Tuesday Night Open Thread

It's Lennon/McCartney night on American Idol, which is just starting here. Katie Stevens was great, singing "Let it Be." Andrew Garcia was peppier than usual, but I felt like I was at a high school dance listening to a local band. Who did you like?

Who's going home on DWTS? I hope it's Kate Gosselin or Buzz Aldrin. There's also a new Good Wife and Justified (on FX.)

There were 8 bombings in Baghdad today. And a new filing by Roman Polanski, seeking a special counsel to investigate the allegations of official misconduct.

Thank goodness Rudy Giuliani has the stature of a footnote now, so remarks like these don't carry any weight. Maybe Ms. Judy still listens to him, but I doubt anyone else does.

What's on your mind tonight? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Ohio Enacts Law to Protect the Innocent | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What a waste of money.... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by suzieg on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:50:58 PM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#28)
    by TomStewart on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:21:10 AM EST
    Weather news (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:09:03 AM EST
    Gotta whine, gotta rant.

    We just had an out-of-season nasty, violent thunderstorm come right over my head.  OK, so I ran around and pulled the plugs on every bit of remotely electronic equipment in the house, plus the phone lines.

    And then I sit here with no idea whether the diminution in the thunder and lightning is good for the evening or just a pause before the next batch comes through.  More than once, I've gone through the tedious process of reconnecting my computer, phone lines and modem (DSL), only to see on the weather radar that there's another batch coming and had to shut everything down again.

    With satellite TV, you don't get local radar, so even if I left that on (and I wouldn't anyway because I've had two satellite boxes zapped by lightning storms in the last four years), I still wouldn't know.

    What do other folks do?  Even with really good surge suppressors, I've lost too much equipment to thunderstorms to not have to unplug everything at the slightest rumble.  I live on a rocky ridge, which apparently carries the charge from lightning easily several miles.  Arrgggh.

    When, oh when, are they going to come up with affordable batteries one can run electronic equipment off of instead of house current?

    buy a rechargable weather radio? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:11:19 AM EST
    those are good for warnings, and might offer indications of all clear...

    Of course, that doesn't help with the re=plugging. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:14:11 AM EST
    what about an old ,  technology ,lightning rods? With  the ridge you sit on, it still might be possible to ground everything.

    Only thoughts I have, hope they help...


    Thank you (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:55:51 AM EST
    I think the ridge makes it impossible to ground everything, no?  The electric surge can come up from the ground pretty much anywhere around the house.  How do you ground a whole house from the bottom up?

    Weather radio is helpful if there are tornadic conditions, but not really for the kind of relatively minor but still potentially destructive to electroncs routine storms we get here.

    I appreciate your sympathy, btw.  It's not that big a deal, just one of those recurrent major annoyances there doesn't seem to be any solution to.  At least now I know that a 4-mile-distant thunderstorm can end up frying my equipment, from microwave to modem, and can take preventive action, tedious as it is in summertime when it's usually a daily occurrence.


    Doesn't your satelitte (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:26:39 AM EST
    company provide local stations? (They are allowed to.) The locals should be all over a major storm. (If it bleeds it leads!)

    Buy some power strips with surge protection for your expensive electronics. i.e. Big screen TV, etc.

    Buy a small standby battery power system for your telephone (assuming you have an electronic phone, DSL Modem and computer, cell phone charger, etc. Cost about $100.00 bucks at Best Buy should work for about 4 hours when you loose AC.

    Assuming you have an electronic telephone, figure out how to hook up an old fashioned powered from the telephone company telephone and keep it handy in case you loose power for an extended period.

    Call a contractor have them examine the ground/neural at the AC main.

    Call the telephone repair service and have them look at and verify that they have the proper surge protectors and ground system.

    Assuming you have central heat and air, call a contractor and have them examine the connection from the unit to the AC. Have them install surge protection.

    There you go.


    Thanks again, Jeff (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    for taking the time to spell all that out.  Unfortunately, almost none of it really applies here!

    I'm way out in the country in a mountainous state, no over-the-air TV reception, the "local" station is 60 miles away and doesn't give live coverage to routine thunderstorms or any weather event the way major metro stations do.

    No AC since it's unneeded here. (This is VT!)  Small local telco is first-rate and very attentive, prides itself on having state-of-the-art equipment, including for their DSL.  If I have a problem, they come right out, and it's often the techno-geek owner himself who comes.  They've got their end of this well covered to the extent that it can be (ditto for the local power co.), but they tell me that house phone lines are just more vulnerable to these lightning strikes through the rock than power lines.

    Last time he was here, there had been a distant thunderstorm the night before, and then a sudden sizzle and pop from the modem.  Both it and the telephone/answering machine in my office were dead (even though the phone line goes through the surge suppressor), but the line itself was fine, and the telephones in other rooms weren't affected, either.  He told me a lightning hit can travel with enough force through the rock that it can knock out phones and equipment four or five miles away.

    I blush to admit I do have a UPS power supply thingy or whatever it's called and totally forgot about it until you just mentioned it.  I'll go dig that out and read up on it.  But since it's the phone line that carries the deadly surge into the DSL modem, I don't think even the UPS would allow me to keep the Internet connection safely during a storm.

    No cell phone (I'm one of the last of the neanderthals!), and you can't get a signal here unless you go out of the house and across the road anyway.

    I don't think there's a solution to this, so whining about it is pretty much my only option!


    We are the lightning capital (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:29:34 AM EST
    here in central FL. At least once a week in the summer I come home to find my electronics have restarted. I have surge protectors, and maybe they protect things from getting fried, which is good, but they still seem to get a power hit. I haven't lost anything yet. If I know there will be a storm I power down at least the computer, but I leave tivo and other things on their own.

    welcome. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:44:21 AM EST
    sometimes the discourse here gets, well, testy, but it is a moderated site, at least!

    In which I wax rhapsodic (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:48:53 AM EST
    about 'Justified'. It gets better every week! I do not compare television writing to 'The Wire' lightly, but I do think this is right up there. entertaining, engaging performances all the way around also, especially from the gust stars. Clarence Willliams III did a cameo last night that was priceless.

    When you watch it and the leaden 'The Pacific' back to back...well let's just say if Spielberg/Hanks make a big killing at the Emmys I may shoot out my TV. But I'll let it draw first.

    Speaking of 'The Wire' (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:23:18 AM EST
    David Simon's series about New Orleans after Katrina, 'Treme', starts on HBO this Sunday night. From the clips I have seen it looks sooo good - characters actually saying interesting things. When did we lose that on TV?  Really looking forward to that show.

    Top Chef Masters premieres tonight (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    on Bravo; I really enjoyed last season, and look forward to this one.  Bios for contestants and judges can be found here.

    Will probably record it, as it comes on at 11:00 PM EDT, which means I am sure to nod off somewhere between 11:30 and midnight...

    Non-competitive (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:10:07 AM EST
    Wonder why we can't compete in the world? Our local university is evaluating which programs to cut.  Some of the top contenders?  Nursing, chemistry, engineering and CIS.  Anyone see anything wrong with eliminating the top job growth and pay areas as an opportunity for a degree?

    Maybe because those (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    areas are also offered at the community college level, or other universities? Don't most Universities have some areas where they are rated high/low for the industry? If they are rated low in those schools, maybe they are better off encouraging the students to attend a higher rated program elsewhere?

    Audiobook recommendation (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:30:55 AM EST
    Rory Stewart's 'The Prince of the Marshes'.

    Stewart was the first provisional governor the UK sent to the Maysan Province in Iraq under the Bremer Coalition Provisional Authority, and this is his account of his time there. Fascinating to hear first hand of the meetings he had with local tribal leaders, Sadrists, and the various other groups he was trying to bring into a governing council, as well of course as the different philosophies of the various UK and US military leaders and administration folks in Baghdad.

    Stewart is a true diplomat in that he naturally tries to understand all of the points of view before he makes his decisions, and so it gives us a great understanding of the situation through his eyes.

    I recommend it in audio because he reads it himself, and I think that adds something extra. He is very good at 'doing' the accents of the various people he is quoting, or paraphrasing.

    I feel like the queen of all media today.

    Read the book a couple (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    years ago and liked it very much, got a lot of insights from it.  Do read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," too, if you haven't.  The two books together give a pretty thorough portrait of the so-called Coalition Provisional Authority and how it functioned-- or didn't.

    thanks - I was trying to remember (none / 0) (#137)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:32:55 PM EST
    the name of that book with 'emerald City' in the title. It seemed like it would be a good fit with this one.

    "Imperial Life": is (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 12:42:44 AM EST
    actually much better written.  It's not only incredibly insightful, but it reads like a good novel, I found.  I could not put it down, and it was one of those rare nonfiction books I really felt sorry was over when I reached the last page.  Plus a lot of what he describes is just literally jaw-droppingly stupid.

    nice that this is happening at the same time (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    New DCA filing on behalf of Mr. Polanski. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:42:52 PM EST
    See my last comment and NYT blog.

    thanks just added it to the post (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    above. I wish someone would post the actual briefs, it's difficult to get a sense of them from the news reporting.

    Court website doesn't even (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    acknowledge briefs have been filed re latest Polanski petition for writ.  Causing me to wonder how the newsmedia knows the content.  From Polanski's counsel?

    Nuclear weapon policy changing (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:59:20 PM EST
    "The United States will swear off the development of new generations of nuclear weapons and will not use its existing arsenal to attack nonnuclear states that are in compliance with nonproliferation agreements"


    this is in advance of the treaty with russia to be signed thursday that will significantly reduce the number of weapons that each country holds

    Right wing is already (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 11:57:21 PM EST
    going (forgive me) ballistic over this.  Sounds like a good idea to me, and wayyyyy overdue.

    Sounds good. (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:07:19 PM EST
    I have the feeling this is one of the reasons Obama wanted to be President.
    I hope he has the same sense of urgency and importance about dealing with global warming. So far, I'm not seeing it.

    it is interesting to me (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    to see what battles are being picked post-healthcare.  There seems to be a lot of focus internationally, as if the rest of the world was waiting for healthcare to be done but now will not wait any longer.

    Climate change is also an international issue.  But the new measures in drilling are much more local in nature while the overall goals of a future energy bill are much more global in nature.  So long as we are still consuming oil in our current quantities, the rest of the world would probably rather have us drill for it in our own backyard.

    My biggest fear is that we will see this increase in drilling, and still get squat in return in terms of real action in the upcoming energy bill.  But if Obama fails at that, it will not be like failing on healthcare.  It will be an international failure.


    I suspect OPEC and Venezuela would (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    be happy if we never increased domestic production.

    for an international perspective (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:11:23 PM EST
    here is the bbc

    some other details:

    "countries will only be spared a US nuclear response if they comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - this does not include Iran and North Korea"

    emphasis mine

    on russia:

    "The treaty would restrict .. to a maximum of 1,550 warheads each, about 30% less than currently allowed"

    "Russia drew some lines in the sand on Tuesday, warning it could pull out if it decided a US missile defence shield, proposed for Europe, threatened its security."


    I don't know anything about nuclear (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    deterrence theory, but it has always seemed to me that any change in policy can create instability, even if it's a move towards reduction in arms.

    hmm (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:27:22 PM EST
    you could use the same argument about removal of all kinds of tyranny.  That doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

    Sure, but don't you agree that the (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    end of the Cold War was a time of greater danger than the preceding years?
    The risk of botching a change in nuclear policy is catastrophe.
    I'm also curious how the new initiative relates to the goal of securing nukes in the FSU---something Obama worked on as a Senator.
    Those nukes seem a much greater danger than those in the US or Russia, IMO.

    I suspect we may see (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    in the days to come.

    "US President Barack Obama is to meet 11 Central and East European leaders in Prague next week."


    It doesn't say what they will talk about, but he will be in Prague to sign the treaty with Russia.


    I sure didn't (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:48:38 AM EST
    I haven't seen yet a tinpot dictator capable of getting a nuke who was so crazy, he'd toss it at us or anybody else. As Ehud Barack said about the Iranians, "They're tough, but they're not meshuggah."

    Russia, which remains the only country with anything approaching the U.S. stockpile, is clearly not meshuggah.  Nor were they during the cold war.  The only rational fear was that some mistake or misintepretation would unleash a literal armageddon.  I have no such fear now, and have had none since Gorbachev.


    So let me understand (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:33:09 AM EST
    Country X has signed the treaty but attacks us with BC weapons and/or cyber.

    We won't use nukes.

    Nothing as stupid as telling your enemy what you will do. Helps them immensely in planning.

    The real issue is not the nukes, but the limitations on delivery systems. We have a lead there and they can be used to delivery conventional weapons.

    The Obama admin's defense policy in two words:

    "We surrender."


    "We surrender" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:45:19 AM EST
    Nobody "surrenders" with 700 military bases ringing the globe and enough doomsday weaponry to send the earth spinning off it's axis..

    We surrender..Right. Ever since "the Left" stabbed us in the back in 1968, eh General Ripper?


    I for one (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by CST on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:58:37 AM EST
    am not worried that the rest of the world will think we are incapable of blowing them to smithereens - with or without nukes.

    The real danger we face right now is not from any sovereign state we could or would nuke.  The danger we face is from rogue elements within those states that might find access to such weapons.

    By limiting our own nuclear capacity and intent, we are sending a message to the rest of the world that we are dead serious about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.  By excluding countries that break other nuclear treaties, we are raising the stakes for compliance.


    We think alike about where the danger lies. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    rogue elements or non-state actors.

    The scary (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:00:36 AM EST
    part of your comment is:

    "We think."

    That is known as fighting "the last war" and is a proven short cut to defeat.


    So... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ, what is your theory of reducing nuclear threat? And, what is your background in connection with your theory? Are you talking MADD or "balance of terror" or "first strike capacity" or newer theories? (Or is this just the ole' "disagree with whatever President Obama proposes?")

    MADD is somewhat in the past (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    but may need to be revisited for Russia and/or China in the not too distant future.

    That does not address the Islamic radical threat which is composed of loosely organized groups that fight each other today and then combine to fight the "west" from time to time. Some of this is state sponsored, see Iran and Syria's activities. (Libya and Iraq in the past.) Some of it is state ignored. (See SA)

    MADD will also most likely be required for Iran after Obama allows them to develop nuclear weapons.

    Other threats may develop over the out years that could launch a BC and/or cyber attack. Telling the world in advance you won't use nukes in retaliation is just dumb.

    Whether you use nuclear or conventional is not important if you don't have the delivery systems.
    One of the most stupid part of the Obama Strategy is the giving away our advantage in this area.

    As I noted, strangely enough, if your delivery systems become limited that could force you to nuclear because of the larger hitting power.

    The reduction in actual nuclear weapons does not bother me. We would still have enough. But we can't give away our right to test and refresh the arsenal.

    As for my background, I would say I have more knowledge and experience than Obama and probably 99% of his advisers.

    Which isn't saying much. lol.

    On a practical note I can't remember a weak state attacking a stronger state. The Obama Strategy weakens us.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    The Obama Strategy weakens us.

    How?  How exactly is the U.S. weaker today than it was yesterday?


    The comment obviously refers to after the treaty (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:18:15 PM EST
    is in effect.

    Now, is that your question?

    See my comment re MADD, etc.

    The issue isn't the number of nukes, it is the public statement of what you will do/not do and the delivery system reduction.


    Conservatives (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    Falsely Claim New Obama Nuke Policy Prevents Nuclear Retaliation Against Chem/Bio Attack

    The Wonk Room's Max Bergmann noted yesterday that the right-wing freak out had already begun before any real details emerged from the new NPR. Now that the details are known, many conservatives are completely misrepresenting them. Led by the Drudge Report, the new talking point is that the U.S. will refuse to retaliate against a chemical or biological attack with a nuclear strike.

    have you been reading Drudge. again.


    Pish posh (none / 0) (#156)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:54:15 PM EST
    It's all just hot air.

    "delivery system reduction". (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    Since the treaty limits the number of "delivery vehicles" - the things that get nukes to their targets (ICBM missile silos, submarine launched missiles, and bombers) - both sides could conceivably abandon all their missiles in favor of bombers and therefore blow the doors on the nuclear limits in the treaty, while still adhering to rules of the treaty. See - it's a sham!

    This interpretation neglects a few key points: namely reality.

    First, this treaty only covers deployed nuclear weapons. This means it only covers nukes that are loaded up and ready to go at a moments notice. However, this creates a counting problem because bombers, like the B-52, no longer carry deployed nuclear weapons. They can be loaded up with nukes, but they aren't sitting there or flying around with them. So really if you were only going to count deployed nuclear weapons, you would count bombers as possessing zero nuclear weapons.

    Second, the Obama administration is adopting the approach of the Bush administration, who in the 2002 SORT treaty, first started counting deployed warheads. But in the Bush administration's hurry to write their three page treaty, they never defined what they meant by deployed - allowing both sides to come up with their own definitions. So the Obama administration in this treaty actually takes the step to define what "deployed" means - hence bombers being arbitrarily allocated one nuclear weapon. In short, this was no big deal for conservatives 8 years ago, but suddenly it's evidence that this treaty does not mark an Obama accomplishment.

    Third, bombers, since they take time to reach their targets and could be shot down, are much less destabilizing and therefore should be slightly favored over ICBMs and SLBMs. Importantly, this treaty reduces the limits on delivery vehicles, which forces the US and Russia to decide where to put their weapons - bombers, ICBMs, and SLBMs. If Russia wants to build a whole bunch of bombers and take out of commission their much more destabilizing missiles, which can be launched at a moments notice, that is fine by me. In reality, by forcing choices, this treaty will likely lead to a further reduction in the reliance on bombers. The Air Force Times, notes that in this treaty "bombers are likely to be the losers," because as Tom Collina, of the Arms Control Association says:

        The bomber leg of the triad is not what you think about when you think about survivability and quick response ...The treaty is forcing us to decide where to put our warheads...We could be moving to 20 or fewer bombers.

    This is not some shock to the Air Force. A few months back the Institute for Air Power Studies, which is closely aligned with the Air Force, advocated cutting bombers from the nuclear triad. Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not seem willing to do that, as Secretary Gates is planning on unnecessarily developing in a new bomber, meaning that the new START treaty won't impact the nuclear triad. That will disappoint arms-control advocates. Indeed, it would be great if this treaty went much further and cut nuclear weapons much more extensively.

    But that isn't what this treaty was primarily about. It was about maintaining nuclear stability, updating and extending Reagan's START I verification system, placing important limits on nuclear weapons, and restores the US-Russian relationship on nuclear issues thereby laying the groundwork for a future more far-reaching agreement that cuts weapons further.

    More knowledge and experience (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    than Obama and 99% of his advisers.

    Well, that pretty much says it all, dosnt it?

    Sell a military strategist short at your own peril who owns an extensive dvd collection featuring BOTH Patton and The Longest Day..


    I had no idea that (none / 0) (#154)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    Mothers Against Drunk Driving could have some effect on nuclear proliferation...

    I could swear it was Mutally Assured Destruction, with no additional "D."

    Oh, well...  :-)


    If yiou failed to understand what (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    I was speaking of I apologize for my mistake and extend my sympathy for your inability to read something in context.

    Now who's missing a sense of humor? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:05:10 PM EST
    Lighten up.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 08:12:32 AM EST
    I've been jondeeived.

    the funny part of this comment (none / 0) (#93)
    by CST on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    you are chiding us for fighting "the last war" (I assume you are actually referring to the current wars that are ongoing?), and yet down the thread you bring up World War 2 as the reason for keeping so many weapons.

    So we shouldn't be prepared to fight "the last" (or current) war.  We should be prepared to fight the one from 60 years ago.  Ok...


    The last war is obviously (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    the radical Muslim terrorist warS.

    The Obama Strategy is built around that.

    Sorry if I confused you.


    you didn't confuse me (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    my point was - it's not the last war, it's the current war.  Unlike World War 2.

    seems to me (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:53:42 PM EST
    "the radical Muslim terrorist warS" are pretty current.

    If you are talking about future wars (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    then they are the past.

    No charge for the education.


    heh (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    The rest of the "world" is concerned only in making us do what they want us to do in their self-interest. To think otherwise is delusional

    And you might ask Chamberlain how "peace in our time" worked out.

    What did that cost? 50 million or so dead??

    Having said that my concern is not so much the number of nukes, but the telling the world what our Obama Strategy is. "Keep'em guessing" is one of oldest defense strategies in the world.

    Plus, the limitation on delivery systems that can deliver conventional weapons is flat out stupid. By limiting your ability to respond with conventional weapons you place yourself into a "surrender or nuke" mode much quicker than otherwise.


    I was feeling pretty good about this nuke thing (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    the fact that it troubles you makes me even more optimistic.

    That proves only that you know (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    less than I gave you credit for,

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    if there's anybody out there who can do the equivalent of what Germany and Japan did in the 1930-40s with conventional weapons, I'd sure like to know about it.

    It seems like a good policy to me if your focus is something wider than "How can we kill the mostest the fastest in order to 'protect' ourselves."  Use of nuclear weapons endangers everybody and protects nobody, it's about time our policy realistically reflected that fact.  If we're the leaders toward nuclear rationality, so much the better.


    Something else to remember about Chamberlain (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    and Great Britain in the 1930s-- a small, weak military.

    The US has a large and strong one. Which rational actor nation-state would want to fight the US? Answer: none. Rogue states (North Korea is the only one that comes to mind that has exploded a nuclear weapon, and in fact is one of the few state actors that isn't aways rational, and non-state actors. that's the present and forseeable future.

    As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, the no-first-strike policy unless WMDs are used has been the standard since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
    Agree, Emma, rational nuclear policy with reductions is better.


    We do? (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:56:34 PM EST
    The Left spent 2006 through 2008 telling us it was wore out.

    Amazing how the election of Obama healed all that.

    The trip wire was when Germany moved back into the Ruhr and France did nothing. France was weak and knew it.

    BC attacks are WMD's. Nuclear use against those are now ruled out.


    they are not ruled out (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    for any country that is has not signed the nonproliferation treaties.

    Iran, North Korea.

    and no one ever said the military was "wore out".
    it was spread to thin and still is.  Obama is trying to do something about that.


    The wore theme was sung time and again (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:05:42 PM EST
    by the Left. Including here

    To be clear I should have spec'd that if you sign the anti-proliferation treaty and do a BC on us we won't nuke you.

    This is a take off of the treaties against using poison gas post WWI.

    Nothing like making war more civilized!


    Like what? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:14:47 PM EST
    it was spread to thin and still is.  Obama is trying to do something about that.

    And what's standing in his way?


    The problem is (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    by the time you figure out what the new threat is it is always too late to prevent massive damage.

    So (none / 0) (#119)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    I don't see how threatening nuclear weapon use helps you figure it out any faster.

    Also, you seem not to have noticed, but U.S. intelligence capabilities have somewhat improved since Hitler stormed across Europe. Just FYI.


    Yes, the intelligence groups (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    sure nailed it about Iraq and just two years ago, Iran.  

    And the purpose is to deter the threat from ever happening.

    Without that then by the time you figure it out there is massive damage.


    Still pushing that (none / 0) (#153)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    it-was-just-the-CIA-that-got-it-wrong line, eh?

    Which of course ignores, as Bushco ignored, any intelligence that didnt support an invasion.

    Let it never be said you're not a to-the-bitter-end party line guy.


    I am only agreeing with the Democrats (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:04:11 PM EST
    I thought the last Democrats (none / 0) (#161)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:12:27 PM EST
    you agreed with were the ones from the 1860s.

    Well, (none / 0) (#157)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:58:04 PM EST
    I can't really argue with the fact that there's been MASSIVE damage done to this country by Iran and Iraq.  After all, it's everywhere you look. Bombed buildings!  Invading tanks!  Biological weapon attacks daily!  My god, it's awful.

    Chamberlains "peace in our time" (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:58:42 AM EST
    world didnt include a dozen or so nations with mutual nuclear deterrents.

    And, hasnt that neo, it's-always-1939, Neville Chamberlain red herring already been squeezed for every drop of pathos in the last 10 years?


    You have zero understanding (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    of what Chamberlain was about. Read some history.

    Your posting here proves this (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:01:11 PM EST
    is a liberal blog....A conservative blog would not tolerate for two seconds the "tone" of your posts....

    The Obama policy is fine.  Iran is expressly exempt.  Terrorist organizations would not fear retaliation against any country--they don't care about country. And, I doubt they would care all that much about their members being killed, either, seeing as how they usually die in the attack anyway....

    So, you would nuke a country to deter terrorists in that country...makes no sense....it would deter no one and might encourage terrorists--who would love nothing better than to get a billion Muslims on their side by virtue of a U.S. nuclear strike on whole cities....

    The idea is to give moderate nations a reason to trust us.....Winning hearts and minds, you know....instead of killing innocent civilians.....

    The way we win against the terrorists is to have the moderate Muslims around the world repudiate them.  You cannot kill all the terrorists, as they simply rise again as the eternal hydra of resentment constantly provides more troops for the cause....You must isolate them as radicals from their fellow Muslims.....  


    I never said I would nuke anyone (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    So please adjust your tone...

    And yes, the "moderate Muslim controlling the radical Muslims" has been a "strategy" for years.

    Problem is..... it isn't working.


    Bush/Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:41:42 PM EST
    were not the best ambassadors.....Too heavily invested in the romance of the holy crusade against all of Islam.....

    Just the conservative freak out over Obama not using the term Islamic fascists, or whatever the term Rudy likes that incorporates a religious term, shows how misguided Bush /Cheney were.

    The strategy of favoring and empowering the moderates--so they police their own--may not work or work perfectly....but it has yet to be really tried.....

    Obama is going the right way (mainly) on this although he will have to be careful in Afghanistan....

    And, threatening to nuke "non-players" is a problem....You're telecasting a threat that casts too wide a net....


    I disagree that B and C (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:45:40 PM EST
    were misguided in the traditional sense of the word.  I think they knew exactly what they were doing.  lying.  and it got them exactly what they wanted.  a war and a second term.

    their slogan should have been  "the only thing we have to run on is fear itself"


    True (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    Sometimes understatement becomes completely inaccurate....

    They thought of war in Iraq as all "shock and awe" and a great little adventure that would really change up politics in the Middle East....Really cool--because we are so powerful and it would just be a cakewalk.....So cavalier.....so wrong....


    it is you (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    you has no understanding of the deal just described by the administration.

    And "you has?" (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:08:21 PM EST

    Sorry. Capt'n. Couldn't resist.

    And since you haven't noted the impact on the delibery systems I stand pat on my belief that you don't.


    its (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:11:52 PM EST
    too easy

    "delibery systems" (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:40:27 PM EST
    they kill liberals and leave the buildings standing.

    You have no (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:10:45 PM EST
    sense of humor delibery.



    Im guessing that (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    until the neocons repeated it for two years, you thought they were talking about Wilt the Stilt.

    what I heard in the last few days (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:34:04 AM EST
    "we won't nuke those who don't have nukes unless we decide to do so."

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:51:21 AM EST
    No change except in tone.

    and the number of weapons (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by CST on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    is changing too.  This is also a commitment to make no new nuclear weapons.

    The tone matters a lot in international diplomacy, Russia still has to sign the treaty.

    I know there is this whole thing with Obama and "just words".  But the one place where words really matter is diplomacy - that's the whole point.


    One of those comments I wish I hadn't (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:36:54 AM EST
    made, at least not so short! I didn't not mean to be so dismissive. I think it does mean a great deal diplomatically.

    I just meant that the critics on the right calling it some sort of surrender are just idiotic. We always reserve the right to bomb whoever we want into oblivion.


    Crystal Bowersox just (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    blew the others away again with "Come Together." I don't see how anyone else wins American Idol this season.

    Padres 2, Diamondbacks 0. Of course (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:20:06 PM EST
    it is only the top of the 3rd.

    By Jove, I think they've got it. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 11:56:44 PM EST
    No Chevron mention in FCC v Comcast??? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 09:49:22 PM EST
    The appeals court opinion in FCC v Comcast against the FCC is very interesting for (at least) 3 reasons.

    1.  The opinion does not mention Chevron even once even though plainly it applies to this case.  In fact, the appeals court goes so far as to not say the word "Chevron" through out the entire opinion.  The appeals court instead applies some precedent from its own court.

    2.  The Supreme Court opinions that the appeals court mainly alludes to are 30+ years old.  They were written before Chevron was ever heard or decided.

    3.  The appeals court basically ignores the fact that the Supreme Court addressed this question in NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES when it decided whether or not an decision by the FCC whether or not to apply common carrier rules was subject to Chevron.  The Supreme Court said it was.  In fact, this appeals court was doing the same thing the Supreme Court was telling appeals court should not be doing when addressing this issue - applying its own precendents instead of Chevron.

    I haven't had a chance to read the decision (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    However, I think the opinion should be appealed, and that even if the Supreme Court upholds vacatur, it won't be on the basis that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate high speed internet service.

    The DC Circuit is on a ~30 year campaign to substitute its own judgement for the FCC's. And with W's appointments, I don't see when that will end.


    OK, here's a key: (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    B. This brings us to the second category of statutory provisions the Commission relies on to support its exercise of ancillary authority. Unlike section 230(b) and section 1, each of these provisions could at least arguably be read to delegate regulatory authority to the Commission. We begin with section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides that "[t]he Commission . . . shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans . . . by utilizing . . . price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures    that    promote    competition    in    the    local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment." 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). As the Commission points out, section 706 does contain a direct mandate--the Commission "shall encourage . . . ."    In    an    earlier,    still-binding    order,    however,    the Commission ruled that section 706 "does not constitute an independent grant of authority." In re Deployment of Wireline Servs. Offering Advanced Telecomms. Capability, 13 F.C.C.R. 24,012, 24,047, ¶ 77 (1998) (Wireline Deployment Order). Instead, the Commission explained, section 706 "directs the Commission to use the authority granted in other provisions . . . to encourage the deployment of advanced services." Id. at 24,045, ¶ 69.31 The Commission now insists that this language refers only "to whether section 706(a) supported forbearance authority," Resp't's Br. 41, i.e., the Commission's authority to free regulated entities from their statutory obligations in certain circumstances, see 47 U.S.C. § 160. According to the Commission, it "was not opining more generally on the effect of section 706 on ancillary authority." Resp't's Br. 41. But the order itself says otherwise: "[S]ection 706(a) does not constitute an independent grant of forbearance authority or of authority to employ other regulating methods." Wireline Deployment Order, 13 F.C.C.R. at 24,044, ¶ 69 (emphasis added). Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies "may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio," FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.
    So the Commission must overturn that prior determination. NPRM time. . .

    Number Nine (none / 0) (#19)
    by robotalk on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 10:43:14 PM EST
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine
    Number Nine

    A Dem. opponent to Jerry Brown (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 11:39:20 PM EST
    in CA Governor primary.  Move-on.org leader.  AP

    California is too big to fail (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:56:24 AM EST

    Seriously, this place is almost ungovernable.  The differences between north and south are chasmic.  Forget coastal vs. inland, desert vs. mountain.  Or where the hell you'd even SPLIT the place into north and south.  Or all the tribes.  Literal and otherwise.  

    I'd be happy if we could just mandate solar power gone wild here in Sunville.  Force me to go as solar as possible, please, I'm begging you.

    Goodnight now.  Mmm, tastes like rum.


    Does (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:25:39 AM EST
    Jerry Brown excite anyone?

    Gavin Newsome excited (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    me, until he dropped out a few weeks ago.  Couldn't raise enough money.

    So, we have Brown.  Could be worse.  Like the pathétique Lt Gov Cruz Bustamonte in 2003.  Garamendi might have been preferable to Brown, but he always failed to live up to campaign expectations running for gov, and besides is now in Congress.

    Brown at least is experienced, knows the issues and can articulate positions fairly crisply.  He'll need to run a very aggressive race while reminding voters of how bad things have gotten under the current Repub gov.  He's also gonna have to come a little more towards the lib base on a few issues to get them excited enough to show up in numbers in Nov.

    But please Jerry:  No flat tax proposal this time ...  


    I remember Brown in '90 (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:14:23 AM EST
    delivering close to same critique of Clinton, ie, triangulating, republican-in-sheep's-clothing etc that many here are leveling at Obama now..

    Of course, Brown was completely wrong..


    Jerry Brown (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:43:56 PM EST
    came off as a nut case during that race and it wasn't because of anything he said about Clinton. and yes, we know full well that criticizing Obama is tatamount to treason in your book. Whatever silly boy.

    Of course it had (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    nothing to do with anything he said about Clinton..:)

    And I notice that Bill is still mad about it after all these years.


    Now (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    you're a mind reader? you can read mine and Bill Clinton's? I suppose you really believe Jerry when he said people were in the trees outside of his house? LOL. Gov. Moonbeam is an apt nickname for him

    Bill at least has one (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    to read, I'll give him that.

    He is? You and "Bill" ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    ... are close?

    he came of as a nutcase (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:32:55 PM EST
    because he is a nutcase.
    they didnt call him Governor Moonbean for nothing.

    Jerry needed something to hit (none / 0) (#132)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:56:09 PM EST
    Bill with in 92, and landed on the politically questionable idea of going after Bill's wife's legal-financial doings with the law firm in Arkansas.  Not usually a good idea to go after a candidate's wife, unless there's some there there.  Which there wasn't.  Bill called him on it in one heated exchange in debate, and made JB look ungentlemanly and desperate.

    not surprised (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:09:32 PM EST
    to hear that Jerry went after the wife.

    Actually (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    I saw brown years later on a TV talk show claiming that the Clintons had put people in the trees outside of his house to spy on him. He deserves the name Governor Moonbeam. Jerry Brown is the one that set off the proposition that started the destruction of the California public school system wasn't he?

    Well, "set off" (none / 0) (#130)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:51:41 PM EST
    if you mean that politically it looked bad for him when it became a matter of the state gov't keeping a few $b surplus in reserve vs the self-centered prop tax owners getting the promise of a nice tax cut at the expense of public services including the schools.  For sure, he should have acted sooner -- partial tax rebate or something -- to stop the anti-tax juggernaut from the Right that was brewing in 1978.

    As for your first claim, gotta cite?  Not that JB wasn't prone to the occasional paranoid impulse that some pols fall victim to in campaigns.  1992 betw JB and Bill was nasty, and frankly Jerry didn't come off well.  Especially in the debates.  But I wasn't aware he'd gone Perot, and I tend to doubt your story.


    It was on the (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:11:27 PM EST
    Charles Grodin show in the late 90's. It was on a panel with four people on the show of which Jerry was acting as one of the pundits. As far as I know there aren't any clips on You tube.

    And yes, (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    your first paragraph is what I mean.

    Except, of course .... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:18:40 PM EST
    ... Clinton was a moderate Democrat, not a "Republican-in-sheep's-clothing", and he campaigned as such.  If Brown actually said that (as opposed to you paraphrasing him), then he was completely wrong.  Then again, ...

    ... maybe it's just you.


    Me, but I don't get a vote in CA (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    I'd be a little more (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    concerned about Shurman had he started to run 3 months ago along with a large ad campaign.  But with only two months til the primary, I don't know how much he could derail Brown on the way to the Dem nom.  

    There's also the concern that a wealthy 3d party candidacy by a Shurman could once again dilute the vote on the left, as it was to some extent in the free-for-all of 2003, and pave the way for yet another wealthy Repub claiming the moderate position to rule in Sacramento on behalf of the big corporations.  A Shurman or some Greenie running on a MJ legalization and tax the big corps platform could make some noise in the fall, unless Brown comes forward a little more strongly on these matters.  So far, he's avoided taking a stance on marijuana.


    I live in VA (none / 0) (#31)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:46:03 AM EST
    Hopefully this will raise awareness to save some numerous battlesites that are in danger or either being developed or forgotten and overgrown.  Is remembering history bad?  

    Remembering history? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:23:08 AM EST
    No but as someone who grew up in the south i can tell you taht this is probably not going to be a history course so much as glorification of the old plantation system. You'll hear all about how blacks were better off in slavery and everything would just be wonderful if we could go back to the "old ways".

    It's amazing how some people (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:34:34 PM EST
    hear things said in the south that I, who was born, raised and have spent a great deal of time in the south, have never heard.

    Must be the water.


    For a minute (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:21:13 PM EST
    I thought all those imaginary "Hell no, we aint forgot!" bumperstickers with the Stars 'n Bars background I saw down there were real..

    Must've been the water.


    I was (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    born and raised here too and I had a teacher who said that "black people were better off in slavery". I'm not the only one that was taught that either. Even at the ripe old age of 9 I knew better than that. You obvioulsy haven't really lived in the south if you havent heard these things. Where are you?

    I dont think its the (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    physical location but the mental one.

    I also am from the south.  and that is the silliest thing I have ever  heard.


    Well (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    did you grow up in the deep south? Maybe that's the reason. The old confederacy dies hard NC through MS.

    I was not (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    referring to your comment as being silly. but the usual suspect

    I heard it all the time (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    that the Civil War was not about slavery but economic domination by the North.... which is what that revolting Virignia declaration is implying....

    What year was this? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    Were they members of the teachers union?

    1969 (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 07:01:56 AM EST
    and no, they weren't members of a union. SC is very anti-union.

    If we don't hear any of that (none / 0) (#148)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    this month, you will retract what you wrote?

    We're (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 07:02:56 AM EST
    already hearing it.

    It could be (none / 0) (#52)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:07:08 AM EST
    remembered more tactfully as "Civil War Heritage Month."  

    War between (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:20:59 AM EST
    the states is what the neoconfeds call the civil war for some reason. I guess the civil war was "lost" so they have had to come up with a new name or something?

    It's always good to remember history, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:43:23 AM EST
    however, so many people from the south who are in lower socioeconomic levels, and whose ancestors were in lower socioeconomic levels, and were 'dirt poor' at the time of the civil war (known jokingly also as The War of Northern Aggression), think they would have been southern Bourbons or something, instead of impoverished.

    the romance with the Civil War is sometimes humorous, but sometimes it's downright scary. for instance, the fetishization of the southern battle flag by many southern states in the 1950s, for instance.

    Well, I'm a second generation southerner, so what would I know? I'm still a 'newcomer,' and my parents were actually called 'carpetbaggers' in the 1950s. They have laughed about it for years.


    I, for one, (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:32:31 AM EST
    am so sick of that war that i could scream. As you know, it was the only thing that ever happened history wise in the mind of most of the south and it "ruined" the perfect utopia they've built up in their minds.

    I know what you're talking about. Everybody thinks that their life would have been like scarlett or rhett's and never the overseer with his "white trash wife". If they had half a brain they would know that for the MAJORITY of people, black and white, returning to those times would make their lot in life MUCH worse.


    There were participants, (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:01:10 AM EST
    particularly from the upper strata of society, who were romanticizing it even while the war was going on. Blame it on Sir Walter Scott. You read letters in which people are talking about "our cavalier riding away from the plantation on his charger.."

    And then theres Faulkner, decades later, talking about all true southern boys still dreaming about lining up with Pickett at the end of that field in front of Cemetery Ridge..


    I second that recommendation (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    Amazing what people can do when they have to, no matter what you think of their cause.

    And then there is this account (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    from 1837 of "the happiest laboring class in the world" -- but don't let the good governor know of it today, or it could land on the list of recommended reading for schools mourning that great ol' Confederate past.

    Lost? Read the declaration - (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:40:51 AM EST
    it 'was concluded'. I guess they just didn't renew it for the next season.

    Hey there! Welcome! (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:37:57 AM EST
    I assume of course he is including the complete history, and not just the triumphs of the Army of Northern Virginia.

    Since you're new, you (none / 0) (#80)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    will want to know that profanity on a legal blog is forbidden for really good reason that doesn't include anything about us being too puritanical.



    Yes, welcome! (none / 0) (#81)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    One note: For the future, try to disguise the f-word in other characters. Jeralyn's site is read by a lot of lawyers and she wants things to appear as clean as possible...

    I used to read and comment at C&L. Seems to me that place started going nuttty during the '08 election. I don't miss it at all.


    started going nutty (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    during the 2008 election. Imagine that. Some people just have no ability to maintain equanimity when discussing politics. :)

    If you're adressing me, (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    Im an unabashed, shameless Mr Green Party Jeans guy who started out supporting Edwards as the lesser-of-evils and then resisted the urge to go into permanent Tantrum O'Neil mode (unlike a couple of people) when Obama got the nomination..

    What we're getting now is about what I expected..triangulating in a revolving door, K St dominated DC world, in which any radical challenge to the status quo on the part of any pol may jeopardize that future lobbyist-consultant career.  


    its going (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    around.  I would not say "populated" here.
    but present.

    Previewing books (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:20:06 AM EST
    Maybe Amazon does this with the Kindle too, but I am really glad that I get to download and preview the first 60 or so pages of books before I buy them on the iPad. I think it has saved me at least 2 impulse purchases so far. I may decide to buy them if I et into them, but they were chancy things that I thought might have pretty pictures or be otherwise well suited for e-reading- A history of Versailles, and a book about the map of North America. The map one might be a keeper but I'm glad I get to read a lot of it first since it is $14.99.

    It's a Kindle feature, too. (none / 0) (#59)
    by itscookin on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    think your degree is usless? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    Can I get another PhD? I want one in (none / 0) (#75)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:03:43 PM EST
    detective literature...I  must be well on my way!

    cant decide if I want (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    a PhD in cake decorating or 70s gay porn.

    I already make my coworkers call me Doctor.


    hahahahaha (none / 0) (#84)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:34:41 PM EST
    the only thing that would make it better is if you referred to yourself in the third person too.

    I liked Nathan Lane's line (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    the other night re Twilight: Nosferatu meets Dawson's Creek.

    Transylvania (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:04:24 PM EST

    Vlad (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:02:37 PM EST
    has been one of my favorite historical figures for a long time.  I was into the real history before it became fashionable and even considered a writing project on his life.

    he was in fact a rather remarkable fellow.  the more I read about him the more I understood and identified with him.  I had hoped that the new interest in the guy might lead to a legitimate examination of his life in something like a big budget film project.  but not so far.


    that book 'the Historian' (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:12:35 PM EST
    was a fairly big seller, and it delved into the real history, intertwined with modern day drama. Maybe they will film that. That could be good.

    If it's a Daniel Day-Lewis vehicle (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    sign me up - Gangs of Transylvania

    he was a nasty guy (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    in an even nastier time.  and his childhood was a bit of a horror as well.

    I really think the guy gets a bad rap.  sure he impaled thousands of people . . .

    I am trying to think of a way to finish that.


    Welcome! (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    You do realize, however, that in Virginia, May is ALWAYS Confederate History Month?  The last two governors didn't "declare" it, but it's still CHM.

    That said, I think McDonnell is silly for doing this.