the Judge just spent the large part of a recent hearing excoriating the pro-bono attorneys representing the Medill Project for the allegedly sloppy brief they filed opposing the County's motion to reconsider... while saying nothing to the Asst DA who showed up a 1/2 hour late to the hearing...

Go figure. Among her complaints was that they didn't sign the brief (every jurisdiction requires a filing party to sign their brief). The attorney finally had to interrupt her to point out the last page of the brief contained the signature, which is typically where briefs are signed...

Hate to think the Medill Innocence Project isn't going to get a fair shake here.

The Tribune is also giving this case more and more publicity. It's funny to see their headlines change from the Pro-Government position: "Medill Innocence Project paid witnesses" to the more correct "DA alleges Medill Innocence Project paid witnesses."

This whole thing is going to blow up in Alvarez's face.

You'd think K-street lobbyists would have a thicker skin than she demonstrates here. But oh well, not like a K-Street lobbyist would ever consider faux, trumped up outrage an unfair PR tactic.

Now I'm going to get a bunch of emails from my dad about how this removes all doubt that Obama is a communist...

Earlier today, I got an email from my dad linking to a youtube link of Monckton's schtick. Now, despite not knowing who Monckton is, I was 99% convinced it was some screwy conspiracy theory bullshit. I suspected this because my dad spent the entire 1990's ranting about how Bill Clinton was 5 minutes away from some sort of vague "Book of Revelation" type stuff...

Looks like my suspicions were correct.

In his email, he used language that he never uses in person... so I suspect he was prompted by some wacky neo-conservative website that encouraged him to contact "your loved ones" with this pressing info...

The Obama Adminstration's statements on this are really just going to reinforce the whole myth that Fox is anti-establishment and being put upon by some sort of socialist-liberal conspiracy.

So, in essence, their approach will bolster, rather than undermine, Fox's credibility with it's dim-witted viewership.

"Bob Dole says pass healthcare reform," said Bob Dole.

Drewonimo makes a good point about Brooks' habit of glossing over inconvenient truths and facts.

From 2000-2008 government encouraged consumer spending was seen as the bulwark against economic decline. Reckless spending was thus not only tolerated, but encouraged with interest rates kept artificially low by the Fed, and tax rebates aimed at stimulated consumer spending.

How can Brooks ignore things like this: (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/2008-tax-rebate.htm)? It was only LAST YEAR!

The whole column is just another example of the way Brooks is constantly covering neo-conservative talking points in the linguistic equivalent of a warm blanket.

can always count on David Brooks to spin one!

The master of using words to have absolutely no meaning, nor relation to reality.

No wonder some of my most empty-headed friends like Brooks. He turns complicated issues into an intellectually devoid mush, sprinkled with enough flowery prose to seem edible and filling.

I've heard that line repeated frequently by conservative-minded people whenever they want to disparage FDR's policies, progressive economics, or increased government regulation generally.

My response is: Are you SURE you want to go there?

During WWII, the U.S. was effectively a PLANNED ECONOMY, with the government setting prices and rationing consumer goods. So if WWII bailed us out, it was effectively central planning bailing out capitalism, which had failed miserably, collapsing in on itself in 1929.

It was central planning that lead to full employment, and increased investment in public infrastructure. And it was more central planning (e.g. the GI Bill, Interstate Highway System, etc.) that lead to successfully integrate the returning overseas military back into the domestic economy. Bouyed by the knowledge that there was now guaranteed income and work for the willing... consumer spending increased...

"Do[es the author] have any unsupported hypotheses that give fathers the benefit of the doubt, or do all of your unsubstantiated possibilities require some sort of anti-male component. The latter is the one thing all of your "ideas" have in common."

Well, I thought he made it clear he was merely speculating, so, the answer to your question would be NO.

As far as your assertion that it's due to Obama's policies... well the article said that they examined data as far back as the 80's and it revealed this trend, although it has gotten more defined recently. So there may be some truth in your argument...

Although, given the overwhelming support for Obama in the last election that crossed all sorts of demographic boundaries, it seems a little unlikely.

I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause for the shift in political mentality of men and women had a more primal, practical basis.

The battle of the sexes is essentially a struggle over who gets stuck with the cost of child rearing. (my reasoning accepts the theories in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene as true.) During pregnancy & early motherhood, a woman is biologically and physically tied to her offspring, and hence, requires assistance, traditionally from her husband/tribe/whatever, but government aid & welfare would also substitute.

The husband? He can go off and continue to spread the seed. Good times, good times...

To a great extent, the attitudes each way are purely selfish, and self-serving, and by themselves should bear no relevance to social policy.

But taking it a step further, it's in everyone's interest to have future generations provided for in their infancy: providing health care, and education when a parent or parents cannot ensures a better society for everyone to live in, as these children will then be more statistically likely to grow into productive, healthy, law-abiding citizens. So anyone who is a rational member of society, rather than a purely instinctive, unthinking animal, should understand the needs for social welfare, regardless of their gender.