A frame of mind that I can readily and completely agree with... :D

Michale......

i do capitalize professional communications, just not e-mails or on-line posting, when i remember not to. it's just sort-of my "thing." (i wish i could figure out how to stop my phone's automatic capitalization feature.)

i know i'm not the first to intentionally forgo capitalization, e.e. cummings and lucille clifton being notable among those to do so in their poetry. in some of those contexts it has come to represent racial equality and the utopian ethos of the 60's, but for me i think it's just my little rebellion against doing things the way we all supposedly should.

anyhow, thanks for asking.

After further consideration, under the nearly unbearable strain of manual labor (putting up a new fence in the backyard... Even my aches have aches) I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong. At least partially...

I still think it's utterly moronic for the First Couple to send their kid to MEXICO (of all places) for Spring Break. Surely a better spot would be Daytona Beach, for political as well as personal safety reasons..

So, while it IS a legitimate news story, I believe that the safety of the principal is the overriding factor and therefore, it should NOT be reported...

Following this line of "mea culpa", it's not out of line for the White House to apply influence to have the stories pulled...

I still maintain, however, that the Left would have gone berserk if a GOP Administration would try to exert such influence...

But the exertion of the influence was the correct course of action in this particular instance...

Michale.....

A personal question if I may.. Do not feel any obligation to answer if you choose not to..

I have noticed that you disregard the use of capitalization in your postings..

Now, your obvious intelligence has never been nor will ever be, in question....

I was just curious if there is a specific reasoning for it, or it's just your chosen "style"..

Again, none of my business whatsoever.... Just curious....

Michale.....

Michale.....

Why Is the Story About Malia Obama Vacationing in Mexico Disappearing from the Web?
theblaze.com/stories/why-is-the-story-about-malia-obama-vacationing-in-mexico-disappearing-from-the-web/

White House Admits to Asking News Agencies to Pull Malia Obama Vacation Story
theblaze.com/stories/white-house-admits-to-asking-news-agencies-to-pull-malia-obama-vacation-story/

Further evidence that the MSM is, indeed, in the bag for Obama...

Can you imagine the outcry from the Left if Bush or Republicans tried to exert such force over the media???

Michale.....

The statement MAY be true, but in the here and now, it's in the realm of opinion...

quite possible, even likely. if so, you're absolutely justified in calling foul on the individuals,

It just bugs me that, for all intents and purposes, *I* am the only one calling foul..

Especially when the "foulness" is as blatant as the day is long...

Present company excepted, of course.. :D

Michale.....

they were and are. that the president or democrats happened to say so, or whether they subsequently embraced or rejected SuperPACs, or whether or not that constitutes hypocrisy, have zero bearing on the truth of the statement.

Within a couple weeks (give or take), Obama and Democrats will, once again, disavow SuperPACs and SPs will, once again, become "a threat to our democracy"...

quite possible, even likely. if so, you're absolutely justified in calling foul on the individuals, but not impugning the statement itself. it is still essentially the case, regardless of which side of the issue obama or the democrats happen to stand on at any given moment.

Ya'all will recall, after the Citizens United ruling came down from on high, Democrats up to and including President Obama and even higher (Weigantians.. :D) took to the airwaves to denounce the ruling. They (and ya'all) claimed that the ruling and the resulting SuperPACs were evil, were "a threat to our democracy" and would lead to the corporateization of our elections..

At the time, I stated that it was all politics. That if Democrats found they could use the ruling and SuperPACs to their advantage, then the ruling and SuperPACs would become acceptable..

Sure enough, a couple months later, Obama and Democrats did just that. They embraced Citizens United and SuperPACs...

"We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia."
-1984

Now, flash forward to today. Republicans are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in cash towards SuperPACs..

Democrats?? Not so much... Words like "dismal" and "awful" are being used to describe the donations towards Dem SuperPACs...

So, anyways, here's my prediction...

Within a couple weeks (give or take), Obama and Democrats will, once again, disavow SuperPACs and SPs will, once again, become "a threat to our democracy"...

Anyone wanna lay some bets??? :D

Michale.....

I have to admit, it does look pretty awesome..

But dsws' objection is valid, his colorful example notwithstanding. :D

I would not put it past some future demagogic president to make the middle star a little bit bigger than the rest or even put his own likeness as that middle star..

Oh that couldn't POSSIBLY happen, could it?? :D

Michale.....

Visually, yes. For cleverness, yes. But it puts one star at the center, making it look more important than the rest, like the Lion King with all the lower-ranking animals spread out in the Circle of Life around it, kneeling and waiting to become breakfast so that their rulers could poop them out and help make grass.

As far as I know, no American flag has ever singled out a star like that.

CW's looks best to me. I tried an 8+3 pattern, and it looks awful.

http://static.tumblr.com/6qlij8c/0P3lgm5zo/800px-us_flag_large_51_stars2.jpg

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-51sta.gif

is that or is that not just plain cool?

Yea, I did frak up on the CW flag.. I actually redid it twice, so I thought I got it right...

DOH!!! :D

It's actually a little weird.. In High School, I wrote an essay on a "future" newscast that announced that Mexico had become the 65th State...

Talk about deja vu all over again... :D

Michale.....

Um, isn't that CW link a 68-star flag? 5 rows of 8, 4 rows of 7?

That first one just looks weird, though.

Mine would be only six rows total: 9,8,9,8,9,8. It may make the star field look a little long and skinny, though, I do admit.

-CW

FoxNews is hated by Obama, Democrats AND Al Qaeda....

I wager there's a moral there somewhere... :D

Michale.....

And ya'all still deny that the MSM is in the bag for Obama?? :D

Want more evidence that the MSM is in the bag for Obama??

Father's outrage as TSA subjects his wheelchair-bound three-year-old son to humiliating search... on his way to Disney
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116881/TSA-subject-child-wheelchair-invasive-airport-security-tests-Chicago.html

If this had been reported during the Bush years, the MSM would be blaring it from every rooftop in the nation..

And the Left would screaming bloody murder for days, if not weeks..

But, since it's Obama, not a peep from the Left and only Drudge reports it....

How ANYONE can deny the MSM is in the bag for Obama with a straight face is beyond me...

Michale....

You mean like this:

sjfm.us/temp/51StateFlagNY.jpg

Or CW's idea:

sjfm.us/temp/51StateFlagCW.jpg

Apparently some Democrats would prefer this:

sjfm.us/temp/ObamaFlag.jpg

brrrrrrrr THAT one's just creepy...

:D

Michale.....

sounds like a possibility. it could also work with a number of other combinations, like 6-7-6-6-7-6-6-7, 7-7-8-7-8-7-7, etc.

It's not true,

It's a LOT more true than ya'all would like to think...

Michale.....

The problem with that plan is Republicans can simply throw back to Democrats, "Ya'all are ALL about market intervention for the greater good. So let's start intervening for that greater good."

The problem with throwing Republican's words back at them is that Republicans can throw DEMOCRAT'S words back at THEM...

And people like you and me will STILL be caught in the middle and STILL be scroooed over...

By the bi... I dunno if yer still following the last FTP thread (230 comments!! Woot!!! :D) but I gave you a counter offer to your deal.. :D

Michale.....

I thought the right-wing mantra was that markets should determine prices, and that prices in an absolute laissez-faire utopia would be wonderful, so any price you don't like must be because of government meddling. It's not true, but at least it's more or less coherent.

The GOP has released a series of talking points designed to "mitigate the effects" of an improving economy.

The 3 things they're focusing on are gas prices, the deficit, and the unemployment rate.

Your points about linking to Iran are well taken. One other way I'd like to see Democrats fight back is to point out the hypocrisy in what the GOP is saying.

The conservative mantra: markets determine prices. Until, that is, you can score political points. Then, the rising price of gas is because of Obama.

This makes no sense. Because it implies that Republicans would somehow intervene in the market to reduce the price of gas.

How do we know they'd do no such thing? Because they've told us over and over.

What I would like to see is Obama coming out and saying "Let the markets work"

-David

That SHOULD read:

It says a lot of what ya'all have been saying regarding obstructionist Republicans in such a way as it is no longer possible to deny it...

No Freudian slip, I promise.. :D

Michale....

The Death Of The Political Middle
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/18/death-political-middle/

It says a lot of what ya'all have been saying regarding obstructionist in such a way as it is no longer possible to deny it...

It's a very good read that sends a message that doesn't bode well for this country..

Michale....

And ya'all still deny that the MSM is in the bag for Obama?? :D

Michale....

Hats off to you for that. Trying to read statute is massively frustrating and eventually fruitless, in my experience.

See the link in [11]. When I wrote that, I went down the same dead-end alley you did. I even tried reading applicable federal code, but it was so vague as to be almost meaningless. It's mostly tradition, that's what I decided after looking into it. It's like when Clinton got impeached -- nobody really had any idea what the trial in the Senate was supposed to be like, because it had been so long.

You're right, an English-only requirement could indeed be constitutionally-laid. Mostly because (see above) everything's so vague to begin with. And there's certainly nothing AGAINST it in the Constitution, you're right about that.

The basic process, as I remember it, is thus:

1. Territory (or "commonwealth" in PR's case) meets minimum people requirement.

2. People there vote on statehood, and it passes (this could be an optional step, not sure).

3. State constitutional convention convenes, and produces state constitution. Again, possibly an optional referendum on whatever is produced, so people get to vote on it.

4. Territory applies to Congress for statehood.

5. Both houses of Congress vote on it (simple majority? not sure). If they vote it down, they can send the state constitution back for revision (the battle over Utah and polygamy, I think, from memory?). Eventually, Congress agrees.

6. Not sure whether president even has to sign this or not... could be one of those things he doesn't get to sign, I dunno...

7. Statehood!

That's just from memory. I would look into the history of the most contentious states joining -- maybe start with the Missouri Compromise (Missouri, Maine), and maybe Kansas and Nebraska as well ("Bleeding Kansas") -- maybe there's some factual information there if you dig deep enough.

We are now living in the longest period of US history without adding a state. The previous gap was 47 years, between... um, NM? AZ?... and HI and AK joining. We've gone, what, 52 or 53 years since then?

What fascinates me is how the flag would change with 51. 51 is actually divisible by a handy number (17), so you could have six rows of stars, alternating between 8 and 9 stars per line.

I own a 49 star flag, just because it's fun (one of the shortest-lived US flags ever).

-CW

Of course I wasn't saying Santorum claims it's unconstitutional to have an official-language prerequisite. He says that there is one. De-facto, there is. You seemed to be saying that's unconstitutional. I was arguing against what I took to be your position.

No point in arguing against Santorum. He's not here, and he's never going to agree with me on much of anything anyway.

So, do you claim that it's unconstitutional for Congress to demand the use of English as a prerequisite for statehood?

Also, what statutes are currently in effect regarding the application of territories for statehood? I couldn't find anything. I dimly remember, from some long-past history class or reading, that various territories were authorized in advance to apply for statehood when they met some criteria including population and something about having a government set up.

Did you know that it's against Federal Law to be annoying on the Internet??

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
news.cnet.com/2010-1028-6022491.html

Did you know that it's illegal in many states to collect rain water??

Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water
naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html#ixzz1pMWzQ39h

Did you know that if you register a fake name on MySpace or FaceBook, you could spend five years in a federal prison?

Heritage Foundation: One New Crime a Week
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376202,00.html

These laws and many more ridiculous laws can be found here:

19 Signs That America Has Become A Crazy Control Freak Nation Where Almost Everything Is Illegal
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-signs-that-america-has-become-a-crazy-control-freak-nation-where-almost-everything-is-illegal

Now, honestly..

Do we REALLY need more ridiculously redundant laws???

Michale.....

I was gonna comment about this, but Liz beat me to it.. :D

The Republican overreach on their War on Women needs some pushback from Democrats.

Actually this alleged "War On Women" (which was more of a War On Hypocrisy) actually paid great dividends for the GOP. Obama's poll numbers went down over this...

But let's not open up THAT can o' worms, eh?? :D

As far as Blago being the MDDOTW????

I have a far FAR better nominee...

Leon Panetta, for totally dishonoring our troops by forcing them to disarm before a briefing with him...

By FAR, the better MDDOTW.....

And anyone who tries to come back with, "Well, the general ordered it!!" I will taunt you a second time.

Back... in time

"Of course Americans were better off four years ago."
-President Barack Obama

And just because this quote is priceless.

"If I can't turn this economy around in 3 years, I don't deserve another term in office."
-President Barack Obama, Jan 2009

Linking Iran and gas prices

What will happen to the gas prices if Iran nukes Tel Aviv??

{{{chirrrp}}} {{chhhhiiiiiirrrrrrrppp}}

Speculation at the pump

Wall Street attacks are NEVER a good idea for Democrats.. Because, as you have suggested before with NASCAR JACKETS, the "Wall Street Logo" would be featured large and in charge over MANY Democrat's clothing up to AND including President Obama.

So when Obama and the Democrats pull their, "Wall Street I hate you I hate you Can you give us some more money" routine, Independents and NPAs just shake their heads sadly...

No budget? No pay!

This is one issue that I am firmly with ya'all on!!! 'Rabid partisan' my ass!! :D

I don't think there is an American alive that would not support this...

Rick Santorum should read the Constitution

I always find it sad how politicians (Left AND Right) like to hide behind the Constitution when it suits their agenda, but totally ignore it when THAT suits their agenda...

Hypocrisy rears it's ugly head.... :(

How can you be against VAWA?

Two Words...

Special Protections Under The Law

Why don't we add protections for nerds or geeks or Star Trek fans or fat bald guys??

(All of the above, in case anyone was gonna ask.. :D)

I mean, seriously.. Are women more important than men that they should have special protection under federal law?? Are gay people more important than straight people that they should have special protection under federal law???

If someone beats up an immigrant, they should receive the same penalties as someone who beats up a Star Trek geek...

It's funny how the Left always claims to be about diversity and that being different doesn't matter one iota, but then they turn around and make every effort to emphasis people's differences..

Left-Wing "logic".....

Michale.....

I actually wrote about this issue a long time ago:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2007/06/27/our-51st-estado/

in which I predicted this sort of controversy.

:-)

-CW

As I read it, Santorum wasn't making the argument that it was against the Constitution to have an English-speaking requirement, but the opposite: that either the Constitution or federal law required it. Which is simply untrue. Neither, at the present time, has any such law or clause.

It's hard to read Santorum's words any other way: "...to be a state of the United States, English has to be the principal language." It's simply not true.

-CW

Sorry for the hassle, I have no idea why the Huffington Post keeps rejecting this comment. Maybe it's the Pope comment. Anyway, here is a full response to your comment on Irish pronounciation. I tried posting this comment on HP twice, and both times it immediately got deleted. Go figure.

Every person in Ireland (not Irish-Americans, in other words) uses the pronunciation "Shay-mus" as well as "Shin-aid" (to refer to the artist who ripped up the photo of the Pope on Saturday Night Live). I've never heard anything close to the pronunciation you list, from any Irish person.

The Irish name that gives Americans the most trouble is Siobhan, which is pronounced "Shi-vawn", and the Irish get a big laugh out of the American name Colleen, because the Gaelic word "cailín" is defined as "girl." It'd be like naming a baby in America "Girl Jones".

-CW

I don't think timing is the issue. It doesn't push anyone's hot-buttons. If you talk about history, or about any sort of abstract theory, you'll get no replies (unless they're non-sequiturs segueing to something it's easy to have an uninformed opinion about).

What's the problem with the Constitution? I don't remember anything in there against an official language.

The only things relevant that springs to mind are, first, the full faith and credit clause: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Acts, records, and proceedings have to be in some language or languages, intelligible to the other states and to Congress; and the effect of a law depends on its exact wording, to which the choice of language is obviously relevant.

Second, there's the power of Congress over the territories: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. That's a pretty broad grant of power. I'm pretty sure Congress has offered statehood conditional on specified criteria. Certainly it has had unchallenged authority to bring whatever factors it chose into the decision of what territories would be granted statehood, without the need for any justification beyond politics.

Finally, there's the necessary and proper clause. Congress shall have the power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. The rationale is basically the same as in the full faith and credit clause, except that it applies to federal as well as state laws and records.

Of course, there have been many blatantly-unconstitutional official-language bills, including some that have been enacted and then struck down. I'm a little unclear on the context of what Santorum actually said: the first sentence has a "this" in it, with no antecedent, and whatever he said before (where there might have been such an antecedent) apparently was not recorded and is lost to posterity.

As a matter of politics, I suspect that Santorum is right: Puerto Rico would have a better chance of becoming a state if it submitted a statehood petition containing a provision that English would become its sole official language.

Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig!

Maybe I posted my Paddy's Day article too early... didn't get much attention...

:-)

-CW

Yeah, everyone always forgets that there's the other (the "non-Echoes") side to that album...

San Tropez and Seamus have to be two of the weirdest things Pink Floyd ever did... mostly because they're so normal. If that makes sense...

-CW

On a day when I have had the distinct misfortune of reading about Americans who have found a shred of common ground with bin Laden, no less, over the competency of Vice President Joe Biden, your singling him out for honourable mention here at FTP was indeed a treat.

And, just for the record, the principal architect behind the VAWA was none other than Senator Joe Biden.

Happy St Patrick's Day to you and Mrs Weigant! I'll be sure to raise a glass or two in your honour.