Free Republic

I am!!! I have been donating to Yale every year since I graduated and I am royally PISSED about this!!! I sent a letter to the admissions office yesterday asking them how this "special" student program is funded. We'll see if I get a response. If I do, I'll share it here in FR.

No idea on the Harvard student but it's worth researching.

I am a Yale alumnus and I am furious. Oh, and I'm also a donor. At least I was until last year. We can only hope that enough alumni complain that they finally get it right by denying his application to be admitted to the regular degree program next fall. I understand the harsh criticisms of Yale on this site feel and they are justified. I am embarrassed of my alma mater but despite what you may think not ALL Yale students or alumni are libs. A lot of my classmates were making phonecalls and sending emails to the Admissions office, the President's Office, and the Office of Development today demanding an explanation from the school. We shall see what comes of it.

you may get your wish. We can only hope that Ginsberg or Stevens departs in the next three years and one can assume that after the Miers fiasco, Bush will be wise enough to nominate another solid judicial conservative. Then it's game on for the libs and their silly little filibuster game. We all know that if trading O'Connor for Alito has them this riled up, trading a Ginsberg or Stevens for Janice Rogers Brown or any other solid conservative on GWB's bench will really get their panties in a lather!

Dubie,

check here for the 2006 senate seats up for re-election:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/Class_I.htm

Message to all Libs: elections have consequences!

"Hillary Clinton was at Yale almost at the same time. She just sort of stood out in a crowded room, not because she was beautiful, but as the kind of bubbling, effervescent kind of personality, where Sam was quiet."

Lord help us. I can't help but marvel at the depth of this quote...

Amazing that a piece like that is news. Former classmate says Alito was a normal student, studied hard etc. Big FN deal!!!

And just out of curiosity, anyone have a clue as to why the author throws in the fact that Alito is Catholic? It has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of article, not that there was a point to it in the first place.

wo wo wo, "My Hero Drunk Uncle Ted"? I think you are confusing me with the enemy. Go back and read the intro to my posting of that hilarious liberal rant -- I said that I was grinning from ear to ear when I read it. In other words, I just discovered that browsing these posts on whacky left-leaning sites like dailykos.com can provide for hours of entertainment.

you all need to read this post on a lib website I just came across. Put a smile on my face from ear to ear...

Dems MUST Filibuster

Senators Reid, Durbin, Dorgan, Leahy, Schumer, Nelson, Pryor, and Landrieu,

The decisions that are made in the next five to seven days will determine the future of jurisprudence in this country for the next 30 years. Do not let Bush, Rove, and Boyden Gray tactically out maneuver you by playing Alito up in the press as a moderate thinker. The progressive half of this country and the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus must not allow a president who was installed into office by a 5 to 4 party line Supreme Court vote, to pack the U.S. Supreme Court for the next several generations with an extreme right wing ideologue at the very moment when the country is mourning (from Hurricane Katrina) the death and maiming of the very disadvantaged people who have been thrown away and abandoned by radical right-wing, government-is-always-the-problem economic policies. If Bush, Boyden Gray, Ed Meese, and other right-wing thinkers succeed in packing the Supreme Court this year with a clear Constitution-in-Exile adherent, at the very moment that no holds barred classist and racist extreme-capitalism has been shown to be an ideology that works to forsake the least among us, then something about America and what is good in humanity will indeed have been forsaken forever. Hurricane Katrina happened just a few weeks ago, and conservatives have already completely dismissed it, and moved onto to their ideological dream of taking over the Supreme Court. Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, and a small handful of other inside the Beltway ideologues do not own this entire country.

Every major opinion poll that has been released in the last six months shows that 70% of Americans think that the Democratic Party should fight Bush much more than they currently are. Bush and the GOP have been majorly bloodied by Miers, Libby, Iraq, and gas prices. As Mark Tushnet, Jeffrey Rosen, and other leading progressive legal scholars have made clear on TV and on the internet, Alito is to the right of Scalia and Thomas. THIS NOMINATION IS the battle that will decide the future of the Supreme Court for 20 to 30 years into the future. All of the filibusters for the Appeals courts seats that took place earlier this year will mean nothing if Alito gets on the court. His seat means more than all the Appeals court seats combined. Dems must wage this fight by filibustering. Even if the GOP pulls the nuclear trigger option, Dems will still win the fight, because Alito's authenticity as a validly seated judge will always be questioned because it was done via the nuclear option. A counterfeit nuclear option justice will undermine the extreme right wing's never abating designs on important Warren Court precedents, that should remain part of the American legal system. Dems MUST FILIBUSTER. There is no point in saving the filibuster for a rainy day. The GOP could pull the nuclear trigger at anytime anyway. If not now, when? If not this, what? There will be no better time to take Bush on than now.

I keep hearing about Stevens and Ginsburg holding on until at least the '06 elections and possibly '08 in the hopes of Democrat gains in Congress or possibly a Democrat president. I find it interesting that no one points out how risky a personal and political strategy that is, particularly for Stevens, who was appointed by a Republican president (ok, maybe it doesn't mean that much to him after all). How would you like your legacy to be that you held on to your court seat, in failing health and against the wishes of your friends and family, for the sheer partisan notion of having your seat filled by someone of similar POLITICAL leanings? Let's say the strategy backfires and Republicans keep their majority in '06 AND win the '08 presidential election (not entirely far-fetched, is it?) Your Stevens or Ginsburg, now what do you do... retire right away and make it obvious that your a partisan hack, and a loser of one at that, or just stay on until you die and not give a hoot since you'll never have to listen to what the public says about you anyway? Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that Stevens and Ginsburg aren't above this strategy, just pointing out the possible pitfalls.

I woke up with a smile on my face this morning with a quote from a TV reporter still ringing in my ears: "Chuck Schummer appeared to be visibly shaken when told of the Roberts nomination". There are very few things that can make my day as much as something like that can...

I sent this email to krugman@nytimes.com -- thought I would share it with all of you.

Dear Mr. Krugman,

I read your opinion piece in today's Times with dismay. The Democrats, more than anything else, need to come to realistic grips with what it was that lead to this colossal defeat in the elections. And if people such as yourself are going to harp on this post-9/11 hangover and revulsion over the gay marriage issue you're steering in the wrong direction and clearly missing the point.

I take particular offense to your reference to "opposition to minority rights" as a corollary to opposition to abortion and gay rights. Please explain how someone who does not morally agree with infanticide is by extension a bigot and a racist. The connection is not clear to me. And the other point you are missing is that just because a voter rejects same sex marriage does NOT mean that they do not support gay rights generally. Apparently there is no difference to you between gay marriage and civil unions.

But with all due respect sir, reading columns such as your and witnessing the palpable hatred and contempt you have for our president and his supporters is astonishing. Hearing you and other media elites rant about how unfair everything is in the world makes this election the gift that just keeps on giving. Please keep it up.

Sincerely,
Mark

what really got my goat was the reference to the "psychological damage caused by 9-11", not this missle defense nonsense. What a clueless dimwit -- she has no idea why she even angered so many people with her comments.

funny how she automatically assumes one would take precious time out of his or her day to respond to her rants about missle defense. Apparently it did not occur to her that what really upset most of us is the gall she has in referring to GWB voters as "out of step with the rest of the world". Here's my email to her -- obviously no where near as creative as Doug's response!

Dear Ms. Parrish,

Nothing gives me and many of the 59,291,175 voters who re-elected George Bush greater pleasure than being out of step with you and your whiny, liberal compatriots north of the border (and that is not meant as an insult to most Canadians who we know have more common sense). It apparently has not occurred to you that when we go to the voting booth to choose our president we put the best interests of our country and its citizens ahead of the interests of terrorist appeasers such as yourself and citizens of other countries. In fact, I'd go so far to say that many of us view a vote for GWB in the face of "70% international support for John Kerry" as a badge of honor. Why would we care after all what percentage of non-Americans support either candidate?

We are dumbfounded by your elitist, intellectual "superiority" but I wish you luck in your future political career (seems you will need it). I suggest you mind your own business next time around and stick to commenting on Canadian elections as I can't remember the last time we Americans meddled in one of your elections. And by the way, I'm sure the likes of George Soros and Michael Moore were very heartened by your comments. Perhaps you could invite them to live in your guest house for the next four years and expedite their visa applications which are sure to arrive shortly.

Yours in democracy.

just emailed this note to Ms. Parrish and for those who'd like to do the same you can click on the following link:

http://www.carolynparrish.parl.gc.ca/comments.asp?lang=en

Dear Ms. Parrish,

Nothing gives me and many of the 59,291,175 voters who re-elected George Bush greater pleasure than being out of step with you and your whiny, liberal compatriots north of the border (and that is not meant as an insult to most Canadians who we know have more common sense). It apparently has not occurred to you that when we go to the voting booth to choose our president we put the best interests of our country and its citizens ahead of the interests of terrorist appeasers such as yourself and citizens of other countries. In fact, I'd go so far to say that many of us view a vote for GWB in the face of "70% international support for John Kerry" as a badge of honor. Why would we care after all what percentage of non-Americans support either candidate?

We are dumbfounded by your elitist, intellectual "superiority" but I wish you luck in your future political career (seems you will need it). I suggest you mind your own business next time around and stick to commenting on Canadian elections as I can't remember the last time we Americans meddled in one of your elections. And by the way, I'm sure the likes of George Soros and Michael Moore were very heartened by your comments. Perhaps you could invite them to live in your guest house for the next four years and expedite their visa applications which are sure to arrive shortly.

Yours in democracy.