Patterico's Pontifications

9/15/2009

Politico to College Politico: Give Us Your Domain or We Will Sue You

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:43 pm

The College Politico has received a cease-and-desist letter from lawyers for Politico, demanding that he stop using the word “Politico” in his name — and that he give them control of his domain.

Stephen Gutowski, the operator of the domain, has broken several stories, including one that proved that Obama=Hitler signs were being wielded by Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

Spread the word far and wide: we will not stand for such thuggish tactics.

UPDATE: Until this threat is withdrawn, I plan to boycott Politico, and I encourage others to do the same.

UPDATE x2: The word “politico” is in the dictionary. It means “politician.”

What other ordinary words do we not get to use in naming blogs?

UPDATE x3: I have a call in to Lisa H. Glassman, the lawyer who wrote the cease-and-desist letter.

UPDATE x4: Another example of Politico’s thuggery here. Thanks to happyfeet.

UPDATE x5: Thanks to Instapundit for the link.

Here’s the letter:

Gutkowski Letter 1

Gutkowski Letter 2

Gutkowski Letter 3

Obama Administration: Bagram Detainees Have Less Rights Than Gitmo Detainees (Updated)

Filed under: Obama,Terrorism,War — DRJ @ 4:50 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

As reported by Jake Tapper:

“President Obama’s Justice Department last night filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia arguing that the 600 or so detainees the U.S. is holding in Afghanistan at Bagram Air Base have no right to have their cases heard in U.S. courts. Unlike detainees at Guantanamo, those being held in Bagram – many of whom were picked up outside of Afghanistan — have had no access to attorneys or to even hear the allegations against them.”

In the brief, Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues that whatever limited rights detainees have under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v Bush, which granted habeas rights to Guantanamo detainees, they “rested heavily on the ‘unique status of Guantanamo’.”

I think it’s time for civil rights advocates to stage their own march on Washington.

– DRJ

UPDATE: The Obama Administration also plans to extend key Patriot Act provisions that are due to expire.

This is all fine with me but it shouldn’t sit well with liberals who voted for Obama, especially those who cared about his vow to “regain America’s moral stature in the world”.

House Reprimands Joe Wilson

Filed under: Government,Obama — DRJ @ 4:40 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

In what ABC called a racially charged debate, the House voted today to reprimand Joe Wilson for yelling “You Lie!” during President Obama’s speech to Congress last week.

Here is the text of the Resolution. The final vote was 249-170.

– DRJ

Obama’s Sunday Talk Show Sweep (Updated x3)

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 3:42 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

In a Presidential first, President Obama plans to do five Sunday talk shows — NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and Univision, a virtual sweep of the liberal television media — as he tries to make the case for health care reform. But it will be hard for Obama or the media to avoid questions about BigGovernment’s ACORN reports because of their shocking content.

Today House GOP leaders sent a letter to the White House asking Obama to end all government funding and break all ties to ACORN. Yesterday, the Senate voted to block HUD from giving housing and community assistance grants to ACORN. Add to that last week’s decision by the Census Bureau to sever its ties with ACORN.

In my view, the fact that Obama will appear on several Sunday shows makes ACORN questions even more likely because if the earlier programs avoid the subject, they risk being scooped by programs that air later in the day. And every minute spent talking about ACORN is time Obama isn’t talking about health care. As a result, the emergence of the ACORN story may be coming at the worst time for Obama and could blunt his big push for health care reform.

UPDATE 1: Some in the media are doing their best to avoid the ACORN story. When he was asked today why the media isn’t covering it, ABC’s Charlie Gibson said “I don’t even know about it” and then “Maybe that’s one you just leave to the cables.” Audio at the link.

UPDATE 2: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air makes a good point:

“Let’s pose the question this way. If the Federalist Society, which got a heaping helping of demonization during the John Roberts and Samuel Alito confirmation hearings, started giving advice to prospective pimps and hookers on tax evasion and hiding child-prostitution rings, does anyone think that the Charlie Gibsons and the Papers of Record in the US would let that slide to the cable networks? Or would it headline their outlets, complete with a dissection of Federalist Society support for Republicans?”

UPDATE 3: At Hot Air, Karl says “the news that Pres. Obama is going to appear on five Sunday talk shows takes on an ‘I’m dancing as fast as I can’ quality.” I also agree that Obama’s polls may be suffering from his overexposure, something this Sunday sweep won’t help.

– DRJ

San Bernardino ACORN, Part 1

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 2:28 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

James and Hannah visit ACORN in San Bernardino, California:

Don’t miss this one.

– DRJ

UPDATE: Fox News has the complete video. In response, ACORN claims its employee thought this was a gag and was just playing along.

Andrew Sullivan: One Standard for Me, and Another for Thee

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:20 am

This is my “Okay, I’ll post about Andrew Sullivan if you stop writing me about him” post.

Via the Internet Scofflaw, we learned that Andrew Sullivan once sanctimoniously wrote:

My view is that no one is above the law, and that when a society based on law prosecutes the powerless and excuses the powerful, it is corroding its own soul.

So when Andrew Sullivan gets busted for something, he will of course demand to be prosecuted if those less powerful than he are also being prosecuted. Right?

Heh.

Via a swarm of e-mailers, we learn that in a recent case where Sullivan got busted (for pot), charges were dismissed — and a judge has written:

In the Court’s view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances.

You see, his arrest could endanger his immigration status. Getting busted for pot probably endangers others’ immigration status as well, but they are not Andrew Sullivan, Famous Hypocrite, friend to Obama, and client of the brother of a U.S. Congressman.

The only thing that surprises me about this is that anyone would be surprised.

It’s quite apparent that there is one standard for Andrew Sullivan and another standard for the rest of us. But we already knew that. Andrew Sullivan is the world’s biggest hypocrite. He is a man who decried promiscuous gay sex:

It all began in April, when Sullivan published a mocking account of his recent visit to San Francisco. “The streets were dotted with the usual hairy-backed homos,” he had snarked. “I saw one hirsute fellow dressed from head to toe in flamingo motifs.”

. . . .

This was classic Sullivan, right down to the contempt for what he calls the “libidinal pathology” of gay sexual culture. He considers gay marriage the only healthy alternative to “a life of meaningless promiscuity followed by eternal damnation.” He has hectored gay men for their obsession with “manic muscle factories,” and written at length about the need for “responsibility” in the age of AIDS.

And then advertised online for promiscuous gay sex (link not safe for work):

I take loads in my ass.
I take loads in my mouth.
I give loads in asses.
I give loads in mouths.

TURN-ONS
hairy hung masculine guys

And when Sullivan’s penchant for seeking cheap sex from strangers was revealed, he pontificated that it was proper to ignore the controversy:

The truth is: no-one’s legal, consensual, adult private life should be plundered and exposed for political purposes.

I ignored the requests for comment because there was nothing to comment on. . . . I was asked to confirm a story presented anonymously, the only salient details of which I believed to be untrue. Why should I answer?

But when it came to Sarah Palin’s son, Sullivan was only to happy to press Palin to answer a story presented anonymously, the only salient details of which were untrue. Did Sullivan think Palin should answer? Naturally, that was different:

Why not kill this rumor with Palin’s medical records? A 43 year old woman’s pregnancy with a Downs Syndrome child would have been intensely monitored, and the records must be a mile long. Just release them, ok?

One standard for me, another for thee. If there is any point on which Sullivan is consistent, that is it.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2168 secs.