Let me explain it to you.

Marijuana was banned for illogical cultural reasons. It was the drug of third world cultures (and our counterculture) and there is a xenophobic and official prejudice against it. That's why marijuana is illegal and alcohol (a worse drug) is not.

There is no conspiracy against steroids. You can't tell me of any official prejudice that resulted in steroids being banned. The banning was based on science.

Nor is there anyone who has a vested interest in continuing the steroid ban. In fact, since pharmaceutical companies do manufacture steroids already (they are legal when prescribed for some conditions, such as for temporary relief of back pain), you might expect that the economic pressure would be in favor of *lifting* the ban.

This is why I'm skeptical of people who say that the hazards of steroids have been overblown and should be overlooked.

. . . that's for sure. More competent too. Remember how he ran the EEOC into the ground?

I know it's late to the topic but s/he put it beautifully. Alva Noe could just as easily be justifying the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Why?

Because he wasn't a hater.

Misguided, beholden supply-side idiocy, but he never demonized anyone. Tried to be inclusive.

Jeffrey Rosen relies on anonymous sources because he HAS to.

The people who can talk most knowledgeably about Judge Sotomayor are:

1. Law clerks (hers and other judges')

2. Other judges

3. Attorneys who've appeared before her.

#1 won't say anything bad because law clerks are bootlicks. They will never criticize any judge.

#2 won't say anything because judges don't criticize other judges.

#3 won't say anything because they might appear before her in the future (either on the Supreme Court, or if she isn't nominated, in the Circuit Court).

I've been before her a few times. She's smart. She's also snooty -- but, unfortunately, a lot of federal judges are. Though nothing that I would call out of line or unusual, or a hindrance to being a good judge.

That anonymous comment about an older judge telling her to shut up at oral argument, though, is disturbing if true.

All of this, though, is secondary to the quality of her jurisprudence. The Jeffrey Rosen piece is GARBAGE because he didn't even bother to read her damn opinions.

So a federal judge chewed out a prosecutor and reduced him to tears.

The prosecutor might have deserved it, but let's be clear here.

That's not being tough. That's being a bully.

After all, the prosecutor couldn't very well chew out the judge, could he?

It's not like the judge could ever fear expulsion or losing the next election. Federal judges are there for life.

There are a lot of conscientious, good federal judges. Most are very smart. But there's no such thing as a "tough" federal judge. They are the most pampered, cosseted and deferred-to persons in our entire justice system. The lives they lead are sheltered to an extent that most of the rest of us would consider bizarre.

Glad it turned out so well. Sounds like your kids are in good hands!

Jeffrey Rosen relies on anonymous sources because he HAS to.

The people who can talk most knowledgeably about Judge Sotomayor are:

1. Law clerks (hers and other judges')

2. Other judges

3. Attorneys who've appeared before her.

#1 won't say anything bad because law clerks are bootlicks. They will never criticize any judge.

#2 won't say anything because judges don't criticize other judges.

#3 won't say anything because they might appear before her in the future (either on the Supreme Court, or if she isn't nominated, in the Circuit Court).

I've been before her a few times. She's smart, and disposed of two of my cases. She ruled twice, once in the trial court when she ruled against me, and once when she was on the Second Circuit when she ruled in my favor. Both times, she was correct on the law.

She's also snooty -- but, unfortunately, a lot of federal judges are. Though nothing that I would call out of line or unusual, or a hindrance to being a good judge.

That's what I remember about that book. Not a single sympathetic male character. I resented the implication that all men were like that.

Then I noticed something else.

Women who liked this book actually *preferred* hanging out with asshole men. It was all they knew because it was all they wanted. They just didn't want someone who was reasonable. Young men who treated women as equals, and weren't threatened by strength, were in the majority then and are in the majority now.

A similar book of that period was "Looking for Mr. Goodbar", about a woman who does the singles scene and ends up being killed by a psycho. The standard feminist praise about that book was that "it told the truth about being a single woman today". Bullshit. The lady was dysfunctional. She hung out *only* with jerks and sponges. The one mature guy she met (I think his name was James), she kept pushing away.

Well . . . if those books weren't like that, they probably wouldn't have generated a buzz and wouldn't have sold.

Well put, Mary.

Wrong. 80% of self-identified pro-lifers support these.

Do you want them in the conversation or not? Having such a black and white view of the "other side" is not helpful.

Andrew's article is right-on.

Up until then -- and also, since -- depictions of the future were generally pretty bleak. ST was the great exception.

My favorites:

"Errand of Mercy"

"Devil in the Dark"

"City on the Edge of Forever"

"Day of the Dove"

"What Are Little Girls Made Of?"

"Charlie X"

"Metamorphosis" (the only "chick flick" episode)

If these clinics were selling cars, or plastic surgery, or vasectomies, or *anything* else, you'd be on the other side of this issue.

Mandated waiting periods are quite common. And for a health care professional it is unethical *not* to insist on one.

Except for abortion.

Why is that?

. . . or harder to get.