AddieStan

Your blogstress is not one to lob the "L" word around -- no, not THAT L word; rather, she speaks of the one that ends in I-E. Yet so brazen was the section of the president's State of the Union speech that addressed his domestic spying program that your cybertrix calls her readers to this: Count the number of lies in the following passage: It is said that prior to the attacks of September 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al-Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack – based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute – I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have ...

...and another one opens. Exit the era of Coretta Scott King--she who embraced civil rights for all, even non-heterosexuals--and enter the era of Justice Samuel Alito--he who appears to embrace rights for only the few, and who claims to have belonged to an organization that opposed the admission of women and minorities to his alma mater. Blessed Mother, pray for us sinners...

More on what your blogstress believes to be the fabrication of a certain credential on Alito's application for a job in the Reagan Justice Department comes from the indefatigable Chan Sethi of The Daily Princeton , the campus newspaper of Princeton University. Writing in The Weekly Standard, a prominent national conservative magazine of which he is currently publisher, Eastland added: "I didn't know Alito had applied for the job, and ... I didn't know that Alito had gone to Princeton, much less had any association with CAP [the Concerned Alumni of Princeton]." Alito's membership in the group was the subject of intense questioning during confirmation hearings this week. He said he has no recollection of CAP and likely put it on the 1985 job application — the only record of his participation in the group — to establish his conservative credentials for the Reagan administration. "You have to look at the question that I was responding to and the for...

On Friday, Bob Fertik of the blog, Democrats.com (apparently not officially affiliated with the Democratic Party) served up some weekend excitement for your blogstress by breaking news that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), of all people, would lead a filibuster against the confirmation vote for Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Any red-blooded, U.S.-Constitution-loving American, thinks your cybertrix, should be grateful to the senator and the blogger for saving the weekend. Now, let's see if we can collectively save the Court. Here's Fertik's Friday scoop : Original post 1 pm: I have confirmed reports that Kerry wants to filibuster Alito, and he is talking to his colleagues to round up the 41 votes he needs. Three Democrats (Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson and Robert Byrd) support Alito. So right now, without the support of any Republicans, we still have 42 possible votes for a filibuster. There are 4 moderate Republicans who should be targeted (Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, ...

2005 (c) A.M. Stan for AFGE Two weeks after Katrina hit New Orleans, a city emptied of its citizens was one vast bin of debris. If only Lake Pontchartrain had been contained by a stone wall of equal height and strength to the one the Bush administration has erected against the Katrina queries of the U.S. Congress, the people of New Orleans' lower Ninth Ward might still have homes there today. From today's New York Times comes this account of obstruction , as the Administration seeks to shield its Katrina-related correspondence from prying eyes of Congress -- which, mes amis , is supposed to function as the eyes and ears of tu et moi , as nous --as in all y'all--are a bit too big of a plural to be granted an unobstructed view of the unitary executive. From reporter Eric Lipton: The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White ...

Listen to your blogstress! So much to moan about; so little time. Your blogstress is feeling mighty alone these days in her indignation over the notion of a Justice Samuel Alito. Does no one else feel this is a disaster? Is no one else bothered by an indefinite tilt of the court to the right? Are we ready to enter a world of strip-searches for 10-year-olds, jailings of 12-year-olds for eating french -- no -- freedom fries in a subway station, and the overturning of civil rights and women's rights decisions? And how 'bout dem Dems, huh? Can anyone explain to your cybertrix the disorganized questioning of Alito during his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee? It's not as if this hearing was something that was sprung on them. He was nominated on Halloween, and the hearing began after New Year's, for Aphrodite's sake! Couldn't they have sent a bunch of staffers into a room together to come up with a plan? Your Webwench finds herself still a...

At last, another liberal who gets the game. Over at Liberal Oasis , the blogger has suggested that the Dems get into the constitutional amendment game. You'll recall that your humble blogstress has suggested that the minority party introduce one guaranteeing a right to privacy -- a right most Americans would be surprised to learn is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Liberal Oasis, on the other hand, is suggesting that Dems float one on campaign finance. In a post titled, Dems Make Their Stand on Ethics: Can They Draw A Bright Line Even Brighter? , the Oasis gives us this: On a Tuesday conference call with bloggers, Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid showed some spine and savvy, saying there was little point cutting deals with GOPers on ethics when they’re the source of the problem. Instead, Reid said Dems would offer proposals that draw a “bright line” between the parties on fighting corruption, so the public could see the difference. The bummer is that the Democrats' eth...

Who would you rather have sitting on the Supreme Court: A. a guy who once belonged to a racist, sexist organization and embraced its mission B. a guy who once belonged to a racist, sexist organization without knowing its mission C. a guy who never belonged to a racist, sexist organization but fibbed that he did on a job application because he thought his presumed membership in the racist, sexist organization would please his prospective bosses D. none of the above If you chose D, you lose, because it looks like we're about to get either A, B or C--though some mystery exists as to which description best fits the current nominee to the High Court. As the second day of Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination hearing before the Senate Judiicary Committee drew to a close, it appeared likely that the next justice to take a seat on the Supreme Court will be a man who apparently once belonged to an organization committed to the goal of limiting the participation of women and minorities at on...

The AddieStan.com Web site is undergoing a renovation. Please bear with.