And tonight. And more high chances of rain through Saturday.
Yeesh. This would indicate that Kagan is NOT somebody I'd want as one of the Supremes:
Defending a 1999 federal ban on depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan boldly asked the Supreme Court to recognize a new category of speech that, along with such historical exceptions as defamation, incitement, and obscenity, is entirely outside the scope of the First Amendment. "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection," she wrote, "depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
Defending federal restrictions on political speech by corporations, Kagan tried to paper over an equally startling claim by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who had told the Court that the Federal Election Commission could ban books in the name of preventing the appearance of corruption. "The government's answer has changed," she said during a second round of oral arguments in September. But it later became clear that she agreed with Stewart, athough she tried to reassure the Court by emphasizing that so far the FEC had not tried to ban any books.
Don't know about you, but both of those examples show a serious lack of respect for the 1st Amendment that would be scary as hell in a Justice; it's scary as hell from a solicitor general. Read the rest.
Corrupt 'historian' Bellesiles is back, and get this from the publishers letter on the new book:
1877 is also notable as the comeback book for a celebrated U.S. historian. Michael Bellesiles is perhaps most famous as the target of an infamous “swiftboating” campaign by the National Rifle Association, following the publication of his Bancroft Prize-winning book Arming America (Knopf, 2000) — “the best kind of non-fiction,” according to the Chicago Tribune — which made daring claims about gun ownership in early America. In what became the history profession’s most talked-about and notorious case of the past generation, Arming America was eventually discredited after an unprecedented and controversial review called into question its sources, charges which Bellesiles and his many prominent supporters have always rejected.”
Note the 'swiftboating' accusation; I guess that's the substitute for "He really messed up." Yeah, his supporters 'rejected' it because he'd said what they wanted said and to hell with facts and accuracy. From the report on his 'scholarly' work:
We have interviewed Professor Bellesiles and found him both cooperative and respectful of this process. Yet the best that can be said of his work with the probate and militia records is that he is guilty of unprofessional and misleading work. Every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed. Even allowing for the loss of some of his research materials, he appears not to have been systematic in selecting repositories or collections of probate records for examination and his recording methods were at best primitive and altogether unsystematic. Bellesiles seems to have been utterly unaware of the importance of the possibility of the replication of his research. Subsequent to the allegations of research misconduct, his responses have been prolix, confusing, evasive and occasionally contradictory. We are surprised and troubled that Bellesiles has not availed himself of the opportunities he has had since the notice of this investigation to examine, identify and share his remaining research materials. Even at this point, it is not clear that he fully understands the magnitude of his own probate research shortcomings.
In an academic climate very friendly toward his conclusions, he got his ass handed to him because the evidence of everything from sloppy methods, misquoting and flat lying was undeniable. But the GFWs and academics(serious overlap there) still reject the findings. Gives you all kinds of confidence in them, doesn't it?
There's more, but I'm out of time; more stuff later.