I believe you mean "Alumnae need not apply."

from a Latin geek. Agricola, agricolae...

Don't you think it should be OK for someone living on a plantation to have just a little slice of freedom? Ms. Hillary, what ya'll think, Hum?

I have to wonder how far Teddy would have gotten in life without Daddy Joe's money. Probably not very far...

Hmmm.

"D-Chivas"?

Hehehe. Ouch. That'll leave a mark.

JATO, Who knows? Perhaps without having Daddy's billfold & his brothers' names to hide behind, he might have ended up a better person. Not that this is saying much. I mean really, the only way he could do worse would be to serial murder young gay men while wearing a clown-suit...

I thought Harverd kicked him out for academic cheating. Did the let him back in?

A drunkard murdering coward judging someone else on their "morality".

In reality, Ted should have been happy to get an hour a day in the "yard".

In.F-ing.sane.

SOTG

FWIW, the Herald article is wrong - the Owl Club is not an alumni organization, it's a social club. Mostly for undergraduates, though I imagine alums all pay dues or whatever. There are also all-female versions of that type of club at Harvard. Not to say he's not a hyprocrite (he is), but the clubs do no political advocacy, etc., unlike the CAP.

The WaPo article (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060112-042556-7237r.htm) states TK's personal info was updated on Sept. 7. Seems odd if your "not a member" you'd care much about ensuring currency and paying the $100...

I thought Harverd kicked him out for academic cheating. Did the let him back in?

Yes. Someone else went in to take the Spanish final exam for him. The ruse was discovered and he was expelled. He subsequently joined the army for several years and then reentered Harvard and graduated.

It don't get much better than Teddy, do it?

(Yes, I know the grammar is wrong. It's supposed to be.)

Finals Clubs, such as the Owl, have been in existence at Harvard since the 1800's. When Ted Kennedy joined the Owl, Radcliffe and Harvard had not yet been fully integrated. (Professors taught at Harvard in the morning and Radcliffe in the afternoon.)

All-male Finals Clubs (I believe there are 7) continue to exist at Harvard primarily because there is nowhere else to have a party as over 95% of students live in the dorms. When I was at Harvard, there was one female finals club, the Bee, but it did not have a house. I believe another female finals club has formed since I left.

Unlike CAP, Finals Clubs have no political agenda. It's just a way for rich boys, from both conservative and liberal familes, to get together and drink on Daddy's dime.

The hypocracy on the Judiciary Committee is out of control to say the least. Of course, the media does not pick up on the Ted Kennedy factoids regarding what groups he belonged to in college. It's just a shame our Senators have resorted to such politics. And, if in 5 years we have a Democratic President who nominates a more liberal judge to sit on the Supreme Court, I will preach the same sermon...if he/she is qualified and has clearly demonstrated his/her ability to remain independent (as Judge Alito has done), I will be pushing for confirmation.

Oh, please.

The Owl Club is some sort of old boy club. CAP was against the admission of women and minorities, and at the same time stood fully supportive of admission for alumni children - which is affirmative action, wealthy daddy style.

But even if the two clubs were equally bad - that just means that Alito is equally as bad as Kennedy.

So, there you have it: Alito is as bad as Ted Kennedy. Therefore he deserves to be on the Supreme Court, that's just what the nation needs.

This is ridiculous.

So, Jim, how do you explain all of the women that were part of CAP?
CAP was against lowering standards of admission to boost female and minority enrollment, not the enrollment itself. The other issue CAP was formed around was restoring the ROTC to campus, after a bunch of radicals fire bombed their building.
CAP was open to all ethnicities, all backgrounds, both genders, but they were a conservative action group. The Owl club was a rich male only club. There is a difference.

Ted Kennedy, and many of the Dems on the committee, were searching for a way to discredit Judge Alito. It didn't happen and they turned the tables on themselves. The American people took notice and began to discredit everything they may have said of substance in those hearings. I believe Kennedy's behavior and the subsequent release of this information about his association with the Owl Club just makes it more obvious that he had no right to make the accusations he did against Judge Alito. Look at the facts, Alito's qualifications and his actual rulings in cases.

Jim - Judge Alito will NEVER be as bad as Senator Kennedy, unless he plans on going back in time, getting kicked out of college, driving a car off of a bridge and allowing his passenger to drown, and generally bringing dishonor to his family's name.

The first question is how Karl Rove keeps getting Teddy re-elected and out in public, without anyone knowing. And it only costs one senate seat - priceless.

The second question, the real question, is which would win in the fight between Rove's brain and Cheney's dick?

Oh, and the arguement was never that Alito is just as bad as Kennedy (or vice versa) so it is all right and we should give him a pass.
The point is that the WORST thing they could dredge up about Alito is that he was associated with CAP. Which is about the least offensive thing of the littany of offenses you can pin on Teddy.

I wonder if this is reflected in his voting record? That's the important point, but please continue with the meaningless comparison.

Unfortunately, Alito's record often coincides with that of a member of a sexist and racist organization.

Care to offer up any proof, jp2, or just the usual hit and run?

I am just absolutely amazed that Ted Kennedy gets reelected time after time. One would think that the Kopeckny incedent would have caused his demise. Maybe it's just me, but I think that this speaks volumes about the people who continue to reelect him, after all he is just doing the will of the people that he represents.

God bless Massachusetts, the cradle of democracy!!!

(Plus they have the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Put that in your 'family values' pipe and smoke it).

SCSIwuzzy:

Liberals never offer rational proof. They just offer insults and unproven generaltities that they expect to be accepted as fact.

Robert:

Massachusetts may have the lowest divorce rate but they certainly lead the nation in drunken, murderous, hypocritical senators.

PIMF

generalities

Proud Kaffir,

Do you really want to go back 30+ years to dredge up someone's past mistakes?

If so, I give you George W. Bush.
I'll start: AWOL during wartime.
Drunk-driving, cocaine abuser.

Your turn.

Do you really want to go back 30+ years to dredge up someone's past mistakes?

That defense didn't work well for Michael Skakel. He's doing time for murder and was convicted long after the crime occurred. Teddy got a pass due to his family connections, but this will never be forgotten, at least outside of Massachussetts.

Anyway, Kennedy didn't seem to have any trouble trying to dig back 30 years to try to unsurface any dirt on Alito.

And lest we all forget, the CAP article Sen. Kennedy was sputtering on about was a satirical piece. So it was much ado about nothing.

Par for the course for Sen. K.

It's too bad Judge Alito can't question Kennedy for half an hour.

Jim - Judge Alito will NEVER be as bad as Senator Kennedy, unless he plans on going back in time, getting kicked out of college, driving a car off of a bridge and allowing his passenger to drown, and generally bringing dishonor to his family's name.

Then why the heck do you care that Kennedy was in the Owl Club?

But let's say for a second that Kennedy's membership actually means something. Here's the deal: Kennedy and Alito are up for entirely different jobs. Kennedy can help pass or write any legislation he's partial too, and he's answerable to his constituents. Alito is supposed to be impartial. Showing he's against affirmative action is something that should be legitimately filled in on his background - and something that honest Republicans who are **against** affirmative action should also want to know.

The only reason they wouldn't is, they believe Alito **is** against it, and don't want the jig to be up.

Is that what's going on here? Be honest.

On another note, I find it really interesting how this "The Dems did it too!" defense works. I see it also employed in Bush's failure to capture Bin Laden, and trying to float it as a weak rationale for Bush's criminal avoidance of FISA.

So let me settle it: just because person B does it, does not mean it's okay for person A to do it. Either both of them are right, or both of them are wrong.

jim, that is a logical fallacy.

The choice is not simply between "right" and "wrong."

For example, Person A shoots a person walking down the street. Person B shoots a person walking down the street.

If Person A is a criminal, I think it safe to say that Person A has committed murder.

But if Person B is a police officer, and if the person they shot had just killed someone up the street, would you say that it was also murder?

I would agree that membership in such clubs, especially thirty or more years ago, makes little difference.

In this case, however, we have a judge who, as an undergraduate, joined a group that was opposed to affirmative action in college admissions. That group (not the candidate) in a magazine later publishes an article that can be seen as offensive.

That the candidate for the bench had anything to do w/ such a group is held up by Senator Kennedy as, what? Evidence of inappropriateness for the bench? It's not even clear WHAT it was about, other than as some kind of smear.

On the other hand, we have that same Senator, who is a member of a gender-exclusive club until this past week. Which is greater evidence of sexism, opposing co-education thirty-five years ago, or refusing to allow women into your club yesterday? (Hint: The NYT found Augusta sexist b/c it wouldn't allow women as members.)

You are comparing apples and pears, if not with rutabaga.

Why is anyone surprised when a pile of shit like teddy the hut opens its mouth what comes forth is stinky, (or nutty, or corny)?

I do like the comments about Ted K's daddy's money and about his being the D from Chivas.

But remember:

Lil Georgie wouldn't be much of anybody without his grandaddy's money that came from dealing with the enemy during WWII - and perhaps even from silesian slave labor at Auschwitz.

And, Lil Georgie's bro, Jebbie, is most assuredly the R Governor from Bacardi.

Jim M:

I think when it comes to collaboration and appeasement, Daddy Joe came w/ the best of them. Regularly reporting back to FDR that the Brits were beaten, to the point that FDR had to yank him from the Court of St. James?

Lot to be proud of there, boy.

jim, that is a logical fallacy.

The choice is not simply between "right" and "wrong."

For example, Person A shoots a person walking down the street. Person B shoots a person walking down the street.

If Person A is a criminal, I think it safe to say that Person A has committed murder.

But if Person B is a police officer, and if the person they shot had just killed someone up the street, would you say that it was also murder?

I agree with you, with that level of detail in the example, to distinguish person A from person b. That adds a lot more to the equation.

But if what you're saying is, Kennedy was involved with a sexist organization, and Alito was involved with a sexist organization, and that's the limit of relevant detail you're going into - then both situations are equally morally wrong or right.

In this case, however, we have a judge...

Who, as I explained, is supposed to be impartial.

It's not even clear WHAT it was about, other than as some kind of smear.

It's quite clear what it was about. It was about whether Alito will be for or against existing or future affirmative action legislation, based on a review of evidence of his real-life philosophy.

In other words, how he really feels about things, when he isn't at his most shiny and evasive during his job interview before Congress.

On the other hand, we have that same Senator

Who, as I explained, can be as biased and partial as he thinks appropriate - he has his constituents to answer to. Whereas the SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment, with no possibly of removing a biased and/or deceitful judge once appointed.

They are apples and oranges. And I'm telling you, that the Massachusets voters are responsible for the orange - and the whole country is stuck with the apple. Therefore, the fact that there's maybe something rotten with the apple, doesn't mean that we should ignore the same stains on the orange.

Oops - mixed around my own metaphor.

I mean, "Therefore, the fact that there's maybe something rotten with the orange (Kennedy), doesn't mean that we should ignore the same stains on the apple (Alito)."

Maybe we should just put them all in a blender and make a slushie out of them.

jim:

First, the evidence that CAP was a sexist/racist organization is questionable, at best. Opposing affirmative action hardly equals racism or sexism.

Second, you are insisting that Alito and Kennedy belonged to similar sexist organizations. How is a club with an avowed no-women-admitted rule comparable to an organization opposing affirmative action? Which do you think is more sexist?

Third, while being a Senator is not quite the same as being a Supreme Court Justice, the level of hypocrisy involved, especially when it is loudly brayed about the "suitability" of a judge is part of why Kennedy's club-membership is being raised.

Fourth, I don't think the term "impartial" means what you think it means. What is the basis for claiming that Alito is not impartial? If Ginsburg is a Democrat, does that mean she cannot be impartial, if a Republican or a Democrat lodges a complaint?

By your lights of "he belonged to CAP, therefore his rulings will oppose affirmative action, and he is unsuited," Justice Ginsburg's views on Boy Scouts and the like made her unsuited for the High Court. Somehow, methinks you'd not approve that basis for rejecting her, once upon a time.

But the reality of the vote on Ginsburg was that, despite her track record, the feeling was that if she said she could be impartial, she gained the benefit of the doubt. Why is that same courtesy not extended to Alito?

BTW, given your concern about sexism, I trust that you'll be supporting whomever runs against Teddy-the-K?