MaxedOutMama

In July 2004, the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law prohibiting student newspapers from running ads for alcohol was unconstitutional. At issue was Act 199, an amendment to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code passed in 1996 that denied student newspapers advertising revenue from alcoholic beverages.

Alito said the law violated the First Amendment rights of the student newspaper, The Pitt News, from the University of Pittsburgh.

Opinion Excerpt: "If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment."

This is stunningly well and concisely written and quite correct, though it is not the position the Court ultimately took in Nevada Department of Human Resources v Hibbs. I have a law review article on Hibbs, which you can read in PDF here. Alito took the position Justice Kennedy took in dissent in Hibbs. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, which purported to apply Boerne and Kimel, but most certainly did not. You can argue that Boerne and Kimel were wrongly decided, but Alito was bound by them and duly and competently applied them. Anyone who tries to say that Alito is hostile to women's rights because of this decision is utterly wrong.

A national survey of wild migratory ducks has detected avian influenza. Preliminary results indicate that 28 of the positive reactions in Quebec and five in Manitoba were due to the H5 subtype. The Public Health Agency of Canada has determined that there is no information in these findings suggesting a new threat to human health.

The detection of H5 avian influenza is not unexpected: the virus is commonly seen in migratory bird populations around the world and various types and strains have been detected in North America over the last 30 years, with no impact on human health. The birds tested in this national survey were healthy, and there is no evidence of influenza-related illness among domestic or wild birds in the test areas.

Tests to confirm the H5 type and tests to determine the N type of the virus are ongoing. Definitive findings may not be possible if there is insufficient live virus remaining in the original samples. This analysis, which is being conducted at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Diseases in Winnipeg, will take up to a week.

A. Justice O’Connor has explained the meaning of the term “undue burden” in several abortion opinions. In Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O’Connor, J., dissenting), she wrote that “an ‘undue burden’ has been found for the most part in situations involving absolute obstacles or severe limitations on the abortion decision.” She noted that laws held unconstitutional in prior cases involved statutes that “criminalized all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother,” inhibited ” ‘the vast majority of abortions after the first 12 weeks,’ ” or gave the parents of a pregnant minor an absolute veto power over the abortion decision. Id. (emphasis in original; citations omitted). She suggested that an “undue burden” would not be created by “a state regulation [that] may ‘inhibit’ abortions to some degree.” Id. She also suggested that there is no undue burden unless a measure has the effect of “substantially limiting access.” Id. at 463, 103 S.Ct. at 2509, quoting Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 688, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 2017, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977) (emphasis added in Justice O’Connor’s opinion).

Justice O’Connor reiterated the same analysis in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 106 S.Ct. 2169 (1986). She wrote (id. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214 (O’Connor, J., dissenting), quoting Akron, 462 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O’Connor, J., dissenting)):
An undue burden would generally be found “in situations involving absolute obstacles or severe limitations on the abortion decision,” not wherever a state regulation “may ‘inhibit’ abortions to some degree.”

She also criticized the majority for taking an approach under which “the mere possibility that some women will be less likely to choose to have an abortion by virtue of the presence of a particular state regulation suffices to invalidate it.” Id. 476 U.S. at 829, 106 S.Ct. at 2214 (emphasis added).
Justice O’Connor’s application of the undue burden test in several cases further illustrates the meaning of this test. In Hodgson, 110 S.Ct. at 2950-51, Justice O’Connor found that no undue burden was imposed by a law requiring notice to both parents or judicial authorization before a minor could obtain an abortion. Justice O’Connor reached this conclusion despite statistics adduced by Justice Marshall to show that mandatory parental notice may inhibit a significant percentage of minors from obtaining abortions (id. at 2953-54) (Marshall, J., dissenting) and despite the district court’s finding, noted in Justice Marshall’s dissent, that the judicial bypass option “so daunted” some minors that they felt compelled to carry to term (id. at 2959, quoting 648 F.Supp. at 763).

Alito also voted to strike down part of an anti‐choice state law, but the decision was based on administrative law not reproductive‐rights law. In Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women v. Knoll,10 Alito was part of a 2‐1 majority that invalidated two requirements of an anti‐choice Pennsylvania law which made it more difficult for low‐income women to receive funding for medically necessary abortion services. First, the court invalidated a requirement that a low‐income woman who is the victim of rape or incest report the crime to police, including the identity of the offender, in order to receive funding for her abortion. Second, the court invalidated a requirement that the fatal danger to a low‐income woman seeking an abortion as a result of a life‐endangering pregnancy must be certified by two doctors in order for her to receive funding for her care.

In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer,3 Alito specifically refused to join the court’s majority opinion, distancing himself from the legal reasoning that would have struck down the statute by applying Roe v. Wade4 and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.5 Alito makes clear that his concurrence is compelled solely by the Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart,6 which found a nearly identical Nebraska law unconstitutional. Alito explains that Stenberg “dictates” the result in Farmer,7 but, by writing separately, Alito appears to believe that Roe and Casey did not require the same result. The health exception is a fundamental tenet of Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to revisit the constitutional requirement for the health exception this fall. Should Alito replace Sandra Day O’Connor, a fundamental right will likely be lost by next summer.

As your constituent, I am urging you to oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

In choosing Samuel Alito, President Bush has caved to the demands of his right wing. Alito's record indicates a clear willingness to continue dismantling our constitutional freedoms. The American public deserves a nominee who can be counted on to uphold our rights - not take them away.

"The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
...
"It's a pretty predictable move from a politically crippled president," said Democratic consultant Jim Jordan. "Toss out a judicial extremist to pacify his base and provoke a fight that he hopes changes the subject away from indictments and Iraq and Katrina and a soft economy."

42. Why didn't Harriet Myers get an up, or down, vote?
Just wondering...

Response to Reply #42
47. Um, she was a fake-out? Now we get the real nominee. Scalia-like.

Just a guess.

60. I don't think Meirs was a fake-out...

... I think Bush really wanted her. When the right wigged out, the Dems sat there laughing and singing "Ha ha, hoist by your own petard!" Jeez - this after Reid recommended her! Talk about short-sighted! Yeah, let's have some fun so that Bush has a rough time over Meirs.

So Meirs, with no support, pulled out, and now we get Alito.

Who is laughing now?

1. Start the filibuster now
Refer to the nomination as "dead in the water". No point in even discussing the nomination. No point in even delving into the personal/professional history of Alito. It's all moot. He won't serve on the Supreme Court, so there's no need to even discuss the issue. Start the filibuster now.

Powerful explosions ripped through crowded market areas in New Delhi moments apart, killing at least 16 people as shoppers in the Indian capital were gearing up for a major Hindu holiday.

More than 60 people were reported injured by the blasts, which hit the popular Paharganj bazaar area popular with locals and Western budget tourists as well as the Gole and Sarojini Nagar markets.
...
The Press Trust of India said at least 16 people had been killed and more than 60 people were wounded. Local television channels said at least 25 people were dead.

The blasts came a little more than two weeks after the US embassy in New Delhi issued a public warning about possible terrorist attacks in the Indian capital and other cities, including suicide bombings.

Yesterday's New York Times on-line edition carried the story of the 2000 Iraq US military death[s]. It grabbed my attention as the picture they used with the headline was that of my nephew, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.

Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey's story. Jeffrey believed in what he was doing. He [was] willing put his life on the line for this cause. Just before he left for his third tour of duty in Iraq I asked him what he thought about going back the third time. He said: "If we (Americans) don't do this (free the Iraqi people from tyranny) who will? No one else can."

Several months after Jeffrey was killed his laptop computer was returned to his parents who found a letter in it that was addressed to his girlfriend and was intended to be found only if he did not return alive. It is a most poignant letter and filled with personal feelings he had for his girlfriend. But of importance to the rest of us was his expression of how he felt about putting his life at risk for this cause. He said it with grace and maturity.

He wrote: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

What Jeffrey said is important. Americans need to understand that most of those who are or have been there understand what's going on. It would honor Jeffrey's memory if you would publish the rest of his story.

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.

But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

His father, Brian Starr, had been preparing a basement apartment in his home for Corporal Starr to live in after leaving the Marines. Now Mr. Starr plans to turn it into a memorial of sorts, to display Corporal Starr's war ribbons and the neatly folded flag that once draped his coffin. Perhaps he will also install a pool table there to remind people of his son's fun-loving side.

Mr. Starr, an accountant, said he remained convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. But he said he would also like firsthand confirmation that the war, and Corporal Starr's death, were not in vain.

"I'm hoping, my wife is hoping, that we can visit Ramadi," he said, fighting back tears. "And feel safe. And feel like Jeff died for something."

30. Lump of coal for Fitzmas
Rove could molest John Roberts kids at half time of the Super Bowl and would somehow escape prosecution on some technicality. I am so disappointed -- assuming the news reports are accurate. Sure, he may still be under investigation, but if Fitz had the goods on Rove the indictment would be announced today. This really sucks.

16. Patience, grasshoppers.
Rove's turn will come.

Response to Reply #16
23. Yah....Thats what they all say.....(but I pray your right)

3. our president is stupider than your president, na, na, na, na. . . ..

13. US/Iran/China
This GOP has an agenda, a massive global destructive agenda...I truely believe that the GOP wants WWIII. In order to fullfill biblical prophecy they have to take action and put certian things in motion in order to make those prophecies come to light. If they dont then nothing in the biblical prophecies would ever happen.

With that in mind, I heard something rather disturbing today. Instead of disarming US nuclear weapons, there is actually a build up. This is due inpart to a possible confritation with China that the GOP is instigating somehow...Anyone else here this or something along those lines??

18. Are british and US sources the only ones saying this so far?
I mean we know how it works now people. How do we know the leaders of Iran have even actually said this?

20. Alrighty then
The game goes on. Anyone else think that anyone with a penis should be banned from being a world leader for about a century?

"Sam Alito is in my mind the strongest candidate on the list," says Pepperdine law Prof. Douglas Kmiec. "I know them all . . . but I think Sam is a standout because he's a judge's judge. He approaches cases with impartiality and open-mindedness."
..
In 1997, Alito authored the majority opinion upholding a city's right to stage a holiday display that included a Nativity scene and a menorah because the city also included secular symbols and a banner emphasizing the importance of diversity. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion." The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision 6 to 3.
...
In Saxe v. State College Area School District, Alito, writing for the panel, argued that the school does not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day. "Sam struck that down as a violation of free speech," Kmiec says. "That's not a conservative outcome."

The mission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is to promote democratic values and institutions by disseminating factual information and ideas.

From Central Europe to the Pacific, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, from Russia to Central Asia to the Persian Gulf, countries are struggling to overcome autocratic institutions, violations of human rights, centralized economies, ethnic and religious hostilities, regional conflicts, and controlled media.

Stability -- based on democracy and free-market economies -- throughout this region is essential to global peace.Based on the conviction that the first requirement of democracy is a well informed citizenry, and building on nearly a half century of surrogate broadcasting to this region:

1.RFE/RL provides objective news, analysis, and discussion of domestic and regional issues crucial to successful democratic and free-market transformations.

2.RFE/RL strengthens civil societies by projecting democratic values.

3.RFE/RL combats ethnic and religious intolerance and promotes mutual understanding among peoples.

4.RFE/RL provides a model for local media, assists in training to enhance media professionalism and independence, and develops partnerships with local media outlets.

5.RFE/RL fosters closer ties between the countries of the region and the world's established democracies.

According to state radio, in his 21 October sermon at the Tehran Friday prayers, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Qods Day is especially important this year for several reasons, one of which is that some Islamic states are normalizing their relations with Israel -- he described this as "the conspiracy instigated by the Americans, the Zionists, and some of their allies." Khamenei discouraged this normalization process and suggested that countries do this just to please the United States.

Khamenei is not the only Iranian official to speak out recently against normalized relations with Israel. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad told his cabinet in Tehran on 24 October that Israel's effort to normalize relations with Muslim countries is a "new Zionist plot," state radio reported. Ahmadinejad said that "Muslim nations will not let it do so on international Qods Day." Two days later, Ahmadinejad told a conference on "A World Without Zionism" in Tehran that any government that normalizes its ties with Israel will encounter the wrath of the Islamic umma (community), the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) and state television reported.

It has become a common tactic for defenders of the academic status quo to equate scrutiny with “McCarthyism” and criticism with censorship. For example, at Brooklyn College, the local professors’ union went so far as to declare that press stories about academic misconduct (such as punishing students who dissented from a professor’s radical views) were part of an effort to “intimidate” the school’s faculty. The union also asked the school’s chancellor to condemn the New York Sun for its attempts to investigate and report faculty wrongdoing. In other words, a group of public officials (and public university professors are public officials) was calling on another public official to condemn the free press for investigating potential unlawful acts of the local government.

Brooklyn College’s faculty is not alone in confusing criticism for censorship and equating oppression with academic freedom. In the June 8, 2005, issue of Al-Ahram, Joseph Massad, the Columbia University professor at the center of a firestorm of controversy regarding the treatment of pro-Israeli students in Columbia’s Middle East Languages and Culture Department, wrote to decry “the campaign of the last three years . . . to attack U.S. universities as the last bastion where a measure of freedom of thought is still protected.” And what was one of the prime movers in this alleged campaign against academic freedom? Once again, it was the free press – specifically the New York Times, a paper that Massad accused of disseminating “Israeli propaganda” as “objective truth.”

In the distorted world of university censorship, actual violations of the law (such as Brooklyn College’s absurd punishment of dissenting students) represent legitimate exercises of academic freedom, while free speech (such as the New York Sun investigation) is the equivalent of “intimidation” that has a “chilling effect” on academic expression.

If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question.
...
Without promise of a limiting Bill of Rights it is [319 U.S. 624, 637] doubtful if our Constitution could have mustered enough strength to enable its ratification. To enforce those rights today is not to choose weak government over strong government. It is only to adhere as a means of strength to individual freedom of mind in preference to officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous end.
...
We can have intellectual individualism [319 U.S. 624, 642] and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

The recent vile and hate spewed from the mouth of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who declared that 'Israel must be wiped off the map,' may have had unintended consequences.
...
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday he has "never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to ... wipe out another country," Blair said at the close of a European Union summit outside London.

"Their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue, it isn't acceptable. ... Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?"

"The President needs a brawl."
So said Fred Barnes on Fox News just now, responding to a question about whether Bush could afford a brawl in Congress right now, which is what will happen if Bush nominates someone openly committed to conservative jurisprudence for the Supreme Court, now that Miers has gone down. The conservatives are claiming a glorious victory right now, and they want the spoils. They want their nominee this time. They've proven -- they will claim, with justification -- that pleasing them is more important than pleasing the Democrats.

The right wing has tasted blood, and they like it. They will attempt to influence the selection of the next Republican candidate. They will probably be successful- and hand the election over to the Democrats because moderates- who are the majority of voters in this country, will shun a candidate chosen because he or she met a litmus test rather than by virtue of merit.

The Democrats, reveling in a self induced bit of moronic euphria, are only too happy to see a Bush policy fail. They do not realize that this kind of political terror will affect them as well. The Michael Moore's and MoveOn.Org's of this world are empowered. Their next litmus test might involve demonizing religion and religious people.

France's health minister said on Thursday that tests on a man on the Indian Ocean island of La Reunion showed he was not infected with the potentially deadly H5N1 bird flu virus.

"This is not a virus of the H5N1 strain, so it is not bird flu," Health Minister Xavier Bertrand told a news conference.

Authorities said on Wednesday that three people recently returned to La Reunion from a holiday in Thailand were believed to have caught the virus after a visit to a Thai bird park.

Samples were sent to Paris for further analysis. The results of the tests on the two other suspects are due on Friday, Bertrand said.

Finally, Americans and their leaders will have to get over their love affair with intelligent design . Polls show that most don't believe in evolution. But it is actually impossible to talk logically about bird flu, or any other rapidly evolving and constantly changing virus, without using the language of evolution -- specific words such as "mutant," "recombination," "genome" and "selection." Without that language, a sensible popular or political discussion, let alone a scientific discussion, is impossible: We're stuck talking about the virus "jumping" from birds to humans, as if it were a magic bug with a mind of its own. We're stuck thinking that a virus is a hex that can be lifted with a single lucky charm, not something that will change over time.

The world according to the lockstep Left has George Bush in charge of the climate and the wolves of the Christian Right devouring our very minds....

Just one problem with Applebaum's point, and it is tied up with that useful Logical Fallacy, equivocation. Not all definitions of the word 'evolution' or 'evolutionary' are describing the same process or idea. There was a little bit of a switch in the middle, which illustrates a common misunderstanding. There is 'Evolution' as an origins and speciation theory, and there is evolution as in the 'mutation' of life forms within their species (microevolution)... and you know what we are talking about in the bird flu, and in viruses? Yes, you do because you are smart.

So why is an intelligent, well-paid ( paid more than me, anyway) writer for a prestigious news outlet not able to get the basic science right? Bias, mainly. That blindered, prejudicial outrage that parades as modern enlightenment.

Indict Patrick Fitzgerald!

That is right! You heard me! Indict the bastard for etxreme anit-American behavior! Enough of this "responsible and dignified" investigation. Does the man not know he is being anti-American by not letting us already know who will be indicted, what they will be convicted of and whose "girlfriend" they will be once they report to Leavenworth prison?

Life Science Insights' Lundstrom notes that the process of developing vaccines is more predictable, cheaper and faster than it is for other drugs. "Is this a real revolution, or simply the case of companies making lemonade out of lemons?" he asks.

On the other hand, Lundstrom supports Danzon's point that the traditional view of vaccines as a bulk-order commodity is changing. "I think it's almost a misnomer to call some of the new products vaccines. They are patented, targeted treatments and can create hybrid pricing," he says. As an example, he points to Wyeth's childhood vaccination, Prevnar, that has proven itself superior in clinical trials and commands $50 to $60 a dose from insurers, compared to competitors' $10 a dose.

Insurers, he predicts, will increasingly be willing to support new, high-priced vaccines if they are proven to keep long-term costs down. "Vaccines are a very efficient way to treat illness. Prevention has significant economic advantages. We're at a point in the market where developing vaccines is attractive; [this hasn't been true] in the recent past. I don't think you can underestimate the role that payers increasingly play in determining what's valuable in the market. And I do think that this is really a different market."

If insurers step up, companies will be eager to invest in vaccine research and development and manufacturing plants, suggests Danzon. "There is a tremendous amount of R&D activity in vaccines now both in big pharma companies and in the biotech industry. I think if there's good reimbursement and reasonable prices, the problem of innovation will take care of itself."

A 43-year-old Frenchman recently returned to the Indian Ocean island of Reunion from a trip to Thailand is feared to be infected with the potentially lethal bird flu virus, according to preliminary tests, authorities said.
...
A doctor at the Bellepierre hospital in the island's main city of Saint Denis which is treating the man and keeping him under quarantine said he was believed to have been exposed to the virus during a trip to a bird park in Thailand during a vacation taken October 12-19.

A search of the Los Alamos flu database using a 10 nucleotide probe representing the S227N polymorphism identified 42 exact matches. All were in HA and all isolated after 1998 were in the Middle East in chickens, turkeys, geese, and an ostrich.

H9N2 has become endemic in Israel and millions of migratory birds will be passing through the area in the upcoming days. Thus, the potential for dual infections by H9N2 and H5N1 is high. The 10 nucleotides of identity offers an opportunity for homologous recombination that would create the S227N polymorphism and increase the efficiency of H5N1 human transmission.

Efforts to limit the exposure of H9N2 infected birds to H5N1 infected wild birds should be aggressively pursued.

About six months after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, George H.W. Bush's national security adviser Brent Scowcroft went to Beijing and met with China's ``paramount leader,'' Deng Xiaoping. Scowcroft said he communicated the president's unhappiness over the massacre, to which Deng essentially said, mind your own business. ``And I said, `You're right. It is none of our business,''' Scowcroft tells Jeffrey Goldberg in the current New Yorker. This raises an obvious question: How many have to die before it is our business?
...
JFK and FDR were Democrats, of course, and the party has always been associated with internationalism -- everything from the League of Nations to the United Nations. Somehow, though, that moralism -- that urge to do good abroad -- has drifted over to the GOP. It is Republicans, particularly neocons, who talk the language of moralism in foreign policy and who, weapons of mass destruction aside, wanted to take out Saddam Hussein because he was a beast. It mattered to them that he killed and tortured his own people. It says something about the Democratic left that it cheered Michael Moore's infantile ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' even though the film made no mention of Saddam's depredations, not even his gassing of Kurdish villages. Moore's morality stops at the water's edge.

2. The end of my Starbucks days I know in the grand scheme it is not much money for them, but I spend about $35 per week there, $140 per month, $1,700 per year. (Maybe I need to drink less coffee.)

But that will end immediately. Oh, double that with my wife. Their little sayings on their cups just cost the local Starbucks $3,400 next year.

126. Nominated because this Religious Theocracy must be STOPPED

179. That is your perogative.
I, on the other hand, will now go out of my way to shop at Starbucks. That's what is great about living in America.

92. if I can't get a non-christian cup then I won't be going there either ...

211. that makes you just as ridiculous as the guy who wouldn't use the cup that said gay on it. There is nothing wrong with free speech even if it has the word *gasp* "God" in it.

63. The comments are insulting and exclusive to any who don't believe in god.

Since I'm one of them, I have a problem with the arrogance of the "good Rev", and Starbucks for giving him a platform from which to look down on us.

Like we don't get enough derision just for existing, now people who shell out ridiculous amounts of money for hot, bitter, dirty water (apologies to Will Durst) will be reading this crap and internalizing it - and I know a LOT of liberals go there. We don't need them to look down on us, too.

85. I'm sure it's offensive to both types.
Racists and creationists.
I'm even MORE offended now that I know what this is in response to.
Starbucks is like the Kansas Board of Education.
Both cater to those who view science as an affront to religion.

105. I understand where you're coming from.

And I certainly do not deny the theocratic takeover of this country.

I do realize the fallacy of believing science is anti-religion, but not all religious people believe such a thing.

But the millions of people who read this story are totally outnumbered by the many millions of people who didn't. Like I said, most people will simply not care about some stupid quote on a coffee cup. DUers have to realize that the general public is not nearly as informed and up-to-date as we are. They don't obsess about every small detail of world events like we do (not that it's a bad thing, necessarily), and therefore they will not embark on some anti-science, anti-infidel crusade.

"The President has made a distinguished appointment in Ben Bernanke. Ben comes with superb academic credentials and important insights into the ways our economy functions. I have no doubt that he will be a credit to the nation as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board."

Bernanke: Yes, that was a theme of my very first speech as a governor. I suggested that, from a policy perspective, there are two ways to approach bubbles: One is interest rate policy, the other is micro-regulatory policy. Micro-regulatory policy is the much better approach, in my view.
...
Rolnick: What do you think of the idea that bank regulators and the federal government should make a commitment that uninsured depositors in large banks will always face some risk? Under such a commitment, markets would price uninsured deposits accordingly, and the price signal could be used by regulators to help evaluate bank risk.

Bernanke: A number of people have suggested that we rely on uninsured, subordinated debt to provide a market signal about the quality of the bank. I think that's a very interesting idea, and I note that market signals play some role in current bank supervision and would continue to do so under the proposed reforms to the Basel capital standards. I would be reluctant to put all of our eggs in that basket, however, because banks are inherently somewhat opaque institutions, and it's not evident that the market signal would be completely informative about the state of the financial institution. So I would supplement market signals with capital requirements and various forms of direct supervision.