Nancy you've done it again

I forget which of your Starlight articles predicted that the media would be troublesome for BushCo during the summer and that there would be dogged fights--possibly related to the nominees--through the end of the year.

Your work continues to be a beacon. If only we could make more use of it.

The media being a highlighted issue and the focus on the rights and freedom of the press (and other freedom issues) comes from the square of Uranus to US Uranus. This will get very big in August but began in late March (Terry Schiavo right to die, or live, etc issue). The "culture wars" are a part of this and will be very intense in August, no doubt sparked by Bush's new SC nominee.

The thing I am dreading is the nasty, politically smearing, highly ideological battles that will ensue beginning in September through early December in Congress. It think the battle over Roberts will only be a piece of this. The Karl Rove issue may well reemerge and be the focus of an even more intense smear campaign from the right and perhaps a battle in Congress over what to do with the results. We have seen some of this in the past few weeks, but it will get very nasty from mid-Septmber on. Happily, Bush is under crappy planets by September, so it won't go well for his gang of Nazis.

You just made my day!! :hi:

may they only pile deeper upon his head
:rofl:

there is one concern I have re: "the focus on the rights and freedom of the press." Judy Miller sits in jail claiming she is doing so on principle and to protect her "source." We all know that a Karl Rove (or whoever leaked) was not a source in any accepted defintion of the term, but a criminal using the press to commit a felony.

What worries me in particular, is that the next time a journalist protects a true whistleblower the admin can use this example to jail a reporter who is truly protecting the identity of someone exposing gov't wrongdoing. We know how the Bush admin loves to punish those who speak out against them and they would not hesitate to say "well when it was Judy Miller in jail nobody cared."

Maybe it's just paranoia on my part. But then again, paranoia is not exactly an unhealthy attitude these days because we know they're out to get us.

Miller should rot in jail. The press, since Watergate, has done nothing but to help the establishment suppress out rights and smear and ruin innocent people---does Wen Ho Lee ring any bells. Further, no journalists should have the right to protect, aid and abet crimes and criminals under the guise of protecting a source. The job of a journalist is to reveal, reveal truths and safeguard the public. Certainly, Ms. Miller and anyone like her cannot claim such goals with their present behavior. Lastly, I'll fight to protect journalists who are protecting whistle blowers, and not criminals. We as consumer of the news should know and not confuse the difference.

On the Al Franken show last night he had a journalist on regarding the Miller situation. They compared her situation to Al Capone, how he was a murderer but the feds got him on tax evasion. The discussion then took a serious tone and the journalist (wish I could remember his name) said this is the wrong situation for a case about the first amendment issue to be predicated on, as the whistle blower in this situation is Joe Wilson and not the people Judy is protecting. Further, Lawrence O'Donnell was also on (I think it was his point) and brought up the matter of absolutism, which has been somewhat distorted in recent decades. There is no such thing as absolutism in confidentiality, not even between lawyers and their clients. If a lawyer knows a client is going to commit a crime he is required by law to break the confidentiality. In all other areas, one is not entitled to confidentiality when one is protecting a criminal and their illegal action(s). When Miller's attorney went before SCOTUs, he tried to argue absolutism, which the judges didn't buy for the very simple reason is that theoretically (excepting **sh and his fellow criminals, it would seem) no one person is above the law especially when it come to criminal wrongdoing.

The journalist from Salon said he had been shocked, in reading replies to articles he had written regarding Plame, to see so many people angry at JM and journalists in general. He said there is strong feeling in this country that journalists, in letting the **sh administration walk all over them, letting us all hang out to dry, that have basically abdicated their responsibilities and sold us all out, and, that being the case, they are no longer entitled to expect treatment that is not accorded to the other citizens of this country.

I'm paraphrasing here, but it was an interesting discussion. My feeling about Miller is that she is lying when she says she is doing this for reasons of principle. I don't know what her real motives are, but I have an astrologer friend who says that she is in a bad place and it will not get better over the next three years. Everything in her life is falling apart, and at the end of the three years she may no longer be a journalist.

The RW spin machine is busy claiming that Karl Rove is the equivalent of deep throat, something I've heard freeperish types parroting all over the place. I'm delighted that people are starting to see that the "liberal media" is functioning as either WH stenographers or outright cheerleaders.

Which brings us back to Judy Miller. She was all over pg 1 of the NYT selling the WMD story. Anybody who calls themselves a journalist and depends on Chalabi for valid intel .... Hello! She is no more a journalist than I am princess Anastasia. She's a plant, pure and simple, and I for one won't be crying any tears if things go down the drain for her like the astrologer predicted. She's alive, which puts her in a far better position than the thousands and thousands who have died in this trumped up war in which she played the lead trumper upper.

There was an interesting article I saw on a blog recently about her stint in Iraq where the guys in the unit she was with nicknamed "General Judy." It went into great detail on how she went around demanding nobody talk to other journalists and threatening to rat them out to Rumsfeld if they didn't kowtow to her every demand.

She may or may not be a traitor, but she's definitely a diva of the first order.

I thought the freepers all hated Deep Throat? :shrug:

them to suit their needs. Yes, they hate Deep Throat and claim to hate him because he "broke the law." However, they can't deny his leak was instrumental in shining a light on wrongdoing at the highest level of government.

Now they take one little factoid from the Plame case, i.e., Karl Rove broke the law.

Here comes the twist.

Deep Throat exposed something that needed to be exposed. Deep throat was never punished for breaking the law. Ipso fact, Karl Rove needs to walk for what he did.

Never mind that what he exposed was the identity of a covert WMD expert. He's the right's hero for smearing Wilson and they demand for him the same evasion of consequences that Deep Throat managed.

Her chart would be very interesting right now. Thanks.

Judith Miller, Jan 2, 1948, NY,NY (Didn't have the time) I believe she rectified it by using events.)

Also, at astro they have Fitzgerald. The only thing which bothers me is that all the info I’ve read on him says he was born in 1961.

Patrick J . Fitzgerald

BORN: Dec. 22, 1960.

HOMETOWN: Brooklyn.

EDUCATION: Regis High School, New York (1978); Amherst College,
B.A. (1982); Harvard Law School, J.D. (1985).

CAREER HIGHLIGHTS: Associate handling civil litigation at Christy
& Viener, now Salans, Hertzfeld, Heilbronn, Christy & Viener, New
York, 1985-88; assistant United States attorney for the Southern
District of New York, 1988-2001, including stints as chief of
narcotics unit, national security coordinator and chief of the
organized crime-terrorism unit; United States attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois, 2001 to present.

Much appreciated.

less known reporters/journalists/writers who previously were charged with contempt of court for refusing to reveal info/sources?

Like a TV reporter who just last year refused to reveal his source and was sentenced to house arrest for six months (served four)? He didn't work for the NYT and didn't have a Pulitzer so while there was some small press attention for the most part the general public mostly didn't and doesn't know or care. It certainly wasn't headline news with all the media outlets up in arms about it that I recall.

Around 2001 a freelance writer served over 160 days (IIRC)in jail for refusing to turn over her notes for a book she was writing on a murder case.

I previously posted about these cases in another part of DU but cannot find the post at the moment. But here's a link to an AP summary of recent instances: http://ap.lancasteronline.com/4/reporters_contempt_glance Reporters know that contempt of court charges could result if they refuse to cooperate with an investigation. That's part of the territory.

Miller must be gratified that people appear to regard her as a singular precedent setting example. She's not. And if it were any other case and she not a NYT or other well known media outlet "celebrity," likely very few would notice or care, as with the other instances.

About lesser known journalists and those who may actually protecting whistleblowers. That is another reason why this Miller case is such a pig in a poke. Because of the fact that criminality (and especially treason ) is never protected, this is the wrong case to have the debate over. In addition, what may not be realized is that everyone is required to testify before grand juries, a ruling in '82 ('72?) determined that. The thinking is that as grand jury proceedings are under seal that a good measure of protection may still be in effect. Now that point is open to question, but never-the-less, reporters can still be ordered to appear before grand juries, and held in contempt if they don't. In this situation, Judy may be the rotten Apple spoiling the barrel. After all, she has been getting her fingers dirty for some time now and the whole Chalabi thing was a disgrace. As was her allegedly warning a so-called Islamic charity that the feds were on the way. She should not be the poster girl for the 1st amendment protection.

I also agree with Mandate, that Judy is no mere journalist, and has been an "asset", probably for a long time. It has been questioned (here on DU)as to whether she was part of Operation Mockingbird.

From GD:

Journalism Group Argues Over Giving Award To Judith Miller


"The First Amendment is designed to prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding a government official or officials who attempted to use the press to retaliate against a whistleblower, and scare off other would-be whistleblowers, has allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistleblowers," Bartholomew wrote in a resignation letter provided to E&P. "When your source IS the government, and the government is attempting to use you to target a whistleblower, the notion of shielding a source must be reconsidered. To apply standard practices regarding sources to hiding wrongdoing at the highest levels of government perverts the intent of the First Amendment.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4149290

this reason? I didn't know that had changed.

:shrug:

But until recently it has been a very rare occurrence and I think (guess) that along the way, the job of journalists acquired a lot of glamour, and became very high profile with journalists becoming stars. They started traveling in the same circles as the people they were covering and things began to become distorted. Journalists acquired a vaulted position in our society and I think they forgot themselves and the job they were supposed to be doing. Along with this came the sense they were untouchable, more than mortal. The reality is that they are not and never were above the law in a without exception way.

I am aware that my above statement is a huge, whopping generality, for there are journalists out there who are pursuing the truth and protecting whistleblowers. They are the last standing heroes of the journalism profession. But we are in times when grey is black and black is white. And it is difficult to make finite distinctions. Today the Senate, in putting together a shield law, decided to add an exception where terrorism is involved. Well, we all know, people can cry terrorism as easily as they can cry wolf, so the law may end up being useless. This is why what JM has done is so damaging, she has yet again twisted a matter having to do with this war into something which benefits herself no matter who she damages, or how many lives she takes down in the process.

Perhaps, most sadly, there are no winners in this situation, only losers.

How do you think this will all turn out for her and for us? Below I've put a snip to Joe Conason's latest article, and if you go by what he says, no one is happy that she has been placed in this martyrdom role. And what effect do you think this will have on the first amendment?

The Miller Crusade
Diminishes the Press

<<<snip>>>
“She leaves much to be desired as a martyr for the First Amendment. Based on both past performance and present circumstance, she actually symbolizes a terrible betrayal of the public trust by the national media. And whatever she and her employers think they’re achieving in defiance of the special counsel investigating the Valerie Wilson case, her conduct will inevitably diminish the reputation and power of the press. Cont…

“What did protect journalists’ sources from untoward prying by the federal authorities, until now, was an informal privilege recognized by the government. By custom, if not by law, federal prosecutors were discouraged from issuing subpoenas to journalists and news organizations. A prosecutor who wanted to haul in a reporter and rifle through her notebooks had to convince his supervisors in Washington that such drastic steps were truly necessary.” Cont.,,

“Now Ms. Miller may be in danger of indictment for criminal contempt, which would take her bad case across another ominous threshold. Still she insists that she must honor her commitment of confidentiality. To answer the subpoena would undermine the capacity of all journalists to do their jobs, she warns. But source privilege was never intended to protect powerful officials using the media to abuse their power and commit crimes.

It is possible to imagine a case in which the federal government would file an overreaching subpoena, the courts would uphold that mistake, and the resisting journalist would have no honorable choice but to go to prison. It could occur with or without a shield law, which is certain to include exceptions. To commit civil disobedience and flout the rule of law in defense of a higher principle, however, requires a very strict moral standard.

Or as the poet once sang, “To live outside the law, you must be honest.” Unfortunately, the martyr of the moment doesn’t inspire that kind of confidence.”


http://nyobserver.com/opinions_conason.asp

In September and early October. Something could change signficantly around then that changes the direction of things for her. I haven't yet done her progressions so I don't have a full picture beyond that.

What I have done is John Roberts' chart. I think it is pretty clear he will be confirmed. Except for a few rough days before September 9, he will sail through and be confirmed and sworn in by later in September. He has really outstanding planetary configurations that suggest he is clearly the winner.

Progressed Uranus conjunct Jupiter;
progressed Moon opposite Jupiter/progressed Uranus;
transiting Jupiter square Jupiter;
transiting Mars station sextile Jupiter;
transiting Pluto quincunx Jupiter.

So we have three transiting planets - Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto - aspecting his Jupiter. And two progressed planets - Moon and Uranus - also aspecting his Jupiter. All of this comes together in the second half of September and the beginning of October. I don't see how he can lose.

Schwarzenegger more unpopular than ever, poll finds
Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:17 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's approval rating dropped to a new low even before a controversy developed about his hefty side income from fitness magazines, according to a poll released on Thursday.

Only 34 percent of adult Californians approve of the job Schwarzenegger is doing as governor, compared with 51 percent who disapprove, according to a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=top...



We have this to look forward to with Bush over the next couple of years, through July 2007. I am not sure what happens after that.

It was your prediction that kept me sane during the months that many in the msm held him up as god. Thank goodness the air is being let out of this pompous jerk.

Thank you for keeping many of us hopeful.