Thinking Right

By GrayGayGeek

July 5, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

The professor’s words should be the creed-of- the-cult for those who are convinced individuals can rewrite the law on the spot if, in their view, the law doesn’t (or shouldn’t) apply to their circumstance

Sorta like King George and Scooter?

By Bosch

July 5, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

I have to agree with you Jim, it is tough being a cop. They are over worked and underpaid.

There are a few bad apples in the police force, but we owe our safety to them. I’m sure it won’t take long for the cop bashers to come on the blog and give examples of cops over abusing their authority, but in general, I have those examples too, but, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and when a policeman tells you to stop, well, you stop. It’s really that simple.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

July 5, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Hi Jim,

I think you’re about right. It’s tough out there for law enforcement.

Especially when the leadership of the country is thumbing their noses at the legal system. I wouldn’t have expected Libby to use the “Don’t you know who I am?” defense, but it appears to have worked just fine.

Heck, it’s been working for Cheney for years.

By Redneck Convert

July 5, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Well, the Death Penalty would put a stop to this jaywalking business. Us rednecks love the Death Penalty. One thing is for sure, if you use the Death Penalty there won’t be no jaywalking again. I would volunteer to flip the switch or whatever to start the poison flowing.

I think we need to beat up an old colledge teacher oncet in a while just to show we are in charge. Call in another 10 or 11 cops to help out. It would send a message that we won’t stand for breaking Law and Order. The next bunch would think twicet before they come to our city and break our laws. Show it on TV just to get the message out.

Why, just think what a good Conservative like Wooten has to go thru to get to work. Old people stepping right out into the street. Punks just crossing the road when they feel like it. Probly people wanting to wash his windshield and bums wanting a handout. Its just about the end of Civalization. The Death Penalty would put a stop to it. And that Elton John guy needs to be hauled out of his limo and give a good working over by the Atlanta cops. He would probly stop dressing like a woman then. Anyway, he would have something to yell about then.

Anyway, the fireworks was ruint for me last night. They had a big TV screen before the show, and they was showing the news. Pretty soon a picture of My President come on in front of a bunch of solders. And that crowd booed him! They booed My President! Then they showed a picture of old Newt and they booed him too! Such a fine American.

All I got to say is if that crowd is like the people that will be voting next year us Republicans is in trouble. We will have that Hillary woman in charge and I will have to leave the country and you will be getting your beer delivered by one of Those People or maybe even a woman.

Anyway, I’m in a bad mood this a.m. My monthly bath is due and the Baptists drunk up all the beer in the places I serve. So I’ve got to go to WalMart to get a new pair of socks and underwear and get all wet and then lug heavy cases of beer all day. Its an awful life sometimes.

By Elton

July 5, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

I agree! Don’t these damn liberals know who Scooter is! Just let him go!

By say what?

July 5, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Right about police, wrong about bicycles. They have as much right to use the traffic lanes as other vehicles, as long as they follow traffic laws. Apparently Jim believes they should ride on what passes for a shoulder here in Georgia, namely a 4-6 inch wide white line painted on crumbling asphalt. So what if other traffic has to slow down (oh horrors!) or change lanes? You have to do the same thing for cars slowing to turn, or stopping in the left lane while waiting to turn left through traffic. One prevents these being an inconvenience by learning to drive and looking ahead.

Also, there is quite the disconnect between today’s column and the previous one.

By catlady

July 5, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Maybe Atlanta does not follow King George’s rules: they expect folks to abide by the law?

By getalife

July 5, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Come on Jim,

Don’t be a hypocrite like you were Clinton.

Write about a pardon for this alleged “jaywalker” like you did for the convicted felon Libby.

Geez.

By harold

July 5, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

it is becoming clearer.. mr wooten considers cars superior to people. cars have more rights than humans.

harold disagrees

rampant jaywalking is not the problem.

rampant driving is the problem. all cars should be banned from business districts.

all cars should be banned from the roadways during rush hour too.

take a look at what Enrique Peñalosa did for Bogota Columbia

By harold

July 5, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

“running through traffic lights or aggressively crowding traffic lanes, forcing motorists either to come to a near-stop or to vacate the lane”

What, people in cars don’t do this? PLEASE!

How many bicycles slow you down in a day of driving? 0.05? One a month maybe?

How many cars slow you down in a day of driving? 28,000?

Why not mention something about all the cars on the roads that cause you traffic issues? Huh?

By getalife

July 5, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

I think since cons are weak on crime, we should not enforce immigration or drug laws.

Amnesty and legal weed!

Geez.

By harold

July 5, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Come on, Jim.. What do you hate most about your job? Is it the work? Is it Harold? Is it the boss? No… Safe bet it’s your commute.

If you could eliminate your daily drive you would have a much happier (and richer) life. What is wrong with that?

People are starting to see the light and abandon (or at least hibernate) their motor vehicles. They end up happier, trimmer, fitter, richer.

Traffic should be left to get worse and worse and worse for those who choose it.

Once you’ve had enough of the traffic, then you make a change for yourself and in doing so you improve this city as much as any one person can.

You could make more of a positive difference over the length of your career by bicycling to work than you may ever accomplish after you get to work!!!

What does any of us do all day long that TRULY amounts to anything? Unless we are finding the cure for cancer, hardly any of us do anything of any importance. We help our employers get richer. That’s pretty much it. If you want to make a difference, it isn’t likely to be done on the clock.

By "ZERO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY 2012"

July 5, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

Here is a worthy goal for the city: ZERO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY 2012. ZERO. Z-E-R-O. Atlanta keeps trying to put itself on the map with tourist attractions and a (bad) marketing scheme with rap music stars. Those are never going to amount to anything.

Harold’s “ZERO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY 2012” initiative would really put us on the map. Atlanta would become a destination for people who are fed up with sprawl commutes rather than beign the mecca of sprawl that it is.

“ZERO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY 2012”

“ZERO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY 2012”

“ZERO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY 2012”

“ZERO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY 2012”

-harold

By Captain Freedom

July 5, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Mr Wooten, is this some sort of back-handed slap at Our Leader and his well-reasoned and legally sound disregard for established procedure in re: the exemplary Christian forgiveness extended to the Godly Mr Libby?

By the way, Libby announced this morning that he plans to spend his newfound freedom looking for “the real perjurers”.

The Captain is back. Long live the Captain.

By getalife

July 5, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Finally, someone told the truth about Iraq:

“Australian Defense Minister: Securing Oil Is Key Reason Why Our Troops Are In Iraq”

Geez.

By Mid-South Philosopher

July 5, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

Refresh my memory in this case. Was the officer, in question, in his police uniform? or was he in a rent-a-cop uniform due to the City of Atlanta’s pi**-poor peace officer salaries?

If he was not in his police uniform, did he identify himself in a loud volumed voice , “Atlanta police officer!” while displaying his shield, which, I understand, every peace officer is supposed to have on him or her at all times when in public?

I agree that peace officers have to put up with too much guff. Yet occasionally, even among the best…and the Atlanta Police Department is NOT the best…we find duds. Same thing can be said about history professors, though.

I suspect, if the truth be known, a couple of elevated egos met on that street in Atlanta. Likely the professor was the south end of a north bound mule and the cop, in question, was the same headed in the other direction. Else, why was the case dismissed?!?

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

July 5, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Cherry Picker agrees with Harold.

Cars are the problem. Jim is a memory-challenged social hypocrite due to a severe case of commute-induced political myopia.

Jim will be happy to know that Cherry Picker has recently changed jobs and will no longer have to take Marta all the way up to Sandy Spring to work. Instead Cherry Picker will be working very close to Jim downtown, but still not driving to work.

Leave the car at home.

By harold

July 5, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

harold thinks old people hate the idea of cars becoming of secondary importance because it is a sign that their time on Earth, too, is passing

change is hard because each time it happens it highlights that you personally are aging

give up your old ways and you can stay forever young until you die

unlearn!! unlearn!!!

do not build your cities for cars. build for people.

By jm

July 5, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

well, it would be interesting to know how much cash the atlanta chamber of commerce, convention and visitor’s bureau (or whatever agency atlanta uses to plug the city to visitors and conventions) has had to shell out to try and downplay this incident. Probably a bit more than the cost of a jaywalking ticket.

By getalife

July 5, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

getalife thinks harold will like this idea

By harold

July 5, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

once there are no cars on Peachtree (by July 4, 2012) you will be able to bicycle from Buckhead to downtown faster than you can currently make the trip in a car or by Marta!

By harold

July 5, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

getalife harold does like that idea!

harold wonders if they recognize the risk they are running.. people might well not want the cars back!!!

By snivelling MoRoN harold's obsession

July 5, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

snivelling MoRoN harold’s obsession is now utterly convinced that harold’s last two lobotomies were perpetrated by a deranged bicycle mechanic posing as a monkey brain brain surgeon at Emory’s Primate Centre where harold was treated. This is the ONLY credible scenario that explains harold’s abjectly irresistible cretinous descent into bicycle hell.

snivelling MoRoN harold’s obsession hereby DEMANDS that harold explains to Mrs snivelling MoRoN harold’s obsession how she bicycles over 30 miles one way to work and over 30 miles back from work each day. harold is such a braindead alcoholic car hating nutter that he clearly is incapable of processing the fact that tens of thousands of folks commute 20/30 miles or even more miles one way to work and cycling is simply impossible for them.

the bicycle is simply NOT a practical mode of transport for the vast majority of folks living in metro Atlanta. How does harold explain to snivelling MoRoN harold’s obsession how - using a bicycle - we transport our weekly 50lb bag of dog food, in the rain or oppressive summer heat. How does harold suggest we transport all the hefty/heavy gardening supplies we need from Home Depot or the petrol needed for the lawn mower etc. snivelling MoRoN harold’s obsession uses a shiny new nice big Tundra pick up truck for these tasks, plus taking a large dog to the vets which is 10 miles or so away, collecting free copies of the NY Slimes from KSU campus for house training pups and lining bird cages etc. how does harold suggest that inbred rednekkk attends its intermediate and advanced cross burning workshops which snivelling MoRoN harold’s obsession understands are over 30 miles away from its current mental hospital ward?

Bicycling around a fairly compact, albeit severely polluted city like London is fairly practical. Metro Atlanta even with a much smaller population is (depending on where you draw an obviously arbitrary line) is 2/3 times bigger than London with much faster roads that are completely unsuited for the most part for cycling.

snivelling MoRoN harold’s obsession suggests harold buggers off to mountain air fresh Peking in Red China and buys a cheapo crappy commie bike to ride around on … for a few weeks of bicycling ecstasy until the inevitable occurs!!

By Rich

July 5, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Well it seems to me that neither of the two could be in the ‘right’. Cops are paid from funds collected…(sorry i mean seized by the state)… from the citizenry, and so are university professors. Both examples of godless collectivism..socialism!!!

So both are “wrong”. Am I “thinking right” yet?

Also, there is quite the disconnect between today’s column and the previous one. Amen, say what 9:53.

From something topical and important to 300 million to a year old jaywalking case.

By Ban Bicycles

July 5, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Predictably the libs lurking here are trying to make some lame comparison between this case and Scooter Libby. The charges against the professor were dismissed. Scooter still pays his $250k fine.

Additionally, these bicycles are a traffic hazard. Restrict them to the playground where they belong.

By jm

July 5, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

Rich@11:02 - Sorry to disappoint you but Tufts University is a private institution, meaning professors there are not paid by the state (in this case, the state of Massachusetts), or at least not directly,

By jbmlaw

July 5, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I made the mistake of reading other blogger’s thoughts before I asserted my own right to blog irresponsibly today, and I am intellectually paralyzed by the brilliant essay of Mid South @ 10:35. Otherwise our progressive friends will be shaking with anger after they read John Lott’s new thesis, “Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t.” e.g., “Remarkably, it looks as if virtually all felons are Democrats.” Statistically controlled for race, sex, age, etc.

By harold

July 5, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

bicycles are not a traffic hazard. automobiles are a traffic hazard! automobiles are responsible for killing FIFTEEN TIMES as many americans as al qaeda killed in 2001. al qaeda warranted a response of global destruction but automotibles that kill FIFTEEN times as many amercians EVERY YEAR warrant expansion and further complication? harold sees a problem there.

a bicycle may not be suitable for some to commute 30 miles one way.. at least not at first, but once they lose all their CAR INDUCED BLUBBER it would be no problem!

If every person alternative commuted every other day then our public highway systems would accommodate that level of remaining private space traffic throught the year infinity and beyond!

how do you pick up your 50 pound sack of dog food? if the dog doof store is convenient to your work place, you pick it up on a driving day or make a weekend errand trip. easy!

bicycles can be combined with rail transit (light or heavY) to easily work and/or live a few miles from the transit stations and not have to worry about taking the very slow bus.

if the marta train drops you a mile from your work, you can make that mile in 5 minutes easy on a bicycle of 45 minutes to three hours on the bus

private cars should be restricted to private roads! get them off the public roads. those should be for public buses and taxis ONLY with the remaining 4 lanes per road converted for bicycle use

GIVE ATLANTA AN IDENTITY:

NO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY JULY 4, 2012

By Captain Freedom

July 5, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr Ban Bicycles,

Love the name! Nothing bespeaks Right Thinking like a good blog moniker!! The Captain knows too well the shame many of us face due to our girth and balance challenges, and the riducule we faced almost daily as children. It is part of what gives us the strength to battle Islamocommunistolibfascism via the Internet tubes. No amount of ridicule or so-called facts can sway us from Our Mission.

(In fact, the Captain thought about changing his moniker to Ban Playgounds or Ban Dodgeball, but it seemed somehow too severe. But kudos to you, good sir, for having the courage to lash out at those Devilish instruments of youthful ridicule.)

In truth, we should point out that the spirit of Christian forgiveness extends beyond the Oval Office, and that the Godly Scooter’s fines will be paid by decent True Believers who donate willingly their hard earned wages to relieve Mr Libby of this onerous burden. It is only Right.

He will not be asked to touch any of his personal fortune, such as that portion earned by representing Marc Rich in his pardon appeal to the Godless Clinton. Truly, Mr Libby Libby Libby earned that money the hard way. The poor man was forced to justify the Rich pardon within the bounds of the Justice Dept’s pardon and clemency guidelines, and to deal with the awful Clenis People to boot.

But truly, the loss of his legal practice is a deep cut. He will now be forced to Scooter from one think tank to the next, forced to scrape by on a meager 6-figure stipend until such time as Our Leader wipes the slate clean with a full pardon. It is a sad day when men like him are forced to submit to the whims of the ultraliberal Justice Department.

By Mike

July 5, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Tough being a cop? Give me a break stop towing the politically correct line. The police in ATL are terrible. Between shooting everything in site and not fighting real crime. I mean seriously, until all the terrorists, murderes, drug dealers and rapists are off the street don’t even bother with jaywalking. The police have a real screwed up priority list.

By Rich

July 5, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

jm 11:31 What nonsense. State and federal financial aid paid directly to Tufts last year were over 23 million. Here’s the link http://finance.tufts.edu/budgetacc/costanalysis.php

This does not include departmental or research grants, which are way more than that. Here is a list of funding agencies for Tufts Links to Funding Agencies

Other Funding Agency Links:

most of these are govt. agencies. I know you to be sophisticated and I ask why do you make arguments you know are false? Also, the cop. You forgot him.

Some intellectual honesty, come on..you did include the qualifier at least not directly I give you that.

But face it, eh? Professors? They’re paid by a collective. Tufts research grants are way more than 23 million a year. I taught biochem here for some years and the competition for science grants is educational.

The cop is paid by the collective too. You know it, I know it, and so forth.

By harold

July 5, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

snivelling MoRoN harold’s obsession provided a very nice list of when it is quite reasonable to use a car!

but just to go to work emptyhanded or perhaps carrying a lunch… the bicycle is perfect! our roads around Atlanta are what dont work.

using a car to haul yourself to work makes no sense. cars should be used when you have stuff you cant otherwise carry the distance you are going

By Scholar

July 5, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Say it with me now,

In 1,000 years none of this will matter anyway.

By harold

July 5, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

scholar, if we keep on with all the cars, the in 1,000 years none of this will matter because we will all be dead!

we keep making roadways more and more complex meaning more and more dangerous for anyone in the public space rather than a rolling private space which means eventually everyone will have been run over and we will all be dead

By Heather

July 5, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

After reading his opinion pieces on Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzalez, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Tom Delay and other corrupt officials in the White House and Congress, Jim Wooten’s faux defense of those who enforce the law and feigned disgust of those who think they’re above it rings hollow.

If Mr. Wooten genuinely cared about our Atlanta-area police forces, he would be writing about how underpaid they are, and as a result, how we’re unable to recruit and hire more officers from a bigger and better pool of candidates. Of course, since his wallet comes before public safety, Wooten would never write such an article.

By Scholar

July 5, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Harold, So you understood my post.

By harold

July 5, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

harold wonders why conservatives are normally against bicycling

bicycling is very conservative. bicycling is the cheapest most effective way to get around. bicycling creates no dependence on foreign oil or foreign cars (let’s face it- America cannot build a car we can depend on. Ford is still putting out cars where the door handles fall off for christ sake… and then they blame the consumer!!! it’s YOUR fault our door handle fell off the car!! yeah right!!)

anyway bicycles are the most conservative form of tranportation there is. everyone riding bicycles would virtually eliminiate road mantentance and expansion saving TRILLIONS of dollars

and yet.. conservatives hate bicycles

why is that?

well whyever it is, harold is glad it is that way.. because conservatives are much despised about right now, so that puts the antibicyclers in a very weak position politically

hate biccyles? too bad. you are powerless!

By getalife

July 5, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

GOP Senators Who Voted For Clinton Impeachment Dead Silent On Libby

Not the wacky wingnut pundits like Jim.

They spew their hypocritical drivel.

Geez.

By Dennis

July 5, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

By Heather July 5, 2007 12:33 PM “After reading his opinion pieces on Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzalez, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Tom Delay and other corrupt officials in the White House and Congress, Jim Wooten’s faux defense of those who enforce the law and feigned disgust of those who think they’re above it rings hollow.

“If Mr. Wooten genuinely cared about our Atlanta-area police forces, he would be writing about how underpaid they are, and as a result, how we’re unable to recruit and hire more officers from a bigger and better pool of candidates. Of course, since his wallet comes before public safety, Wooten would never write such an article.”

Well said.

We’ve yet to see an article of his supporting higher taxes for causes that would benefit the populace as a whole rather than the sole entity of the already rich.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Missy

July 5, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

“Nothing bespeaks Right Thinking like a good blog moniker!! The Captain knows too well the shame many of us face due to our girth and balance challenges, and the riducule we faced almost daily as children. It is part of what gives us the strength to battle Islamocommunistolibfascism via the Internet tubes. No amount of ridicule or so-called facts can sway us from Our Mission.”

Captain Freedom,

I was laughing so hard, I had to close the office door to keep from disturbing my co-workers.

Great stuff!

By AmVet

July 5, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

By the way, Libby announced this morning that he plans to spend his newfound freedom looking for “the real perjurers”.

Maybe OJ and Scoots can team up! They can both help Simpson find the “real” killers and they can also help Libby find the “real” perjurers.

It’s a win win!

Hey, if Bush “Read My Lips” 41 and Slick Willy can pal around now, there’s a chance these two can become bosom buddies.

By Patina

July 5, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

I love the Silver Comet trail. I love getting on a bike and letting the miles slip away and the fresh air blow by.

By J. Burns

July 5, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Dennis and Heather,

Ironically, not spending on an adequate police force is to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

In the long-run, a strong police force deters crime and reduces both court costs e.t. prosecutors, judges, public defenders, administrators) and prison costs (e.g. transportation, housing, clothing, health care, food). In addition, a safer community attracts residents and business, thereby increasing the tax base leading to lower tax rates for all.

A large and strong police force is an investment that pays huge dividends, and those who don’t want to pay taxes to cover such an investment are hurting themselves, their families and their communities.

By jbmlaw

July 5, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

Dear Getalife @ 12:43, the mirror of your post appeared in Taranto’s column Tuesday afternoon: In August 1999 President Clinton granted executive clemency to 16 members of FALN, the Puerto Rican terror group behind some 130 bombings, including one that killed four people at New York’s Fraunces Tavern in 1975. Even the ultraliberal New York Times looked askance: “To be sure, an American President has an absolute power to pardon. But that does not relieve him of the obligation to defend any and every decision to intervene in the criminal justice system. Indeed, this President’s rare use of the pardoning power makes it all the more important for him to reveal his reasoning. Of more than 3,000 applications for clemency filed since 1993, he has granted only 3. The suspicion is rampant that his motivation was a political effort to please the Puerto Rican community that is crucial to Mrs. Clinton’s hopes in the coming Senate race from New York.”

The House voted 311-41 for a nonbinding resolution “expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not have granted clemency to terrorists.” All 41 of those voting “no” were Democrats, as were 71 of the 72 members who voted “present” (the other was a self-styled socialist who abjured formal membership in the party).

Nancy Pelosi, now speaker of the House, did not vote. But the Congressional Record reveals that was only because she showed up late; Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the last vote, H. Con. Res. 180, I was detained in traffic while returning to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted “no.” Pelosi was unwilling to criticize a president of her own party when he turned loose terrorists convicted of such crimes as seditious conspiracy, possession of unregistered firearms and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. Keep that in mind as you read her statement yesterday: The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people. The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak [sic] case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable. For our part, we’re just happy that a good and patriotic man won’t have to go to prison as a sacrifice to the Angry Left.

By jbmlaw

July 5, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Apologies for punctuation flaw. The Pelosi quote ended after the word “accountable.” The final line was Taranto’s.

By KR

July 5, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

I don’t see what a jaywalking dispute in Atlanta has to do with a perjury conviction and sentence commutation in Washington.

One has to suspect any investigation of the jaywalking incident that doesn’t include interviews of the alleged jaywalker. Maybe the APD should try again before calling this one closed.

Bush was certainly within his legal right to commute Libby’s sentence. It just puts him in the same league as Clinton and Bush the first for questionable pardons/commutations.

But, it points out that the President is not strong enough to weather either letting Libby do his legally sentenced jail term or completely pardoning Libby.

Commuting the sentence is like straddling a fence and hoping neither side will find fault with you.

By KR

July 5, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

I don’t see what a jaywalking dispute in Atlanta has to do with a perjury conviction and sentence commutation in Washington.

One has to suspect any investigation of the jaywalking incident that doesn’t include interviews of the alleged jaywalker. Maybe the APD should try again before calling this one closed.

Bush was certainly within his legal right to commute Libby’s sentence. It just puts him in the same league as Clinton and Bush the first for questionable pardons/commutations.

But, it points out that the President is not strong enough to weather either letting Libby do his legally sentenced jail term or completely pardoning Libby.

Commuting the sentence is like straddling a fence and hoping neither side will find fault with you.

By Ban Bicycles

July 5, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Congress should immediately conduct hearings on the safety concerns of the bicycling public. Seat belts, shoulder harnesses, air bags, side impact protection, shock absorbing bumpers, turn signals, anti-chafing seats, training wheels are all being denied the public due to the greedy bicycle manufacturers.

These may seem inconvenient, but after all - If it saves one life it’s worth the sacrifice.

By A V 8 R

July 5, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

IT was clear to all who witnessed the encounter that he was truly a police officer, if the professor had simply said I’m sorry I didn’t know of the law, you would not be reading this. What benefit can being belligerent ever have, especially to a cop, I assure you NONE. And this moron is a proffessor of what, may I ask? He simply got what he was asking for.

By Katie

July 5, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Interesting post by jbmlaw, but I’m still going with the Democrats in ‘08. The hypocrisy and corruption in the Republican party is unmatched and too much to bare. I want elected representatives that are more likely to look out for my family’s interests, my community’s interests and my country’s interests more than the interests of themselves and their crony friends.

From minimum wages (just raised) to government oversight to appointing fair judges to homeland security to health care to fighting poverty to effective diplomacy to “fair” trade — Democrats fit the bill far better than Republicans.

By Southern Democrat

July 5, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

I must point out some factual omissions from my good friend Jbmlaw’s previous post as I remember arguing with my wife about those pardons (not the Rich pardon which was inexcusable).

The convicts whose sentences were commuted were not found guilty of the substantive offenses (as best I can recall), but conspiracy. Further, each had served at least FIFTEEN YEARS (again, as best I can remember), which, I’m sure Jbmlaw will agree, is an awfully long time on any conspiracy charge.

By Amber

July 5, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

Just an FYI —

I saw the movie “Sicko” yesterday, and for those who don’t know, it’s not about Americans who don’t have health insurance. It’s about those of us who do.

The stories are about how deductibles, co-payments, prescription prices, denied claims, increasing premiums and policy limits can drag hard-working, middle-class households with a sick family member (often through no fault of their own) into a state of suffering, poverty, and sometimes death or mourning.

Whether or not you like Michael Moore, you owe it to yourself to go see it.

By .

July 5, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Now here’s something really cool to wear

http://www.thoseshirts.com/larval.html

http://www.thoseshirts.com/topten.html

By Scholar

July 5, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

Ban Bicycles, “…greedy bicycle manufacturers.” Yeah, we all know how bad those bicycle manufacturers are. Of all the industries, tobacco, alcohol, defense, they are the absolute dregs! You have blown the lid off them and their nefarious plans though. Good work!

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

July 5, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw,

I continue to enjoy your ability to rationalize current egregious lapses in moral and legal behaviour by pointing out similar lapses from a bygone era.

What you’re saying is that since Clinton did it, Bush should be able to do it too. Since Clinton lied, Bush can lie too. Since Clinton was morally suspect, Bush can be morally suspect too.

It doesn’t do too much for the whole idea of bringing morality & Christanity back to the White House, but it does make for some fantastic fancy legal two-stepping doesn’t it?

Katie,

I hate to break it to you…it’s not the individuals, democrat or republican. It’s the system that they work within. Corporations are the bad guys here…the politicians are just the hookers that they use to front for them.

By .

July 5, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

now this is what I call diversity

http://www.thoseshirts.com/diversitybk.html

By harold

July 5, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

but seriously if libby’s sentence was “excessive” why didnt george bush make it “appropriate” instead of making it disappear? can he not commute half the jail time? if that beyond his power? ha. apparently one day of prison was excessive beucase dubai certainly could have left him with that. even paris hilton got more jail time than scooter. is that appropriate? one drove drunk, the other perjured to congress. hmm. paris hilton should get a bicycle.

By .

July 5, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

The new CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC, NPR, MSNBC journalists T-shirt

http://www.thoseshirts.com/rope.html

By Katie

July 5, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

JCP,

I hear you, and I agree.

But which party do you believe is more likely to change the system? Which party voted overwhelmingly for campaign finance reform? On the other hand, which party’s Supreme Court appointees just overturned a law (i.e. judicial activism) effectively giving both corporations and unions rights to influence campaigns — rights that don’t exist in our Constitution. Which party’s constituency (like myself) is more likely to demand further reforms (like “Clean Elections”) and appoint judges that will interpret the Constitution correctly?

You’re correct that we have to change the system. As as one step to getting there, I’m voting for Democrats.

By Katharine

July 5, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Jaywalkers who take their lives in their hands will suffer more than anyone if they get hit.

Police and police state attitudes are at issue here. My guess is the cop was more interested in generating revenues from fines than protecting jaywalkers from danger.

As a taxpayer, I resent being forced to subsidize police to harrass people for minor offenses, when the real criminals are in the government.

By Katie

July 5, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

One more thing, I’m not an apologist for corruption in the Democratic party like Mr. Wooten is for corruption in the Republican party. I was sorry to hear that Rep. Jefferson was re-elected and believe that, given our positions on the issues, we have to be as tough or tougher on corrupt Democrats than on Republicans. If we want to take the high road, then we have to set the example.

By getalife

July 5, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

“The commutation was for the coverup. The coverup was for the CIA outing. The outing was for the war. The war was for oil and profit.”

Clinton/Obama, the ultimate karma.

Bwa.

By Charles

July 5, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

Bottom line, with the low pay, danger, and bad hours, why would anyone want to be a cop? And I don’t buy the, “to give something back” nonsense. There are plenty of other ways to give back without putting your life on the line. It’s about wanting the control and power. And those that want it seldom should be entrusted with it.

As we’ve seen on Neal Street, with all the questionable DeKalb County police shootings, etc.: Anyone who wants to be a cop probably should not be.

By Jackie

July 5, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Police, teachers and other public servants are vastly underpaid. It appears that the remaining American worker is being put into that same category. Bush has disrespected the law and those that are sworn to enforce the law by his dealing with Libby. They are making things up as they go, therefore, we are left to fight over what they did. Libby has already “paid” his fine, but, the judge said that Libby cannot be on supervised probation because he has not served prison time. More legal drama.

By Adam

July 5, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Katie@2:31

You are Exhibit A for the case for repeal of the 19th Amendment. Katie dear, you should watch something in addition to The Daily Show. It might help you broaden your understanding of the issues.

How’s the CBS gig working out?

By Jerry

July 5, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

President Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to coin the phrase “executive privilege,” but not the first to invoke its principle: namely, that a president has the right to withhold certain information from Congress, the courts or anyone else — even when faced with a subpoena. Executive privilege, though, is a murky and mysterious concept. Here, an attempt to clarify the murk.

Does the Constitution allow for executive privilege?

Nowhere does the Constitution mention the term or the concept of executive privilege. The belief that it does, the late legal historian Raoul Berger once said, is one of the greatest “constitutional myths.”

So how can a president simply withhold information if the Constitution doesn’t give him the power to do so?

Presidents have argued that executive privilege is a principle implied in the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. In order to do their job, presidents contend, they need candid advice from their aides — and aides simply won’t be willing to give such advice if they know they might be called to testify, under oath, before a congressional committee or in some other forum.

How long have presidents been invoking executive privilege?

For as long as there have been presidents. In 1792, George Washington rebuffed efforts by Congress and the courts to get information about a disastrous expedition against American Indian tribes along the Ohio River. Washington lost that battle, and he handed over all of the papers that Congress had requested. But that hasn’t stopped many presidents over the years from invoking executive privilege.

Who usually wins these battles: the president or Congress?

It can go either way. President Eisenhower successfully kept officials from his administration from testifying at the Army’s hearings on Sen. Joe McCarthy. (The hearings concerned allegations that McCarthy had pressured the Army to give preferential treatment to a former aide, and McCarthy’s counter-charges.)

During the Watergate investigation, though, President Nixon failed in his attempts to withhold White House audio recordings from special prosecutor Leon Jaworski. Nixon handed over the tapes and, four days later, resigned. In his memoirs, Nixon wrote dejectedly, “I was the first president to test the principle of executive privilege in the Supreme Court, and by testing it on such a weak ground, I probably ensured the defeat of my cause.”

Didn’t the Nixon case settle the issue of executive privilege once and for all?

No. In fact, in its ruling on the Nixon tapes, the Supreme Court noted “the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” In other words, while rejecting Nixon’s particular claim of executive privilege, the court left the door open for future claims by future presidents. And there’s a key distinction to keep in mind: The Nixon case was part of a criminal investigation; the current case involving the Bush administration is not.

Is executive privilege a partisan issue?

No. Presidents from both parties have invoked executive privilege. And neither side has a clear winning record. In 1998, President Clinton became the fist president since Nixon to invoke executive privilege and lose in the courts, when a federal judge ruled Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Do presidents invoke executive privilege mainly in matters of national security?

No, not at all. Presidents have cited the privilege for all sorts of issues. For instance, the Bush administration invoked the spirit, if the not letter, of executive privilege when it argued that Vice President Dick Cheney need not disclose what was discussed during his Taskforce on Energy meetings. The Supreme Court upheld the administration’s claim in 2004. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, issued this warning: “Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the government are set on a collision course.”

I for one will take “transparency” over “confidentiality” (i.e. executive privilege) any day on all matters except national security. All advisors to the President should know that the President represents all of us and any information provided or advice given could be subject to public scrutiny. If a person isn’t comfortable meeting with our President in the open, then he or she has no business engaging our elected leader.

As an example, the issue of hiring and firing Justice Department employees is not an issue of national security and should not be subject to executive privilege. Again — transparency is essential to our representative democracy.

By RH

July 5, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

Charles, unfortunetely you are right. Most people who want to become part of any law enforcement position do it b/c they want the power, or they are extremely lazy and not the brightest bulb in the bunch. Pretty scary. There are good police officers out there, but most officers have issues just like the rest of the population or worse.

By Adam Hates Women

July 5, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Adam wrote, “Katie..You are Exhibit A for the case for repeal of the 19th Amendment”

Interesting. Adam finds a woman he doesn’t agree with, and argues that women should not be allowed to vote. Adam wants readers to think that his not-so-funny comment is a joke, but the truth is, he really does want to repeal the 19th Amendment.

Adam is Exhibit A of GOP apologists who will do whatever it takes to disenfranchise those they disagree with.

For more information, [read this].(http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0452288312/ref=s9asintitle1-1966p/103-7335760-6916642?pfrdm=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pfrds=center-1&pfrdr=1ESKX124FTGY2CG20C55&pfrdt=101&pfrdp=288448401&pfrdi=507846)

By Trista

July 5, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

Hey Adam,

Crawl back into the cave that you slithered out of, pig.

By Adam Hates Women

July 5, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

I messed up the link in my 3:21 post. If you’re interested, go to Amazon.com and search for the book “Armed Madhouse” by Greg Palast. If you read through the reviews, you’ll get a sample of what I was referring to in my earlier post.

By jbmlaw

July 5, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Dear jacp @ 2:18, I think you misread my note. I am merely accusing Nancy Pelosi of hypocrisy. No, that’s not quite right - she is one who holds no objection to releasing terrorists convicted of inflicting personal injury, but she condemns someone accused of inhibiting an investigation where there was no underlying crime (or perhaps Fitzpatrick was simply negligent in forgetting to prosecute Colin Powell’s aide for “outting” Plame?)

By jbmlaw

July 5, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

Actually, for real hypocrisy, let’s talk about the apparent next-presidential candidate from that party:

o “Nonviolent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.”—Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, June 28

o “Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law… . This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump

By jbmlaw

July 5, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Sorry, mispost, should have read:

Actually, for real hypocrisy, let’s talk about the erstwhile presidential candidate from that party:

o “Nonviolent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.”—Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, June 28

o “Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law… . This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”—Sen. Hillary Clinton, press release, July 2

By Leigh

July 5, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Adam at 3:07,

I don’t think your “joke” was very funny either. You’re exhibit A of an a*******hole, first-class.

By jbmlaw

July 5, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Dear jacp, if I wished to engage as you charged, my note would have read more like this note from today’s Taranto column:

Earlier, Mrs. Clinton issued a statement saying, “This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.” But let’s go back and review some of Mr. Clinton’s pardons. The one everyone remembers is that of Marc Rich, the fugitive tax evader who renounced his citizenship and whose wife was a big Clinton donor. (Coincidentally, Rich was a client of Scooter Libby, then a lawyer in private practice.) But from CNN, here’s a contemporaneous list of other 11th-hour pardons:

o Roger Clinton, who was convicted of drug-related charges in the 1980s. He was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty in 1985 to conspiring to distribute cocaine. He cooperated with authorities and testified against other drug defendants.

o Susan McDougal, a former real estate business partner of the Clintons. She was sentenced in 1996 and released from prison in 1998. She was convicted of four felonies related to a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan that she and her husband, James McDougal, never repaid. One tenth of the loan amount was placed briefly in the name of Whitewater Development, the Arkansas real estate venture of the Clintons and the McDougals… .

o Henry Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development during Clinton’s first term in office. He was convicted of making false statements to FBI agents conducting a background investigation of him when he was nominated to the Cabinet post in 1993. They included misleading investigators about cash payments he made to a former mistress.

o Former CIA Director John Deutch. The one-time spy chief and top Pentagon official was facing criminal charges in connection with his mishandling of national secrets on a home computer.

Among the beneficiaries of Mr. Clinton’s pardons, then, were his own brother, a central figure in the Whitewater scandal, and two members of his own cabinet, one of whom, unlike Libby, actually faced charges of mishandling national secrets. Yet Mrs. Clinton can keep a straight face while throwing around charges of “cronyism”? This borders on sociopathy.

By JK

July 5, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Actually, fake laywerman, I think Jim’s a Cherry Picker has you (and Mr. Wooten on a daily basis) pegged quite accurately. Unless of course, you subscribe to the “exective” and “not really part of the executive” privileges of “It’s different when I do it.”

but she condemns someone accused of inhibiting an investigation where there was no underlying crime D’OH! Actually, obstructing an investigation of a crime IS a crime. You’d know that if you were an actual or competent lawyer. And he is no longer “accused,” he is “convicted” — another distiction even an idiot lawyer could make. As to the merits of what was covered up by the obstruction, I guess we’ll never know how innocent your brave heroes ARE, since the investigation was not complete. Isn’t that CONVENIENT?

By RH

July 5, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Actually, I think that is a sociopath….not just a close resemblance.

By Billie

July 5, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

I wish I could get Adam in a room with me and some of my friends. We’d cut off his penis and stuff it down his throat. Don’t worry though — he can’t choke on it — it’s way too small.

By AmVet

July 5, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

Katie, although I agree with some of your points, I see one problem with “If we want to take the high road, then we have to set the example.”

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am a former Democrat. I had been disenchanted with the direction of the party for some time, but for me the final straw was watching them do their best GOP imitation during Nader’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

And to this day those clowns still blame Ralph for their incompetence. Had they come out with a decent-to-good candidate they would have won both elections by 10 points or more. As it is they didn’t and you-know-who has been screwing up everything ever since.

Secondly, they did however learn something very well from their Republican masters. And that is how to bring out the biggest guns possible to slur, lie and do everything possible, legal or otherwise, to keep someone from trying to get into their lucrative little game and “territory”.

So unfortunately, in my opinion, the Democratic Party has perhaps the tiniest track record of ever actually having taken the high road.

Sadly for every slimy Republican in DC and elsewhere, one can readily think of a Democratic counterpart. As JCP pointed out, and as I have noted numerous times before, our government has simply been bought and sold by the highest bidders.

And the lure of easy, easy money, power and bennies is simply too great for many of these “leaders” not to simply line the walls of their offices (or with all of the dirty money they can.

So JCP is partially right, The special interests, lobbyists, PACs and the men who own the corporations are more important to those elected than the nation as a whole or a government of the people. And that is a HUGE part of the problem.

The other equally big issue - the complacency and ignorance of lazy American voters. How else can one explain this madness that substitutes for governance?

But some are more corruptible than others, and the essence of your post is correct. There is NO question, IMHO, that the GOP and its most strident supporters have been wallowing in a political sewer for the past 25 years.

But fortunately for the future of America it seems that Bush and Co. are content to keep driving as many nails as possible in the neo-conservative coffin.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

July 5, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

JBM,

You mistake me for someone who likes Hillary.

Either way, she has nothing to do with Bush’s amazing inabiltiy to practice what he preaches. He’s just another lying, cheating, stealing politician with a WWJD sticker on his car.

Katie,

Sorry, but the democrats won’t change anything.

They’ll do the same thing as the GOP: grandstand in front of the voting public with a bunch of sound-bite friendly quips, then take that big donation from big Pharma so big Pharma can legally shove another ill-tested and un-needed drug down our throats…and get a tax break while doing it.

By Dumbie the Uber Blonde

July 5, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

OH PLEASE, Mr. Super-Genius, Well-Read, OH so edumacated lawyer genius: Please tell us more about our previous president! Please? We get so sad when people want to talk about our current president and what HE does! Give us more reasons to hate the last one! That is SO much more meaningful to sad, stupid little folks like us! Please?

By Katie

July 5, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

AmVet,

I agree with you 100 percent. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I do want emphasize that as a person who is an active supporter of the Democratic Party, I’m not trying to make the point that Democrats are perfect. However, the values that Democrats represent are significantly more consistent with my values than those of the GOP, and the positions that Democrats take on most issues are significantly more consistent with my own (and, I believe, most Americans). Between the two parties, the kind of reforms needed to take politics out of the hands of the well-connected and return the power to you and me is significantly more likely to happen with a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress.

Are Democratic representatives perfect? Not by a long shot. Will it take work on the part of American voters to hold Democrats’ collective feet to the fire? Absolutely. Have the Democrats sucked at campaigning for elective office? Without a doubt.

But what is the result of voting for Bush because Al Gore and John Kerry are horrible campaigners? Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, a recent troop surge in Iraq, Alberto Gonzalez, commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence, billions lost in no-bid contracts, more signing statements, continuing growth of health care costs, continuing growth of our national debt, increasing poverty and infant mortality rates, continuing negligence when it comes to protecting our chemical and nuclear plants, unchecked nuclear proliferation, an inflamed Middle East, environmental destruction, and on and on.

For me, the choice is a no-brainer.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

July 5, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

AmVet,

Yeah…we’re to blame as well.

By any account we should be in the streets right now, kicking butt and demanding change.

I’m not sure why that’s not happening. I think it has something to do with the stuff that Chomsky writes about.

Regarding your “nail in the coffin” statement, I’d kinda like to see another 10 years of GOP rule…Cheney for Prez, perhaps. Just so folks can really get a good idea about how evil they really are.

But it looks like we’ll get some democrats who may or may not do a good job, but who will definately be subjected to playground taunts at the expense of actual debate by the conservative media.

By Darrel

July 5, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this

Tough being a cop? How about being a District Attorney and trying to uphold the laws already on the books? Then, along come people like the “Reverends” Sharpton and Jackson, who, if they were truly the Christians they claim to be, wouldn’t be holding up for such immorality as what the crime constisted of being in the Genarlow Wilson case. The law was the law and the sentence was consistent with that law as it existed AT THAT TIME! Do they not, as “Christian” types, believe in the Ten Commandments or is that a list of “rules” to be used only as it fits their own needs? Man, I’m confused!!!! What do these two really stand for? WHAT? Oh, they stand for getting their pictures taken don’t they?

By AmVet

July 5, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Katie and JCP, I wish I could discuss some more, but it will have to wait until another day. I must do a great mitzvah and pay a home visit to a client who is mourning the loss of his long-suffering grown son.

Later, all!

By Killin' Time

July 5, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

I want to piggy-back on what AmVet had to say about incompetent campaigns by Democratic presidents and voter apathy.

I also am a person who votes almost exclusively for Democrats. It’s true that Gore and Kerry, for example, ran horrible presidential campaigns. But AmVet was more correct when he alluded to fact that our problems are, in part, a result of complacent, ignorant and lazy American voters.

Unlike most voters, I know where I stand on most issues and I don’t need my Democratic presidential candidate to be the most adept campaigner in order to persuade me to vote for him or her. Once elected, I simply need him (or her) to use his good judgment to meet the needs of the country. For me, that includes, as Katie alluded to, appointing good judges, strengthening and enforcing environmental laws, returning the airwaves to the people (which could help to take the money out of politics), seeking and implementing solutions to our health care crisis, enacting trade agreements that raise the quality of lives in other countries without destroying the quality of lives for Americans, enacting recommendations of the 9/11 report, securing Social Security for future generations, limiting access to assault weapons without reducing access to hunting rifles, keeping church and state separate, …

My point is that if voters would take their right to vote seriously and vote on the issues instead of voting on who sighs inappropriately during a debate or who misspeaks when explaining a particular vote, we might be able to make some progress in this country instead of driving in reverse — which, it seems, is exactly what we’re doing right now.

By Adam

July 5, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

adamhateswomen@3:27

As you suggested, I looked up the reviews of the book that has so thoroughly fascinated you. Raving reviews from Noam Chamsky, Randi Rhodes adn Michael Moore. Number 3,147 on the NYT bestseller list. Sounds like a tome for the ages.

By AmVet

July 5, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Killin’ Time, I’m just walking out the door, but I want to commend you for that 4:24.

Well said. No. Better than well said.

By RH

July 5, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Darrel, with that comment, you are just as ignorant as they are man. Get a life. Sharpton and Jackson are pretty bad in their own right, but you should just keep your mouth shut because you sound really uneducated and just flat out stupid. Maybe even equally as ignorant as Sharpton and Jackson. Maybe worse.

By K-Squared

July 5, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

Adam,

You overestimate your wit and underestimate those who you hope to persuade with your inane sarcasm.

If you have an intelligible argument to make, then I’m confident that many would like to read it. In the meantime, you should know that you’re embarrassing yourself and those you represent from the right side of the political spectrum.

By lets slap the leftist b_itches silly

July 5, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

BRILLIANT JOB ADAM.

Getting some sad menopausal hag so beautifully and viscerally wound up with a modest Katie CBS ratings loser Pukic quip was just hilarious!! My compliments Sir.

By harold

July 5, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

ZERO CARS ON PEACHTREE BY July 4, 2012!!!!

By blackberry

July 5, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

The Atlanta Police department has consistently been rated as one of the worst police departments in the country.

In general they are hostile, incompetent, unprofessional and unpleasent to deal with. Even their own internal audits reveal most of the beat cops spend more time doing their moonlighting gigs and treat the hours on duty as “rest” time.

Regardless of the circumstances, each and every interaction I have had with the Atlanta police has been a negative one. They behave as if they are above reproach and the attitude they display is hostile and arrogant.

At best they are only good at discouraging the most simple of crimes and generally are only moderately competent at investigating and writing up crimes and crime scenes.

Basically, stay away from them if you can. Nothing good can come out of the corrupt APD.

By Mike

July 5, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

If Elton John was performing at a concert, shouldn’t the cop know who he is?

I think the professor sounds like an arrogant jerk, but having seen the cops at Piedmont and the Buckhead Loop during afternoon rush hour, I might give him the benefit of the doubt…

By smalltownsrock

July 5, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

Attention Atlantans…you have MARTA…Use It, you morons!! Wooten..lets see, what non-issue can I write about today…I know, Jay-walking! What a loser! Why don’t you explain why Bush feels he can re-write the law to fit his circumstance?

By 54tca

July 5, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this

Funny how no democrat whined about executive privilege when Mr. Clinton was in the White House. Stunningly funny.

Libby should have pulled a Clinton during Whitewater and said I do not recall. I doubt very seriously any person on this blog can specifically recall what he or she said on Tuesday morning, March 11, 2003 to a coworker or friend. If any of you Dem experts and know it alls on everything can do that, post about it here.

People are starving in America. The economy stinks! Millions of chubby kids go to bed hungry in America. High foreclosures are not because losers - many of them Dem voters - received loans they shouldn’t have, but because this economy stinks! The sky is falling and only the Socialists can pull us out of this. Is there any question why we don’t hear much about the economy these days from either the mainstream media or campaigning Dems?

Watch what happens when the Dems get the White House and their Great Socialist Utopia comes true and companies and organizations are taxed and regulated right out of business. Watch what happens when the economy tanks. Watch them blame Bush for causing it all and not leaving them with anything to work with. Watch what happens when we collapse because Dems thought government knew best. Watch.

By Captain Freedom

July 5, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this

Adam,

Welcome sir! Another stalwart Right Thinker to vex the Islamocommuhomo lefty bedwetter types. pay no attention to K-Squared, who clearly is intimidamated by you superior wit and Godly True Belief.

The Captain believes you represent the Right Thinkers quite accurately, thank you very much.

Oh, and that putdown of Katie…timeless, a real classic. You are truly a rapier wit, sir.

By 54tca

July 5, 2007 5:50 PM | Link to this

Oops, I forgot to add this -

‘Today is a great challenge because you can go from reporting on the presidential pardon of Scooter Libby to grilling hamburgers outside on the patio - from one kind of grilling to another - and I love that. Switching gears makes it so much fun.’ - Meredith Vieira on balancing ‘Today’ with ‘Millionaire’. How many other idiot Americans out there now are going to not know the difference between a pardon and a commutation? Uneducated stupid democrats, that’s who. Liberals should be banned from media. The amount of disinformation they commute as information is pathetic.

By Mrs. RepubLady

July 5, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Watch what happens when the Dems get the White House and their Great Socialist Utopia comes true and companies and organizations are taxed and regulated right out of business.

This is an EXCELLENT example of how to argue with godless, heathen liberals. Never stoop to their level and discuss the issue they’re discussing.. or ANY issue for that matter! Instead, use the terms “Socialist Utopia” (it is not possible to overuse that one) and “taxing out of business” to instill fear in their hearts where reason should be. Never use facts to support logic. Never use logic! Never use facts! Be sure to bring up Clinton at least once in any discussion, and blame him for whatever they’re discussing.

Nice work, 54tca! Well said! Bravo!

By Fan of 54tca

July 5, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

54tca,

Thank you for that “non-manufacturing” economic statistic. That pretty much says it all. However, for the skeptics out there, how about giving us the following additional statistics for the last several Bush years:

poverty rates, violent crime rates, infant mortality rates, CPI rates, savings rates, national debt growth rates, GDP growth rates, median income growth rates, health care cost growth rates, gasoline price growth rates, health care premium growth rates, average hours worked per year (relative to the 90’s), trade deficit growth rates, currency exchange rates for the dollar,…

Your research and insight is much appreciated.

By @@

July 5, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

Dang Jim, ‘ya know what I dislike the most about cyclists?

The way they love to show their a*******es in traffic. Guys in tight rubber “shorts” have never appealed to me.

I just put my daughter on a plane to the U.K. She’s attending a studies program at Cambridge.

What is she excited about seeing there?

Hogwarts! Maybe she’ll run into the good professor there.

By 54tca

July 5, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Fan, poverty rates are a farce in this nation because they are based on income, not wealth. Crime is up because of a lack of police officers due in part to Iraq as well as an older demographics and fewer new applicants interested as more high schoolers go to college. Real GDP growth is positive. Median income growth is positive overall. National debt, no comment as we have two wars and no Conservatives in the White House or congress. Health care, needs a fixing, but not from government takeover. Gasoline, ask why no new exploration or refineries and why we have 70 formulations these days which causes a backload of refining. Hours worked are higher due to higher living wishes like bigger homes and more and better cars. Trade deficit, no comment as we continue to want cheap products. Same for currency exchange. Good enough, poser?

By 54tca

July 5, 2007 6:07 PM | Link to this

Uhm, Mrs. RepubLady, is it that time of the month for you or did I just merely offend? You seem high strung. Women have high blood pressure and heart attacks just as much as men these days. I’d really hate to see you succumb to that all because you read something on a blog and it infuriated you. There are going to be things said out there that will upset you, and you know what Mrs. RepubLady, that’s just something you are going to have to deal with on your own terms. For your own good of course.

By 54tca

July 5, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this

Here’s a link to real disposable income growth in case any lib needs a little help or questions what was posted. There are stats, and then there are lies and nail spitting libs. Here’s another from the Census based on income by state from 2002 through 2005. I see numbers by each state going up mostly, not down. Someone reads the New York Times too much here.

By 54tca

July 5, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this

Still no takers? Let’s take that Census.gov link and just look at the New York median income from 2002-2005:

‘02 - $44,943 ‘03 - $46,195 ‘04 - $47,349 ‘05 - $49,480

My math shows median household income going up in New York. But let me guess! Hillary did it!

Another random state shot of PA:

‘02 - 41,171 ‘03 - 41,406 ‘04 - 42,941 ‘05 - 44,537

Average all states and you will see the lie of how median income in America is down, and why smart people like Hillary aren’t even going there. Only moonbat libs buy that BS and try and pawn it off. No $ale here moonbats.

By Fan of 54tca

July 5, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

54tca wrote, “…poverty rates are a farce…Crime is up…National debt, no comment…Health care, needs a fixing…Gasoline, ask why no new exploration…Hours worked are higher…Trade deficit, no comment as we continue to want cheap products. Same for currency exchange…”

Thank you for this informaton. I agreed with your earlier post indicating that everything is just fine in America, but the facts at your disposal, no doubt, have persuaded the skeptics.

You rock, buddy.

By Robert

July 6, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

He said he didn’t know Leonpacher was an officer and, furthermore, jaywalking is not illegal in Britain. Dee Dee Dee he in the US!

By Rando

July 6, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

I’m picking on goofball liberal Harold. There’s a fool who rides his bike home after work around Cumberland Mall some days. He holds up traffic and is a terrible inconvenience for drivers. I told him so. He said he doesn’t care, it’s legal. Legal and stupid. Like Harold

By Rando

July 6, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

I’m picking on goofball liberal Harold. There’s a fool who rides his bike home after work around Cumberland Mall some days. He holds up traffic and is a terrible inconvenience for drivers. I told him so. He said he doesn’t care, it’s legal. Legal and stupid. Like Harold