home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:14:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Morning.

This is an Open Thread.

< NYTimes: FISA Court Oks Warrantless Wiretapping Law | More Criticism of the Supreme Court's Herring Decision >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama keeping abstinence-only AIDS coordinator (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:06:26 AM EST
    Link

    Just the start (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:35:52 AM EST
    I guess we need to reach out to those Evangelicals! I'm really getting nervous about all of this and he isn't even in office yet. Every abstinence program I've read about has shown them to be a total failure.  People have been having sex since there were people and I don't think we're going to change that. At least now we have the knowledge to advise them how to be safer.

    Parent
    I never really understood... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    the hub-bub on this...why can't we just teach everything we know?  Like abstinence is 100% effective, rubbers are 90-whatever % effective, and you make the decision that makes sense for you based on your personal religous and sexual beliefs.

    Why is that so hard?

    Parent

    Okay, second major (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    transition pissed off now.

    Parent
    More On This (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    From several sources:

    The Bay Area Reporter Online has this snippet embedded in a larger piece about recent 'openly gay' appointees of the Obama administration:

    (I must confess I was more taken with the information that all these years the U.S. has had an 'openly gay National Zoo director'--who has now been appointed to a different position by Obama...)

    "Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported Tuesday that Mark Dybul, an openly gay physician who has served for the past three years as President Bush's ambassador for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a global program, is staying put, at least for now. Post political columnist Al Kamen said Dybul sent an e-mail January 9 to his staff, saying he has "been asked to rescind my resignation so I will be continuing in the coordinator position beyond the inauguration.""

    Then there's this piece which features some of the same reservations/concerns expressed here, but also this perspective from Serra Sippel, executive director of the Center for Health and Gender Equity who points out that while there is "legitimate concern that keeping Dybul in place will mean a continuation of the Bush administration's one-size-fits-all approach" to HIV/AIDS prevention programs, rather than a more tailored approach to meet the needs of individual countries. However, replacing Dybul with a less-qualified candidate "could be disastrous..."

    And:

    ""Dybul has displayed he will follow the orders of his boss," and therefore global health advocates should focus on Obama and the policies that he will pursue in office (Semnani, CQ HealthBeat, 1/13)."

    I think my favorite quote in the ones I looked at was this one from a site called Southern Voice

    " Carl Schmid, an official with the AIDS Institute, a national AIDS group, and James Driscoll, an adviser to AIDS Health Care Foundation, which provides medical services to people with AIDS in 21 countries, said their respective groups support Obama's decision to retain Dybul as Global AIDS Coordinator.

    "From his former boss and mentor, Tony Fauci,[the lead NIH coordinator for the government's AIDS research programs.] Mark learned to master the fine art of instant adaptation to changes in Washington's political weather," Driscoll said. "With Obama's inauguration, abstinence-only will join the out-of-season clothing in many a closet."

    Parent

    We'll See (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    Carl Schmid, an official with the AIDS Institute, a national AIDS group, and James Driscoll, an adviser to AIDS Health Care Foundation, which provides medical services to people with AIDS in 21 countries, said their respective groups support Obama's decision to retain Dybul as Global AIDS Coordinator.

    "From his former boss and mentor, Tony Fauci, Mark learned to master the fine art of instant adaptation to changes in Washington's political weather," Driscoll said. "With Obama's inauguration, abstinence-only will join the out-of-season clothing in many a closet."

    Washington Blade

    Obama released an AIDS plan in October, saying he will "reauthorize PEPFAR when it expires in 2008 and rewrite much of the bill to allow best practices -- not ideology -- to drive funding for HIV/AIDS programs."

    The Illinois senator also criticized abstinence-only programs in a 2006 speech to the Global Summit on AIDS and the Church, held at pastor and author Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California. Clinton discussed her AIDS plan there on Thursday.

    link


    Parent

    Good Follow Up (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    Squeaky, with the material from Saddleback.

    I confess I'm less concerned with the appointees than with Obama's policies himself.

    Parent

    This is just the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    Obama has wanted all along to expand Bush's Faith-Based Initiates program

    Link

    Parent

    Sad (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    Of all the arguments against faith based initiatives, this one seems one of the strongest. This shouldn't be about changing the morality of people. We're dealing with actual life and death.

    Parent
    Obama Has Said Nothing (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    that leads me to believe this program (or any others currently in place) will be operated as an abstinence only initiative.

    This physician who is at its helm and who Obama has (so far) retained seems to have the support and respect of others in the AIDS program community. That's why I'm optimistic this will be not be about changing morality etc.


    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    I have a problem with faith based initiatives because of separation issues, but COngress does not. Do you think Hillary is a lying Hypocrite because she is for faith based initiatives and against abstinence only programs. I do not.

     "Abstinence only" is a different kettle of fish. That is a BushCo speciality.

    In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

    "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.


    link

    Parent
    I think (3.50 / 2) (#49)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    Hillary is not germane to this discussion.  

    Parent
    Really WHY (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    Because she has exactly the same opinion as your foe Obama?

    Get over it.

    As to your comment that this has nothing to do with Hillary, here is a comment by our soon to be ex SOS, Condi:

    I've been enormously proud as Secretary of State to be the chief officer responsible for this program. [PEPFAR]

    link


    Parent

    Condi Rice (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:54:30 PM EST
    I have no intention of getting into the Hilary battle, but quoting Condi Rice doesn't strengthen the argument. I don't think she had an independant idea in her head her entire time in Washington. She was the consumate puppet. I hope Hilary shows more spine at the job than that or we're in for another rough 4 years.

    Parent
    Spine? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    Why would Hillary need spine? There is little, or no, difference in the foreign policy stance between Hillary and Obama.

    Do you think that Hillary is going to tell Obama that we do not talk to terrorists, and force him to cancel talks with Iran?

    Hillary will be the person in charge of PEPFAR. Good thing that she will not have to set Obama straight considering that they are on the same page. Personally I think it is exciting. Abstinence only via BushCO has been a disaster, it is a good thing that the adults are finally in charge here.

    Parent

    Back off (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    You're blowing it out of proportion. I merely was commenting that Rice was a stooge. I have no doubts Obama and Hilary have much in common on policy, but I would expect Hilary to question Obama if she felt the need rather than to march in step.

    Parent
    I Am Sure (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    That even a "stooge" like Condi, had big problems with the idiot king. My guess is that she had more problems with Bush than Hillary will ever have with Obama.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    I always got the feeling that of everyone in the cabinet, Condi and Bush got on the best.  Even better than Bush and Cheney.  Like Bush was maybe a little bit afraid of Cheney, but him and Condi were drinking buddies (wouldn't wanna be "buddies" w/ Cheney - might shoot you in the face).  I certainly never had the impression she had "big problems" with him though.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    Although Bush is such a moron that even his wife, I mean SOS, must find him insufferable at times. Just recently she had to abstain voting on her peace plan for Gaza because Bush got a call from Olmert demanding a no vote.

    Parent
    As SOS (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:20:06 PM EST
    She isn't completely irrelevant either.

    Parent
    Yes He Has (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    I have no problem with that, given that gov't at all levels in this country has a long and productive history of collaborating with religious communities to provide all manner of human services sans doctrinal contamination. Done right, (as it often is) it provides a valuable augmentation to straightforward public provision of the same services.

    From your link:

    "The Illinois senator praised Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives but said that it "never fulfilled its promise" because the administration "consistently underfunded" social service programs for the poor. Obama said he'd replace the Bush program with a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "The new name will reflect a new commitment," he said."

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:32:13 PM EST
    Hillary is big on that too. Although you comment is essentially a non sequitur regarding abstinence only programs.

    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:58:39 PM EST
    since it's linked to the rest of the faith based initiatives.  But you knew that.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:02:31 PM EST
    this is a non-requiter since she is not the topic of conversation, nor will she be in charge of setting this policy.  But again, nice try.

    Parent
    Try To Think (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    And do some research. Your reflex that anything Obama does is bad makes you sound like a GOP troll on automatic. I tried to point out that your diety Hillary has exactly the same opinion on faith based initiatives, and abstinence only programs, in order to help you out of your corner, but alas you are obviously too forgone in your cultish mindset.

    Parent
    No she doesn't. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:31:02 PM EST


    Parent
    BS (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama are the same now. On this issue there has not been any difference and there is no difference now.

    Both Hillary and Obama want to expand faith based initiatives. Both Hillary and Obama are against abstinence only programs.

    THat is record and fact.

    Bill CLinton started the ball rolling with his charitable choice program. which is clearly the foundation for Bush's faith based initiative program.

    Parent

    In Fact, I Think She Does (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    Or, if not, she's very close

    snip from four years ago:

    On the eve of the presidential inauguration, US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night embraced an issue some pundits say helped seal a second term for George W. Bush: acceptance of the role of faith in addressing social ills.

    In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

    "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

    Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person."

    She said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square."

    Parent

    okay... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:31:23 PM EST
    ... still don't see how that means she wants to expand faith based initiatives...

    Approval of someone's good work does not necessarily equal funding it.

    It wasn't my intention to go into HRCs policies.  She is, after all, not the President Elect and so should not be the focus.  But she keeps getting pulled in somehow whenever there's any criticism of BO.  Like some sort of living Obama shield.

    Parent

    As I Said (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 06:08:23 PM EST
    That the kneejerk horror about anything Obama here should be easily diffused by pointing out that 'woman who could do no wrong' holds exactly the same core democratic policies.

    And as far as Hillary and faith based initiatives go, it started with Bill' Charitable Choice strongly supported by Hillary.

    When candidate Bush pledged in his first campaign speech in 1999 to "rally the armies of compassion," he was not blazing new ground but rather following in the steps of Bill Clinton, whose Cabinet secretaries had worked closely with religious nonprofits and Al Gore, who had endorsed the funding of faith-based organizations six months earlier. Even the most conservative aspect of Bush's faith-based plan -- the expansion of tax incentives to encourage charitable giving -- already had been championed by Hillary Clinton at a White House conference on philanthropy.

    link

    Burns Strider, Clinton's director of faith-based outreach, "said that if she were elected, Clinton would continue funding faith-based organizations, but would seek to maintain an appropriate boundary between church and state," Christianity Today reported. "Clinton emphasizes a 'fair and level playing field' for faith-based and secular providers of social services, Strider said."

    link

    On Jan. 19, 2005, Mrs. Clinton, speaking before clergy members in Boston, captured the spirit that is likely to prevail in the White House, no matter who is elected: "But I ask you, who is more likely to go out onto a street to save some poor, at-risk child than someone from the community, someone who believes in the divinity of every person, who sees God at work in the lives of even the most hopeless and left-behind of our children? And that's why we need to not have a false division or debate about the role of faith-based institutions, we need to just do it and provide the support that is needed on an ongoing basis." Amen.

    NYT


    Parent

    And as I said (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by sj on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    She is not the issue.  She is not the President Elect.  She will not be President for the next four years.  So all this is just so much noise.

    A living Obama shield.

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:05:32 PM EST
    Hillary still will exist. Bill CLinton has a legacy regarding faith based initiatives and Hillary was a big part of it. To leave them out of the equation when discussing the issue, is silly. It is also especially useful to mention Hillary in comparison to Obama to a group of people who think everything Hillary good everything Obama bad.

    Not to mention Hillary will be administering the PEPFAR program.

    I guess the real dishonesty started when a commenter suggested that Dybu is the brains behind PEPFAR and it is an abstinence only program. Also implying that Obama and Hillary have reversed their opinion of abstinence only programs.

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#106)
    by sj on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:24:53 PM EST
    It is also especially useful to mention Hillary in comparison to Obama to a group of people who think everything Hillary good everything Obama bad.

    There are few people who think HRC equals all good and BO equals all bad.  But you bring out the schtick no matter what.  And then repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it.  It's NOT useful.  It diverts and even degrades the conversation.  

    I suspect that you will now dump me into your perceived list of a "group of people" in spite of the fact that I think nothing of the kind.  

    Oh well.  Carry on.  I know you will.  But I'm done.

    Parent

    Blindness (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    There are few people who think HRC equals all good and BO equals all bad.
    Just so happens that many of them have landed at TL.

    As far as you go,  I call em as I see em. Comments are case by case responses from me, save for a few ongoing spats..

    Parent

    Once again (3.50 / 4) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    You have shown no capacity to discuss the topic being presented.  We are discussing Obama and his appointments and policies.  Hillary has nothing to do with this discussion, but you try to bring her into every discussion.  Any time there is something that is not praiseworthy of Obama, you jump in and hijack the thread to say "Hillary did this!"  That is the definition of being a troll.

    I know you will give some snarky response to this which, once again, has nothing to do with the topic at hand, because you must always have the last word.  

    Please go back to lurking under your bridge and watching for billy goats.

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    You are the one whose brain function has ceased. Faith based initiatives are a whole different story that abstinence only programs.

    I tried to help you think about this by example. Hillary is someone you think highly of and who has thought a lot about faith based initiatives and abstinence only programs. She is against abstinence only programs, and for expanding faith based initiatives.

    According to your reflexive thinking they are the same. Well think again. Not to mention that Hillary will be in charge of the program. It is no wonder that both Obama and Hillary are on the same page regarding faith based programs and abstinence only.

    You are predictably reading an entirely different book.

    Parent

    After reading the last link (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:09:11 PM EST
    you provided to me, I took the time to do some of my own googling.  I'm trying to help you think about this by example.

    Googling hillary clinton expand faith based programs returns links to discussions of Obama's positions.  Only.  So I am definitely reading a different book than you are.  

    But I like libraries.  I'm still looking for your book.  

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    Has been louder about the issue certainly, and more-often googled, but I think the globe article linked earlier is actually a pretty clear articulation of where Hillary stands on the issue.

    Parent
    Not sure I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    ...that one article from four years ago is as clear an articulation of a direction as all the BO related info since then.

    And a re-re-reading of that article (just to make sure) finds no evidence of support for expansion of government funding of faith based initiatives.  Only support for good work wherever it can be found.  I understand that.  I, myself, support lots of things I don't fund.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    You could make the case that Obama wants to expand the program, and Hillary just wanted to keep it, but she wasn't planning on ending it.

    Her spokes-person did say in "Christianity Today" that she would "continue funding faith-based organizations, but would seek to maintain an appropriate boundary between church and state"

    And then it goes on to say she would fund secular programs as well.  But her support of faith-based programs certainly goes as far as funding them.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 06:48:49 PM EST
    I do believe that Hillary would have expanded the program as well, of course with the opposite agenda of BushCo.

    It seems that the program was started by Clinton to get money in the hands of those already doing the most charity work, rather than reinventing the wheel and only setting up governmental programs to help those in need.

    Bush could have cared less about those in need and cynically used the program to enhance his own power and force those in need to jump through religious hoops in order to get relief.

    Parent

    May I suggest one simple rule (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    Don't feed the toxic; ignore.
    Don't feed the toxic; ignore.
    Don't feed the toxic; ignore.

    Parent
    I would suggest... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:31:15 PM EST
    ...that you read this before you continue posting.  You're already name-calling and at the limit (10 in a 24 hour period) for postings for a new account.  

    Troll rating others can get you banned from TL as well.  

    Parent

    great, state sanctioned murder (none / 0) (#17)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    by proxy.

    Parent
    Ah ha...a 'Rick Warren moment.' (none / 0) (#29)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    So much for change you can believe in.

    Parent
    Both Hillary and Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    Were telling him and his followers that they were wrong about abstinence only programs. Do you have a problem with that? I don't.

    Parent
    What? Why would I have (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:22:48 PM EST
    a problem with that?

    I can't prove it, of course, but I doubt very much that Hillary would have kept him on.  And now, as the SOS, she will have to deal with him and worldwide programs and their consequence.

    Maybe they can make it work...temporarily...but it's the wrong message for my money.

    Parent

    link? (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    You're making a lot of assertions here.  I'd like to read the backup.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Am particularly interested ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:52:51 PM EST
    ... in the back up for this.  Seriously.

    Parent
    Links (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:23:35 PM EST
    LAKE FOREST, Calif. - Within days of introducing a $50 billion plan to combat AIDS, Sen. Hillary Clinton received a standing ovation at one of the nation's most influential evangelical churches after addressing its "Global Summit on AIDS and the Church" today.

    If the Democratic presidential frontrunner's aim was to make inroads into the heavily Republican evangelical electorate, her appearance at Saddleback Church with pastor and "The Purpose Driven Life" author Rick Warren apparently didn't hurt.

     link  

    The Illinois senator also criticized abstinence-only programs in a 2006 speech to the Global Summit on AIDS and the Church, held at pastor and author Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California. Clinton discussed her AIDS plan there on Thursday.

    [snip]

    All three candidates, however, have expressed general support for faith-based organizations that combat HIV/AIDS and poverty around the world.

    link

    Parent

    Thanks... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    ...I guess.  I was expecting something with a little more substance from you.  

    Addressing an organization is not the same thing as endorsing it.  I don't hold that "against" either one.  And having general support for an organization that does good work sounds appropriate to me.  

    Neither of those things sounds like a policy.  For either Clinton or Obama.  So I'm not sure why you're using it to compare to a policy direction.

    And actually your second link does make a policy distinction regarding the position on abstinence only between Clinton and Edwards/Obama.  

    You try really hard to conflate the positions of Obama and Clinton using a variation of the "you're another" fallacy.  I'm not sure why.  

    Frankly, I've been failing in my own due diligence and [kind of] accepting that you could back up what you say.  But if this is the kind of back up that you have, I should probably rethink that.

    Parent

    Not Sure Of Your Point (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    No Dem was endorsing Warrens church, if that is what you mean. I never implied that Hillary or Obama were doing that. Hillary was the only candidate that actually appeared in person, the other five, including Obama sent in video taped speeches.

    As far as my point that Hillary and Obama were reeducating the abstinence only crowd at Saddlebrook here is the the pertinent part from transcript:

    Having said that [hat tip to abstinence], I also believe that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal and not the reality - that we are dealing with flesh and blood men and women and not abstractions - and that if condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available.

    link

    I can't find the transcript from Hillary's speech but I am sure that she included her belief that an "abstinence only" policy for AIDS prevention will not work.

    Parent

    My point is (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:48:32 PM EST
    I'm looking for backup for your assertions here that HRC had the same position as BO (referred to here).

    In other words.  Forget abstinence-only.  Not my interest.  Expansion of faith based programs is my current focus.  And you say they are the same ("they" being Obama and Clinton).  I'm looking for your documentation of that.  

    When a commenter is as prolific as you are, I guess you sometimes forget what you've said when.  As a much less active commenter, it's much easier for me to keep track of a train of thought.  So sometimes I'm like a dog with a bone.


    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 06:40:07 PM EST
    Hillary has not said, as far as I can tell that she would do anything more than keep the program going. It is my opinion that the program will expand, with her blessings, but in an altogether tack than BushCo. Abstinence only programs will not receive money from the federal gov.

    Faith based funding is a long time cause of Hillary and Bill. Bush corrupted it as he is wont to do. I am not keen on the program, but can imagine it working with the new administration that Obama clearly believes that the Church State separation clause does not need to be rewritten.  

    He is against taking god out of the pledge of allegiance though.

    Religious groups cried foul when he said that they would no longer be able to base hiring on religious grounds for programs receiving faith based initiative money. That is a reversal from the Clinton administration.

    Parent

    So in other words (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sj on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 09:24:06 AM EST
    Your repeated statement that they had the same view was just a knee jerk opinion of yours.

    That's fine, you know.  It really is.  Until you start using your opinion as a club.

    Parent

    Dismayed by CDS (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:06:36 AM EST
    I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but once again here it is. Is there no end to this? Especially the "liberals."

    I voted for Obama in the end, and hope he will be at least a substantial improvement over Bush-Cheney, but I do love the Clintons, and I just don't get it.

    Obama appointed Clinton to his top cabinet post. Shouldn't that end it?

    Don't people want competence, brilliance and dedication?

    BTW, interesting the Obama apparently didn't invite Keith to his little "liberal" pundits meeting. LOL, if true.

    I'm more amused (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    by Krugman declining.

    Parent
    I didn't realize he had declined. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    Hmmm.....

    Maybe that snark of Obama's about "if Krugman has a good idea..." didn't go over well with him.

    It didn't go over well with me either.

    Parent

    Perhaps he didn't appreciate (none / 0) (#98)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    the way Obama pronounced the "u" in his name.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#10)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:17:10 AM EST
    I got a chuckle that Olberman wasn't there either. All that sucking up for nothing! I was sure he was running for the press secretary position.

    Parent
    I am with you. (none / 0) (#48)
    by AX10 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    I am also dismayed at the Democratic Party
    for many reasons.  I find the "liberal" commentators and the DU/Dkos crowd to by just as bad as their right wing counterparts.
    Did you notice that Krugman was a no show at Obama's meetings with the media?

    Parent
    Gail Collins gives me a (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    bitter laugh:

    History does suggest that Bush performs best in venues [. . .] in which he has a long lead time and virtually no actual role in preparing the words he is about to say. But still, what could he possibly tell the country that would change anybody's opinion about the last eight years?

    "My fellow Americans, before I leave you next week I want you to know that ...

    [. . . ]

    C) "Surprise! This has all actually been a bad dream. It's really still November of 2000 and tomorrow Al Gore is going to be elected president."
    What Bush can tell the country? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by BernieO on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:37:03 PM EST
    Apparently some amazingly shallow, stupid things like telling People Magazine that the most anxious moment he had during the last eight years was when he has to throw out the first pitch at the World Series.Or saying that every day he was President was a joy. (And here I thought he couldn't sound any dumber.) I would like to hear the reaction of the 9-11 widows to those statements.

    As for Gail Collins wishing this were all a bad dream and Gore had been elected in 2000 - she conveniently neglected to mention that she and her colleagues bear a large part of the responsibility for Gore's defeat. Check out Bob Somerby's Daily Howler site for more. He mentions her culpability in today's post and his archives have plenty of examples. Collins and the other Beltway pundits and reporters thought Gore was boring (too much focus on substance which meant they had to learn stuff) and that Bush, with his frat-boy swagger, was much more fun and waaayy cooler. She should be writing a column to apologize to the country.

    Parent

    Eric Holder (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    Looks like a few more questions are popping up.  Holder may have ties to Blago, but of course, he denies it.

    Link

    Eric Holder confirnation hearing (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:48:23 PM EST
    From Politico (emphasis is mine):

    Eric Holder said that the Obama administration would not seek to "criminalize" policy disputes with the Bush administration.

    Holder was responding to questions from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) about whether he, as attorney general, would authorize criminal prosecutions of Bush Justice Department lawyers who approved "extraordinary redition" and the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

    "We don't want to criminalize policy differences that may exist between the outgoing administration" and the incoming Obama administration.

    Holder's view echoes that expressed by President-elect Barack Obama, who has so far indicated that he is not interested in pursuing such investigations.

    Yet Holder did not completely absolve Bush administration officials if they did break the law.

    "We will follow the facts where they go," Holder said.

    Okay...not interested in investigations, but will follow facts...how does that work?  Are they planning to wait for these guys to tell all in their memoirs or something?  

    Doublespeak is alive and well.

    Sounds about par (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:10:03 PM EST
    Reagan waltzed away from Iran/Contra. Bush and crew will waltz into the sunset from all of this. And Clinton gets impeached for lying about consentual sex. Tell me again about which party has a backbone!

    Kinda makes sense.... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    if you think about it...As a society we love guns, we love war, we love sneakiness and shadyness as opposed to honesty...but we've got issues with hummers.

    Just don't ask me why:)

    Parent

    waited too long for stimulus (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    My prediction: depression like statistics for 2009.  The working people stimulus which is still in ideation hs taken too long to implement and a projected date of Feb for passing is too far out.

    I look forward to reading Krugman, Kuttner and Reich in 3 months opining the same......

    Shame on you politicians.

    It's that time again.... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:47:21 PM EST
    W2 time...and it never fails to steam me up when I see what the man got me for...or what I let the man get me for.

    I don't mind the SS taxes and the medicare taxes, I know in theory that is going to the sick and the old...I can get down with that.  It's the "federal income tax withheld" that burns me up...chipping in for war and occupation and torture and prisons and all sorts of evil.  In my world 5 grand is a lot of money...and I just give it up without a fight, funding my own persecution-lite and far worse for millions of others.  

    May karma go easy on me for being a piker and paying the piper simply because it is easier than doing the right thing.

    Whine, whine, whine. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:02:17 AM EST
    My skinny son whined when I insisted he wear his woolen thermal underwear to school again.  It's warm, lightweight and not bulky - but the other kids don't wear it.

    He promptly spent ten minutes waiting for the bus literally rolling in the snow, and the temps are in the single digits (F).  He complained his hands were cold, but that was it.

    Parents can be sooooo silly sometimes.  ;-)

    How old? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:40:59 AM EST
    And where did he misplace his thermal gloves?!?

    Mommmmm!

    Parent

    He's only seven. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:58:29 AM EST
    Gloves are a pain.  Between big hands and cerebral palsy, he needs gloves that are roomy and flexible.  Thinsulate usually means they are too snug and too stiff.  I did find a great pair of gloves - that will fit him in a couple years. :)

    I sometimes carry hot water bottles.  Literally.  The little 4-6 ounce bottles for infants filled with boiling water and kept in my pockets.  I give them to the kids to hold to warm up their hands.  

    Parent

    I love my down mittens! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:31:44 AM EST


    Parent
    Down mittens! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    Sounds like heaven.

    I keep a variety of gloves around.  Lighter weight ones with good tactile control, medium weight for grunt work and stiff, heavy ones for walking.  The most useless ones I've ever seen are "driving gloves".  They don't keep your hands warm and are useless for anything BUT driving.  My garden gloves do a better job - cheaper too!

    Parent

    Best of both (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    are heavy wool mittens lined with thinsulate with half-gloves underneath.  You pull back the mitten part and half your fingers are bare so you can do stuff with them briefly.  They're great for winter bird-watching, for instance, since you can't focus your binos wearing mittens.  I stick a slim handwarmer thingy inside the mitten part, so my fingers get warmed up rapidly once I pull it back over.

    Parent
    What about those handwarmers (none / 0) (#26)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:08:52 PM EST
    I see advertised for duckhunters, etc.?  Do they work...or are they too expensive?

    Parent
    The kind that I have used (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by eric on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    contain only iron, cellulose, salt, and activated charcoal.  They are non-toxic and cheap, very cheap.  Maybe .59 a piece.  You just open them up, expose them to the air, and they get nice and warm.  They last for maybe 6 hours and that's it.

    Parent
    I saw the combustibles (none / 0) (#99)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:43:11 PM EST
    Just this month too.

    Scared the cr@p out of me.  Might be good for serious outdoor use, but not what I was looking for.  Not little kid friendly.

    Parent

    Yes, they work (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    so do the bootwarmers.  They're not terribly hot, but the constant gentle warmth is all it takes to keep fingers and toes comfortable.

    Parent
    There are two types. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    One is a chemical reaction - some actually use burning charcoal!  Single use.

    The others are insulated and reheatable.  You use a microwave to carefully heat them up - but you can reuse them over and over.  Like a high tech water bottle - but with no leaking.  A lot safer than the chemical types.

    Parent

    When I was a kid.... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    the wool hat, the gloves, the scarf...all got stashed in the mailbox until I got home from school...gotta look cool:)

    Parent
    I bet your mom was very thin (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    and tired ;-)

    Parent
    It's pretty chilly here in Bama (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    these past few days too.  I put a ski coat on my son and he whined that he was a character in A Christmas Story.

    Parent
    Sub zero (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:53:14 AM EST
    They're talking possible -20 (Chicago area) tonight and that's not wind chill. This winter has been disgusting! I don't even want to think of what the heating bill will be this month.

    Parent
    Not fun (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    for you guys.  Sorry you are all going through this.

    Parent
    Hanging in there (none / 0) (#24)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:35:52 AM EST
    Only twelve more years of this junk before retirement! Then I never want to see a snowflake again.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    Snow and cold are much less a hassle after retirement.

    No need to plow out the driveway after or before work.  Clear off the snow at your leisure and the choice to leave the house is yours alone.

    No need for yard work until April and if you have a pool it's been shut down since September and won't require any work until late May.

    Parent

    As a retirement present, (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    I bought myself a coffee cup with the legend, "Let it snow!"

    It's great to sit and watch the snow out the window while sitting in front of a fire and sipping coffee. All those years I just wished I could be doing that. Now I can!

    Parent

    Or if you work from a home (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    office, like moi.  I have a big ol' 25-foot indoor commute from my bedroom to my office.

    Parent
    Mine's shorter {grin} (none / 0) (#102)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 01:05:27 AM EST
    my office is a couch with spotty dog and a coffee table. I had forgotten it snowed this AM when I went out this afternoon. I was a bit surprised, lol!~

    Parent
    It sure is cold (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    We aren't sub-zero yet, but we are in the "feels like 1 degree" range.  Speaking for me only, walking through a wind tunnel "feels" a lot colder than even that.  I don't envy you guys out west.

    Parent
    8 below last night (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    here in VT, low single digits all day today, a plunge to double digits below tonight, maybe as much as -20 in my part of the state.

    I love my woodstove, but it's too small to keep up with that much cold, so I'm glad I still have my boiler and VERY thankful the price of oil has dropped so far and that I didn't do the disastrous pre-buy thing this summer at the top of the oil price spike.

    Parent

    Could be worse... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    we could be paying last year's rates for heat...that woulda been real ugly.

    Parent
    We are still paying (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by liminal on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    last year's rates for heat.  The gas company bought its natural gas last summer, when commodity prices were high.  They had their last rate increase in June.  We're just lucky that the state PSC denied the gas company's request for another 35% rate increase in November.  It nearly went through - the first ALJ who looked at it provisionally approved the rate increase, but the whole PSC Board reversed her decision, finding that commodity prices had fallen enough that the gas company could make up the differential between their costs for the gas they bought in the summer and the rates given the drop in prices now.    

    Parent
    Ouch.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    I've got oil heat and am paying about half as last year...though some people by me panicked during the summer and locked into contracts for oil at double the price, kinda like what you're dealing with.

    At least they didn't whomp you with the 35%...

    Parent

    Yeah, that was lucky! (none / 0) (#71)
    by liminal on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    There was quite an outcry over those proposed rate increases back in November, but I was still pleasantly surprised that the PSC held the line.  It was the right thing to do - and we all know how rarely that happens!

    Parent
    Global cooling strikes! (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 08:50:07 AM EST


    Parent
    Percy Update (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    With 13 hours left to decide, today is the day Percy Harvin chooses to skip his senior season (or not).

    If he calls and asks my opinion as a Gator fan, it's don't go Percy. If he calls looking for advice as to what's best for his financial future, it's take the money and run Percy run.

    Mo' Drama in Knicks-ville... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:48:13 AM EST
    Just when they start at least resembling an NBA team, playing hard every night, the curse of the Dolans strikes again in the form of a very odd sexuual harassment suit filed against Eddy Curry by his former chauffer.

    My first impression is its a shakedown because the charges seem so outlandish, but who the hell knows...it is the Knicks.

    Obama and Biden Visit the Supreme Court (none / 0) (#30)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    I don't think I ever saw pictures (or heard accounts) of other presidents elect and VPs-elect doing this, but here are pictures:

    I found myself wondering if that's Chief Justice Roberts' chair Obama is leaning on (with Roberts smiling nearby)...

    Two invitees (none / 0) (#34)
    by JThomas on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    to meet with Obama have snubbed him: Alito and Krugman. Hmmmm...

    Alito's absence struck observers as strange.
    Maybe he and Paul were having lunch?

    Parent

    Strange? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    Nah, Obama voted against his confirmation. He is an a$$hole who bases his opinions on grudges and doles out payback.

    While I certainly believe that Judge Samuel Alito has the training and the qualifications necessary to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, after a careful review of his record, I simply cannot vote for his nomination.

    "The Judicial Branch of our government is a place where any American citizen can stand equal before the eyes of the law. Yet, in examining Judge Alito's many decisions, I have seen extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless, for the employer against the employee, for the President against the Congress and the Judiciary, and for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties.

    "By ruling this way so many times over a course of so many years, Judge Alito simply does not inspire confidence that he will serve as an independent voice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    "I do hope that if he is confirmed, he proves me wrong. I hope that he will uphold the best traditions of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice on behalf of every American citizen."

    link

    Parent

    I think in the past (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by JThomas on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:52:56 PM EST
    all members of the court have shown up for lunch with the president-elect...and Alito was the exception. Like going out of his way to avoid Obama. Not too classy,imo.

    Parent
    If I'm not mistaken (none / 0) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:00:55 PM EST
    didn't Obama vote FOR cloture on the Alito nomination?

    Parent
    Nay (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:30:26 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:02:51 PM EST
    Then I'm sure it was Roberts.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:58:21 PM EST
    Feingold, Clinton, Leahy, Kenedy, Boxer, Durbin were wrong on that one too. As Far as I was concerned Roberts was an obvious fake,  a stealth wingnut. I do not know wtf the senators were thinking.

    Bush would not allow access to Robert's records. That should have confirmed Robert's taint right away.


    Parent

    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment