachment for some kind of inability to empathize with others. They are not equivalent. Empathy is as essential to formulating tactics and strategy as detachment is to evaluating evidence and formulating sound argument.

    “My other posts attacking Gene’s attachment ot logical interpretation of jokes as opposed to others use of other forms of recognising racism, were more extensive, but this is one I found after a quick skimming.”

    If you’re going to attack my logic, you better bring your A game of evidence and logic instead of relying upon your opinion and appeals to emotion as if they were actual evidence or logic. They aren’t. Extensive does not mean effective either as a matter of evidence or logic . It just means you engage in argumentum verbosium. I’ll hand you your head on a plate every time with that tactic.

    Please feel free to make a fool of yourself some more.

  159. Jill,
    Watch out.

    One of the a..holes here will point out righteously that that was said before, and is certainly copyrighted (like most of the language at this point.

    Or maybe attacking the RWA might adventure your ips secrets. Another favorite theme.

  160. “His defense of his actions reveal that he clearly does not even understand that comparing interracial marriage to bestiality is racist,”

    By the same logic, his defense of his actions reveal that he clearly does not even understand that
    – not ceasing to beat his wife is wrong

  161. Gene H.
    Thanks for the compliment of so much work but so little effort comprehending.
    My arguments communicate at one level, yours at another.
    Notice which one’s the politicians use (and racists too).
    It’s another completely. You and I at least believe in our systems.
    Yours is trained and honed. Mind is just warming up.
    Am lazy and shan’t make the effort to rebut yours, much is indeed arguable as a POV from logical etc grounds. A few misunderstandings on your part, but competent in my untrained eyes.

    One last point for now. I don’t think I was the only person here challenging you. Some of them quite worthier opponents reputation wise than I.
    My concentrated attacks was, as I clarified earlier—did you see it?, that I went through post by pose commenting many besides yours, all while you all were sleeping. I had been sleeping while you were arguing of course.
    So it was fun going through how the night had chez vous had proceeded.

    Thanks for all the effort. Even if it’s mostly/wholly negative, it’s nice to “hear”.

    That you use low allusions like senility approaching is only fair. I do to use such.
    And as for your using only logic to understand reality. BULLSHIT. Next you’ll claim you’re the reincarnation of Justice Holmes, or an overnatural force. You’re one of us, however hard you strive to only be logical etc.

    What next?

  162. Bdaman1, March 2, 2012 at 8:46 am

    Bron they will never get it.

    If the man in question had been Herman Cain, Alan Keyes or Thomas Sowell there would have been no “outrage” on the left.
    ————————————————————————–
    Disagree 1000%

    In case the right continues to pretend not to notice….EVERYONE (including the rational, reasonable, conservative and non-racist Republican right) is sick of this level of garbage that is grossly mucking up the ability of this Country to move forward in a healthy manner. This is the crap that not only makes us look awful to the world, it undermines every aspect of what makes this Country strong….ESPECIALLY in our political process….which is not just a ‘game’ between the conservatives and liberals….get it???????????

    GET IT!!!!???????????

  163. Sorry to use the swedish sentence structure, hard to avoid after 45 year without english except on occasional foreign trips. But then theirs was worse than mine.

    BTW, any others from EU time zone here???

    Gene,
    I have not implied any other “reasons” for my criticisms. I am very aware that as you correctly say, I have no logic, no facts, only opinions.
    Some express enjoyment at my tricks, but of course seldom those whom I prick.
    I’ll try to calm myself down—out of courtesy to all, not just you, but mostly as an effort to get away from my childhood defenses using demeaning attacks as a rebuttal tactic.

    But attack, rebuttal or pushing your own meaning seems to be the major ways of expressing onenself here . Please enlighten me.
    Let’s face it, my views on law are only the layman’s. No pretentions otherwise.

    I think it should be obvious that I am backpeddling. Why not, there are more interesting tasks than converting you.
    But that such a dumb (the core of your accusations) ass should ire you is peculiar. Are you usually angered by attacks from idiots?

  164. Wootsy,

    If you think history is not repeating itself…. Read a little about what was thought about jimmy Madison….. Alex Hamilton….. History does pretend to forget…..

  165. woosty cat
    said: “.EVERYONE (including the rational, reasonable, conservative and non-racist Republican right) is sick of this level of garbage that is grossly mucking up the ability of this Country to move forward in a healthy manner. This is the crap that not only makes us look awful to the world, it undermines every aspect of what makes this Country strong….ESPECIALLY in our political process….which is not just a ‘game’ between the conservatives and liberals”

    Need I say good? Thanks a 10,000 per cent.

    Is not this the heart of the matter?

    Not to the spoilers of our nation: their names, deeds, intents, and goals unmentioned.

    The Bushes and co. are great chess players. They had to slay Iraq as a nation, and open it to Iranian subversion to justify re-taking Iranian oit—lost when Khomeini took power. Next move: War. Who will pay for it?
    We will. Who will win? Big oil—along with some willing assistants who will get a share. But will China/Russia go along with this move. That’s all that is holding back George’s successors. And maybe big oil is hedging their bets with J. Bush.

    Long from Racism. But it attempt to show how racism fits into the big picture ,as only one level of domination on all sectors of life.

  166. “His defense of his actions reveal that he clearly does not even understand that comparing interracial marriage to bestiality is racist, and no matter what his intentions were, his actions were racist.”

    I’m not surprised that this came from Congressman Cleaver. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    Interracial marriage? When Obama’s mother became pregnant with Barack, she was 17 years old and unwed.

    I would have ended the joke with “From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t look like Neil Abercrombie.”

  167. There is a joke about the pain of undergoing a sex-change: it hurts when they start injecting hormones, it hurts more when they remove the original sexual organs, but it hurts the most when they suck the brain out.

    The point is that as a joke it is valid whether or not the operation is going from male to female or female to male. The same is true of the joke at issue: if the father had been white and the mother black, the joke would be the same.

  168. Otterey Scribe, Gene H., AY, Tony, maybe DonS, Bob, the number sare mounting. Wonder why? Is it because I have a weakness for pricking small frogs in small ponds when they puff themselves up?
    CROAK say they. peep, say I, whereupon they give glances that should quell smaller frogs, but not I. I peep away.
    Oh, hi fellas. Are you here today? peep!
    Sorry if I woke you.
    ( I told that I have a therapist, so whaddaya expect. Pearls from a swine. BTW, the phrase is copyrighted by me. So no stealing.)

  169. mahtso,

    There you are again. The reversal of the joke is seen all over America, the millions of half and halfs who had white fathers who did not take responsibility for their offspring.
    Obama’s mamma was like most mothers around the world, they take care of their offspring. Besides she wasn’t raped, she chose to marry him, etc.

    Do you get it now? Do you. Join the queue of the unclued, if not.

  170. Your arguments fail because they fail as a matter of logic and evidence.

    But you go right ahead and say you “shan’t rebut” although “much indeed is arguable”. Although “shan’t” really means “can’t” or “won’t” in your case. Put up or shut up.

    “One last point for now. I don’t think I was the only person here challenging you.”

    No, but you were the only one stupid enough to imply I was delusional as your primary rebuttal and apparently expect not to get called to the carpet. The others for the most part challenged my arguments proper, not me personally. I take no exception to that, in fact, I stipulated that it was expected when I came to mahtso’s defense on the point of structure. These people were responded to in kind. Just like you’re being responded to in kind, you senile old bastard. Before she died, my grandmother suffered from organic brain syndrome. Your passive-aggressive irrational nonsense way of arguing has a very familiar sound to it. It wasn’t cute or charming or persuasive on her and I loved her. It’s certainly not cute or charming or persuasive on some anonymous ex-pat.

    “And as for your using only logic to understand reality. BULLSHIT.”

    Really? You should at least be complete when paraphrasing me. Evidence and logic are the tool set. They are complimentary. And what tools would you use to understand reality other than logic and evidence? Emotion? Fickle, capricious and unreliable. Belief? By definition, belief does not require proof and an assertion without proof may or may not be rational and/or true. The Aztecs believed sacrificing humans to Tlaloc would bring rain which was neither rational nor true.

    “Next you’ll claim you’re the reincarnation of Justice Holmes, or an overnatural force.”

    Really. And you’re basing this claim on what exactly? That you think I’m delusional? Because only a delusional person would claim to be the reincarnation of a famous person or a deity or supernatural being. I’ve never before claimed to be the reincarnation of jurists past let alone a god or a vampire or some such and I’m highly unlikely to do so now.

    “You’re one of us, however hard you strive to only be logical etc.”

    Logical fallacy of composition. You are assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole. Just because some humans are irrational and illogical, it does not follow that all humans are irrational and illogical. Also, a bit of projection.

    “But that such a dumb (the core of your accusations) ass should ire you is peculiar. Are you usually angered by attacks from idiots?”

    You mistake not suffering fools gladly with anger. Anyone who knows me (and several of the posters and all of the guest bloggers here do know me – even some of the ones who did disagree with me) will tell you I am difficult to anger in the extreme and that while I may answer provocation with provocation as it tactically or strategically suits me, there is no anger invested in my arguments. Again, the value of detachment. They’ll also tell you I’m not known for suffering fools gladly.

    Also, the core of my counters to your “argument” is that your argument is emotional based irrational crap without any supporting evidence – points you now concede. “I think it should be obvious that I am backpeddling. Why not, there are more interesting tasks than converting you.” Yet you think to somehow “convert” me to your admittedly irrational point of view was at any time a viable goal only goes to show the likely depth to which you’ve become unhinged. That you may (or may not) be a dumb ass too is entirely beside the point of your arguments lacking logical and evidentiary merit. The woman is still the butt of the joke structurally speaking, not the black man. You conceded that my arguments were correct and yet you still fight to the contrary? That’s an interesting strategy. Do you often beat your head against the wall? When you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome each time is the criteria some people use to define insanity.

    If you have more interesting tasks than your current exercise in futility, I encourage you to pursue them.

  171. idealist, I am not saying where I am vacationing as there is someone posting under my street name which is very concerning to my family.

  172. Gene H.

    Still on your high horse looking down.
    Let me quote:
    “The woman is still the butt of the joke structurally speaking, not the black man.”

    The butt of the joke as I see it is Barack Obama and his mamma. They are the subject of derision, isn’t that what butt means?

    As for the rest of your increasingly derisive and denigrating argument, I won’r bother. You are obviously the immoveble. Why?, do I admit my senility, insanity, and all the other impediments (mental, physical, emotional, social. ethical. ethnical, geographical, political,……); no I don’t. As you impugn me with not having the ability to see my impediments, so do I you, and hereby renounce that Sisyphus task. You shall endure; and so shall I.

    As for being an ex-pat, that’s the first time I’ve encountered that as a derogative term. Do you have any evidence/logic to support it as derogatory? It couldn’t been as a factual term you used it.

    You have passed that stage other than in your embroidering with your logical lawyerly talents, where you pile them up. I was going to use a “liknelse” (allusion) to a historic case but such have no value with you.

    As for judges being provers of fact, I guess that’s why the “latino woman” when alluding to that as a merit, was not greeted with cries of approval.
    Where were you on that. Let me guess……no do enlighten us on your logical position.

    My conscious intent was not ,as I facetiously said, to prick you;
    but just as the others I used my “emotional” (your words) arguments to move you to see the political and social reality. Just the sort that Mike S. Elaine M. and Woosty have used and linked to. I hope they will let my understanding of them and their arguments in no way impugn them with my, in your eyes, impurity of intent.

    Those who rely on formal arguments perhaps arouse undue suspicion in me.
    And identifying sleeping bulls to let lie, is not my strong side either, as is obvious. Hope you’ve enjoyed vanquishing the enemy, as you attempt to paint me. My social intent is not to paint anyone black (in this case meant as the color of evil), but rather point out weaknesses in our awareness due to our filters we have acquired. Presumptious perhaps, but not evil.
    And if my way of doing it insults your person, well this is the result.
    Like it or not.
    Humbled? Nope. Wiser? Hopefully. Wider knowledge? Little. I will now rush to wikipedia to see what the latin you threw at me means, although i’ve guessed it means “conscious intent” and “conscious action”.

    In your world, an ideal one I insist, only perfection counts, no attempts allowed.
    Punishable by public reprimand and demeaning defamation.

  173. SwM,
    Sorry to hear it. It’s a sad world we live in. Enjoy your vacation, please.
    I’ve been lucky so far. Hope none here are malicious.
    No filters of course to save us.

  174. Gene,

    This just in from “reality” …

    ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

  175. Gene H.
    I could nitpick in an eternity—-as long as you give me openings.

    Here’s an example from your last:
    “You conceded that my arguments were correct and yet you still fight to the contrary? That’s an interesting strategy. Do you often beat your head against the wall? When you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome each time is the criteria some people use to define insanity.”

    Correct is not the same as reality. Just as mathematics may be proved and the solution abides eternally. So in science, the thesis or law is always “until proven otherwise”.
    It was to disillude you of such (villfarelser) misconceptions. I post the swedish not to brag but to prompt me in my job of translating.

    PS Please address me by my name please. It would be appreciated. And of course in the manner of showing respect which you crave, although you find my arguments etc being disrespectful. But that is a life mode with me, my way of surviving—-as I’ve mentioned in my true confessions before. Not one I recommend nor can say was enjoyable. But it sure gets attention.

  176. Sorry but a reprimand is not enough. When you know beyond any doubt and we do with what the judge wrote to go along with this email that he is in perfect agreement with the obvious racist message in the graphic then he must be removed from office or resign. He has brought disgrace upon the Federal bench and he has shown a clear anitpathy toward a significant portion of the population of the United States. As a federal judge, whose business it is to be impartial and see that the law treats everyone equally and fairly, he must be held to a far higher standard than people in most professions and jobs. It is simply not at all credible for this man to have written what he wrote to his friends about this garbage for him to claim that despite the racist nature of the email he himself is really not a racist. That’s an out and out lie. Total bullshit. He must go!

  177. Swarthmore Mom:

    you have a street name?

    Say from the Rockford Files or TJ Hooker or Simon and Simon.

    Something like Downtown Brown or Fuzzy Dice?

  178. “When use a word ,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what *I* choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

  179. Ha! Try that again with using exotic characters

    “When *you* use a word (or forward a lame joke),” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what *I* choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

  180. BobEsq
    Right on cue. Honor member of the formalist club are you?
    I understand and enjoy the poem you cited. Hope you do too.
    And to use it to deride? How sad, if so.
    I thought that most children loved and learned it by heart.
    Did you too?

    But really, “are we here to discuss personnel policy or personalities”, as I cited my Kerstin. Let’s return to JT’s thread and agree to disagree on that, at least until I step on another toe.

    OK, Gene H.? el al?

  181. Gene H.
    Guess you’re right about insaníty, or is it analogous to the infánt learning to use language and brain.

    Whatever the mill keeps rolling This popped out.
    Was thinking about the publics high opinion of lawyers and then came:
    “When accused of being a crook, call a crook to defend you”. Now that wasn’t either logical nor proven, but evidentiary material seems not to be lacking. Poor taste in jokes in these hallowed halls perhaps, but to have distance from himself and that which one finds important seem to be healthy in my eyes. .

  182. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. if i don’t like a person based on race, gender, or any other reason I have the right to express that.

  183. “In your world, an ideal one I insist, only perfection counts, no attempts allowed.”

    Insist all you like, buttercup. Perfection is not a prerequisite. However, substandard crap attempts that are little more than appeals to emotion and personal indignation used to jump to a conclusion on insufficient evidence aren’t going to be applauded either.

    “My social intent is not to paint anyone black (in this case meant as the color of evil), but rather point out weaknesses in our awareness due to our filters we have acquired.”

    The hell you say. Too bad you don’t see the raw hypocrisy in that statement created by your own prejudice in examining evidence (or lack thereof). Your emotional filter keeps you from seeing that 1) whether the joke is prime facie racist is in fact debatable and 2) that a sample space of one is not a trend let alone a pattern of behavior, and yet 3) you have no issue with applying a label of a pattern behavior (racism) and ergo a label of guilt without evidence of a pattern. Yep. Those filters sure are a weakness to critical thinking.

    “As for being an ex-pat, that’s the first time I’ve encountered that as a derogative term. Do you have any evidence/logic to support it as derogatory? It couldn’t been as a factual term you used it.”

    The question is do you have evidence it was used as a derogatory term? To my knowledge from your own words and by my usage based thereon, you are an American expatriate living in Sweden. The only way this wouldn’t be a factual statement is if you were lying and my statement was based upon such a lie. That you post anonymously is self-evident. You are by admission an expat and by action an anonymous poster. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

    “As for judges being provers of fact, I guess that’s why the “latino woman” when alluding to that as a merit, was not greeted with cries of approval.
    Where were you on that. Let me guess……no do enlighten us on your logical position.”

    This is close to gibberish. Whether or not someone is a Latino woman would be a statement of fact, not a statement of merit based upon argument as informed by evidence. Either she is or she isn’t. Unless here Latin-ness or womanhood were questionable as a material issue, this is always going to be a statement of fact.

    “You have passed that stage other than in your embroidering with your logical lawyerly talents, where you pile them up. I was going to use a “liknelse” (allusion) to a historic case but such have no value with you.”

    That is gibberish.

    “The butt of the joke as I see it is Barack Obama and his mamma. They are the subject of derision, isn’t that what butt means?”

    Except the object of derision isn’t the child structurally. The child from parents with different qualities (as demonstrated, the form works even if the difference isn’t racial) is part of the setup’s preconception to be punctured. The object of derision is the mother. The exaggeration and punchline is the dog.

    “I don’t ‘attack the messenger’, rather the message.”

    Now it’s my turn to call bullshit. You haven’t come close to attacking “my message” in any meaningful manner. Your first direct response to me was: “Have you hung out with racists? You’d be scratching your head all the time with them, if it was your first time there. Similarly, how many of you understood what the casting of shoes at GW Bush implied. Jokes are cultural, not always analyzable. And the model you use…..ho ho ho, say the script writers, Now go ahead and hate or deflate me. [. . .] Disagreeing is the point of it all here as I see it. When your kids shoot you down, are you coming here for solace and comfort?” This was followed by quite a few comments of equal quality and merit (or lack thereof). Later, you said, “I’ll try to calm myself down—out of courtesy to all, not just you, but mostly as an effort to get away from my childhood defenses using demeaning attacks as a rebuttal tactic.” You even admitted this was your tactic. Disagreement is fine. I’ll offer a rebuttal. If you go ad hominem (as you did)? I’ll give it right back along with a rebuttal. Up until this thread I have treated you with nothing but courtesy since your arrival. Notice the change? Ask yourself why and then look to your own admission to find the answer. The Golden Rule is reciprocal. I’m simply reciprocating. As long as you want to act like a douche bag, I’ll treat you like you’re acting like a douche bag. That’s equitable.

    Also, as a technical matter, throwing shoes at Bush wasn’t a joke that most people in the West lacked cultural context to understand. It was an insult that most people in the West lacked the cultural context to understand. Not all insults are jokes just as not all jokes are insults. In that case, it was simply an insult. Speaking of cultural context . . .

    “Jokes are cultural”. No kidding. I already said cultural context is what often makes a joke funny. Structure is how a joke is funny. The basic structure is the same across cultures: setup and punchline. “What” and “how” are distinctly different qualities. “not always analyzable.” False. That analyzing “what versus how” may have differing criteria and those criteria (especially regarding “what”) may require cultural context to analyze or that you don’t know how to analyze a joke does not change that joke are indeed capable of analysis just as they are capable of construction. Joke writing is no different from any other kind of writing: it can be deconstructed, constructed, reconstructed, analyzed. There are people who make their livings analyzing and building jokes. They’re called professional comedians and comedy writers.

    You’ve also mistaken me for somebody who doesn’t think lawyer jokes are funny. You can make fun of any group of people or any subject if you do it properly. “There are no bad words,” said George Carlin. “Bad thoughts. Bad intentions. And woooords.”

    Speaking of George Carlin, here are a few of his insights about what is funny and how jokes work. A part of his act called “Rape Can Be Funny.”

    “Ohhh, some people don’t like you to talk like that. Ohh, some people like to shut you up for saying those things.
    You know that. Lots of people. Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk.
    Tell you what you can’t talk about. Well, sometimes they’ll say, well you can talk about something but you can’t joke about it.
    Say you can’t joke about something because it’s not funny. Comedians run into that shit all the time.
    Like rape. They’ll say, “you can’t joke about rape. Rape’s not funny.”
    I say, “fuck you, I think it’s hilarious. How do you like that?”
    I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd.
    See, hey why do you think they call him “Porky,” eh? I know what you’re going to say.
    “Elmer was asking for it. Elmer was coming on to Porky.
    Porky couldn’t help himself, he got a hard- on, he got horney, he lost control, he went out of his mind.”
    A lot of men talk like that. A lot of men think that way. They think it’s the woman’s fault.
    They like to blame the rape on the woman. Say, “she had it coming, she was wearing a short skirt.”
    These guys think women ought to go to prison for being cock teasers. Don’t seem fair to me.
    Don’t seem right, but you can joke about it. I believe you can joke about anything.
    It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is.
    Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion.
    Give you an example. Did you ever see a news story like this in the paper?
    Every now and then you run into a story, says, “some guy broke into a house, stole a lot of things, and while he was in there, he raped an 81 year old woman.”
    And I’m thinking to myself, “WHY??? What the fuck kind of a social life does this guy have?”
    I want to say, “why did you do that?” “Well she was coming on to me. We were dancing and I got horney.
    Hey, she was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe.” I’ll say, “Jesus Christ, be a little fucking selective next time will you?”

    Now, speaking of rape, do you know what I wonder? I wonder is there more rape at the equator or the north pole.
    These are the kind of things I think about when I’m sitting home alone and the power goes out.
    I wonder is there more rape at the equator or the north pole. I mean per capita, I know the populations are different.
    Most people think it’s the equator, I think it’s the north pole.
    People think it’s the equator because it’s hot down there, they don’t wear a lot of clothing, guys can see women’s tits, they get horney and there’s a lot of fucking going on.
    That’s exactly why there’s less rape at the equator. Because there’s a lot of fucking going on.
    You can tell there’s a lot of fucking at the equator, take a look at the population figures.
    Billions of people live near the equator. How many Eskimos do we have?
    Thirty? Thirty five? No one’s getting laid at the north pole, it’s too fucking cold.
    Guys say to their wives, “hey tonight honey, huh, tonight, huh?”
    “Are you crazy? The wind chill factor is three hundred below.”
    These guys are deprived. Their horney. Their pent up. Every now and then…p-pmm…they bust out, they got to rape somebody.

    Now, the biggest problem an Eskimo rapist has, trying to get wet leather leggings off a woman who is kicking.
    Did you ever try to get leather pants off of someone who doesn’t want to take them off?
    You would lose your hard-on in the process.
    Up at the north pole you dick would shrivel up like a stack of dimes.
    That’s another thing I wonder.
    I wonder, does a rapist have a hard-on when he leaves the house in the morning, or does he develop it during the day while he’s walking around looking for somebody.
    These are the kind of thoughts that kept me out of the really good schools.” – George Carlin

    Now . . . have you got some other evidence that the judge is in fact a racist? Aside from one joke which may or may be be racist depending up the audience’s connotation, but demonstrably isn’t racist as a matter of structural denotation? Perhaps several more data points indicating racist or potentially racist behavior on the part of the judge? Because I’d be interested if you do. Otherwise? Not so much.

  184. Gene H.
    You leave me speechless but uncowed. But at this point not suspecting you for wanting me cowed. You never seemed the type. Just did not know either that you were such a lawyerly person. You’re hard but just.

    Shamed to say, it maybe was I playing dogs pile up on the rabbit, or whatever it’s called over there. But I still stand by my condemnation of the judge as a racist or a habitual purveyor of racist jokes. Yes, you’re right that it won’t stand up in court. That was admitted long ago.

    But my opinions of him is not based solely on what is proveable. And there are enough other people who keep me company to strengthen my resolve to hold with my own opinion..

    Not that numbers make right. See the issue of the recent bill passed on restricting demonstrating near an SS protected person. What was it 300 to 3 or something. And they are mostly lawyers. Does that make them right.

    Just one point, don’t say I am lying about being an American ex-pat living in Stockholm. I am. Just that. Why should I adopt such a subterfuge.

    Or shall I write something in Swedish. Vad som helst du begär så länge det ör inte snuskigt eller illegalt. Varsågod. säger till bara. OK?

    Or am I a swedish immigrant in the USA or a russian spy?
    I think you could skip that accusation, if indeed you meant so. As for anonymity, is your name open? There must be lots of Gene H.’s. Or have I missed something?

  185. chuck,

    “Freedom of speech applies to everyone. if i don’t like a person based on race, gender, or any other reason I have the right to express that.”

    *****

    That’s right. And freedom of speech gives others the right to criticize you for what you say.

  186. Gene H.

    Your pummeling me is hard to take. so will point out a minor “technical” point. Of course I knew that shoe casting was an insult. Should I have believed it was a joke?

    Missed your earlier assertion of culture’s importance.
    But my pointing out hanging around with racists, meant that jokes are “private” to some degree, ——————–
    Bla Bla forget it.

    Thanks for the kind lesson. You’re just doing what others never accorded me when growing up. And I’m not retreating into the victim role either.. So will have to take my licks.

    Why didn’t you tackle Mike S.
    He said as I recall that sending a racist joke makes you a racist. Or do I remember wrong.

    Yeah, I’m a dumb old fart (his substantive) and with no cred here.
    But don’t want to fall into the “old” trap. Only memories count. No thanks.

    No mattter,, learned something and retreating better equipped—-let’s hope.

  187. “Why didn’t you tackle Mike S.
    He said as I recall that sending a racist joke makes you a racist. Or do I remember wrong.”

    Because Mike didn’t make his rebuttals using personal attacks. You might be surprised to learn this about Mike, he is one of the nicest guys on the Internet, but when people attack him personally as you did to me (either on rebuttal or directly), he’s just about as gentle with them in response as I am. Which is to say, not at all. Plus I think the point about a single incident does not a pattern make stands in rebuttal to that assertion unaided.

  188. Off Topic:

    ‘Go to hell Barack': Row over Washington Metro ad
    http://news.yahoo.com/hell-barack-row-over-washington-metro-ad-051919392.html

    Excerpt:
    In the heat of a US presidential election year, with Americans immune to the polarized and bitter nature of political discourse, it takes a lot to shock them, especially in Washington.

    But one ad at a DC Metro station — which starts off criticizing Obama’s health care reforms and ends up telling the president to “go to hell” — goes beyond the pale, says Jim Moran, a Democratic congressman from Virginia.

    The advertisement is for “Sick and Sicker: When the Government Becomes Your Doctor,” a documentary that interviews Canadian doctors and patients in the hope of showing how dangerous “Obamacare” is for the American people.

    “Barack Obama wants politicians and bureaucrats to control America’s entire medical system. Go to hell Barack,” the ad says.
    Moran wrote a letter to Metro general manager Richard Sarles calling for the removal of the advertisement.

    “The ad is deeply disrespectful of the President of the United States and does not belong in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) network,” he wrote.

    It turns out that such language is within the accepted limits of American law and such advertisements are protected under the First Amendment of the US constitution, guaranteeing free speech.

    “WMATA advertising has been ruled by the courts as a public forum protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and we may not decline ads based on their political content,” the Metro authority said in a written statement.

  189. Swarthmore mom,

    Rush Limbaugh’s Advertisers Facing Social Media Firestorm
    By Adam Peck on Mar 2, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/02/436852/rush-limbaugh-advertisers/

    Excerpt:
    Rush Limbaugh’s latest misogynistic tirade against Georgetown University Law Student Sandra Fluke may be the last straw for many of the shock jock’s corporate sponsors. Thousands of angry customers have been inundating dozens of Limbaugh’s corporate sponsors, demanding that they cut ties with the program.

    So far, three companies, Sleep Number, The Sleep Train, and Quicken Loans have pulled ads from the program, and several others are considering following their lead.

  190. http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/

    I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

    In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

  191. “In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.”

    Too bad nobody told Limbaugh … talk about gettin’ played.

  192. Bdaman,
    You have been played. All of the male panelists called by Issa were paid stooges and because this woman had the temerity to go to law school you attack her. No one goes through law school to attack a policy. Why don’t we review the panelists backgrounds??

  193. Raff

    In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.

    Let me repeat that Raff

    she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.

  194. Bdaman, so fucking what does that have to do with anything?

    So she intended to battle the policy because it is sexist and wrong. So what? What does that have to do with that fat slob Rush Limpdick calling her a “slut” and a “whore.” And demanding that she post videos of her having sex on the internet?

    You really are working way too hard at grasping at straws and being a dick. And succeeding.

  195. Bdaman,

    “she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.”

    Good for her! Why shouldn’t she have decided to do that?

  196. Otteray,

    Speaking of Rush Limpdick:

    Rush Limbaugh Detained With Viagra
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html

    Excerpt:
    Rush Limbaugh could see a deal with prosecutors in a long-running prescription fraud case collapse after authorities found a bottle of Viagra in his bag at Palm Beach International Airport. The prescription was not in his name.

    Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at the airport after returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic. Customs officials found the Viagra in his luggage but his name was not on the prescription, said Paul Miller, a spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.

    Miller said the alleged violation could be a second-degree misdemeanor. The sheriff’s office was investigating and will soon turn the case over to the state attorney’s office, which had no immediate comment Tuesday.

    Under the deal reached last month with prosecutors, Limbaugh was not to be arrested for any infraction for 18 months in exchange for authorities deferring a charge of “doctor shopping.” Prosecutors had alleged the conservative talk-show host illegally deceived multiple physicians to receive overlapping painkiller prescriptions.

    *****

    No woman has requested that Rushbo post videos of his sexual activities after taking Viagra.

    Good grief! Perish the thought. Oh the humanity!

    It might make good material for a horror movie though.

  197. Bdaman,

    So what if Fluke is 30 years old? So what if she has been a woman’s advocate? How old were the men who were invited to give testimony beforeCongress? Were they advocationg for their position on the HHS policy?

  198. No woman has requested that Rushbo post videos of his sexual activities after taking Viagra.

    Thanks to that visual image, I now have to go wash my brain in undiluted bleach.

  199. Bdaman, using your logic, James Meridith should have chosen to go to another college instead of the University of Mississippi.

  200. She shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion about the university’s policy–but it’s okay for men to have opinions about women health care coverage.

  201. Bdaman,
    I hope you are paid well for ignoring the issue here. She was going to law school so why not do some good at the same time. As I suggested earlier, no one would go through the rigors f law school just to test a policy. AsElaine stated, you and your friends in a bought and sold House are forcing women to accept a second class situation. My comment was that she didn’t go to law school just to challenge an unfair situation. I don’t care if it was Georgetown or Harvard.

  202. Bdaman, if you saw a “race card” in that last comment, you are more delusional than I could possibly have thought. I am talking about the logic you used; or more correctly, the lack of logic.

  203. Past President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice ?

    Set up. Now the Dems are using her as a fundraiser. Got to hand it to them. Ever since Stephanopolus opened the floodgate hammering Romney on the question of womens rights and abortion it’s been non stop.

  204. Bdaman, this sentence needs tweaking….
    “In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.”

    should read;

    “In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy, imagine having the forsight AND the guts to see a problem and then, right up front….without name calling, back stabbing or subterfuge, addressing it in the light of day” GOOD SHOW FLUKE!!!! YOU GO!!!!

  205. My comment was that she didn’t go to law school just to challenge an unfair situation.

    and you know this how ?

  206. bda,

    “Methinks there’s more to the story yet to be told.”

    Of course there is. The Republicans are going to try and “Anita Hill” her. Rush was the opening shot and it fell well short of its mark, exploding in his face. There’s more to come because the right hasn’t figured out that, as many on this thread have indicated, everybody is fed up with their filthy minds and filthy tactics. Limbaugh blew up and is bleeding sponsor money, Komen blew up and is bleeding donor money, Cebull friendly fired himself into pervert hell and will be spending a great deal of personal income trying to keep his job.

    They declared War on Women and they’ve got it. We don’t take prisoners.

  207. Bdaman,

    Did you start playing with Koch’s full time now that it’s an election year?

    That’s particularly partisan gibberish even for you.

  208. I can see it now. Brilliant student gets admitted to a Tier I law school and decides to attend for the sole purpose of changing a wrongheaded sexist policy.

    Some days it does not pay to get out of bed.

  209. I’m a proud Georgetown woman upset about another Georgetown woman who may have no pride at all. How else do you explain – Ms. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, now famous for testimony she never gave – jumping up to talk about her sex life (with the Senate Minority Leader and with the liberal media) and ask for the cost of her sex life to be subsidized by other students at a Jesuit School?

    Sandra told some sob stories about how contraception isn’t covered by the Jesuit institution we attend. (Maybe they don’t cover it because, you know, they’re a Jesuit institution. Religious freedom? Anyone? Bueller?)

    Let’s talk priorities here. It costs over $23,000 for a year at Georgetown Law. Sandra, are you telling us that you can afford that but cannot afford your own contraception? Really? Math was never my strong suit, but something about Sandra’s accounting just doesn’t seem right.

    No one forced Sandra to come to Georgetown. And now that she has, Sandra does not have to depend on the university health plan. She could walk down the street to CVS and get some contraception herself. Or, go to an off-campus, non-university doctor and pay for it out of pocket. (Or, you know…maybe not have so much sex that it puts her in financial peril?)

    Funny how the same side that cries “Get your rosaries off my ovaries” is the same side saying, “on second thought…please pay for me to have all the sex I want!” The people who espouse “pro-choice” “values” are the same people who say religious institutions have no right to choose.

    Imagine if someone else had asked the government to cover a different activity. Let’s say I want to go rock climbing. It’s my body and my choice and I want to climb all the cliffs I can! Imagine if I went to the government and asked it to pay for helmets and ropes and band-aids I’ll need to safely climb rocks every day of my life. What would everyone say?

    “It’s your choice to do that- no one’s forcing you to scale cliffs. So, either quit it or pay for it yourself!”

    This is the reaction we should have had to Sandra Fluke.

    Sandra, I hope you take to heart our school’s motto of “Cura Personalis” – care of the whole person. You are so much more than your reproductive organs. Please, have some self-respect and take responsibility for your choices instead of having to beg the government for help. The government should not be able to force a religious institution – like the one we attend – to pay for the things they don’t believe in. That is pretty clear in the first amendment. But since you missed the ten commandments I can’t expect you to read the Bill of Rights either.

    I believe in Georgetown. I love this school. And I know that we are so, so much better than what Sandra Fluke would make us out to be.

    Hoya Saxa.

    http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-does-not-speak-for-me/

  210. Bdaman, you really ought to do better than to just copy and paste letters from wingnuts, teabaggers and professional haters. How about an original thought now and then, that has not been run through the latest Koch think tank filter.

  211. Bdaman
    You are kidding right? No one would go through 3 years of hell and hard work and six figure debt, to just make a point.
    To echo OS’s statement. She never was going to testify about her sex life. That is a lie bing spread by Rush and Fox News. Do a little work and you would know that.

  212. Bdaman, Rush Limbaugh flat-out, unambiguously lied about her testimony as a set up to call her and by extension 40% of the school’s females sluts.

    How do you feel about that? What is your opinion of that?

    Rush Linbaugh said that if women have birth control paid for by others that they should, by way of reimbursement for that payment, post videos of their sexual encounters on YouTube.

    How do you feel about that? What is your opinion of that?

  213. Bda,

    Angela Morabito has 361 followers on Twitter

    Sandra Fluke has 16,692

    Who do you think has the edge?

    (I don’t have any ’cause I don’t have an account … ;) )

  214. Blouise, good catch. I am not on Facebook, so cannot check the number of “friends,” or whatever they call them. I could be wrong, but my guess is the ratio should be about the same.

  215. OS,

    Typing up that recipe now but will send it out tomorrow. It’s a long one but well worth the effort. I suggest doubling the batch and freezing some. It’s even better after having been frozen and works well as a pasta sauce … just a touch spicy, but a quiet touch.

  216. through all the noise about religious employers covering “birth control pills” for women everyone seems to overlook that the pills are also prescribed for regulating the menstrual cycle.

  217. Thanks, Blouise.

    My daughter is looking forward to trying it out.

    I may lose power any minute. The rain is beginning to hammer the windows and wind is picking up. We are on the eastern edge of the big tornado warning, and there has already been significant damage west of my location.

    SwM and Elaine, good show indeed.

  218. Bdaman,
    You’re getting desperate. Chill out, you’re doing the best you can in a losing cause but it’s not working because the propaganda they are handing you doesn’t make sense.

  219. Elaine, Thanks for the info about Rush’s sex tourism. I’d like to know where he spends his time in the Dominican Republic since the tourist areas specialize in what they have to offer, and some venues within towns also specialize. Does he hang out at the bars and hotels where the female prostitutes are to be found? The beaches where the male prostitutes hang out? Maybe he spends time in Boca Chica which has little to offer but child prostitutes.

    Child Prostitution and Sex Tourism
    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

    http://www.childtrafficking.com/Docs/o_connell_1996__child_prost3.pdf

  220. Bdaman, no thoughts on Rush lying about Ms. Fluke’s testimony in order to call her and other Georgetown students sluts? Nothing to say on wanting sex tapes in return for insurance companies providing certain medicines? I asked a couple of simple questions in response to your last postings, no response?

    How about if those same insurance companies provide Viagra and the cost of that is democratized across their entire customer base that all of the men that get it have to post sex tapes? And the pumps? I think that suggestion came up on Maddow. Certainly all of the young men at Ms. Fluke’s college that may be getting prescription Viagra aren’t using it for procreation?

    How would you feel about that? What do you think about equal treatment in that regard?

  221. Gene H.

    Now am awake while you all sleep.
    Read your reply about Mike S.

    I can only offer two observations about my attacks on you as a person.
    One, the same content which is my intention to convey could have been delivered in a non-belligerent manner. Yes, I realize that now, I think I do at least. The thought just occurred to me now.
    .
    My attack (roughly) “Havn’t you ever hung out with some racist gang?” was meant to imply that if you had hung out or been exposed to it otherwise; then you would know what racism is, and how it smells.

    We were discussing the judge and determining if he intended to be a shitter or if he had tempoarily been afflicted with loose bowels. And joining in with the lynch gang is easily done—-as recently remarked the presumption of innocence seems to be celebrated by the contrary..

    However, it WAS put in personal terms, as it was aggressively and demeaningly put, for emphasis.
    Principle 1. Attack the person, demean their perceptible weak points (visible, obvious preferably), etc., thus by implication (guilt by association or “consider the source” reaoning) to demean or ridicule the idea expressed.
    Having never learned to trust, then the trust necessary to pose a simple question or inquire without opening for defeat is difficult.

    The same message could have been a simple non demeaning inquiry.
    For example:
    “Have you noticed how one racist joke follows another in racist circles. If we hear one, can we reasonably suspect it has been foregone by other, and is a habitual form of expression by the utterer?
    Then can we suspect this judge, having been found sending out to a circle of friends a racist joke, can he be reasonalbly suspected to have sent out similar missives previously”.

    Would that have been better? It’s not easy to break old habits, but it will be necessary to do so for my own benefit. So help will be appreciated.
    You are not here to be my therapist, so no answer is demande, nor am I
    here to be your punching bag, to vent your anger at by showing your superior mental skills.

    Can’t really complain as the shock therapy has perhaps functioned like that said to be used ´by zen masters, when striking a sharp blow to the student, causes enligtenment to occur. Not to gild the lily. But your attacks could have been rebutted, but your endurance and skills exceed mine—-so reflection on the meaning, worth and other personal alternatives were considered. I was tired simply. Reflection won.

    Let us see how the future develops, peacefully I hope, with a changed stance from me, and hopefully no rancor from you.

    .

  222. Haven’t got through the evening’s batch and already tired of Bdaman.
    You are good but he is as usual. Avoids answering telling points, etc.
    I particularly the question of whether he had Kochs as employer now.
    Who sponsored him on his climate warming harangue? Big Oil?

    Summary. Why does he get to fly around center stage? Not jealous so shut up Bdaman. I mean he just flits around and he flits away from your swipes.

    If you take away the light will he go to sleep like most insects??
    IOW, ignore tha bastard—–is he fun to toy with. Like kittens playing with a toy mouse? Only this one skreeks so the ears hurt.

  223. Bdaman,

    “No one forced Sandra to come to Georgetown. And now that she has, Sandra does not have to depend on the university health plan.”

    Is there not a biblical principle that encourages carrying the burdens of the weak? Then I hope Sandra is living that principle. She makes the demands to our system, fights the fight, carries the burden for those who can not carry them.

    As you point out she can afford paying herself. Maybe, but beside the point.
    The point is that many can not affored the contraception. Nor the fight to get their rights.

    If she is wealthy, then I say thank goodness that some well-off do something out of their usual “me-first” routine. That in itself could be worth a few headlines—-maybe it was part of the message.

    Fluke is practicing very well; building networks, making powerful contacts, getting cred, experience in flying in front of the media, handling stardom’s special needs. etc.
    Maybe you should consider applying as an aide to her and learn some tricks ourself.
    PS: How’re the grades doing? And your student debt.

    And are yur the Bdaman of climate wars here?

  224. Gene,

    Maybe that’s a good thing….. Apologies are always a good thing….. Especially when you want to keep your lifetime appointment…..

  225. No person in the right mind would be like that elaine…. As Buddha once said….. An intelligent woman is an aphrodisiac……in which I tend to agree….

  226. Sorry guys went to bed. Been a little under the weather lately, my ears are killing me. I think it was the increased pressure from being in the mountains last week while attending a gymnastics meet. Which, my wifes team did exceptionally well. One of her level tens took 1st place in the all around as did one of her 8’s and one of her 9’s took second place, same category. Anyways my life is surrounded by women always has been. They’ve always been attracted to me for one reason or another. Growing up I looked like a young Michael Jackson. I had that big Afro all the way through high school so that was part of it in my younger days as Michael and I were close in proximity to age and looks.

    Anyways that being said, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the request with puppy dog faces and fluttering eye lashes with a plea of can you please run to the store and get me tampons, Or hey can you pick up my birth control pills. So please don’t think I’m not sympathetic vs just pathetic :) to a womans needs, I am. I just don’t think that tax payers should be on the hook. I don’t think they should be on the hook for Viagra either. That whole issue was big a few years ago. If you don’t remember there was a big stink about bailing out GM with tax payer dollars and how much money was spent covering viagra through their health plan. I was vocal about that being wrong. Speaking of Viagra and wrong and the fact you guys think my thinking is backwards.

    Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders

    Democrats killed an amendment by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to prevent the newly created insurance exchanges from using federal money to cover Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders. The amendment failed 57-42

    http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Dems_reject_amendment_to_ban_Viagra_for_sex_offenders.html

    and

    GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/gm_viagra.html

  227. Another right-wing blowhard weighs in on Sandra Fluke:

    Bill O’Reilly Attacks Sandra Fluke: Claims She Wants Government To Pay For Her ‘Social Life’
    By Judd Legum on Mar 2, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/02/437076/bill-oreilly-attacks-sandra-fluke/

    Excerpt:
    Bill O’Reilly has joined Rush Limbaugh’s sexist assault on 30-year-old law student Sandra Fluke. On tonight’s broadcast, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly attacked and mocked Sandra Fluke, claiming that Fluke was insisting the government pay for her “social life.” O’Reilly’s attack mirrors Limbaugh, who has insisted on that Fluke’s advocacy for contraception coverage is motivated by sexual promiscuity.

  228. Well elaine…… I cannot pretend to speak for others…. But I think I can say fairly…. That Mike S. has posted salient advice for men to follow….

    Then I see we get a weather change….. You might be right….

  229. dom·i·nate (dm-nt)
    v. dom·i·nat·ed, dom·i·nat·ing, dom·i·nates
    v.tr.
    1. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power: Successful leaders dominate events rather than react to them.
    2. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over: Ambition dominated their lives.
    3. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in: a drug company that dominates the tranquilizer market.
    4. To overlook from a height: a view from the cliffside chalet that dominates the valley.
    v.intr.
    1. To have or exert strong authority or mastery.
    2. To be situated in or occupy a position that is more elevated or decidedly superior to others.
    —————-
    I just don’t understand this whole fucking concept.

    If you do this to to another human being it is tantamount to saying that you do not beleive yourself to be human….why would any person SEEK to dominate another?

    Do you know how much damage people to do one another because they think this crap is important?????

  230. Cebull to Obama: “I sincerely and profusely apologise to you and your family for the email that I forwarded

    Cebull: “The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan,” Cebull said. “I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.”

    Huffington Post: “Richard Cebull, Montana’s chief federal judge, apologized to Obama after admitting he forwarded an email comparing African-Americans to dogs and implying that President Barack Obama’s mother had sex with animals.”

    HuffPo’s slant is worthy of Limbaugh. It’s the kind of drivel we see all over the GOP Primaries. Everything twisted into a fantasy.
    Cebull did not admit that he forwarded an email comparing African-Americans to dogs and implying that President Barack Obama’s mother had sex with animals. He simply said that he forwarded that lame joke that we all read.

    The lame joke into which the word “Obama” was inserted:
    A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m Chinese and you’re Japanese?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!

    So: This joke compared Chinese to dogs and implies that Japanese women have sex with animals? Seriously?

    Anyone who thinks that sticking the name “Obama” into an old lame joke is even approaching a suggestion that Obama’s mother had sex with animals is either a fool or a villain. Same goes for asserting that it compared African-Americans to dogs.

  231. “Anonymously Yours1, March 3, 2012 at 7:07 am
    Gene,
    Maybe that’s a good thing….. Apologies are always a good thing….. Especially when you want to keep your lifetime appointment…..”

    AY
    Want to tell me what that means?

  232. Rush Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke was hate speech
    By Jamila Bey
    Radio host Rush Limbaugh is so keen on pornography, he’s suggested an entirely new genre of it.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/rush-limbaughs-attack-on-sandra-fluke-was-hate-speech/2012/03/02/gIQAZVxrmR_blog.html

    Excerpt:
    Radio host Rush Limbaugh is so keen on pornography, he’s suggested an entirely new genre of it.

    In an attack against the Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke, who House Republicans wouldn’t let testify at a hearing on insurance coverage for contraception, Limbaugh shared his ideas about what should happen to women who dare disagree with him on women’s health.

    He said, “So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”

    He also called Fluke a “slut” and a prostitute after she argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.

    The Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger argued in an earlier piece that Fluke may not have been the best witness for a very different reason: As a student, rather than an employee, of Georgetown, her insurance coverage would not change one way or the other under the Affordable Care Act as currently written, with or without a religious exemption to institutions like the Jesuit school Fluke attends.

    Fluke has, however, proven quite fit when it comes to resisting the hackneyed and typical attacks inflicted upon women who choose to raise their voices.

    Fluke said in a statement, “The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women’s health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.”

    And how!

    What Limbaugh did – and does frequently – is “slut-shaming” and it’s no less hateful and derogatory than racial slurs.

    Any woman who dares admit that she is anything other than a virginal “Madonna” is rebuked and intimidated into silence and shame. And this tactic is profoundly dangerous in this context of helping to insure women’s health.

    “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception,” Limbaugh said of Fluke.

    Let us ignore for the moment that Fluke was testifying about a friend who is too afraid to come out publicly and announce her need for birth control for a medical reason, and so spends $1,000 a year on medicines that are free or nearly so on insurance plans that don’t adhere to Catholic doctrine.

    This is a textbook attack on a woman for being female and for speaking up.

  233. This is a textbook attack on a woman for being female and for speaking up.
    ————————————————-
    there is absolutely no question about that.
    what I don’t understand is why such a misogynistic blow hard is tolerated in this country. Does anyone think that this loud mouth doesn’t encourage physical attacks against women by his’ followers’ when he spews this line of verbal attack?

  234. Elaine M.: “Another right-wing blowhard weighs in on Sandra Fluke:

    Bill O’Reilly Attacks Sandra Fluke: Claims She Wants Government To Pay For Her ‘Social Life’”

    —————
    LOL, so Loofa Bill and his Viagra toting sex-tourist buddy are now both dispensing wisdom about women’s health issues to the great unwashed?

    Priceless, simply priceless.

  235. Wootsy,

    Thanks for the link….. But can’t rush still be charged for being an idiot? Maybe……please…..

  236. Dear Rush Limbaugh: Birth Control Doesn’t Work Like Viagra
    —By Adam Serwer| Fri Mar. 2, 2012
    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-does-not-understand-how-birth-control-works

    Excerpt:
    Does Rush Limbaugh think birth control works like Viagra?

    His misogynistic assault on Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke indicates that he does.

    Fluke, who was prevented from testifying at Rep. Darrell Issa’s nearly all-male hearing on contraception, has been the target of barrage of sexist invective from Limbaugh over her view that Georgetown’s health plan should include birth control. Wednesday Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute”, declared that “she’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception,” and asserted that covering contraception was tantamount to paying her for sex. On Thursday he blurted out: “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

    Once you wade through the bile and the realization that the country’s most popular conservative radio host has devoted hours on his show to attempting to bully a woman into silence for her views on birth control, it becomes clear that Limbaugh, a man over sixty who is now on his fourth marriage, does not seem to understand how birth control works. On Wednesday and Thursday, Limbaugh repeatedly suggested that the amount of sex a woman has is related to the amount of birth control she needs to take, as though women take birth control pills every day they have sex. This is how say, Viagra, the erectile dysfunction medication works. Aside from the morning after pill*, when and how much sex you have is unrelated to the amount of birth control you need.

    Limbaugh is a figure of almost religious stature among conservatives—for Republican elected officials, criticizing him is particularly dangerous—so Republican lawmakers have largey remained mum on the Limbaugh’s despicable tirades. Some conservatives have tried to defend Limbaugh, however, arguing that his analogy, while crude, gets to a legitimate concern over whether religious organizations and insurance companies should have to “finance” someone else’s “sex life.”

    The trouble with this analogy is that insurance companies already “subsidize” men’s sex lives, by covering erectile dysfunction drugs like Viagra. That insurance companies were already covering those drugs was part of the reason why the Employment Equal Opportunity Commission ruled in 2000 that insurance companies providing prescription coverage could not exempt birth control.

  237. From Elaine’s link above:

    “The Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger argued in an earlier piece that Fluke may not have been the best witness for a very different reason: As a student, rather than an employee, of Georgetown, her insurance coverage would not change one way or the other…”
    ———

    I think most people have missed the boat in their characterization of her status in attending the hearing. She clearly states right at the beginning, during her introduction, that she is a “student and a past president of Georgetown Law Students For Reproductive Justice, LSRJ…”, then acknowledges her fellow LSRJ members/supporters in the hearing room and states “we as LSRJ…” and presents her testimony.

    She didn’t show up as some random student or disinterested co-ed with a personal ax to grind. She has been and is an advocate for women’s reproductive justice. People that persist in just calling her a student or saying that she was a ‘stealth’ activist simply didn’t listen to what she was saying by way of stating her credentials. Imagine that. ;-)

  238. Elaine M. posted an article immediately above that begins:

    “Dear Rush Limbaugh: Birth Control Doesn’t Work Like Viagra”
    —By Adam Serwer| Fri Mar. 2, 2012

    I can fix that:

    Dear Rush Limbaugh: Birth Control Doesn’t Work Like Viagra or Oxy
    —By Adam Serwer| Fri Mar. 2, 2012
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Sorry Elaine, I couldn’t resist :-)

  239. Federal Judge’s Racist Email May Have Violated US Ethics Code
    Richard Cebull’s offensive email disparaging President Obama appears to run afoul of rules for federal judges.
    —By Mark Follman | Thu Mar. 1, 2012
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/richard-cebull-racist-email-obama

    Excerpt:
    The US Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge “should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the Judiciary are preserved.” It also says that a judge “should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities”—which applies to both professional and personal conduct. With regard to politics, it says judges “should refrain from partisan political activity” and “should not publicly endorse or oppose a partisan political organization or candidate.”

    Where to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate speech by judges is a complicated matter, says Jeffrey M. Shaman, a judicial-ethics expert at DePaul University College of Law. But there seems to be little doubt that Cebull crossed over the line. “Offensive, racist speech such as this clearly diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and therefore should be considered a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct,” Shaman told me. “Judge Cebull ought to know better, and his circulation of such a disgusting message makes one wonder if he is competent to serve as a judge.”

    What might the consequences be for Cebull?

    “While I certainly see why this type of joke raises serious and legitimate concerns, I am not convinced that it warrants punishment beyond the current (and justified) public criticism,” wrote George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley on Thursday. “The judge is claiming that he thought he was sending this to a handful of friends. It would be akin to a bad joke at a party being repeated later.”

    Turley notes that in 2009 a judicial council cleared Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th US Circuit Court of wrongdoing after an investigation into sexually explicit materials (involving farm animals) found on the judge’s personal website. But the council did officially find that Kozinski had acted with “carelessness” and was “judicially imprudent.”

    In Cebull’s case, Turley concedes that the Montana judge clearly failed to adhere to a tenet of the Code of Judicial Ethics, that a judge “must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.”

    Shaman sees a serious offense. “It is very difficult to predict what sanctions a reviewing authority will apply in any given case,” he says. “But I certainly think that at least a reprimand is appropriate here.”

  240. Lottakatz,

    “She didn’t show up as some random student or disinterested co-ed with a personal ax to grind. She has been and is an advocate for women’s reproductive justice. People that persist in just calling her a student or saying that she was a ‘stealth’ activist simply didn’t listen to what she was saying by way of stating her credentials. Imagine that.”

    “Those people” only hear what they want to hear. Of course, it’s hard to listen to what someone has to say when you’re so busy spewing hate speech.

  241. Ms. Fluke also has a backround in fighting domestic violence and as an advocate for those that have been affected by human trafficking and prostitution. No wonder Limbaugh does not like her.

  242. Elaine M., excellent links/articles, thank you. Yes, many people are hearing what they want to hear and they have the power to enforce their self-imposed ignorance on the rest of the country.
    ——-

    AY :-)
    ——-

    SWM, You’re right! Rush has reason to hate her on several fronts, OMG that completely went over my head. Thanks for connecting those dots.

  243. Elaine M n lottakatz,
    “”Yes, many people are hearing what they want to hear and they have the power to enforce their self-imposed ignorance on the rest of the country””

    Reminds me of churches………!

    And then we have a submitted question to answer:

    Which sex market in Sta Dominica (?) did Rush visit? All of them?

    And from another news item. Does it stand anywhere how many Viagra tablets were consumed since presrciption was purchased?

  244. idealist, Limbaugh has had four wives yet no children. Either someone is using birth control or …………..

  245. “Limbaugh has had four wives yet no children. Either someone is using birth control or …………..”

    Premature ejaculation.
    Massive Viagra doses get him hard, but too late.

    That’s why they call him Rush

  246. Apropos nothing:

    @CAPartyGirl (CA Party Girl) tweeted
    Stripper, or strategist? Democrat strategist on MSNBC raging against Limbaugh, her name is supposedly “Krystal Ball.” Speaking of #sluts…

    CA Party Girl??
    That sounds like one of those ‘come on’ Twitter accounts that follow people in order to spam some sex site. It’s a feature of Twitter. One knows almost immediately from the avatar image or the name – without even seeing the twets.

    But … the Twitter profile for @CAPartyGirl says
    “The new Spokeswoman & Communications Director for the California Republican Party. Tweets are my own.~Jennifer Kerns”

    So someone with the *very* ill-advised twitter name CA Party Girl posts that the name Krystal Ball sounds slutty. Funny.

  247. “He hasn’t used viagra his whole life as it did become available until 1998 and he is 61.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html

    “Limbaugh’s doctor had prescribed the Viagra, but it was “labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes,” Roy Black, Limbaugh’s attorney, said in a statement.”

  248. “Sorry guys went to bed. Been a little under the weather lately, my ears are killing me. I think it was the increased pressure from being in the mountains last week while attending a gymnastics meet.”

    Bdaman,

    I don’t doubt your story about not feeling well and send you my sympathy’s. I must, however, put it into context your pleading for understanding. You have posted a series of scurrilous attack upon a woman who testified before a House sub-committee about birth control. The attacks were indeed vile, but people miss the point of why they occurred:

    “The morning panel at the hearing consisted exclusively of men from conservative religious organizations.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/contraception-hearing-house-democrats-walk-out_n_1281730.html

    Issa had made two obvious tactical mistakes that would have negative consequences for the Republican Agenda and was stupid in the process.
    The first was that while I’m sure he could have found many conservative women to have testified the way he wanted, he was too lazy to do so.

    The second was that by making it men only, given that overwhelming amounts of conservative women also use birth control, his hearings could fracture a percentage of the conservative base. The hearing and its witnesses, judging by the national reaction, was a political disaster.

    Since Issa is, and has been a leading Republican legislator, damage control was needed. Therefore Ms. Fluke was viciously slandered for being a feminist activist. Nice job of propaganda because it tries to draw people’s attention away from the fact that the four men were also activists, who in fact were making a living off of their activism. The reason that Conservatives have been successful in framing the National debate in their terms is that through such tactics of deception and lies that enlist the corporate press in what is really their public relations work.

    To get back to your role in this, whether you are paid to do this flack work is irrelevant, you do it consistently. Whether we feel personal sympathy at the travails of life you’ve gone through, it remains a fact that you do perform this “flack” work continually, with little respite to just kick back and present your own point of view. This issue is really not one that deals with political affiliation and/or religious belief. If it were then many might realize that the Republican position against birth control means that they are really pro-Abortion and for out of wedlock children. Ultimately, it is about a hatred of women’s sexuality. Any real man, no matter what his politics, should be a defender of a woman’s right to choose to be sexual or not. If they can’t they have no business being involved with women unless those women are sex workers. This is really where Limbaugh is coming from, as his personal history shows. Based on the evidence of four marriages with no offspring, my guess is the man your are defending is a sexual deviant, who doesn’t need his women to use birth control, because his sex is more about S/M,
    B/D, or more far out methods of gratification.

    You have not done yourself proud in covering up for all of this stupid political theater and have actually made a caricature out of your political beliefs, by merely passing along untruthful pieces of attempted writing. When I said chill above, Bdaman, I meant it. Conservative views are welcome here, if they are honestly come by. I know you are intelligent, so why not express your own views, in your own writing, rather than using cut and paste. You might garner more respect here if you did.

  249. id707,

    “Can’t really complain as the shock therapy has perhaps functioned like that said to be used ´by zen masters, when striking a sharp blow to the student, causes enligtenment to occur.”

    Precisely. Argumentation is the verbal equivalent of martial arts. You have taken the essence of the lesson to heart it seems and not all who post here can claim that learning, yet alone rapidly. There is no rancor to carry forward. I was never angry to begin with. I hope, in the words of Sean Connery from The Untouchable, “Here endeth the lesson.”

  250. Sling,

    From the mouth of the hatemonger pig Limbaugh:

    “Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. … And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up,” Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html

  251. Mike S.,

    “Any real man, no matter what his politics, should be a defender of a woman’s right to choose to be sexual or not. If they can’t they have no business being involved with women…”

    Couldn’t agree more!

  252. GEORGETOWN LAW SCHOOL STUDENT GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION CALLS FOR BIRTH CONTROL COVERAGE FOR STUDENTS | Earlier today, Georgetown law school’s student government unanimously approved a resolution commending fellow student and birth control activist Sandra Fluke and calling upon the university to reconsider its discriminatory health plans. Georgetown’s health plans provide contraceptive coverage to faculty and staff but not to students. The resolution “STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the Administration to follow the lead of the student body and the federal government in supporting equality by not denying women vital healthcare coverage.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/02/436812/georgetown-law-school-student-government-resolution-calls-for-birth-control-coverage-for-students/

  253. rafflaw,

    I found it interesting that Georgetown provides contraceptive coverage for faculty and staff–but not for students. How does that square with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception–and the bishops’ request for a religious exemption?

  254. Gene H.
    Let’s hope you are more sincere than another unmentioned now has shown himself to be. I offer my hand and say thank you.

    Good I came just now to check if a response had come to my appeal and admission. It has, and I will accept it and see how it rolls. Yes, I still stand by my admissions

    BUT not for the sequece you picture, I took the intervening time to copy and paste the run-up, and feel that the attack on me was late-coming reaction to one post by me and lots of subsequent shit you got from others. ‘
    it’s all ready to post here. And that is a fact, not a threat, That time is bye.

    So I will accept the Alford way out, admiit guilt and go free from having to look over my shoulder for you.
    But as I said, it was a useful lesson. Watch how you kick sand, you might get some in your eye, is my admonition to myself.
    So thanks again for a stressful time.

    As do others, I stand by that jokes are judged in light of the context of utterance and our historic and current national contexts—-including politics.
    This no trial here. But those rules may be used as all arguments may here.
    I will play by mine, but not disparage yours Gene, nor of others.

    A rosy view of all, is hereby illluminating my face. Beatfication nears.
    Shheeeessshhh.

  255. “She makes the demands to our system, fights the fight, carries the burden for those who can not carry them.” (id707)

    That’s it in a nutshell.

  256. Gene H.
    Sorry for the rancorous tone, my diverted energies spent in my copy/paste had to find some way out. All is calm, at least after my heart stops racing.
    Hackles descend, the dog mumbles a little, and sinks his head.

    Joke coming: But you should really do something about that case of judiciality you are nursing. I said that in jest, not to irritate. ´Returns are welcome.

  257. Rush Limbaugh Boycott: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook Users Take Part
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/rush-limbaugh-boycott-reddit-twitter-facebook_n_1317698.html

    Excerpt:
    The Internet has taken aim at Rush Limbaugh.

    The inflammatory conservative political commentator and host of talk radio program The Rush Limbaugh Show set off a firestorm on Wednesday with his outrageous comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who was barred from testifying last week before an all-male panel during a House of Representatives hearing on religious freedom and the Obama administration’s contraception policy. Limbaugh on Wednesday called Fluke a “slut” and on Thursday said, “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we […] want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

    On Friday morning, HuffPost blogger Krystal Ball called for a boycott of companies that sponsor the Limbaugh show. Participating Twitter users are rallying around the hashtag #BoycottRush, and two Facebook pages calling for a boycott had garnered more than 18,000 and 6,000 Likes by Saturday morning.

    Redditor jaybercrow posted on r/politics a list of companies that sponsor the Limbaugh show and encouraged users to contact the businesses to ask that they sever partnerships from Limbaugh in the wake of the controversy. “TO BE CLEAR,” reads a caveat at the very top of the post, “this is about taking Rush Limbaugh down through a boycott of his sponsors and in no way is meant to infer physical harm.”

    During the day on Friday, Limbaugh sponsors began responding to the outcry over his statements. Jaybercrow updated the list several times on Friday as sponsors pulled their deals with Limbaugh. By Saturday morning, Legal Zoom, Citrix Success, Heart and Body Extract, AutoZone, Quicken Loans, Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Oreck said they yanked ads from Limbaugh’s show.

    Nine companies remain on the list: ProFlowers, CARBONITE, Inc., Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, American Forces Network, Mission Pharmacal Company, Life Quotes, Inc., Life Lock, Tax Resolution and AOL, parent company of The Huffington Post.

  258. contraception is not the issue here. Who in their right mind would be against contraception?

    I think what is at issue is whether the state [government in general] has the right to tell private entities what they will and will not provide.

    If government can tell Georgetown University that they must provide contraceptives as part of their health care plan, then they can tell Wendy’s they may no longer serve french fries and the triple hamburger.

    What is at issue is the right of individuals to take decisions on how they wish to live their lives. If you want to be chaste, more power to you, if you want to have sex 5 times a day, more power to you. It is your life.

    Contraception is not a right to be provided by others. The right to purchase the contraception of your choice is undeniable. The right to purchase a health plan providing contraception is undeniable.

    In a free society choices are made available to the people. And it is assumed they are smart enough to make their own choices and responsible enough to live with the choices they have made. There is no inalienable right to have other people support your poor choices or to provide you with the means for your recreation.

    If this woman is so concerned about reproductive rights, start a charity and set up clinics where poor women can receive free contraceptives and information about reproductive health and choices. When I look around our society, I see immense pressure placed on women to have sex. Why?

    You could make the case that the availability of contraceptives is just as misogynistic as withholding them. Easy availability sometimes forces women to succumb to societal pressures, to engage in things they would rather not. I have a daughter and dont like the idea of her being pressured into anything because of some bureaucrat’s mandate saying the government has a right to force private individuals to engage in activity against the dictates of their conscience.

    Georgetown has a right to withhold contraception just as surely as Planned Parenthood has a right to provide it.

    In the end it is a woman’s right to choose, mandating Georgetown provide contraception is taking that right away.

    I am going to laugh when at some future time, the government of the US is taken over by Christians and they mandate the eradication of contraception and abortion. The left will have no legal leg to stand on. What the government gives the government can take away. Forcing Georgetown to provide contraception diminishes the individual rights of all of us.

    I dont know about you but individual rights are far more important to me than reproductive rights. For the simple reason that sheep are given the right to reproduce but they dont have any individual rights.

  259. “Which, my wifes team did exceptionally well. One of her level tens took 1st place in the all around as did one of her 8′s and one of her 9′s took second place, same category. (bda)

    Congratulations to her and her team. That is a demanding sport that allows very little room for error.

    ============================================

    “Anyways my life is surrounded by women always has been.” (bda) … as above so below. In other words, you ain’t ever going to escape our attentions. ;)

  260. Here is the official poster for the Republican War on Women. It was created by blogger Swampfoot, and he has given permission for it to be posted to Facebook or whatever. You may want to print off a bunch of copies to be nailed to lampposts.

    Here is the full size version:

  261. “I have a daughter and dont like the idea of her being pressured into anything because of some bureaucrat’s mandate saying the government has a right to force private individuals to engage in activity against the dictates of their conscience.”

    Organizations are not people. The issue is forcing organizations to provide equal health care coverage to all women, not forcing all women to utilize the option that coverage presents. Access to an option equally provides more options for all. The choice of which option to use is the individuals. Denying the option to the individual is denying the choice to the individual. Providing the choice isn’t mandating that the choice be taken.

    “In the end it is a woman’s right to choose, mandating Georgetown provide contraception is taking that right away.”

    Yeah, by mandating that organizations not deny the right to choose by denying equal access to options from which to choose, you’ll certainly impair a woman’s right to choose, Bron. Your concern for the rights of business entities to discriminate by proxy processes is truly touching.

    “I dont know about you but individual rights are far more important to me than reproductive rights. For the simple reason that sheep are given the right to reproduce but they dont have any individual rights.”

    Thus showing a complete lack of understanding of individual rights. Reproductive rights are at the very core of self-determination and as inalienable as the right to self-defense. Your logic is also specious. Sheep, as chattel, don’t have any individual rights let alone the right to reproductive choice. Sheep are property. Sheep have the ability to reproduce. An ability and a right to exercise control over said ability are not equivalent. Your daughter has the right to exercise control over her reproductive processes. Do you think it is fair that an organization is allowed to deny her an option in that arena of choice that is widely provided to most women because they “don’t want to”? Unless the organization you’re talking about is a church proper and thus bringing free exercise issues into play? That’s weak ground to stand upon. Denying options limits choices. In this instance, allowing institutions to deny options limits the choices of individuals.

    No. Providing options equally across a class of people with a vested interest in a right does not weaken the right. It strengthens it by disallowing indirect institutional discrimination.

  262. Bron,
    Giving lessons in being obtuse again. There, you heard my nasty side, but countering your long tirades, point by point, is too Sisyphus-like.
    Solve please this dilemma. Georgetown provides contraceptive coverage to staff—–but not to students. Justify that please.
    And here is a a last meany: How do you pronounce Bron? GROAN.
    Lovingly yours—-I mean you are my relative somewhere the lineages merge. And thus I am your keeper. Right. Puss puss as we say in Swedish.
    You may applaud now.

  263. “Rush Limbaugh Boycott…” (article posted by Elaine M.)

    “During the day on Friday, Limbaugh sponsors began responding to the outcry over his statements. Jaybercrow updated the list several times on Friday as sponsors pulled their deals with Limbaugh. By Saturday morning, Legal Zoom, Citrix Success, Heart and Body Extract, AutoZone, Quicken Loans, Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Oreck said they yanked ads from Limbaugh’s show.

    Nine companies remain on the list: ProFlowers, CARBONITE, Inc., Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, American Forces Network, Mission Pharmacal Company, Life Quotes, Inc., Life Lock, Tax Resolution and AOL, parent company of The Huffington Post.”

    Thanks for the information, Elaine M.

    (Regarding Rush L., the man’s a pig.)

  264. One of the primary reasons women take birth control is to regulate menses. This is important when the periods are marked by irregularity, pain, and heavy flow. Does the right wing know, or even care, just how many work days are missed by women who have menstrual related problems? If men had to miss work one to three days per month because they were doubled up with cramps, this whole flap would be a non-issue.

  265. OS,

    I want an animated version with him jumping up and down … a hologram will do.

    Or … put a shoe in his hand and have him beating the lectern with it … that would be an easier hologram.

  266. Gene H.,
    Thanks for doing the heavy lifting… I could not done it as well…especially in your fair manner.

    Isn’t it amazing how they clothe themselves in the banner of individual freedom, defenders against big goverment, protectors of their children from social pressures etc an infinitum. And repeated often enough as the media encourages—–outrageous out rates courageous in their eyes, it becomes truth..

  267. Thanks Ms. Blouise had breakfast with an old high school buddy this morning and we were laughing at the same thing. His daughters recently started attending my wifes program, he has five :)

    Mike S thanks for the kind words. I hope you know you kill me a little more each time with your kind words. Only because It reminds me of the hateful ones I used towards you. I know it is now a wound that healed but the scar will always remind me of the initial wound. Lots of people copy and paste. Lots of times I get scatter brained in my thoughts or get distracted. Speaking of which this is my second time writing this because my wife bumped me off the computer and doesn’t understand opening a new tab. As I stated before she’s not a computer person. I just found out that she thought when you google something you had to type the word google first in the search bar then what ever you were searching for :) So when she bumped me I had already typed part of my comment out before I got up and came back and now it was on another site. I don’t understand why you and others think/feel I must be paid for my views. I think mine fall in line with most on the right. Damn it got to go. Take the kids to the movies wife yelling now and she is whisking me away for the evening and night. Be back tomorrow. Have a great weekend everybody and East Coast folks be safe. Just read how a little girl was carried ten miles away from her home in a tornado and is in critical condition. Incredible.

  268. Maybe not all cyclones in the US have finished….. It appears from all whether stations that the static will be continuing for sometime….. Causing further deterioration in limpdicks broadcast…..

  269. Gene H:

    an individual has the right to purchase health care from another company if they dont like Georgetown’s policy. Or they have the right to not attend that particular school.

    Individual rights incorporate all rights an individual has, there are no separate rights. And as far as the sheep being chattel? That was my point, we would be “owned” by government.

    Someday you and others are going to wonder what happened when the Christians force your women to carry their babies to term and then put them up for adoption or deny them the right to contraception.

    It is not I who doesnt understand individual rights, it is you.

    Individual rights are the only rights an individual has. All rights such as self defense and sex stem from a man’s right to his own life. You cannot separate them and if you do, then the government can decide which rights it will dain to give you. At that point the citizen is no longer the sovereign but is government chattel and is nothing more than a sheep.

    But hey, if you want to sell your rights for $5 worth of birth control every month be my guest.

    You dont force people to provide other people choices when choices already exist. If Georgetown doesnt provide birth control and Viagra then get your birth control and Viagra at planned parenthood or choose another policy.

    The proper way to handle this is for people to tell Georgetown they will not attend class there unless they change their policy. I imagine if the next law school class told them to go pound sand, the policy would change. But there are probably enough people who would attend Georgetown Law so why does government have the right to force them to provide contraception?

    They dont have a right to force Ruth’s Chris to feed me and food is more necessary than sex. Food is a necessity of life, sex is recreation. A law student has no business reproducing anyway so either abstain or buy your own contraception. Or have your boyfriend buy it for you, he is participating after all and if he doesnt want you pregnant then he should at least split the cost with you.

  270. “contraception is not the issue here. Who in their right mind would be against contraception?”

    You did say “right mind”, but forgetting that for a second:

    “”One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

    “It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.”

    Guess who?
    http://www.boston.com/Boston/dailydose/2012/02/rick-santorum-dangers-contraception/5tz6ifNcUciBAMJuUguIpL/index.html

    Contraception is dangerous. It’s un-American. k?

    Viagra is sort of OK, but only in emergencies at certain stages of one’s wife’s cycle. Outside of that, it’s un-American.

  271. Bron,
    If your insurance plan doesn’t pay for your medically prescribed contraception, then the cost of it is not $5.00. Stop purposely misleading readers with that nonsense. Contraception is not just necessary to avoid pregnancy. If you don’t realize that, then you may want to ask a few women who have had it prescribed for those other reasons. Many times at a very young age. If men can get Viagara in that plan if a Dr. prescribes it, then women should be afforded the luxury of their doctor deciding what is medically necessary for them.You are all for retaining your liberty, but not if it revolves around what a women needs. According to your argument, women are already chattel if they and their doctor cannot decide what is best for them medically. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

  272. rafflaw:

    what I object to is not the contraception, I am all for it. What I object to is government forcing an individual or an organization to engage in something which is against their philosophy. I will say the government has a right to force an individual or organization to follow the laws. But as far as I know there is no right to Viagra or the pill in the Constitution.

    Personally, I think it is stupid of Georgetown to have a policy which does not offer it. But you dont get the government to force change like that. The government should enforce the Constitution.

    I think people like Rick Santorum are buck ass crazy for wanting to keep contraception from women. Women are not brood mares to be kept pregnant as a method of control.

  273. Canon 5A says that a judge must not “publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” Advisory opinion 92 says that judicial employees may “express an opinion privately as an individual citizen regarding a political candidate or party.”

    Cebull’s e-mail was private, so he is OK there with respect to this Canon. But then he defended himself by publicly stating that he is anti-Obama. I think he may have made things worse for himself with that public defense.

  274. rafflaw:

    yes I agree but if you have an insurance policy which doesnt offer contraception as a benefit then it really doesnt matter.

    And do we know if they dont offer it as hormone therapy?

  275. Gene H:

    you are mixing up rights and choices. We have choices because we have individual rights. We dont have rights because we have choices.

    I can eat at Wendys, Arthur Treachers, Ruths Chris, Mortons, Nathans, The Palm, Taco Bell, KFC, Popeyes, Charlie Palmers, etc because we have a free country. What you are trying to do is to force Charlie Palmers, a steak house, to sell hot dogs to give me more choices. If I want a hot dog I can go to Nathans.

    You may be giving me more choices but you are diminishing the rights of Charlie Palmer by forcing him to sell me a hot dog. If government can force Charlie Palmer to sell hot dogs it can force anyone to do anything. Choices are not rights.

  276. Bron,
    The doctor and the patient are the ones who usually decide if it is medically necessary. Except when women’s bodies are concerned. Your corporations won’t change that discrimination without government assistance.

  277. Bron,

    I’ll bite…. If charles palmer sold hotdogs…. Wouldn’t they have to sell it to you? Or they could refuse to sell you based upon not meeting a dress code or something…. You have a choice of where you can go….you also have a right to eat there as well…..and so long as you can pay…. But they don’t have the right to make a choice to exclude you based upon some nilly willy criteria…. Or do you think differently?

  278. Bron,

    It isn’t just about contraception/birth control pills for pregnancy prevention. It’s also about medical procedures like tubal ligations and vasectomies. Another thing: Birth control pills are used to treat a number of female medical conditions, including endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome–both of which can cause pain and other medical problems.

    Why do you suppose the Catholic Church doesn’t object to health insurance coverage for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for men?

    *****
    Polycystic ovary syndrome
    Definition
    By Mayo Clinic staff
    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/polycystic-ovary-syndrome/DS00423

    Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common hormonal disorder among women of reproductive age. The name of the condition comes from the appearance of the ovaries in most, but not all, women with the disorder — enlarged and containing numerous small cysts located along the outer edge of each ovary (polycystic appearance).

    Infrequent or prolonged menstrual periods, excess hair growth, acne and obesity can all occur in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. In adolescents, infrequent or absent menstruation may signal the condition. In women past adolescence, difficulty becoming pregnant or unexplained weight gain may be the first sign.

    The exact cause of polycystic ovary syndrome is unknown. Early diagnosis and treatment may reduce the risk of long-term complications, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

    *****

    Endometriosis
    Definition
    By Mayo Clinic staff
    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/endometriosis/DS00289

    Endometriosis is an often painful disorder in which tissue that normally lines the inside of your uterus — the endometrium — grows outside your uterus. Endometriosis most commonly involves your ovaries, bowel or the tissue lining your pelvis. Rarely, endometrial tissue may spread beyond your pelvic region.

    In endometriosis, displaced endometrial tissue continues to act as it normally would: It thickens, breaks down and bleeds with each menstrual cycle. And because this displaced tissue has no way to exit your body, it becomes trapped. Surrounding tissue can become irritated, eventually developing scar tissue and adhesions — abnormal tissue that binds organs together.

    This process can cause pain — sometimes severe — especially during your period. Fertility problems also may develop. Fortunately, effective treatments are available.

  279. AY:

    No, I dont think Charlie Palmers can discriminate against people based on race, etc. But then I dont have the right to make them sell me a hot dog.

    If I want a hot dog and I know Charlie Palmers doesnt sell hot dogs, I should go to Nathans. Just because I like Charlie Palmers or just because it is closer to my house isnt a reason for me to go to the government to try to get them to sell hot dogs. I have other options available.

    I look at this as a strictly rights based issue. I have a right to a hot dog but not at the cost of forcing Charlie Palmer to sell me hot dogs.

    Charlie Palmer could go to government and tell them I should sell him ketchup and mustard for 10% under market. If Charlie can be forced to sell hot dogs what keeps the government from setting the price of ketchup and mustard?

  280. Bron,

    You’re comparing apples and oranges. Why should women who work for Catholic colleges and hospitals and other institutions that employ and do business with people who aren’t Catholic not be able to get certain types of healthcare coverage? Should the church’s right to an exemption of the HHS mandate trump a woman’s right to essential health services and medical prescriptions?

  281. Elaine:

    from Cost Helper:

    “Typical costs:
    For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
    For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication — usually $5 to $15 — and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
    Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.”

    There is also Planned Parenthood and some companys who have a program to help women who cannot afford the drugs.

    I also read that states mandate contraceptive coverage.

    There are enough sources to make it unnecessary to force people and organizations who have certain beliefs to abide by government dictate.

  282. Bron,
    You have some nerve to state Planned Parenthood is available to provide contraception services! Once again, anything that prevents or gets in the way of a doctor’s prescription, should be a crime. Why is Viagra allowed?

  283. Elaine:

    If they dont like the coverage they have, purchase a supplemental policy that includes contraception or just go to planned parenthood and pay $20 to $50 dollars per month.

    Do I have a right to food? Can I have the government issue a mandate stating that Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland must feed me? At what point does it end? Food is much more important than health care and much cheaper too. Why is that?

    And housing? Lets have government issue a mandate and make Pulte and Toll Brothers build me a house and have GM make me a car. Government can do anything.

  284. rafflaw:

    I dont say I agree with Georgetowns policy.

    but AY probably hit the nail on the head. Also because the RCC likes to have its members go forth and multiply and a soft member is much like congress.

  285. If Senate had 83 women-not 83 men-there would be no fight over contraception

    By Lynn Sweet on March 1, 2012 3:48 PM

    WASHINGTON–Senate Democrats were able to beat back a move by Republicans to dilute contraception coverage in the new health care law on Thursday. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had an insight well worth repeating: If there were 83 women in the Senate—instead of 83 men–the Senate would not be wasting its time on regulating female health matters.

    My column on how Democrats tabled the Blunt amendment–and how GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney talked himself into a knot over this–is HERE.

    Sanders said from the Senate floor, “In Vermont and around the country, there is growing anger that members of Congress, mostly men I should add, are trying to roll back the clock on women’s rights, in this case the right of women to receive contraceptive services through their insurance plans.

    “This attack is grossly unfair, and I hope that men will stand with women in the fight to protect this very basic right.

    “Let me add my strong belief that if the United States Senate had 83 women and 17 men rather than 83 men and 17 women, my strong guess is that a bill like this would never even make it to the floor.”

  286. Bron,

    I wasn’t talking about the cost of contraceptives–but since you brought it up, I’ll ask you a question: If contraceptives cost $500-$1,000 a month, would you be in favor of Catholic institutions providing women who worked for them with contraceptive coverage?

  287. Elaine,
    Thanks for the details. Hope the guys here read them.
    Makes it so much more real than “woman troubles”.
    Would they put up with this hassle over hormonal treatment? Nope.

    I have an idea, all men who become priests should be castrated, with the purpose of removing incitement to go against their chastity oath. which vasectomy would not accomplish.

  288. I have a suggestion. If an employer’s insurance company refuses to cover birth control, then they should be required by law to pay at least partial child support for any resulting pregnancies. About 40%-50% seems fair.

    The Catholic Bishops and the RNC should be required to pay the balance.

  289. rafflaw,

    The RCC frowns upon contraception and abortion–but is all for men getting their Viagra. Go figure. Doesn’t make much sense to me–but then I’m just a mere woman.

  290. anon nurse,

    And if fewer men in the GOP were sexist, there would be no fight over contraception.

    The NEW GOP: Taliban Light

    —-

    Elaine M.

    You’ll get no argument from me — I couldn’t agree more.

  291. Bron,

    “what I object to is not the contraception, I am all for it. What I object to is government forcing an individual or an organization to engage in something which is against their philosophy.”

    What is your position on the government requiring women to have unnecessary–and sometimes invasive–medical procedures or tests that aren’t recommended by their doctors?

  292. OS,

    It seems you want someone that expresses conservative values hence a Republican to take responsibility……the only responsibility that I’ve seen one take is screwing people over equally…. The latest being contraception….. It’s a smoke and mirror game….. Started with rwr…. Clinton expanded it and the rest is history….

  293. Bron,

    The confusion here is entirely yours. You confuse organizations, but specifically corporations, with actual people. They are a legal fiction and have no rights except what government gives them . . . this is the root of the problem of expanding corporate personality. People have rights. Limiting choices limits ways in which rights can be exercised.

    “Someday you and others are going to wonder what happened when the Christians force your women to carry their babies to term and then put them up for adoption or deny them the right to contraception.”

    No I won’t because it’ll be people like you denying them equal access to contraception based on the ridiculous conflation that corporations are actual people and that “forcing an organization” to do something they don’t want to in order to protect individual’s individual rights is somehow a violation of the organization’s rights. Organizations don’t have rights except what charter creates for them.

    “Individual rights are the only rights an individual has. All rights such as self defense and sex stem from a man’s right to his own life. You cannot separate them and if you do, then the government can decide which rights it will dain to give you. At that point the citizen is no longer the sovereign but is government chattel and is nothing more than a sheep.”

    Again, showing a fundamental lack of understanding of rights as being solely based in property. This is a blinder you wear due to your ridiculous Objectivism and your consequent belief in make believe pseudo-economics. Your rights are not all unilaterally traceable to property rights nor are all of your rights absolute under a social compact. Some are limited. Some are protected. Many simply are not addressed. Many of your rights have noting to do with the idea property. They exist simply because you exist. These are human rights, inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being, that exist beyond civil rights protected (or curtailed either rightfully or tyrannically) by the laws endemic to the social compact. It’s your choice of myopic beliefs that prevent you from seeing this fact. Civil rights, including the protection of property rights, are rights specifically protected by law, i.e. there are limits put in place on government’s ability to intrude upon them. Many crimes are a violation of your absolute rights under the state of nature, but in entering the social compact, you trade those absolute freedoms for protection (or justice after the fact) from those who would commit acts society has deemed wrong and/or too damaging to other individuals to allow to go on without restraint.

    You need government to protect your property rights or they are only as good as your ability to keep your property from being taken by another. You agree that property rights need to have government protection. However, as I’ve pointed out before and you’ve failed to grasp, your property rights are alienable – they can be transferred to another. Your human rights are inalienable – they cannot be transferred to another. Two very distinct kinds of “ownership”. Your rights to control your sexual reproduction (once you reach age of consent) are yours not because you own yourself, but simply because you are.

    Your rights may be indivisible, but they are of differing qualities and origin and they are interdependent. Human, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are not the same thing nor do they derive from the same sources. Your human rights derive and depend upon nothing more than your existence.

    Your civil and political rights are (often) derived from your human rights, but they are defined and protected by laws under the social compact.

    Your economic rights derive from your ability to own property, but property and your quality of rights of holding in property are defined by laws because their very alienability creates situations of human interaction in transference. Ownership of self and ownership of a res are not the same thing. Your rights to property – interest in a res – cannot be enforced if they are not spelled out.

    Your social and cultural rights may or may not be civil, political or economic and they may or may not be protected, but rather they exist in solely in the context of a civilization and their prioritization given to your other rights.

    But convince you? No. There is no proving to you that your fundamental precepts of Objectivism and laissez-faire economics are rooted in falsities about both human nature and the nature of rights. You’ve demonstrated long ago that you’ve not only drank the kool-aid, but your’re interested in helping make some more. To admit you are wrong in asserting selfishness as a virtue and the idea that markets produce just outcomes would be against your Objectivistic ideal that you are the stick by which all reality is measured and your laissez-faire contention that property rights are absolute. It would require that you recognize others have rights too and that sometimes their rights are going to trump yours as a matter of justice. It’s like asking a Fundamentalist Christian to acknowledge that there is no evidence for the Resurrection. You can’t understand or accept what I say because it is in opposition to your core beliefs. You’re a true believer. A follower, but not a free critical thinker. To even consider that you could be wrong causes severe psychological dissonance. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you say you’re about liberty and freedom, but like most Libertarians and all Objectivists and Austrian School “economists”, you don’t really understand what liberty and freedom are or where they come from. This is demonstrated time and again by your railing for something in the name of liberty when the net effect of what you advocate is either less individual liberty or outright tyranny of the strong over the weak.

    Just like your position on this issue.

    If you want to ensure a woman’s maximum control over her reproductive processes, the way to do it is not by allowing organizations to limit her options.

    It’s by preventing them from limiting her options.

    But that would mean that individuals are more important than organizations. You’ll never reconcile that until you realize the fundamental flaw in your reasoning is rooted in your refusal to realize organizations are not really people even though people constitute their membership.

  294. Gene H.
    nicely said. even i understood some. is there a list of human rights.
    seems to be a UN list or are there others? accepted by whom. and in what context are they accorded importance?
    thanks if time permits

  295. A Statement from Rush
    March 03, 2012
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush

    For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

    I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

    My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

  296. Elaine,

    Did he mention anywhere that he was high on viagra and that was why he was being a prick?

  297. I think he is a bad dog and is just doing what most dogs do…. He’s eating his own do…. The best way he can…..

  298. Thank you AY.

    I say limburger cheese still smells bad even with the added cellophane wrapping.
    Note, no retraction on issues, and no naming of the ugly words either.
    Shall the boycott continue. Unanimously decided.

    As for the Repubs; think if they were so dumb.

  299. So there’s this judge, see. And he says:
    “I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Mr. Obama. The joke that I meant to forward was:

    A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’ve got a dick that’s smaller than your clitoris?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Rush! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you’re not a little girl!’”

    Following that statement, the judge got into deeper trouble
    He compared conservatives with little girls.
    He implies that Limbaugh’s mother had sex with women.

  300. rafflaw,

    It was Rush’s “I have to say I’m sorry for what I said because I’m getting a lot of heat and losing advertisers but you and your kind are wrong so that’s why I said what I said” apology.

  301. Would it not be interesting if Rush is found to maybe have procured an abortion for someone….. When people are down.. He represent the party that like to make sure they stay down….. Dittohead…..

  302. Elaine:

    “What is your position on the government requiring women to have unnecessary–and sometimes invasive–medical procedures or tests that aren’t recommended by their doctors?”

    I would think the answer would be obvious, if I am against government forcing Georgetown to supply contraceptives, then I am against forcing women to have procedures they neither need nor want.

    It is the same thing.

    I was appalled by the proposed law in Virginia, but then it doesnt surprise if you had read Bob McDonald’s thesis from his law school days.

  303. Gene H:

    dont take my word for it, go read the 2nd Treatise of Government.

    You accuse me of having blinders, well you have your blinders as well.

    Most of the things you want government to do, they shouldnt be doing.

    Government should not force women to have ultrasounds prior to an abortion [not that you want that, of course you dont]. It isnt the governments business one way or the other. And it isnt governments business one way or the other if an employer doesnt want to have a contraception benefit.

    Go find another job if you disagree with the policy.

    You are also wrong about property rights. Where do you think most property comes from? From the actions of living people, they use their productive energy to create property. Our lives dont belong to the state. Government has only 3 functions those are: protecting our lives, our liberty and our property. And that is Locke.

    We dont give up our rights to enter into the social contract. What we give up is to take the law into our own hands as we did in the state of nature. We let government do that for us. In the hopes that impartial justice is done.

    By the way that Keynes crap you believe in is far worse than free markets. It isnt working now and it didnt work in the 1930’s.

    Take those blinders off Gene H, your religion is preventing you from seeing the truth.

  304. Bron,

    “Most of the things you want government to do, they shouldnt be doing.

    Government should not force women to have ultrasounds prior to an abortion [not that you want that, of course you dont]. It isnt the governments business one way or the other. And it isnt governments business one way or the other if an employer doesnt want to have a contraception benefit.”

    Who in the world taught you to argue? Apparently no one. You make an accusation (“Most of the things you want government to do, they shouldnt be doing.”) and follow it with an example of something even you have to admit that I don’t want government doing? That’s pure fucking genius to make an accusation and follow it with non-evidence or contra-evidence (that would mean evidence you’re wrong in your assertion before you decide to make up a meaning). And then you follow that bit of pure irrationality with an argument by non sequitur that commits the logical fallacy of begging the question that business organizations are people? You aren’t just blind. You must be high. That’s not anywhere near a cogent argument let alone an adequate rebuttal.

    “You are also wrong about property rights. Where do you think most property comes from? From the actions of living people, they use their productive energy to create property. Our lives dont belong to the state. Government has only 3 functions those are: protecting our lives, our liberty and our property. And that is Locke.”

    Too bad for you Locke isn’t the final arbiter of what government does and can do. The Constitution is as well as the jurisprudence surrounding the Constitution. Saying I’m wrong and proving me wrong, again, are not the same thing. You keep running back to Locke to define the functions of government when the functions of government are defined in the Preamble and body of the Constitution. End of story.

    Human rights and property rights are not the same thing. Property rights are a derivative of human rights and they are not superior to your other rights, they are dependent upon them. Under our social compact, your property rights are not absolute. They never have been. They never will be in any form of government involved in protecting property rights. Laws impose limits. That’s their function. That’s what you don’t understand. In addition to the innate ability to alienate property, your property may be legally seized for taxes or as civil or criminal damages and the alienation of property – both through commercial transaction and testate and intestate devolution – can be and are subject to regulation by the state. Those are the facts. We have strong property rights here. They are civil rights protected by the 4th Amendment but they are not absolute. Your desire to make them prime over establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty (which, by the way, includes liberty from economic tyranny) is a delusional dream – not a legal, political, social or economic reality. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. Including your property rights.

    “We dont give up our rights to enter into the social contract. What we give up is to take the law into our own hands as we did in the state of nature. We let government do that for us. In the hopes that impartial justice is done.”

    Again, showing you don’t understand the social compact. Laws are limitations on absolute rights: guidelines and rules to govern behavior. Do you even know what the word “govern” means?

    govern \ˈgə-vərn\ v., v.t.,

    1a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in
    b : to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy

    2a archaic : manipulate
    b : to control the speed of (as a machine) especially by automatic means

    3a : to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of
    b : to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over
    c : to hold in check : restrain

    4: to require (a word) to be in a certain case

    5: to serve as a precedent or deciding principle for

    It is no accident that “govern” and “government” share the same root – the Latin word “gubernare” which means “to pilot, to navigate, to direct, govern” according the handy copy of The New College Latin/English Dictionary I keep on my desk.

    When you enter the social compact, you agree to be bound – to be governed – by the laws of the state wherein you claim citizenship. You most certainly do sacrifice your rights by subjecting them to limitations under the social compact in exchange for mutually derived benefit. If you don’t think you’re getting fair exchange for value received here, Bron? Lucky for you, your citizenship is voluntary and alienable. But your understanding of the source of rights, the nature of rights, the role of government and law in society as defined by the Constitution and by the function of social compacts in general is severely and deeply flawed.

    You can stomp your feet and tell me I’m wrong all you want. You have yet to prove me wrong on any of these points despite trying to do so many many times. You are unlikely to do so in the future. Why? Because you’re on the wrong side of the argument from a legal, sociological, historical, psychological and factual standpoint because your theories are informed by your beliefs instead of proofs and evidence. Theories founded on beliefs are a sure fire way to go wrong. Beliefs can be factually wrong and irrational. In your case, your beliefs are both. Arguments based upon flawed theories hold up no better.

    Now seriously, that was a piss poor performance on your part. A new level of suckiness in your argumentation. That first full paragraph was completely irrational as a matter of formal logic and devoid of proof. The only thing that saved it from being complete gibberish is you used properly constructed sentences. Pick up your game or give it up. Or . . . perhaps you should consider that your fundamental beliefs need to be reexamined in a critical evidentiary light instead of merely catering to your ego by cherry picking half-truths at best and outright wrong ideas at worst.

    I’ll be over here not holding my breath.

  305. Bron,

    Thanks for answering one of my questions. You didn’t answer another question that I posed earlier though:

    “I wasn’t talking about the cost of contraceptives–but since you brought it up, I’ll ask you a question: If contraceptives cost $500-$1,000 a month, would you be in favor of Catholic institutions providing women who worked for them with contraceptive coverage?”

  306. Sixth Advertiser — Carbonite — Drops Limbaugh Despite His ‘Apology’ Because He’s Beyond The ‘Bounds Of Decency’
    By Faiz Shakir on Mar 3, 2012 at 7:57 pm
    http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/03/437205/carbonite-drops-limbaugh/

    Moments ago, Carbonite – a company providing backup software for computers – announced that it will no longer advertise on Rush Limbaugh’s show. CEO David Friend made clear in a Facebook statement that, despite Limbaugh’s “apology” issued tonight, the company was still pulling its ads because it wants to “contribute to a more civilized public discourse”:

    “No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”

    Indeed, evidencing the point made by Friend, Limbaugh’s “apology” is riddled with offensive statements, comparing contraception to “sneakers” and implying that birth control is only a subsidy for personal sexual activity.
    According to a ThinkProgress count, Carbonite is the sixth company to drop Limbaugh in the last couple of days.

  307. Elaine M.
    Thanks for the more extensive quote from Carbonite’s CEO.
    The part of having daughters……was great to hear from a corp.
    WaPo redacted that part. Why, can be asked? They are giving space to 5,000+ comments, aren’t they. And other articles too.

    Here’s one of my posts there:

    idealist707 responds:
    1:37 PM UTC+0100

    As for Limbaugh getting Viagra on his insurance—-No, he can’t. He’s maxed out already.
    That’s why he has to shop MDs who will prescribe it under their own name for him.
    It comes by mail. COD, of course. Who says internet is not convenient.

    And for maxed out, I mean as a “former” sexual addict, he is forbidden to use the product.

    AND ANOTHER:

    idealist707 responds:
    1:32 PM UTC+0100

    Investigators were sent to Limbaugh’s vacation land to see which of the sex markets he visited:
    gay, hetero, pedo, bestial, etc. The answer came back quickly: “All of them”
    PS That was the last of 10 bottles of Viagra he had left the states with. Lucky man, tired wienie.

    Regards from that media forum.

  308. Gene H.
    Your contretemps with Bron reminds me on one of those Disney cartoons where a live person interacts with a Disney character.
    Here Bron reminds me of Donald Duck (C), in that he rebounds from all missiles, only for seconds in bad shape; and then a miraculous recovery to then return to the incoherent state of before.

    This is not meant as a cheap shot at Bron, but a fully possible explanation.

    I mean he could have activated his second rate computerized dialogue program in order to take a rest for a while. Computer power is growing, but sometimes stumbles.

  309. PS
    It does seem programmed; all the repeats, the unanswered questions, etc.
    And it seems to be set for shuffle mode.
    Could Gene H. offer to reprogram it entirely? Or would Bron’s sponsors withdraw support.

    Enough nastiness for today. I’ve maxed out to re-use a phrase.
    Must remember my promises to myself.

  310. Gene H:

    Why does the Constitution limit the power of the government?

    Why does the DOI say right to Life, Liberty and Happiness? Rights that dont issue form anyone or any thing but from the Creator. Which could be God or it could be nature. Those rights are ours because we are human beings, no other reason.

    then Jefferson goes on to say: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .”

    So the government only has power because the people grant that power. As far as I can tell we dont give up rights, we grant the government power to govern us. And only to a point as Jefferson makes clear:

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . .”

    What ends; Life, Liberty and Happiness. Which is directly from Locke. Jefferson should have used property but wanted a rhetorical flourish. Sam Adams used property in the 1772 Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting:

    “1. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
    Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”

    He goes on to say:

    “In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.”

    I seem to be in agreement with Sam Adams.

    Now with that said, he does also say this:

    “The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.”

    He goes on to say this:

    “In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”

    I would change “the gift of God Almighty,” to “the natural state of man based on his ability to reason,. . .”

    http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm

    The best good for the whole is OK to a point and that point is the individual right to life, liberty and property. So we have eminent domain, but there is no right in the Constitution to take a private persons property and give it to another private person even if some justices think so.

    And you cant see that because you dont want a limit on the power of government.

    By the way, I typically use this for a dictionary:

    http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=elite&use1913=on&use1828=on

  311. Bron,

    The DOI informs the Constitution. It isn’t the Constitution. The functions of government are found in the Constitution. Also, don’t try to second guess Jefferson’s “rhetorical flourish”. Had he wanted to use the word property, he would have used the word property. As to Sam Adams? So what? Irrelevant. His language wasn’t incorporated into the Constitution.

    “So we have eminent domain, but there is no right in the Constitution to take a private persons property and give it to another private person even if some justices think so.”

    Yeah, Bron, there is a right in the Constitution for the government to take a private persons property and give it to another private person even if some justices think so. To establish justice? Courts in equity have been redistributing property to create just outcomes since their creation. The powers to tax and spend are powers specifically granted to Congress and they include tax and spending to meet the functions of government as described in the Preamble. That you’re unhappy about this does not mean the power does not exist.

    The happiness referred to in the DOI isn’t your specific happiness. Some people are never happy. Happiness is an emotional state. You cannot legislate it. You can legislate to promote or protect life. You can legislate to promote or protect liberty. But happiness? It is at the very best and on the outside the expression of the desire that the goal of law shouldn’t be to purposefully anger or antagonize citizens because happiness is a relative state and it is entirely in the mind of the individual.

    “And you cant see that because you dont want a limit on the power of government.”

    You can’t see that I do want limits on the power of government but that does not preclude wanting limits on the ability of others to create economic tyranny out of their own base selfish and venal natures. Above all, I’m for justice in all its forms. Justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality and fairness. Justice is what creates stable and long lived societies.

    Equality embedded in the egalitarian ideal Jefferson incorporated into the the DOI with the phrase “All men are created equal” and Constitution embraced by using the phrase “We the People” as ultimate holder of power in our democracy. That it took time to bring those aspirations to reality by emancipation and expanding suffrage (and the ever lasting and evolving battle to bring equal rights to all) is merely a reflection of time and the evolution of society required to fully embrace these aspirations.

    Fairness? The very symbol of justice, the scales, not only implies equality but fairness as well. Rawls points a fundamental truth about justice as it relates to equality – for each person to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Fairness in pursuit of promoting the general welfare requires that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle (equality of outcome), and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

    As I already pointed out, there are two kinds of “goods” – 1) human rights and liberties based on mere existence and inalienable and 2) physical and intangible property rights that are derived from human rights but are alienable. As they are “property” of distinct qualities, justice requires different distributions of them to ensure fairness. In the case of human rights and liberties, they must be distributed equally between all citizens. Again, this is embedded in the idea that your rights end where the rights of others begin. In the case of classical property – the alienable tangible and intangible assets in society – the distributions must be made equally (that is to say private ownership of property is to be paramount if title is acquired fairly and with providence) unless inequality improves the position of the worst off in society. This is the very essence of the promotion of the general welfare.

    These are also the fundamental truths about justice under the theory of social compact – the theory that is the basis for all forms of government. In fact, Rawls derived his notion of justice directly from the social compact theory of government.

    Now there is also a retributive quality to justice, but I’ll leave that for another time since you are preoccupied with the distributive quality of justice. Too bad as that would again be a discussion of why synthesis of other models with weak rule utilitarianism provides the most optimal just outcomes. But seriously, that is for another time.

    That was also a much better performance on your part. It was 100% gibberish free and the reason was only flawed because you again choose to base your theory and your argument tailored to fit your beliefs instead of the reality of the situation. The Constitution simply doesn’t say what you want it to say, Bron. It is what it is, but mainly it is the heart of our legal system.

    If you have a problem with the distributive nature of justice and the idea that the establishment of justice extends to the social arena by merit of the promotion of the general welfare being a legitimate function of government and that distributions cover property both as a foundation of the the very idea of courts in equity as well as through the Commerce Clause? I don’t know what to tell you other than that is your problem. To remake the country into your Libertarian ideal wouldn’t mean amending the Constitution. It would mean throwing the whole thing out the window and starting from scratch. Your choices seem to be 1) suck it up and deal with the fact that your property rights are not and have never been absolute here, 2) leave for a country where you feel you get a better value personally from the social compact or 3) start a revolution.

    But as a matter of Constitutional law, jurisprudence and history, you’re simply wrong again.

  312. What Gene said.

    A lot of people make the mistake of thinking the Declaration of Independence has the power of law. It doesn’t. The DoI is aspirational and a thumb in the eye of the King. The Constitution we have now may be the result of the DoI, but the Constitution is law and the Declaration is not.

  313. “The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases.”

    John Locke

    Essay: “Concerning Human Understanding”

  314. Careful there, Bob.

    That “obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases” line might cause some readers to have a conniption.

    None this changes, however, that happiness is a relativistic internal state of being and cannot be legislated.

  315. Interesting article in the Daily Beast this morning…

    Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist

    by Kirsten Powers

    Did you know there is a war on women?

    Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

    Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

    Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

    But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

    During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

    Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

    Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

    (continued)

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

  316. Gene,

    Just reminding you that Jefferson’s bragging about relying on neither book nor pamphlet was a load of horse shit.

  317. Bob,

    In Taibbi’s defense, Bachmann is batshit crazy and it has absolutely noting to do with her gender.

  318. Gene,

    Pursuit of happiness is Lockean short hand for pursuit of property. The way I see it, Jefferson combined the two works of Locke out of his greater understanding of the intent of his writings.

    Pursuit of property is part of the political equation, but pursuit of happiness, in lieu of simply property, pays homage to Locke’s greater message in his essay concerning human understanding.

    Jefferson was not just restating the purpose of the social compact, but making a righteous statement to the world.

  319. Bob,

    Then Jefferson should have used the word property instead of creating ambiguity for your speculation about his intent vis a vis Locke. None of this changes that the DOI isn’t law and the Constitution is and grants powers that allow for the redistribution of property. Property rights are going to be limited by any system that governs them. The degree to which an individual attaches their concept of property to the concept of happiness is entirely up to the individual and the very gist of the topic of materialism.

  320. Gene: “Then Jefferson should have used the word property instead of creating ambiguity for your speculation about his intent vis a vis Locke”

    Absolutely not. If you read the passage by Locke you’ll see how it tempers the self-centered connotation of property in a document to be seen by the world as justification for revolution.

  321. Let’s assume in arguendo that Jefferson was doing what you claim he was doing. That Jefferson’s qualification was by sublimation and not omission.

    What exactly is tempering, Bob?

    To temper, the verb in the sense you use it, means to dilute, qualify, or soften by the addition or influence of something else.

    Just like the Constitution recognizes strong property rights, but tempers them – dilutes them from absolute – as limited compared to other rights. It subjects to taxation and judicial redistribution as a matter of establishing justice under equity. You are only bolstering what I previously said: “Property rights are a derivative of human rights and they are not superior to your other rights, they are dependent upon them.”

    Sublimation? Exclusion? The net effect is the same. We end up with the same truth via different paths as to how the Constitution deals with property.

  322. None of which changes what I’ve said about property or the limitation of rights under the social compact, Bob.

  323. “The way I see it, Jefferson combined the two works of Locke out of his greater understanding of the intent of his writings.”

    Or did someone already do that for him?

    The delegates to the Continental Congress, who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence, studied Leibniz’s conception of natural law, through studying The Law of Nations, by Emmerich de Vattel.

    “Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted The Law of Nations, as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin’s key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting …|.”

    The study of The Law of Nations by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions “of the circumstances of a rising state,” is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel’s arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people. Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our “British Brethren,” but since they “have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,” we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, “to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.”

    The inclusion of the central conception of The Law of Nations, Vattel’s Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration’s Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke’s philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his {Two Treatises of Government,} that the fundamental right of men is to “Life, Liberty, and Property.” The inclusion of “the pursuit of happiness,” rather than “property,” as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.”
    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

    I never understood why people kept trying to put the square peg in the round hole. Locke may have served a fundamental role, but his philosophical ideas were not sufficiently developed to provide for a nation.

  324. Bob Esq:

    interesting essay.

    I am not sure I understand how Locke is tempering ownership of property.

    He just says that you should be mindful of the rights of others which is, of course, a universal truth. But property is not stolen from other people in this country [for the most part] it is created by hard work and sustained effort by individuals who pursue wealth.

    Locke would say other people have no right to that which you produce as long as there is enough left for others. That is in a state of nature where all is common to all. But when you enter into society and grow an orchard, no one has a right to your apples. The apples are an extension of your life, which no one has a right to.

  325. Gene,

    I never challenged it. I simply clarified the origin of a phrase.

    Here’s a nice summation of the idea of ‘tempering’ the concept of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in lieu of simply property– from the post above no less!

    “The inclusion of “the pursuit of happiness,” rather than “property,” as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.”

  326. “I never challenged it. I simply clarified the origin of a phrase.”

    Ah, well, that’s what I took you to be doing at first, but your continued elaboration made me second guess my first impression. :D

  327. Bron,

    Jefferson made the stylistic choice of (what I term) tempering the concept of property.

    “But when you enter into society and grow an orchard, no one has a right to your apples. The apples are an extension of your life, which no one has a right to.”

    Property rights are not inalienable; thus we have “Appeal To The Higher Law” long before there was a Takings Clause or a 5th Amendment.

    The wrongful exercise of power over property rights, sans the inalienable right of self ownership, is usurpation by definition; not tyranny. And for that which is taken, the social compact provides recompense; either in the form of protection of other rights or actual recompense for the property taken.

  328. The myth that John Locke was the philosopher behind the American Republic, is easily refuted by examining how Locke’s philosophy steered Thomas Jefferson, for example. Jefferson’s actions make it clear that, had Locke’s philosophy been the inspiration for the American Revolution, the U.S. would never have become the world’s leading nation and industrial power. Jefferson, who claimed that the three greatest men in history were the British empiricists Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton, adopted their outlook that sense certainty is the basis for all knowledge, writing:

    “I feel, therefore I exist. I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existences then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need.” (Letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820)

    Having denied that human nature is creative reason, Jefferson saw society and economics as based on fundamentally {fixed} relationships. Consequently, he endorsed Thomas Malthus’ ideology, that man’s needs must exceed his ability to produce. He rejected national economic development through the increase of the productive powers of labor, and instead accepted Adam Smith’s free trade doctrines. Jefferson saw slavery as appropriate for Blacks, whom he considered as inherently inferior.

    Jefferson opposed Hamilton’s measures for the development of the nation, and in a private letter stating his opposition to Hamilton’s National Bank, for example, he raved that any person in the state of Virginia, who cooperated with the Bank, “shall be adjudged guilty of high treason and suffer death accordingly.” Jefferson was fanatically opposed to the development of American industry, and described the growth of cities in America as “a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” He fought to keep the nation as a feudal plantation.

    If man were nothing more than a bundle of hedonistic instincts, however, whose cognitive ability were limited to sense certainty, mankind would today be no more than a few million bestial individuals on the entire planet, scratching out an existence in the dirt. In his own period, it fell to Gottfried Leibniz, who represented the best of the tradition of the Renaissance that had established the modern nation-state beginning with the France of Louis XI, to demonstrate that Locke’s premises were an inhuman fraud.

    Leibniz developed a science of the mind, which was coherent with human nature as creative reason, rather than animalistic instincts. For the human species to make fundamental changes in its methods of existence, men must be capable of creative reason, instead of merely taking in sensual impressions and acting on instincts. Leibniz described how the mind functions by recognizing the contradictions in sensual impressions and generating Platonic ideas, which are “by far to be preferred to the blank tablets of Aristotle, Locke, and the other recent exoteric philosophers.”

    In his writings, Leibniz demonstrated how the principles of science and law are also “not derived from sense, but from a clear and distinct intuition, which Plato called an idea.” Plato discussed, in the {Republic,} how some sense impressions do not provoke thought, because the judgment of them by sensation seems adequate, while others always invite the intellect to reflection, because the senses give the mind contrary perceptions. These sense impressions force the mind to conceptualize an explanation, which is intelligible rather than visible. The best example of a Platonic idea, is the demonstration which Lyndon LaRouche has developed of Erastosthenes’ measurement of the size of the earth, which Eratosthenes accomplished several millennia before anyone had actually “seen” the shape of the earth’s curvature.

    Leibniz and Locke’s conception of how the mind works, was reflected in their different understanding of the nature of God. Leibniz’s God is the Creator, who is able to transform the universe to higher levels of perfection, in a fashion which is reflected in man’s transformation of human society. To illustrate how God transforms the universe, Leibniz used the example of an eternal book on the Elements of Geometry. Each new copy is made from the previous one, with new advances being added, in a lawful process of change. The nature of this lawful process of change from one copy to the next, is illustrated by the scientific discoveries made by Leibniz and his collaborators. The new copy of the Elements of Geometry, is not reached by principles of formal logic, but through a scientific discovery which takes the form of a Platonic idea. “What is true of books, is also true of the different states of the world; every subsequent state is somehow copied from the preceding one (although according to certain laws of change).” Leibniz quoted Plato’s {Phaedo,} to describe how the Creator orders the universe according to reason, and is continually acting to further the perfection of his creation.

    For Enlightenment neo-Aristotelians like Sarpi, Locke, and Grotius, the idea that the universe could be both lawful and evolving in a constant process of perfection, was incomprehensible. They saw God as trapped in the same set of fixed rules, in which their minds were trapped. Grotius stated this explicitly, arguing that, “The law of nature, again, is unchangeable–even in the sense that it cannot be changed by God.” Since not even God can change these fixed laws, far less powerful mankind must live in a universe defined by these fixed relationships. Aristotle, Locke, {et al.,} developed a system of law, and a model of society, in which people are trapped in fixed categories, such as aristocrat, or servant.

    Leibniz understood that the idea of man living in accordance with natural law, does not mean searching for some set of fixed laws, floating off in the heavens. Rather, man lives in coherence with natural law, by ordering society according to the powers of creative reason, which makes man in the image of God. For Leibniz, the highest right, and the source of true happiness, is {piety,} when man lives so that he seeks to perfect himself, in conformity with the perfection of the Creator.

    Leibniz located the two traditional notions of right, which had been codified by Aristotle, as less universal than piety. The higher of these two, Leibniz called equity. This included distributive justice, or the precept of the law that commands us to give each one what he merits or deserves. The lower degree, was that of mere right, or strict right of commutative justice, that no one is to be injured. “The strict right avoids misery whereas the next higher right, equity, tends toward happiness, but only such as fall within this mortality.” It is the responsibility of the state, to make laws which transform the moral claims of equity, such as the obligation to take care of the sick, into legal claims, and thereby assure the happiness of the people.

    Universal justice, however, is found only on the highest level, that of piety. The transformation from the middle to the highest level, is the difference between desiring good of others for our own benefit, and desiring good of others because it is our own good. On this level, man determines the justice of his acts, by weighing their consequences against the entirety of the past, present, and future. Leibniz expressed this again more simply, in the statement, “Parents exist primarily for the sake of children; the present, which does not last long, for the sake of the future.” However, the clear comprehension of the mind, needed to understand justice on its highest level, is achieved by few, and the hope for improvement for humanity rests on those great men.
    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id7.html

  329. Negating:

    That is some interesting information.

    But doesnt saying Jefferson’s three favorite intellectuals Bacon, Locke and Newton sort of refute your claim?

  330. Negating the Colonial Charter,

    Your side note regarding the epistemology of Leibniz is interesting but completely irrelevant as per a legal analysis of the social contractual roots of this republic.

    Confidentially, I was anticipating a segue into monads and Jung’s theory of synchroncity.

  331. Bob Esq:

    how so?

    The obvious to this layman is taking private property for private use for public good [taxes].

    As a lawyer and philosopher what are your reasons?

  332. Bron,

    “But doesnt saying Jefferson’s three favorite intellectuals Bacon, Locke and Newton sort of refute your claim?”

    Not at all. Jefferson’s choice of favorite intellectuals was personal. He wrote the DOI, not for himself, but for the colonies. Vattel was front and center during that period.

    The “Law of Nations” wasn’t just the name of some book, it was a treatise about the common law among civilized nations. It was based on the observations of Grotius and Pufendorf.

    Did you know that Hamilton said that Julius Caesar was the greatest man that ever lived?

  333. Bob,

    “Your side note regarding the epistemology of Leibniz is interesting but completely irrelevant as per a legal analysis of the social contractual roots of this republic.”

    How so? I still see the square block being shaved in order to fit in the round hole. I think Leibniz comes closer to our social contractual roots than Locke.

  334. Negating the Colonial Charter,

    About to eat a late dinner so I’ll have to reply later tonight or tomorrow.

  335. Negating the Colonial Charter,

    While I find your discussion of Leibniz fascinating, and bookmarked the link you provided, you seem intelligent enough to understand the difference between an epistemic/moral approach to analyzing the social contract and a legal analysis of same.

    Legally, the social contract comes down to one fundamental issue; mutual obligation so as to avoid the problem of the contract being illusory. That problem was competently solved by Locke in his 2nd Treatise by distinguishing alienable rights and usurpation from inalienable rights and tyranny. Toss in Montesquieu’s spirit of laws per the separation of powers doctrine and you have the meat and potatoes of our republic as further discussed in the Federalist papers.

    Again, that’s for purposes of legal analysis; i.e. the only arena, outside academia, wherein you’ll find cardinality between your thoughts on the subject and the real world.

  336. Bob Esq:

    “The Kelo decision finds absolutely no support within the text of the 5th Amendment.”

    Then where did they find support?

  337. Bob,

    I think it prudent to look to Burlamaqui instead of Montesquieu for the separation of powers origin. After all, it was Burlamaqui who called it “a kind of partition in the rights of sovereignty”. He even nuanced this by recognizing that “the different bodies of state” would require a “mutual dependence”.

    As far as the social contract goes, I think any discussion would also require an examination of Hobbes.

    When I look at the formation of the Union, and the infancy of the independent states, I have to recognize what it was the Founders/Framers were looking at. The three most popular books on civil law that were widely read by post-revolution law students were (in order of numbers published):

    1. “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments” by Cesare Beccaria, (1778) –(sold by R. Bell, next door to St. Paul’s Church, on Third-Street in Philadelphia, PA.)
    2. “The Principles of Natural Law” by Jean Jacques Burlamaqui , (1748)
    3. “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel, (1758)

    In my mind, those three works should be the starting point for any legal discussion. Why go older instead of looking to the philosophers that had time to digest the works of their predecessors and improve upon them?

  338. From PFAW:
    UPDATE: Three right-wing state legislators in Montana have come to Judge Richard Cebull’s defense, with one even ridiculously thanking Cebull for exercising his “freedom of speech.”

    P.S. Rep. John Conyers has now called for a congressional hearing “to consider the full ramifications of Judge Cebull’s conduct on integrity of the federal judiciary,” and to consider possible “further investigation or possible legislative action.”

    Congressional attention is certainly warranted and welcome, but Judge Cebull should take it upon himself to do the right thing and step down.

    ( http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Cebull&autologin=true )

  339. I don’t even have to read the remainder of this story to know that not only were this judge’s RACIST statements demeaning toward African-Americans it was definitely demeaning to the post of the Presidency and to the President himself. This individual seems to have no problem insisting that the email is not about Black people, just about the President…who considers himself Black, and insisting that the email was not intended for the public. Really? You sent it on a government server while at work for the government; it was and is intended for the public. Seriously? Where’s the personal responsibility judge, YOU wrote and hit the send button while working as a constituent for the PEOPLE, under their dime…Take some ownership of your actions. If this were a sexually explicit viral video there would be more public outcry for his resignation. This was a racist, derogatory, and offensive statement aimed at the President of the U.S., regardless of the President’s ethnicity; this was a direct and personal insult to the Office of Presidency and should be treated as such. Regain what little respect you have left and step down from your post Cebull, because you have surely lost any respect to be associated with the post of Judge.

  340. Folks, my last comment on Judge Cebull is “awaiting moderation.” HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

    One additional comment: Judge Cebull mentioned to his e-mail buddies that the story touched his heart. This comment, it seems to me, is strangely inapplicable to the “joke” that follows. Touched his heart? One expected to read something about orphans becoming self-made businessmen, or brave pets rescuing their owners, or the like. This dumb “joke” touched the judge’s heart?

    Or maybe he just needs a lesson in anatomy.
    I await moderation. (Is that like, being moderate?)

  341. I never realized this was an old thread. Don’t know why it just recently kicked up on my screen, so I commented now, thinking it current.

    Anyway the last line of my rant that still awaits moderation was:

    I am drunk with disgust. Cebull should be gone. The last official words said to him should be: SHAME ON YOU.

  342. Sling, you’re not getting the joke, probably because you haven’t got the context of it. So bear with me. You analyze everything so well that you’re analyzing this as if it could have occurred, and figuring out what the various “statements” made by the joke could mean. That’s not how it goes.

    In my opinion, here’s how it goes:

    1. Obama is no good.
    2. His mama is trash.
    3. How she got to be trash was by means of sex with a Black man.
    4. The way to “diss” [DISRESPECT] Obama is to “play the dozens” with him.
    5. To play the dozens, you diss somebody’s mama.
    6. Back to “his mama is trash.”
    7. Back to “sex with a Black man.”
    8. A kid asked his mama how come, if he was black, she was white.
    9. She answered, in simultaneous translation, “You’re black because I’m a slut, so I went to a party and had sex with a black man and a dog. You’re lucky that the genes you got were black man genes, because otherwise you would have had dog genes.”

    It works, as a “dozens.” But the judge is not a kid in the ghetto playing “dozens.” Yet what he has said is clearly identifiable as a put-down based on race. The joke cannot be analyzed as if it were other than an unsophisticated and stupid insult, but to racists, it is funny.

    Now back before the 2008 election, there was some psycho-addled-racist-punk Black preacher on You-Tube holding forth on “Obama’s Mama” whom he called “TRASH.” He claimed that his rant was motivated by his own mother’s advice to him that white women who slept with Black men were trash, and he used a lot of incendiary and vulgar words worse than “trash” or “slut” but I frankly can’t remember them. He was spewing rage, hatred, fear, and racism in a barely controlled spitting hissy fury at the woman who had dared give birth to Obama — and this was pre-election and obviously pre-drone.

    An African American friend of mine sent me the clip and I watched it thinking it was a parody and thinking it was going to get funny. It never did. I still have the feeling I had after watching it: “huh? He’s for real?”

    But he was an ignorant minister of some small church somewhere, not a federal judge. This judge is so obviously unfit it shocks the conscience that there can be any cavil about just starting a loud, public, indignant, and IMMEDIATE call for his removal from the bench. How dare he try to do anything other than slink away in disgrace!

    What about respect? What about contempt? What about decorum? Wy would anybody think he should get up the next day and grab his gavel and continue the charade of being someone who gives proper consideration to the issues brought before him when he has done something so shameful and disgraceful as passing along this alleged joke?

    Federal judges have all kinds of rules and regulations to follow. If they go astray, they are supposed to lose their jobs. That is the only way we can even BEGIN to have faith in the federal judiciary, since appointments to that lofty bench are FOR LIFE.

    WHO are the five persons to whom he forwarded that joke who did NOT report that activity? Members of the Bar? Members of the Bench?

    Let’s just imagine there’s a lawyer in Cebull’s court. And remember, the federal district courts are the ones who hear CIVIL RIGHTS CASES brought under 42 USC 1983. OK, so the lawyer is in front of Cebull and Cebull is dismissing someone’s civil rights complaint for no reason and it is obvious that the dismissal is being done in a racist manner and the only possible response will be appeal to the federal circuit appeals bench which will be out of reach for the client because of cost and time. So let’s imagine that this lawyer is overcome with frustration and indignation and he says, “Your Honor, with all due respect, your mother had sex with a dog.”

    What happens to that lawyer, huh? Any guesses?

    What is wrong with our whole society is Cebull. He is what is wrong with everything. Our courts are bastions of corruption with idiots and racists and misogynists and mentally disturbed punks and alcoholics and drug addicts and child abusers on the Bench (not all of them; it just depends on what kinds of parties their mothers went to).

    Our legislatures are conglomerations of people who either are trying to do a good job, trying to do something to boost their egos, or trying to advance their careers, all at random and with the reliability of lightening strikes.

    Our executive branch is a combination of stupidity, dishonesty and every human weakness, all protected by a circle-the-wagons mentality so strong that the simplest public deed is bent out of shape and if you keep at it long enough, becomes a monstrosity sure to do harm.

    Because of people like Cebull, and because of Cebull himself. He wields enormous power. His “discretion” covers practically EVERYTHING. He is not one vote on a committee; he is not one vote in a legislature. How anyone can imagine he should remain on the bench for another minute is beyond me. The best thing he could do would be for him to step down in disgrace and accept the shame that he has surely earned with nearly every order he has entered.

  343. as per Professor Turley: “Second, there is the racism charge. Cebull insists that this was anti-Obama and not anti-black. It is still a stupid joke. However, I am not sure it is fair to assume that the judge is a racist from this one joke. It could simply show that he is entirely clueless and thoughtless. That is never good in a judge, but the question is whether it warrants the actions demanded against him.”

    “Entirely clueless and thoughtless” is “never good in a judge”?

    Wow.

    That’s like saying, “Being absolutely clumsy with his hands and not caring what the Hell he is doing is never good in a surgeon.”

    It’s like saying, “Hating kids and knowing nothing is never good in a teacher.”

    It’s like saying, “Being drunk all the time and not having a driver’s license is never good in a Greyhound bus driver.”

    It’s like saying, “Unfamiliarity with basic Hebrew is never good in an Orthodox Rabbi.”

    It’s like saying, “Fear of flames and a lack of physical fitness are never good in a firefighter.”

    COME ON!

    The man makes decisions about other people’s rights — including their Constitutionally protected civil rights under law! Nothing he does can be challenged unless he can be shown to have made a “legal error” and even that, only if it can be shown to have not been “harmless.” He decides habeas corpus peititions alleging that African Americans have been unconstitutionally convicted of crimes they did not commit and HE ALONE gets to decide whether their convictions were, or were not, valid. HE IS A FEDERAL JUDGE.

    “Entire clueless and thoughtless” is OK with you on his part? He should keep his job? There’s something defensible in that? What standards do we have?

  344. Another stupid racist repuglicant – OLD WHITE MAN – these are the people who believe rape doesn’t really exist, who insist that a woman have every single baby even if it endangers her own life and then after the kid is born, cares nothing for it and will cut off food stamps and other needed support. They are the ones who try to keep minorities from voting. They insist that they are Christians, but go against all of Jesus’ teachings. They believe gun ownership was a right given to Americans by God himself. They hate liberals, gays, blacks, Obama, immigrants, non-Christians, Muslims, Arabs, Hispanics, Jews, unions, the poor, anyone on unemployment, those who get social security and/or Medicare or Medicaid (the moochers), the homeless, environmentalists, conservationists, scientists, college professors, school teachers, government employees, newsmen who don’t work for Fox News, the disabled, the handicapped, veterans, women, and yes, the sick. Oh, but they love. They love guns, wars, tax shelters for the rich, lower tax rates for capital gains, off-shore bank accounts, rich people, Wall Street, banks, large corporations, welfare/subsidies for corporations, private schools, and idiots and hate mongers like Limbaugh, Palin, Cruz, and Bachmann. I am so sick of them and their negativeness. It is vile, repugnant, un-Christian, and truly un-American. We need to get these people out of public offices and positions of authority – like judgeships!

Comments are closed.