« Quote Of The Day - Martin Luther King Day Edition | Main | A truly American dream »

Hypocrisy from Ted Kennedy? Who'd have suspected it?

One of the biggest lines of attack against Judge Samuel Alito was his memberhip in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which was denounced as sexist, racist, and just plain rotten. (Its defenders say that they weren't against admitting minorities to Princeton, but against lowering the standards to allow more women and minorities to gain entry.) Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Chivas), Massachusetts' senior senator, was one of Alito's (I'm sorry -- Alioto's) harshest critics on this point.

But the Harvard Crimson and a reporter for Channel 7 did a little digging. Senator Ted was a member of the Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni. It's a rather exclusive club -- it's by invitation only, and to qualify, one must be a Harvard alumnus.

Alumna need not apply.

Yes, Senator Kennedy has been a member of a men's-only club for 52 years.

Once this was brought to his attention, he denied he was a member. True, he still paid $100 a year to the Owl Club, but he wasn't really a member.

The truly beautiful irony of all this is that the Owl Club has no official connection with Harvard. It seems the university severed all ties with them over 20 years ago in order to comply with a federal law -- a law Kennedy himself had championed.

Kennedy says he intends to extricate himself from the Owl Club as soon as possible. It just might take a while; they'll probably make him setttle his bar tab first, and even the Kennedy fortune has its limits...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hypocrisy from Ted Kennedy? Who'd have suspected it?:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Lawmaker: Alito's record detrimental to Hispanics

» The Bullwinkle Blog linked with I Love It When The Remake The Classics.

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» The Political Pit Bull linked with Kennedy: Kennedy "Probably" Would Not Be Confirmed

Comments (49)

I believe you mean "Alumnae... (Below threshold)
meep:

I believe you mean "Alumnae need not apply."

from a Latin geek. Agricola, agricolae...

Don't you think it should b... (Below threshold)
JAT0:

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"? ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

"D-Chivas"?

Hehehe. Ouch. That'll leave a mark.

JATO, Who knows? Perhaps wi... (Below threshold)

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 hi... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

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

A drunkard murdering coward... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

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... (Below threshold)
Earl:

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://ww... (Below threshold)
Chris:

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 kicke... (Below threshold)
fizzix:

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 th... (Below threshold)

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 O... (Below threshold)
Simone:

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 Judici... (Below threshold)
Louise:

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... (Below threshold)
jim:

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... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

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 th... (Below threshold)
LolaLA:

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 NEVE... (Below threshold)
JD:

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 K... (Below threshold)
Fred Z:

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 n... (Below threshold)

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 reflect... (Below threshold)
jp2:

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,... (Below threshold)

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

I am just absolutely amazed... (Below threshold)
Steve:

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, th... (Below threshold)
Robert:

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... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

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.

PIMFgeneralities</... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

PIMF

generalities

Proud Kaffir,Do yo... (Below threshold)
Robert:

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... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

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... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

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 ca... (Below threshold)
ryan:

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

Jim - Judge Alito will N... (Below threshold)
jim:

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 fall... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

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 whe... (Below threshold)
moseby:

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 abou... (Below threshold)
Jim M:

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 whe... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

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 f... (Below threshold)
jim:

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 ... (Below threshold)
jim:

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 ev... (Below threshold)
lurking observer:

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?

To the post above which men... (Below threshold)
Robert:

To the post above which mentioned Pappy Bush's siding with the enemy during WW2, do you think that's how Cheney got the Veep position?

Did his dealing with Saddam in the 90s remind GW of whence he came?

Lurking Observer, you've ma... (Below threshold)
Railroad Stone:

Lurking Observer, you've made my day.

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

That would be funny in a discussion about law, but right under a line accusing someone else of making a "logical fallacy", it's pure comedy gold!

Sweet! Another nugget from ... (Below threshold)
Railroad Stone:

Sweet! Another nugget from Proud Kaffir:

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

I submit this paragraph as evidence of hypocrisy, since it contains no rational proof, just an unproven generality that you seem to expect will be accepted as fact. :)

Also, keep in mind that Jud... (Below threshold)
Lola:

Also, keep in mind that Judge Alito was approved unanimously for the Third Circuit by the Senate Judiciary Committe and the full senate when they were under Democratic control in the 90's. In fact, Ted Kennedy himself stated that Judge Alito had a "distinguished record" when voting for him at that time. A healthy debate over the qualifications of the Supreme Court nominee is a good thing, but it has gone too far at this piont. The same Senators who grilled Judge Alito in the committee hearings voted for him 15 years ago. Why has their position changed so much on Judge Alito? Even the liberal ABA rates him as "well qualified" and Sen. Feinstein says he has the ability to be on the court. So, the only basis they are relying on for opposition is his ideology. Surely it's clear this is not the appropriate question, right??...

Railroad stone: If... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Railroad stone:

If you are unable to see that the point was that not all actions which appear comparable are comparable, then here's a tip: folks aren't laughing with you, they're laughing at you.

jim got the point, which you evidently missed:

A policeman that shoots someone and a criminal that shoots someone may both be killing, but that hardly means that their actions are comparable.

First, the evidence that... (Below threshold)
jim:

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

Institutional racism and sexism, has gotten more sophisticated and less overt. Affirmative action is a method of dealing with it. So, opposition to affirmative action, is opposition to a method intended to reduce racism and sexism.

That doesn't necessarily mean opposing affirmative action is racist - but it does means such opposition is worth examining closely.

Second, you are insisting that Alito and Kennedy belonged to similar sexist organizations.

The writer of the piece is insisting this. It's the whole point of the piece.

I'm saying, if they are similar, it still is a good thing for Alito to answer for his membership.

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?

On the face of it, I think it's the one that's fighting to deny the opportunity of college, rather than the one denying the opportunity of drinking whiskey with fat old men.

But in a larger sense, it doesn't matter which is more sexist. Kennedy is answering for the larger issues that his membership illuminates. Alito should answer for his.

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.

As I said before, Kennedy is can be removed by his constituents. Alito, once he's in, can't be removed. Therefore, the source of these questions matter less than Alito's answers.

Fourth, ...What is the basis for claiming that Alito is not impartial?

**Any** judge can be partial. These questions are asked of SCOTUS nominees, so we can find out whether or not they are impartial.

The basis for claiming that Alito is or is not impartial, should come from his answers to any and all questions.

By your lights of "he belonged to CAP, therefore his rulings will oppose affirmative action, and he is unsuited," ...

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying asking him questions relating to affirmative action is fully justified. Just like any questions on the separation of Church and State, or Presidential executive power, or the regulation of interstate lotteries, etc. etc. etc.

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?

Because, a) looking at Thomas and Roberts once on the bench, they are ruling somewhat differently than they indicated, which indicates that they weren't fully forthcoming during their job interviews, and b) SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment.

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

Probably not. A GOP member can appear as liberal as he wants, but he still is a member of a party that is too problematic, in sexism and in many, many other ways.

Thank you Lola...too bad yo... (Below threshold)
Louise:

Thank you Lola...too bad your not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, for the record I would just like to say that inevitably and Democratic President will get to nominate a SC Justice and I will be preaching the same thing: if he/she is well-qualified and independent there is no reason he/she should not be confirmed!

But the reality of the v... (Below threshold)
jim:

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.

And, actually, I question whether that's how Ginsburg's confirmation went. Wasn't she questioned? If she wasn't, then the Congress of that time didn't do their job.

And as I understand it, there are many conservatives who feel that she is too 'partial' - because she has not ruled with the convervative lean they were led to expect, and instead helped uphold Roe v. Wade.

Republicans in Congress at ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Republicans in Congress at the time realized that we have elections to determine who the President is, and the President wins the right to nominate Justices to the SCOTUS. Ginsburg was supported so strongly because she was qualified, she is lucky she was not voted upon based on party loyalty as Roberts was and Alito will be.

The President wins the r... (Below threshold)
jim:

The President wins the right to nominate Justices to the SCOTUS.

The President, by being elected, earns the right to **nominate**. And the members of the Congress, by being elected earn the right to **refuse** that nomination.

This includes refusal by filibuster - because filibuster is one of the many rules that Congress has used to retain the rights of the minority in Congress.

That's built into the constitution very specifically. Otherwise the President could just nominate whoever he wanted, and the Judicial branch would just be an outgrowth of the Executive.

When Clinton was nominating judges for high courts, he had to pick judges who would not be refused by the Republican party. It's not that the Republicans respected Clinton because he was the head of the Executive branch. Please!

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=365

" Clinton, faced with tougher partisan opposition, consulted closely with Republicans over nominations. In an effort to appease his Republican opponents, he appointed several conservative judges recommended by conservative GOP senators.

Even so, dozens of nominations were delayed and then either quietly killed or blocked in committee. "

Note that last paragraph - used non-voting methods to deny a President's choice of a judge.

So don't complain if and when a filibuster is used against Alito, or other judges who have proven so unacceptable as to unite an entire party against them. The chickens will have come home to roost.

Interesting argument, jim. ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Interesting argument, jim. Utterly fallacious, but interesting.

Show me where filibustering is mentioned in the Constitution. Here's a hint: it isn't. It was created BY Congress FOR Congress, in accordance with their Constitutional mandate to make their own rules. And what they can make, they can un-make. That's what was hashed out as the "nuclear option" (although "the Constitutional option" suited the situation better): Congress would re-visit the rules that they set up and decide whether filibustering should be allowed against judicial nominees.

And as far as Clinton goes -- he had to consult with the majority party in the Senate to get his nominations confirmed. So did Bush.

If you don't like the nominees being chosen, might I suggest you try a bit harder to get people who agree with you elected?

J.

I have to agree with ryan, ... (Below threshold)
Lawfan:

I have to agree with ryan, this whole thing is ridiculous. Judge Alito is top-notch judicial material, and all of these games are just fodder for 24 hour news. If the process were as the founders intended it, Alito would have been confirmed weeks ago. Let the politics go and confirm a highly qualified judge.

It's nice to know that Alit... (Below threshold)
ryan:

It's nice to know that Alito will be confirmed despite all the baseless attacks. Tomorrow will be a great day for the SCOTUS.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy