Moving Day Open Thread

No, I'm not moving. I am referring to Saturday at Augusta, long known as Moving Day.

Right now, two Brits, Poulter and Westwood (-8) are 2 shots clear of Woods, Mickleson and Kim (-6), among others. Among the senior contingent, Watson and Couples are at (-3). Who below these players might emerge? youneverknow. That's why they call it Moving Day.

Sunday is the 108th Paris-Roubaix cycling classic. Cancellara blitzed Boonen at the Ronde. Can he do it again? I say no. Boonen for the win.

This is an Open Thread.

< Friday Night Open Thread | NORML Relaunches Times Square Billboard Ad >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Say Goodnight, Gracie (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    I've trying to give a proper moment of silence for the passing of Graciela 'Gracie' Perez-Grillo (at 94), but it keeps bubblin' over with her great sound. Her duets with bandleader Machito (backed by the Afro-Cubans) always make me smile. And here's Dale Jamón.

    Polish president killed in plane crash (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    Along with many top Polish political and military officials, near Smolensk Russia en route ton the commemoration of the Poles killed by Stalin in the Katyn woods. It is being talked of as the loss of the cream of a generation of leaders. Very sad.

    Poland will endure. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 07:25:58 PM EST
    Just like she always has.  

    Today we shed tears for our heroes, tomorrow we go on living.  This is all we've ever known.

    While it is hard for me to view this tragedy on anything but a very personal and emotional level right now, the State appears to functioning as designed for times like these.

    The acting president of Poland is now Bronisław Komorowski, the speaker of the Sejm.

    Komorowski was in late March selected by the governing party as its candidate to compete with Kaczyński in presidential elections due late in the year.

    Former president Aleksander Kwasniewski has told Polish media that, under the Polish constitution, presidential elections must now be held with 74 days.

    "In line with the constitution, we will have to hold an early presidential poll," government spokesman Pawel Gras said.

    Thank you, MileHi (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    She will prevail. Because she understands joy as well as sorrow.
    My mother's maiden name was Olszewski. I learned of the central significance of Katyn while visiting Poland in 2008 with my cousin.

    Wish you could be here (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    in one of the most Polish cities in the U.S. for the services tomorrow at the only Polish basilica in the U.S., the Basilica of St. Josephat.  (Go here for the virtual tour -- it is a magnificent example of the Polish Cathedral Style, modeled on St. Peter's but lovingly built by immigrant hands -- and immigrant dollars, a penny at a time.)

    The archbishop -- a Pole -- also will be leading prayers tomorrow, and more mourning will be held at the Polish Center in town.

    But I'm betting that the most moving services may be at the beloved "St. Stash" -- St. Stanislaus, down by (as we say here) the parks and schools and more named for Koszciusko and Pulaski, with one of my favorite statues, the Immigrant Mother.  (Can't find a photo link, darn it.)

    I talked with one of my friends today, a Polish immigrant decades ago now, but she is as shocked as if she still were in Warsaw.  It is so sad.


    Horrible (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    And really freaky... 97 dead.  All Polish political VIPs.



    Not all. As I noted in earlier thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    the Chicago Trib reports that one -- at least -- was a Polish American, a Chicago artist, the son of one of the 22,000-plus Polish officers, professors, other intelligentsia, etc., massacred by the Soviets at the site of the crash, as all were coming to a memorial ceremony.

    So there may be others from the Polish diaspora who also were coming home and died in the homeland.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:16:37 PM EST
    I used the word Polish loosely as well as VIP..  not that it would be any less of a personal tragedy were all run of the mill humans.

    Dragons in Love (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:33:58 PM EST
    went to the pet/aquarium store this morning to get a pump and found an Arowana that looked like a twin for the one I already had.  he had gotten to big for somones tank and was brought in.  he is about 13 or 14 inches long.  mine is about 12 or 13 inches.  and oddly he was the same price as the one I have when I got him when he was four inches long.  thats just  how it works at this store.
    I got excited. but the guy running the store said it wouldnt work.  he said they will kill each other.  I know this guy pretty well being a fish nut in a small town and he usually knows what he is talking about.  but I had a feeling and asked if I can try it and bring him back if it doesnt work out. so that was the deal.
    I got him home and got ready with a big net to break them up and dumped him in the tank with the other one.  
    they did not fight.  
    they started circling each other in a distinctly non hostile way.
    I call John and say 'John they are not fighting".  he asks what they are doing and I tell him and he starts chuckling and says 'looks like you hit the jack pot and have a pair'.
    I already knew this just by watching them but we verified it with closer inspection of the ventral fins.  Marijuana, my Arowana - who I now call MaryJane - was a girl.  and the new one, Loudon Wainwright 3.5, is a boy.
    and they are in love.
    it is is so freakin cool.  all day I have watched them do their dance.  they will be in unison for a while and then mirror each other for a while.  then they will cross and touch her belly to his back and then his his belly and her back.  it is totally totally mesmerizing.
    watching this feels like a gift.  so far I have not caught the best stuff on video but I hope to get better at that because its special.

    better stuff (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 07:36:02 PM EST
    more (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 09:08:16 PM EST
    more fish love (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 12:15:03 AM EST
    Fish Love? (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    Well, nice to see and all, but hate to break it to you, this sub-thread is not about fish love but pet love... lol

    Very sweet, even if the videos are ones only a 'mother' can love... lol


    I discovered (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 07:40:25 PM EST
    that when they are bigger than small dogs its easy to start thinking of them as pets.  even if you cant sleep with them.

    the arowanas get just as excited at dinner time as the dogs.


    I Know (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    I had a friend who had coy.. they have to be fed by hand.. first time I ever saw anyone who had a deep relationship with a fish.

    did you know (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    its not unusual for koi to live to be 100 years old?

    Yes (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    The longest living coy or koi as it is spelled (carp in japanese) was 226 years old. Passed on from generation to generation of owners..

    I did not know that they could eat on their own though.. my friend's koi was totally dependent. Sucked the little bead of food right off my finger... hesitantly though, because it did not know me..


    arowamas are sort of similar (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    their food has to be floating.
    once it hits the bottom is no longer food as far as they are concerned and some will literally only eat it if its on the surface.

    so they come running at dinner time.


    I am truly happy your fish (none / 0) (#79)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 03:08:27 AM EST
    are getting along and that they bring you so much delight. I'm a sucker for just about any animal. Enjoy.

    thank you and ditto (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 07:47:38 PM EST
    sadly there is often a loser in love and in this case it Cleatus the polypterus.

    he has been in love with Mary Jane the female arowana since he first layed beady eyes on her.  but she is hip to the fact that he is not her species even tho he can do a pretty good imitation of a short fat unattrative arowana and he never gets very far.  but there has always been hope for Cleatus.  until now.  I am worried about him.


    Wow, the polypterus is a rare fish to (none / 0) (#93)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 11:38:54 PM EST
    breed in an aquarium. Nice to see.

    Poor Cletus (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 11:56:45 PM EST
    Sounds like the Cletus the polypterus need a Cleopatra who is also a polypterus..

    that has been considered (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    but there are a couple of problems.  for one thing this thing with the arowanas was a total accident.  I am not smart enough to plan these things.
    also its really really unusual to find a fish as large as the one I got saturday around here.  it was only because he outgrew someones tank and was brought in to adopt.  all the polypteruses around here are 3 or 4 inches long and their sex doesnt show up until they are bigger so I might buy the wrong kind.
    also I know him well enough to know that at that size he would be just as likely to think they look delicious as to think they look sexy.

    but I am working on the problem.


    Speculating. Would Glann Greenwald's (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    views on civil liberties be different if he lived in the U.S., especially on the East Coast?

    Who? (none / 0) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    Who is Glann Greenwald ? ;-).

    I think he originally did.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by trillian on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    ...live on the East Coast

    But that wasn't my question. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    I'm listening to his radio show (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    with Josh Stieber.  I still expect Greenwald to be about the only blogger to ever launch a credible debate that could end our current wars.  He is having a difficult time finding the ground though right now, but I expect him to continue with the effort.  Someone better do it because total power will breed total corruption.  He makes reference to the language of the soldiers in the leaked video though as being sadistic and other sorts of adjectives.  I can't disagree that their language is repulsive but they are having to take on a pretty repulsive task and situation every single day come rain or shine. Even if they say nothing colorful and only preform the mission day in and day out emotionlessly...isn't that just another form of cold and evil, perhaps indicating they are dead inside?  At least when they are colorfully emotional, upset about children being wounded and must acknowledge that those children are not their children and those children's parents choose to place them in harms way, I know they have emotions and are not simply psychopaths.  In the situations that are ongoing our soldiers will kill people when it is deemed called for and they are instructed to engage.  Both theaters are war zones so you won't hear too many garden party niceties mouthed during missions where the sovereignty of Iraq is being attacked and must be defended.

    what? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jen M on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    soldiers swear?



    Swearing means a person is not dead inside? (none / 0) (#45)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 04:41:47 PM EST
    That's rather tortured logic.

    I guess you've never heard of the (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:02:25 PM EST
    work of Gestalt or what it means to be a unified whole.

    Oh yes mam, I've even had some of that (none / 0) (#66)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:43:46 PM EST
    there Gestalt therapy myself. Swearing didn't come up. Although I swear like a drunken sailor, so I must be a pretty good person, right? Perhaps I had a bad therapist. It happens you know.

    Gestalt is about authentic emotion (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 07:59:27 AM EST
    and just because you have never had to endure a very uncivilized society where death and killing were a social norm isn't impressive when most of the rest of the world does.  If you really think that Iraq and Afghanistan are both so violent and bloody because of us and you would really like to help, there are many aid agencies seeking volunteers to go.

    MT, you have assumed (none / 0) (#89)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 05:19:28 PM EST
    that the life of a total stranger has been blissfully unencumbered by meaningful hardship. Based on what?

    Did I tell you where I was born and spent my childhood? Did I tell you the full extent of where, and how, I've lived as an adult? Did I tell you I have no life experience within what you call "uncivilized society"? Did I tell you my entire life has been unmarred by any manner of extreme violence - interpersonal or otherwise? Did I tell you I have no first hand knowledge of armed conflict? No, I didn't tell you much of anything.

    On the other hand, you are somebody who frequently writes in detail about your own travails as the wife of an active-duty military officer and the mother of a disabled child. That's all well and good and I hope you continue to let us know what your family is going through.

    However, many of us are considerably less comfortable with disclosing intimate details of suffering and sacrifice in our own private, and public, lives. Evidently, you have mistaken this lack of disclosure for a lack of experience. Suffice it to say, you have made a considerable error in judgment.

    So, please, don't you presume to tell me, or anybody, to learn about hardship by "becoming an aid agency volunteer in Iraq or Afghanistan". Enough said (I hope).


    Bacevich on Moyers last night (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 04:01:11 PM EST
    Last night Bill Moyers (egads, I'm gonna miss him), talked with Andrew Bacevich about our war in Afghanistan. Well worth taking the time to find it online and watch it.

    I know comparisons to Vietnam are sneered at these days, but Bacevich argues that Afghanistan is comparable to Vietnam for a number of reasons. For example, we are fighting in a country and a culture  we don't understand; we are yet again propping up a corrupt government whose wants and goals are not the same as ours; it's yet another money pit; there is no way to military victory.

    He makes what I believe to be a convincing argument for immediate withdrawal.


    I think too many people draw the wrong (none / 0) (#54)
    by observed on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:49:05 PM EST
    conclusion from noting that the circumstances of the two wars are different. The natives don't notice whether we are fighting a "just" war.
    The Aghan war MIGHT be the right war for us, but it is just as much the wrong war for the Afghanis as the Vietnam war was for the Vietnamese.

    It isn't true though (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:10:10 PM EST
    that those in Afghanistan tending to this mission now know nothing about the culture.  That is a reality though that belongs to most Americans sitting stateside.  My husband for instance, he knows way too much about the culture when compared to what he knows about his own these days.  You can say that the Bush administration didn't care, thought it was insignificant and didn't even want to engage in such forms of behavior....but you can't say that about the Obama administration and any of the changes that they have demanded from the military and everyone else in country under U.S. colors.  But Petraeus and McChrystal are fully behind that too because we have no hope whatsoever if we do not understand the cultural aspects.  You can argue though that we are eight years late to the give a chit party though and everyone I know would agree with you.

    The most penetrating dialecticians are exiles (none / 0) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    according to Bertolt Brecht at least. It's my understanding that Greenwald was born in NYC and lived in the US until 2006 when he began dividing his time between NYC and Brazil where the law recognizes his same-sex relationship with his partner who is a Brazilian citizen. If Glenn Greenwald writes as he does because of where he lives, that's all to the good.

    Yesterday Greenwald addressed the exclusion of Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen from the list of Obama's 15 recess appointmets: The Death of Dawn Johnsen's Nomination:

    virtually everything that Dawn Johnsen said about executive power, secrecy, the rule of law and accountability for past crimes made her an excellent fit for what Candidate Obama said he would do, but an awful fit for what President Obama has done [italics added]. To see how true that is...all one really has to do is to read the last paragraph of her March, 2008 Slate article, entitled "Restoring Our Nation's Honor":
    The question how we restore our nation's honor takes on new urgency and promise as we approach the end of this administration. We must resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists. . . .

    Here is a partial answer to my own question of how should we behave, directed especially to the next president and members of his or her administration but also to all of use who will be relieved by the change: We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.

    Greenwald concludes with this rhetorical coup de grâce:
    If you were Barack Obama and were pursuing the policies that he ended up pursuing, would you want Dawn Johnsen in charge of the office which determines the scope of your legal authority as President?

    More power to Greenwald, be he in New York or Brazil.


    Would you elaborate? (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:41:15 AM EST
    "Glenn" Greenwald is adamant (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    the U.S. Constitution and international law prohibit indefinite detention of alleged terrorists, especially those who are not initially picked up on battlefield.  Same position re capture/shoot to kill targeting.  Same position re military tribunals as opposed to criminal trial in federal district court.  My question is, would his views be more flexible if he lived in the U.S. now, especially in Manhattan of D.C., site of 9/11 terrorist attacks?  

    I would hope... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    he'd feel the same...I live here and agree 100% that there is no place for indefinite detention, assasination as policy, military trials for crimial suspects, the lot of the tyrannical policies anywhere in a so-called free country...no place whatsoever.

    If nobody stands up to it though oculus (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:54:05 AM EST
    and questions it doggedly, it leaves the door wide open for total corruption.

    Agree. I'm very respectful of his work (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    and often/usually agree with his viewpoint.  

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:47:03 AM EST
    confusing question...do we not need & require civil rights and civil liberty to pursue happiness as much on the right coast as anywhere else in the world?  It's not a locality based necessity.

    Definitely. But he seems to (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    be alone in expressing these concerns as far as prominent bloggers go.

    That illustrates (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    how hurting we truly are on the civil liberty front...with all thats gone down and come to light in the last 10 years, and only Greenwald won't shut up about it?  Shows we're taking essential liberty for granted as a society, and that's not a good recipe for the future.

    But to be fair there is more than one, Jeralyn is a prominent blogger who won't shut up about it either, sun god bless her.


    A "free republic" (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    with 700 military bases and a very longstanding interventionist tradition around the world.

    Two projects that are more at cross purposes than the "they're there to protect our freedoms" crowd seems to think.


    Maybe Dawn Johnsen will become (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    a blogger.

    Correct me if Im wrong (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    but, according to the polls taken in the wake of 9/11, I believe Manhattanites were one of the demographs most opposed to Iraq invasion..if that has any bearing on sorting out the answer to your question.

    I am separating U.S. invasion of (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 11:21:20 AM EST
    Iraq from the other questions.  

    Point being (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    that their attitude toward half-cocked military adventures would seem to suggest to me that the people of Manhattan are generally more averse to suspending their critical thinking functions and beliefs simply because their city was attacked.

    Or it could be that (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    they were much more likely than many Americans elsewhere to follow subsequent developments much more closely, to read the "evidence" for war much more closely, and thus saw its weaknesses sooner.

    For example, it was because of New Yorker magazine that I knew that Colin Powell's "evidence" in his argument to the U.N. was cr*p.  


    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    But a more general point would be that it is mostly Democratic and educated. Also, experiencing 9/11 first hand rather than getting it as a sensationalistic movie, gave us a better perspective on the whole thing.

    It was said that in the first 24 hours, you could measure the varied response using 20 blocks as a reference. On the upper east side, (rich republican) people were still shopping for their gucci and prada accessories.. lol.

    Then it became politics, GOP used it turn the US into a police state and the democrats followed along..

    One thing to note is that Herr Giuliani tried to cancel the Nov Mayor elections because he thought NYC needed him and he was the only one who could "lead" in the disaster.

    NYC told him to STFU and he was voted out.


    And, logic (none / 0) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    Iraq was unable to afford to rebuild their military after Desert Storm. They pretty much used up the arsenal we had supplied them with in their earlier war with Iran. Saddam was more interested in using the countries money for his luxurious lifestyle.

    The idea they had anything substantial was absurd, really. Shock and Awe proved they were incapable of even defending themselves let alone preparing to attack us.


    Just Curious (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 02:26:58 PM EST
    When did you know that?  I assume that you are referring to one of the great Seymour Hersh articles about the failure of US Intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. Which piece are you referring to?
    Hersh's great The Stovepipe was written in Oct...

    In it he indirectly suggests that Powell (and Wilkenson) did not know that the intelligence regarding mobile chemical and biological weapon labs was false pre UN speech..

    Thielmann understood that his posting had been mandated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who thought that every important State Department bureau should be assigned a daily intelligence officer. "Bolton was the guy with whom I had to do business," Thielmann said. "We were going to provide him with all the information he was entitled to see. That's what being a professional intelligence officer is all about."

    But, Thielmann told me, "Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear." Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Bolton's early-morning staff meetings. "I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, `The Under-Secretary doesn't need you to attend this meeting anymore.' " When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, "The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family."


    On the other hand Powell did have evidence that Iraq had abandoned the Nuke program, although it is not inconceivable that he had doubts that that bit of intelligence was true. Quite a bit of false info was being spread about by Bolton and his gang.

    Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program.

    UN Speech

    Greg Thielmann, after being turned away from Bolton's office, worked with the INR staff on a major review of Iraq's progress in developing W.M.D.s. The review, presented to Secretary of State Powell in December, 2001, echoed the earlier I.A.E.A. findings. According to Thielmann, "It basically said that there is no persuasive evidence that the Iraqi nuclear program is being reconstituted."

    but that changed:

    By early 2002, the SISMI intelligence--still unverified--had begun to play a role in the Administration's warnings about the Iraqi nuclear threat. On January 30th, the C.I.A. published an unclassified report to Congress that stated, "Baghdad may be attempting to acquire materials that could aid in reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program." A week later, Colin Powell told the House International Relations Committee, "With respect to the nuclear program, there is no doubt that the Iraqis are pursuing it."


    It is conceivable that Powell was convinced that Iraq had some nuke material, but certainly, in his speech, he denied on the fact that there was a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

    I have little respect for Powell, he wanted the War as bad as any of the neocons, whether or not there were WMDs. I do place him on a different level of corruptness, and believe that he was kept out of the neocon inner circle, and also believe that he swallowed many of their lies unknowingly.


    It was before Powell went to the UN (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:08:56 PM EST
    is all that I recall -- a report about British intelligence discounting the same intelligence that Powell used to argue for going to war.  

    So thanks for the research on this; I have to run now but will come back to try to put together what I recall with your research.


    Well (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 10:32:00 PM EST
    There were the Downing St Memos that showed that Bush was going to war no matter what.  That was a year earlier than the Powell speech.

    Raw Story has a good timeline of events.

    Niger Yellow cake was debunked by Joseph Wilson in Feb/Mar 2002.

    It is likely, imo,  that Powell believed that the mobile biological chem warfare trucks were real.


    What did (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    The polls for people in the DC area and in Western PA say?  Were they more opposed to going to war?

    Why? (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    What would you expect would change his position had he lived here?

    I have no idea if his position would (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 12:31:37 PM EST
    be any different if he lived in the U.S.  That is why I sd. "Speculation."

    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 12:37:41 PM EST
    Just the fact that the question occured to you must mean you have some thoughts on how living in the US could alter his view..

    Personally the thought would not occur to me, nor do I imagine his position would be any different were he living here.  


    part of the idea (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    behind having laws and a constitution in the first place in the first place is to mitigate overly impassioned reactions to events.

    It's not like the ideal is to have every lawyer in the country emulate a lethal injecting grandstander in the hang 'em high state.


    Perhaps the true test is what would (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    Greenwald believe/permit were he our elected President.

    What? (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    Were Greenwald a politician, do you think he would hold his own private views above those of his constituents?

    If so he would have to be a fascist or benevolent dictator.

    IOW your 'true test' is absurd.


    In my opinion, the U.S. Constitutional (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    and international law should not depend on the wishes of the voting public, unless the constitution is amended or international law and treaties are voided.

    Not A Recipe (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    As far as I can tell the constitution is not a recipe, a mathematical equation or a scientific formula. In fact the SC justices all make decisions based on their political persuasion, otherwise we couldn't say the great liberal justice Stevens, etc. Were the SC members politicians who needed to pander in order to get votes, many would leave their personal politics at the door to their chambers.

    So again, were Greenwald an elected Politician, he would have to opine based on his constituencies desires. Yes there could be leadership involved, teaching etc, but the bottom line is getting votes.


    That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    Our current President garnered votes by promising he would not be George W. Bush with respect to civil liberties.  But now, perhaps based on bad advice, or a shift of judicial interpretation, or perceived necessity, the current administration is continuing many of the policies the campaign distained.

    OK (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    So you are saying that a Pol is sometime not a Pol? And that Greenwald could do whatever he wanted if elected? For one I do not see Obama as doing whatever he wants. In fact he seems constrained because of his much hated bipartisanship and triangulation...  Not sure you can have it both ways, oculus. Dictator and compromiser..

    And, Obama certainly does not seem like George W, Bush to me with respect to civil liberties even though he has continued some of BushCo policies regarding indefinite detention, having a hit list, etc.

    The republicans all seem to agree that he is no GWB.


    Oy, how could somebody with Greenwald's (none / 0) (#46)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 04:50:12 PM EST
    beliefs become "our elected President", given our thoroughly corrupt so-called two party system, which is morally bankrupt and bursting at the seams with corporate money.

    A hypothetical. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:05:31 PM EST
    An impossible hypothetical... (none / 0) (#51)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    It's like asking what would Ralph Nader (or any other voluble, life-long, hard-core critic of the entire social-political-economic status quo) "believe/permit were he our elected President"?

    BTW Oculus, you were wondering whether (none / 0) (#53)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:43:53 PM EST
    Greenwald's annual part-time residence outside the US has any influence on his tenacious political critique of the US. What do you think of Brecht's perspective on dialectics and exile, as per his Refugee Conversations, cited in my foregoing comment # 44:       

    The best school for dialectics is emigration. The most penetrating dialecticians are exiles.

    Mozart's "Die Zauberfloete" (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    ("The Magic Flute") is the Met live broadcast today.  Starts at 1:00 pm EDT.  Streams on KUSC FM.  Now:  Maria Callas.  

    False Alarm. (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 12:39:46 PM EST
    Hamid Karzai is, once again, our best friend.  According to the NYT, we are giving Hamid softer treatment," more of the love part of tough love, and less the tough part", per an unnamed senior administration official.  President Karzai feels, like Roger Dangerfield, that he gets no respect, so efforts are being made to tone down all those worries about corruption and drug trafficking. Karzai does not like our civilian representatives and barely talks to Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and Richard Holbrooke. (our military and Karzai share a dislike for Karl who did not support a troop increase).  Moreover, he is not so keen on Biden or, for that matter, President Obama.  Our new point man, for the "make-up sex",  is General McChyrstal who he likes to have proximal.  In turn, Hamid, apparently, will not become a Taliban.  Public chastisement  just brings out the worst in Karzai, it has been conclude,  and that is not so good for war support.  So now that this dust-up is over, what could go wrong?

    Memo (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    So now that this dust-up is over, what could go wrong?

    for more on Eikenberry's thoughts on avoiding troop buildup and the $10billion/ month of money going down the drain (what could go wrong), the NYT published the secret memos from late last year of Eikenberry to SOS Clinton.

    well worth a read, Eikenberry gets it right, imo.


    Link: (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    Atrios hates bias but loves "slant" (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 01:27:25 PM EST
    Funniest comment of the day

    No, Media Matters isn't interested in "bias," which requires mindreading to find. Slant and appropriate balance, yes,

    so what is this difference between "slant" and "bias"?  I decided to look up the definition of the word "slant" at dictionary.com.  Here is one of the defintions.

    to have or be influenced by a subjective point of view, bias, personal feeling or inclination, etc. a mental leaning, bias, or distortion

    So Atrio's complaint was instead of using "bias", people should use another word which means the exact same thing as bias and is a synonym for it.

    Progressives are such funny people.

    The difference goes to (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    attributing motive or just observing the work product.  Bias is not always conscious, so whether bias is present or not is a matter of opinion.  "Slant," however, is objectively provable.  "Bias" is a characterization of motive and applies to a person's mental state and cannot be proved.  "Slant" applies to the material, not the person, and can be proved quite easily.

    You can argue with a Fox person about his/her bias until the cows come home and get nowhere.  Or you can confront them with the objective fact of the slant, which they cannot effectively or credibly deny.

    Also, a person can have bias but not betray it by the slant of their reporting.  Brit Hume was one when he worked for ABC News.  His bias only became visible when he went to Fox and began slanting his reporting.

    So you can argue with a Fox person till the cows come home about whether or not, say, Peter Jennings was biased and get nowhere.  But the Fox person cannot come up with objective proof of an actual slant in his reporting.

    The word "bias" immediately sends you off into unwinnable arguments about what a person is thinking.  The word "slant" is cleaner, more straightforward and objectively provable.


    Interesting reply but Ill stick with the dictionar (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:30:57 PM EST
    y.  You can do what you want of course.

    Since your post was about (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 08:48:26 PM EST
    what Atrios meant, I think it is pretty clear that he meant it in the sense Gyrfalcon describes. He is not given to writing nonsense.

    Really (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 09:59:26 PM EST
    Thanks.  Seems to me one generally ought to be on very firm ground before ridiculing people as thoughtful as Atrios.

    So the meaning of the word isn't the dictionary me (none / 0) (#77)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 11:59:47 PM EST
    aning?  I used to think that everyone agreed looking up the meaning of of a word by consulting a dictionary was useful but now it turns out some people disagree.  Oh, well.

    Progressives against dictionaries.  Heh.


    Or, .... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    ... as gyrfalcon explained, "slant" can indicate an intentional distortion of information, while bias can be unintentional or subconscious.

    "slant" -

    to distort (information) by rendering it unfaithfully or incompletely, esp. in order to reflect a particular viewpoint.

    Not really a difficult concept, unless, of course, someone was trying to "slant" their information by ignoring alternative definitions to make it appear that "bias" and "slant" are always synonymous.


    Irrelevent. How do you know that "bias" (none / 0) (#83)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    cannot mean the same definition that you just quoted?  In fact, according to the dictionary it can.  You have not disputed this point and that's all I need to prove my point.  I don't need it to always mean the same thing thing.  Duh.

    You just missed the entire point of everything here.  It's the great Atrios (and maybe now you) who's questioning whether or not "bias" was correctly used by the writers and instead said "slant" should've been used instead.  How can you and Atrios be so absolutely certain the writer's meaning of "bias" is not the same as the meaning of "slant"?  According to the dictionary, bias and slant can mean the same thing.  That's all that that was being said.  Duh.  Squared.

    Not really a difficult concept, unless, of course, a progressive was so biased as to ignore alternative definitions to make it appear that "bias" and "slant" are never ever synonymous.


    I never claimed they were .... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    ... "never, ever synonymous".  It was you who claimed that:

    the meaning of the word isn't the dictionary meaning?  I used to think that everyone agreed looking up the meaning of of a word by consulting a dictionary.


    So Atrio's complaint was instead of using "bias", people should use another word which means the exact same thing as bias and is a synonym for it.

    My point is that "slant" is not necessarily synonymous with "bias", and Atrios was obviously using the term in a way that clearly indicated a difference between the two terms.  Atrios was simply using a different definition than the one you chose, but one which is commonly accepted and, in fact, just below the definition you chose.  Gyrfalcon pointed that out already, so if someone intentionally  chooses one definition of the word which is synonymous with "bias" in order to make it appear that Atrios's premise made no sense, that person is "slanting" Atrios's premise.  Of course, the flaw is that Atrios (or any writer) can choose to use terms without confing them to the specific definitions that you choose in order to make their arguments appear silly.


    Easy, peezy.


    Youre gibbering.My point is that "slant" (none / 0) (#86)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 12:43:42 PM EST
    can possibly be synonymous with "bias", and Andrew Golis and Chris Lehman could be using the term "bias" that way.  Andrew Golis and Chris Lehman might simply be using a the term "bias" in a way other than the one you accepted and is, in fact, in the dictionary.  Of course, the flaw is that Andrew Golis and Chris Lehman (or any writer) can choose to use terms without confining them to the specific way that you prefer they do in order to make they appear silly by you or Atrios.


    Easy, peezy.


    Okay. I'll defer to your obvious expertise ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    ... on gibbering.

    Heh (none / 0) (#88)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:57:01 PM EST
    This NYT article musing on Justice Steven's leaving the court points out that he is the only protestant. It goes on to say that we have come a long way because religion used to be a major factor in SC nominations, but no more.

    His retirement, which was announced on Friday, makes possible something that would have been unimaginable a generation or two ago -- a court without a single member of the nation's majority religion.

    But Professor Stone makes an interesting observation:

    Professor Stone, of the University of Chicago, learned this in 2007 when he wrote an opinion article in The Chicago Tribune after the Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in Gonzales v. Carhart.

    "Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Roman Catholic," Professor Stone wrote. "The four justices who are not all followed clear and settled precedent."

    But of course the decision had nothing to do with religion... Scalia will not go to the UofC until Stone retires, because this has nothing to do with religion... lol

    And BushCo did not think of religion when he picked? BS...

    Balance (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    Of course, we think about the religion of a SC justice. It may have evolved from not having representation/unspoken preclusion factor to a very different situation. Now, the fact that the Court is comprised of Catholics and Jews (except Justice Stevens as the Protestant)is being commented on--here and there, ever so gingerly--but being commented on. That suggests to me that it is more likely than not that a Protestant will be nominated. We may be edging our way to a "balance" as illustrated in our morning paper.
    (Ya gotta admit--to those of us who are either Catholic or Jewish--the Change in that regard in the last century has been astounding.)

    Oh, oh. I got jumped on (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    for saying this the other day, and citing that ruling that hardly was a coincidence.  

    And now we have six Catholic justices.

    But andgarden disagrees that it matters.  Get ready for an argument.  


    Cause and effect (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    I suspect that at least 4 of the 5 in the majority of the case referenced would have voted that way in any event. It's the ole "not all conservatives are Catholic, nor are all Catholics conservative." (Historically, many Catholics were and still are economic liberals.) Justice Sotomayor will be most interesting to watch.

    Historically and still are? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:36:14 PM EST
    Nope.  Historically, yes, but the church of yesteryear is not the church today.

    The liberals of any sort are severely reduced in numbers now.


    Who does Obama favor for SCOTUS? (none / 0) (#67)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    If that person is a Protestant, it wouldn't surprise me if we started to see some pro-Obama corporatist pundits publicly clamoring for "religious balance" on the court.

    I'm all for balance on the court - but not if it's being exploited as a meme to usher in some draconian Protestant.


    Seen this? (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 06:59:49 PM EST