Monday Open Thread

I'll be in court the rest of the day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | Tom DeLay Jury Deliberations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Memory (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Yes2Truth on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:56:20 AM EST

    "Time has blurred our memory and words have stilled
    our feelings, but we remember the man and the day, and feel a muted sorrow"

    Not so blurred (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    Burned in my memory.  Still all too clear.

    I, too, remember it (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    all too clearly.  I was fifteen, in Algebra II class, when the principal made the announcement over the loud-speaker.  Most of us girls (and some of the boys) burst into tears.  

    My mom told me that my (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by vml68 on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:58:24 PM EST
    grandfather (an uneducated man living in a village in India) cried bitterly when he heard on the radio that JFK had been assasinated. Apparently, he really looked up to JFK and felt it was a loss for the world, not just the US.

    I was pretty surprised when I heard this story. I cannot fathom being that emotional about anyone except immediate family.


    We were in India in 1980 the first time (none / 0) (#76)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    and so many of the people there wanted to talk about JFK when they learned we were Americans.

    I came across a prayer card (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:58:49 PM EST
    the other day that my mother saved that was put out by the Catholic Church after the assassination:



    Incline Thine ear, O LORD, unto our prayers, wherein we humbly pray Thee to show Thy mercy upon the soul of Thy servant JOHN, whom Thou hast commanded to pass out of this world, that Thou wouldst place him in the region of peace and light, and bid him be a partaker with Thy Saint. Through Christ our Lord.  Amen.

    Fourth grade midwest (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:18:23 PM EST
    big city, came in from lunch/recess and the loudest kids' voices in the hallway were saying "President Kennedy was run over by a motorcycle" ...

    Our middle-aged teacher tries to compose herself as she makes the announcement while quietly breaking into tears that the president was killed and that school is dismissed for the day.  Quite a palpable pall over our neighborhood that weekend, most people inside trying to absorb the events in front of their tv's.

    First Q I know I'll be asking when my number is finally called:  Who were the major people behind JFK's assassination?


    I'll be asking where I can find him (none / 0) (#93)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:47:42 PM EST
    to have a chat and get his views on the current scene.  A prof I had in law school taught a subject in which I had very little interest, but it was an pleasure to witness the prof's mind at work, and I took whatever classes he taught. What I'd give to hear JFK on politics today; even better, a conversation between him and WJC.  What a treat -- and I'd dare say, a learning experience. Although I wonder if a JFK wouldn't be taken aback & at least momentarily befuddled by what's transpired -- on civil rights, Constitutional law, and foreign policy.  To what end did he urge: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"? The 'me' generation of the 60's seems to have won out over those who thought serving the country (and everyone in it) was a privilege.
    In fairness to the Repubs, or some of them, I think DDE would be equally concerned about the direction our country has taken.

    Did anyone else watch (none / 0) (#72)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    the press conference given by the head of the Dallas Memorial medical team right after the Cronkite announcement in which the fellow explained the pattern/size of bullet holes in JFK's head and neck and why this meant he was shot from the front (i.e., not killed by Oswald)?  This Dr. has maintained this stance.  

    I think the killing of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. changed the course of American history, and not for the better.

    I spent the weekend watching everything on TV with both parents.  I cannot hold back tears even today watching anything about the assassinations.  Highly recommended:  Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years
    by David Talbot.


    I think you might be (none / 0) (#88)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:06:14 PM EST
    referring to Dr Malcolm Perry, the first surgeon to work on Pres Kennedy, who noted at the presser the "wound of entrance" in the throat, and the large wound to the back of the head (consistent with an exit wound).  

    This was a problem for the media initially -- Life Magazine in one of their early issues of the case, tried to cover for the Lone Nut scenarists by stating, falsely, that the Z film showed, at the time of the throat wound, Pres Kennedy turning around waving towards the rear (i.e. towards the School Bk Depository).  Of course they printed no picture with that explanation because Kennedy made no such movement.

    When Arlen Specter of the WC got ahold of Dr Perry, he needed to diminish such "damaging" testimony to the LN case as Perry gave on day one.  So he gives Perry an extremely complex, convoluted and irrelevant hypothetical based on the alleged opinions of the autopsists and what they allegedly saw in the back/neck wound.  This was the only way -- completely dishonestly -- that the Comm'n could get Perry to veer from his front entrance wound/back head exit first day testimony.

    Dr Perry died last year, btw.

    Re JFK, RFK, and MLK, they were all victims of conspiracy, most probably involving high levels of gov't officials who wanted these liberal troublemakers out of the way.

    And I concur with the rec for Talbot's book.  Another even greater one is JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass.  Goes clearly into the assass'n -- including the very disturbing attempt or dry run in Chicago 3 weeks before Dallas involving another presidential caravan and another ex-military guy who looked like he was being set up as a patsy like Oswald -- plus a refreshingly clear look at JFK's foreign policy and attempts at détente with Khrushchev following the missile crisis.


    Thanks for the (none / 0) (#91)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    rec of the Douglass book; haven't read that one.

    Have you read "Best Evidence" by David Lifton?  He was a doctoral candidate in physics at Berkeley at the time of the assassination; 2 professors who were advising the WC were teaching an interdepartmental graduate seminar on the assassination.  Lifton, as a physicist, decided to study the "head snap" in the Zapruder film. After placing the numbered slides in the correct order (were in incorrect order, according to Lifton, as they appeared in WC Report), he concluded JFK had to have been shot from the front, and then he embarked upon an eight or ten year study of everyone and everything related to the physical evidence he could find.  At each step of his investigation, he posits a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis against facts uncovered, and then redraws the hypothesis.  Reads like the best murder mystery in town.


    Re Lifton, yes read his (none / 0) (#94)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:03:20 PM EST
    book probably 20 yrs ago.  Though it's a long read, some parts of it are quite dramatic, as with his discovery of the FBI report of the autopsy produced by the two fed witnesses sent there by Hoover to watch, in which they noted what seemed to be some strange "pre-autopsy autopsy" of the cranium, as they quote the autopsy surgeons saying during the outset of the procedure.  

    Then his encounters on campus (UCLA, iirc) with WC staffer Wesley Liebeler (who taught at UCLA Law for decades and who in the mid-60s when Lifton was a grad student offered a grad seminar on the WC which Lifton audited) who made the cryptic remark to him one day, after Lifton's many entreaties to him to think anew about conspiracy and help him re-open the case -- There are some things, David, which are simply bigger than we are.  (WL sent a mild letter in response to Lifton to one WC counsel, then apparently went back to teaching and backing the WC.)

    But then the heart of the book and DL's sensational claim that JFK's body was secretly, surreptitiously stolen from the casket, probably on the ground in Dallas where the plane waited a very long time to take off (allegedly so LBJ could be properly sworn in by a fed judge).  The body was stolen by the perpetrators of the plot, accd'g to Lifton, in order to physically remove bullets and/or hide evidence of bullet entry in the front of the neck and head.  He also hypothesizes that when the plane got to D.C., it was surreptitiously taken (because now in another casket, a cheap one) not to Bethesda but to Walter Reed, where the "pre-autopsy" could be carried out, quickly, in secret.

    Not sure if I buy it -- in fact, tend to doubt it happened that way.  But it is a fascinating theory.  And brought Lifton some fame, financial reward (best seller plus paperback sales).


    I read the Lifton book (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:06:41 PM EST
     and it was so fascinating. I was 6 when Kennedy was shot and remember vividly studying the Life magazine photos of the Zapruder film, and the other pictures. If Lifton is correct about how the body was moved, that picture of LBJ taking the oath on Airforce One is really disturbing.

    I have not kept up with the state of the theories to see if Lifton has been refuted.


    BTW (none / 0) (#92)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:16:53 PM EST
    I think the Talbot book also serves as a great introduction to the foment, culture and politics of the 1960s.

    Seems like just yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    when President Obama and Rahm were engaged in that long courtship of the "moderate Republican", Senator Olympia Snowe (aka President Snowe), for that "just within reach" vote for HCR. It was a tough slog but it was worth it, until.... oops.

    Now, double oops, Snowe and her Maine colleague, Susan Collins, have joined twenty-eight other Republican senators in an amicus brief in federal court in Florida hearing a constitutional challenge to the HCR law.

    Just made my yearly donation to TL (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:04:07 PM EST
    Getting to be that time of year. Give a little if you can.  Thanks as always, Jeralyn, for a great blog and for all the work you put in.  

    Peace and Happy Thanksgiving.

    Thanks for the reminder... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:37:03 PM EST
    and making me feel like a deadbeat dad:)

    Have a good holiday, my man (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    I'm on a poker hiatus, headed to St. Louis and the bro-in-law's manse (though he'd never say it was). Any big house with portico and columns is an estate to me.  My wife's family is like the big nuclear unit I never had growing up. Always a good time.



    Enjoy good sir... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:26:01 PM EST
    I'm sure the leather-arses on Full Tilt are happy you're on hiatus.  

    Flyin' to St. Louie?  Good luck with the Mrs. and little man getting past the goons, not to mention your little man...hope it ain't traumatic.


    Headed to my neck of the woods (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    Enjoy your stay in St. Louis. The current forecast is for cooler temperatures on Thanksgiving. Today's high around 75. Thursday high of 41 and low of 24.



    TY for the update (none / 0) (#61)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    I'll be sure to pack accordingly, weathersoft southern California boy that I am.

    We have a saying here in MO (none / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:33:15 PM EST
    If you don't like the weather, wait a minute it will change.

    That saying has a whole lot of truth to it. Not sure when you are leaving California, but you might want to check forecast again before you leave.

    I've lived here all my life and it always takes me a while to adjust to cold weather. Must have lived in a warmer climate in my past life. ;-)


    The prediction is -3 Farenheit (and snow) (none / 0) (#68)
    by esmense on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    for Wednesday when we'll be arriving in Glasgow, Montana for Thanksgiving -- but should warm up to a balmy 22 above by the time we leave on Sunday. My husband and I have managed to avoid spending any winter holidays in Montana for the last 20 years. But his mother is getting increasingly less mobile and unable to travel -- plus, she just sold her home and moved into assisted living at the first of this month. She is now closer to his sister and the grandchildren, but it was a big and traumatic transition. We figured that this year we really had to go. So we'll be warming up in the train's club car with the Hutterites and cowboys.

    My family on my Dad's side is from Missouri -- Carthage and Springfield. We went "home" during many Christmas holidays during my childhood. I remember frost and cold, but nothing too extreme.


    Compared to Montana winter (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:36:50 PM EST
    weather in MO is downright balmy. Some years we can have Indian Summer into November. Can get below zero on occasion but luckily it doesn't happen often or last more than a week.  Ice storms are as likely as snow and definitely more hazardous for driving. This is especially true because drivers here are often not as good at driving in bad weather as people in states where ice and snow are the norm.

    Definitely can understand your decision to go to Montana this Thanksgiving. Try to stay warm and enjoy the Hutterites and cowboys.


    Heh, that didn't take long . . . . (none / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    is that a (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    lead fig leaf?

    Things are getting sort of worrisome (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    We always cover the Josh jewels because he gets so many Xrays.  What will frequent traveling do to a family's store of jewels?  Nothing shuts down the future of an enterprise like finding out it leads to small penises or male infertility :)  

    Finding out it leads to small penises and male (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    ED (my edit) would stop male body scans. In the current environment, I am not sure that it would eliminate scans on females.  

    What about my ovaries? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    The future of the world is contained within them.  

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    Yet, if recent history is any indication, our congresscritters don't much care about female issues other than to dictate what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

    They probably figure there are enough (none / 0) (#62)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    females who can't afford to fly. The future population is safe with them.

    Under risks of exposure (none / 0) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:06:27 PM EST
    #6. Men (due to possible sperm mutagenesis)

    FDL has a great post on who is at greater risk and Passenger Rights


    More under the category of (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    We Must Protect Men

    VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI wanted to "kick-start a debate" when he said some condom use may be justified, Vatican insiders say, raising hopes and fears that the church may be starting to back away from its condom ban for its flock of 1 billion Catholics.

    Benedict said in an interview that for some people, such as male prostitutes, using condoms could be assuming moral responsibility because the intent was to reduce infection. The pope did not suggest using condoms as birth control, which is banned by the church, or mention the use of condoms by female prostitutes.

    The last sentence in the above paragraph was changed to read:

    The pope did not suggest using condoms as birth control, which is banned by the church, or mention the use of condoms by married couples where one partner is infected.


    Sweet... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:31:01 AM EST
    there is hope for me on domestic flights yet!

    Rocky Flats Gear better watch out though, they'll be classified a terrorist organization looking out for all our junk like that...or us wearing them could land us on a no-fly list.


    up on the scanner? That would be awesome, to have different shapes for the adventurous out there. A gun, a box cutter, you name it, lol. Do the same with bra's.

    For the discerning traveler (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    begging for a cavity search :)

    Yes, it was (none / 0) (#28)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    inevitable.  However, if the "leaf" is opaque to scanners, they'll just wind up feeling you up.

    It just gets worse and worse... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    TSA searching shirtless boy in SLC video hits the net...TSA allegedly tries to intimidate the guy who shot the video.

    In fairness, the boy's father removed his shirt, not the TSA goons, because the boy was physically resisting TSA agents, in an effort to get through the tyrannical rig-a-ma-roll.  

    Can't wait to see what happens Wed...I hope the planned protest is effective.  Getting home for Thanksgiving is important, but putting a stop to this nonsense is more important.

    So the patdown wasn't an invasion (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    of privacy but the filming of it was.

    You know what? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by sj on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:09:46 PM EST
    The video, posted on YouTube by Utah Valley University student Luke Tait, shows a young boy being patted down while he is wearing no shirt. The filmer, Luke Tait, wrote that "the boy was shy so the TSA couldn't complete" the search.

    The child was physically resisting agents, Tait said.

    "Twice before the video starts, his dad had to hold him and pulled his arms up in a V-shape to allow the TSA agent to continue," he told The Salt Lake Tribune.

    The father pulled the boy's shirt off "in frustration," prompting an agent to shout, "Sir, sir!" Tait said.

    In a statement posted late Sunday to the TSA's blog, a spokesperson wrote that the father removed the boy's shirt "in an effort to expedite the screening."

    What is literally happening here is that after all the societal emphasis on teaching our children about inappropriate touching, we're changing the rules.  Of course that child was shy! I'm absolutely certain the father didn't/doesn't see it this way but the TSA put the father in the position of contributing to the molestation of his son.

    Now not only is that boy in emotional distress, his bond with his father is weakened.

    Jeebus!  In any other setting those actions constitute sexual assault.  Or sexual harrassment at a minumum.

    Apparently we're now supposed to normalize our response when the rational response is to feel violated.


    Their defense will be (none / 0) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:30:52 PM EST
    "We're protecting you from Terrah!"

    Or maybe "We were just following orders."


    Or they will say they are enforcing a law (none / 0) (#16)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    that they have no clue about. In the end it won't matter because the law will be on their side.

    "Next in line, spread 'em"


    I'd like to know what purpose is served by (none / 0) (#69)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    an invasive pat-down of this young boy?

    Cancer surviver humiliated (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    and had to board the plane soaked in urine.

    ROMULUS, Mich. (AP) -- A bladder cancer survivor from Michigan who wears a bag that collects his urine says he was patted down roughly by a security agent at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, causing the bag to spill its contents on his clothing.

    Tom Sawyer told MSNBC.com the experience earlier this month left the 61-year-old retired special education teacher humiliated and in tears before catching a flight to Orlando, Fla. link

    This really has to stop.


    It's really astonishing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    to me how slow and seemingly politically clueless Obama, Napolitano and Pistolé are both in signing off on this stupid, incredibly intrusive idea and in realizing how it's going to continue to damage them in the public mind now, and in 2012, as more and more horror stories come out.

    Yes it's clueless, but (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    the Republicans won't be able to capitalize on it because of their inner fascism.  Read the next House Transportation Committee chairman Republican John Mica beg the American people not to opt-out of having naked pictures taken of them.  No matter how much the Republicans hate Obama, in the end they love humiliating and torturing people more.  I can promise you right now the Republican nominee in 2012 is NOT going to make any but the most tepid criticisms of the TSA taking p**no pictures of you.

    Well the horror stories (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:23:04 PM EST
    coming out are about the groping pat-downs, not the nudie x-ray negatives, which I wouldn't be worried about either except as there are reports that the machines may not be safe.

    Any reasonably smart and sober GOP potential -- mark my words -- is going to keep the pat-down-grope issue available for use later against Obama, regardless of what some unknown GOP chairman says about a related matter.


    Some Republicans have put (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    out strong statements against TSA current practice. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) statement on House floor:

    "There is no evidence these new body scanners make us more secure. But there is evidence that former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff made money hawking these full body scanners," Poe said.

    He went on to explain that Chertoff, who served under President George W. Bush, had given interviews promoting the scanners while he was "getting paid" to sell them.

    "[T]he populace is giving up more rights in the name of alleged security. These body scanners are a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures ... There must be a better way to have security at airports than taking pornographic photographs of our citizens, including children, and then giving apparent kickbacks to political hacks." link  

    Other comment from Mica in link you provided:

    Mica criticized John Pistole, administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for signing off the new invasive pat-down procedures. He said Pistole needs to change course because of the public outcry against the pat-downs.  

    "I don't think the rollout has been good and the application is even worse. This needs to be refined," Mica said. "He says this is the only tool and I believe he's wrong."
    Nevertheless, Mica is not a fan of the agency. The incoming House Transportation Committee chairman believes TSA has become a bloated bureaucracy that is "headed in the wrong direction."

    I disagree that the Republicans will not capitalize on this issue if Obama and the Dems decide to continue support of the draconian practice.


    Yes, this pat down/photo shoot (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:49:52 PM EST
     just in time for Thanksgiving travel, has turkey legs, just like "death panels".  Made for cable.

    But unlike "death panels"... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    which didn't exist yet, if ever, at the airport this garbage is happening...it is real, a clear and present danger to our human dignity and 4th amendment rights.

    Maybe thats why the guy who runs the airport near Orlando wants to privatize the shenanigans...to dodge the 4th amendment issues, and say flying and submitting to intrusions by a private company is kosher, when it so clearly is not when the perp is a government employee.

    I mean I do tend to take an extreme view of the 4th amendment, but even by a moderate view these procedures have to meet the "unreasonable" threshold...don't they?  Sh*t even by a government power-friendly conservative view of the 4th what we're seeing and experiencing is unreasonable.  Gotta be or we may as well officially void the Bill of Rights.

    I hope this story has turkey legs for days/weeks/years...until sanity is restored.  But the realist in me fears we'll get used to it and return to our sheepish chickensh*t ways by Christmas.  Though Obama irunning the show is cause for hope, cuz you get all the automatic haters in it for the duration guaranteed:)


    True, this is a touchy, feely (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 06:13:17 PM EST
    tipping point to what should long ago have been questioned as being effective by our unquestioning citizens.  Next step, if not protested, would be disrobing in an airport changing room and passing through security in a hospital gown (if lucky, with ample fabric on the backside).  Just show up for your flight two days in advance.

    This having been said, this physical intrusion is as much of a violation as FISA and aspects of the Patriot Act--accepted with patriotic fervor and the line...after all, I have nothing to hide.  I always wondered if the reaction would be the same if FISA said we are having an FBI agent sit in your kitchen and just listen, he will not be a bother, and if you have nothing to hide...  


    Well said... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:22:47 AM EST
    we are very late to the outrage party...at the airport every traveler is affected, previous overstepping of boundaries by the man usually just affected minorities, lower classes, stoners, muslims, and assorted undesirables.  And the FISA stuff just isn't as in your face as a TSA agent in your crotch...outta sight outta mind.

    Atrios has a knack for getting to (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    the bottom line on an issue in one or two sentences.

    Yes the Right will exploit this, as everything, for their own stupid ends, but it really should be obvious to our overlords that taking pictures of and fondling peoples' genitals aren't really acceptable security measures. link

    It seems that if the (none / 0) (#70)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    President objects, he might be called soft on terrorism, and therefore won't object.  

    if he is so easily intimidated (none / 0) (#80)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:08:41 PM EST
    he should not be president

    Conspiracy Theory alert.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:20:37 PM EST
    is the TSA nonsense meant to extremely anger and distract us from the covering up of the massive financial crimes of the last decade happening right now???

    Worse and worse and worse... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    brightside though, we can show support for the poor man by urinating in our pants/skirts when we get the patdown...just wear something ratty and put a change of clothes in your carry-on....or rock a Depends.

    P*ss on us and we'll p*ss on you...I like it.


    I thought they had stopped (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    manhandling kids under 12?

    Parents are still allowed to manhandle their (none / 0) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    kids, which is what happened in this instance.

    Just saw the vid on the news (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    No reason for the TSA to put their hands on a little boy's bare torso. Seems the Dad thought it would speed up the process (keep their hands off his kid?) if he was shirtless.

    In the same story, they talk to 2 passengers coming off a flight. Neither was scan/patted from the orig airport. This whole thing is such a mess. Too many agents with lack of judgment and airports not on the same page. How uniquely American :P


    Why can't they just use dogs to smell out (none / 0) (#20)
    by magster on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    explosives?  Probably more reliable and cheaper.

    the best bomb sniffer in Afghanistan?

    Cheaper and more effective.


    Dogs can't sniff PETN (none / 0) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:11:23 AM EST
    which is now the explosive of choice for people like the underpants bomber for exactly that reason.

    Didn't know that, thanks. (none / 0) (#104)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    CNN reported (none / 0) (#84)
    by Madeline on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    the child was autistic.

    Mortgage fraud horror story (none / 0) (#10)
    by DFLer on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    from the Miami Herald via McClatchy

    MIAMI -- All she wanted was $50,000 from the equity in her house to help pay the bills while looking for a job in nursing. What Imogene Hall got was a brutal lesson in the sometimes shady ways of the mortgage industry.

    That just breaks my heart (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    What a nightmare (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:42:50 PM EST
    These rocket docket courts are just a sham.

    The more angry (none / 0) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:17:22 PM EST
    Palin makes me, the more success she tends to have.

    And the more angry it makes me.

    The Palins are ridiculous world. Please get with the program. Thanks!

    here (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    is something for you to be angry about, ABG, summed up in a comment on today's NYT Krugman column:

    What most Americans realize is that President Obama has to move to the center.

    What they don't realize is that the President has to move to the left to get there.

    You shouldn't be angry (none / 0) (#29)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    if you're truly an Obama backer -- the GOP nominating Palin would appear to be the easiest route for Obama to a 2d term.

    While there's always the possibility some of us should be careful about what we wish for, and that we might have another GW Bush 2000 situation on our hands, my strong suspicion is that this time the GOP will have gone one idiot too far with the halfwit half-gov Palin.


    Hey, Palin is a real force in (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:43:47 PM EST
    the Republican Party.

    "I don't think she could beat President Obama," Biden said in a Friday morning interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "But, you know, she's always underestimated."
    Biden called his Republican counterpart from the 2008 election campaign a "real force in the Republican Party," one that would loom large in the 2012 race. link

    Good for Biden (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:45:25 PM EST
    Tie her to the Republicans as much as possible.  I hope he uses 'Sarah Palin' and 'major force in the Republican party' together in every interview for the next two years.

    Left out (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:13:25 AM EST
    was Biden's reaction when they showed him the clip of Palin saying she "believed" she could beat Obama.  He was struck dumb momentarily, then his face got red, he stuttered a bit, and then just burst out laughing.

    Don't agree that Biden's (none / 0) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:04:11 AM EST
    comment was a good thing. At this time many Republican candidates, even those Palin supported in the mid term elections, have shied away from endorsing her or saying that she was qualified to become president. Biden is giving her credibility that members of her own party refuse to give her. Dems have a habit of being too "clever" by half and it winds up coming back to haunt them.

    IMO she is already strongly tied to the Republican party and there are other ways to make her the face of the Republican party that would frame it in a less positive way. Compare the framing of making Pelosi a face of the Democratic Party with Biden's remarks. But then again the current tea party represents a tradition as American as apple pie.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it'll be interesting to see how it evolves. We have a long tradition in this country of a desire for limited government, the suspicion of the federal government, of a concern that government spends too much money. You know? I mean, that's as American as apple pie. And although, you know, there's a new label to this, I mean those sentiments are ones that a lot of people support and give voice to. Including a lot of Democrats. link

    The administration making Palin and the tea party mainstream is as big of a mistake as when Obama helped rehabilitate the Republican Party.  


    Eli Manning has been very frustrating (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:46:42 PM EST
    these past two games.

    Two critically dumb decisions -

    1. Last week trying to lateral after recovering his own fumble, instead of just jumping on the ball and covering it up, which resulted in an loss of possession and was run in for a defensive TD.

    2. And then this week he rushed for a critical scrambling first down in the last minutes and then did some sort of elephant-seal face-plant spaz-action which resulted in a fumble and loss of possession, instead of the standard QB baseball slide which would not have resulted in a loss of possession following a fumble.

    These are the type of mistakes you'd expect to see in a Pop Warner game, not by a Super Bowl champ.

    Oh yeah, the Giants could have won both games if not for these mistakes.

    Sometimes, ya just gotta vent.

    Didya see that the Vikes (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    fired Brad Childress?

    The NY Giants never really did it for me, even when they won the SB, lol!~


    Hey, SB Champs in '87 and '91 too! (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    'Bout time... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    with Childress...he lost that team weeks ago.

    Now if Favre starts next week, the Vikes deserve to never win a Super Bowl.  Cut his arse...yesterday.  The future is now in Minny.


    I hope Favre does play (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:36:18 PM EST
    that way Eli won't be the QB with the most INT's.

    Diehard Giant fan... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    on my rec team absolutely hates Eli's game...inaccurate and boneheaded he calls him.

    But since he's got that ring, he'll always get a pass...even though if Asante Samuel catches the ball, or David Tyree doesn't, he's got no ring. It's hard to argue that the two drafted after him aren't the better QBs...Rivers and Roethlisberger.


    "inaccurate and boneheaded." (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    Truer words...

    Fb status by a Giants loving friend: (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    "That fumble by Eli, you know, the one that cost them the game? That may have been the most un-athletic thing I've ever seen a professinal athlete do..."

    I can't feel that bad.  But this is the same friend who posted "18-1" on my wall after the superbowl.


    I have not been in the right frame of mind (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    to check my FB since yesterday night before the game. In fact I may just wait until tomorrow.

    I can understand some (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:31:57 PM EST
    of the complaints about Eli, but in his defense and to his credit, in that SB game you forgot to mention that Eli made a great play in the pocket to avoid the sack -- maybe twice -- before tossing an improbably accurate long pass to Tyree.  Clutch play by both Giants, but it was Eli who made it possible.

    As for last night, well, the guy was maybe either trying to show he wasn't going to slide like the softie many think he is, or he thought he needed those extra yards for the 1st down, or, like in baseball, he's just a head-first slider.

    Not to worry though Giants fans -- you're only a game behind Filly with plenty of games left.  Of course, next game would be about the time the G-Men should think about halting this losing streak and about when they should start to think about playing more error-free football.

    Frankly, I like the Eagles' chances to go to the SB at this point, but the NYG are also capable of advancing.  Great D to go with a usually productive offense.


    elephant-seal face-plant spaz-action (none / 0) (#46)
    by vicndabx on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    couldn't have said it better.

    The day JFK was assassinated, (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    some of my fellow grad students who were telling us were laughing. Cuban ex pat professor refused to cancel class. Very surprising. What a sad, poignant. Emotional weekend.

    Re: reconciliation votes (none / 0) (#65)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    I just heard Ed Schultz say something on his show that I think is probably bunk, but I thought perhaps someone here would know the answer:

    Schultz told a caller that the reason the Senate can't pass a decoupled bill on the Bush tax cuts by a reconciliation vote is because they passed the health care bill on reconciliation, and the rules prevent the same congress from doing more than one budget reconciliation bill per session.

    I haven't been able to find that rule in my minimal research since hearing that (I mean, c'mon, I'm in the middle of baking a pie, and some things take precedence) but does anyone know if that's really in the Senate rules? Because when it comes to Ed Schultz and his knowledge of the congress, I take his claims with a big grain of salt.

    It has to be in accordance (none / 0) (#74)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    with the reconciliation instructions in the current budget. The reason they can't use reconciliation now is because they didn't actually pass a budget this fiscal year(they just deemed one passed to avoid committing their deficit spending to paper) so there are no reconciliation instructions. I think it's usually once per budget year-the session is immaterial. HC was passed in the prior budget year.

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    The clock is stopped... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    Glen Beck is making sense regarding TSA..."Our bodies are sacred".  Amen Brother Glen!

    And I've always liked Judge Napolitano, he's dropping mad science today in defense of liberty.

    I like Judge Napolitano too (none / 0) (#105)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:26:47 AM EST
    He has some good books out about the shenanigans the Feds pull.

    Republicans sure do like to send (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 06:45:44 PM EST
    our military men and women off to die in other countries. Death ratio must not be high enough for them now. El Paso Times:

    Gov. Rick Perry said deploying U.S. soldiers to Mexico should be one option to curb drug cartel violence in border cities, but only if Mexico invites the Americans.

    "I think we have to use every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military," Perry said during an interview Thursday with MSNBC. "I think you have the same situation as you had in Colombia...."

    Luckily the Mexican government has more sense.

    Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C., said such an invitation would never happen.

    "Mexico has reiterated on repeated occasions that the presence of U.S. troops on Mexican soil is not and will not be an option," Alday said in a statement. "It seems that some U.S. politicians insist on electoral campaigning, even as the election ended November 2."

    Rick Perry's campaign is just beginning (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    Ricardo Alday is going to have a busy couple of years.

    Maybe Ricardo Alday can invite (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:23:35 PM EST
    Perry to be the point man for one of Mexico's teams going into Juárez to fight the war on drugs.  

    And mess up his hair?I think not! (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:25:06 PM EST
    The standard "haircut" for a (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:42:02 PM EST
    new recruit should eliminate that problem.  

    So, on Dexter... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:24:29 PM EST
    Much as I generally am uninterested in the storylines relating to Rita's kids, that was a good way to give Dexter a glimmer of hope for his humanity. Even if he had to kick the s*** out of someone to do it. I guess I'm conflicted about that plot twist.

    But Deb on the case of the barrel girls is gonna be good.

    yes (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:39:50 AM EST
    its getting really interesting.  I may have to revise and extend my comments about Deb not finding out this season.  she has been putting it all together for a long time and Lumen could really put it over the top.  

    and I agree it was great the way they managed to toss in a little family drama into this whirling run up to the season climax.  and make you think for a minute the kids were going to be involved.  
    come to think of it those to girls would make great targets for you know who particularly now that he is onto Dexter.

    and who the heck is the woman who contributed the blood to the necklace?


    I loved the way (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:45:36 AM EST
    he gave the guy an anatomy lesson while kicking the sh!t out of him.

    Surreal... (none / 0) (#96)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:20:17 PM EST
    "and we gave him a lot of money..."

    Believe it or not, a fake Taliban leader.

    poor us (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:07:48 AM EST
    'We hate obese passengers and people with personal hygiene issues:' Now 'abused' TSA staff vent their anger at patdown searches

    personally I loved the suggestion of someone I saw on tv who suggested that to protest everyone wear a "kilt" to fly.

    as you may or may not know it is traditional to wear nothing under a kilt.

    Don't you have to (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    wear a pin on the kilt?  Would that get through security?

    President Snowe and the health bill (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:42:36 AM EST
    Needs more air time

    Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are co-signing an amicus, or friend of the court, brief to be submitted to the federal court in Florida that will hear a constitutional challenge of the federal health care reform law.

    The brief was initiated by U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and boasts signatures of 30 Senate Republicans. The lawsuit was brought by the attorneys general for several states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a small-business trade organization.

    At issue is a requirement that U.S. citizens purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a fine -- known as the "individual mandate."

    Snowe was the only Republican to support any version of health care reform, but ultimately voted against the final bill. The version Snowe supported did include an individual mandate, but her aides said she opposed that provision and hoped to change it through the amendment process.

    Snowe was concerned with the concept of government mandating an individual purchase of something, especially because she did not believe health insurance would be sufficiently affordable, her office has said.

    Snowe and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., tried to amend the reform to reduce the number of people subject to the mandate and allow Congress more flexibility to review the mandate altogether, but it failed in committee.

    "The individual mandate has no place in a health care reform bill unless and until affordable health insurance is available for all Americans," Snowe said in a release about the brief.

    "We must take seriously the gravity of this imperious and intrusive government mandate and repeal the individual mandate before millions of Americans are forced to purchase health care coverage that they neither want nor can afford."

    it seems to me (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    that Snowe is making a policy argument not a constitutionality argument.

    I don't think that her opinion on whether or not it's good policy is relevant to the question of whether or not it's legal.

    This is ironic: "she did not believe health insurance would be sufficiently affordable"

    considering that if she had supported a public option or medicare buy-in like her constituents, rather than fighting them tooth and nail, perhaps it would have been more affordable.