1. Michelle Malkin has a new book out. I haven’t read it yet, but I’m impressed by her decision to publish the email addresses of many of her hate mailers on the back cover. Michelle has also joined Pajamas Media. You can read her profile here. (Or, if you’re James Wolcott, you can skip the PJ media profile and move directly on to stroking your Ocelot and making an ironic quip about Josef Mengele “going native”—then spend the rest of your evening having yourself through a strategically opened silk smoking jacket to the smell of your own homemade jalapeno-cheese bread.)
2. Via Ace, the news that an Alito filibuster has just gotten that much tougher: “Senate’s ‘Gang of 14’ Fractures Over Alito”
3. Hubris looks closely at Alito’s dissent in Bray v Marriott and concludes (surprise!) that the progressive spin (Alito wants to roll back civil rights) is, well, rather hyperbolic:
As I understand it, Alito argued that a failure on the part of an employer to follow internal selection procedures to the letter was insufficient reason for a plaintiff to proceed with a discrimination case, when the plaintiff could not show that the employer was lying vis-a-vis its alleged nondiscriminatory reasons for selecting another candidate. He simply did not see the evidence in this case as sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Marriott did not actually believe that the selected candidate was more qualified.
A reasonable person could disagree with Alito’s position in Bray regarding what the plaintiff must show in order to defeat a summary judgment in favor of an employer in this specific type of discrimination case, but I do not see how a reasonable person could sum up his position as “Alito would allow race-based discrimination.”
But maybe that’s just me.
RACIST!
4. Thanks so much to Michele Mintzer for the Val Lewton Horror Collection! The sad truth is, I have never seen the original Cat People—an oversight I plan to remedy this very evening! Lots of good Karloff stuff in the set, as well. Much much appreciated, Michele!
5. Rob Port points me to this WND story on Peter Schweizer’s new book, Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. Among the revelations: Michael Moore owns stock in Halliburton and Boeing; Ralph Nader lives in fancy homes registered under the names of his siblings; and pro-labor Nancy Pelosi is part owner in restaurants, a resort, and a vineyard—all of which use non-union labor.
6. Evidently, drinking two double martinis a day for a 9 days straight will cause a mostly sedentary male in his 30s to gain 8 lbs—some of which could be attributable to the bags of tortilla chips and guacamole he keeps close by to “salt things up a bit.”
7. Dominion: Exorcist Prequel (Paul Schrader’s version)? Feh. Meh. Don’t bother.
8. Via Jeralyn Merritt, Raw Story is reporting that CIA official Fred Fleitz first disclosed the name of Valerie Plame.
Here’s Jeralyn:
Fred Fleitz, then the Chief of Staff for John Bolton and also a senior CIA WINPAC official, is the “Senior CIA Offical” who first disclosed Valerie Plame Wilson’identity after Bolton requested information about Wilson’s trip. Raw Story reports that Libby requested information about Wilson’s trip from John Bolton; Fleitz gave Bolton the name. Bolton then passed it on to David Wurmser who passed it on to John Hannah.
If you want to know what all this means, try asking Tom Maguire.
Because I’ll be damned if I know.
Discrimination is employment is BAD!! I wanted to get that out of the way. What affirmative action advocates fail to realize is that cases like this end up fostering employment discrimination.
If a company, in good faith, makes employment decisions based on their own self interest, i.e. the best employee for the position, then are sued because of it, they are going to be very reluctant to hire someone from the “protected” class. Covert discrimination is the result.
Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild:
Love the cartoon author photo on the cover..looks just like her. Have you read the reader reviews…hilarious.
“Oh, Michelle – thank you, thank You, THANK YOU for showing us the light!”
No Trader Joe’s out your way?
Stephen – Long Live Trader Joe’s! I do a little jig every time I step into
Jeff – If I ever get out your way (ie. I get sent to Fort Carson) I am going to demand 1/4 of a glass of Dow’s 10 year old Tawny Port from you – for that is what I snorted out my nose after reading your James Wolcott “ocelot” remark…
Oh, and BTW, those of us that work (or used to work) in the tort field of the law know that Nader is a complete hypocrite. PJ O’Rourke knocked his BS shield down many moons ago in the Parliament of Whores.
Jeff; Based on this Jeralyn Merritt standard, valerie Plame’s parents would’ve been the first to “disclose” her identity, well, because they “named” her Valerie.
But since Plame’s status didn’t qualify as “covert” under the IIPA, she couldn’t be “outed” by anybody, so it’s really a futile exercise to determine “who” in the federal government did what. Presumably senior members of any administration are allowed to know who, what, where, and how subordinate members of the executive branch are (or are not) performing their responsibilities.
Or does Merritt believe that lifers in the executive branch should operate in complete secrecy from those elected by the people to run the executive branch of government?
Me thinks Jeralyn would be more successful chasing her own tail than continuing a search for who outed someone whom couldn’t be outed.
So, is this gonna be a stand up fight or just another bug hunt?
Apparently a xenomorph is invloved
Huh?
It’s a bug hunt.
TW: never as never never ever join the marines
Have you read the book yet? How do you get a reading lamp up there too?
An odds & ends thread? Good. It’s as good a place as any to post a link to a video showing deep ocean water pressure squishing a crab into a tiny crack in a pipeline.
Turing = changes, as in If a way could be discovered to pump crabmeat from the ocean to my plate, that would be one of the modern world’s more unusual changes.
Forbes: Don’t throw out lies.
From the indictment:
At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
From Fitzgerald’s statement:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.
Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003.
It was on Wilson’s bio page in June 2003; and Andrea Mitchell said it was well known to those who covered the intelligence community.
This whole thing is a joke. Anyone still pretending otherwise is unserious.
Nonetheless, if perjury’s afoot, then Libby’s gotta answer for it. Whether it’s about blowjobs, conversations with reporters, or belief in the Tooth Fairy, you can’t lie to grand juries.
That’s a given. In fact, I’ve said it so many times that it is now OFFICIALLY A GIVEN ON THIS SITE.
Only those who think Libby SHOULD NOT BE CONVICTED FOR PERJURY IF HE DID IN FACT LIE TO THE GRAND JURY NEED MENTION IT.
In the mid-70s, I worked as an assistant engineer at Texas Instruments on DOD projects retrofitting forward-looking infrared systems on M60 (!) tanks. My employment status was classified. It was not widely known outside the suburban, nondescript converted Piggly Wiggly complex housing the thermal imaging line works.
My phone calls to Vanity Fair have not been returned.
You are arguing with someone who thinks going on Amazon and spamming the review pages with juvenile diatribes about books you haven’t read is hilarious.
Also I just realized that my identity isn’t well known outside of my place of employment, and my friends and family are unaware I have another life….FUCK ME! I’M A GODDAMN SPY!
Shit, I need to find out who my contact is, I reckon, I hope I’m one of them double-naught spies!
It’s about the status.
Not who’s she’s married too. This keeps being pulled out to explain nothing but to whom she was married to.
Even her neighbours knew her name but not her status, and Andrea Mitchell just repeats whatever Rove faxes her. She’s disgusting.
Sure you can:
Michelle Malkin has joined PJ Media. That sounds like good news to Charles, Mr. Simon, and whoever. If the growing size of the Board is any indication, this operation is going to be huge.
What is it?
tw: stock. Can I buy some?
Isn’t there some form we can establish to “dispense with the givens”?
Like: discrimination+employment=bad,
or: lawbreaking=punishment, or how about “givens” as a universal?
We need a symbol. Is there an emoticon for “yes, I know, we all know, can we just dispense with all this preliminary dancing and get on with it?”
Maybe a hooker emoticon.
(-x-)
( x )
:(-x-)
:-$
You never saw the real version of Cat People?!
What about the Karloff/Lugosi version of The Bodysnatchers?
Please tell me you saw Victor McLaglen and Karloff in The Lost Patrol!
O God, if you tell me you never saw China Seas you’ll lose all credibility with me…!
I suppose.
But I still like “givens”
If someone could photoshop this a bit, nice symbolism anyhoo.
To add to Hubris’ more circumspect, and probably more adroit, reasoning regarding Bray:
Actually, it’s not that a reasonable person could disagree with Alito, it’s that to pass the summary judgement threshold, a plaintiff has to show that reasonable people would not disagree on the inference of the evidence, i.e, no reasonable person could infer but one conclusion, otherwise, if a reasonable person could differ on the conclusion, it would go to the jury and no summary would obtain.
In Bray, Alito questions whether Bray has met the first prong of the Fuentes test, and reasons that plaintiff has not.
As Alito argues,”Fuentes explains that:
To discredit the employer’s proffered reason, however, the plaintiff cannot simply show that the employer’s reason was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent. Rather, the non-moving plaintiff must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence.”
So the burden of proof has moved to defendant, but even there, given Rhiele’s qualifications and the absence of discriminatory evidence by defendant, we have facts which could reasonably can be disputed, i.e., not inferred conclusively by the court, but rather, should go to the jury, pace summary judgement, especially since the reviewing court’s position is to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
But in any case, simplifying this into,”Alito would allow race-based discrimination” is simply idiotic knee-jerk reaction, and I would suggest, comes from someone who hasn’t read the case.
– Well fuck yeh…. what T Marcell said…
Incidently while we’re looking for an emoticon for “givens”, how about one for Gnome. I think a corrections agent rates at least his own emoticon and a key to the executive cheeto’s cabinet, don’t cha know…..
(*) – One breast clapping for a “given”?
Big Bang,
I’m not going to take that “fuck yeh [sic]” as sarcasm…
why?
…you had me at breast clapping.
Careful with the hat, Moe.
I’ll be out by the cement pond, playing with Ellie May’s critters.
SB: charge
Honest, officer.
Wolcott’s criticism of Victor Davis Hanson’s latest was pretty weak.
Especially given the way Hanson roundly defeated Wolcott’s divine Ms. Huffington in public debate last month.
Vlad, I think we can clean that up a bit:
“Wolcott’s latest was pretty weak.”
That’s all you really need to say. Ever.
– Noooo, no sarcasm – not a bit of it T M…. your summary was concise and eridite… In fact two breasts up I’d say – (*)(*)
– I thought Scooter looked rather dashing in his Brooks Brothers four button and autographed foot cast this morning.
– Good morning to Gail and her bloomers, where ever they are. Your fans are wondering…..
“Stroking your ocelot.” Is that the new euphemism for Wolcott’s solitary vice at the keyboard?
Criminy, he’s a venomous wanker.
A “Feh” and a “Meh?” It must be pretty awful to warrant both.
That’s a brilliant sequence of sentences.
Hey Robert,
I’d never taken the time to read Wolcott before yesterday.
As someone who has read a few of Hanson’s books and seen him debate the Iraq war here at a university in Massachusetts, I was curious about what a critic had to say about him. You’re right on about Wolcott….all puff and no principle.
Since this is an open topic thread, I would like to say:
France out of southern Europe, NOW!
End the occupation!
In Title VII cases, courts have claimed time and again that they are “reluctant” to act as “micromanagers” or “super HR departments” that second guess employer decisions. Then they come down with crap like Bray, where they tell the employer, “The plaintiff has no presented any evidence of discriminatory intent. But the plaintiff has pointed out a couple of ways in which you, inexpicably distracted by running a hotel chain, may have adhered less than perfectly to your own internal procedures. From this, six people with drivers licenses could infer (legalese for guess) that you really are racists. So go spend money defending yourself at trial, or give some money to the plaintiff.”
If a defendant employer can’t keep a summary judgment on a record like the one in Bray, let’s not kid ourselves about the role of the courts in employment law.
Question. I find the idea of Michelle Malkin in pajamas quite exciting. Is that racist or sexist?
– MoN – In order to answer your question you’d have to specify whether or not she’s eating a burritto and stroking the Gnome briskly…..
word warp: “direct”….I’d like to direct the courts attention to exhibit “A”….the half eaten burritto with the smear of ruby lipstick…. so entered balliff…..
I think I saw that done in a movie once.