I run a couple of newspapers. What do you do?

From the Media Can't Get the F-ing Headline Right to Save Their Life department-

Schools to look at factors besides raceSan Jose Mercury News, USA - 4 hours agoBy NANCY ZUCKERBROD AP Education Writer School officials around the country are asking that question following a Supreme Court decision rejecting racial ...
Justices limit use of race in school policiesDallas Morning News (subscription), TX - 6 hours agoWASHINGTON – With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown vs. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that ...
High court strikes down school integration plansChicago Tribune, United States - 7 hours agoBy Naftali Bendavid WASHINGTON
Supreme Court strikes down school integration policiesChicago Tribune, United States - 10 hours agoBy David G. Savage and Joel Havemann WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court today declared unconstitutional the use of racial guidelines to integrate public ...
Supreme Court Limits Schools on RaceForbes, NY - 12 hours agoAP 06.28.07, 7:28 PM ET The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected school assignment plans that take account of students' race in two major public school ...
Justices Limit School Diversity ProgramsGuardian Unlimited, UK - 12 hours agoFrom AP AP Photo KYER105, WATW101, KYER106, WATW202 By MARK SHERMAN AP Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A half-century after the Supreme Court outlawed segregated ...
Race-Based Pupil Placements Banned by Top US Court (Update3)Bloomberg - 20 hours agoBy Greg Stohr June 28 (Bloomberg) -- A divided US Supreme Court, with President George W. Bush's appointees tipping the balance, said public school ...
Supreme Court Rejects School Race PlansGuardian Unlimited, UK - 20 hours agoFrom AP By MARK SHERMAN AP Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected diversity plans in two major school districts that take race into ...
Court rejects race as factor in school programsABC News - 20 hours agoBy James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that race cannot be used to decide where students go to school, ...
Divided court rejects school diversity plansSI.com - 20 hours agoBy Bill Mears WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down public school choice plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, ...

Nice. But for accuracy's sake I would suggest the following headline in lieu of all of pussyfooting around displayed above-

Supreme Court Overturns Brown v. Board of Education!

The problem with the struggle to get to the top of Dr. King's mountaintop isn't so much the climb as the guys higher up trying to push us back down the mountain.

He chose... poorly.

Oden or Durant? Does it matter? I'm sure we'll pick Sam Bowie.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire. Discuss.

Tons of stuff bouncing around the ol' noodle this morning.

I've got another hero. This time she's home grown in Oregon. Go get 'em, girl!

A disabled single mother from Beaverton has filed a federal lawsuit against the Recording Industry Association of America, claiming that she is the victim of abusive legal tactics, threats and illegal spying as part of an overzealous campaign to crack down on music pirating.

The recording industry sued Tanya J. Andersen, 44, in 2005, accusing her of violating copyright laws by illegally downloading music onto her computer. Andersen claims in a suit she filed last week in U.S. District Court in Oregon that the recording industry refused to drop its case after its own expert supported her claims of innocence.

Instead, industry officials threatened to interrogate Andersen's 10-year-old daughter, Kylee, if she didn't pay thousands of dollars. The intimidation included attempts to contact Kylee directly. A woman claiming to be Kylee's grandmother called the girl's former elementary school inquiring about her attendance, according to Andersen's suit.

Nazi bastards.

Rudy Giuliani is a pinhead. I suppose that sentence is redundant.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Rudy Giuliani charged yesterday that former President Bill Clinton made a "big mistake" when he failed to see the first World Trade Center attack as an act of terror rather thana mere crime - one that set the stage for even bigger and bolder attacks culminating with 9/11.

"The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond," Giuliani said, ticking off terrorist attacks that followed, including the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa and the USS Cole in 2000. "[Osama] bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it."

'Nuff said.

G.O.P Senator Splits With Bush Over Iraq Policy (Waits Until After Funding Debate To Say So.)

WASHINGTON, June 26 — Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and a steadfast supporter of the president, has conspicuously broken ranks with him on the Iraq war, warning that the United States’ standing in the world could be irreparably eroded if the White House does not change strategy soon.

Whatever. DEMOCRATIC Senators haven't even split with the President on Iraq. I'll believe it when Lugar votes his mouth. Until then - bullshit walks.

Rupert Murdoch buying another media outlet is always cause to rend one's garments, but his looming purchase of the Wall Street Journal seems especially bad for some reason.

The News Corporation chief executive is building his own financial news channel for cable television, aiming to usurp General Electric's CNBC, which has a news partnership with Dow Jones.

The Bancroft family met Mr Murdoch in early June and discussed a proposal to protect editorial independence. Talks accelerated last week.

I guess I wish I knew enough about the newspaper business to understand what "editorial independence" means. If it means that news section of the Journal will remain pretty much independent then that's a good thing. On the other hand if it means that the batshiat crazy editors of the opinion section of the Journal will remain independent then I'm not sure what the difference between a Wall Street Journal owned by the Bancroft family or a Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert Murdoch would actually be.

Discuss!

Oh, he's just like any other man, only more so.

Digby pretty much sums up how I feel about the about the Supremes decision yesterday defending the right of the well-to-do to buy our government:

I think we need to start thinking about how to deal with the new era of wingnut judicial activism. If anyone actually thought the Warren Court was activist for trying to right long standing social inequality, they haven't seen anything until they see what John, Clarence, Nino, Sammy and Tony do to expand the rights of rich people and corporations while turning back the clock on everything else. It's going to be a generational battle. I hope everyone realizes this.

I will never forgive Joe Lieberman, Huckelberry, St John and the the rest of the milquetoast losers of that gang of 14. This is on their heads.

That was actually my first thought- "thanks for nothing Gang of 14." It's so wonderful you were able to preserve the filibuster. No doubt it will come to good use the next time a Democratic President wants to nominate a Justice that's halfway sane and Republicans want to keep that person off the court. Conservatives get their way now. Conservatives get their way then. Everything is working well.

As for the money = speech argument I realize that there are tons of liberals that believe adherence to the 1st Amendment is such an absolute that they're willing to see the republic collapse under the weight of corporate dominance of our government. More power to them.

As for myself I tend to believe this country was founded on the principle that no citizen would have a louder voice than another in the public square. If money = speech then this principle is meaningless because the rich will dominate the discourse, as they pretty much do now. But putting that to the precedent that corporations enjoy the rights of citizens under the law continues to leave me shaking my head at the absurdity of that precedent.

The one precedent, I might ad, that the Roberts court appears to be in no danger of overturning.