U. S. Supreme Court

I just received this on an email from People for the American Way  on the matter of Sarah Palin and her comments about the Supreme Court :

Sarah Palin may not have been able to think of a single Supreme Court case beyond Roe v. Wade that she disagrees with, but that's not true for John McCain and his panel of right-wing judicial advisors. Here are just a few of the cases on their hit list:

· Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran—reversal would invalidate important state laws protecting HMO patients’ rights in more than 40 states
· Grutter v. Bollinger— reversal would forbid affirmative action aimed at promoting educational diversity in higher education
· Nevada v. Hibbs—reversal would prevent state employees from obtaining effective relief for violations of their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act
· Davis v. Bandemer—reversal would allow even blatant partisan gerrymandering in redistricting
· Lawrence v. Texas—reversal would authorize criminal prosecution of private, consensual sex by adult same-sex couples
· Tennessee v. Lane—reversal would allow states to deny physical access to the courts to the disabled
· Massachusetts v. EPA—reversal would permit the EPA to refuse to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from new cars

John McCain's plan for the Supreme Court is as simple as it is dangerous. He has promised to nominate “clones of Roberts and Alito”.

The Supreme Court is on the ballot this election. McCain would hand the court over to the Right for the next 40 years.

I complete agree with Ross Mayfield : Advertising is not Democratic.

This past weekend whilst the technology blogosphere was drooling over the iPhone, a post by one of Google's advertising account planner in the health category created the effect of rubbernecking in front of a car crash. And I mean it when I say it was ugly. Ugly in a "We Do Evil* As Long As There Is Cash Involved" kind of ugly.

In Does Negative Press Make You Sicko?, Lauren Turner wrote :