The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[sleepyjeff]

My new word of the day....homophones.....

[JWBear]

Are those gay telecommunications devices?

[Gemini Cricket]

I can not believe I homophoned "their" twice, two different ways, in one post.

Typing homophones is the most idiot-looking thing I do.
Saayyyy, are you looking for this thread (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=9524&page=4)?

Colon, capital "d"

Alex, I thought this was a homophone:

[sleepyjeff]

lol

[Gn2Dlnd]

Homophone! It'ss your dime misster, sstart talkin'!

[JWBear]

Congress and SCOTUS got their collective asses handed to them on a platter tonight!

[flippyshark]

Congress and SCOTUS got their collective asses handed to them on a platter tonight!

Yes! It was a beautiful thing. Where has this dynamic guy been for the last six months?

[Chernabog]

Yes! It was a beautiful thing. Where has this dynamic guy been for the last six months?

Really? Were we watching the same thing? Did we look into Obama's eyes and get mesmerized by his twinkly twinkle again? *throws cold water on flippyshark and JWBear*

Congress and the Supreme Court didn't get crap handed to them because our dear darling President is all talk -- he can't do diddly squat about the Supremes lousy decisions and he can't get diddly squat done in Congress either. All he can do well is talk talk talk talk talk talk talk.

Hope change change hope hope change change hope hope change. *yawn*

And don't get me started on how he's repeating his campaign promises of "working with Congress" about repealing DADT when he knows damn well he can issue an Executive Order like Truman did in 1948 to end racial segregation in the military. There's plenty of pushback on that from the Republicans, who are saying that the issue needs to be studied further (oh jeez, they were saying that in 1993 when DADT was implemented! Are ya done studying yet?). But with that pushback, is diddly squat going to be done on that? I'll believe it when I see it. But more talk talk talk talk talk talk talk hope change change hope hope change change hope hope change -- with no deadlines, no plan, just a nebulous "oh jeez, yeah, someday we'll get around to that even thought I'm losing all my goodwill" statement is, to put it mildly, disappointing.

Fvucking DO something already Mr. President, and I'll support you. But today, I really don't believe anything that crosses your lips.

[flippyshark]

Really? Were we watching the same thing? Did we look into Obama's eyes and get mesmerized by his twinkly twinkle again? *throws cold water on flippyshark and JWBear*


I admit, I have no rational reason to think anything will change, but damned if he can't get me all tingly. *sigh*

[scaeagles]

That's exactly why I read speeches and don't watch them. I'm not interested in the least in how some politician delivers his speech, I want to know what was said. I don't care about the applause lines that the Congress gives the ovations for, I want to see what I would applaud for (not that I pretend I would applaud Obama for anything).

I haven't had the chance to read the speech nor the response yet, just snippets from various news stories last night and this morning. Everything I've read, though, seems to say it was pretty much a campaign speech.

ETA: What the hell does it mean when Chris Matthews says "For an hour I forgot he was black"? I can't think of anything that makes that a good thing to say. If some conservative commentator said that I believe there would be hell to pay.

[Stan4dSteph]

ETA: What the hell does it mean when Chris Matthews says "For an hour I forgot he was black"? I can't think of anything that makes that a good thing to say. If some conservative commentator said that I believe there would be hell to pay.Rush says crap like that all the time, actually much worse in my opinion, but he still remains on the air.

[scaeagles]

And there is typically hell to pay.

[Alex]

ETA: What the hell does it mean when Chris Matthews says "For an hour I forgot he was black"? I can't think of anything that makes that a good thing to say. If some conservative commentator said that I believe there would be hell to pay.

While one may disagree with his point, or with its significance, what he was trying to say seems perfectly obvious to me when I watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_v_IOCSsQM&feature=player_embedded) with that sentence in the context of what he was saying.

I don't know if you saw the context or just the eight word link on Drudge (I know you prefer to react and then let us provide he context) but what he was saying is that to him (Matthews) it is remarkable how after the history surrounding race in this country that the fact that Obama is black is essentially irrelevant to the conversation is amazing.

"For an hour I forgot he was black" = "The fact that he's black was completing unimportant to the tone, content, and nature of his speech tonight, and after all the tension over race who would have thought that was possible so quickly."

I imagine he's going to be forced to grovel but it strikes me as unwarranted. And if a conservative commentator said the same thing, I also wouldn't have a problem with it. But by same thing I mean same meaning, not same words, those same six words could obviously be used and have a very different meaning. "Since he gave such a long speech without once slipping into jive talk, for an hour I forgot he was black tonight" for example.

[scaeagles]

Actually, I hadn't read it on Drudge, I heard a whole clip of it on the radio this morning on the way into work.

Here's the entire section of what he said.....

I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country, and past so much history, in just a year or two. I mean, it's something we don't even think about. I was watching, I said, wait a minute, he's an African American guy in front of a bunch of other white people. And here he is president of the United States and we've completely forgotten that tonight -- completely forgotten it. I think it was in the scope of his discussion. It was so broad-ranging, so in tune with so many problems, of aspects, and aspects of American life that you don't think in terms of the old tribalism, the old ethnicity. It was astounding in that regard. A very subtle fact. It's so hard to talk about. Maybe I shouldn't talk about it, but I am. I thought it was profound that way.


I just wonder why he still thinks of him in terms of race. I didn't think we were supposed to do that, and frankly, I don't. I see him for his politics, not his race. I don't think of him as a black President, I think of him as a liberal President.

[Alex]

And that is exactly what Matthews was saying: Isn't it amazing, considering the history of this country, that his race is irrelevant to all of this. It isn't a comment on Obama so much as a pat on the back for the progress we've all made.

It is a handy rhetorical tool though to turn "isn't it amazing how irrelevant race is" into "all you're seeing is race, how racist."

I would prefer that Matthews slobber less when blowing Obama, but this specific comment doesn't bother me at all, and the response strikes me as another example of manufactured outrage.

[scaeagles]

But WOW! Maybe I should go to Drudge more often , and thanks for inspiring me to this morning. Such fun stuff -

Reid and Napolitano yawning and sleeping during the speech.
Calling his comments on Supreme Court decisions Intimidation.
Scientists involved in the stolen email scandal hid climate data.
UK telegraph givin g Obama an F for world leadership.
Ford, who didn't take stimulus money, turned a huge profit.
Obama Treasury Secretay Geithner getting slammed for his involvement in some way with AIG.
Consipiracy of Hillary not at the SOTU.

Good stuff and so much fun! I've got a lot of articles to read now.

[Alex]

I'll take you at your word that you don't KNOWINGLY read Drudge, but it is no coincidence that 80% of the time you raise an "interesting" political issue it is a story that he posted within the last few hours.

But by all means read the articles. Obviously I do. What would be nice is seeing some form of healthy skepticism rather than relying on us to provide the easy counter arguments.

[Alex]

For example, the Hilary missing SOTU link is a complete misrepresentaion trying to make it sound more significant than there is any reason to.

[scaeagles]

I didn't say I accepted your counter argument as to what Matthews meant. I didn't view it on a comment on Obama at all, nor a comment on how the rest of us view Obama, but that to Matthews, except for an hour tonight, he views Obama as a black President. It tells me that race is a primary defining factor to Matthews, if not the primary defining factor.

[JWBear]

I don't think of him as a black President, I think of him as a liberal President.

That's funny. I would never consider him a liberal. On many things, I think he's to the right of me. And I consider myself a moderate.

[Alex]

You don't have to accept my count argument. You can believe whatever you want regardless of how based in reality or not it may be.

What I was primarily responding to "I can't think of anything that makes that a good thing to say." Since it took all of 5 seconds of thought to come up with one (whether you accept its correctness or not), and since you're not stupid my assumption is either that you're being lazy, you lack curiosity about the views of other people, or you're being disingenuous. Being kind, I'll assume it is the first. It is just coincidence that the laziness happens to coincide with the worst possible way to read the comments that most supports a pre-existing condition of disliking Matthews. I dislike Matthews for pretty much the same reasons Jon Stewart ripped into him when his last book was released (essentially his view of the political game as perhaps more important than the political results).

But yes, I imagine that Matthews is pretty much in a constant state of amazement that a black man has become president and it has been mostly a non-issue. I'm in amazement at the same thing. If being amazed that race is a non-issue means I'm only viewing Obama through his race then I can live with that.

[Alex]

And I consider myself a moderate.

And so does pretty much everybody else. Thus political gridlock.

[scaeagles]

Oh, I fully admit to having a predisposition of disliking Matthews. That should certainly be obvious without my ever even mentioning his name.

[Alex]

Yes. My point is not that you hide such a dislike (nobody doubts your political view; the only thing I doubt is the frequency with which you claim to have come up with your "concering issues" all on your own), but that because of your dislike you allow yourself to just latch onto whatever reading of things lets you think worst of him and the assume that it is the only reasonable interpretation that can possibly exist (and two years ago I was constantly arguing against people doing the same thing to Bush & Co.). If you're not being lazy but instead disingenuous I'd prefer you just say "since it is politically advantageous to assume this meaning, that is what I'll be doing."

Dislike is not, so far as I view things, a justification of lazy thinking.

[scaeagles]

Ummm....I think I mentioned that I heard this on the radio. Didn't come up with it all on my own. Didn't claim to.

Even as I think more about it, I still don't see your interpretation, and if disagreeing with you makes me intellectually lazy, then so be it. The fact of the matter is that his statement shows that he thinks of Obama in terms of his race as something primary in his definition of the man. I don't understand the importance of it, personally, beyond the historical aspect that he is black and was elected. Why is he still viewed in that way? Is it like Reid, who views him as a black man with no discernable negro dialect Or like VP Biden, who saw him as a "clean" black man?

[Ghoulish Delight]

The fact that he's black should not be an issue one way or the other.

But it's ignorance to imagine that in 2010 that that's the case. YOU may be color-blind. But to deny that there is still an issue of race in this country is to be far more blind than that. And to deny that the fact that he's black is often part of the subtext of what Obama says and how people react to him is equally blind.

You brought up Ried and Biden's comments. That's exactly the point. Between those, the beer summit, constant questions about his birth, etc., it sometimes seems literally impossible to go an hour without his race being brought up as an issue. So yes, when such an a hour does happen and it suddenly occurs to you, "Holy crap, between his speech, the reaction of the people in the crowd, and the Republican rebuttal afterwards, there was nothing that was wrapped up in the fact that he's black," it's noteworthy. It's not the norm. It's refreshing and surprising.

[scaeagles]

You know, that makes sense, GD.

[Ghoulish Delight]

?? I pretty much restated exactly what Alex has been saying.

[Chernabog]

I can't think of a good political reason he had to piss off 5 of the Supremes in the SOTU.... maybe in hopes that Congress will pass a law getting around that stupid decision? But why do it at the state of the union address with the Supremes in attendance? Just seems like a needless "slap in the face" to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Seems like a pretty neefull slap in the face to me.

[JWBear]

Seems like a pretty neefull slap in the face to me.

I agree.

[scaeagles]

?? I pretty much restated exactly what Alex has been saying.

It is never my intent to be closed minded. I suppose I should have more properly said -

After reading what you guys have written and thinking about it, yeah, it makes sense to me and I can certainly see it that way, and my dislike of Matthews made me read something into his statement that wasn't there. Also, as i mentioned I heard the statement on the radio on my way to work, the local radio guy here certainly injected an opinion into it that I picked up. I now believe, as you and Alex have said, that there was nothing in what Matthews said that should be interpretted as him having primarily a racial view of Obama above anything else.

It was not my intent to say what you said made sense but what Alex had said didn't.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree that there's little to be gained by implying that judges are biased--which, of course, they are-- or corrupt--which they generally aren't.

Obama could have said that he would not comment on the merits of the decision but that the enforcement of constitutional rights does not always lead to socially positive outcomes, and we now live in a world where corporations, etc.

Was anybody else watching and thinking, "He didn't say the state of our union is strong. Please tell us it's strong."

[Alex]

My long term question about attendance by the justices (I don't really care about telling them to their faces that you disagree, though I haven't yet seen the exact language used and it could be a political bad thing regardless though no judge would ever admit such a thing) is why they attend wearing their robes. They're not presiding over anything. It's not like it is their normal all the time uniform. It's just silly looking.

[Chernabog]

is why they attend wearing their robes.

I think it is because the Illuminati sew the robes into their skin when they become Justices. Or is it the Cenobites? I forget.

[Ghoulish Delight]

, though I haven't yet seen the exact language used and it could be a political bad thing regardless though no judge would ever admit such a thing)
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

[Alex]

Ok, that seems relatively moderate way of saying the Supreme Court was wrong and to advocate for a legislative solution (though I know the majority opinion explicitly disagrees that foreign involvement is an outcome of the decision). Probably would have been best to use another word than "wrong" at the end as it isn't clear where that is referring to corporate involvement being wrong (which would not necessarily say the court incorrectly decided) or whether the decision itself was unreasonably decided (though he doubtless thinks so).

He could have lashed out at activist judges. He could have gone the FDR route and asked that Congress increase the size of the bench so that he could stack it with right thinking judges to reverse things. (Though he never called out one decision Bush wasn't shy about criticizing aspects of the judiciary in his SOTUs; even outright calling out certain state Supreme Courts)

I do think that expanding the court to, say, 15 judges would be a good thing but it would never be politically viable in a time when the court is closely split ideologically and it would not be viewed as politically necessary when it isn't.

[Gemini Cricket]

It seemed to me that he was actively trying to get the Republicans to applaud things he said. I think the injecting the "including foreign corporations" was one of those attempts.

On the whole, I liked his speech. The last 15 minutes or so had me riveted to the screen. The whole "America is cynical because we are all idiots who can't get beyond our egos to do sh!t" theme was right on the money. Him mentioning DADT was a bone for the LGBT community, I want action not more words, Mr. O.

[Chernabog]

Him mentioning DADT was a bone for the LGBT community, I want action not more words, Mr. O.

Yeah people are pretty insulted by the "send me some money" e-mail that was sent post-speech, like that bone he threw was supposed to inspire us to actually believe he's gonna do jack.

Hopehopechangechangehopehopechangehopechangehope.

I mean, the SOTU IS a speech, after all, so it's gonna be "more words" by definition. But those words were so nebulous, so repetitive of what was said last year, so hollow.....

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not a closet Republican, despite what BJ tells me. McCain would have been much worse on the gay issues.

[Morrigoon]

Yeah, he mentioned DADT, but not DOMA. Some bone...

[Gemini Cricket]

What I enjoyed about the speech was that he came across as "one of us". I think his advisers are very perceptive. I think the tone of his speech was right on the money: people are pissed off at you and the Senate and the House do-nothings.
The line about Democrats doing something and not heading for the hills was right on the money. F*cking cowards. The line about Republicans joining in and not insisting on 60 votes to get things done was right on the money as well. F*cking bullies.
All in all, I am still cynical about our government. But what a good jerk off session it was.
:D

ETA:
Yeah, he mentioned DADT, but not DOMA. Some bone...
Agreed. Imho, the Democrats are scared of the religious right in our country. It's sad.

[Alex]

Well, since a repeal of DOMA probably has an essentially zero chance of passing it would be a meaningless bone anyway and bundling it together would just make a repeal of DODT harder as it would be viewed even more as a first front down the slippery slope.

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, since a repeal of DOMA probably has an essentially zero chance of passing it would be a meaningless bone anyway and bundling it together would just make a repeal of DOTA harder as it would be viewed even more as a first front down the slippery slope.
I'll buy that.
I wish there were politicians out there that would just stand up to the religious right openly. I'm not seeing that as much. I think the last time I saw that was when Martin Sheen told those religious lobbyists to get their fat asses out of his office during the pilot of The West Wing.

:D

[Strangler Lewis]

I do think that expanding the court to, say, 15 judges would be a good thing but it would never be politically viable in a time when the court is closely split ideologically and it would not be viewed as politically necessary when it isn't.

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Chernabog]

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

LOL that's one way of doing it. If he pulls an FDR (?) on that one I'd totally love to kick back with some popcorn and watch the sparks fly.

[Alex]

Is the question mark after FDR that you're not sure you got it right or that you don't know what I was referring to.

Just in case (or for anybody else), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937) is what I was referring to.

[Chernabog]

Yeah, it was a, I couldn't remember if it was FDR who did the court-packing thing.

[Tref]

When Obama called out the Supreme Court I giggled. That was a great moment. Hehe.

[Alex]

Extremely relieved that Scott Roeder's justification defense was so thoroughly dismissed by his jury with about the minimal possible amount of deliberation.

[Ghoulish Delight]

werd

[Alex]

Extremely relieved that Scott Roeder's justification defense was so thoroughly dismissed by his jury with about the minimal possible amount of deliberation.

Whoops, I'd missed that yesterday the judge had decided to not give the jury the possibility of returning a manslaughter verdict meaning the option was just guilty of murder or not guilty.

So I don't know if they would have soundly rejected the justification argument.

[Ghoulish Delight]

But does that mean that the judge did?

[Alex]

Yes, which is good but I wouldn't might having seen it come from jurors as a better side of societal sense.

Though I'm a bit confused about things. The judge ruled yesterday, after Roeder's testimony that he would not give the manslaughter instruction to the jury.

Isn't that a bit of a trap? To make that decision after means that first he got up on that stand and said essentially "I did it, I'm not sorry I did it, and here is why you should go easy on me for doing it." Not that I have any sympathy for him or thing the verdict unjust, but I assume the defense would have been different with the

But I'm sure there's some element I'm not getting in a five paragraph AP wire article.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, I'm a little confused too since I seem to recall there being a big deal made out of the fact that just a couple of weeks ago, the judge said he would allow the defense to use the justification defense. Why would he do that, then rule out the successful conclusion of said defense?

But that seems to be exactly what happened, I can't find any account that says otherwise. "Yes, you can argue for manslaughter...no the jury can't rule manslaughter." Weird.

[Strangler Lewis]

It sort of depends on what happened a few weeks ago. If the judge said, "Yes, there is a recognized justification defense, and he is welcome to try to establish it," that would be one thing. Then, his decision that the evidence introduced did not merit an instruction would not be puzzliing. If, prior to trial, the judge said, "I don't want the trial to bog down in nonsense. Give me an offer of proof about your defense," then the decision not to send it to the jury could mean that the defense didn't present its entire theory prior to trial and then didn't flesh it out at trial. Or it could mean that the judge never had any intention of sending the issue to the jury but wanted to let the guy have his say.

As far as the jury goes, I assume everybody knew that an abortion doctor had been killed, so regardless of the instructions, if someone wanted to hang the jury, they could have so long as they kept uttering the magic words that they were not refusing to deliberate.

[JWBear]

Corporate "person" runs for Congress (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/01/murray-hill-inc-for-congress.html)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Heh, nice.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow. Somehow I had remained blissfully ignorant of the term "anchor baby" until today.

I'll never understand the masochistic impulse that drives me to read the comments at ocregister.com.

[Alex]

While I can imagine the comments being made and how awful they are, I would not necessarily be opposed to changing things so that citizenship is not granted simply for having been born in this country unless to a citizen or permanent legal resident.

I'm not super bothered by the way it is now, but it also doesn't make sense (and it is a bit of an oddity in the world) to me to continue operating in this way. There's a reason that pure "jus soli" (citizenship by where you are at birth) rather than "jus sanguini" (citizenship by blood) is pretty much a western hemisphere thing and those reasons don't really extend into the 21st century.

But it would probably take a constitutional amendment to change it (though there is a little bit of wiggle room for the Supreme Court to do it through slightly different interpretation of the 14th Amendment) so it will never happen. And it isn't such a horrible thing that I'll be bothered by that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Believe me, the people making the comments I read weren't bothered that they were given citizenship by birth, they were bothered that they were brown and given citizenship by birth.

[Alex]

Yeah, I know. That's why this is one view that I generally don't talk about much since it really sucks that so many of the people who would agree with me do so for such thoroughly abhorrent reasons.

[€uroMeinke]

So the whole abandoning the moon thing find me rather disappointed in Obama.I know the program was underfunded to begin with, we'd been there before, etc. But it just makes me think there is nothing visionary about this presidency. I mean health care was a dud, nothing's changed in the Middle East, the economy still sucks. I mean if we're not going to do anything cool like go to the Moon,or to Mars, what's the point?

My boyhood Astronaut dreams die hard.

[Moonliner]

So the whole abandoning the moon thing find me rather disappointed in Obama.I know the program was underfunded to begin with, we'd been there before, etc. But it just makes me think there is nothing visionary about this presidency. I mean health care was a dud, nothing's changed in the Middle East, the economy still sucks. I mean if we're not going to do anything cool like go to the Moon,or to Mars, what's the point?

My boyhood Astronaut dreams die hard.

It may not be quite as bad as you think (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/01/president-obamas-nasa-budget-unveiled/). The Constellation Program was a disaster we are better off without and NASA is still in the space business. In fact they are getting a budget increase with a renewed focus on what NASA was supposed to do in the first place. Research. Add in support for private spaced based ventures and we could all be sipping Mojitos in low earth orbit sooner than you think.

[€uroMeinke]

It may not be quite as bad as you think (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/01/president-obamas-nasa-budget-unveiled/). The Constellation Program was a disaster we are better off without and NASA is still in the space business. In fact they are getting a budget increase with a renewed focus on what NASA was supposed to do in the first place. Research. Add in support for private spaced based ventures and we could all be sipping Mojitos in low earth orbit sooner than you think.

I don't know - if these really was "better" then tell us what the "wow" is, what are all these extra "science funds" going to buy us? Pragmatic sure, inspiring? not a bit.

[Alex]

I'm much more wowed by science than men in space so I'll take it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

...nothing's changed in the Middle East...Tangeting to this for a moment, my dad had an interesting thought on the subject. We have massive unemployment right now. If we were to pull most of the troops out of the Middle East, tens of thousands of which are not full time military (National Guard) who would then be entering the workforce. Not to mention the massive number of civilian jobs that exist to support a couple hundred thousand troops deployed over seas.

Not the most feel-good justification for continuing operations, but he's got a point. Could definitely have been a not-insignificant blip in whatever hope for recovery there is.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm much more wowed by science than men in space so I'll take it.

The term alone does nothing for me - tell me what cool science you plan to do - Transporter beams? Wayback machines? At least Reagen had Star Wars

[CoasterMatt]

I want a machine that can launch a fish from the bottom of the ocean, to the top of Mt. Everest - that would be an AWESOME X-prize contest. Thank you, and goodnight.

[scaeagles]

I admit to be genuinely torn by this.

Being that the private man spaced flight stuff is picking up, I can envision that manned space flight doesn't stop. I suppose I view this as something akin to the public education system....not constitutionally mandated in the least, but everyone agrees that it is better that we have it.

How many thousands of inventions and discoveries came from the push to put men on the moon, or even into orbit? I couldn't even begin to quantify them.

This will undoubtedly lead to tens of thousands of lost jobs (some reports says hundreds of thousands), so it seems strange to me that this is cut leading to job loss, but Obama wants 100 billion for job programs. Why not keep those people employed where they are? Have our scientists and engineers laid off, but pay for them to be retrained as a burger flipper (hyperbole intended).

We encourage kids through scholarships and grants and whatever to learn math and science and go to university to pursue such fields, but then cut what the government spends on those things.

Innovation will still happen, and I hope that private funding is big enough to make significant scientific advancements. I wonder, though, if those who make investments and expect a return on them will then be treated as pharmaceutical companies when trying to make profits off of their investment in research.

How would the world be different if the Soviets had landed on the moon first? Maybe not much. I don't really know. There is certainly an issue of national pride involved for me. Some things have to be cut, certainly (and the so called spending freeze is laughable, but that's a different subject), and whatever is cut will have the detractors en masse making their objections known.

In terms of a cost-benefit analysis, though, I would have to figure that what has been spent on space exploration, specifically manned space flight, would weigh heavily on the benefit side.

[scaeagles]

On a different subject, with Iran saber rattling and proclaiming a blow to the west on Feb 11, any predictions? I've read some theorizing about an attack on Israel, but I doubt that, as that would result in war since Ahmadenijad is talking it up.

Personally, and I'm probably way off, I believe that this will be the date that Iran declares it has successfully manufactured a nuclear weapon.

[Alex]

How many thousands of inventions and discoveries came from the push to put men on the moon, or even into orbit? I couldn't even begin to quantify them.

Lots, but that is one of the points in cutting the program to return to the moon. Those inventions and advancements have already been made and going to the moon essentially just repeats them.

This will undoubtedly lead to tens of thousands of lost jobs (some reports says hundreds of thousands), so it seems strange to me that this is cut leading to job loss, but Obama wants 100 billion for job programs.

That's attributing to this spending a huge efficiency in creating employment that would be amazing. However, overall the NASA budget is being increased and with more cheaper programs I would expect that science and engineer employment likely would increase. Though specific jobs that have been strategically distributed throughout congressional districts may be at risk.

We encourage kids through scholarships and grants and whatever to learn math and science and go to university to pursue such fields, but then cut what the government spends on those things.

Again, the NASA budget request is an increase. And a refocus towards hard science (manned space flight may be cool, but it accomplishes very little actual science).


I don't know - if these really was "better" then tell us what the "wow" is, what are all these extra "science funds" going to buy us? Pragmatic sure, inspiring? not a bit.

Interestingly, Senator Richard Shelby seems to have the opposite reaction to you. You feel this is a move away from inspiration to boring pragmatism. He sees it in the other direction, an abandonment of science in favor of inspiration:

The president’s proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human spaceflight. If this budget is enacted, NASA will no longer be an agency of innovation and hard science. It will be the agency of pipe dreams and fairy tales.

I'd be curious to know what hard science he things putting humans into low earth orbit has uniquely accomplished over the last 30 years. I suspect it is really the hard science of constructing booster rockets in his state.

[Strangler Lewis]

If you want government to heavily fund private development in outer space, it's clear what you have to build.

A prison.

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4aS0rAXF2AU/R82KG9NGS0I/AAAAAAAAAQc/HPyG_AMiaoo/s1600/phantom%2Bzone.jpg

[Strangler Lewis]

A better one than that one.

Plus the prison guards would squawk.

[Tref]

Plus the prison guards would squawk.

Maybe they want a cracker.

[JWBear]

Would any of out Republican friends like to comment on Senator Shelby's blanket hold?

[sleepyjeff]

I'd be curious to know what hard science he things putting humans into low earth orbit has uniquely accomplished over the last 30 years. I suspect it is really the hard science of constructing booster rockets in his state.


Portable Cordless Vacuums

and many others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

[JWBear]

More Orly Taitz stupidity (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/to-run-for-office-orly-taitz-t/) :)

[Alex]

Portable Cordless Vacuums

Still waiting for some hard science. I in no way question the engineering achievements that have spun off from NASA in recent decades through the manned-spaceflight programs. Though most of them I'd question whether they're development was uniquely dependent on manned spaceflight or if that just provided one of many possible development platforms.

And I'm sure plenty of hard science has been done but most of does not actually requires humans to be present. It is always a challenge for NASA to find actual scientific-type things for them to do. That's why now that we've pretty much finished the ISS they need to either now redo it towards more scientific goals or just let the program expire, it has no inherent purpose other than PR.

But still, I'm all in favor of manned spaceflight in private hands, and manned-spaceflight by the government if they can show an actual strong benefit beyond PR. But since they haven't accomplished that after 50 years of having a space program I doubt they'll come up with something soon.

[Tref]

I mean if we're not going to do anything cool like go to the Moon,or to Mars, what's the point?

My boyhood Astronaut dreams die hard.

I have a theory the moon landing was filmed in a TV studio, on the moon!

[sleepyjeff]

Still waiting for some hard science. I in no way question the engineering achievements that have spun off from NASA in recent decades through the manned-spaceflight programs. Though most of them I'd question whether they're development was uniquely dependent on manned spaceflight or if that just provided one of many possible development platforms.

And I'm sure plenty of hard science has been done but most of does not actually requires humans to be present. It is always a challenge for NASA to find actual scientific-type things for them to do. That's why now that we've pretty much finished the ISS they need to either now redo it towards more scientific goals or just let the program expire, it has no inherent purpose other than PR.

But still, I'm all in favor of manned spaceflight in private hands, and manned-spaceflight by the government if they can show an actual strong benefit beyond PR. But since they haven't accomplished that after 50 years of having a space program I doubt they'll come up with something soon.

Ok, I see what you're saying.

[Alex]

At this point I've just decided to pretend that I intentionally go through each of my posts and intentionally use the incorrect option for they're, there, their. It's the only way to explain that when typing quickly I never, ever get the right one to come out of my fingers.

[sleepyjeff]

Oddly enough, you don't seem to have the same problem with you're, your, and yore.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Rahm Emanuel apologizes (http://www.hulu.com/watch/45817/saturday-night-live-rahm-emanuel)

[JWBear]

Would any of out Republican friends like to comment on Senator Shelby's blanket hold?

Apparently not...

[scaeagles]

Sorry - missed that post. And honestly I've been so disconnected from anything in the news lately I had no idea what you were even talking about when I read the post above - my first impression was he was getting involved in some sort of trade war to protect Alabama blanket factories from imported Argentinian blankets or some such thing. But after reading a bit.....

It's wrong. Nominees should be allowed an up or down vote.

However, for the dems to be outraged by such actions make me think they forget the Bush years.

[Ghoulish Delight]

You really don't see a difference between trying to prevent the nomination of an individual that you don't think is right for the position (putting aside for a moment what one might consider valid reasons to think such) vs. preventing all nominations regardless of any individual's qualifications as ransom for earmarked funding for your constituents?

[Alex]

I'm not a Republican but as a practical matter I don't really have a problem with Shelby doing this. Other senators have had blanket hold policies for various reasons over the years (one famously automatically put holds on all tax legislation).What I object to is Senate leadership actually allowing a hold to slow down business.

Holds do not have to be observed. All a hold is, is a claim that if brought to the floor a senator will not vote for a unanimous consent agreement to move the bill along. Essentially a promised attempt to filibuster. So go ahead and call the potential bluff instead of saying "oh noes, we can't go ahead." Force a vote on the consent agreement and see if other Republican senators are willing to help out and if not, then onward with debate.

[scaeagles]

GD, it is all political. An up or down vote is an up or down vote, and whatever the reason state all it comes down to is trying to block the nominees from getting the up or down vote. I would suppose that there isn't a dem who really thinks a republican nominee is best for the job nor is there a republican who thinks a dem nominee is best for the job. The issue is who the President thinks is best for the job and giving the up or down vote.

[JWBear]

As GD said... There is a VAST difference between holding a single nomination because you do not agree with it, and putting a hold on EVERY nomination before the Senate just to extort pork for your state.

[scaeagles]

Politics is politics. No different than agreeing to vote for a health care bill because you get 300 million in pork for your state.

That being said, I wish to reiterate that I think what Shelby is doing is wrong. I just don't see any huge moral difference in the reasons. It's wrong regardless to disallow an up or down vote. If you think someone is wrong for a job, convince 50 of your colleagues.

[Alex]

Is filibuster wrong (should the health care bills be allowed to pass on a straight majority vote), or did you mean 40 of your colleagues?

[JWBear]

Politics is politics. No different than agreeing to vote for a health care bill because you get 300 million in pork for your state.

That being said, I wish to reiterate that I think what Shelby is doing is wrong. I just don't see any huge moral difference in the reasons. It's wrong regardless to disallow an up or down vote. If you think someone is wrong for a job, convince 50 of your colleagues.

I don't agree. It's a matter of motives. I may not agree with the reasons a Senator may object to a person being nominated, but I can respect his or her right to do if the objection is policy based. But we are talking about a Senator who has put a hold on ALL nominations; not because he has a policy disagreement with them, but because he is using it to extort pork for his state. THAT is an abuse of office, imo.

[scaeagles]

Is filibuster wrong (should the health care bills be allowed to pass on a straight majority vote), or did you mean 40 of your colleagues?

Filibustering is not wrong whatsoever and it is quite constitutional.

The "filibuster" of nominees, however, is typically done in committee by refusing to allow them to be voted on in committee, which prevents them from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. That is what I believe to be wrong. That being said, though, how is it that Shelby has the power to do that...I would suspect he isn't the committee chair nor do the republicans have the majority on that committee? I suppose I haven't read enough up on it.

[scaeagles]

I don't agree. It's a matter of motives. I may not agree with the reasons a Senator may object to a person being nominated, but I can respect his or her right to do if the objection is policy based. But we are talking about a Senator who has put a hold on ALL nominations; not because he has a policy disagreement with them, but because he is using it to extort pork for his state. THAT is an abuse of office, imo.

Is it any more an abuse of office than voting for health care because your state gets certain exemptions or 300 million in pork? That would be said to be a senator looking out for the interests of their constitutents. I don't see a different iexcept that it's a new level of blocking nominees, and I don't support blocking nominees from a floor vote. If the nominee is so offensive, one would hope they couldn't get a simple majority.

edited to add:
OK, so I understand a bit more.....from a story I read -

The U.S. Senate frequently approves non-controversial nominees without a formal roll-call vote, with a "unanimous consent" determination that can be blocked by just one senator, requiring a time-consuming process and 60 votes in the 100-seat chamber to overcome.


This definitely raises the stakes and is stupid. I don't know what "time consuming" means, but I would suppose even a couple hours per nominee would indeed result in a lot of consumption of time. I would suspect the unanimous consent vote can be overcome by a rules change, but I have no idea what that would entail. Shelby needs to grow up, but I would again state that this is no different than any other hostage holding or vote buying with district bribes that take place in any bill. It does indeed come at it from a different and dangerous angle, though, basically allowing one senator to control the process. I would bet a rules change can and should prevent this in the future.

[Alex]

The "filibuster" of nominees, however, is typically done in committee by refusing to allow them to be voted on in committee, which prevents them from coming to the Senate floor for a vote.

That's incorrect. You can't filibuster in committee. All a hold is, is an announcement that should the Senate leadership attempt to bring a nominee (or anything else, holds aren't unique to nominations) to a floor for debate the person placing the hold will object to the unanimous consent decree which establishes the terms and duration of debate. In other words, the person placing the hold will filibuster creating a need for a vote on cloture which will require 60 votes to pass and add several days to the process for each nominee even if that happens.

As an example, Joseph Greenaway. Nominated by Obama to the Third Circuit on June 18, 2009. Passed out of committee unanimously on October 1, 2009. Still waiting to be brought to the floor of the full Senate due to an anonymous hold.

As another example, Jane Stranch. Nominated by Obama on October 21, 2009. Passed out of committee 15-4 on November 19, 2009. Still waiting to be brought to the floor of the full Senate due to an anonymous hold.

[Alex]

I would bet a rules change can and should prevent this in the future.

The rules change would be to get rid of the filibuster. All a hold is, is an announcement (public or not) of intent to filibuster. When faced with a hold the majority leader can do two things:

1. Try to wait until the hold is removed.
2. Bring forth the unanimous consent decree and hope the hold was a bluff. If it was not things go into a whole new limbo which is why they try to avoid starting the process if there's a hold on things.

Also, by generally accepted interpretations of Senate rules, changing the rule would require 60 votes. How likely is the minority (either minority) to give up that power willingly?

[scaeagles]

Right - I got the hold thing down after I read something and edited a post. However, it is also possible for a committee - such as the judicial committee - to hold up a vote with only a simple majority of the committee and not release the nominee for a vote. A committee chair can also refuse to schedule the nominee for a committee vote. This practice has been somewhat common. That's why I put the filibuster in the earlier post in quote. It's not a real filibuster, but is often more effective and allows a smaller group of senators, or even the committee chair, to stop a nominee from going to the floor.

I suppose I might need a government 101 class (maybe this is 200 level), but that's how I think it works frequently.

[Alex]

Quick correction, a rules change requires 67 votes (though some parliamentarians think there are ways around that).

[JWBear]

Is it any more an abuse of office than voting for health care because your state gets certain exemptions or 300 million in pork? That would be said to be a senator looking out for the interests of their constitutents.

May I assume you are referring to Ben Nelson? I find his actions just as reprehensible. I don't give someone a pass just because they have a "D" after their name.

[€uroMeinke]

So do the Republicans really think Sarah Palin is a contender? Or is that just a way to cover up the fact they already think Obama will be a 2-termer?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't think Sarah Palin thinks Sarah Palin's a contender at this point. That's why she's courting the Teabaggers, so she can claim that the reason she's not taken seriously in 2012 is because of the good-old-boy mentality of the two party system.

[scaeagles]

May I assume you are referring to Ben Nelson? I find his actions just as reprehensible. I don't give someone a pass just because they have a "D" after their name.

Ben Nelson, and also Mary Landreu (or however you spell her name) in Louisiana.

I don't doubt that you do, just as I think the Senator in question is being a dork. i'm simply trying to point out this sadly, practices like this are nothing new. This tactic specifically is, but it's all politics as usual.

[scaeagles]

There was great controversy over the Tim Tebow Focus on the Family pro-life ad prior to it airing on during the SuperBowl. Whatever one thinks of the organization or the ad, I'm finding the response of the leadership of NOW to be absolutely hysterical. (by the way, I'm so paranoid now that I had to go check the Drudge Report to make sure there wasn't anything on his page about this.)

From this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story) -

NOW president Terry O'Neill said it glorified violence against women. "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."

Granted, this is not a common reaction, but come on....violence against women? Because a football player playfully tackles his mother????? How about something reasonable, like -

"I am so happy that the story of Tim Tebow turned out the way it did, as he is truly a remarkable young man. What I am concerned about, though, is that the full story involves a woman ignoring the advice of her doctor, and while it turned out this way, it's very possible that it might not have. I would encourage women to take the advice of their physicians for their own safety."

Even though I am prolife, I would hear that and say "that's a reasonable response". I don't know much about O'Neill, but if this common to her, those concerned about NOW might want to consider removing her.

[Alex]

I'd agree it is a stupid response.

It is also probably the first time since Pee Wee that Tim Tebow has tackled someone.

[flippyshark]

Yeah, the response from O'Neill is pretty silly - it strikes me as opportunistic, as well. ("Oh look, we can make this issue about US!")

I didn't see the actual ad until just now, though I know the backstory well enough. But by itself, the ad seems to me to accomplish almost nothing. If I didn't know who Focus on the Family was, I would have had no idea what to make of that ad whatsoever. And the tackling gag was unfunny (because it was lame), though I would never have perceived it as in any way promoting or glorifying domestic violence. (yeesh)

[scaeagles]

From what I've read CBS requested they make the ad as non-controversial as possible.

[flippyshark]

From what I've read CBS requested they make the ad as non-controversial as possible.


A non-controversial ad from a very controversial group - end result, something incredibly pointless. I wonder if they thought their money was well spent?

No matter where you're coming from politically, religiously, morally - the Super Bowl is the wrong time to try to get people to re-think their core values. I hope this doesn't become a trend of vague ads from hot-button organizations. Not that I will be watching anyway. I remain blissfully TV-less!

[scaeagles]

I would gather they got their money's worth before the ad even ran with all the publicity it received before hand.

[Strangler Lewis]

If we as a society did not condone violence against men, there would have been no Super Bowl with which to sponsor an ad condoning violence against women.

And don't get me started on the conspiracy of silence regarding violence against Abe Vigoda.

[scaeagles]

That was one of the best two commercials (the Betty White/Abe Vigoda/Snickers one). That and the underwear casual Friday commercial for career builder.com

[Strangler Lewis]

Abe Vigoda: uniting force.

Okay, it's passed.

Speaking of condoning violence against women, will you be endorsing Linda McMahon's run for Senate in Connecticut?

[alphabassettgrrl]

There was great controversy over the Tim Tebow Focus on the Family pro-life ad prior to it airing on during the SuperBowl. Whatever one thinks of the organization or the ad, I'm finding the response of the leadership of NOW to be absolutely hysterical. (by the way, I'm so paranoid now that I had to go check the Drudge Report to make sure there wasn't anything on his page about this.)
...snip...
"I am so happy that the story of Tim Tebow turned out the way it did, as he is truly a remarkable young man. What I am concerned about, though, is that the full story involves a woman ignoring the advice of her doctor, and while it turned out this way, it's very possible that it might not have. I would encourage women to take the advice of their physicians for their own safety."


Yeah, some groups definitely go overboard with the freaking out. I'm not above criticizing groups just because I agree with their overall goals and calling the mom-tackle violence against women is too much.

I'm not pleased with the ad, and I think the super bowl is somehow not the right place. Can't state the logic for that, just a feeling that it's somehow not right.

And I do dislike the implication that all women should ignore the advice of their docs and risk death because it worked out pretty well in this one case. This is an issue where the stories that get told are the ones for whom it worked out- the dead don't get their stories told. It's a self-selecting bias.

[scaeagles]

Speaking of condoning violence against women, will you be endorsing Linda McMahon's run for Senate in Connecticut?

I honestly have no idea who she is.

ETA: McMahon of the WWE McMahons? Interesting. I know nothing about her except that now. I would figure at very least she can't be as corrupt as Dodd, so that's a step up.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I know I should be ignoring Sarah Palin entirely...but I can't help it.

I've enjoyed watching her squirm, trying to maintain her conservative credentials while being an activist for the first thing I agree with her on.

Then there's the teabagger speech, where she made fun of Obama for his reliance on teleprompters while A) reading her speech off a piece of paper, B) having been given the soft ball questions for the post speech press conference beforehand to review, and C) even having been given the soft ball questions beforehand to review, still needing to refer to notes written on her hand to answer.

You know, if the end result of Sarah Palin being put on the national stage is that the nutbags that idolize her are siphoned into some impotent independent party of nutjobs, maybe it's a good thing.

[scaeagles]

I'm not a Palin disciple, but mocking Obama for his reliance on teleprompters is open to anyone who writes notes on their hand or not. The man sets up teleprompters when he speaks to elementary school kids.

[flippyshark]

I'm not a Palin disciple, but mocking Obama for his reliance on teleprompters is open to anyone who writes notes on their hand or not. The man sets up teleprompters when he speaks to elementary school kids.

I used to wince a bit when Obama would speak off the cuff and use a LOT of "umm" and "uh" pauses. But the teleprompter talking point? Sorry, but that boat isn't gonna float anymore.

1) Every president since the invention of the teleprompter has used them at nearly every one of their televised speeches.
2) He doesn't set them up himself, though that's an amusing image.
3) The school incident was a little silly, and I doubt it has happened again, though you are welcome to prove me wrong on this one. It's still a pretty big "so what," but I'll give you partial credit. However ...
4) Did you SEE him when he had the open question session with Republicans, live, a few weeks ago? No teleprompter. No script. You may have disagreed with him and found his every answer evil, but you can't claim he was helpless and floundering. He was on fire. And FOX News made themselves look like scared ninnies by cutting off before it was done. Anyway, whatever the political import or content of that encounter, it proved decisively that Obama is not somehow pathetically dependent on teleprompters. Game over.

Y'know, Sarah Palin used a teleprompter when she gave her much-praised speech as she accepted her nomination. She used it all the time on the campaign trail, as did McCain. Nobody cares, because this is standard practice. The first time I heard the McCain campaign using this as a talking point, I thought they had to be joking. It made them sound desperate, as if they knew they didn't have anything of substance to use against their opponent. (And SURELY they did, yes?) I suppose they keep on tossing this out because their base laps it up, but you aren't going to get any mileage out of it around anyone who has been paying any attention.

[flippyshark]

You know, if the end result of Sarah Palin being put on the national stage is that the nutbags that idolize her are siphoned into some impotent independent party of nutjobs, maybe it's a good thing.

It would sure be entertaining. (Unless they actually won!)

[Stan4dSteph]

I know I should be ignoring Sarah Palin entirely...but I can't help it.Did you see her interview with Glenn Beck where she seemed to have a hard time coming up with a name when asked who her favorite "founding father" was?

I loved this bit they did on Jimmy Kimmel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAPWD-PR_FA

[scaeagles]

Oh, I don't care about using it on every major speech. Doesn't bother me a bit. Of course he needs it and every President does on such addresses.

I didn't mean he actually sets them up himself. Would figure that would have been evident, but I suppose I didn't word that well.

I did not see the question and answer session with Republicans.

I think the whole thing is silly to focus on, but so is a lot in politics, and both sides do it when it is in their interest to do so. I've never posted about it and only did in response to a post which addressed the subject.

[Gemini Cricket]

The part that irks me is the hypocrisy. Palin criticized Obama for relying on teleprompters then uses crib notes on her hand during her speech. And the last Republican president really, really needed a teleprompter and whether he used them or not he still sounded like a dunce when he spoke. So this whole "Ha ha, Obama needs a teleprompter" taunting from the right is silly and hypocritical.

[Chernabog]

30 Unintentionally Hilarious Political Signs (http://www.urlesque.com/2010/02/10/misspelled-political-signs/?icid=main|main|dl5|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urlesqu e.com%2F2010%2F02%2F10%2Fmisspelled-political-signs%2F)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Love the signs!

[Gemini Cricket]

'Family Guy' Actress Responds to Sarah Palin Criticism. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/family-guy-actress-respon_n_468331.html)
In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life. My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Governor Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes.Palin just got served!
:D

I think it's cool that McFarlane got an actress with Down Syndrome to play a character with DS.

I'm not a huge fan of the show, but does Palin need to respond to every little thing? I watched the episode because it ticked the Palins off. She's just helping Family Guy get viewers.

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm gonna have to take the Eric Cartman approach and side with Sarah Palin on this one.

[Chernabog]

I'm just annoyed that the Levi Johnston pics weren't all that great.

[JWBear]

I'm just annoyed that I didn't get to see Levi Johnston's "little Levi".

There. Fixed it for you. :evil:

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm too angry to compose a coherent post about my reaction to this story (http://blogs.alternet.org/vyckie/tag/michael-pearl/).

They've arrested the wrong couple.

[BarTopDancer]

I'm too angry to compose a coherent post about my reaction to this story (http://blogs.alternet.org/vyckie/tag/michael-pearl/).

They've arrested the wrong couple.

That's disgusting and sickening. I hope additional charges are brought on the 'leadership' that encourages this.

[scaeagles]

That's disgusting and sickening. I hope additional charges are brought on the 'leadership' that encourages this.

To be clear, I absolutely think this is horrid, that the parents should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and that to teach this is sickening.

However, to go down the road of prosecuting those who advocate such behavior is dangerous.

We would have to areest and prosecute leaders on the Church of Scientology and the Jehovah's witnesses for telling their followers not to take their children to doctors.

We would have to arrest and prosecute Islamic leaders who have taught the concept of honor killings that have led to a recent story in Phoenix where a man ran over his daughter and killed her because she was too westernized.

I'm sure there are all sorts of examples.

I think those teachings are ridiculous and dangerous and harmful. But are they prosecutable? Do we want such laws? I don't know if I want the government telling anyone what they cannot teach no matter how reprehensible what they are teaching is.

[Strangler Lewis]

If during a church service the preacher called the family up to the pulpit, listened to the tale of misbehavior, handed the parents a rod and encouraged a deadly beating that immediately happened, he certainly could be prosecuted. On the facts from the article, he probably only gets prosecuted on Law and Order.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Charles Manson.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If there were a pediatrician who advised all of his patients to whip their children...

If there were a lawyer that advised all his clients to kill anyone who might testify against them...

I would have no problem saying those people should be arrested. Why should religious leaders get a pass when advocating, encouraging, teaching felonious behavior?

[scaeagles]

The pediatrician would lose his license to practice medicine. The lawyer would be disbarred (and their might be a conspiracy to commit murder charge in there, but I would suspect that it would be difficult to make stick). So you are suggesting that any authority figure, whether that person has real or perceived power over the decision making process of the individual, should be prosecuted if their teachings or suggestions lead to felonious behavior.

[flippyshark]

It would take a far more knowledgeable person than I to figure out what the law says, or ought to say, about the border between free speech and criminal misuse of authority. I certainly place a greater share of the blame on the idiots who receive such "wisdom" and put it into merciless practice. It is also alarming to learn that this couple had plenty of supporters at their hearing, people who, on hearing about this tragic event, jumped to the defense of the abusers, all the while citing a bronze-age text that they have been told they must believe on pain of eternal torment.

Whenever faith-based behavior takes the lives of young children, it's time to loudly and publicly decry irrationality, and pointedly question the value of adhering to ancient texts, no matter how venerable and dearly loved. (I'm glad that many religious people cherry pick the nice parts out of their religious texts, but I hope they will start to see the value of bravely decrying the horrible parts in equal measure.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

So you are suggesting that any authority figure, whether that person has real or perceived power over the decision making process of the individual, should be prosecuted if their teachings or suggestions lead to felonious behavior.In terms as black and white as that? No. But I do suggest that there is a line, ill-defined as it may be, and in my view creating a ministry focusing specifically on advocating felonious behavior (even if there were no death involved, the things advocated by these monsters are criminal) crosses that line.

[Ghoulish Delight]

We would have to arrest and prosecute Islamic leaders who have taught the concept of honor killings that have led to a recent story in Phoenix where a man ran over his daughter and killed her because she was too westernized.

To tie it closely to this example:

What would you say about an Islamic leader who created books and websites that said, "You should kill enemies of Islam. Here are specific techniques to do so most effectively. Here are the materials you need to carry out the killing as I've described, and here's the best places to buy those materials at the best prices. And you should do it. Do it or Allah will punish you. Do it or you are an evil person."?

That is what we're dealing with here. A couple that has created a step-by-step blueprint for child abuse, have created a platform to sell this blueprint, and say in no uncertain terms, "Do it. Whip your child. Hit your child with hard rubber tubing. Do it you're an evil person. Do it or they will be evil people. Do it or God will punish you. Do it." This is leaps and bounds beyond "suggesting" and "advocating". It leaps and bounds, in my opinion, straight to "incitement".

[Strangler Lewis]

Of course, you don't have to be at the murder to be guilty of murder. Manson was guilty of murder as a conspirator in the specific killings that he ordered. Convicting him of murder for uttering vehement, violent generalities would have been a much tougher sell.

I would agree, though, that depending on the level of control involved, a religious leader could be viewed as ordering a hit on some little kid. Why the hell not?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Of course, you don't have to be at the murder to be guilty of murder. Manson was guilty of murder as a conspirator in the specific killings that he ordered. Convicting him of murder for uttering vehement, violent generalities would have been a much tougher sell.If we were talking about generalities I'd agree. But I make no exaggeration when I say that Michael and Debi Pearl literally detail what materials to purchase, where to purchase them, and how to use them, and who to use them on (your children). Their book, their website, their preaching is chock full of specifics.

Would I advocate the arrest of the author of Anarchist's Cookbook? No. However, if it, along with instructions on how to build explosives, also contained instructions on the best way to use those explosives to murder politicians, and the author were to regularly speak to people saying, "Use the techniques in my book against any politician that voted to invade Iraq. They are evil and should die!" yes I most certainly would advocate his arrest.

[scaeagles]

Hmmm.....I suppose I have to think about this more. Valid points, it is just difficult to determine where lines should be drawn.

[Strangler Lewis]

As an aside, I noted with some interest that when our school district spent several thousand hiring a "positive discipline" consultant to work with teachers and parents, hundreds of parents apparently showed up. Much less interest in attending meetings to address the budget shortfalls that will result in firing teachers that will result in more kids ending up as discipline problems.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So lets see, facts that Lower Merion school district is not disputing:

1) They put software on the laptop that could be remotely activated to record images
2) They did so with zero notice to parnts
3) There exists an image that was remotely captured
4) They viewed that image and used it as evidence to discipline a student.

Their only defense so far is that they claim to only activate the camera if the laptop is reported stolen. As if A) that explains why this camera was activated since the laptop was clearly not stolen and B) having activated it and seen that it was obviously not stolen, used the image against the student.

And now it seems that one of the security people charged with setting it all up had been running his mouth online about all the effort he put in to make it as hidden and un-disableable as possible.

Me thinks the school district is royally b-o-n-e-d on this one.



link (http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/84831227.html) for those that haven't seen this story

[Gemini Cricket]

This story dates back to 2006:
A few years ago, Lynn Paddock sought Christian advice on how to discipline her growing brood of adopted children. Paddock -- a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children -- surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.
Paddock ordered Michael and Debi Pearl's books and started spanking her adopted children as suggested. After Sean, the youngest of Paddock's six adopted children, died last month, his older sister and brother told investigators about Paddock's spankings.
Sean's 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean's backside, too, doctors found.
Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said. Source (http://nospank.net/n-p86r.htm)

ETA: Not sure why it's in bold. Couldn't un-bold it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes, the Schatz's are not the first to have killed their child based on the Pearl's teachings, and sadly are unlikely to be the last. But even if not one child died, they are still responsible for countless cases of what should be prosecuted as child abuse.

[Ghoulish Delight]

While I worked out in our company gym today, one of the TV's was tuned to coverage of Toyota execs being questioned by a House committee. I learned something very interesting, of which I was not previously aware:

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is a blithering idiot.

[Gn2Dlnd]

She's hysterical whenever Colbert gets ahold of her.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That may be, but she was demanding a 100% guarantee from Toyoda that her car will never be recalled.

Blithering idiot.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I have only seen bits and pieces of the 6+ hour health care summit, so I can't form a full picture of how valuable it was. However this moment alone makes me happy it happened (would rather have not linked to the Daily Show as the source, but I can't find the video anywhere else)

Legitimate point (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-25-2010/moment-of-zen---john-mccain-s-legitimate-point)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Interesting. It's been ruled that the secretly recorded ACORN tapes, supposedly proving they gave illegal advice to fake prostitutes, were actually edited to fit the story and that the unedited tapes don't show any illegal activity. The DA has closed the investigation with no criminal charges.

[JWBear]

I bet you won't see that little detail on Fox News.

[scaeagles]

It's on their website. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/acorn-workers-cleared-nyc-prostitute-video/?test=latestnews)

[JWBear]

Nowhere in that article does it report that the footage was edited to make it falsely appear that the ACORN staff was doing something illegal. My point still stands.

I'll be waiting for Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al to apologize on camera to ACORN for demonizing them over of the lies perpetrated by these filmmakers. But I won't be holding my breath.

[SacTown Chronic]

The Fox News article has been conveniently edited to exclude mention of convenient editing.

[bewitched]

LOL! Funny or Die gets SNL presidential impersonators (past and present) together for a reunion to promote consumer protection (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f5a57185bd/funny-or-die-s-presidential-reunion?rel=player)

[mousepod]

LOL! Funny or Die gets SNL presidential impersonators (past and present) together for a reunion to promote consumer protection (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f5a57185bd/funny-or-die-s-presidential-reunion?rel=player)

That's great. Go Ron Howard!

[wendybeth]

Wow- the sad thing is ACORN has been tainted anyway. They ought to sue the shyt out of those so-called news organizations.

[JWBear]

Wow- the sad thing is ACORN has been tainted anyway.

Yep. Another win for the Big Lie. Another loss for the common people.

[innerSpaceman]

Still - I'd be curious to see the unedited ACORN tapes. What they did might not be illegal ... and the stuff I heard wasn't even something I personally wouldn't have similarly advised a pimp/prostitute pair. But the stuff I heard, edited or not, seemed entirely unethical - no matter how compassionate - to advise.

It may have been edited, and the stuff I heard taken out of context. But they said what they said, and it was very damning. I cannot imagine what context would make it innocent.

[scaeagles]

So if you don't support ACORN you are not a common person?

If news organizations could be sued for taking things out of context there would be no news organizations left.

[JWBear]

Just read this and thought it was funny. YMMV.

You May Be A Republican If....

....You hate gays, but have a drawer full of boy-on-boy action.
....You believe we should keep condoms out of schools, because we all know without them teens won't have sex.
....You've never spent a day in the military, but question the courage and patriotism of those veterans who return with medals and scars and say that war is bad.
....You'll spend $20 billion guarding a bridge against the possibility of a terrorist attack, but won't spend 20 cents to keep it from falling down on its own.
....You believe the right to life ends at birth.
....You believe trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
....You believe "Compassionate Conservatism" means feeling sorry for the homeless veteran sleeping in the gutter as you step over him on your way to a $500 a plate Palin fundraiser.
....You believe questioning Bush was un-American, but questioning Obama is patriotism.

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, I think only the first item is purely humorous - and only descriptive of a a certain subset of Republicans or Conservatives.

But I daresay the remaining items accurately describe 96% of Conservatives. And that's not very funny.

[JWBear]

Actually, I think only the first item is purely humorous - and only descriptive of a a certain subset of Republicans or Conservatives.

Funny you should say that... (http://cbs4.com/national/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1536922.html) :D

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, the innuendo in this incident disturbs me. I have straight friends who go to gar bars once in a while. So just because he's an anti-gay crusader who we just know must be a closet case, we take licence to assume he's queer because of where he got drunk and because he had a 50/50 chance of the passenger in his car being a man.


I think it's bad enough he's a state senator who was caught driving drunk. I wish the press would leave it at that. The gay innuendo is dangerous.


Not the least because I completely believe it. :D

[SacTown Chronic]

Yeah, I've been to Faces a few times. But then again, I don't have a history of opposing gay rights.

[JWBear]

Yeah, I've been to Faces a few times. But then again, I don't have a history of opposing gay rights.

Exactly!

[BarTopDancer]

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/anti-gay-lawmaker-reportedly-gay-club-dui-arrest/?test=latestnews)from Fox news because it makes reading it all the more ironic.

[innerSpaceman]

He could have gone to Faces to buy everyone there a drink.

After all ... he owes every gay in California a round of drinks ... and he's gotta start somewhere! :D

[JWBear]

And I seriously doubt it was a La Cage kinda thing.

[€uroMeinke]

Fact finding mission?

[wendybeth]

So if you don't support ACORN you are not a common person?

If news organizations could be sued for taking things out of context there would be no news organizations left.
It's one thing to take something out of context- it's quite another to edit something out of context.

[JWBear]

It appears that this wasn't Sen. Ashburn's first trip to a gay bar. (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/03/roy-ashburn-was-outed-by-gay-mayor-last-year.html#more)

[SacTown Chronic]

Co<k-Blocking State Senator Co<k-Blocked by Cop.

[innerSpaceman]

Is this a good thread to talk about the Vatican Male Prostitution Ring scandal ... or should we start a fresh one specifically for the homo hypocrisy scandals of the Catholic Church?

[SacTown Chronic]

What did those whacky butt-pirate Catholics do now?

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, you can't make this stuff (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/03/gay-prostitution-scandal-hits-vatican.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=pingfm) up. These scandals just write themselves!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Apparently you could call the Vatican for gay-prostitute delivery. Of course, why no one was suspicious of an exclusive, secretive club of men called "Gentleman of His Holiness" is beyond me. I'm pretty sure I saw a bar with that name in Castro.

[SacTown Chronic]

Apparently you could call the Vatican for gay-prostitute delivery.Stiff dick in twenty minutes or it's free?

[bewitched]

Is it juvenile that I giggled at the terms, "papal gentleman" and "lay attendant"?

[JWBear]

Is it juvenile that I giggled at the terms, "papal gentleman" and "lay attendant"?

Not at all.

[BarTopDancer]

It appears that this wasn't Sen. Ashburn's first trip to a gay bar. (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/03/roy-ashburn-was-outed-by-gay-mayor-last-year.html#more)

And he's a self-loathing gay. (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/08/1518870/california-senator-says-hes-gay.html)

[JWBear]

He admitted it?! I have to give him credit for not denying it. But his political career (in Bakersfield, at least) is over.

[BarTopDancer]

Supreme Court to decide if Westboro Baptist Church has to pay damages for picketing the funeral of a fallen Marine. Story here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109482063466178.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird)

[scaeagles]

I have a serious question here....

Is any gay/lesbian considered to be self loathing if they disagree with the gay/lesbian agenda? I am wondering if it is possbile for a gay/lebian individual to oppose gay marriage, for example, without being considered self loathing. Is it possible he isn't self loathing at all?

[JWBear]

I have a serious question here....

Is any gay/lesbian considered to be self loathing if they disagree with the gay/lesbian agenda? I am wondering if it is possbile for a gay/lebian individual to oppose gay marriage, for example, without being considered self loathing. Is it possible he isn't self loathing at all?

I agree that "self loathing" isn't the correct term. But what would you call someone that works to deny equal rights to the same minority group that he belongs to? What would you call a black who fought to prevent civil rights legislation in the 60's, for instance?

[Gn2Dlnd]

I have a serious question here....

Is any gay/lesbian considered to be self loathing if they disagree with the gay/lesbian agenda? I am wondering if it is possbile for a gay/lebian individual to oppose gay marriage, for example, without being considered self loathing. Is it possible he isn't self loathing at all?

This would be my serious question...
What, pray tell, is the gay/lesbian agenda? Can you name the points, in order? Do you know who drew up the original document? Is it available as a pamphlet or online? Are there meetings I may attend to learn more?

Any politician who fights vehemently against the civil rights of the people he likes to fvck should be tarred and feathered. Self-loathing is too forgiving a term, a$$hole hypocrite is more like it. If he's not self-loathing, then he's just a good old-fashioned psychopath (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1013712/sociopath_vs_psychopath_there_is_a.html) and should be removed to a place where he can stop hurting people.

[innerSpaceman]

I know (of) some gays who think marriage is just an attempt to co-opt queer culture, and are against it on those grounds. That's not necessarily self-loathing.

But Ashburn's claims that he was only voting the way his constituents would have on any particular (cough*cough anti-gay) issue rings hollow to me. Sure, he probably would not have kept his elected position if he didn't betray his group of people with his actions, but it's hard for me to believe he could commit that betrayal on an ongoing basis without some sick kind of hatred of da gay ... and da gay part of himself.

[BarTopDancer]

Didn't Cheney's lesbian daughter campaign against gay rights too?

[Ghoulish Delight]

No. She remained silent about the issue during the '04 campaign and has since said she supports legalizing gay marriage.

Of course, one could quibble with her silence, however she never actively campaigned against it.

[JWBear]

Didn't Cheney's lesbian daughter campaign against gay rights too?

No. She remained silent about the issue during the '04 campaign and has since said she supports legalizing gay marriage.

Of course, one could quibble with her silence, however she never actively campaigned against it.

IIRC, Dick Cheney also came out in support of gay marrage.

ETA: I was correct (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066626/).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Dick Cheney called it a state-level issue, but still indirectly supported DOMA under the heading of "supporting W".

[SacTown Chronic]

"It would be wrong for us to get married, Frank. Wrong, perverted, and immoral. Now let's make sweet, sweet love."

[scaeagles]

This would be my serious question...
What, pray tell, is the gay/lesbian agenda? Can you name the points, in order? Do you know who drew up the original document? Is it available as a pamphlet or online? Are there meetings I may attend to learn more?

I certainly was not attempting to be offensive or controversial in the least and apologize if you took offense at my wording. I suppose it would have been better stated to ask if a gay man opposes a gay related social issue supported by most of gay men does that mean he is self loathing?

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://www.gayagenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/song-chart-memes-gay-agenda1.jpg

[bewitched]

Even Ken Starr is saying Liz Cheney's attack on DOJ lawyer's defense of terror suspects is "shameful". (http://www.newser.com/story/82684/liz-cheneys-al-qaeda-7-attack-shameful-gop.html)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Best reason so far to pass health care reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html)!!

Oh please oh please oh please.

Hey Rush, umm, you realize Costa Rica has tax-payer supported universal health care, right? Right? As a matter of fact, I dare you to find a country in which you'd be willing to live that DOESN'T have some form of socialized health care.

[JWBear]

Best reason so far to pass health care reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html)!!

Oh please oh please oh please.

Hey Rush, umm, you realize Costa Rica has tax-payer supported universal health care, right? Right? As a matter of fact, I dare you to find a country in which you'd be willing to live that DOESN'T have some form of socialized health care.

You beat me to it! I just came on LoT to post it.

There are plenty of countries without universal healthcare that he can choose from.... in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East.... I'm sure he'll be welcomed with open arms there... :evil:

[scaeagles]

I believe he wasn't saying he would move there, but that he'd go there for health care. I surmise this because of the connection to Cuba and how the same clip had him talking about how Cuba is going to require health insurance for visitors, and how he said he would never go there.

I found this (http://www.costarica.com/retirement/cost-of-living/health-care/) info very quickly, as well as many other links (it would seem as if private medical options in Costa Rica attract many foreigners) -

Note: Before the 2008 ratification of CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement), Costa Rica operated under a government-owned monopoly insurance system. In 2009, international insurance providers began to offer health insurance within Costa Rica.

Costa Rica’s private hospitals and clinics offer high-quality medical care at a tiny fraction of its U.S. equivalent cost. In fact, due to Costa Rica’s beautiful surroundings, medical reputation and very lost costs, the country is rapidly becoming a prime destination for medical tourism.

[JWBear]

I believe he wasn't saying he would move there, but that he'd go there for health care. I surmise this because of the connection to Cuba and how the same clip had him talking about how Cuba is going to require health insurance for visitors, and how he said he would never go there.

I found this (http://www.costarica.com/retirement/cost-of-living/health-care/) info very quickly, as well as many other links (it would seem as if private medical options in Costa Rica attract many foreigners) -

Riiiiight.... Is that how Fox is spinning it?

I am leaving the country.

[scaeagles]

That wasn't off of Fox....that was off of a google search of "costa rica health care" and was one of many links that described the health care options in Costa Rica.

Contextually, he was saying he will leave the country to get his healthcare.

[JWBear]

Contextually, he was saying he will leave the country to get his healthcare.

That is the part that I was talking about. Listen to the video. He wasn't talking about leaving to get health care. :rolleyes:

[Mousey Girl]

He admitted it?! I have to give him credit for not denying it. But his political career (in Bakersfield, at least) is over.

He had already decided to retire.

Actually he still has a good deal of support from the non-fundie Republicans. He voted for his constituents, not his feelings.

The thing that bugs me is that now all of the focus is on his coming out, not on the fact that he was driving a state car while drunk.

[scaeagles]

That is the part that I was talking about. Listen to the video. He wasn't talking about leaving to get health care. :rolleyes:


I don't think we're going to agree, so I'll leave it at that.

[SacTown Chronic]

I remember a more innocent time when Limbaugh only left the country with his healthcare.

[JWBear]

I don't think we're going to agree, so I'll leave it at that.

Denial much?

[scaeagles]

(deleted text because of GD's post immediately below)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Boys. Settle.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Seattle?

Thanks, scaeagles for the response. I hate the pejorative nature of the phrase, "The Gay Agenda." What most people want, is simply equal rights. When terms like, "The Gay Agenda" are used, it implies that there are special rights being sought, and that there's a check list somewhere. "The Gay Agenda" sounds somehow sinister. It's as if the word, "Secret," is there between, "The," and "Gay," only silent. There is no secret gay agenda, just a desire to have the same rights as non-gay people, and have those rights protected by law.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Meg Whitman's attack ads against Steve Poisner had me wanting to check Poisner out. Sadly he's now running ads saying the claims are untrue. Too bad, she made him out to be a great candidate.

[SacTown Chronic]

Moonbeam me up, Scotty.

[wendybeth]

He had already decided to retire.

Actually he still has a good deal of support from the non-fundie Republicans. He voted for his constituents, not his feelings.

The thing that bugs me is that now all of the focus is on his coming out, not on the fact that he was driving a state car while drunk.

What bugs me is he was plain driving while drunk, period. As far as the 'voting for his constituents' drivel he is passing out- bullshyt. (This is directed at him, MG- not you!) What, he's a political mercenary? Is that it? He couldn't run on an honest platform, so he had to lie and sell himself out to the people who could get him into office? He's a hypocrite, a liar, and he's harmed people with his actions. In other words, a perfect political model.

[JWBear]

What bugs me is he was plain driving while drunk, period.

Not only that, he was driving a state vehicle!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not only that, he was driving a state vehicle!
I think her point was that it's irrelevant that it was a state vehicle. Who cares who owned the car?

[Tref]

Thanks, scaeagles for the response. I hate the pejorative nature of the phrase, "The Gay Agenda."

So what is on the Gay Agenda for to-day? I hope grocery shopping, because we need milk.

[JWBear]

I just read this online.

A dude was in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He lowered his altitude and spotted a fisherman in a boat below. He shouted to him, 'Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know were I am

The person in the boat consulted his portable GPS and replied, 'You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above the water elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

The dude rolled his eyes and said, 'You must be a Democrat.'

'I am,' replied the man. 'How did you know?'

'Well,' answered the dude , 'everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me.'

The Democrat smiled and responded, 'You must be a Republican .'

''I am,' replied the dude . 'How did you know?'

'Well,' said the Democrat, 'you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault.'

[flippyshark]

That's very cute, but I suspect if you changed the terms Democrat and Republican around and told the thusly modified joke to a conservative, he or she would chuckle and say,"How true."

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm posting some things a friend of mine posted in response to someone on Facebook linking to a letter writing campaign against he health care bill. This is probably the most cogent summary of what's going on I've read on the subject:

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Government-run health care?" The bill on hand doesn't even have a public option. It stops the practice of refusing coverage due to pre-existing conditions (and making up pre-existing conditions to deny coverage once a person is sick). It removes the barrier for private health insurance companies to operate across state lines. It creates an open exchange for health care plans. It extends availability of medicare back a few years to the late 50's, and for some people below the poverty line.

And as for the democratic process... the democratic process says that if 50% of senators are willing to vote for a bill, it should pass. What has happened here is that 59% of senators are willing to vote for a bill, but the others are willing to block them by using a filibuster... a technicality that requires 60% of congressmen to vote to end a discussion, so that the other side will have had their say. Not only that, this is FOR A BILL THAT ALREADY PASSED THE HOUSE AND SENATE. It's a technicality process to combine the two passed bills... a technicality that is being blocked on a technicality. How is that democracy?

Quite frankly, countries with ACTUAL government-run health care are looking at this like a casual regulatory bill. Who has actual government-run health care? Canada. Japan. The UK. Germany... well, take a look here. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg It's most of them, really. All of the industrialized ones, and a lot of the barely modern ones. It's not some big scary thing to fear, especially when the extent of socialization appears to be A: an expansion of medicare, which we already accept is a good idea, and B: a public exchange to help drive costs down, which fits perfectly with free-market ideals.

I might add that we're spending 20% of our GDP on healthcare, whereas most other industrialized nations spend 10%. Clearly, what we have has failed. Let's make this a competitive market, with a floor for the extremely poor.



[response full of the usual "The can't force me to buy health coverage!" And it's 2800 pages, it must be bad!]


You definitely have good points. The bills are bloated and huge, and not nearly enough people have read them.

However, there is definitely a few things wrong. For one, the government does mandate universal healthcare to a degree already: Emergency Rooms are not allowed to deny treatment to any patient regardless of inability to pay. As a side effect of this system, for the people who can't afford it the best strategy is to wait until a problem is bad enough for emergency care, then argue the bill down in court to pennies on the dollar. I've seen friends argue 20k dollar treatments down to 500, payable over a year. Guess who pays the difference? For another, the government already mandates fire, police, military, school, and other coverages. They just do it the sane way, universally, the way that a lot of other countries handle health care. And finally, my state already mandates that everyone has coverage, and provided a low-cost option for those who couldn't otherwise afford it. Amusingly enough, this was spearheaded by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and has more than a passing resemblance to the current under-discussion healthcare bills.

For the pre-existing conditions clause: this is one that the insurance companies themselves have asked for. If any one of them individually strikes the pre-existing conditions clause, they will be outcompeted by people who don't. But if everyone strikes together, they all bear equal costs, which means competition can continue under these other banners.

Setting aside the abuses of pre-existing clauses (famous cases include declaring that going to a doctor twice for coughs years ago was a pre-existing condition for cancer, and considering rape a pre-existing condition), there are great reasons not to base health care on job, locked behind a pre-existing condition wall. The classic case is simple: Get Seriously Ill. When you get sick, you lose your job. When you lose your job, you lose your healthcare. When you lose your healthcare with a Serious Illness, you now have a pre-existing condition that will prevent any insurer from covering you in the future. This is not the basis for a sound care system.

A bill HAS passed the house and senate. Reconciliation is a routine matter, where even big things like "abortions aren't covered" are generally fudged between spending bills. Hell, entirely new clauses get inserted during reconciliation (which is not to say that they should, but they do routinely). More than 50% of the House and more than 50% of the Senate voted for what is essentially a capitalist, market competition solution with a couple of protections thrown in. What should happen now is a genuine merging of the bills into one, with differences earnestly hammered out. What is happening is one last chance to block any of it from being implemented, despite previous votes.

Personally, I think the bill is pretty lame. A universal baseline system (like the rest of the western world) would go a long way to cutting down administrative overhead and insurance profittaking, estimated at %40 of premiums. And it would untie people's health coverage from their jobs, a major problem currently. The "market will solve all problems" solution presented in the bill is lame and does suck, but it is an improvement over the travesty that we have right now. And none of these adequately address the cost issue in more than a cursory fashion. The improvement seems incremental rather than the real reform that is needed, with some dumb setbacks thrown in there. But it is an improvement, and that's all we're likely to get for a long time. I'm fine with taking the existing system that we have and fixing it, rather than trashing it. From everything I've seen, this bill essentially bolts on checks and balances to the existing system, including a floor for the extremely poor and some protective walls for workers. From everything I've read of the bill, this is not even close to throwing out everything we have.

Realistically, if we don't get some sort of movement on this here and now, we're going to lose our chance at any reform for the next 8 - 12 years. The entrenched political opinion will be that health care is a form of career suicide, the public won't challenge their internal fears about health care reform equaling death panels, and the cost will creep ever skyward. By the time the next opportunity rolls around the rhetoric will be even thicker, based less firmly in reality, and covering an even more disproportionate portion of our gross expenditures.

Also, I know you're a die-hard Conservative. Please, please reclaim the Republicans, or start a competing party that removes them. Please. I have a lot of respect for what pre-Regan / pre Christian Fundamentalist Republicanism stood for. It wasn't about lockstep following orders, invading countries, and finding convenient scapegoats. It was about reducing government expenditures, encouraging civic duty and participation by all citizens, enshrining individual freedoms, and generally being an uncorruptable Jimmy Stewart do-gooder.

[SacTown Chronic]

Also, I know you're a die-hard Conservative. Please, please reclaim the Republicans, or start a competing party that removes them. Please. I have a lot of respect for what pre-Regan / pre Christian Fundamentalist Republicanism stood for. It wasn't about lockstep following orders, invading countries, and finding convenient scapegoats. It was about reducing government expenditures, encouraging civic duty and participation by all citizens, enshrining individual freedoms, and generally being an uncorruptable Jimmy Stewart do-gooder.I remember those people. They would have laughed someone like Sarah Palin the fvck out of town. Today, well...she's a gosh dang American hero and conservative icon and not some vacuous sh*t-for-brains politician.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, i'm waiting for the person this was directed at to respond that the Tea Party represents that return to conservatism. I may just vomit.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm laughing my ass off at the comments I'm seeing from frothing ditto-heads, Glenn Beck nutjobs, and the like saying Kucinich has "sold out". Laughing. My. Ass. Off.

[JWBear]

15 reasons for Health Care Reform (http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-15-health-care-big-wigs-who-cant-sleep-because-of-health-care-reform-2010-3#herbert-fritch-healthspring-1)

[JWBear]

The ignorance out there is depressing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448)

[JWBear]

Another sign that Palin is a dangerous lunatic (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html)

[Betty]

How about a little domestic terrorism (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/24/more-right-wing-backlash/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+ Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)by tea baggers pissed off about the health care bill.

From thrown bricks through windows, posting of home addresses (even if it was the address of the guys brother) and broken gas lines, things are getting out of hand.


On a seperate note, have you noticed at all that newscasters refer to the president as "Mr. Obama" instead of "President Obama"? My husband first pointed it out and I wondered if they referred to Bush that way or not.

[Alex]

Odds are they did. Some version of this is a pretty common house style that the first reference to the president they say "President Obama" or "President Barack Obama" and then after that say "Mr. Obama" or just "Obama."

NPR got slammed for this last year by people certain that it was a sign of disrespect, something they'd never have done to a previous president and they did a demonstration of them using the same style through many administrations.

So can't say it is true of everybody who is saying Mr. Obama that they did the same to Mr. Bush but it isn't at all unlikely.

As another example, it is the house style of the San Francisco Chronicle that on first reference they say "President X" but then on subsequent references they just say "X". Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1998/12/18/MN11IMP.DTL) they do it to Bill Clinton. Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/12/MN54952.DTL) they do it it George Bush. Here they do it to Obama (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/21/national/w141959D93.DTL).

The problem with it on TV is that over the course of a story you'll hear "President X" just once but "X" or "Mr. X" many times and forget you heard the first one.

(And also, of course, opinion shows probably don't have to meet house style to the same degree so it's probably laxer there with people talking in a more natural way; and opinion shows are more common than they used to be.)

[innerSpaceman]

Why is it, in the last 24 hours only, every time I click on any Parking LoT thread, I get a red warning screen that my computer may be harmed? I got this at work today, and just now at home. Admins? Any ideas?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah. It's Wendy's fault.

Her the website that hosts her sigline ticker image has been flagged as having malware on it. So if your browser is sensitive to that, it sees the url in the image source and flags it.

The good news is, there's nothing to worry about. The image can't do anything to the LoT or your computer, so you can ignore that warning. Of course having to tell it to ignore the warning every time is annoying, so you can turn sig lines off. And then bombard Wendy with PMs until she removes her sig line.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Opinion page discussing the recent political climate. I entirely agree with him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html

[scaeagles]

The political climate is indeed horrid.

However abhorrent, though, it is certainly far from new.

[Betty]

The political climate is indeed horrid.

However abhorrent, though, it is certainly far from new.

In my opinion, it's quite a bit worse then it has been. I don't recall congresspeople getting death threats or being spit on after votes regularly happening in the past as one example.

[scaeagles]

The clips that I've been hearing on the radio that have been submitted aren't threats, they are calling the dems names. No one has played anything - again, that I've heard - that included threats of harm.

If someone spits on someone, arrest them by all means. But saying someone is worthless garbage (in whatever colorful language they choose to use) is not a threat.

[Stan4dSteph]

The clips that I've been hearing on the radio that have been submitted aren't threats, they are calling the dems names. No one has played anything - again, that I've heard - that included threats of harm.

If someone spits on someone, arrest them by all means. But saying someone is worthless garbage (in whatever colorful language they choose to use) is not a threat.People have thrown bricks through office windows of House members in Western NY. Someone cut a gas line at another's home after a blogger posted his address. News article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ieYu07gp70-7oDIgoUOqgoWq4GtQD9ELGOOG3).

[scaeagles]

Absolutely wrong. No doubt. However, please let me know when they catch the perps. I am reminded of this (http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13199902) story, in which it was falsely claimed that anti health care refrom forces were responsible.

Don't get me wrong - anyone who does anything violent or commits vandalism should be prosecuted. Absolutely.

[JWBear]

In addition, threatening phone calls to Democratic representatives has risen dramatically enough for the Congressional Police to increase security.

[scaeagles]

I using profanity and calling someone an idiot a threatening phone call? I don't mean that rhetorically - I'm serious. If I call and say " you are a f***ink idiot", have I threatened that person? Tastelss, sure. Much better way to leave a disagreement. But unless someone says something "I know where you love and I'm going to kill you and your family", I'm just not seeing it as a threat.

[JWBear]

I have to ask... At what point will moderate republicans stop excusing the actions of the extreme right - a fringe that is becoming more and more violent? At what point will they say "enough" and condemn their hateful rhetoric? Are they so caught up in "party loyalty" that they just can't bring themselves to criticize another Republican, no matter what they do?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I using profanity and calling someone an idiot a threatening phone call? I don't mean that rhetorically - I'm serious. If I call and say " you are a f***ink idiot", have I threatened that person? Tastelss, sure. Much better way to leave a disagreement. But unless someone says something "I know where you love and I'm going to kill you and your family", I'm just not seeing it as a threat.
What about using hunting terminology and crosshair imagery in political speeches?

[JWBear]

I using profanity and calling someone an idiot a threatening phone call? I don't mean that rhetorically - I'm serious. If I call and say " you are a f***ink idiot", have I threatened that person? Tastelss, sure. Much better way to leave a disagreement. But unless someone says something "I know where you love and I'm going to kill you and your family", I'm just not seeing it as a threat.

They are getting threatening calls.

Here is a link to several news stories concerning this. (http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=dzm0iHkZ4ScfjTMD5AgDqHaht0IGM)

[scaeagles]

Well, as a member of the right, I didn't support McCain, and very verbally so did not. I am clearly renouncing violence and vandalism regardless of whom is doing it (and can see that it comes frmo both sides of the extremes). I was very vocal about the things I didn't like that Bush was doing (primarily in terms of fiscal resonsibility).

Do you support Earth First or various environmental extremists? Did you support those carrying signs at antiwar rallies calling for Bush to be killed?

Extremism is extremism regardless of where it comes from. Violence and threatening behavior is violence and threatening behavior no matter which side is comes from.

[scaeagles]

Apparently I am not making myself clear, but don't see how thaty is possible. Threats of direct violence - wrong. Investigate the hell out of it. Vandalism/violence - wrong. I do appreciate the links that have specific info about threats, as what I had seen and heard was more about vandalism and tasteless profanity laced name calling.

I do notice that Republican leaders, in the stories you linked to, are condemning this, which seems to answer your question above about condemning extremists who resort to violence and threats.

[JWBear]

Do you support Earth First or various environmental extremists? Did you support those carrying signs at antiwar rallies calling for Bush to be killed?

I do not, never have.

Extremism is extremism regardless of where it comes from. Violence and threatening behavior is violence and threatening behavior no matter which side is comes from.

The problem I have is that (at least, from what I have observed) most Republicans won't even acknowledge that there is extremism on the right.

Tea party protesters that carry signs with racist and violent messages? "Oh... You're misinterpreting them."

Someone throws a brick through a democrat's window? "It's probably another Democrat trying to frame the Republicans."

Reports of threatening phone calls to Democratic members of Congress? "Just because someone leaves a threatening message doesn't mean it's really threatening."

No one here would defend or dismiss these actions if they came from someone on the left. So I ask the question again... Why is there not more condemnation from the right when there is behavior like this coming from the right?

[scaeagles]

For the same reason, I suppose, that people aren't up in arms over James Cameron recently saying that global warming deniers should be shot.

I can't answer why people don't respond the way you would like them to.

As far as the political affiliation of the person who threw a brink through the window - whomever, regardless of political affiliation, should be responsible for their actions. All I did was point out that a widely publicized right wing threat and intimidation in CO that was touted all over as being right wing extremism on parade was, in fact, a liberal democrat trying to frame republicans. Do you condemn the actions of that person? I'm sure you would....just as I have condemned the actions and the republican leaders in your links have condemned them. It may not go as far as you'd like, but there is the condemnation.

[Ghoulish Delight]

For the same reason, I suppose, that people aren't up in arms over James Cameron recently saying that global warming deniers should be shot.
To be accurate, he challenged them to a duel.

[scaeagles]

Well, I suppose I'm making the extrapolation the Cameron doesn't want to die. :)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, I suppose I'm making the extrapolation the Cameron doesn't want to die. :)
Perhaps. But I do think there's a difference between, "Let's battle" vs. "I'm going to kill you."

[scaeagles]

So it's OK to choose the honorable way of killing someone?

[Alex]

To the extent that either side couches their political disagreements in terms of violence and killing it is wrong and a needless escalation.

That said, there is a difference between using imagery of violence as a metaphor as both Cameron and Palin both clearly have, nobody seriously thinks either wants to literally shoot the people with whom they are disagreeing and simply expressing a desire for violence as sometimes happens.

So, my preference would be that everybody say to the people offering the violence metaphors "tsk, tsk, don't be an ass" and to those pretending to be offended by obvious metaphors "tsk, tsk, don't be an ass."

And everybody should condemn in the strongest terms threats or exhortations to violence that are not metaphors, regardless of whether the person uttering them is likely or even capable of carrying them out.

[JWBear]

To be accurate, he challenged them to a duel.

I thought it was a debate.

[flippyshark]

For the same reason, I suppose, that people aren't up in arms over James Cameron recently saying that global warming deniers should be shot.


I hadn't heard that (or about him wanting to duel with deniers) - but Cameron isn't a political leader. I agree with his position re: global warming, but I also find him silly. (He sure can direct action sequences, though!)

This game of "why didn't you object when this or that happened?" is one of the most tiresome, predictable and potentially endless gambits in any political discussion. Alex had it pretty right on when he said that most of us can recognize metaphor in rhetoric, as opposed to outright incitement, or actual criminal acts. So, Palin's crosshair map doesn't bother me in the least, nor does the "Fire Nancy Pelosi" with fiery flames in the background on the RNC website. I can easily see that these mean "Hey, get these people out of office in November."

In case anyone missed it, here (http://www.myfoxillinois.com/dpps/news/dpgoh-mike-vanderboegh-urges-protesters-to-throw-bricks-fc-20100325_6741726) is what incitement looks like, courtesy of Mike Vanderboegh, as reported on a Fox site. No question about it - a militia man who relishes the thought of violent overthrow, actively telling people to break windows as a warning for the gunshots that are to follow if the government continues on its present course. And he's practically giddy at the thought of being arrested and charged with sedition because of the platform it will give him. Chilling. Okay, this isn't a political leader, but I would sleep a little more soundly if I heard Republicans call this guy out by name and say no, that's not the way things are going to happen.

(By the way, for what it's worth, I thought Boehner's public response to all of this was reasonable, if predictably politicized, but I'm not expecting anything any politician says to be otherwise.)

Okay, rambling as usual. I'm going to pop extra popcorn this November.

[scaeagles]

My only point in this, Flippy, is to say that this is nothing new. I have been more than clear in condemning any violence and property crimes. I am just amazed at those who seem to believe (and sincerely so) that it is one sided or that this is new, particularly when the Iraq war is relatively recent. I won't go back as far as Viet Nam or any other number of controversial things.

It isn't right. It also isn't new.

[mousepod]

And now Anthony Weiner's Office Receives Threatening Letter Containing White Powder (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001197-503544.html)

Weiner, who is Jewish, has reportedly received anti-Semitic notes in recent days, including one addressing him as "Schlomo." He has acknowledged that his strong support for reform, which has included multiple media appearances defending reform legislation, has made him "something of a lightning rod."

classy.