show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

did florida Coastal have any legal analysis courses?

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

You're my new crush. Who needs that megaloman anyway? Besides, he was dirty and hairy and probably not a real American man, like you.

I'll be in Detroit in a couple of weeks. Wanna get together?

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

How about this one, or this one, or this one, or this one? Your blogger's categorizations of these photos are tendentious and hacktacular. When you say "the AP can't come up with 1 photo that was not ant-American," you're just full of shit. Did you look at them?

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

They didn't do that much last term, either. Maybe their press was a little better.

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

these are pro-american how?

The random violence in our cities has been adopted by the Iraqis?

Our Humvees are so well made they can be burned up, and yet the frame can still support a man dancing on top?

How removed from real life is San Fransisco- I know sidd made partner there, but do none of the normal rules of civilization apply?

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

Although such measures are substantially symbolic, they did block the adoption of a budget resolution when they refused to go along with the massive tax cuts.

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

You misunderstand. If the AP can't include pictures of GIs handing out candy to Iraqi kids as part of its Pulitzer submission, clearly these guys hate America.


Hank's preferred Pulitzer winners would inlude:

http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/people/...After/bush.jpg

See that? NO ONE catches him in the light like that! Genius!

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

When you see dead Iraqis killed by a car bomber, do you not understand a little better what we are trying to do over there?

If you want to argue that those photos are somehow anti-American, you're going to have to do just a little bit better. (Many of them were taken during combat, and there is (rightly) a long tradition of recognizing journalists who put themselves in harm's way to get those pictures.)

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

Exactly. Lip service.

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

I'm irritated that the Knight Ridder stuff coming out of Iraq was dissed. They have a fairly small staff and little access, so they actually have to talk to people instead of getting briefings to regurgitate.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Bitch, please. If so, just leave the country now.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/br...zone%20011.jpg

Or maybe not.
 

Senator Cronyn probably thinks this judge was so upset by judicial activism that he went and killed himself.

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

I think your conflating the results they achieve with the seriousness of their efforts. Or did John Kerry really pay only lip service on the Iraq invasion? After all, he did vote for it.

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

I don't think that they were anti-American. I think they were anti-war.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

are they praying over a dead body?

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Sure looks like it.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Of course. But remember, in SF a photo of a bunch of guys in cool boots and unis hunched over so their butts are flexed is a very positive image.

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

Okay. Are they anti-Bush also? Isn't this bias?

This photo *is* anti-American?
 

Q.E.D.

Photos
 

The Photos as a whole seem to accurately depict the war in Iraq. If that makes them anti-war to anyone, that tells you what that person's attitude is to the war in Iraq.

Frankly, there aren't very many heroic acts in war the way it is fought today. US strategy is to overwhelm the enemy whenever possible and to minimize risk to US forces. And we plan pretty well, and keep our people as far out of the line of fire as possible most of the time. I'm sure every photographer in Iraq would love to catch the very rare occassions when acts of heroism are needed in battle, because those photos would SELL!

On US soldiers helping Iraqis, we've pulled in our Civil Assistance missions because they were too risky. CA is strong in Afghanistan, and a very big part of the overall mission, but no one wants to buy photos of Afghanistan because it is not the story. But in Iraq, CA is virtually non-existent and so most soldiers are not engaged in helping Iraqis on a regular basis. Again, many do, but often times they are violating orders when they do and don't want a photographer around. (For example, doctors have been under orders not to provide assistance to Iraqi civilians unless they are injured by US troops -- any photo showing a doctor aiding a civilian is either going to be captioned "Physician tends to Civilian Injured by US Fire" or is going to get that physician in a hell of a lot of trouble. They are supposed to be saving their supplies to assist US personnel.)

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

I don't think they're particularly anti-Bush. For about half of them, I'm shocked that the photographer survived long enough to take the shot, much less get the picture developed and into a publication, regardless of whose "side" he or she was on. I figure if soldiers in kelvar and helmets have their heads down, so should I.

The first one was the hardest for me to look a, since I was unprepared for it and didn't realize what it was until I clicked to enlarge. It is probably the most powerful of the group, and I hope never to look critically at it again because it pains me to think about. Is it anti-Bush? I don't think so. I think it probably shows better than any written or verbal description of what happened a year ago (today? yesterday?) on that bridge in Fallujah. Its horrific subject matter and the expressions on the crowd's faces make for a powerful photograph. I don't think it's saying "Bush is bad" at all. I think it's saying, "this happened," which is what a news photograph is supposed to say. The subject was certainly anti-American in the most blatant way possible, but I don't think that the photograph was anti-American.

As for the rest, I seemed to see more Iraqis and Americans hurt or killed by other Iraqis. The brutality of war seemed, to me, to fall on the shoulders of the insurgents, and however much anyone argues about the handling of the insurgency by the coalition forces, ultimately the responsibility of the violence falls on the individual insurgents. With the exception of the women waiting outside of Abu Garib, we are not necessarily the bad guys in my reading of this series of photographs.

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

(1) No one ever said Kerry was a swing vote.

(2) The Iraq invasion is not the sort of legislative affair that lends itself to what we're talking about. To tweak legislation is the essence of being an effective Senator. The four you mentioned talk a good game, but they're not doing their share of tweaking.

eta: FB x-post?

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

"Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? "

-- John Moody, 04/06/04

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

Share of tweaking? Who's doing any tweaking these days? It's pure majoritarian politics. Congress has passed 6 bills this year, Class Action, Bankruptcy, Schiavo, and three technical things since then. Class Action and Bankruptcy were negotiated over years, agreed to by republican leadership, and pushed through without amendment. The house even agreed to vote up or down, with no amendments at all.

So, I'm not sure what you're expecting the NE Reps to do, any more than you expect anyone to do anything.

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

Who gave the GOP leadership that power? That's not how the Senate has always worked.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Ty, I know most things SS posts support my points in an Adder-sort of way, but I swear he isn't my sock.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Do you think pictures of fighting in World War II are also anti-American?

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Which ones? the flag going up at Iwo jima? No, not anti -american. but let me clarify.......

i think the original point was AP's photos were all negative as to our efforts in Iraq. to the extent I used anti-American in hasty reply to your flurry of attack dog posts, i misspoke. As Sidd is quick to point out, I am not up to your level as a lawyer, and you may count this as half a win. I still win the main point however with my proof that AP is horribly biased in showing only negative images as if there is no positive at all.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

You're winning no points here, pal. Pictures of fighting tend to win more awards than pictures of roads and bridges and schools, even if the latter are "positive" and the former "negative" (what does that mean here, exactly?), because photographing combat is difficult and dangerous and hard to do well. You've got nothing here that shows bias on the part of the AP or the Pulitzer committee.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

I notice that the winner in that category in 2001 was the infamous Elian Gonzalez pic. Was that picture biased because it failed to present the viewpoint of those who thought Elian should be returned to his biological father?

In 2000, the winning serieswas of students after the Columbine massacre. Were they biased because they failed to present the side of Harris and Klebold?


In 2002, the winning series depicted the aftermath of 9/11. Were these photos biased against the terrorists?

eta Last years winners here, also dealing with the Iraq war. Lots of "positive" images.

I knew it
 

Senator Shelby's S.520

Via 100 monkeystyping

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

ummm, there were 20 pix. and some of them just people crying. If people crying is good can't some show people smiling?

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Dimwit. I didn't question who picked who won, I questioned who entered. AP sent 20 1 sided pictures. AP is a big press source, right?

I knew it
 

And the kicker: "Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution."

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

They appear one-sided to you because your monitor works that way, but I have it on good authority that the AP actually sent the panel ten double-sided pictures.

I knew it
 

Good lord, he wants the Supreme Court of Massachusetts having the final say in church-state matters?

I knew it
 

Query--is that provision constitutional? Can Congress by statute define "good behavior"? If so, of what consequence is it? Congress would still have to vote to impeach, no?

I knew it
 

I doubt it's constitutional, but I'm wondering if he isn't (inadvertently, perhaps) trying to get them in a catch-22 . . .

If they are deemed to have violated the standard, wouldn't Congress be impelled to vote to impeach?

ETA uh, I think I mean compelled.

EFTA I want a bonus for not using the word "evocative" in my response.

The moderator duly moves to award fringey a bonus for not using the word "evocative."

Hearing no objection, the motion is carried and the bonus is awarded.

Legislatively,
t.s.

I knew it
 

This is an interesting question, evocative perhaps of Chadha. If it would take another vote of Congress to impeach a judge, then what difference would it make? So to give the statute effect, it might be that Shelby means that someone can impeach a judge by going to court to enforce the statute. But then a judge could narrow the effect of the jurisdiction-limiting provision by ruling that whatever the judge did was not bad behavior. But maybe that statute would be unconstitutional, under a sort of non-delegation doctrine. So does the whole thing get tossed?

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

Sensennbrenner's son was at Stanford when I was advisor to the Stanford Republicans. The Apple didn't fall very far from the tree. He was an arrogant little Jerk, and his IQ was lower than most of my Hawaiin shirts.