foraker

all your base are belong to us!

the only possible response to this is the one my mother used on me once when she was losing an argument: "don't go usin' all that high-falootin' college learnin' on me boy! i'm still yer mother!"

Another sleeper from the Puget Files

I bet he sells more stuff than mike_layton...but, then...well...he's a god after all...

lest the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster smite thee!

a 'highly polished' 'symbolic representation'? pff! it's an autralopithodildo!

So, how do you feel about all those projects sponsored by, but not actually performed by the National Science Foundation? My guess is it depends on your political bias. Put away that tricorder, Mr. Spock! We need an E-meter!

Or what PP's concept of 'credible news source' is....

so, what you're saying then is that this means that evil polluting corporations are trying to turn us all into pasty-white neutered right-wing voters? mon dieu, quelle conspiration ! too bad the elephants aren't evolving grenade-launching tusks instead....

i guess those skateboarders aren't as 'extreme' as they like to think...

About as good as you quoting the Cato Institute incessantly, PP.... At the very least, I didn't give it a 'stamp of approval'. I tossed it out there to see what kind of comments it would generate, unlike your MO which is to find some blatantly partisan screed, give it your seal of approval, doubt it not in the least, never question their sources or motivation, and call it gospel . (and if he wasn't in the Federalist Society, that's interesting to know and I'd like to see a source saying so, but that's hardly the most important aspect of was said. mind pointing out the remaining falsehoods, references included, or do you want to just sit on your faux laurels? next time, get your diploma the old fashioned way rather than through the mail)

John Roberts Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003 May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3. Born 1955, Buffalo, NY B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University 1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit 1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court U.S. Department of Justice 1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith 1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General 1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC 1986-89, Associate 1993-present, Partner General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001. Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional. Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations. As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPA’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5 Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it. Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7 Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants. Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council. Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million. 1 500 U.S. 173 (1991). 2 497 U.S. 871 (1990). 3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001). 4 30 U.S.C. §1201. 5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980). 7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

anyone else thinking of blowing off work and going to squamish this wed til fri or sat? ...or, we can just sit around Seattle and talk about climbing while a rare good weather window occurs.

From the software developer who bitches about job security What job security? Even Gates doesn't want to hire the locals.

of course you would but, then, that's not surprising. what is surprising is that - while i alway find something to dislike about any administration and while i know that, without doubt, they are lying about something they've done and are getting away with it - the ability of some people to keep swallowing government spooj in the face of adversity and keep smiling is...well...it's simply baffling. god, i'd love it if we had no organized political parties....

You crack us up too, PP. Something for you to chew on: imagine all the incidents mentioned on that 'blog' had occurred under a Democratic administration. Do you imagine that the Republican reaction would have been any different, all 'facts' being the same? Just wondering.

I wonder if Karl and Dubya trade off wearing the blue dress or if Dubya is always the bitch.

so, if a private citizen starts playing with explosives in their backyard, it's not a police matter?

i guess the local mafia owns the local cops. talk to the media.

i thought we all gave up climbing this summer because of the rain? did i miss some memo?

while it's cool to see that stuff from the air, i'll admit, it's a bugger to have planes flying right down the axis of the valley, one every few minutes, when you are trying to do some photography there. damn contrails. the same goes for death valley and other points out west. it's like the airlines purposely put their flight paths right over everything a photographer might want to shoot. can't think of how many shots/hours i've had wasted by jets.

meanwhile, spend, spend, spend!

The Independent Duty to Verify the Classified Status of Information Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information." [4] Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified." [5] "Negligent" Disclosure of Classified Information Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information. [6] The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." [7] The White House Obligations under Executive Order 12958 Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information. The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements. End Notes [1] Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security Information (as amended), sec. 4.1(a) (Mar. 28, 2003) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_ 12958_amendment.html). [2] Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 312 (Prescribed by NARA/ISOO) (32 C.F.R. 2003, E.O. 12958) (online at http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/ 0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf). [3] Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration, Briefing Booklet: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (Standard Form 312), at 73 (emphasis added) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf). [4] Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 1.1(b). [5] Briefing Booklet, supra note 3, at 73. [6] Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 5.5(b) (emphasis added). [7] Id. at 5.5©. 8 Id. at 5.5(e)(1). 9 Id. at 5.5(b).

for you yobs who've never been out of the country, let alone out of the county, not everyone uses the decimal point in the same way (if you'd ever been to europe, you'd know that). that's 49.441 km thus, he did about 30.7 miles in one hour.

Seriously, they shouldn't have had any trouble beating Bush and yet they put up Kerry as a candidate. I knew they'd lost then.