Tuesday Open Thread

It's time for the Tuesday open thread where you pick the topics. Have fun and stay warm. I'll check in later in the day.

Some stuff I'm reading:

< Libby May Not Testify | Grand Juror in Duke Case Expresses Second Thoughts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    money for nothing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    In the run-up to the invasion in 2003, the Pentagon's projected estimate of the total cost of the war was $50bn. A White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired by President Bush when he suggested that the total cost would be $200bn.

    The New York Times noted that the cost of the war would have paid for universal healthcare in the US, nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in the country, immunisation for children round the world against a host of diseases, and still leave about half of the money left over.

    It would be too easy to say (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    "unbelievable" to this, Sailor. Unfortunately, with this gang of slimeballs, and the wannabe slimeballs who support them, it is all too believeable. The first sentence in the article shows just how much of an insult to humanity these people(?) are:
    Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war

    $700 Billion more (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    And how are we going to pay for this?

    A new study from Harvard University reports the hidden financial costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan will overwhelm the Department of Veterans Affairs for decades. The study is called "Soldiers Returning from Iraq and Afghanistan: The Long-Term Costs of Providing Veterans Medical Care and Disabilities Benefits." It finds the Veterans Administration is both under-funded and under-equipped to deal with the current and future costs of veterans' healthcare. The study estimates since the global war on terror began, sixteen US soldiers have been wounded per fatality, a casualty rate that exceeds the rate of previous wars. Over 200,000 soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated at VA medical facilities thus far, with 900,000 still deployed on active duty. The study predicts the cost of medical care and compensation benefits for returning veterans will skyrocket once those troops return home. It also estimates the cost over the soldiers lives will amount up to $700 billion.


    Honest debate from the right? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    Bullsh*t. They are not capable of it.

    Video: Sen. Feingold blasts Democratic colleagues for 'timid' Iraq resolution

    Rawstory, February 5, 2007

    Vocal Bush administration critic Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) today excoriated his Democratic colleagues in the Senate after Republicans successfully blocked debate on a resolution that criticized President Bush's Iraq escalation plan.

    "The fact is, the President and the Republican leadership are so out of touch with reality and the American people that they don't understand that this war is a disaster, and the American people want us out of there ... "The Democrats are being too weak as well."

    No understanding of legislative process. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:07:52 AM EST
    The Raw Story report, the AP report, the NY Times report, and the Washington Post report all deeply misunderstand the legislative process. In their zeal to stick it to Republicans they've gotten the story ass-backwards.

    Democrats want to close debate on an Iraq resolution. It is, in fact, Democrats who failed in their attempt to close debate. These media nincompoops (and all their "hell, yeah!" readers) must have slept through basic civics class.

    Republicans want to keep debate open. That's why they voted against closing the debate (also known in legislative lingo as "cloture"). That hasn't stopped the media from claiming that Republicans have shut down debate.


    No understanding of how transparent (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:19:14 AM EST
    rethug lies, and simple minded repetition of rethug talking points, are.

    Gabe's "points" are lifted straight out of RedState.


    Edger (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:26:00 AM EST
    No matter where they come from, they are accurate.

    Why don't the Demos want to debate??


    GOP motives are suspect (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    on Senate antisurge votes:
    It is now a standard talking point for supporters of this war, from the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard to Vice President Cheney himself, to try to block any statement by Congress of its views, except through a vote to block funds for Iraq.
    Supporters of Bush's war policy would love a vote on a full funding cutoff right now because they know that, at this moment, they could win it. They would love responsibility for the failures in Iraq to fall not on an administration that planned its policy so badly and carried it out so incompetently. Far better for them to heap blame on the war's opponents for "losing faith."

    And they know, as the war's opponents should, that in a democracy whose Constitution accords so much power to the president, turning around even a failed war policy takes time, persuasion, organizing, legislative strategizing and pressure.

    The impatience of the administration's critics is entirely understandable. But it would be a shame if impatience got in the way of a sensible long-term strategy to bring America's engagement in this war to as decent an end as quickly as possible -- even if not as quickly as they'd like. The antisurge resolution is a necessary first step.

    Which was why the rethugs blocked debate on a resolution that criticized President Bush's Iraq escalation plan (antisurge resolution), which was not a vote on a full funding cutoff.

    Gabe is disingenuously comparing apples to oranges in a typical rethug attempt at confusing and obfuscating and trying to insinuate that it was the democrats who blocked debate on the antisurge resolution. The democrats did no such thing. The rethugs blocked it.

    IOW, like rethugs usual behavior, he stoops to lying, and making the insulting assumption that people are too stupid to see through him.

    Which goes a long way to explaining this. They are desperate. Expect lies from them. Lies are all they have left.


    Gabe & Jim are right (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    From the Raw Story report:

    A vote of 49-47 failed to invoke cloture, after Democratic Senators were unable to persuade enough Republicans to cross the aisle and end a filibuster that blocked debate on the resolution, which was the result of a compromise between Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and ranking member John Warner (R-VA).

    Just the definitions of "filibuster" and "cloture" show that Raw Story got it wrong.  Filibustering doesn't block debate, it blocks voting.  Cloture doesn't enable debate, it ends debate and forces voting.

    (I know the dictionary isn't the ideal source for legal definitions, but this time it's compatible with every legal use I've read)


    Republicans block Senate debate (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    The procedural vote Monday, which divided mostly along party lines, left the Democratic leadership 11 votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate on the bipartisan resolution. The resolution, whose principal author was Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, had been in the works for weeks.

    Forty-seven Democrats and two Republicans voted to open debate on the resolution; 45 Republicans and one independent were opposed.


    Gabe, Jim, & Roy are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by roy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:53:44 AM EST
    After reading a few more articles, it looks like this:

    The Senate has been debating whether to debate.  Democrats want to vote on whether to debate.  Republicans filibustered, prolonging the debate debate.  Democrats tried to invoke cloture, to end the debate debate.  Republicans voted against cloture, thus preventing a vote on whether to debate.

    So Democrats are pro-debate, and Republicans are pro-pre-debate-debate.


    Filibuster (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    As a form of obstructionism in a legislature or other decision making body....

    Hardly a debate Roy, unless you think one party holding the floor with the sole intention of stopping a vote is a debate.


    Thanks, roy. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:48:56 PM EST
    I found a better article on it here at the BBC that makes clear what's going on. Indeed, I had fallen to the same definitional trap that you did. I also like your description of the situation:

    So Democrats are pro-debate, and Republicans are pro-pre-debate-debate.

    Your BBC link makes clear what's going on (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    It was the first time Democrats had scheduled a fully-fledged debate on the Iraq war since they won control of Congress in last year's mid-term elections.

    Senate majority leader Harry Reid said the Republican vote meant they were supporting "this president continuing the same policy of failure in Iraq".

    File that under.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:28:18 PM EST
    "you can't make this stuff up"

    Excellent analysis roy.

    There is no debate like a pre-debate debate.  I anxiously await the pre-pre-debate debate debate stage of the debate while our soldiers continue to dodge ied's during occupation.


    exactly wrong (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    Democrats want to close debate on an Iraq resolution.
    That is exactly wrong. The rethugs don't want the debate and voted in lockstep to halt debate. Even the GOP admits it.

    The procedural vote, which divided mostly along party lines, left the Democratic leadership 11 votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate on the bipartisan resolution.

    But of course GM's point is that every newspaper in the country got it wrong ... and only he is right.


    What really happened (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 07:19:26 AM EST
    The Star Tribune to the contrary notwithstanding, the Republican minority assured that debate could continue,

    What they did was to prevent the Demos from shuting down the debate and having a vote. A vote by the way is not a debate.

    though the failure of cloture prevented a vote on the resolution in issue.

    And then we have a fine analysis of the history of the filibuster.

    In 1993, the Star Tribune condemned the Senate filibuster as "the putrid flood of verbiage known as the filibuster." In 1994 it lauded efforts to abolish the filibuster. In the spring of 2005, however, the Star Tribune praised the virtues of the filibuster and condemned Republican efforts to end it in connection with judicial nominations.


    You may note the years in question, consult a historical source for  who was in charge of the Senate. But I doubt if you will need to.

    Aren't you glad the Demos kept the Repubs from changing the rules??


    Lies and the lying liars (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 08:35:46 AM EST
    powerline is not a source for facts, it's a fountain for kool aid.

    But don't forget that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:23:25 AM EST
    lies and disinformation are supposed to be just "another point of view as valid as any other", and certainly most worthy of being legitimized as such, and being debated as if they are.

    Right?  ;-)


    Don't Blame the Republicans (none / 0) (#2)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    For this. This is Democratic all the way. Where is the leadership from the future President, either Clinton, Obama, Biden, or Dodd? Why won't they deal with this?

    Really, why won't they take the lead on this?

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:19:12 AM EST
    They are all bought and paid for.

    It a fantasy, folks. Some international bankers get together and decide who is going to be president and who will run. We get to decide between few who ar echosen and, eventually, it is paired down to two and we have an election. Then we allow this person who is called the president to rule like a king. Wait a minute, we all cry, Kings and Czars went out with old Europe. There is no such thing, here in democratic America where the people are free.

    Fantasy, thats what it is. Freedom, We don't know what it is. Election = freedom. Wake up, folks.

    If you want to know who the leading Democrats are beholden to, ask Andreas.


    Peaches (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:26:42 AM EST
    Having a bad day??

    For someone bright enough to be an astronaut (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:54:27 AM EST
    she still let the cops question her from 4 AM until 5 PM? After driving all the way from Houston to Orlando nonstop from 1 PM or so the day before?

    This seriously does not make sense.  And I don't mean in the "madness-of-love" sense. (I forget the French term for that)  I mean it defies all logic.

    FWIW, I don't get the whole diaper-so-she-didn't-have-to-stop angle.  She had to stop.  Laws of physics.  Most cars get between 250 and 350 miles to a tank of gas. It's a given that smaller cars get better mileage but have smaller tanks, while bigger ones get lower mileage but have larger tanks.  If it's a 1000 mile drive from Houston to Orlando, she had to stop at least twice and more likely 3 or even 4 times to tank up.  They have restrooms at gas stations on the interstate.  

    The AV's timeline doesn't add up, either.  If the AV was flying in from Houston at 1 AM, that meant she left Houston about 10 PM (3 hours or so before).  So, now, Mr. Shared (Love) Interest knew (or should have) that his buddy, the def't, was already en route from Houston and he didn't tell the AV?  N.B.:  If Mr. Interest had told def't of the situation, or if def't had walked in on Interest and AV, he'd have known that def't knew.  In the latter case, AV would have known, too.  And AV would not have been surprised by the alleged stranger - she'd have known who def't was.  Likely AV already did know who def't was, given that def't's position would have made her very visible around their mutual workplace.  

    As discussed below, def't would have to have missed a whole day in Houston - which Mr. Interest likely would have known about - before AV had even gone to the airport there to travel.

    How/when did the def't find out about Mr. Shared Interest's interest in the AV?  I can understand def't flying into a snit (for lack of a better word) and losing rationality when confronted with the revelation that Mr. Interest's first name was really "Shared".  That's something anyone who's lived long enough has either seen or gone through themselves.  Frankly, though, from what I know about astronaut selection - someone with an unstable personal life or tendencies toward it (which is what that sort of fly-off-the-deep-end scenario implies) would have been weeded out long before getting to the point of spaceflight.  USNA, pilot training, test piloting, etc., all place a premium on developing the facility to deal with highly stressful, upsetting situations.  I'd suspect that sort of fly-off-the-deep-end tendency or instability would have been caught at the step between "pilot" and "test pilot";  I've known some pretty wacky/wild characters who became pilots, but in going up to "test pilot" those are the ones left behind.

    And, then, the def't just cut out (on her 3 kids) and went to Orlando at the drop of a hat?  The sheer distance of the drive means something.  Driving 1000 miles, being in Orlando, allegedly getting a hotel room, and all the rest of the stuff means, to be there for AV's 1 AM arrival, def't had to leave a minimum of 20 hours before. Figure:  1000 miles @ 60 mph average = 16 hours.  3 stops for gas @ 15 min each = 45 minutes.  Shopping for the stuff and motel room, 90 minutes to 2 hours. Time wasted waiting around airport:  an hour or so.  

    This doesn't add up.

    Scribe..... you made some good points buy (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:28:11 AM EST
    I understand she has decided to go into alcohol treatment.....



    huh? (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    I thought it was Mayor Newsome who was going into rehab.

    My bad (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:34:41 PM EST
    Oh.... I thought we were talking about the astronaught....

    naah. It turns out the cops were irked (none / 0) (#31)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:42:56 PM EST
    when the judge granted her bail of $15,500, so they added an attempted first-degree murder charge to keep her locked up.

    Going to the link I just put up above shows on the banner headline that she had a 4 PM ET hearing, and it appears the judge set a $10k bail on the attempted murder charge (but we'll see how that plays out).


    Cops (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patrick on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    don't add charges at a bail hearing the DA does.  

    uh, read the article (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    the cops showed up with new attempted murder charges just as she was due to be released yesterday, and she had to get bailed on the new ones today.

    For what it's worth, the story has been picked up on German radio news, and they've been running it all day.  The best part is how the characterize the story as an "eifersuchtsdrama" - a drama of jealousy.  Heavy on drama.

    And, the lead in the story on their Tagesschau says it all:  "Es klingt wie in einen schlechten Krimi" - It sounds like a bad crime drama.



    The cops (none / 0) (#44)
    by Patrick on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    can show up with whatever charge they want, it's up to the DA to file it.  

    It does sound like a nad crime drama...My bet is we'll see it on law and order within the month.  


    A MIRACLE!! A MIRACLE!!! (none / 0) (#11)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    Ted Haggard cured!!!

    "He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered.

    Sweet Jesus on the crooked cross!!!

    yeah, right (none / 0) (#26)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    Just watch the Alexandra Pelosi's HBO special on the religious right, and then watch Pastor Ted's eyes when he's discussing with camera and parishoners just how great evangelicals' sex lives are.

    If he's acting out, he's pretty far into the role.  Method school.


    Jon Stewart ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:26:30 AM EST
    ... had a great take on how Pasture Ted got cured.
    (paraphrasing) 'remember how when your dad caught you smoking and he made you smoke a whole carton!?'

    Yep, he's cured, the same way any ham is cured;-)


    Mike Jones (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:36:25 AM EST
    responds to Ted Haggard's announcement of his heterosexuality
    "Well, that's the quickest therapy I've ever heard of. It's hard for me to imagine someone who is performing oral sex and saying that he is 'straight.' That just doesn't jive." If you were to ask me 'Do I think is Ted haggard gay?' I would have to say 'yes'," he added.

    Haggard blew it, and now no one believes him. Probably because he's lying. Poor guy.


    Here's (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:54:00 AM EST
    A disturbing site.  L.A. Times homicide log.  I looked at the first page and was startled by the sheer number of homicides they have, even though I shouldn't have been.  Something about going down a list of people who've been murdered, it's kind of surreal.  I think it's a good idea, but is still weirds me out at the same time.  

    The ages of the victims are tragic (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:23:06 AM EST
    Almost all are teens or young adults. So many lives cut short. Tragic.

    Yes, I saw their ages too, (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    but before this log, their names probably wouldn't have even been mentioned.  At least now maybe it can do some good.  If one person reads it and says, "too much" they might do something that saves a life someday.  

    Off on a tangent... (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    Let me recommend this dvd I saw the other night; The Cult of the Suicide Bomber by Rober Baer, the ex-CIA operative.

    I got it out of the local library so you don't have to spend any money to see it, but its a fascinating 90 minutes or so.

    re Time and Rape (none / 0) (#25)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:33:14 PM EST
    Have you folks seen the article in Time or at time.com about the rape case and the appeal and the withdrawal of consent?


    a guy and a gal are making out and he begins the process of intercourse and he has inserted his penis into her vagina.  Now, at this point, she asks him to stop, and he does so within seconds and withdraws.

    He is convicted of rape, but the case is on appeal and the appeals court has ruled in his favor, but the state is still fighting.

    The article says that during deliberations, the jury asks the judge "if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide."

    However, I believe the answer should have been, "Usually, no."  The reason is that most men ejaculate within 90 seconds of insertion and they are not in control of ejaculation and no one responds immediately to any instruction.

    I was in a car accident once in which a fellow had made a left turn directly in front of oncoming traffic and it turned out that the oncoming traffic was me.  How many seconds was it before I hit the brakes?  The issue never came to court.  Was it more than one and less than 10?  Probably.  Was it minimal reaction time?  No.  Was I expecting such an action on his part?  No; I could hardly believe it.

    Personally, I don't see a rape conviction in this case as just.  The time for the woman to have said no was either before the making out began, or before insertion.  Once insertion had taken place, she was liable for some possible movement after she said "stop" and he stopped.

    Nosy (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    Speak for yourself.

    The reason is that most men ejaculate within 90 seconds of insertion

    lol (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    I was thinking the same thing. Actually, I was feeling pretty good about myself, not to brag--but... I guess you can count Peaches as not falling under the subheading of Most Men.

    But, then again, that is only after much practice with my better half. We won't talk about our honeymoon, or what might happen if I found myself in the company of some young lass...

    No, I'll just be satisfied with my current predicament and my wife's apparent satisfaction. Am I telling anyone more than they needed to know?


    He is right (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:53:39 PM EST
    For me the 90 second rule is accurate, but that is only for the first orgasm, the other four or five can go on for hours.



    squeaky (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:41:59 PM EST
    Is that all???

    I mean, really....

    (Filed under "First Liar Category")



    The 'worst of the worst' ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    ... are not the ones in gitmo, they're the ones who sent them there:
    four-fifths of `vicious killers' released after return to home countries
    Once the detainees arrived in other countries, 205 of the 245 were either freed without being charged or were cleared of charges related to their detention at Guantanamo. Forty either stand charged with crimes or continue to be detained.
    Only a tiny fraction of transferred detainees have been put on trial. The AP identified 14 trials, in which eight men were acquitted and six are awaiting verdicts.
    And just to forestall the inevitable cry of 'what about the detainees who returned to the battlefield after being freed', I'll just say prove it. The Pentagon keeps saying that, but they've never offered any proof.

    It's such a great talking point for the wingnutosphere you'd think the admin would be happy to provide the details  . if any actually existed.

    Ask you shall receive (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    And the truth shall set you bonkers.

    Among the names listed in the memo is Mohammed Yusif Yaqeb (search), also known as Mullah Shazada. Yaqeb was released in May 2003. He proceeded to become the head of Taliban (search) operations in southern Afghanistan and was killed one year later in a fight with U.S. forces.

    Currently, 545 detainees are housed at Gitmo, most of them members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their related terror groups. An additional 146 have been released and 62 have been handed over to other governments, according to the memo.

    Wingnuts pull another boner (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:55:45 PM EST
    Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids
    OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

    Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

    proponents (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage

    I suppose wingnuts could be held responsible, since religious and socially conservative groups are likely the source for the same-sex ban in Washington, but this initiative is intended to be put on the ballot to challenge the ban on same sex marriage. From the link.

    "For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. "If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

    LOL! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    And this liberal pulls extreme boner by not reading carefully. Thanks for the wake up, Peaches! - I missed that one.

    Even so, I guess the wingnuts are having it come back around and bite them on the a$$, courtesy of the 'propononents', aren't they?

    I'll try to make all my mistakes, of which there are many, that bad. ;-)


    A good'un (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:49:57 PM EST
    That's funny.

    Maybe that would solve our declining population problem...

    Make that declining BORN IN US CITIZEN population problem.



    Last time I checked (none / 0) (#38)
    by Patrick on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:29:15 PM EST
    Wingnuts aren't proponents of same-sex marriages.  

    And now (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:49:13 PM EST
    maybe one of the bills for their wingnuttery is coming due in Washington. ;-)

    Snowball's chance (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    in Washington of passing.  But good for discussion none the less.  

    Truthfully (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    I would oppose it too if it looked like it had a chance of passing. It's a ridiculous idea, other than to use as a "rub their nose in their own BS" tactic against opponents of same-sex marriage.

    Jim's truth (none / 0) (#48)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:17:05 PM EST
    according to a memo written by Duncan Hunter's staff and put out by Faux? Excuse me if I find your sources somewhat...incredible, in the literal sense.

    Anyway, it amounts to a 6% recidivism rate. What are the causes of the recidivism here? Poor judicial techniques that allowed "enemy combatants to be released? Maybe the detention itself converted them. I can't even see how it relates to the issue of our detention policies. I guess that's what some would call a red herring.

    The bonkers part is correct, however.

    Che - (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    My place in life doesn't require me to care if you believe, or not believe.

    I only seek to lay the truth in front of you.

    And who cares why?

    Facts are, they did.

    I would say because they were terrorsts to start and we just missed it.


    Lies and the lying liars (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 01:12:18 AM EST
    duncan 'we found WMDs in Iraq' hunter is caught on Faux News making $hit again.

    I only seek to lay the truth in front of you.
    Oh, the irony! Citing a memo made by a rethuglican' staff that has an established record of lying and appears on faux news is not laying the truth, it's more like screwing the truth to death and p$$ing on the remains!

    Henry (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:56:43 PM EST
    Waxman wants answers from Paul Bremer.

    Where did 363 tons of cash go?

    Over $4 billion in cash, which came from Iraqi oil exports and other sources, was sent by the Federal Reserve to Baghdad on pallets aboard U.S. military planes just before government control was given back to the Iraqis, Reuters says. The bills reportedly weighed hundreds of tons.

    "Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," Waxman said, according to Reuters.

    The AP says Bremer countered, "I arrived in Baghdad at a time when much of the city was burning. Looting was still widespread. My responsibilities were to kickstart the economy.

    Kickstart whose "economy", Paul???

    The Republican Machine (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    Looks like the Duke Cunningham, Brent Wilkes, and Dusty Fogo got a piece of that action by way of water contracts in Iraq.  

    Being a warmongering hawk can turn out to be a very profitable position.... as Waxman is finding out.


    Link (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    Caught in their own webs (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:09:35 AM EST
    Bremer Paid "Ghost Employees" To Avoid "Real Trouble
    Feb 06/07
    Paul Bremer told members of Congress today that he was aware that nonexistent "ghost employees" were on America's payroll when he was administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.

    But because the real employees - who provided security for Iraqi ministries - were "74,000 armed men, it seemed a lesser risk to continue paying" everyone while trying to figure out who was actually showing up for work.

    "On the streets, you'd call that protection money," remarked Congressman Danny Davis, an Illinois Democrat. When Davis asked whether any of that money had wound up in the hands of insurgents, Bremer said he didn't know. But "if we stopped paying them, my judgment was we could have real trouble."

    But as ususal, they have a simple explanation. It's all the Iraqis fault:
    Republicans on the committee repeatedly defended Bremer's decisions: "Maybe even billions were not spent the way it should have been spent," said Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican. "And I'm not happy about that, but tell me how he could've gotten that money out" where it was needed otherwise. "The Iraqis spent the money badly, right?"

    Cut off funding for this idiotic adventure. Refuse absolutely to call it a "war" anymore. From now on call it what is is - an "occupation". Start bringing troops home NOW. Arrest and try or impeach anyone connected with with enabling this bullsh*t excuse for "foreign policy".

    And good morning, btw.


    And start an (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 06:13:27 AM EST
    "Impeach Pelosi" movement.

    If she will not impeach those responsible she is shielding them, and is one of them.


    The $4 Billion (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    Another opportunity lost (none / 0) (#54)
    by Al on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:58:05 PM EST
    Signing has begun of the International Convention For The Protection Of All Persons Against Enforced Disappearance. Over 50 countries have signed so far, and it will become international law once 20 countries have ratified it.

    It is very disappointing to see that United States refuses to sign on, and be bound by international law to respect the most basic human rights.

    GOP Views Clinton As Virtually Unbeatable (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:52:30 AM EST
    What many conservatives regard as the nightmare scenario -- President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- is increasingly seen by veteran Republican politicians and strategists as a virtual inevitability.

    In GOP circles, the Democratic front-runner is seen as so strong, and the political climate for Republicans so hostile, that many influential voices -- including current and former lawmakers, and veterans of President Bush's campaigns -- have grown despairing. These partisans describe a political equivalent of the stages of grief, starting with denial, then resentment and ending with acceptance.

    For now, these Republicans say the party needs good luck, including a change of fortune in Iraq, and a revival of organization and leadership in the conservative movement to avert another Clinton presidency.

    "If the conservative movement and Republicans don't understand how massive the Clinton coalition is, she will be the next president," former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said in an interview last week, after giving a private talk to GOP lawmakers. Clinton will win, he added, "if we don't use everything available to us and motivate our base, the people that believe in us."

    Note what is missing. Republicans, Delay included, identify and enumerate a list of things they think they need to do to save themselves.

    Honesty and integrity are not among the things they identify as lacking in themselves and their party........

    "Republicans"? Oh yeah, them. There should be an entry in some of the old encyclopedias describing who and what they were, isn't there?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:15:04 PM EST
    Gee, nothing like an unbiased source.

    White Suprematism on the rise (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    Irish then, Mexicans now

    Newcomers from Ireland and Germany were portrayed as Catholic usurpers invading the United States, taking jobs from native-born Americans and undermining national fabric, Levin said.

    Said Potok: "It's remarkable to look back at the nativist sentiments toward Catholics -- it's very similar to what we're seeing with Mexicans now."

    Today, many white supremacists blame immigrants, particularly Hispanics, for crime, struggling schools or unemployment, for instance. With many Americans already divided on how to revamp laws and practices to address the nation's swelling immigrant communities, immigration "is an issue that works for hate groups," Potok said.

    link via C&L

    How, um, er... Jacksonian.

    Squeajy can't catch on (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:22:25 PM EST
    Uh, the differences are...

    The Irsh came in legally..

    They spoke English and could assimilate very easy...

    There was no TV/Radio to keep them focused on the old country..etc and etc....

    So it was relatively easy for the American culture to work its magic... Taint so at this point...


    Gosh (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:32:11 PM EST
    And you have ranted on and on about assimilation, and how legal immigrants are ruining our country because they won't assimilate. That immigration should be stopped. Why? Because these mexicans are gonna take over....

    Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. The KKK and people like you were making the same arguments about the Irish, the Chinese, the Germans because they were destroying America with their dirty habits, foreign languages, and stealing jobs from native born.

    With people like you around some things never change.  


    power grab and protection racket (none / 0) (#65)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job

    So a last second provision slipped into the PATRIOT act says the DoJ gets to put White House political cronies into these jobs.

    Except for welfare for friends, why would they do such a thing?

    Could it be because the prosecutors were successful at prosecuting bush cronies for bribery?

    Sailor, why complain?? (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 09:17:22 PM EST
    Uh, these are political apointments...

    You remember when Clinton fired all those DOJ folks?

    The Repubs cried like babies... Clinton ignored them which was his right.

    Turn about and all that.


    Clinton ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    did so at te start of presidency, like most presidents do. He also did n't have the law changes so he could appoint his cronies w/o senate of judicial overview.

    humors, bodily smells, products (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 02:41:39 PM EST
    DA seeks Murder charge against 3 Atlanta officers (none / 0) (#72)
    by Patrick on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    From the shooting in Atlanta.  The FBI says they aren't finished with the investigation.   Politics?

    Watada (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 03:28:11 PM EST
    Lt. Ehren Watada'a courts martial over his refusal to deploy to Iraq because of his contention and belief that the war in Iraq is illegal, has ben declared a mistrial by the judge in the case, Lieutenant Colonel John Head:

    Head dismissed the jurors and set a March 19 date for a new trial.

    There seems to be some question as to whether the new trial can go forward, however.

    Marjorie Cohn has this to say in a BuzzFlash guest article today:

    When the Army judge declared a mistrial over defense objection in 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's court martial yesterday, he probably didn't realize jeopardy attached. That means that under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, the government cannot retry Lt. Watada on the same charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer.
    Although he faces the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, the judge's grant of a mistrial precludes retrial on the same criminal charges.

    Who is right?