"It was ghastly!"

I read this earlier. IMO it perfectly sums up the Tea Party:

While there is plenty of selfishness in the Tea Party movement (though theirs generally and equal and opposite selfishness in most political movements including Progressives) I think the fundmantal point of disagreement would be expressed in one of thos clauses:

It isn't that they necessarily think of it as a punishment but rather that "social responsibility" is a phrase without inherent meaning. That it can't be anything more than a club defined by those either in power or seeking power and that the potential for misuse is great and therefore as a tool it is to be avoided because no matter how much one may approve of its current definition the pendulum will eventually swing in ways unacceptable to the individual.

That once upon a time "social responsibility" meant keeping races socially separate to minimize conflict, that it meant ratting out radicals to the government, that it meant providing dehumanizing group housing to the poor, that it meant the creation of social programs that ended up continuing rather than alleviating social ills. That it once meant subsidizing cheap calories and then eventually (per the track we're on) criminalizing the consumption of those calories.

Essentially it is a view that one can't give away personal power simply on the good word of the recipient that of course it will never be used incorrectly in the future.

And, in this regard, they have a point. A point that I think is undercut by too much crazy in the movement and inconsistent application. But then communists tend to become libertarians when the government starts telling them they have to do something they didn't want to do anyway.

For once, Tea Partiers are right about one of the founding fathers agreeing with their "revolution"...but not quite the way they think.

This is a good study in why context matters.

I am personally glad that he resigned and that it was accepted.

There is no place in a chain of command structure like the military to do such a thing. It completely undermines the authority structure and cannot be tolerated. This goes for McChrystal and any current member of the military regardless of who the superior is.

This being said, I do wonder if now that he has resigned if he will be vocal, and if he is vocal with criticisms, how those criticisms will be treated in the media.

Conversely, now that he's out if the gloves will come of about Pat Tillman (not saying they should, but I suspect that political realpolitik kept the gloves on for many people).

The problem with him being vocal is that McChrystal, at least in what was published, does not appear to actually have policy disagreements with Obama. Just personal issues. There's a big difference in how it should be handled between him saying "I think Obama's a dildo" vs. "I think Obama is pursuing the wrong strategy."

And this is not remotely analogous to Truman/McArthur (or even Bush/Fallon) so I wish people'd stop mentioning it.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

My god, tone-deaf doesn't even begin to describe the colossal failure of BP's continued blithering stupidity. There was the internal newsletter talking about how great it is that the cleanup effort is helping the hotel industry! Now this (warning, video has some graphic-ish images of animals + oil, but the link itself is safe)

Just read this online in response to Senator Inouye becoming President Pro-Tempore of the Senate:

BP is pissing me off. And with hurricane season it's going to get worse before it gets better. They have to remove the cap and stop drilling every time they have to evacuate for a storm.

I think Hayward should have to stay on the rig and make sure the cap stays on (I know that's not even remotely possible for many reasons but that's how pissed off I am).

Congratulations to Inouye for achieving the position but frankly him still being in office is just as insane as it was for Byrd to still be in office (and Akaka too, the combined age of Hawaii's two senators is 170; but at least Akaka's only been in the Senate for 20 years compared to Inouye's 43).

From Wikipedia:

It's only partially their age that bothers me (though it does to a degree) but more the tenure of people like Thurmond, Byrd, Kennedy and Inouye*.

We like our democracy and then don't use it. And then grin like idiots about how darling it is while they cling to the seat for months or years past their ability to actually contribute or lead. Just to be clear the insanity I talk about is that of the voters (I'm not an advocate of term limits).


* Or John Dingell who was held his Michigan seat for almost 55 years (facing reelection every two years) after inheriting it from his dad who held it for more than 20.

Though if you're interested in average age in the Senate here's a chart I made a while back showing how it's changed over time. It's been pretty much a straight upward line since the 1980 election.

And in the House the average age is now also approaching 60 and is higher than the Senate's average age for most of the 20th century.

Attachment 1448

Is my home town the center of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...legation_N.htm


FWIW, Monica Lewinsky lived here immediately before she got a job in DC;)

Wow! Their motto is "The words of Christians in the mouth of Christ." Interesting find. Some better than others for sure but I really like the concept.

edited to add: when you click on the picture, you read who said it. Unbelieveable.

Tee and hee. Particularly apropos having just driven past a looney camped in front of the post office across from work with "Impeach Obama" signs and poster-sized photos of Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn on.

The funny thing is that I read the whole thing before I realized it was on The Onion. It may be parody, but it's frighteningly believable.

I never take too seriously the stereotypes of the members of the tea party movement because all one has to do is google "tea party infiltration" and find the gazillions of stories (from a wide variety of sources) about those in opposition to the tea party who deliberately wish to make the people in the movement live up to the stereotypes and do the stupid things.

The goal, of course, is to make the stereotype of the members the story rather than what the movement is itself.

I can't say if the person holding the Obama sign with a Hitler mustache was such a person or not. All I know is I try not to focus so much on the people who look likes idiots and look at what any particular movement stands for.

There's this, with one hysterical woman proclaiming that she will never have to worry about gas in her car or her mortgage now that Obama has been elected. I suppose she could be my poster child for anyone who supports Obama, but that would be ridiculous. I think there are many such people, but I don't think any Obama supporters here are like that (as misguided as you are :) ), and I don't think most of the Obama supporters are like that.

It grows tiring hearing about how "frighteningly believable" it is.

It's not so much the teapartiers, per se, that I thought were so pointedly skewered by that piece - - but rather all the ignorant blowhards, far predating the current TP movement, who haven't a clue whats said in any of the documents or by any of the people they imagine in their heads to be defending with their gut-busting outrage.


There's no way infiltrators have invented that particular brand of stupidity. It's been around forever, and is so prevalent as to be undeniably genuine among an unfortunately large number of people.

I'm not looking at the individual idiot members. I'm more concerned about their leaders and role models (e.g. Beck and Palin) that reinforce the stupidity.

Well, I don't expect hucksters and rabble-rousers to die out any faster than stupidity.

Rabble-rousers? That reminds me, last Friday, during my afternoon promenade down Western Ave, a couple of the local rabble-rousers made fun of my ascot. I shook my walking stick at them and bid them good day!

Keep it up Tea Party. Please.

I just saw that Dan Quayle's sone is running for Congress. Is it bad of me to want to call him "Spud"?

^ You spelled "Stupid" wrong.

Is "sone" a "potatoe" reference?

No. Just an unfortunate typo.

Dan Quayle once cost me the 250,000 point question at DL's Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

The question was a play on him having misspelled potato but I missed that play on words because the question started "Which presidential candidate..." and Quayle was never a presidential candidate, he only ever got so far as running to become a presidential candidate.

Truth in advertising T-shirts

My favorite:

Those are great. I found my new facebook avatar and I think I may buy one too.

Typical leftist elitism. Someone doesn't like their man or their candidate, so it must be because they are stupid.

Am I missing something? To what are you referring, Leo?

Uh... Leo... Have you listened to any of the Tea Party followers? I think we're being kind.

ISM, I was referring to JW's "truth in advertising t-shirts" image. It implies that tea party voters are just plain stupid. Someone has differing views than yours, they must be stupid.

I'm sure some are.

As with any movement, I could ask if you have listened to some of the things Obama supporters have said, and then apply those across the board to all Obama supporters. That would be ludicrous. I don't think all Obama supporters are stupid, but some are. I don't think all Obama supporters are socialists, but some are. Ad infinitum.

It grows tiresome.

Sorry Leo, but the teapartiers are all pretty much the same. Older naive Americans who are afraid because there is a black man with a funny name in the White House who they are convinced is a Muslim born in Kenya; people who have no clue what the Constitution says or how the government functions and who listen to nothing but Fox News. They are a joke. If you and your fellow conservative had any sense you would distance yourselves from them, and not embrace them.

Like I said earlier, typical leftist elitism.

What you call "elitism" I call "being educated and aware".

Any party that holds Sarah Palin in high regard I have no problem labeling as a party of ignorance. She is willfully ignorant, proud of her ignorance, and points to her ignorance as an asset. And the Tea Party embraces her as a hero.

As long as the Tea Party continues to promote Sarah Palin as a worthwhile voice to listen, I don't give a rat's ass if you can prove that every single one of the ignorant, racist, illiterate signs were photoshopped by Al Gore himself, I will continue to call the Tea Party a party of ignorance.

The ignorance of a good portion of this country terrifies me. There are people who only watch Fox and Glenn Beck. They really do believe every single thing said by them. What's worse is the flip flopping Fox and Beck do. Six months ago they didn't have an issue with the Mosque near Ground Zero being built. Now, it's a horrible, awful thing... and it's being built in the exact same location they had no issue with 6 months ago.

I'd say scaeagles is right. Typical leftist elitism is to assume that those who disagree politically are stupid. Typical rightist elitism is to assume that those who disagree politically are immoral.

My point of objection to that particular t-shirt would be that while I do personally think that an unacceptably large number of self appointed (though apparently at least with some level of consent from the other members) leaders of the Tea Party movement are complete dingbats, the particular dingbattery mentioned in that t-shirt is not, to my experience, a prominent part of it.

Equally effective (and possibly its at the web site) t shirt more on topic would be "Obama won't keep the government's hands off my Medicare. That's why I'm voting Tea Party."

Mostly, though, while I'm sure I'd find some of the shirts amusing, i'm guessing they partake in the boring tendency to assume that political disagreement must be caused by some level of mendacity in those you disagree with. And once that's assumed then simple ad hominem is fine.

Un-fvcking-believable!

What's particularly unbelievable is that I don't see any mechanism by which that plan (ignoring its value as a program for dealing with welfare needs, though if you ignore the hygiene comment and the visual of using a prison then providing minimal housing and an entry level job sounds a lot like plenty of other plans) actually saves any money for the state.

The welfare recipients still get welfare, the prison guards still have jobs (that they're not qualified for) and now the state is paying housing expenses for the recipients. I suppose it might replace some low level state jobs, but I'm guessing that those don't really account for 20% of the state's budget.

A New York Times editorial contains this brilliant little piece of analysis:

I shake my head at the travesty that is the fact that many of my actions remain legal only because they're not illegal.

(This is not to say that if given the opportunity I wouldn't criminalize various things that Tom DeLay or I have done; but it is a remarkably stupid sentence.)

Thank God there is a ban against ex post facto laws.

Alex, to expand on your typical leftist and conservative elitism, I think that the left side has just as large of a moral superiority complex as does the right.

You criticize President Obama? You must be a racist.
You don't want you taxes raised? You must want the poor to starve and children to die of leukemia!
You don't support the latest environmental legislation? You must want dirty water and food that isn't safe to eat.
Etc, etc, etc.

If you don't support typically leftist causes, it must be because you are selfish, or racist, or homophobic, or don't care about the future for the children, or any number of other unpleasant descriptions bestowed upon you by the left.

Yeah, sure. And I can find plenty of conservative examples of assuming people on the left are stupid. I'm of the opinion, though, that on average the left tends to dismiss those who disagree with them as stupid while on average the right tends to dismiss those who disagree with them as immoral.

I'm sure we can agree that truly idiotic things are said by all sorts of people from all points on the political spectrum. And we all tend to pretend that our **** don't stink on our side of the fence. But the leadership (to the extent there is one, maybe a better phrase would be "those members getting prominent media attention") can hardly sit there agog and naive to this idea while crapping out their own fair share of rather stupid ****.

With most political operatives playing out this form of theater I generally suspect that they're perfectly aware they're staying stupid (and sadly, political effective) nonsense but feel that's the way the game is played. It is hard to say whether it speaks well or poorly of her that Sharron Angle seems to actually believe the nonsense she says.

yeah, I'd agree with that.

Changing gears for a moment: I found myself wondering - suppose a Christian community center were being built across the street from the Pretern Clinic in Brookline, MA. Imagine the sh*tstorm that would ensue should someone then try to block it from being built.

Or if there were protests against a white-owned business opening around the corner from the Lorraine Motel in Memphis.

Why do you want sharia law to become the law of the United States? Don't you realize that the First Amendment is not a suicide pact?! The tree of liberty must be periodically fed the blood of the blustering!! Something, something, something.

The Los Alamos Historical Museum celebrating the Manhattan Project is probably a pretty cool place, but I might suspect it would considered in poor taste to build it in a suburb of Hiroshima.

There are protests here in Phoenix (though granted they are much smaller) about the building of a Mormon chruch because, even though zoned properly, the nearby residents don't like how high the steeple will be. The Mormon church has sat down with the residents to try to discuss their concerns, and has compromised on it.

Of course they have a right to build it. This is not in question in my mind.

I don't think this is about the building of a Mosque, or I guess an Islamic Community Center, but about the relations and perhaps poor taste of choosing to build it there, particularly when the the project is largely headed by an Imam who refuses to even acknowledge Hamas is a terrorist organization. If this was built a couple of miles away there might be protests, sure, but nothing to the extent of what is happening now.

When you throw all this in with this story about the only chruch destroyed on 9/11 that still hasn't been allowed to rebuild, it does cause one to wonder why the Islamic Center is seemingly fast tracked but the Greek Orthodox Church, which was there before the attacks, is being blocked.

And why would that be? Because atomic bombs killed a lot of people there. That's not remotely analogous to a mosque and 9/11.

Fine. Again not remotely analogous until people start opposing the temple because a Mormon offshoot of polygamous engaged in pedophilia and forced marriage of young girls. And when that happens I'll take the exact same stance in defense of the Mormons.

Hell, I'll take the same stance in defense of a temple against charges it shouldn't be allowed because of the church's actual role in Prop 8.

And let's not slip into Newt Gingrich's extremely flawed analogy that Nazi's aren't allowed to built a recruitment center next to the National Holocaust Museum. While he's technically right (since all of the land around the museum is federally owned), he is also wrong. If the American Nazi Party (or whomever) decide they want to start building recruitment centers across the street from every synagogue in the country, I'll take the pre-emptive stance of saying nobody should get in their way. And pro-life groups gets to build confusing clinics across the street from Planned Parenthood offices. And the NRA should be allowed to hold their convention at Columbine High School if they're willing to pay the fee. And so on.

Hurt feelings are almost always a piss poor reason to trying to block things.

Great, now convince the other people who "don't deny their right" but don't support it either and seem more than happy to discuss the use of governmental and quasi-governmental means to try and stop it.

The idea that a mosque is inherently in poor taste and insensitive is entirely based on a faulty assumption.

And I'll credit you with honest doubts about sensitivity. But having read the comments on most discussions on this topic I can't help but feel you're relatively isolated in that view. They always seem to devolve quickly from concerns over appropriateness to just hatred of Muslims in general.

For example, at the Volokh Conspiracy, a libertarian leaning legal blog a post was made yesterday on whether Kelo would allow any kind of taking of the site in question as a way to prevent construction of the mosque.

[quote] particularly when the the project is largely headed by an Imam who refuses to even acknowledge Hamas is a terrorist organization. [quote]

It is odd how Rauf has only become an Islamic extremist in the last couple of months after certain groups decided to oppose this project. Before that he was an voice of Islamic moderateness in the mainstream of American religious discourse. In fact, until recently he was directly critizied by Islamic fundamentalists for his pro-American views.

What happened between December last year when the project received mildly positive coverage on Fox and this summer when suddenly the project morphed into a foothold of Islamic triumphalism? It couldn't just be that it was seized upon as an election season billy club, could it?

Really? Then why are proposed mosques hundreds and thousands of miles away being protested and opposed?

But regardless, is it really your position that Muslims are not welcome to worship in lower Manhattan? It really isn't that big of a place and "a couple miles away" mostly takes you off the island.

The cause for wonder is really only there if one chooses to ignore the fact that the regulatory bodies involved for the two projects are completely different and while bureaucratic inefficiency sucks it is hardly surprising that different bureaucracies move at different speeds and have different hurdles. The question is, if the Greek Orthodox church had purchased the Burlington Coat Factory building and tried to rebuild there would they have been slowed? There is no evidence of that.

But if we're just randomly having causes of wonder, one wonders why those upset by this place of Islamic worship aren't upset by the other pre-existing places of Islamic worship in the neighborhood. Why they weren't upset until "thought leaders" changed their position and decided to be upset? Why the person behind the project was a suspected enemy of America until after people decided to be upset? Why in this case it is ok to take extreme actions by group members as representative for the entire group (as opposed to say, it being ok to assume Tea Party people are all stupid because some of their more vocal members are)? Why so many seem to be crossing their fingers when saying that they support the ideals behind the First Amendment and then explaining why it doesn't really apply in this case?

Just some things I have cause to wonder.

I find the overt racism and anti-Muslim attitudes of the protesters in NYC to be very sad. I would hope people would be able to use their brains a little more than that. Hysteria like this just leads to more misunderstanding.

Check out this video and tell me the people there are acting rationally.

It is to many people. Radical Islamic terrorists are certainly responsible for 9/11. When the Imam won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, it raises questions about his sensitivities.

I was simply pointing out the obvious in that there are a variety of reasons that things are protested in response to GD's point of the uproar if other projects were protested. It was simply one that came to mind because it's local.

Those that are bigoted and hateful are always the loudest. This does not discount that there are others that think this could be handled better, nor does it mean that everyone who thinks this is a bad idea is a bigot or an Islamophobe. Imagine the good will that could be generated toward the Islamic community if the Imam had at least agreed to meet with (and followed though on the meeting) Patterson and discussed moving the site. As I said earlier, they have the right to build there and no one is stopping them. Moving the center would be seen as a tremendous act of good will and would be a remarkable public relations move on behalf of this Imam. Certainly doesn't have to. But it might be a good idea.

It most certainly could be just that. That's what politics is, I suppose. I admittedly don't know anything about the Imam prior to this become big news.

I never said they weren't. But they aren't the huge story that this is. In fact, I even said the center would likely still be protested if built further away, but it wouldn't be the huge uproar it is now.

Why should they? Why should they give in to bigotry and hate? Why should their religious freedoms be less than anyone else's?

Oh, and saying that Ruaf "won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization" is simplistic.

Link Source

Reality tends to be much more complexe and nuanced than Fox News talking points.

I didn't say their freedom is less than anyone else's. I have CLEARLY stated they have the right to build there. This is not in question, just as the right to protest and put pressure on elected officials is a right. I am simply looking at it from a standpoint of public relations.

If the Imam said "People of America, I recognize that the 9/11 attacks on your country are still quite fresh in your minds, and while what I support and the God I serve did not and would never support such an attack, there are those that twist Islam into violence rather than what it truly is. Because of this, we will most certainly be willing to look at alternatives to this site.".

That would diffuse the entire situation. He certainly does not have to and the center will most likely be finished and there will be protests and counter protests and cries of Islamophobia.

What if he called for Saudi Arabia to allow for building of a Christian church? I realize that is completely unrelated to this, except that if he said that he would show his support of religious tolerance in all cases.

To be clear: They own the property. They have the permits. They can build. They have the right. I am looking at it from a public relations standpoint.

I've read that quote. Still seems like a lack of willingness to say that lobbing mortars into Jewish cities is not acceptable.

Turn it around, Leo. What if it was a Catholic community center (not a church) was proposed somewhere where a famous child molester lived. The church building it owns the land, has all the permits, etc, but there was a great public outcry against it by people who (falsely) claim all Catholics are child molesters, and that it's wrong to build there. Would you tell a Christian denomination to give up their rights and build somewhere else just to appease these bigots?

And I look at it from the standpoint of not caving in to ignorant bullying for the sake of political gain. There is NO rational reason for them to back down because there is nothing offensive or inappropriate about their proposal.

A gut, "Really? Mosque? There?" reaction is a totally understandable thing. But any amount of thought, and application of First Amendment reasoning, should lead any rational person to stop right there and recognize how wrong that gut reaction is. And just because there are some idiots that aren't able to do that, and that can scream loudly about it, is no reason to accept their screaming as a reason to "compromise" when no compromise should be necessary. Those idiots should be shouted down.

And as Alex said, they have the right to shout like idiots. But the fact that regulatory options are being explored to block this because of their shouting is 100% unacceptable.

He also didn't condem the Israeli government that sent rockets into Syrian cities. I call it even.

Go interview a Catholic arch bishop about their opinion of how the Vatican has handled sexual abuse scandals. Would a non-committal answer from them mean they're a dangerous person who supports pedophilia?

More likely I would view it as someone who wishes to deflect rightful criticism away from the church. Just as it would appear as this Imam wishes to deflect rightful criticism away from radical Islam.

JW, I don't quite get your analogy. I get that you are trying to link (for the same of argument, not literally) the Catholic church with all pedophiles. What I could understand as an analogy is a center for troubled teens run by the Catholic church and the church refuses to acknowledge whether or not any priests involved in counseling these teens have had issues with molesting children or pediphilia. I would GREATLY condemn that. Building a church near a child molester I'm not getting.

I also bet, if asked, he would gladly and eagerly condemn Israel for such actions.

My gut reaction is certainly as you described, GD, but I then the reason has set in that they have a right and there is no reason to stop them. As far as using buraeucratic means to stop it, I don't support that, but it isn't like things don't happen like that all over, condemning properties in order to seize them, having buildings declared as historical, or finding some reason why a Walmart can't build a big box store in a neighborhood (there have been HUGE protests here in Phoenix regarding that Walmart situation). Not trying to justify using those means, I'm just saying it isn't a new tactic whatsoever.

Simple. "Some Cathilic priests are pedophiles = all Catholics are pedophiles = A Catholic community center near where boys were molested is an outrage because it dishonors the victims!" It's the same twisted logic as "Some Muslums are terrorist = all muslums are terrorists = a Muslum community center near ground zero is an outrage because it dishonors the victims!"

BTW... I specifically said “community center (not a church)”; because it is a community center that is bing built in Lower Manhattan, not a mosque.

You know… on further reflection, I could care less if Ruaf praised Hamas, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or Satan himself. Religious freedom is religious freedom. Your, my, or anyone else’s disagreement with their beliefs does not trump those constitutionally guaranteed rights of free worship. If we allow mob rule to decide who we allow to have religious freedom, if we suppress religious expression because it is unpopular or politically incorrect, then we are truly lost as a nation.

I agree with that, JW. That's why I do not think that it should be stopped.

The issue, again, seems to be perception. THAT is why there are protests. It is the feeling of not wanting to play nice with those who don't want to play nice with you. Perhaps if there was some gesture from the Imam or some statement he could make where he says he wants to play nice then this whole thing would blow over. As it is now it will be built, and there will be resentment. Why not try to avoid that?

In what way, exactly, has he shown he DOESN'T want to play nice? Not caving to irrationally absurd demands? Why is the burden on him when it's the protesters who aren't playing nice?

I have a feeling that, no matter what concessions he might give, the protesters won't be happy.

What concessions would be possible? Until someone with puts their big fat mouths where their big fat money is and buys the Burlington Coat Factory from the Imam and throws in another 5 or 6 million dollars to make up the purchase price elsewhere in Manhattan, there's no concession that will mollify these idiots.

This is an easy issue.

1) Of course, the government shouldn't stop the center from being built, even if they blessed the hijackers at every prayer service. Because the alternative is unacceptable, the First Amendment requires others, in the name of good citizenship, to hold their nose while someone takes a sh*t in the middle of the street. Hence, right wing talk radio.

2) If the imam is using 9/11 to promote his venture, he's an asshole and an especially tin-eared one.

3) All religious figures with political connections and millions of dollars to spend on real estate--be they Franklin Graham, Rabbi Shmuley, the Mormon church or this guy--are to be feared, not felt sorry for.

The Mosque is being built several miles from Ground Zero. It's also being built in existing building that the Fox talking heads [who now have issues with it] had no issue with it around Christmas time.

What changed. Why is it now an issue when it wasn't an issue in December.

Actually, it's just two blocks from ground zero.

And it's not a Mosque!

Whether it is a mosque or not isn't really relevant but the Codoba Institutes own web page for the project calls it a mosque, so I'm fine with calling it that.

obviously though, the entire building is not a mosque.

I just write mosque because it's shorter than "Islamic Community Center".

And protesters are usually never happy unless they get every single demand met. There will be many that would protest no matter where built.

Well at least I know whose ignore list I'm on.

There was an anti "Ground Zero Mosque" ad on my TV this morning. Unbelievable. That sh!t better not persist for too long. I think I'll phone Andrew Cuomo and tell him I support it, just because some assholes are telling me I should do the opposite.

I find it pathetic that the opponents to this building had to go digging around to try to find a scapegoat to use as an excuse for their bigotry.

Inciting fear in the Republican and Tea Party base is great for fundraising.

And that is something that is true and used across the entire political spectrum.

Has anyone asked the Amish about how they feel about having a Mosque Islamic Community Center next door?

They won't return my calls.

Does the State Dept. have to be so braindead?
 

Traditional tribal Afghani society is misogynist and we're shocked! SHOCKED! that pederasty is rampant in Afghanistan.

Any college kid with a semester of Anthro 101 could tell you this is a pattern found around the world when men and women are strictly segregated. It's 110% predictable.

And another simple concept the U.S. government hasn't bothered to understand: culture change happens at a glacial pace, if it is lasting change. That democratization of the Middle East that's supposed to happen in Iraq will take a generation or more.

We need a hand smacking a forehead icon.

Oh, that is horrible. All the way around.

Okay, I don't know if I've posted this before, but, I have a friend who keeps a blog {keeps? writes? has?} He is a very smart fella, I think that many of you would enjoy reading his thoughts.

Unfortunately, he hasn't had a lot of people find his blog.

Please give it a look......

http://mybrainitches.wordpress.com/2...nd-fear-morta/

Sorry - I tied to read it, but the color scheme literally hurt my eyes. As I type this, the after-image is making hard to see what I'm typing. Ouch.

GD~ the 'My Brain Itches' blog? Okay, I'll give him that feedback.

Wow, it looks different now. Awesome. :) I really liked what he had to say, too.

Thank you, CP for checking it out.

This fella is pretty smart, reminds me of a lot of folk around here. LOL Unfortunately, I mostly just give him a hard time. ha ha Trying to recruit for him some intelligent conversation. :0)

I don't know if you had a chance to surf around his site, but, he had a blog called 'Fvcked in the Head'. Oh, what every parent likes to read. But I think about it a lot.

Anyways, thanks and GD, I hope it is better for you? Thank you, too, for checking it out.

he is also on facebook....

egads, what am I doing awake????

The more I think about it the more I roll my eyes at Petraeus's comment about the Qu'ran burning. It's stupid scare tactics, the same brand being spewed by the "other side". Whether or not such a demonstration puts troops in more danger is entirely irrelevant to the merits of the act. If he came up and said that, actually, burning Qu'rans would strike fear in the hearts of the enemy and greatly improve our chances of victory, it would not change my stance on it one iota. It's wrong because it's wrong.

Why is it wrong? I don't mean that rhetorically. I think it is being done to get the exact reaction it is getting. Is it wrong because it is offensive or because in general book burnings are wrong?

Do you think flag burning protests are wrong? Again, I am curious and am not trying to provoke a reaction.

I don't agree with what they are doing. I think it is in poor taste. They are doing it solely for the purpose of being offensive to a particular group of people. But all things that are offensive are not wrong.

I suspect it is wrong in this particular case because the people engaging in the activity likely would not consider it a two-way street. I somehow doubt that if I burned a big stack of Bibles to show how evil I think Evangelical Christianity is that they'd say "well, that's his right and we're ok with him expressing it in this way."

I think it is wrong because their public display of hate of Islam is uncouth (that is, it isn't necessarily a moral wrong, just a social wrong; in other words it is wrong in the way that being needlessly impolite is wrong).

It is not, however, deeply wrong simply because Muslims will be offended (as well as various people who will be offended on behalf of Muslims) so long as none of the Qurans being torched have artifactual value. The ideal response from those who would be offended is not offense but rather going on TV, collectively shrugging their shoulders and saying "well, stupid is as stupid does."

I think it would be interesting for a group to plan a counter protest and burn a Bible to see what it is that this pastor and his congregation would say.

Presumably if it was being done as a counter protest they'd be smart enough from a PR perspective to shrug. I doubt that if a bunch of Muslims last year had decided to do so they'd do the same (and it could be they'd not be smart enough to shrug now either).

I am curious....was Mapplethorpe and his "art" of a crucifix in a jar of urine wrong? That was clearly done to be offensive to Christians. If being deemed art makes it acceptable, would it be OK - or at least not wrong - to take the ashes of a burned Quran and display that as art, with a name comparable to the "Piss Christ" name of Mapplethorphe's work? Maybe call it "Burn Islam" or something like that?

Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction to your post, but when someone uses the word "clearly", it's usually anything but.

And Piss Christ was a work of art by Andres Serrano, not Mapplethorpe.

And I'm sick of "what ifs" posited to make a point.

The truth is, you don't know.

Actually, even when I was a Christian, I found Serrano's Piss Christ not only not offensive, but quite striking and even strangely beautiful.

My apologies about the misnamed artist.

And I'll even agree that you are right in that I do not know that Serrano had a goal of being offensive. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would be taken that way by a lot of people, especially naming it as he did.

So that aside, my question still stands....if ashes of a burned Quran were displayed as "art", would that be acceptable? We could even name it something like "The Ashes of 9/11", signifying the damage that the Islamic radicals had brought to Islam. You might be sick of "what ifs", but I am wondering where the line is about what is right and wrong here.

Well, I'm not going to be of any help, since I don't see anything "wrong" about mass burning of books to make a protest point - let alone art.

I may not agree with that point, and I may foresee many undesirable potential reactions - but it's within this particular asshat's constitutional rights to make such a boneheaded protest.


As a matter of fact, I would think him more of an idiot if he were doing this as performance art rather than protest - but either way, he's within his rights to be a retard.

So, Glenn Beck announces he may be going blind form macular dystrophy, and now Rick Warren blinds himself while pruning a toxic plant? Sounds biblical! And what happened to Rush Limbaugh going deaf? HEY RUSH, ARE YOU DEAF YET?

BTW, I never thought of "Piss Christ" as being intentionally offensive to "Christians." I had always assumed the piece of art was directed at the Catholic Church. The fact that other Christians may have been offended was simply collateral damage.

Here's a piece of "offensive" art I'd like to see: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Rick Warren as a human centipede. Could someone get on that, please?

Rush has a Cochlear implant.

Again, we all need to agree on what we mean by "right" and "wrong" here. Is Piss Christ rude? Yes, to a degree it is. Is it "wrong" to be rude? Yes, in a way it is. Is it morally wrong to be rude? Not really. Is rudeness always wrong? Probably not.

No, I don't consider Piss Christ to be a signicant wrong (especially not morally). No, I wouldn't consider displaying the ashes of burnt Qurans as wrong (especially not morally). No, I don't consider the burning of Qurans as a concept to be wrong (especially not morally).

I do consider irrationally hating a group of people and specifically seeking out a action calculated to most offend those people as wrong (not morally but wrong as in awfully damn rude). Even more wrong is to view (though this is just supposition on my part) it as acceptable to religiously offend other people why expecting your own religious beliefs to be respected.

That said, to the degree anybody in the offended population says "it is so wrong for you to offend me that I will be justified in my violent response" then I feel compelled just on principal to engage in the offense, as I did when I posted all of the offending Mohammed cartoons on my LJ. Sadly, nobody noticed. Similarly, some violently pro-life people make me want to attend medical school so I could perform sidewalk abortions in front of them.

He's deaf. The Oxycontin addiction destroyed his hearing.

Ugh, that reminds me - some friends think I should check out a movie called Centipede where victims are kidnapped by some sicko and then turned into some human centipede by being surgically linked mouth to anus and all their gastrointestinal systems flowing from one to the other.

Uh, I'm NEVER going to see that film - BUT, I wouldn't mind if that really happened to Beck, Limbaugh and Warren, and then put on display at a circus.

uh....ick.

By wrong I meant offensively stupid. And yes, I consider flag burning offensively stupid. Neither should be illegal, but both should be called offensively stupid at any opportunity.

When I saw this I got so pissed and frustrated I wanted to pick up a heavy object and hurl it through a window. What is wrong with people like this?! Unbelievably ignorant.

Ok, I watched that, but I just don't get it. I suppose I need by Tea Bagger decoder ring to see what section of the Constitution Obama violated by proposing that Congress spend a lot of money.

Is it money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some five trillion dollars and counting, that Congress approves with a rubber stamp? Is it the stimulus fund that's now coming to an end? (Wait till the guy on the park bench gets really slammed when that money runs out). Is it the TARP bailout that Bush pushed through which teabaggers love to blame Obama for? (Though he's got plenty of bail-out funds he pushed through himself).

I'm just not sure what the point of the painting is. And with the artist himself narrating a piece about the painting and its meaning (which I daresay most paintings don't boast), I'd say the ongoing mystery to me of the painting's statement makes it a giant fail.






Oh, and it's ugly.

Click through to the artists web site for a larger version of the painting that is annotated to explain why everything in it, is in it.

You can also be reminded of his Jesus is best painting.

It's just overly self satisfied glurge I see from a lot of people, a painted version of Glenn Beck's show.

I did some research on the area that the mosque/community center may be built. There already is a mosque at "Ground Zero" (I put it in quotes because just exactly how far does "Ground Zero" go?) it's called Masjid Manhattan. It's 40 years old.

There was also a Muslim prayer room on the 17th floor of the south tower of the WTC. Imagine that.

Not to mention all those non-terrorist Muslims who died there as well...

I love this guy's cartoons. They are always spot-on.

This one too:

Spot-on is in the eyes of the beholder, I suppose.

Lol, JW! :D

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln

"Yes, that dress makes you look fat."

Abraham Lincoln as seen in recently uncovered film according to short documentary I've been seeing on TV.

???

,,,

A rather disturbing Lincoln quote from one of the Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858 - not quite the picture of Lincoln that everyone usually has....

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
-- September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois

That was pretty much everyone's attitude back then. So? I think that it is remarkable that he was able to overcome these beliefs and freed the slaves and held the union together. Hmmm... Doing the right thing for the country despite your own internal prejudices; now that’s a thought. Too bad we don’t see much of that from republicans now-a-days.

Good lord. How do you even respond to that? We can play tit for tat ALL DAY about politicians on both sides of the aisle not doing what is best for the country for a whole host of reasons. At least I am not so delusional as to think it is only one side of the political spectrum.

I just posted what I thought was an interesting and largely unknown quote from Abe Lincoln. Wow.

But upon further review, he wasn't overcoming any of his personal prejudices. He thought slavery was wrong. Overcoming personal prejudices would have been to say that he didn't think "negroes" were worthy of true equality but granting them that anyway. Overcoming his personal prejudices would have been to say there should be no superior and inferior position.

Sheesh.

Um, Leo, isn't that exactly what the Emancipation Proclamation was? I don't recall there being anything in there about less than full equality, or freedom for the "negroes" while support for Jim Crow laws and lynchings and no full civil rights for another century.

That may be what, in fact, happened - but I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't stipulate to that in furtherance of his purported personal belief that negroes deserved partial equality only, because they were an inferior race of darkies.


I haven't read the E.P. in quite some time. Maybe I'm forgetting something. :rolleyes:

Well, I see you rolling your eyes, but you certainly have missed quite a bit.

First of all, it only ended slavery in states that seceded from the union. Loyal southern border states were exempted, as were portions of the confederacy that were under northen control. It did not even come close to fully ending slavery, nor was it designed to.

It was also a tool used to strengthen the north in the war by allowing some 200,000 black soldiers to join the Northern army and navy.

That said, it was a good thing, but didn't even come close to full equality.

The Emancipation Proclamation said nothing about the equality of blacks as a question of government or non-government realms. It simply said that from X-day forward, as the Union army reclaimed territory from the South, any slaves in those areas would be freed.

It didn't actually even make slavery illegal as technically someone in an area where slaves had been freed could simply import new slaves from areas where they were not yet free.

In fact, there were areas already under Union control before the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect that were exempt from the EP and so those slaves were not immediately freed). At the time, the EP was ridiculed by many for only freeing slaves over which Lincoln had no control and refusing to free those over which he did control. It actually took longer to free the slaves in Delaware (a Union state) than in Mississippi (a Confederate) because Delaware was excempt from the EP and slavery remained legal until the passage of the 13th Amendment.

As for equality I have no doubt that Lincoln didn't view blacks as equal. Hardly any of the hardcore abolitionists thought of blacks as equal. I do'nt recall what his position on what eventually became the 14th Amendment was (which is when blacks were given equality at least in terms of government treatment).

From South Park - Bigger, Longer and Uncut:

Chef: Haven't you heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?
General: I don't listen to Hip-Hop.

Sometimes I forget how small this island I live on is. I sent an email to a candidate for House rep in my district telling him I voted for him. 5 minutes later, I got a personal response from him (or his intern). Small island.

Should this scare me?

It seems to me that a Supreme Court Justice of the US (Breyer) is saying that doing things that have been protected as free speech under the First Amendment should not be protected if they make people angry.

If burning a Quran leads radical Islamics to kill people, then burning the Quran should not be allowed. He is likening it to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

I dare say if that what he is saying is what I think he is saying, then there is no free speech any longer, because it gives the power to the psychotic who kill or threaten violence when offended by a word or an action.

Am I reading too much into this?

I disagree with his conclusions, but it does not yet scare me. We are many many layers of cases and briefs, as Breyer points out, away from the opinion he's expressed to have any weight, and there's no telling by then, if it ever reaches that point, what his opinion might be.

Many layers, yes, but I could see this starting sooner rather than later.

It just REALLY scares me that a Supreme Court Justice thinks this way.

It would "scare" me if it were actually ruled that way. But based on such a short quote out of a conversation I don't know that I am super bothered by it.

First, all of the Supreme Court justices hold opinions that I disagree with.

Second, it is essentially this man's job to think deeply about topics and see all the shades of gray. It is valid to muse on where the edges of "shouting fire in crowded theaters" exceptions to the First Amendment lie and how they might shift over time. I'd be extremely surprised if when a real case were before him, he supported such a weakening of the First Amendment. But I have no problem with him discussing the nuances of it all.

But yes, I'd consider it a travesty if the Supreme Court were to someday rule in favor of so broad a hecklers veto and to me there is no way igniting a quran (or a flag or a bible or a picture of the pope or drawing a picture of Mohammed sodomizing Mary Baker Eddy or etc.) is equivalent to shouting fire.

There are many things that Scalia, Alioto, and Thomas think and say that terrify me.

Except nowhere in the limited quote provided does he say he's reached any sort of conclusion. The only thing it indicates is that there is an argument to be made that will need to be addressed and reasoned out. Sounds like what a judge is supposed to do to me.

Does it scare you when Bill Kristol essentially says the same thing as he did here? (Though obviously, Bill Kristol has a infinitesimal actual importance compared to a Supreme Court justice).

I think Dahlia Lithwick does a good job thinking about what he said here.

Well god damn the stupid fvcking Republicans and their teabagger friends. God damn our stupid fvcking spineless President. God damn this stupid fvcking country, with liberty and justice for white heterosexual males.

That's my random political thought for today. :mad:

I mean, they couldn't even agree to DEBATE the f'ing thing.

What he said. :(

Does the ruling out of the Federal Court effect this?

And this process of attaching unrelated things to bills needs to stop. Though it would be interesting to see what would happen if repealing DADT was attached to a bill extending tax breaks for the "rich".

That's true. It would be interesting to see who would cross the aisle in both directions.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Damn, I've been so busy with work lately I almost forgot there is an election coming up soon.

Fortunately, the press is glad to step in and remind me.

HIGH ALERT: NEW 'TERROR THREAT'

It wouldn't be good to go to the polls without a sense of fear and impeneding disaster looming.

Killing the False Equivalency "Both Sides" Meme

I'm sure many people on the left think that their trespasses aren't as bad as the trespasses of the right. I could (shock!) find just as many people on the right who would say the same thing in a vice versa sort of way.

I suppose that "all out strangling" by the right would be referred to as standing up for one's principles if on the left.

Yawn.

So, Leo, do you support the Republican obstruction of the Senate? Do you agree with DeMint's plan to put a hold on every single piece of legislation that he doesn't like? Can you name one Democrat that has ever threatened to do the same?

Yup, definitly election time pandering when the Senate passes legislation that will actually make a positive difference in this country.

About freaking time.

The current rule says that a commercial may be no louder than the peak volume of the program that it's running with. Of course, that peak can be one little millisecond, so commercials can be WAY louder than a program still. This bill changes it so a commercial can be no louder than the average volume of the program.

Bravo.

Wow....that saves me from having to pick up my remote and mute the TV. Once again, legislation that makes a real difference in our lives.

Hey JW - I'll play the tit for tat game once....I can't think of anything exactly like what Demint is doing, nor can I claim to completely support it, but there is something comparable with this - which documents Pelosi House rule changes thatr limit the ability of the minority party to make any alterations to legislation. Seems pretty despicable to me. And quite similar. Took me about two minutes to find.

So rather than going tit for tat all day, I will stand by my frequent statements that both sides play dirty hardball politics, and will not pretend that only the "other side" does it or that one side is worse than the other.

Oh you're so right scaeagles. I mean, just LOOK at all the legislation that the Dems have been able to railroad through congress since last January, with zero obstacle from the minority!

There's a good reason the Dems have the reputation of being "inept and ineffectual". The Republicans are flat out better at playing the game.

Do you similarly contend that because when the 49ers play the Steelers, since both sides are similarly playing football, neither side is better or worse at it?

I don't necessarily disagree with you in the idea that the qualitative sins aren't that different. But find it odd to say that sins both sides sins there's no would be no qualitative difference (or perhaps any would simply be irrelevant).

As far as obstructionism goes, I'd say that the two sides have been in a 30 year arms race and thus, almost by definition, how ever is currently on the obstructionist side will be the worst obstructionists in living memory. Though I do like the tactic of simultaneously touting one's obstructions and then using the failure of the other side to do what they attempted as a reason to vote for you.

I'm thinking there was something major called Obamacare that was shoved through without anyone reading and Pelosi said something to the effect of "well, we have to pass it so we will know what's in it!". That was pretty major....yes there was opposition, but I think that's what an opposition party is actually for.

And I completely disagree - I think democrats are way better at the game than republicans.

I meant "worse" not in the way of one side is better or worse at using such tactics, but that both sides use whatever tactics might be at their disposal to the same general degree.

I never said the Democrats don't play dirty politics. But I stand by my statement that what the Republicans are currently doing is far worse.

Did you even read the article, BTW?

Only your quote. I did other research on Demint to see from other sources what the issues are and interestingly, those other sources on Demint say that most republicans are against what he is doing. So it is an issue of Demint, not an issue of republicans in general.

Rangel is a dirty tax cheat, but I will not state that all democrats are dirty tax cheats. That would be ridiculous. So you can say what Demint is doing is worse than what any other democrat has done. I would regard what Pelosi did as roughly equivalent. If I wanted to weigh which demonstrates worse behavior by a party, I'd say the Pelosi does, simply because her maneuverings required the vote and consent of her (not long for the world) democrat majority....it wasn't her all by herself.

It's called the "Affordable Health Care Act". "Obamacare" is the dismissive title your side gave it.

Anything that took months of rangling and discussion in Congress, the media, town hall meetings, and in public discussion before being passed can not be considered to have been "shoved through". Plenty of people read it before it was passed, including Republicans. (And if they voted on it without reading it, shame on them!)

I also recall that the most villified provision - the mandate - was actually insisted on by the Republicans, and included by the authors in a laughable attempt to appease obstructionist Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats.

As for that Pelosi quote, could you please provide a cite? The only places I can find it are on right-wing hate sites. BTW, Here is a list of just as, if not more, outragious quotes from Republicans.

Right wing hate sites....good lord. It's all over youtube for anyone that really wants to find it.

Again, not worth it to go tit for tat, so I'm dropping out....although since your source for you republican quotes is off of a left wing hate site I can't really take it seriously anyway. I suppose I could go on some right wing hate sites to find more outrageous quotes than those!

(That's a joke, by the way - relax.)

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

What gets me is the last round of unemployment being held up by Republicans crying to be more fiscally conservative and touting that the tax credit would be expiring as an example. They filibustered it and left a whole lot of people without benefits for a month. Yes - they caught up but during that month people still have urgent expenses like groceries, gas to get to work, etc. (not to mention rent!)

Now that the unemloyement thing has passed for the moment, where are those Republicans who were saying the tax credit should expire?

I do believe we discussed this at the time but your quote here isn't correct and completely misrepresents what she said.

The full quote was (bolding mine):

She knew what was in the bill. Her colleagues knew what was in the bill. She was telling these local government officials that congress needed to get the bill passed so that these local government officials could begin to act on what was in the bill, with certainty, and without the ongoing debate.

But yes, when you take half of one sentence out of a paragraph in a 5 minutes speech and then change one of the pronouns, then it is easy enough to make the speaker look stupid.

When I googled the exact wording you used in your post, all I got were right-wing sites that were screaming about "EVIL MUSLIM SOCIALIST OBAMA". As Alex has posted, the real quote is... well... completely different.

If Huffington Post is a "left wing hate site", then Fox News a far right wing one. I'm sure you'll agree as you seem to like tit-for-tat so much.

scaeagles, no offense, but you just got pwned by Alex, the fact-checking machine. Man up and apologize.

Indeed I did. I fully withdraw that and admit I did not have that quote in context.

To use Mr. Stewart's language, the opposition party (currently the Republicans) have a stranglehold on accomplishing anything because there are no 100% solutions. We can't discuss or pass 80% solutions because ZOMG! the American people demand perfection. Not only do we demand perfection, we can't even agree what that is. Everyone gets three squares and a cot? Only deserving people are rewarded? Only God's favorites succeed? Population increases/decreases for particular groups? It doesn't matter, as long as you have nicer stuff than your neighbor?

And, actually, I think the football analogy is apt. At all cost, prevent the other side from scoring! Whether the "score" is harmful or beneficial isn't important. Just keep them at zero!

In football, aside from taking a safety towards the very end of the game for field position purposes, when would it ever be "beneficial" to allow the other team to score:confused:

Do you really want politics to *be* a football game?

Not at all, but it wasn't I who introduced football into the discussion nor did I suggest that the analogy was "apt"

Apt as in, "They act like it's a football game when they shouldn't."

Oh, ok, I guess I get it ...

Jerry Brown's my main man - loved his response in the debate that now that he's married he wouldn't be closing the bars of Sacramento.

Christine O'Donnell is shocked to learn that the separation of church and state is in the First Amendment.

Starts at about 5:30.

Beat me to it by a minute, JW.

Of course, then her deomcratic opponent failed to name ANY of the other 4 freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

A couple of winners there.

Wow.

I'm sure he would have if he were asked. However, they weren't the topic.

I have heard the soundbite. I believe her contention was that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution...and indeed it isn't. I do not think after hearing it that she was surprised that the concept exists, only that she disagrees with the interpretation. As you all know, the phrase came from a letter from from Jefferson to a church to assure them that the government would not be interfering with them.

From Wikipedia (not my favorite source, but the quickest one to find) -

While that is the currently accepted phrase, it isn't in the Constitution. I honestly don't think she was shocked about the principle coming from there, but that she was pointing out that those words do not exist in the document. It could be that people here find that more concerning than her supposed ignorance.

She's part of the end of the political spectrum that does not believe the First Amendment has been properly interpreted by the Supreme Court. No surprise there.

But if she was simply trying to win points on whether the phrase "separation of church and state" is word for word in the First Amendment then that's almost as stupid since it is very much the case that the separation of church and state created (in her opinion, as later stated in a supposed defense) by the Supreme Court is very much founded on its analysis of the First Amendment.

So, to me, it is like if I were to say "the 13th Amendment frees the slaves. And her brilliant response was "you're saying that frees the slaves is in the constitution? You're saying that's in the 13th Amendment? What a maroon you are, that phrase appears nowhere in the constitution." Technically right, totally moron.

But then of course there's the fact that, if the transcripts are correct she first questioned whether "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution and Coons quoted the relevant part to her and she didn't restate that the phrase was in the Constitution but instead questioned whether what he just quoted to her was in the Constitution.

And I'm always curious about those who use Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists as evidence that the first amendment was intended to be only a protection of religion from the state but then ignore Madison's (who was actually there and involved in writing the Constitution, unlike Jefferson) many writings that just as strongly convey that the intent was also to protect government from religion.

In other news, my mother has taken to posting Ayn Rand quotes on Facebook.

Rand adoration is cute in 20 year olds, a bit tiresome in 40 year olds, and scary when a new discovery by a 53 year old.

If you are referring to me, I was simply pointing out where the phrase came from. I am typically far more in line with Madisonian interpretations than Jeffersonian (or Hamiltonian, for that matter).

Also, while it is the currently accepted interpretation of the first amendment, it is not universally accepted and there are many intelligent people who do not like the current interpretation. Just many intelligent people disagree on the second amendment, it is possible for intelligent people to disagree on this, and to the extent to which the phrase, if accepted as the interpretation, goes.

No, if you're not arguing that point of view then I'm not referring to you. The post was just in response to the many "the First Amendment is a one way barrier" arguments I've seen lately.

But then I'm pretty strongly in the first amendment absolutist camp so they always seem silly to me.

About your comment on those who would point to Jefferson's letter and then ignore Madison's writings....that isn't that uncommon on any aspect of the constitution. Most people who care to try read up on various interpretations of portions of the constitution would pick and choose those that fall in line mostly with their own. For example, there was a discussion here once about the general welfare clause. My point of view is in line with Madison, who viewed a loose interpretation of the clause as a blank check for the government. I would suspect that many who would prefer his writings on the first amendment would not fall in line with his views on the general welfare clause.

Sure, confirmation bias is a hard road to get off. When it comes down to it, I just try to resist holding up the founders as particularly useful participants in current discussion. They were smart, they are interesting to look at, but ultimately they are individually irrelevant and one can find a quote to support any position especially when one simply finds the quotes through Bartlett's rather than actual familiarity with what they had to say.

Doesn't make it any less annoying to deal with.

You didn't get far enough. Coons brings it up again, and quotes the first ammendment (no law establshing, etc. etc.) she says, "That's in the first amendment?" Start at 7:07 in the clip JW linked to.


O'donnel did later ask him and he was unable to answer, after which he said something like, "hey, isn't the moderator supposed to be asking the question."

Another interesting take on this issue.

Yeah, not only did she FAIL the question very specifically later - as GD just referred to, if you watch the clip, it's inescapable what a DUMBSH!T she is. It's really quite astounding - even for her!

Bwahahahaha, I missed that stuff (it wasn't on the clip I saw, which was just the First Amendment stuff). Too bad. I don't want her ducking her position on evolultion. It's vital that it be out there more, if people are going to grok my Halloween costume.

(The El Mio theme this year is Fairy Tales, Myths and Legends.)

For anyone who's interested; here is a good list of Madison's thoughts on the separation of church and state.

my favorite: (Emphasis mine)

I agree with that 100%.

I doubt Christine O'Donnell does. (Or the majority of teapartiers, for that matter.)

I'd bet she does. She and I would just disagree on what it means government can do without actually doing "compelling" anything.

Oh please! She and her ilk would like nothing better than to shove their own personal brand of religion down everyone elses's throats.

How so, JW? What is it that she would do? I would guess the two primary things on everyones mind would be her stance on abortion, same sex marriage, and teaching creationism.

Abortion is opposed by many non religious people as well. It's a 50-50 split in most polls. Same sex marriage is something like 60-40 against and even in CA there were votes that showed opposition to it. Creationism...OK. Maybe you have something there, but I fail to see how that's a huge threat unless you are talking some sort of slippery slope argument, and I make those all the time, so I'm OK with them.

Typically what the division on the meaning of separation of church and state comes down to what is viewed as hostility toward religion, Christianity in particular. I think there are some extreme examples of it. They don't want to be threatened that professing as a tenet of their faith that homosexual conduct is sinful is hate speech. They don't understand why groups want crosses taken out of Arlington. Any number of things. And I do believe it scares them. While I'm sure that there are groups that would like the Bible taught as...uh...gospel in the public school, I think those are quite a huge minority.

The fear is that to many, freedom of religion is becoming freedom from religion. While no one is forced to worship, nor should they be, no one should be forced to NOT worship or think as they please.

I also do not think that the protests against Mosques have as much to do with Islam as is it opposed to radical Islamists. If CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the Saudis and bin Laden and whomever were willing to all denounce radical Islam, much of this fear would subside and i think the vast majority of protests would stop.

The fact that so many terrorists had seemed to be so assimilated into western culture (BBQ's with neighbors, partying at bars and strip clubs, living in suburbs, etc) makes it difficult for any Muslim to claim no affiliation or sympathies with extremists- people just say "yeah, that's what they want us to believe, but I'm not buying it".... Barack Obama has proclaimed his Christianity to the world, and I still hear on an almost daily basis that he's a closet Muslim, and by extension a terrorist sympathizer. Various individuals and groups have disavowed any allegiance to the extremists on multiple occasions, but the sad truth is that many people cannot and will not trust that they are being honest.

Wow... Just... Wow. Where do I start?

People like O'Donnel want to impose their narrow version of Christianity on the entire nation, and outlaw everything else. They want it to be law. It's not just their opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and science. They want us all to live under a fundamentalist Christian sharia law.

While it is true that some non-religious people oppose abortion, many religious people support a woman’s right to chose.

You are absolutely wrong about the support for same-sex marriage. The current polls show about 60% support for it. And as for “votes that showed opposition to it’… there are still people in this country that would vote to outlaw interracial marriage; deny minorities and women the right to vote; and, I would be willing to bet, reinstate slavery. So what?

Forcing creationism to be taught in public schools is a threat. It threatens the scientific and rational growth of this country. It is also a slap in the face to every non-Christian and every free thinking Christian child it is force fed too.

I have to finish this now, because I need to go. I’ll address your paragraph on the separation of church and state later.

You say this with the same proof as people who claim Obama is a Muslim.

After a very brief and completely not thorough search, I find I wasn't too far off, but my data (based on this one citing) is about a year old.

From a recent CNN story:
Not too far off the 20% I referenced off the top of my head, but again, a year old.

I can see that. The reason is that the most vocal in the Islamic world are the extremists - as is the case in most groups of people. If the leadership in the Islamic community that opposes terrorism and Islamic extremism would become the most vocal and loudly oppose bin Laden and his ilk then the idea that not all Muslims want to kill the infidel would gain traction and eventually be accepted.

Sure. But why do they have to reach that bar? I read lots of your posts, and I rarely see you condemning the God Hates Fags people.

Once you start condemning them here every day, I'll be a little less suspicious of your "Christianity".

Are they the most vocal, or are they the ones that your window on the world gives the most voice to?

The proof I have is reading what they themselves have written.

As for the poll numbers... What does it really matter anyway? Are we to begin only giving rights that the majority approves of? I don't think I want to live in your America.

Now... I want to respond to your previous message regarding separation of church and state. You stated that this is viewed as hostility towards religion. Hogwash! It’s respecting the religious rights of all people. One of the main purposes of that 1st amendment clause is to protect the religious minorities (including those who profess no religion) from the majority using government power to persecute them. Being a Christian does not give you the right to use the government to persecute those you disagree with. This same protection, by the way, keeps Christians from being persecuted too. It’s a two way street. The 1st Amendment guarantees that all religions belief is equal under the eyes of the law, and that no religion belief is promoted over any other. The separation of church and state protects everyone.

They have every right to profess that homosexuality is a sin. What they do not have the right to do is make their belief law. And I am aware of no law in this country that punishes “hate speech”. Would you care to elaborate?

And while you are at it, can you please explain just who is trying to remove crosses from Arlington? Or any of those “any number of things” you claim are persecuting Christians? What Christians have been forced to stop peacefully worshiping as they see fit? Please name the churches that have been raided; the ministers or congregants that have been jailed for their beliefs.

I can give you any number of examples of non-Christians being persecuted by Christian majorities.

Claiming that not having the right to force everyone to follow their narrow view of Christianity is somehow denying them their freedom of religion is the same as someone who kills another person with a gun claiming that laws against murder infringe on their 2nd Amendment rights.

I condemn the God Hates Fags people. I will condemn them every time I hear of them doing their stupid stuff.

Something tells me that isn't going to help your suspicion.

Perhaps there is valid insight in that post.

Touché.

But you get my point.

Since I'm not a church-going kind of guy, the majority of time I hear Christian leaders on TV is when they're condemning something.

It would make anyone suspicious.

Crap, JW...I just wrote a lengthy response to your post and it took too long and I lost it. No time to repeat now, but I will eventually.

I do get your point, and quite honestly, TV preachers make me suspicious. I am a church goer and those guys creep me out, so I can't imagine what they'd do to someone who isn't a church goer.

I agree that freedom of religions includes freedom from religion. It should be that way.

I think the mosque protests are based in a "NIMBY" mindset. If there are no mosques, people can pretend no Muslims live nearby. Maybe that part is based on fear of fundamentalists, but if there's a mosque, every time a person drives by they are forced to recognize that there are enough of "them" to have a mosque.

I think the extremists are the ones who get the most coverage. They're easy to cover- moderates are just kind of living their lives; they may see no need to make a statement unless something happens.

Ewww. I used to have to go to worship services that had that same unceasing droning bad music. Hearing people shouting at high emotional pitch over such thuddingly insistent music just felt like brainwashing to me, and I developed a resistance to (and revulsion for) such overwrought displays. All personal beliefs and ideology aside, we should teach children to question really hard when grown-ups resort to this kind of manipulation. We should show kids the how-to of such techniques and inoculate them from their influence. (They'll encounter this kind of crap from all quarters. It isn't just the right or the religious who employ such bluster.) Anyway, yes, pretty repugnant.

And can these people really claim that their faith brings them peace?!? (I asked my Dad the same thing once, as he spent many years living in a similar state of constant agitated pleading and cajoling hyper-prayer. It was day and night, hour after hour, and emotionally exhausting just to be around. Some people have a lot more energy than I do!)

Freedom OF Religion and Freedom FROM Religion are not mutually exclusive! They are the same thing! The faith of most every Christian I know is founded on freedom of conscience. The only way to guarantee that is to keep government free from the influence of any and all religions, and keep all religions free from the intrusion of government, except where their actions infringe on the rights of others. Why is this controversial!?!

And if church and state are NOT separate, it begs the question, which church is part of the government? They can't all be, and boy, there are a bunch of 'em! Even in the realm of Southern Baptists (to pick at random) there are countless splinters, sects and exclusionary congregations. Do these people want a state church? If so, I ask again, which one? Every church finds practically every other church to be in error and unacceptable to God. Isn't it obvious that it's best to leave all of these congregations to their own affairs and keep them out of everyone else's?

Anyway, I wasn't planning to rant, just to comment on the sh!tty church music. Peace out.

Can we have him back as President again? Please?

Tea Party violence - Move On member shoved to the ground and stomped on by Rand Paul supporters.

I predict we'll see more of this as the election gets closer.

Rand Paul's characterization of the incident as a "crowd control problem" with zero remorse or even regret expressed, was also quite disgusting.

As in - the crowd not having any self control?

Turns out the guy doing the stomping was wearing a "Don't Tread on Me" button.

In his defense, he thought it said "teard," which is how he thought "turd" was spelled.

I was scanning thru the HuffPost's selection of Funniest Signs at the weekend's Sanity Rally in D.C., when I ran across this pertinent example:

:snap: :cakes: :snap: :cakes:

Get out and vote today!!!

I was first to vote in our precinct. Yay! I am wearing my "I voted" sticker proudly today.

I was going to leave early to vote today but fortunately a Facebook friend offered the opportunity to vote in comments on one of her posts.

Just one more thing that Facebook makes simpler.

As if you used Facebook! ;)

I use Facebook.

"As for the Republicans—how can one regard seriously a frightened, greedy, nostalgic huddle of tradesmen and lucky idlers who shut their eyes to history and science, steel their emotions against decent human sympathy, cling to sordid and ...provincial ideals exalting sheer acquisitiveness and condoning artificial hardship for the non-materi­ally-shrew­d, dwell smugly and sentimentally in a distorted dream-cosmos of outmoded phrases and principles and attitudes based on the bygone agricultur­al-handicr­aft world, and revel in (consciously or unconsciously) mendacious assumptions (such as the notion that real liberty is synonymous with the single detail of unrestricted economic license or that a rational planning of resource-d­istributio­n would contravene some vague and mystical ‘American heritage’…) utterly contrary to fact and without the slightest foundation in human experience? Intellectually, the Republican idea deserves the tolerance and respect one gives to the dead."

- HP Lovecraft

Letter to C.L. Moore, August 1936 quoted in “H.P. Lovecraft, a Life” by S.T. Joshi, p. 574

Really? Huh. for some reason I thought it was like smiley faces to you. :D :p :cheers:

But I already voted last week......but if you insist, I'll vote again:D

It's not my favorite, but I can't deny the network effects. But I've been involved with the various iterations of online social networking for the last 20 years so I've pretty much got my fingers in all of them to some degree (I think the only really big one that missed me completely was MySpace).

I voted this morning. I admit that I was a bit overwhelmed by all of the yes/no options for the judiciary. I spent some time googling the various people, and finally just gave up and voted 'yes' for those endorsed by the Democratic Party, and didn't cast a vote either way for the ones I didn't know.

I just voted!

I just voted and now have California über Alles in my head

With the apparent split between the way California has voted and the way the rest of America has voted, talk of secession is on the rise.



And that's a good thing.

But I am not a Witch lost. YAY!

Really? Have you seen how good this state is at governing itself? Not likely to get better without a steady flow of federal money coming in and a steady supply of the best and brightest from the other 49 cut off.

My prediction for the next two years:

Nothing truly significant will pass. This will be because initially there'll be too much chest puffing to get anything done. And then in three or four months the 2012 presidential campaign will start and neither party will be willing to give the other anything that might remotely help them in that election.

Obama will win again in 2012. The House will remain flat. The senate will flip Republican (because there will still be plenty of pent up anti-incumbency against that 1/3rd of the Senate that can't be relieved in this election).

Nothing significant will change in California because the structural failures can't be fixed by politicians of any party or willingness to work together.

Oh yes, full and total gridlock is in store. But that's better than he Teabaggers and Republicans actually getting to implement their sick agenda. Let them taste do-nothing for a couple of years, and enjoy the flavor of stuck-in-the-mud.

Alex, I wasn't so much addressing California's efficacy as an independent nation. Its government remains appalling. But I'm proud(er) of its voters, as compared to every other state with the exception of New York, in being smart enough to live largely in urban areas and vote the actual lesser of the two evils they are limited to choose from.

With the exception of the marijuana initiative (which was an intensely bad version of legalization), California seems to have voted pretty wisely on the remaining ballot initiatives as well.

Prop 20 passed - so the redistricting commission voted in by the public not long ago to take that vital function away from the gerrymandering legislature will now have its work apply to U.S. Congressional districts in California, in addition to state legislature districts. There's some weirdities in this law as well that are not so hot, but overall an improvement over the guaranteed incumbency of many Congressional seats.

The related proposition, Prop 27, was defeated. Good. This would have put that redistricting commission entirely out of business, before its even begun to work on state districts - much less the Congressional districts that it will now also have purview over.

Prop 21 was defeated - apparently California voters don't want to save state parks if it means paying $18 more per year on their car registration, or perhaps they reasonably don't believe that their $18 will go towards any such thing when it comes down to it. Either way, not our best moment this election - but not a biggie.

Prop 22 passed - prohibiting the legislature from taking funds which voters have earmarked for transportation, redistricting and certain local government projects and using those to plug the swiss cheese holes in the general budget by spending those monies on other things entirely.

Prop 23 was defeated - this was the other biggie on the ballot, the oil company measure to roll-back the recently-enacted clean air and energy regulations that California has become duly famous and beaconish for. I'm not sure it's sad when only 26% of the people vote when it's entirely possible that only 26% of the people are smart enough to. It's a really good thing this measure failed, despite vast monies spent by oil companies.

Also a biggie, Prop 25 passed - now at least the state budget can be passed with a simple majority vote. It's a step towards inching away from the total gridlock which has paralyzed our state government for decades. But of course, the real power - the power to tax - remains mired in a two-thirds majority requirement. And speaking of which ...

The other low point in the ballot measure results - Prop 26 passed - which will transform most fees and charges to oil and energy companies into taxes that must be approved by a two-thirds majority (and thus will never be levied). This is a big win for oil companies, which I think sneaked-in under the wire while the public was focused on Prop 23. Let's see how much the voters enjoy this when the next big oil spill happens off the Long Beach coast and the offending oil company is not required to pay for clean-up.

Gridlock, to a certain extent, is the Teabagger agenda.

While I favor some form of independent district drawing the entire structure of the commission is pretty stupid. It is pretty much based on the idea that a critical task should be performed by people who have absolutely no experience or expertise in that critical task. Kind of like the stereotype of juries that anybody informed enough to do the job well can't be trusted to do the job well. So better to get people who will do it poorly.

Prop 25 is the only prop I voted yes on as it is the only one that addresses a structural flaw in California government. The passage of the philosophically conflicting 25 and 26 just emphasizes why government through proposition is a bad idea.

Laughed out loud at Boehner's pronouncement that he's going to start by repealing the health care bill. Way to start off on a futile foot there, Boehner. I'm sure you're going to win a ton of support and respect by failing to repeal something that half the country doesn't want repealed, making it your to priority, while 10% of Americans still don't have jobs. Love your priorities!

And yes, I am, and will continue to be, pronouncing it as 'Boner'.

I'm sure he knows that a repeal won't actually go into affect but he would win just as many brownie points among the base if he actually gets the House to pass a full (or significant repeal).

And for that base it would be a significant clarion call for 2012. "See, we did everything we could. Give us the senate and the presidency and it'll be gone the day after inauguration."

That really is the one horrible flaw I see in the healthcare bill that passed (public option would have been great but it wasn't going to happen regardless of when Obama took it off the table). We'll have too much time to hate it before people decide it's the new third rail.

Okay, I've stepped into the way back machine for this one. I let this gem slide at the time it was posted, but it's been rattling around in the back of my mind since and yesterday's voting and the surrounding discussions agitated back to the forefront.

I seriously can't say this without sounding insulting and if this crosses the line of ad hominem I suppose it will need to be moved, but really...if you truly believe that democrats are better at playing politics than republicans than I honestly think you're delusional.

We're talking about the party that made "death panel" and "birther" household words with nary a whimper of protest from the other side vs. the party that barely managed a single piece of major legislation while in control of both houses and the Presidency (and a knackered version that left them bruised and battered at that). The party that continues to campaign, effectively, as the "small government party" while being no such thing vs. the party that is too afraid of its own shadow to use the fact that their tax plan cuts taxes for most Americans as a campaign talking point. The party that regularly claims as their platform to be the nation's moral compass despite regular transgressions by key members against that very morality vs. the party that didn't want to bad mouth the medical insurance industry to bolster the health care bill lest they seem "anti-business".

I don't think I'm saying anything radical by saying that, over the past 3 decades or so, the Republicans are better at, as a party, delivering a unified and effective political strategy than the Democrats.

I hope they bring shovels to DC because they are digging their own graves when nothing gets done.

For all their bitching about the "left" not being willing to give them what they want their mantra of no compromise is going to have the opposite effect on them in the end.

Maybe then the fractures in the Republican party will heal, the religious zelots and far right loons will get the fvck out and join the Tea Party and we can get back to big government vs small government, more tax vs less tax, lets try and meet in the middle politics.

To piggy-back on GD's observations - Conservatives also have a well-oiled communications network of think tanks, training sessions, action teams, and media mouthpieces that the Democrats just sit back and drool over because, for the life of them, they cannot seem to get such a thing going - though they don't lack either the money or the know-how.

I am completely agast!

What the fvck country do we live in now?!?!? That DA needs to lose his job! Not only that, he needs to be investigated for corruption and malfeasance! NO ONE should be above the law, I don't care what profession he is!

I am so angry and fed up I want to throw something!

Just to be a muckraker, I am going to toss this blurb out from an industry newsletter:

That was 2008. What is it now that the economy is in the toilet? The rich aren't the ones having their jobs shipped overseas, and their houses foreclosed.

And what percentage of all income do that top 1% represent? If they made 38% of the profit in the economy, then they should be paying 38% of the taxes (my guess is that, if you include ALL of their income, that they account for well over 38% of the total US income).

A related question - what percentage of their intake does that 38% represent?

In 2008 the top 1% of income earners reported 20% of income and paid 38% of taxes. Top 5% reported 35% of income and paid 59% of income taxes.

Since much of the bottom 50% of income earners is mostly exempt from income taxes that makes sense it would be skewed that way.

Of course, this is just federal adjusted gross income (which does tend to skew things to the benefit of the wealthier since they have more ways to adjust their income downward).

But federal income tax is progressive, while sales taxes and payroll taxes tend to be regressive and the picture would change (though I don't know how much) if total tax burden were used.

Now the problem really is what constitutes "fair share." Personally, I don't care that I'm taxed at a higher rate than most people I know.

Which is what I was getting at with "ALL of their income." All of these numbers tend to obscure the fact that higher income earners have sources of incoming money that do not fall under "income" and can be sheltered from tax.

Yep. Which is why single-line stats are a terrible way to look at things.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I heard an interesting idea today. For every American job their company ships (or has shipped) overseas, a CEO's tax rate goes up .01%. Watch how fast those jobs come flying back to America!

"Facts to a Liberal are like Kryptonite to Superman."

- Larry Elder (no relation)

JWBear's idea might feel good emotionally but it could never be implemented and if it did would, I expect, have the opposite impact desired (that is keeping jobs out of America and further pushing the companies themselves to relocate out of the United States)

Not to mention the definitional problem of precisely identifying what is a job that "moved" out of the country (I assume that this is what is meant by "overseas" and not that Mexico is ok). Some are obvious, but many are not.

If I fire 300 people in a U.S. call center and open an Indian one with 100 people, how many jobs moved? My friend recently moved permanently from Seattle to France while keeping the same job, did that move overseas? The CEO ultimately responsible for Budweiser is a Brazilian who lives in Belgium. How are we going to punish him when he moves a bottling plant from Arizona into Mexico since he likely doesn't pay U.S. income taxes? Etc.

Yes, out of the country. Mexico and Canada count.

100

No. An American still holds the job.

Foriegn owned companies should no longer be considered "American", and have heavy tarrifs imposed. If you want to operate a company in America, it needs to be owned and operated by Americans. A bit jingoistic, I know, but it's time we start thinking of your own people first.

Ah, destroy the American economy outright. That'll work well in the long run.

Should Ford not be allowed (or strongly, strongly discouraged) to build and sell cars in India?

Justice Scalia says the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals or women.

Disgusting.

:blush:

I saw a headline today referencing the "Slurpee Summit" and thought, "Fvck that's a horrible thing to call Obama's recent trip to India."

Wow. What about black people? They weren't originally included either.

You know, if the Republican are right and the fate of job growth, and our entire economy, hinges on whether 2% of the population pays an extra $1500 or so in taxes next year or not, we're all fvcking doomed anyway as far as I'm concerned.

Reading the article it sounds like he was just stating fact. The 14th Amendment was not written to apply to homosexuals or women (or blacks, or....)

Are you saying the 14th Amendment as written is disgusting or that Scalia is Disgusting for pointing it out?

Sorry, no. I'll quote directly from the article, "Scalia made similar comments in September when he told a San Francisco law school that the Constitution offers no protection whatsoever to homosexuals or females. (bolding mine)" This is what he believes, and I find that belief to be disgusting.

So, since they finally got around to extending those protections (I choked a little as I typed that) to women, does that mean he is amenable to doing the same for homosexual persons as well?

He's not necessarily opposed to them being protected, he just doesn't feel that the protections necessarily originate in the constitution.

Which is true for many rights and protections we have. Many things are allowed by the constitution that aren't required by the constitution.

While I don't particularly agree with his brand of originalism, I don't find it all that controversial either. But he has a point that the things we now claim are explicitly protected by sections of the constitution were illegal before, at, and after those parts of the constitution were created. I really don't see it being at all remarkable to say that the 14th Amendment was not added to the constitution with the intent that it protect homosexual marriage.

If the writers had known it would one day come to be viewed that way, they doubtless would have explicitly excluded it and it is only because our interpretation today is so far outside the realm of what was considered reasonable at the time that it wasn't.

Scalia is an originalist. So him saying that the 14th amendment doesn't mandate gay marriage, for example, is no surprise. But I'm guessing he has no judicial problem with such allowances being created legislatively and his argument that if we want something to be required by the constitution that wasn't originally there the correct thing to do is change the constitution not how we read it is hardly original or that far outside the mainstream.

I support gay marriage. I do think it is an issue of civil liberties. And if we can get it allowed through the back door that is a living constitution I can live with it. But I also don't pretend that we aren't completely reinterpeting the intent of the people who wrote it when we do so.

Unless something has changed since I went to law school, classifications based on gender receive only intermediate scrutiny whereas classifications based on race receive strict scrutiny.

In that case, if people want to have the right to bear arms other than muskets, flintlock pistols, and other revolutionary-era firearms, they should either change the constitution or pass local legislation, right?

What does the Constitution have to say about wielding torches and wooden rakes?

First the caveat: I do not subscribe to Scalia's brand of constitutional originalism so I am not necessarily a great defender of it. My point was mostly that his brand of originalism isn't particularly outside the mainstream and that just because he doesn't feel the Constitution mandates various protections of women and minorities does not mean he necessarily feels those protections therefore aren't allowed via other channels or that they would be a bad idea.

However, an attempt to respond.

In you're example, there is the question of how to apply a constitutional principle to something that did not exist when the principle was created, that is they didn't address is specifically because it was impossible to do so. You could demand that there be a constitutional amendment in the face of every new technological advancement but that is a nonsensical result (in my opinion). So that leaves simply attempting to apply the princples to the new things which will be easy to do sometimes (such as does free speech apply to words written electronically as opposed to by hand or printed on paper) and very difficult other times (how does the ability to thermally monitor private residences without ever actually leaving public spaces interact with principles on unreasonable searches)? Eventually the world changes so much that a constitutional amendment to address it would be ideal but generally it is by such dribs and drabs it can't happen.

On the other hand there are the cases where the constitutional principle doesn't address something not because the issue didn't exist (such as women being able to vote or gays being able to marry) but because at the time they were so far outside the realm of discussion that it was viewed as obviously they weren't relevant to the principle. This leaves it open for later generations of legal minds to "discover" that the old principles actually did apply to those once outside the realm of consideration areas all along.

Originalists, in my reading, generally don't have a problem with the first example while having a big problem with the latter. Though there is always the fudge factor of deciding when a specific case bleeds from one to the other.

But just as with strong states rights, most of us tend to be originalists when it gets us what we want and living constitutionalists when that is what gets us what we want (for example, many people flip sides on the question when discussing Lawrence v. Texas as opposed to Citizens United). While I disagree with him on many things, Scalia is much more consistent than most in living with the results of his originalist philosophy (with some glaring exceptions).

Again, I don't agree with where Scalia's philosophy would ultimately lead if rigorously implemented. But I also don't think his view is particularly indefensible, nor does saying that the constitution does not mandate gay marriage mean that one is saying that gay marriage can not be allowed.

That fudge factor usually being conveniently the exact flavor of fudge that leads you to justify whatever position you happen to hold.

If for one see very little difference between the first and latter examples. The widespread availability of cheap, accurate, and extremely lethal firearms was as beyond comprehension when the 2nd amendment was written as the idea that women deserved equal treatment under the law was when the 14th was written. So to claim that we have to interpret the 14th entirely within the context in which it was written, but to ignore that context elsewhere is a pretty far stretch imo.

Hmm, Does believing in a "living constitution" mean that, to be consistent, one must ALWAYS come down on the side that would mean a change in interpretation? That seems an odd thing to require.

I'm not going to try to step up to the level of discourse here, so, let me just say that the use of the words "fudge" and "back door" have me giggling.

And I see them as very fundamentally and importantly different. Yes, whether modern firearms has strayed so far from the conception of guns that existed in 1789 that if they'd know what was to come the writer's would have written it differently can be debated.

Whether the 14th Amendment would have been written the way it was if they knew it would one day be used to mandate gay marriage can not.

No, of course it doesn't. But it would be good if there was a philosophy behind it more rigorous than simply using whichever approach gets the result you already want. And regardless of how much I disagree with him, Scalia's dedication to originalism as he views it has been much more consistent than most originalists (and more than most living constitutionalists commitment to the idea that modern societal norms provide great leeway in re-interpreting established constitutional canon).

One question I would ask: Is the 19th Amendment superfluous? If it were removed would the Constitution still mandate allowing women to vote?

In my admittedly non-expert opinion, no. If I remember correctly, neither the original Constitution nor the Bill of Rights defines who can vote. The 15th Amendment forbade disenfranchisement on the basis of race, but not gender. Gender was specifically addressed in the 19th. Until then, nothing guaranteed universal suffrage.

The 14th Amendment, unlike the 15th and 19th, does not specify a particular group. It uses phrases such as “all persons”, “citizens, and “any person”. To deny that those phrases do not include gays and women is changing the definition of the words, not the meaning of the amendment.

(following Alex's devil's advocate argument...) If nothing guaranteed universal suffrage until the 15th and 19th amendments, even in the presence of the 14th amendment, what gives the universal right to marriage?

I agree. But I also doubt that Scalia (or any other serious person) would claim gays are not included in those terms. What he contests is whether the other parts of the 14th Amendment preclude laws that differentiate gays from other people (or women from men).

For if the argument is that the federal or state governments can not pass any law that treats one group of people (based on any criteria for categorizing at all) differently from any group of people then we've never even come close to applying the constitution correctly on this issue.

And again, part of my larger point. To argue that the constitution does not mandate gay marriage is not to say that there should be no gay marriage. As an upstanding conservative Catholic I'm sure that Scalia is opposed to gay marriage. And I also am pretty sure he'd uphold any laws that the states or federal government may pass that allows for it.

Similarly, while I'm sure that he doesn't feel there is a constitutional requirement for it and he probably would not and did not support passage of the law), he is ok with the federal government making Title 9 compliance a condition for universities receiving federal funds.

And following up on GDs devil's advocate follow up on me,

If not requiring the franchise for women was technically correct until the 19th Amendment (as well as not requiring the franchise for Chinese citizens until the 15th) does the absence of a specific amendment guaranteeing the right of gays to the franchise mean that it is technically acceptable for Utah to pass a law denying them that privilege?

There are only three parameters limiting how states can restrict the right to vote that are explicitly stated in the constitution:

1. Can't deny them the right just because they're a woman.
2. Can't deny them the right just because of their color or race.
3. Can't set an age limit older than 18.

So not allowing Methodists in Oregon to vote, or civil engineers in Minnesota, or gays in Alabama does not run afoul of those explicit restrictions.

Where does my right to vote come from? Do I have a "right" to vote, or merely a privilege that the state of California has not yet decided to take away?

This is a real world situation. Texas decided all on its lonesome that it could deprive certain classes of the mentally handicapped and former felons of the franchise. On what basis the is the "right" to vote less of a right than the "right" to marry?

As usual, Keith says it better than I ever could.

Obama = Giant Fail.


Who should be the Democrat nominee for president in 2012?

Jerry Brown!

Alan Grayson!

If you want the Democrat to win? Obama. Not that he's doing great, but at this stage I think another Democrat loses.

Though not completely, but to a large degree because if there is a true primary battle the new person and Obama will completely rip each other to shreds. If Obama survives but has trouble he will be seriously weakened. And the other person will have to go way left of Obama to pull it off and like it or not way left of Obama does not get a majority of votes in this country.

Sure, the same thing will be happening on the Republican side but if there's a primary challenge to Obama nobody will care.

Bwahaha, 50 Reasons Obama is a sellout.

Federal Judge strikes blow against Obamacare.
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/...rhaul_virginia


I got to wonder how Obamacare will work without this provision?

As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, I tend to agree with the ruling, which is why I was never particularly in favor of the version of national health care that was passed. You're right sleepy, the math simply doesn't work out of not everyone is participating, but I do find it a stretch to justify forced participation, in the form of requiring a private purchase (as opposed to simply providing coverage to everyone in a truly socialized system), hard to justify under the constitution.

A lot of people point to auto insurance as an analog, however that fails as an analogy on a handful of points. Firstly is the fact that the auto insurance requirement is about protecting the interest of others', you are under no obligation to purchase insurance that covers yourself. Secondly, you are not required to purchase insurance unless you voluntarily choose to drive. And third, probably most importantly, that requirement is on the state level, not the federal level. Different rules apply.

So while, as an overall policy matter, I'd prefer to see national health care move forward, until I see a convincing constitutional argument for this form of it, I can't fault the court if it decides against it.

Hmm, what about a slight change of tactic.

Instead of saying, "You must buy insurance or you have to pay a penalty," what about, "We are changing tax law so that everyone owes X amount more in taxes [where X=the amount of the penalty], but you receive a tax credit if you have purchased insurance." That seems more within the government's power, yes? Of course, even if it ends up being functionally identical, the odds of Congress passing something that includes the words "raise taxes" are nil, so I guess it's a moot point.

I think that would be more constitutional....but yeah, "raise taxes" isn't exactly a big seller these days so you're right about it probably being a moot point.

Hell I'd be happy if they would just open the process up so that I could buy insurance from anyone I want and not just vendors approved in my state.

Without a mandate it doesn't work at all. Since if insurer's can't reject for prior conditions, and there are price controls, then the lack of a mandate means the smart thing to do is just wait until you get sick and then go buy insurance.

Personally, I'd say the best way to handle this constitutional issue (if it remains one, a district court judge isn't going to be the final say by a long shot and undoing this law could be difficult without the court undoing a lot of settled law around the commerce clause) is:

Option A
You make buying health insurance optional with all the existing provisions for subsidy and whatnot. And you say "and hospitals will no longer receive any federal reimbursement for care provided to uninsured individuals. It is legal to let these people die in your parking lot since they chose to not get insurance."

Option B
If it is indeed constitutional for states to have a mandate (and is there any challenge still standing to the constitutionality of Massachusetts mandate)? Then the federal government sets up the framework and runs it through states where getting any piece of the federal healthcare pie requires the state to have local mandates. Then all those government who insisted they didn't want federal money anyway can put their money where their mouths are.

As detestable as I find the subject of Philip Ray Greaves' book, his arrest bothers me.

I'm unclear on the details. What are the charges? I don't think there is a criminal statute for detestable subject matter. Perhaps the theory is that the book aids and abets pedophilia? It's a stretch.

Obscenity

It's a stretch. He lives in Colorado I believe. The AG of Florida (who's an anti child porn crusader) ordered a copy of the book, interpreted that as giving him jurisdiction to prosecute him under Florida's rather broad obscenity laws. It's questionable whether the extradition will go through.

Eugene Volokh (a UCLA law professor who has written on the law around crime facilitating speech) posted on his blog about the case.

http://volokh.com/2010/12/20/pedophi...scenity-charge

Awww. It looks like some members of the GoP (namely those who decided to not work over the holiday break) are upset about the work Congress has been doing this week during it's "lame duck" session.

Guess they should have gone to work! I wonder what their constituents think about that.

Another right-wing psychopath. Luckily, he was caught in time.

I'll be on a boat and will resist any temptation to actually watch the State of the Union since it is even more irrelevant now than in most years.

But I just want to put it on record that when I'm elected president I'm going to go back to the pre-Wilson norm of delivering the state of the union in letter form.

And unlike Jimmy Carter, the last president to just send a letter, it isn't going to be some long thing. It will just say

And I will do it this way for no other reason than to watch the cable show pundits stroke out.

^I love it!

Anyone else have flashbacks to elementary school field trips watching congress pick their "across the aisle buddy" to sit next to?

Stupidest thing I've seen in a while.

Glenn Beck Conspiracy Generator

(Are we sure these really are randomly generated and not a collection of actual quotes?)

So what's the deal on the budget. It it as "slash-and-burn" as the biased sites are indicating?

I had a bout of temporary insanity today and read comments on an article about birther idiocy. One of the comments was either the most brilliant piece of satire I've ever read or....just tragically and infuriatingly ignorant. I honestly can't tell which.

"I don’t believe Obama should be entitled to a double standard. Average working Americans (Democrat and Republican) have to show their birth certificates to work every day. What makes Obama any didferent? Nothing."

I mean, that HAS to be a joke, right? A parody? Someone can't be that stupid. Can they?




Sigh, yeah. They can.

You mean you don't have to show your birth certificate every time you go in and out of your office? Hummm...

I'm pretty sure that the comment meant that every day average working Americans have to show their birth certificate to prove their eligible tow work in this country not that every worker has to show it every day.

Which is true. Of course, they can also, instead of a birth certificate show a passport or social security card which Obama has regardless of whether he's faking his place of birth.

Though now I'm wondering if the president's first day in the White House is spend doing all the first-day paperwork a new job usually entails.

Yes, I read it the same way. But, with 19 other forms of identification accepted as identification for work, it's still a patently stupid statement (without even broaching the subject that Obama has produced the legal equivalent of his birth certificate).

Oh, definitely very stupid (and I say that with the shame that my mom posted her most recent birther links on Facebook just yesterday).

If only the whole birther movement would somehow inspire constitutional amendment to get rid of all of the office qualification requirements listed therein then something reasonable could come out of it.

Arnold could become president!

But then if you follow the details of the movie (Demolition Man), a whole bunch of amendments need to to be passed because it is the 61st Amendment that repealed the need to be a US Citizen to be President.

Also, they had him as President in the year 2032, which would make him 85 years old.

But I digress...

My view is that if we as a country decide we'd like an 8-year-old Communist born and living in the Ukraine to be president and that person actually wins an election then I'm ok with that.

I wouldn't vote for him but if that's what the country collectively wants badly enough to overcome our inherent xenophobia then we should get it.

Lamas and buddhas and state, oh my.

You couldn't write this sh*t.

Wasn't there a movement started by Republicans a few years back to change the citizenship requirements so Ah-nold could run for President?

Not a significant one, at least not specifically for Schwarzenegger.

George Will has advocated such a change, but he's done that for decades.

Gov. Walker Starring in "Total Recall"
 

My kids on their way to the Madison, WI protests

"Like"

Out of curiosity is that an intentional 9/11 reference?

Yes. Gov. Walker has taken over the plane and is steering off the advertised route. It's time to take back control and take down his political career. Let's roll.

Since, by his own habit and due to the vagueries of transliteration, the spelling of Gaddafi's name in the "Roman" alphabet is a crapshoot, I propose all media start spelling it Dickbag.

Done. From now on, it's Diqqbhag.

Everyone knows it's spelled Diquebbogq (the second q is silent)

Not only does the Democrat Governor of Montana have the cajones to stand up to his Republican legislature in a very conservative state, he does it with the style, wit, and public-opinion-swaying moxie that other Dems might well take a lesson from.

He went out and had three actual cattle brands manufactured, with the brand "VETO," in calf-size, yearling-size and full critter size - and then went and had a full-on Branding Party to publicly veto 17 frivolous, unconstitutional or just plain bad bills that came to his desk for signature.

If only a tenth of the Democrats in Congress, not to mention our stalwart president, had half the nerve or style of this Western Governor. Sheesh.

He makes me want to move to Montana actually. I hear they have a big sky.

And when Republican governors go out and shoot up a bill they don't like to appeal to their base it is crass showmanship.

Sigh. Did we really need Trump thinking his idiocy was legitimate?

The birthers are already claiming that it's a forgery.

From The Onion in 2009: Afterbirthers Demand To See Obama's Placenta

And on a more "serious" note... apparently Trump is taking credit for the release this morning. And sadly, he's partly correct.

Like Boing Boing said, don't feed the trolls.

I read this and literally laughed out loud: (from CNN)



In a statement after Obama spoke, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called the issue a distraction — and yet blamed Obama for playing campaign politics by addressing it.

"The president ought to spend his time getting serious about repairing our economy," Priebus said. "Unfortunately his campaign politics and talk about birth certificates is distracting him from our number one priority — our economy."











Seriously?

Are you sure you weren't reading The Onion, Wendy?

I'm acrtually surprised he released it....I'd have kept it an issue as long as possible if I were him.

Agreed. He was in no way obligated to do it, he'd already provided more proof than any other president in the history of this nation of his birth. Letting the idiots scream was doing an excellent job of identifying the idiots for who they are. Now he's just given them all the smug satisfaction that they forced his hand. Yuck.

This editorial is interesting. I agree with everything on the first page. He loses me a bit with "Those who question the location of Barack Obama's birth are the very same people who would pack up and move out of the neighborhood if someone like me moved in next door." I do not believe that everyone who jumped on the birther bandwagon is a racist, closet racist, subconscious racist. I DO believe that racism was a leading factor in the why it gained such traction, but that's not the same as saying that to be a birther is to be a racist (even though the two things share the common thread of ignorance).

Personally, on that one i don't think it had so much to do with race as with religion. I think it gained traction because of the people who already believed him to be lying about being a Christian which already requires rejecting what is known about his upbringing.

Anyway, I think the reason they released was not because it will put the issue to bed. It won't. The quality of a proper conspiracy theory is that it can't be rebutted as any contrary evidence is not contrary evidence but rather simply further evidence of a conspiracy to hide the truth.

However, the story was starting to get a lot of talk in the more mainstream press and I would guess they're trying to put it back in the margins by getting two days of coverage on the release and then hopefully the mainstream news directors saying "ok, that's done now."

I don't think it will work even at that, but I doubt it was done to quell the issue among those who believe it.

I concur. I don't think the birthers were the target audience for this at all.

Hey, where ya been, scaeagles?

When I first saw the headline this morning, I had to ask myself if it was April 1st, (or if I had logged on to The Onion), so sure was I that BO wasn't going to dignify the issue with any further attention.

Though, thinking about it on the ride home, it occurs to me that unless America proves even stupider than I fear, it really doesn't hurt Obama in the long run to have Trump sucking oxygen out of the Republican campaign machinery. And giving Trump a "legitimacy" boost like this without really hurting himself or doing anything overtly political prolongs that.

Based on the way he framed his speech, I think he did it in order to try to get a message across to people about what's really important right now, rather than what the media is focusing on. Of course, how much of that speech will get play on the evening news is anyone's guess. But I think he was trying to use the attention that the birth certificate gets, to get a chance to speak about the other stuff. He made a few remarks that support that, such as news stations not "breaking in" for other stories, and then his going on to talk about those other things anyway.

I think he could (and should) have given that speech without releasing the document.

I'm just glad the Daily Show and Colbert Report are not on vacation this week.

I don't think releasing it will shut the stupid up, it will just make them look even more absurd. How they don't realize that Hilary or McCain would have "gotten to the bottom of this" before the election is beyond my comprehension. And wasn't McCain's eligibility in question because he wasn't born on US soil?

I also think that if his name was Michael Weston or some other American sounding name this would have never been an issue.

Well, if it were Michael Weston he'd have to explain a hole lot of explosions in Miami; and a penchant for unattractively thin women.

with a disappearing Irish accent.

I probably should have said Michel Smith or something else "American" sounding.

They want Hawaii to prove it's a state?! Seriously?! WTF?!

They already get his panties in a twist that he goes home on vacation to HI all the time.

There's a great clip floating around (from the Daily Show) of Bill O'Riley trying to end the fringe lunacy. It's amusing.

I was reading the comments (yeah... I know...) on a story about the long form release. One of the "birthers" wrote:

:rolleyes:

A piece I read this morning hit the nail on the head, imo. It's a brilliant piece of Obama strategy. Further marginalizes the GOP by having such idiots continue to bray about this. His remarks were right on the money. Americans don't give a flying fvck about this issue, but want the government to do something about, oh, how about JOBS!?

Most of the country is already PISSED at the Republicans for advancing their absurd social agenda while doing nothing to create jobs, and for trying to solve the deficit problem on the backs of people dependent on Medicare while giving tax breaks to the ultra-rich. The mood in this country has swung very anti-GOP, and this birther issue is now all theirs to deal with, and Obama has washed his hands of it.

Most in the GOP know this full well. Boener and several other Congresspersons issued statements yesterday that they are satisfied with the president's citizenship credentials. They are not stupid, and would like this issue to go away.

But it won't. Something like 45% of Republicans believed the president is not an American. Don't know how many of those small and ignorant minds were changed yesterday, but that's the constituency they're stuck with. And they're stuck with the likes of the Donald as the front runner because you have to be a whack-job these days to win a Republican primary. Problem is, whack-jobs can't win general elections.

So the Pres was happy to hand off this problem to them, while chiding them in public for doing ZIP about issues Americans actually care about.



Obama is sometimes a brilliant politician. I wish he were a better president -- but he's better than most of them have been in my 50 years. Yesterday was a good day for him. Smart man.

The "prove Hawai'i was a state" meme seems to be a joke generated by the left, as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, expect to hear more about Bill Ayers. There is a notion going around (courtesy of World Net Daily) that Ayers was the actual author of Obama's autobiography. This idea is gaining some traction, with recent public statements about it from Trump and Palin, if I recall correctly. Get ready to roll your eyes some more.

I mine roll anymore, I'll be able to see out of the back of my head - just like mothers everywhere!

Do the rightwing nutjobs know they're promoting gender reassignment??

It may be a joke at, but that is actually an interesting angle of attack. Though the people of Hawai'i tend towards the liberal end of the spectrum, the question of the legitimacy of Hawaii's statehood is frequently brought up in secessionist circles, and at least a decade ago that was still a reasonably active movement.

So if the birthers do want to transfer to that issue, they'll find a extensive field of writing on the issue with some prominent "authentic actual Hawaiians" on record.

Adobe Flash? Premiere? InDesign?

The program is called Acrobat (or Acrobat Reader if you just have the free one) people and it is put out by a company named Adobe.

(Sorry; pet peeve)

Actually they were probably "thinking" photoshop

The claim is that it was edited in Illustrator and if you open the source PDF from the White House with Illustrator you can back out the edits.

And here is a plausible non-crazy explanation, from the conservative National Review yet.

This is the stupidest "issue" I have seen come forth in some time.

I was more amuse by the concept of the BC having "altercations".

I'm waiting for Trump Palin 2012!

And yet, there are several pages of discussion here. I'm changing the name of the thread to the WTF2 Thread. :D

A joke from the left, ok, that I can handle.

Yeah, I'm afraid Ayers is going to resurface. Wish they would just deal with the present instead of the past.


Hahahha!!! Circus time! Could be fun! Except that some people would actually vote for them .... I think the safest course of action would be for the nutjobs to get a lot of attention during the primary, so we can laugh at them, and then lose. If people are going to vote conservative, please let the candidate be viable and not crazy. I can understand a difference of opinion, but please don't let us get stuck with a crazy person.

Let me get this straight, Sarah Palin. The $4 billion dollars in subsidies to the oil companies is too small of a percentage of the federal budget to worry our pretty little heads about, but the $50 million that NPR receives is bringing us to our fiscal knees? Riiiiiiiight.

First he killed pirates. Then he killed terrorists.

And now . . .

Barack Obama: wolfkiller

I don't have a thought on it one way or the other. The idea just struck me as funny.

What's with the news and their total lack of accurate reporting. First on obl and just this morning, I've heard them contradict themselves about a plane that hasn't been flown in 6 years, or is it 10 years. This on the same news station on the same morning. (local vs national though).

I really don't think I can trust the news to get anything specifically correct... more like - here's some vague idea of something that happened and their opnion injected into it.

Welcome to 21st century corporate infotainment journalism!

I'd prefer to have real journalism back. I'm tired of infotainment, although I do like that word! " Just give me the facts Ma'am"

Ben Stein is a piece of sh*t.

I like Herman Cain. Of those that have announced their candidacy, he is my favorite by far. Don't like any of the others, really. Only other one that might take over for Cain would be Rick Perry should he get in.

Romney - eh. Gingrich? Blech. Ron Paul? The man is insane. Palin? Nope. Pawlenty - don't know much about. Bachmann? Santorum?

Nah - Cain. I like Cain.

Cain is just another teabagger who wants to give everything to the rich and the corporations at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. He would be a disaster for this country.

Not surprisingly, your opinion of him makes me like him even more.

From Wikipedia:

Full interview as publisehd on Christianity Today. More gems of ridiculous bullsh*t regrading Islam in America in there.

Does this strike anyone else as a completely awkward sentence?

A 6 billion dollar deficit, jobs in short supply, and a budget stalemate with the Democratic governor and what does Minnesota choose to focus on?

Gay marriage.

As a slight correction to what GD posted (certainly not disputing what was said), the quote in question came following a speech at the Conservative Principles Conference, not from the Christianity Today interview.

While I do agree he is taking it way too far, I would be curious as to if he would comment on someone of the Islamic Faith such as Monsoor Ijaz, an outspoken critic of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist actions, who I thik would be an excellent addition to any cabinet of group of advisors.

Ooops, took wiki's word on the citation, should have read more carfeully.

And considering that in the interview I linked to, he made no apologies for the fact that he was uncomfortable with one of the surgeons that was going to treat him during a battle with cancer because his name was "Abdallah", until he found out that, thank god, the guy was actually a Christian, I'm going to go ahead and presume that no he would not consider Mr. Ijaz.

That is certianly unfortunate. I read the interview and did find parts of it disturbing.

I think it is the right of anyone practicing any religion to attempt to convert anyone they wish. Unless, of course, it involves killing those who won't.

Sort of like Christian politicians inserting thier relgious into our government? I guess he doesn't want the competition.

That's far from the most disturbing part. The most disturbing part is that he is equating a Muslim practicing medicine as a licensed surgeon with attempts to convert and murderous extremism.

On re-read I see how you could view it that way, but his answer seems to ignore the "so". I see a disconnect in his answer from relating it to the preface of the question (involving his surgeon) and going straight to how he views Islam in American society in general.

Except his answer perfectly explains his reason for being uneasy about a surgeon with a Muslim-sounding name. He thinks they are all out to either convert or murder him, and therefore should be avoided, pushed back against, and rejected. I see no disconnect between his answer and why he would have had a problem with a surgeon named Abdallah.

So how ya'll feeling about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for 4 more years?

Betrayed.

This may or may not be the most disturbing part:

What? Seriously?

While I have significant issues with the Patriot Act as a whole, the whole was not at issue here.

So of the things extended:

- Roving wire taps. While I recognize the gray areas, ultimately I come down on the side of supporting them. Again, I see the potential dangers of it, but at the moment I am ok with it proceeding.
- The business records section. I have issues with the existence of the FISA court but its existence is not at issue here. My main beef with this part of the Patriot Act is the gag rule it places on the people served with an information request. As long as that is in there I oppose any extension or expansion.
- The lone wolf stuff, if I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do) doesn't establish the surveillance abilities it just extends the duration that can be authorized by the FISA court. If my understanding is correct then that seems a wash to me in the "we've establish what you are, we're just haggling over price" vein.

So, as a president presented with having to take all three or getting none, I'm not sure where I would fall. Especially since it isn't like he was presented with time to veto and have Congress come back with something better before "none at all" was forced on him.

As for whether this is a betrayal. He voted for extend the last time it was up. And I don't think he has ever spoken against these provisions (though he has spoken out against the Patriot Act as a whole, but again that wasn't what he's signing), so I'm not sure why it would be a surprise.

As for the autopen thing, I'm not bothered by it absent any indication that the president did not authorize its use. But it may be of interest (but probably not, though 12 pages in I'm finding it surprisingly so) that the White House Office of Legal Counsel issued a report on the issue in 2005, finding that it does meet constitutional requirements for the president to authorize a subordinate to affix his signature, not to delegate the decision).

http://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/opinion_07072005.pdf

Oh, and to answer the original question on how I feel. I feel like the president may have made a deicision with which I disagree. I also feel that presidents do that all the time and so long as I don't feel the president is acting in bad faith, I don't hold it against him. I felt the same when the Patriot Act was first passed. I disagreed with it then, but I didn't think it evil. Some of the ways it was used later, however, changed that.

Most of the Patriot Act does not have an expiration date, just a few parts. That is what was extended.

I just read this online:

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

I just read this online:

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

I just read this online:

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Kevy, what are you taking?

Seriously!

Out of curiosity, if it weren't "so true" (I'll offer no judgment on that) why would it be funny?

It's just an expression, and is not meant to be taken literally. It's something we Humans do sometimes. I'm sorry if that confuses you.

Oh, I'm sure you couldn't confuse me. I know it is just an expression, it just sparked curiosity into the moment as to why we waste time saying things that don't actually have any value. In saying what you said you meant to suggest "this is true." But you cloak it in some "it's a joke" phrasing as if that means people under the umbrella you were speaking about should then no longer care about the "this is true" half of the statement.

So really, I wasn't so much confused as pointing out that you really shouldn't feel safe to crawl back into your standard defense of "it was just a joke when I said mean things about people who have affiliations you just happen to have, how can you be upset?"

I miss the days when the pledge was:

Ok. Whatever.

gah!
 

The original was "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," written by a Socialist, and used in a magazine to sell flags to schools on Columbus day. Mad Men 1892, baby. Yesterday's marketing is today's dogma. Other successful vintage ad campaigns include the diamonds as the only true symbol of love and the inextricable link between freedom and automobile ownership.

Just conducting an experiment.

And an excellent experiment indeed.

I know what the original pledge was. Did you see all my incorrect words?

Oh, sure, you can miss any of the versions you like. I just want to point out that it's little more than a marketing slogan from 120 years ago.

I didn't know Socialists were capable of "marketing".

Learn something new everyday I guess:)

Wow, sometimes a news story is so tiresome it makes me want to leave the planet. Sarah Palin's old emails is just such a story. I don't care. The very notion of hearing about it makes me despair. My gut feeling is that they will reveal nothing interesting at all, but we will be "treated" to constant updates just the same. Even if they turn up something juicy, I don't care, and I don't want it to be the subject of water cooler talk. But it will be. Thanks for letting me shudder publicly at the prospect. This is all I will have to say on the matter.

Somehow in the last 20 years what used to appear in the brazen pages of the "Weekly World News" became what is shown in place of news. Thank goodness for Aljazeera and BBC World News.

Oh yeah, I just saw an "update" that had nothing more interesting to say then "no bombshells so far in palin's emails". Well woo fricking hoo....

All the Anthony Wiener headlines will never not be funny. Cause I'm 12.

FYI, his name is spelled Weiner.

Looks like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want's be the first Iranian in space.

At least that's the way I read it.

Eh, wiener, weiner, still funny.

Can we leave him there? Without a space suit?

No; IN a space suit. It would prolong the experience.

And should be pronounced like "whiner", which can lead the jokes in a whole different direction.

All I have running through my head now is a FG conversation between Brian and Stewie. WHiner. No, Whiner. Yes, WHiner. No, Whiner.

I've only just read a handful of articles about Huntsman, but what I've read I've liked.

Which means he's got a negative chance of winning the primary.

He's very, very centrist and reminescent of McCain. Which gives him no chance.

I don't find him anything like McCain, from what I've read. McCain is "centrist" in a "I'll say anything to please whomever I'm talking to and change in the breeze" kinda way. Huntsman seems to be centrist in a "I believe what I believe and don't give a rat's ass which party's platform that belief might fall under" kinda way.

I agree that character wise they are quite different, but it is very early. In the same way that McCain turned right to get the base, Huntsman will have to do the same thing. i just don't see the right falling for it again like they did with McCain.

And my brief fascination with Herman Caen is over. Don't think he's the guy. Right now I'm hoping Rick Perry gets in.

Boy, that'd liven things up around this thread!

Mind you, Perry's already been linked to John Hagee, and that did McCain a bit of hurt last time around.