Citing Drudge, the conservatives are convinced that Cosmos is a ratings disaster and will be canceled. Citing drudge is clearly a mistake. First, the conservatives are ignoring the fact that Cosmos is being showed on several different channels at different times. When you aggregate the total ratings, Cosmos is doing great for a pure science show http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/cosmos_ratings_are_not_disaster_fox-131870

The Drudge Report is saying that "Cosmos" ratings are a disaster and, I as I discussed in Is "Cosmos" Suffering From Unrealistic Expectations? the overnights showed numbers down from the premiere, but that is hardly a disaster.

1) It's a science show. That a science show was on a prime time broadcast network - and took third place in its premiere - I would say is bordering on miraculous.

2) The overnights for "Cosmos" showed more viewers watched it than watched either "Family Guy" or "The Simpsons". "Family Guy" is, of course, "Cosmos" producer Seth MacFarlane's keystone program. Ordinarily it would be the lead-in and anything following would show some drop. Instead, "Cosmos" had more viewers than those longtime fan favorites.....

Plus, those numbers might go up. Once DVR views were factored in, the adult 18-49 rating for "Cosmos" last week jumped 33%, from a 2.1 to a 2.8. If a similar DVR bump happens this week, then suddenly "Cosmos" is number two in its time slot for the demographic advertisers prize most.

And "Cosmos" is more of an international product than other shows it is competing with - it could get 3-6X its total viewers when international numbers come in, and that all brings revenue too.

Second, Cosmos is getting wonderful reviews http://www.metacritic.com/tv/cosmos-a-space-time-odyssey For example, here is a review of the first episode

San Francisco Chronicle
David Wiegand
Mar 6, 2014
100
At least the first episode of the new Cosmos is terrific. And if the other 12 episodes are as good, the series will serve as a valuable continuation of Sagan's legacy.

The religious nutcases and conservative idiots are hoping that the show will fail. I have enjoyed all three episodes and will be buying the DVDs when they come out. Cosmos is not going to go away just because Drudge is hoping that it will fail.

Justice Roberts' opinion on Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was a really horrible opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf It is hard to read and is based on a concept of equal sovereignty among the states. I found the concept of equal sovereignty among the states to be a new concept that Roberts was using solely to gut the Voting Rights Act (Roberts has hated the Voting Rights Act since he was lawyer in the Reagan justice department). It seems that the "equal sovereignty concept is an old doctrine that was used to justify the Dred Scott opinion http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/demeaning-insult-chief-justice-john-roberts-voting-rights-act-decision

One of the enduring mysteries of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion striking down part of the Voting Rights Act is which part of the Constitution the landmark civil rights law actually violated.

Roberts argued that the Voting Rights Act violated the “tradition” of “equal sovereignty” of the states. That concept is far more dubious than it might seem at first glance, according to a legal paper published by two longtime voting rights experts.

“The ‘equal sovereignty’ principle is not in the Constitution,” said James Blacksher, an Alabama attorney with a long career in Voting Rights. “It is, as the Chief Justice says, a ‘historical tradition.” Go straight past the penumbras, hang a right at the emanations.

Blacksher’s paper, co-authored with Harvard law professor Lani Guinier, argues that Roberts’s opinion in the Voting Rights Act case is a descendant of what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court decision in American history: The 1857 Dred Scott case, in which the high court held that blacks, slave or free, could never be citizens of the United States. That case is the “origin story” of the “equal sovereignty” principle, the authors argue, because the opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney held that it would violate the sovereignty of the slave states to recognize blacks as American citizens. By invoking that principle, the authors write in Free at Last: Rejecting Equal Sovereignty and Restoring the Constitutional Right to Vote, Roberts was reviving “the oldest and most demeaning official insult to African-Americans in American constitutional history.”

“ ‘Equal sovereignty’ was the basis of the longstanding argument, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, between the slave states and the free states. The slave states claimed that they were equally sovereign with the other states to decide whether to have slavery or not to have slavery,” Blacksher said. “The ‘equal sovereignty’ doctrine that Chief Justice Roberts relied on last year is rooted in the jurisprudence of slavery.”...

Prior to last year’s ruling, Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, wrote a Harvard Law Review article arguing that the Voting Rights Act was clearly constitutional. Amar wrote that an “extravagant anti-congressional theory of state equality” drove the Dred Scott decision, and that the court should “take care to avoid the decision’s biggest mistakes.”

The Dred Scott opinion was bad law back when decided and I am not surprised that Roberts is now using this same concept to gut the Voting Rights Act.

The Shelby County is one of the most partisan opinions in the history of the SCOTUS and is on a par with Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. We need to point out to the conservatives that Roberts is nothing but a racist who has to rely on the legal principle behind the Dred Scott decision to justify the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

Justice Roberts' opinion on Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was a really horrible opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf It is hard to read and is based on a concept of equal sovereignty among the states. I found the concept of equal sovereignty among the states to be a new concept that Roberts was using solely to gut the Voting Rights Act (Roberts has hated the Voting Rights Act since he was lawyer in the Reagan justice department). It seems that the "equal sovereignty concept is an old doctrine that was used to justify the Dred Scott opinion http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/demeaning-insult-chief-justice-john-roberts-voting-rights-act-decision

One of the enduring mysteries of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion striking down part of the Voting Rights Act is which part of the Constitution the landmark civil rights law actually violated.

Roberts argued that the Voting Rights Act violated the “tradition” of “equal sovereignty” of the states. That concept is far more dubious than it might seem at first glance, according to a legal paper published by two longtime voting rights experts.

“The ‘equal sovereignty’ principle is not in the Constitution,” said James Blacksher, an Alabama attorney with a long career in Voting Rights. “It is, as the Chief Justice says, a ‘historical tradition.” Go straight past the penumbras, hang a right at the emanations.

Blacksher’s paper, co-authored with Harvard law professor Lani Guinier, argues that Roberts’s opinion in the Voting Rights Act case is a descendant of what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court decision in American history: The 1857 Dred Scott case, in which the high court held that blacks, slave or free, could never be citizens of the United States. That case is the “origin story” of the “equal sovereignty” principle, the authors argue, because the opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney held that it would violate the sovereignty of the slave states to recognize blacks as American citizens. By invoking that principle, the authors write in Free at Last: Rejecting Equal Sovereignty and Restoring the Constitutional Right to Vote, Roberts was reviving “the oldest and most demeaning official insult to African-Americans in American constitutional history.”

“ ‘Equal sovereignty’ was the basis of the longstanding argument, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, between the slave states and the free states. The slave states claimed that they were equally sovereign with the other states to decide whether to have slavery or not to have slavery,” Blacksher said. “The ‘equal sovereignty’ doctrine that Chief Justice Roberts relied on last year is rooted in the jurisprudence of slavery.”...

Prior to last year’s ruling, Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, wrote a Harvard Law Review article arguing that the Voting Rights Act was clearly constitutional. Amar wrote that an “extravagant anti-congressional theory of state equality” drove the Dred Scott decision, and that the court should “take care to avoid the decision’s biggest mistakes.”

The Dred Scott opinion was bad law back when decided and I am not surprised that Roberts is now using this same concept to gut the Voting Rights Act.

The Shelby County is one of the most partisan opinions in the history of the SCOTUS and is on a par with Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. We need to point out to the conservatives that Roberts is nothing but a racist who has to rely on the legal principle behind the Dred Scott decision to justify the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

Justice Roberts' opinion on Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was a really horrible opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf It is hard to read and is based on a concept of equal sovereignty among the states. I found the concept of equal sovereignty among the states to be a new concept that Roberts was using solely to gut the Voting Rights Act (Roberts has hated the Voting Rights Act since he was lawyer in the Reagan justice department). It seems that the "equal sovereignty concept is an old doctrine that was used to justify the Dred Scott opinion http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/demeaning-insult-chief-justice-john-roberts-voting-rights-act-decision

One of the enduring mysteries of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion striking down part of the Voting Rights Act is which part of the Constitution the landmark civil rights law actually violated.

Roberts argued that the Voting Rights Act violated the “tradition” of “equal sovereignty” of the states. That concept is far more dubious than it might seem at first glance, according to a legal paper published by two longtime voting rights experts.

“The ‘equal sovereignty’ principle is not in the Constitution,” said James Blacksher, an Alabama attorney with a long career in Voting Rights. “It is, as the Chief Justice says, a ‘historical tradition.” Go straight past the penumbras, hang a right at the emanations.

Blacksher’s paper, co-authored with Harvard law professor Lani Guinier, argues that Roberts’s opinion in the Voting Rights Act case is a descendant of what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court decision in American history: The 1857 Dred Scott case, in which the high court held that blacks, slave or free, could never be citizens of the United States. That case is the “origin story” of the “equal sovereignty” principle, the authors argue, because the opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney held that it would violate the sovereignty of the slave states to recognize blacks as American citizens. By invoking that principle, the authors write in Free at Last: Rejecting Equal Sovereignty and Restoring the Constitutional Right to Vote, Roberts was reviving “the oldest and most demeaning official insult to African-Americans in American constitutional history.”

“ ‘Equal sovereignty’ was the basis of the longstanding argument, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, between the slave states and the free states. The slave states claimed that they were equally sovereign with the other states to decide whether to have slavery or not to have slavery,” Blacksher said. “The ‘equal sovereignty’ doctrine that Chief Justice Roberts relied on last year is rooted in the jurisprudence of slavery.”...

Prior to last year’s ruling, Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, wrote a Harvard Law Review article arguing that the Voting Rights Act was clearly constitutional. Amar wrote that an “extravagant anti-congressional theory of state equality” drove the Dred Scott decision, and that the court should “take care to avoid the decision’s biggest mistakes.”

The Dred Scott opinion was bad law back when decided and I am not surprised that Roberts is now using this same concept to gut the Voting Rights Act.

The Shelby County is one of the most partisan opinions in the history of the SCOTUS and is on a par with Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. We need to point out to the conservatives that Roberts is nothing but a racist who has to rely on the legal principle behind the Dred Scott decision to justify the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

This idiot has already been visited by the Secrete Service and got off with a warning. Now he thinks that women are not allow to speak,pray or say "Amen" in church http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/24/anti-gay-pastor-who-prayed-for-obamas-death-demands-silence-from-women-in-church/

Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church garnered national attention in 2009 when he told his followers that he prays for the death of President Barack Obama every night. After being contacted by the Secret Service, he insisted that he “didn’t say he wanted his parishioners to attack the president, he did say the country would benefit from Mr. Obama dying.”

Pastor Anderson first attempted to justify the silencing of women by quoting 1 Timothy 2:11, “[l]et the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”


He then asked the congregation to flip to 1 Corinthians 14, which says “[l]et your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, as it is commanded to be under obedience as also sayeth the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is shameful for women to speak in the church.”

“Now obviously,” he continued, “before the service begins, there’s chatting and talking going on, that’s perfectly legitimate. When we all sing praises to God, of course the ladies should also lift up their voices

I remember his prayers for the death of President Obama and was surprised that he only got a warning from the Secret Service. Now this latest stunt from this idiot is going to run off all of his women followers.

Blake Farenthold is an idiot and it is embarrassing having him represent Texas. There is some hope that Ducky Pajama Boy may have a real race on his hands http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/20/1286262/-Surprise-Brewing-in-Texas

Texas’ 27th Congressional District stretches from Corpus Christi in Nueces County (The base of the district with 50% of the voting population) north to Wharton County. As if that wasn’t enough, it then goes northwest to Bastrop County. In all, the 27th is comprised of 13 counties, with some counties split with other districts.

Currently, the district is represented by Blake Farenthold. Farenthold won in 2010, barely edging out incumbent Congressman Solomon Ortiz by less than 800 votes. Everybody knows 2010 was a particularly rough year for Democrats, but the loss of the Texas 27th was particularly shocking. It was seen as safe right up until the end when a flood of outside spending lifted Farenthold to his new job in Washington, D.C. He hadn’t raised much money during the 2010 cycle, and was hugely outmatched by the finances of Ortiz. However, the outside spending made the difference....

Reed’s story is very uncommon for a Democrat. Reed is a nearly 25-year Marine Corps veteran (currently in the Reserves). He flew F/A-18 fighter planes when active in the Marine Corps and served at Central Command in Tampa, Florida. Needless to say, he has the chops to debate on defense issues and veteran’s issues. Congressman Farenthold voted to cut veteran’s benefits recently and had to withstand the backlash from that vote. He subsequently voted to repeal those cuts, but the damage may have been done. Texas District 27 has over 50,000 veterans, so veteran’s issues are sure to play a big role in this election.

Another problem Congressman Farenthold might have is that some Republicans have already started to “jump ship” to Lt. Col. Reed. In Victoria, TX, the second population center of the district, a Republican veteran has already pledged support and volunteer time to Reed and his campaign. It’s one person, but Farenthold squeaked out his election in 2010 and each person counted....

Unlike Farenthold’s 2012 challenger, Reed is a more moderate Democrat and his service in the Marine Corps will appeal to voters in the more conservative northern counties. If Reed can keep the money coming in at the rate it’s coming, he could have a real chance at what some (Not Mr. Reed) might call a “surprise win” in November.

I have heard good things about Col. Reed and he seems like a good candidate.

I would love to see Ducky Pajama Boy have a hard race.

Kesha is from my part of Texas and I have met her a couple of times. Juanita Jean is enjoying the fact that Kesha has some FEC issues http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/03/20/kesha-rogers/

Kesha Rogers is in a runoff with Dr. David Almeel for the Democratic US senate race in Texas.

She’s a stinker and having met her many times, I can assure you that this woman is barely holding on to reality. She’s a Lyndon Larouche cult follower so she has wacky ideas. She thinks the Queen of England runs the world and that our first order of business should be to colonize Mars. Yeah, the planet.

She is also obsessed with Nazis. She stands on street corners holding up pictures with President Obama sporting a Hitler mustache. And the sign to the right is now on their webpage. They use the word “Nazi” in place of the word “bad.” You know like, “My blind date last night was Nazi.” Or, “Watch out! That soup is Nazi.”

Anyway, to no ones surprise, the Federal Election Commission has some questions about her “petty cash” account. It seems she has gotten loose with the statutes. Caution: Legal Mumbo Jumbo ahead.

Schedule B of your report discloses disbursements with the purpose replenish petty cash. Please be advised that cash disbursements to any person or vendor for any single purchase or transaction may not exceed $100. If payments to the original vendor exceed $200 in an election cycle, a memo entry including the name of the original vendor as well as address, date, amount, and purpose of the original purchase must be provided. Please amend your report to include the missing information or provide clarifying information if memo items are not required. (2 U.S.C. §432(h)(2) and 11 CFR § 102.11)

For example, she reimbursed “Mr. Joseph Jennings” $270.25 for “parade float materials” from petty cash. Okay, first of all, how much does a Hitler mustache cost? And second, why are you paying him in cash?

The FEC has this and other question for Kesha. Obviously, they are Nazis.

BTW, Kesha's idea of campaign is having a float with the Queen of England being named as a drug dealer and pictures of President Obama with a Hitler mustache. Her alternative means of campaign is showing up at the intersection of a highway with a bunch of her followers waiving banners. I have driven by a couple of these "campaign" events.

This could be fun to watch.

Kesha is from my part of Texas and I have met her a couple of times. Juanita Jean is enjoying the fact that Kesha has some FEC issues http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/03/20/kesha-rogers/

Kesha Rogers is in a runoff with Dr. David Almeel for the Democratic US senate race in Texas.

She’s a stinker and having met her many times, I can assure you that this woman is barely holding on to reality. She’s a Lyndon Larouche cult follower so she has wacky ideas. She thinks the Queen of England runs the world and that our first order of business should be to colonize Mars. Yeah, the planet.

She is also obsessed with Nazis. She stands on street corners holding up pictures with President Obama sporting a Hitler mustache. And the sign to the right is now on their webpage. They use the word “Nazi” in place of the word “bad.” You know like, “My blind date last night was Nazi.” Or, “Watch out! That soup is Nazi.”

Anyway, to no ones surprise, the Federal Election Commission has some questions about her “petty cash” account. It seems she has gotten loose with the statutes. Caution: Legal Mumbo Jumbo ahead.

Schedule B of your report discloses disbursements with the purpose replenish petty cash. Please be advised that cash disbursements to any person or vendor for any single purchase or transaction may not exceed $100. If payments to the original vendor exceed $200 in an election cycle, a memo entry including the name of the original vendor as well as address, date, amount, and purpose of the original purchase must be provided. Please amend your report to include the missing information or provide clarifying information if memo items are not required. (2 U.S.C. §432(h)(2) and 11 CFR § 102.11)

For example, she reimbursed “Mr. Joseph Jennings” $270.25 for “parade float materials” from petty cash. Okay, first of all, how much does a Hitler mustache cost? And second, why are you paying him in cash?

The FEC has this and other question for Kesha. Obviously, they are Nazis.

BTW, Kesha's idea of campaign is having a float with the Queen of England being named as a drug dealer and pictures of President Obama with a Hitler mustache. Her alternative means of campaign is showing up at the intersection of a highway with a bunch of her followers waiving banners. I have driven by a couple of these "campaign" events.

This could be fun to watch.

This is potentially great news. The Court of Appeals decision was a 2 to 1 opinion based on the theory that Texas law only applies to laundering cash and not checks. The Court of Criminal Appeals has decided to review the decision that overturned the DeLay conviction http://www.chron.com/news/article/Top-court-agrees-to-review-overturned-Tom-DeLay-5331253.php?cmpid=hpbn

AUSTIN - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday agreed to review whether a lower court correctly decided last fall to toss out the prison sentence handed to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on money-laundering charges.

The state's highest court on criminal matters announced that it would accept a petition asking it to consider whether a 2-1 decision by the Third Court of Appeals overturning DeLay's criminal case conviction was appropriate.

The appellate court in September 2013 tossed a high-profile jury verdict, ruling that "the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain DeLay's convictions." In a dissent, the lone Democrat on the three-judge panel argued the evidence for a conviction was sufficient enough to convince a rational jury that criminal conduct had taken place.

This could be great news because there are rumors that DeLay is planning to run for Congress in my district in 2016. I really hope that the court does the right thing

This is potentially great news. The Court of Appeals decision was a 2 to 1 opinion based on the theory that Texas law only applies to laundering cash and not checks. The Court of Criminal Appeals has decided to review the decision that overturned the DeLay conviction http://www.chron.com/news/article/Top-court-agrees-to-review-overturned-Tom-DeLay-5331253.php?cmpid=hpbn

AUSTIN - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday agreed to review whether a lower court correctly decided last fall to toss out the prison sentence handed to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on money-laundering charges.

The state's highest court on criminal matters announced that it would accept a petition asking it to consider whether a 2-1 decision by the Third Court of Appeals overturning DeLay's criminal case conviction was appropriate.

The appellate court in September 2013 tossed a high-profile jury verdict, ruling that "the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain DeLay's convictions." In a dissent, the lone Democrat on the three-judge panel argued the evidence for a conviction was sufficient enough to convince a rational jury that criminal conduct had taken place.

This could be great news because there are rumors that DeLay is planning to run for Congress in my district in 2016. I really hope that the court does the right thing