http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities?hl=en
alt.gossip.celebrities@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Marie Osmond's son commits suicide - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/30b1560673f35250?hl=en
* "Remember Me" Robert Pattison movie ending has a *very* unusual ending [
SPOILERS!!!!!] - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/5734067c49f89d9d?hl=en
* Senator Stands By Controversial Comments, faggots ruining Raleigh. - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/4fb02de851881b25?hl=en
* Up yours, faggots! Sask. Appeal Court overturns human rights ruling against
anti-gay activist - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/bfa83180e5ea817c?hl=en
* Marie Osmond's son's suicide -- Michael Blosil jumped from LA apt. building;
1st Andrew Koenig, now him - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/c118c1a5c8e4695a?hl=en
* America's most beloved actor Gary Coleman suffers seizure on set of 'Dr.
Drew' show - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/77fefc8b71be0c51?hl=en
* That 'Boner' was 'hung', yes, Andrew Koenig 'hanged' himself from a tree - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/532dd753f9928e83?hl=en
* Celebrity Chili Telethon. When is It? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/564b822b56e6f910?hl=en
* Kim Kardashian-produced TV special grabs more viewers than Kelly Cutrone's
show - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/382bf29129f0bd90?hl=en
* Supreme Court Justice Barack Oblather? 72% say he's an unqualified dirtbag
for anything. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/183a9b6486f25c50?hl=en
* Sarah Palin applauds keeping killer whales in tiny fish tanks - 3 messages,
3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/63a562216ffb13a5?hl=en
* UNDERGROUND BUZZ 02/26/10 **BLIND ITEMS** - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/f75bc7a02979f5e7?hl=en
* Expert in Prop 8 trial says Obama not a reliable ally of gay marriage
movement - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/9500145d55e11861?hl=en
* Happy Birthday Tunzter! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/0fef0efb6a05ac99?hl=en
* Whitney Houston 'refuses to stop smoking' - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/0f00e3367dc3ebbd?hl=en
* This SUCKS! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/e1daae68c75b98da?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Marie Osmond's son commits suicide
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/30b1560673f35250?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 8:12 pm
From: SoCally
On Feb 27, 8:04�pm, comadrejo <comadrejoa...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <98cdfea5-e0ba-4f84-ba7e-e321e7bae...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> �SoCally <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > My first thought, too. And if not gay, then something else so "shameful"
> > > to the fucked up Mormons that he couldn't bear to be himself.
>
> > > And her fucked up BS about "I couldn't be more proud of him. He's got a
> > > 3.9 GPA in high school."
>
> > > How about "I couldn't be more proud of him. He's honest, giving,
> > > caring,..."
>
> > > Big J
>
> > She was probably trying to encourage him. Maybe getting those grades
> > were a big deal for him and she knew he'd like hearing about her
> > pride.
>
> > It's a wee bit odd that so many of you are willing to throw her into
> > the "all Mormons are evil" category, when in reality she's come out
> > FOR gay marriage. She doesn't seem like some hardcore fundamentalist
> > to me. She's a Mom who now has lost a son and who will feel that loss
> > forever. It's very sad.
>
> � I am not saying "all Mormons are evil" or the LDS is to blame for
> this.
>
> � �I guess my point is that many young gay men who are brought in
> conservative backgrounds, are kind of confuse. �They want to fit in to
> their social structure and family even though the social structure looks
> at homosexuality as an anathema, but they feel they are gay men. �It is
> torture for these men. �They either have to hide it, and live a life in
> the closet, or basically head to a city with a gay positive attitude,
> like many West Coast Cities, like West Hollywood, SF or Seattle and be
> written off by their family.
>
> �Young Gay men have a suicide rate that is 2 to 3 times more than
> heterosexual men
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yemuyzn
>
> "In 1989, the United States Department of Health and Human Services
> (HHS) issued its "Report on the Secretary's Task Force on Youth
> Suicide," which found that "A majority of suicide attempts by
> homosexuals occur during their youth, and gay youth are 2 to 3 times
> more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may
> comprise up to 30 percent of (the estimated 5,000) completed youth
> suicides annually."
>
> � I shouldn't make judgements on this tragedy. �His parents lost a son
> they loved, his brothers and sisters lost a sibling. I am curious why he
> was hospitalized at 16. �He tried to commit suicide once before. �I am
> curious but it won't be revealed is what medication he was on for his
> serious depression. �
>
> He obviously did well in school, and could concentrate enough to
> perform. �So I am curious was his depression that he was conflicted or
> another reason.
I understand what you were saying, it's true some gay teenagers do
commit suicide. Who knows if he was gay or not, I was just finding it
odd that everyone wants to assume his Mom wouldn't be supportive of
him either way. I don't follow Marie's career, but I've never heard
her say or do anything but be supportive of her kids, gay or straight.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 11:34 pm
From: "JonesieCat"
"SoCally" <foaatfm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d1a51ccf-a540-4ae9-8ec0-f90bf2d836e8@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 8:04?pm, comadrejo <comadrejoa...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <98cdfea5-e0ba-4f84-ba7e-e321e7bae...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> ?SoCally <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > My first thought, too. And if not gay, then something else so
> > > "shameful"
> > > to the fucked up Mormons that he couldn't bear to be himself.
>
> > > And her fucked up BS about "I couldn't be more proud of him. He's got
> > > a
> > > 3.9 GPA in high school."
>
> > > How about "I couldn't be more proud of him. He's honest, giving,
> > > caring,..."
>
> > > Big J
>
> > She was probably trying to encourage him. Maybe getting those grades
> > were a big deal for him and she knew he'd like hearing about her
> > pride.
>
> > It's a wee bit odd that so many of you are willing to throw her into
> > the "all Mormons are evil" category, when in reality she's come out
> > FOR gay marriage. She doesn't seem like some hardcore fundamentalist
> > to me. She's a Mom who now has lost a son and who will feel that loss
> > forever. It's very sad.
>
> ? I am not saying "all Mormons are evil" or the LDS is to blame for
> this.
>
> ? ?I guess my point is that many young gay men who are brought in
> conservative backgrounds, are kind of confuse. ?They want to fit in to
> their social structure and family even though the social structure looks
> at homosexuality as an anathema, but they feel they are gay men. ?It is
> torture for these men. ?They either have to hide it, and live a life in
> the closet, or basically head to a city with a gay positive attitude,
> like many West Coast Cities, like West Hollywood, SF or Seattle and be
> written off by their family.
>
> ?Young Gay men have a suicide rate that is 2 to 3 times more than
> heterosexual men
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yemuyzn
>
> "In 1989, the United States Department of Health and Human Services
> (HHS) issued its "Report on the Secretary's Task Force on Youth
> Suicide," which found that "A majority of suicide attempts by
> homosexuals occur during their youth, and gay youth are 2 to 3 times
> more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may
> comprise up to 30 percent of (the estimated 5,000) completed youth
> suicides annually."
>
> ? I shouldn't make judgements on this tragedy. ?His parents lost a son
> they loved, his brothers and sisters lost a sibling. I am curious why he
> was hospitalized at 16. ?He tried to commit suicide once before. ?I am
> curious but it won't be revealed is what medication he was on for his
> serious depression. ?
>
> He obviously did well in school, and could concentrate enough to
> perform. ?So I am curious was his depression that he was conflicted or
> another reason.
I understand what you were saying, it's true some gay teenagers do
commit suicide. Who knows if he was gay or not, I was just finding it
odd that everyone wants to assume his Mom wouldn't be supportive of
him either way. I don't follow Marie's career, but I've never heard
her say or do anything but be supportive of her kids, gay or straight.
=========
I haven't read here that anyone thinks his mom wasn't supportive of him. The
point I'm hearing made is that he may have felt his life unbearable due to
irreconcilable gay v. LDS values.
And Kris lives with LDS, and the Osmond legacy and influence combined with
all the religiousity offends her. Marie IS big in the LDS community. Maybe
Kris's right that it all contributed to this poor young man's final
decision. Who knows?
I rather like Marie, but her life has not been lived according to LDS
standards, and yet she hasn't been excommunicated like many, many others
have. Kris may have a point.
jc
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Remember Me" Robert Pattison movie ending has a *very* unusual ending [
SPOILERS!!!!!]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/5734067c49f89d9d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 8:53 pm
From: "MichaelW"
Now I am butting in again into something which is none of my business. But I
would personally not like to see more films about 9/11. It would revive that
Bush dogma which I am glad to be gone. Maybe it's just too close in time.
It's like we've had a second "McCarthy period", which needs to be digested
and understood before we can talk about it. However, I understand that you
as Americans (I am Norwegian remember) may feel differently about it,
especially anyone who was in NY on 9/11 2001. Some would like to see their
life on screen, while others may feel like I do. I shouldn't be a big deal
in any case.
--
MichaelW (earlier "michael",
added W, there are more Michaels now)
www.TheEnglishCollection.com
"william" <wlahearn@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:f8058da7-52aa-43d3-90fe-a56298c1a439@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 9:50 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> I love you too, william, and with all due respect, you
> holier-than-thou libs are forever telling people how they
> should feel about things.
First off, dimwit, where do you get that I'm a "lib"? No one is
telling you how to feel. I'm telling you that you're too stupid to
recognize cheap exploitation when you see it. So you're wrong both
times and it's not surprising since you're fallen into your own head
and imagine that anyone that disagrees with you is a "lib." Fuck off.
I'll never respond to another of your worthless, self-serving, totally
bullshit posts. You're a total waste of meat and time.
William
www.williamahearn.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Senator Stands By Controversial Comments, faggots ruining Raleigh.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/4fb02de851881b25?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:03 pm
From: "Too_Many_Tools"
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/22677348/detail.html
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- North Carolina Republican Sen. Jim Forrester is under
fire for what a top Democratic leader is calling a "hate-filled speech."
Earlier this week, Forrester met with the Iredell County Young Republicans
to discuss the political climate in Raleigh. Our newspaper partner, the
Statesville Record & Landmarkb was also there and quoted the senator as
saying, "slick city lawyers and homosexual lobbies and African-American
lobbies are running Raleigh."
Civil rights activist and former North Carolina assistant to the Rev. Al
Sharpton John Barnette said Forrester's comments are unacceptable. "Being
in office so long, you would think he'd know better, but I think he has a
lot more to learn," Barnette said.
Eyewitness News spoke with the senator by phone Thursday. He said, "I just
wanted to tell people what was going on in Raleigh. A lot has changed in
the 18 years since I've been there. It used to be conservative now it's
very liberal."
The senator also said, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my comments."
He added, "Anyone who knows me knows I'm not mean spirited."
But the senator is not taking back the comments and stands behind what he
said about the influences over state government.
But Barnette said in his opinion that's not enough.
"Apologies are good but I think a lot of individuals such as Mr. Forrester
need to be put in a position where they need some diversity training."
Barnette continued, "They need to wake up and realize this is America.
This is a melting pot."
Forrester, who is currently seeking an 11th term in the state Senate, is
no stranger to controversy. Since 2004, he's led the push for the "Defense
of Marriage" bill which would essentially ban gay marriage in the state.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Up yours, faggots! Sask. Appeal Court overturns human rights ruling
against anti-gay activist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/bfa83180e5ea817c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:03 pm
From: "Too_Many_Tools"
REGINA - Saskatchewan's highest court says a man who distributed anti-
homosexual flyers is not guilty of violating the province's human rights
code.
In 2005, Bill Whatcott was found guilty of violating the Saskatchewan
Human Rights code and ordered to pay $17,500 to four people after he put
the leaflets against teaching about gays in schools into their mailboxes
in 2001 and 2002.
The Saskatchewan Human Rights tribunal ruled that Whatcott showed "a clear
pattern or practice of disregard for protected rights."
But Whatcott appealed, arguing the ruling puts "a chill on free speech" if
society has to constantly worry that what they say may put them at odds
with the Human Rights Commission.
In its ruling this week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal says while many
may find the language in the leaflets crude, offensive and pejorative,
they don't promote hatred or cross the boundaries of free expression.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation, which intervened in the case, calls
the decision good news for free speech.
Whatcott distributed the flyers in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002.
He told the tribunal he felt it was his moral obligation to speak out
against homosexuality.
"I have engaged in homosexual acts, and the Lord has set me free," he said
at the time. He also told the tribunal he used to pick up prostitutes and
burglarize houses before finding God.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Marie Osmond's son's suicide -- Michael Blosil jumped from LA apt.
building; 1st Andrew Koenig, now him
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/c118c1a5c8e4695a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:15 pm
From: Taylor
On Feb 27, 6:47 pm, SoCally <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Deaths in "threes"... who will be the third? Maybe Philip McKeon
> > ('Alice') will kill himself or some other relatively unknown.
>
> Kids of celebs don't count in the 3 death rule. So we've got 2 more.
>
> I'm thinking Whitney will be one and maybe Abe Vigoda will finally
> really die.
Whitney I could see. Charlie Sheen, oh, yeah! But I think this will be
a forgotten and/or unknown "threes", so Abe can fit in there.
Anyone see that 'Columbo' episode about the psychiatrist who uses
suggestive therapy to make her dive off her SoCal highrise balcony by
making her relive her childhood diving days? I thought of that when I
heard the LAPD was investigating this as a possible homicide.
Lord knows multiple bouts of depression and/or drug/alcohol abuse and
a suicide attempt by Marie Osmond coupled with her string of failed
marriage she blew through during her 30's and 40's must have screwed
up her son. The kooky incestuous Mormon "religion" can only abasterate
the situation.
But I wish her well. :]
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:17 pm
From: Taylor
On Feb 27, 6:47 pm, SoCally <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Deaths in "threes"... who will be the third? Maybe Philip McKeon
> > ('Alice') will kill himself or some other relatively unknown.
>
> Kids of celebs don't count in the 3 death rule. So we've got 2 more.
>
> I'm thinking Whitney will be one and maybe Abe Vigoda will finally
> really die.
Whitney I could see. Charlie Sheen, oh, yeah! But I think this will be
a forgotten and/or unknown "threes", so Abe can fit in there.
Anyone see that 'Columbo' episode about the psychiatrist who uses
suggestive therapy to make her dive off her SoCal highrise balcony by
making her relive her childhood diving days? I thought of that when I
heard the LAPD was investigating this as a possible homicide.
Lord knows multiple bouts of depression and/or drug/alcohol abuse and
a suicide attempt by Marie Osmond coupled with her string of failed
marriage she blew through during her 30's and 40's must have screwed
up her son. The kooky incestuous Mormon "religion" can only abasterate
the situation.
But I wish her well. :]
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:24 pm
From: RichA
On Feb 28, 12:15 am, Taylor <lukebenw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 6:47 pm, SoCally <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Deaths in "threes"... who will be the third? Maybe Philip McKeon
> > > ('Alice') will kill himself or some other relatively unknown.
>
> > Kids of celebs don't count in the 3 death rule. So we've got 2 more.
>
> > I'm thinking Whitney will be one and maybe Abe Vigoda will finally
> > really die.
>
> Whitney I could see. Charlie Sheen
Only if it's a mistake. People lilke Sheen and Houston don't kill
themselves, they don't think they've ever done anything wrong.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:53 pm
From: Larc
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:24:05 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Feb 28, 12:15�am, Taylor <lukebenw...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > On Feb 27, 6:47�pm, SoCally <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >
| > > > Deaths in "threes"... who will be the third? Maybe Philip McKeon
| > > > ('Alice') will kill himself or some other relatively unknown.
| >
| > > Kids of celebs don't count in the 3 death rule. So we've got 2 more.
| >
| > > I'm thinking Whitney will be one and maybe Abe Vigoda will finally
| > > really die.
| >
| > Whitney I could see. Charlie Sheen
|
| Only if it's a mistake. People lilke Sheen and Houston don't kill
| themselves, they don't think they've ever done anything wrong.
Yeah, that takes a conscience and they would both need a degree or so of
intelligence more than they have to possess one of those.
Larc
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 11:40 pm
From: "JonesieCat"
"Larc" <larc@notmyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:611ko5t6h11i22h68ps6tdj02qsirehih0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:24:05 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> | On Feb 28, 12:15 am, Taylor <lukebenw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> | > On Feb 27, 6:47 pm, SoCally <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | >
> | > > > Deaths in "threes"... who will be the third? Maybe Philip McKeon
> | > > > ('Alice') will kill himself or some other relatively unknown.
> | >
> | > > Kids of celebs don't count in the 3 death rule. So we've got 2 more.
> | >
> | > > I'm thinking Whitney will be one and maybe Abe Vigoda will finally
> | > > really die.
> | >
> | > Whitney I could see. Charlie Sheen
> |
> | Only if it's a mistake. People lilke Sheen and Houston don't kill
> | themselves, they don't think they've ever done anything wrong.
>
> Yeah, that takes a conscience and they would both need a degree or so of
> intelligence more than they have to possess one of those.
>
> Larc
Hm. Accidental overdoses etc are easier to predict than people who might off
themselves. Pretty creepy to predict who might be so inclined.
jc
==============================================================================
TOPIC: America's most beloved actor Gary Coleman suffers seizure on set of 'Dr.
Drew' show
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/77fefc8b71be0c51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:15 pm
From: mikey
Gary's not so bad. He looks up to everybody.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: That 'Boner' was 'hung', yes, Andrew Koenig 'hanged' himself from a
tree
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/532dd753f9928e83?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:21 pm
From: mikey
What a shame that he was at the end of his rope. I wonder if he was on
meds?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Celebrity Chili Telethon. When is It?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/564b822b56e6f910?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 9:21 pm
From: RichA
On Feb 27, 8:50 pm, CliffB <fl...@gosympatico.ca> wrote:
> I mean a Celeb Chile Telethon. Or did they meet their self-importance/
> natural disaster quotient over the whole Haiti thing. How inconvenient
> that nature took these two whacks so soon together - especially at
> Oscars season (although the "Climate Alarmists" are probably high-
> fiving over it.......); Quick, someone phone Clooney at Lake
> Como........
The has-beens are in the queuing as we speak.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kim Kardashian-produced TV special grabs more viewers than Kelly
Cutrone's show
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/382bf29129f0bd90?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 10:08 pm
From: Mc-laughee
The mud shark is a bigger freak than Kelly.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Supreme Court Justice Barack Oblather? 72% say he's an unqualified
dirtbag for anything.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/183a9b6486f25c50?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 10:27 pm
From: "Leroy N. Soetoro"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021
803275.html
http://app.sgizmo.com/chart/246361-
6K2XYUTHHTM6B0AYS2OABB9VXXW0GU&crt=4&rspid=67452317
He's too detached and cerebral . Too deferential to Congress. Too
willing to compromise . And he's too much of a law professor and not
enough of a commander in chief, as Sarah Palin recently admonished.
These are some of the qualities for which the president, rightly or
wrongly, is criticized. They are also the qualities that make him well
suited for another steady job on the federal payroll: Barack Obama,
Supreme Court justice.
Think about it. Though Obama has struggled to find his footing in the
White House, his education, temperament and experience make him ideally
suited to lead the liberal wing of the court, especially at a time when
a narrow conservative majority seems increasingly intent on challenging
progressive economic reforms for the first time since the New Deal.
Obama is clearly eager to take on the four truly conservative justices
-- Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- as
his State of the Union smackdown suggests. But as president, he's
constrained by that pesky separation of powers. So what better way to
engage the fight than to join the bench?
It would be unusual, but not difficult, for Obama to get himself on the
Supreme Court. He could nominate himself to replace John Paul Stevens,
for example, or he could gamble and promise Hillary Rodham Clinton that
he won't run for reelection in 2012 in exchange for a pledge of
appointment to the next vacancy. And although as president, Obama has
seemed haunted by the example of his political hero, Abraham Lincoln, on
the Supreme Court he could take up the mantle of the greatest liberal
justice of the 20th century, Louis Brandeis, another community organizer
with a background in politics. In the end, Obama's legacy on the court
might surpass his legacy in the White House.
Obama's academic credentials for the court -- including serving as
president of the Harvard Law Review and teaching constitutional law at
the University of Chicago -- are obvious. But it's his even temperament
and low boiling point that seem tailor-made for the court at this
polarized moment. Obama's patient courtship of the vain and wavering
swing votes in the Senate (such as Joe Lieberman) during the health-care
debate, for example, is ideal preparation for courting the vain and
wavering swing vote on the court (Justice Anthony Kennedy). And Obama's
detached and judicious disposition would equip him to challenge the
conservative hothead, Scalia, without descending to his name-calling.
In terms of judicial philosophy, too, Obama is well suited to take on
the pro-corporate activism of the conservative justices -- on display in
the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision,
which gutted campaign finance laws and which, according to recent polls,
strong national majorities oppose.
In his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama wrote that throughout
American history, constitutional values have generally been defined by
ground-up political activism rather than imposed from above by judges.
From the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, it was liberals in
the political arena, not conservatives, who defended judicial restraint
in the face of activist conservative justices who tried to strike down
progressive regulations, from the income tax to the minimum wage. But
Obama questioned whether, more recently, liberals had become too ready
to let courts fight their battles for them. "I wondered," he wrote, "if,
in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also
our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy."
Obama's commitment to judicial restraint is at odds with the activism
displayed by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision, which
called into question not only the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act
but also decades of other federal laws and Supreme Court precedents
restricting the free speech of corporations. In defending the ruling,
Chief Justice Roberts said: "We cannot embrace a narrow ground of
decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right." This
overconfidence in knowledge of the right answer is something Obama
didn't display while teaching in Chicago. His students have attested to
his mastery in neutrally presenting opposing points of view without
revealing his own.
When Roberts joined the court, he told me and other journalists that he
hoped to emulate his greatest predecessor, Chief Justice John Marshall,
encouraging his liberal and conservative colleagues to avoid polarizing
constitutional disputes by converging around narrow, unanimous opinions
decided on technical grounds. Now that Roberts appears to have abandoned
that vision in Citizens United, Obama could take on the role of Supreme
Court mediator, conciliator and master compromiser that Roberts promised
to play but has not yet delivered.
It's surprising but true that the least successful presidents are often
the most judicious, while the most successful justices are the most
pragmatic. Obama's willingness to compromise and listen to opposing
points of view, in other words, may hamper him in overhauling health
care -- public option, anyone? -- but would make him an unusually
effective leader on the Supreme Court. As Obama recognized on the
campaign trail when he cited former chief justice and three-time
California governor Earl Warren as his judicial hero, the most effective
judicial leaders have been former politicians.
During the presidential campaign, Obama was critical of Roberts's
self-description as an "umpire" and his likening of the court's role to
simply calling balls and strikes. "We need somebody who's got the heart,
the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom,"
Obama said. "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or
African American, or gay, or disabled, or old."
But Warren's success as chief justice came not so much from his ability
to empathize with the downtrodden as from his ability to empathize with
his colleagues. Because of his political skills, Warren achieved the
kind of success that has eluded Roberts: He persuaded a fractious court
to reach a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the
landmark case striking down school segregation, by visiting the wavering
justices one by one and persuading them to set aside their doubts. A
majority of the justices on the court that decided Brown had a
background in electoral politics; no justices on the Roberts court do.
In a group of former law professors, prosecutors and trial judges, Obama
would look like a political wizard.
There's another distinctive perspective that he would bring to the
bench: economic populism. After a long flirtation with the Tim Geithner,
pro-Wall Street, "too big to fail" wing of the Democratic Party, Obama
has at last thrown in his lot with the view, espoused first by Brandeis
and now by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, that huge
corporations should be broken up before they threaten another crash. And
this view badly needs a stalwart defender on a Supreme Court that seems
on the verge of confronting an economically progressive Congress.
On the Roberts court, the liberal and conservative justices share a
pro-business orientation, or at least a suspicion of regulation by
litigation: Business cases in recent years have made up 40 percent of
the court's docket, and, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 79
percent of them are decided by a 7 to 2 majority or greater. None of the
current liberal justices, moreover, had a strong record as an economic
populist before joining the court. At a time when liberals need a
passionate voice to oppose conservative economic judicial activism,
Obama seems well prepared to transform the debate.
Louis Brandeis, who served on the high court from 1916 to 1939, offers a
good model for Obama. Known as "the people's lawyer," he was an economic
populist, criticizing the "curse of bigness" that led oligarchs such as
J.P. Morgan to threaten the entire financial system by taking reckless
risks with "other people's money" and then to demand government bailouts
after their bad bets. But Brandeis opposed bigness in government as well
as in the private sector, and during the New Deal he preferred
regulations that prevented companies from getting too large in the first
place -- such as the Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial from
investment banking -- rather than the creation of huge federal
bureaucracies to regulate the economy.
On the high court, Brandeis generally stood for judicial restraint,
denouncing conservatives for striking down progressive state economic
regulations. But he also believed fiercely in the First Amendment and
freedom from unreasonable searches. Both a pragmatist and a civil
libertarian, he provides a judicial ideal for Obama, whose record
resembles his in many respects.
So, could it actually happen? David Gergen, the CNN commentator who
served as an adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton,
recently reflected on Obama's State of the Union speech in an appearance
on Comedy Central's "Colbert Report." Although he praised Obama's
intellectual abilities and presidential campaign, he lamented his
"detached" and "professorial" attitude once in office. "There was some
sense last night when watching Barack Obama and the Supreme Court
sitting in front of him, [that] he'd be great on the Supreme Court,"
Gergen said.
But could Obama get confirmed? As a senator, he voted against the
confirmations of Roberts and Alito, and GOP lawmakers might hold that
against him in his own confirmation hearing. Yet, although it would be
hard for a Brandeis to be confirmed in today's polarized age, Obama
might get some deference as a former president, at least from senators
who would rather have him on the court than in the White House.
Whether Obama would be bored by the Supreme Court is another question.
Justices with presidential ambitions have often chafed at the isolation
of the marble palace. For example, William O. Douglas -- who wanted the
presidency, according to his friend Tommy Cochran, more than Don Quixote
wanted Dulcinea -- never stopped complaining that the court was too
removed from the political action. But having seen the frustrations of
the White House, perhaps Obama would instead come around to the view of
William Howard Taft, who became chief justice after serving as president
and decided that leading the court was a far better job than leading the
country. The summer vacations are longer, and nothing beats life tenure.
Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is the
legal affairs editor of the New Republic and the author of "The Supreme
Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America." He will be
online to chat with readers on Monday, Feb. 22, at 11 a.m. ET. Submit
your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York's
million dollar tax evasion. On February 25, 2010, the House ethics
committee has concluded that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B.
Rangel knowingly accepted Caribbean trips in violation of House rules that
forbid hidden financing by corporations. No mention of the million dollar
tax evasion by said committee.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sarah Palin applauds keeping killer whales in tiny fish tanks
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/63a562216ffb13a5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 11:02 pm
From: Major Debacle
"It's easier to shoot 'em from a helicopter!"
--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett replied: "I've always thought the Yankees had something
to do with it."
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 11:59 pm
From: 2nz
On Feb 28, 12:02 am, Major Debacle <major_deba...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> "It's easier to shoot 'em from a helicopter!"
Yeah, but it takes some of the sport out of it.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:09 am
From: "Lt. Flink"
"Major Debacle" <major_debacle@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hmd4dr$3ks$1@tioat.net...
> "It's easier to shoot 'em from a helicopter!"
>
> --
> When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
> General Pickett replied: "I've always thought the Yankees had something
> to do with it."
that's where they found her kid's diapers... thrown in a neighbor's fish
tank.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: UNDERGROUND BUZZ 02/26/10 **BLIND ITEMS**
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/f75bc7a02979f5e7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 11:43 pm
From: "JonesieCat"
"explorer" <abc@123.com> wrote in message
news:1uednaJtn94E7BTWnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@centurytel.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> <pusssykatt@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3a8cc027-e3c0-4f91-9435-339b81d979c0@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/ykzhg9s
> 1. This Superstar is about to go public with her new boyfriend. He's
> much younger than her, and he looks a lot like her secret ex-husband.
>
> 2. Sources say this Male Celebrity likes to keep his Superstar Wife
> drunk. That way, it's easy to control her.
>
> Nick Cannon and Mariah Carey?
2) I like that guess. 1) But who the heck's the first one? Halle Berry? Was
she secretly married to whoever was the father of her child?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Expert in Prop 8 trial says Obama not a reliable ally of gay marriage
movement
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/9500145d55e11861?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 11:49 pm
From: Frito Pendejo
Scotius wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:06:13 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> <leroysoetoro@usurper.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14233026
>>
>> SAN FRANCISCO � The Proposition 8 trial had a bit of everything Wednesday,
>>from an expert doubting President Barack Obama's support for gay rights
>
> Obama's not against equal rights, just special rights, and in
> that much he's absolutely correct. He knows it's just a tactic by the
> radical leadership of the gay rights movement to later be able to sue
> churches and ministers who refuse to marry them - a means to
> criminalize views they don't like.
>
>> to
>> new revelations about the depth of Mormon church involvement in the
>> political campaign to enact California's same-sex marriage ban.
>
> The PEOPLE of California voted on that issue; case closed.
Even though I'm gay, I voted FOR Prop. 8 simply because every goddamn
Obamatard in San Francisco was against it.
What's really weird is how most gays continued to support Obama even
after he went on record as opposing same-sex marriage. It's like they
were brainwashed or something, completely oblivious to the reality
around them, and absolutely convinced that Obama supported gay marriage
even though he said he opposed it.
Some Obamatards believe that Obama lied about his position on same-sex
marriage for political reasons, and that he really supports it. The
reasoning is that if Prophet Obama says the Kool-Aid is poisoned, that
means it is safe to drink.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Happy Birthday Tunzter!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/0fef0efb6a05ac99?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 27 2010 11:56 pm
From: 2nz
On Feb 27, 7:42 pm, RazzleBathb...@geemail.com wrote:
>
> >> Razzle----where's Volfie taken you for errrr---dinner?
>
> >I'm not sure. It may be at Tom Sneddon's pad.
>
> Take pictures and send them to Tony Baloney.
>
> Razzle-------he'll have a spasm!
Now why didn't I think of that?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Whitney Houston 'refuses to stop smoking'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/0f00e3367dc3ebbd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:11 am
From: Taylor
On Feb 27, 11:08 pm, edonline <eronlineSPAM...@verizon.net> wrote:
> http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a205738/whitney-houston-refuses-...
>
> Whitney Houston 'refuses to stop smoking'
> Saturday, February 27 2010, 7:36pm EST
>
> By Catriona Wightman, Entertainment Reporter
>
> Whitney Houston's tour promoter has blamed her addiction to smoking
> for her recent performances.
>
> Fans at Houston's concert in Brisbane complained after the singer
> struggled to perform and appeared breathless.
>
> Her promoter Andrew McManus later defended the gig, while her
> representative insisted that she is in "great health".
>
> According to Contactmusic, McManus has now said: "Whitney smokes. God
> bless her, I can't tell her not to. She will not take any substances.
> She just will not. It is what it is.
>
> "She's comfortable with the show she's performing. She knows she's not
> hitting every note like she used to. But it's value for money; it's
> Whitney Houston, warts and all."
>
> McManus added that Houston is attempting to rise above the criticism
> of her performances.
>
> "I talked to her after the Sydney show," he said. "I told her I have
> her back, but she said, 'If the good Lord wants me to be attacked and
> ridiculed, that's the road I have to go down'. It's an interesting
> approach.
>
> "Here I am being aggressive in trying to protect her and she said, 'I
> love you for it, but let it go. I can only give my best. If that's not
> good enough, then so be it. I'm comfortable in my own skin'."
Cigarettes, crack, it's all the same to smart P.R. people.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: This SUCKS!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/t/e1daae68c75b98da?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:15 am
From: rob
On Feb 26, 8:19 pm, BillV2...@webtv.net (Ward Herbert Douglas
McTurlough) wrote:
> Fellow WebTVers –
> Well, the writing is on the wall now for the future of WebTV and MSNTV,
> and I can now give you the information that many of you have wanted to
> know regarding how long you can continue to have and use your WebTV
> service.
> In August and September MSN sold out the last of their inventory of
> MSNTV2 receivers. If you go to their web site now (www.msntv.com) and
> click on the "Buy" tab you will see for yourself that they no longer
> have ANY available.
> It apparent now that their long range plan is to continue to provide the
> service until WebTV users eventually drop the service on their own as
> their WebTV receivers burn out - because they won't be able to get a
> replacement receiver when their individual unit goes out on them.
> The good news is that it appears that MSNTV will continue to offer the
> WebTV SERVICE for years to come. Based on the average life span of most
> of the receivers (about 8 years for the older units and 4 or 5 for the
> MSNTV2), that means the service will probably remain for another 5 or 6
> years with an attrition rate of perhaps 15% a year.
> This has recently been confirmed by many of my customers and recipients
> of my email letters who called MSN to find out if this was indeed the
> case. They were told it was.
> The bottom line is THIS. If you enjoy using your WebTV and want to
> continue to use it for the next 5 or 6 years, you should try to get one
> of the few remaining receivers to have as a back-up unit. As most of you
> know, they don't give you much warning before they go out. Most long
> time users are already on their second or even third unit.
> Many of you have purchased back-up units from me since 2003 and know
> that I've been providing people with the WebTV models they've wanted for
> years by scouring the country for them. But in the past few months since
> MSN posted that they no longer have any units, they have been
> disappearing fast as people realize that this is their last chance to
> get one.
> I have two types of WebTV receivers available. The first one is a brand
> new Thomson WebTV "New Classic" WebTV receiver for $119. You can also
> get the complete new package with a receiver, keyboard, hand-held remote
> and power cord and cables for just $139. These are the only brand new
> WebTVs left in the world that I know of!
> They are an upgrade to the Philips and Sony "Original Classics", are the
> same as the Philips and Sony "New Classics", and are adequate as a
> back-up for the "Plus" units minus a few features like "picture in
> picture".
> For the people who own MSNTV2 units, I was able to locate a few of the
> original MSNTV2 complete packages brand new in the box with the
> keyboard, hand-held remote, and all of the wires and cables. They are
> $199. These too are the only brand new MSNTV2 units available anywhere
> in the country.
> If you just want a back-up MSNTV2 receiver I can provide them for $149.
> They are no longer manufacturing ANY of these or any other WebTV
> receivers and once these are gone that's it. But you don't have to worry
> about what YOU are going to do when your WebTV or MSNTV2 unit goes out
> on you if you get a back-up now.
> If you don't get a back-up and your receiver goes out sometime down the
> road – I don't know what you will be able to do to continue to enjoy
> your WebTV service.
> Call me toll free at 1-800-916-1901 and leave your name and phone number
> to ensure you will get one of these last WebTV receivers. All of these
> components are fully warranted and will be sold on a first come - first
> served basis.
> Thank you!
> Dave Palmer
> 1-800-916-1901
> PS Please do not try to email me as I can't answer all of the
> emails. This is why I provide a toll free number for you to call.
>
> _
> /'_/)
> ,/_ /
>
what the heck is this crap?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.gossip.celebrities"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.gossip.celebrities+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment