Yesterday I was trying to figure out what kind of half-way attractive argentinian woman would want to spend a minute with this moron. This morning I woke up with this on my mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmo8JEWQyY0

probably a tranny; not that it wouldn't be ok.

Find one interventionist politician, academician or editorialist. Ask him (or her) to what the Quds force is. What the MEK is. Who Prince Reza Palevi is. Whether he or she knows what the expediency council is. Which faction has the support of the rug weavers.The lack of information or confusion is stunning. And these people are Ph.Ds, editorialists, would be policy makers.

At heart, all neo-cons know is that they want their cold war to continue (though they can no longer continue to admit it, as Daniel Pipes, Elliot Abrams and Michael Rubin were 10 days ago), so there is some genuine fear of real reform or a diminution of clerical power.

and it sounded like you were not too happy with your performance. Then I watched it (just listened to a lot actually) and thought you were great. I also liked the all the comments on the Huffington Post proclaiming what you did as "heroic."

Actually i thought they were on Saturday. Rallies, a government under already under sanction or censure from a large part of the world, dubious election results. This just is not the type of thing that gets put back in the bottle. I am under no delusions that Ahmanijahd necessarily lost the election, or that the Moussavi is any kind of real reformer or that Iran's poor don't have a real allegiance to Ahmanijahd. But the election has overarching symbolic significance. With the eyes of the world watching, the demonstrations and the current regime somewhat delegitimizing itself by its response to the protests, I don't think the outcome can be foreseen but there's substantial reason to hope that the clerical hold on Iran's governance is going to be dramatically diminished.

If you look at the political movement that ousted U.S.neocons last year and what's going on in Iran now together, it can be argued that there is a popular consensus for sanity.

Also, as loathe as I am to say this: check out Andrew Sullivan's blog

I don't really care about her appellate opinions but I read several decisions she wrote when she was a District Court judge which mean more to me than the appellate decisions (less need to reach a consensus, less help from clerks), and she seems capable of understanding complicated legal issues and writing about them clearly. Unlike a lot of district court judges, she does did not appear to do much results selection or first pick a winner and a loser and then try to bend the law in a way to obtain the chosen outcome. It seems she might be a non-ideological jurist, somewhat like Ginsberg. I don't think Coulter et al. are capable of understanding that some judges just do the job of deciding the cases in front of them without pushing an agenda.

who do you want rescuing you from a burning building

the irish? http://www.iskcon.net.au/kurma/2007/04/01

or the blacks? http://brahsome.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/vince-young-shirtless.jpg

Its really funny how whites (New Haven) and republicans (Bush v. Gore) now LOVE the equal protection clause, and want to expand its purview after decades of opposing use of the equal protection arguments made in support of affirmative action legislation. Since you are fighting the good fight here, you might want to read the late John Hart Ely's "Democracy and Distrust." Its a very coherent primer on equal protection clause and federal due process, its accessible to non-lawyers, and reading it will may you far more equipped to debate these issues than your opponents are.

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9780674196377

for excellence in blogging, editorial leadership or something

Neither of these antagonists has much crediblity with me

Krugman has been intellectually dishonest in his response to the Obama ascendancy: Most palpably last summer when he disputed Obama's contention that the war in Iraq was contributing to the recession without trying to explain why the Keynsian canard that wars catalyze economic grow would apply to this war (which has not demanded the production of a lot of heavy equipment) or in an economy where industrial manufacturing is at far less than full capacity.

I know that the GOP in the last Congress is largely responsible for the bailout without strings, but Obama's failure show any real resistance to the AIG bonuses and seeming nonchalance about the role of Goldman's huge profits as the counterparty on the trades that killed AIG's derivatives unit has really deprived him of the benefit of the doubt. Plus, Larry Summers constantly in his less guarded moments reveals himself as someone whose values have no part in a Democratic administration.

That said, it seems like the Geither plan for creating an artificially inflated market for these assets as a means of getting the banks to start lending again is not a bad plan, and it actually seems clever. I just think that Obama has burned some bridges with his base and that's its going to be easy to paint this as a sellout (when in fact it probably isn't).

"Very bad communication and political skills have been practiced by the President Obama's economic team on this one and that was stunning to me..." John D'Amato, today, on Crooks and

Liars

"President Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him. . . ."

Camille Paglia, 3/11/09, on Salon

As loath as I am to admit it.

is essentially endless. some lawyer should start a blog where they can be posted. something like the 95 theses on the power of the indulgences.