Wednesday Open Thread

It's a busy work day here, and a quick scan didn't reveal any news to share. What am I missing? BTD is still busy in hearings. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome. I'll be back later this afternoon.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Nederland, CO Legalizes Marijuana >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Govt of Kyrgyzstan... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    seems to have fallen.

    I think we're going to have to say good-bye to our big airbase there.

    Yes, another glitch in our (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    Afghanistan policy, this time the military side of the military/political grand strategy.  The revolution may be a threat to our staging area.

    Not if you tell the world (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 03:23:31 AM EST
    that he is on drugs and out of his flipping skull :)  Now we can't leave.  There is nobody sober there but us and Al Qaeda and their enablers :)

    It's usually not a good idea to make such a (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:05:56 PM EST
    sweeping generalization about one, let alone two, demographic groups to which you don't belong. Especially when those groups have a long history of being stereotyped willy nilly as this, that and the other.

    Irrespective of who you may or may not know in the LGBTQ community, your original comment, and your followup comment, retrenched two prevailing stereotypes about gay men and lesbians: the stereotype that most gay men are overly concerned about appearance and the stereotype that most lesbians are unconcerned about appearance. It's a short step from there to the all too familiar stereotype that gay men are narcissists gadabouts while lesbians are frumpy homebodies.

    I deleted that sub-thread (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    as offensive. And Emma, stop name-calling. You may not call people idiots and worse here. You may disagree with their comments.

    If I hadn't (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 10:33:46 AM EST
    called Capt. Howdy "names", would the anti-gay/anti-lesbian stereotypes have stayed up?  And, funny, when kdog called me a "man hater", I didn't see that get taken down.  Double standard, much?

    should probably just stay out of this (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 11:03:20 AM EST
    but I am curious.  
    which "anti-gay/anti-lesbian stereotypes" are you talking about exactly?

    Capt Howdy, Lilburro's comment #93 (none / 0) (#121)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:15:39 PM EST
    addresses you as "family", which suggests to me that you are LGBTQ. If so, I amend my previous comment to say:
    It's usually not a good idea to make such a sweeping generalization about any demographic group. Especially when those groups have a long history of being stereotyped willy nilly as this, that and the other...

    thank you (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    for your concern

    I decided I really needed to respond to that (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:27:46 PM EST
    after actually reading it.

    It's a short step from there to the all too familiar stereotype that gay men are narcissists gadabouts while lesbians are frumpy homebodies.


    the subjects of the article this thread is about make it pretty clear all lesbians are not anything.
    but from your description one of them would probably in be frumpy homebody category, whateverthehell that means.  my point is that one of them is georgous.  I would do Rachel.  almost.
    I have seen this many times.  I know many beautiful gay women who are involved with partners who are less than beautiful.
    my point is that is rare with gay men.  and when its seen money is often suspected.  I suppose that is a terrible thing to admit but I dont think many gay men would deny it.
    you very rarely see a knockout gay man with a frump.  I know,  it happens.  but be honest.
    as far as what I say about gay men I dont need to be lectured by you.


    Of course you don't feel you need to be (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:15:36 PM EST
    "lectured" by anybody. But if you want to avoid blow-back around here, it might be a good idea to give more consideration to the way you word your comments. You might also try to hold off on the WTFs and be less irascible and less defensive in your responses.

    I, for one, am not out to get you.  


    Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by bridget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:09:00 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald

    Power corrupts and then some:
    from "detain" to "assassinate" just in one year

    As GG notes in his first Update:

    As Dem candidate Obama said "the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges."

    As GG writes: "As Spencer Ackermann documents today, not even John YOO claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here."

    Wake Up, America!!!

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

    The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."

    via GG

    As much as you dream that this was the invention of Obama it is not. And as horrendous as it is, I do not see much difference between this and what the military does on a regular basis.

    Oh, and the US is certainly not alone in assassination of its perceived enemies, not that that makes it any less reprehensible.


    not only that (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    it is not unheard of to say the least for the FBI or other law enforcement agencies to take someone out that they think is a danger.  
    I am not crazy about my government being in the assassination business but I am not naive enough to think it is something new.  and I also do not want him being given the opportunity to succeed.  and I will not cry any crocodile if I read he met a predator in a dark alley.

    the thing I think is almost most interesting about this is they announced it.  why?  they did not need to do that.  deterrence?


    Also Dishonest (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    A 1981 Executive Order signed by Ronald Reagan provides: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."  

    I have to say it is rather dishonest to use this as a foil to Obama and Bush.

    This was Reagan's unmitigated arrogance, imo. He was ordering killings in Nicaguraga with one hand and writing this EO with the other.

    So is Greenwald is saying as long as the long practice of Government targeted assassinations is denied, and covered up, than it is OK?

    Of course I agree with Greewald's larger point that when Bush did it it was outrageous but when Obama does the same thing, crickets.

    no surprise there, it is a problem endemic to team sports.


    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    I think its more that just team sports.  it is with me.  I think you know I am not Obamas biggest fan.  but I also am not inclined to think Obama would order an execution to to further the goals of Haliburton.

    they is a context here that goes beyond team sports. IMO.


    Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    By team sports, I refer to those who are devoted fans, of a team, aka cultists.

    The crowd that Greenwald is chastising for hypocrisy, here.

    Of course the team here, cannot even bring themselves to even mention Olbermann, who is also the subject of Greenwald's piece.

    But that is team sports, here at TL.  


    heh (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    I didnt even click on the link.  Olberman: he who shall not be named.

    unless that is Maddow.
    makes conversation here a bit difficult since they are pretty much the only people on the tube talking about the things we care about.


    Could you point out the part where ... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    ... you (Bridget) dream that this was the invention of Obama ...

    ... Bridget says that this policy was "an invention of Obama"?

    I missed that part.


    OK (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    As GG writes: "As Spencer Ackermann documents today, not even John YOO claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here."

    Not OK (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    Your claim was that Bridget was dreaming that this was "an invention of Obama", then you cite her quote of GG citing Ackermann's point that this policy goes beyond any power that John Yoo argued was authorized as evidence that she "dreamed" that Obama "invented" this policy?

    Pointing out that this policy exceeds what Yoo argued was within the POTUS's authority is not even close to claiming that Obama "invented" this policy.

    Try again.


    Definitely not okay. Thanks Yman for taking the (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by bridget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:30:47 PM EST
    time and for pointing out what was wrongly written about me by this blogger. I almost missed the whole thing .... then I caught my name and had no idea what he/she was on about.

    Some bloggers are not happy unless they can project something they dream up on another .... no matter what it is.

    Should I downgrade? Of course not. I don't play that silly game.

    Thanks again,Yman. I v. much appreciate the correction. :-)


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:40:33 PM EST
    When a commenter editorializes and selectively quotes others, a point of view is expressed. In this case the point of view was misleading at best. I called BS.

    Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by bridget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:09:00 PM EST ....

    ...Power corrupts and then some:
    from "detain" to "assassinate" just in one year...

    ....Wake Up, America!!!

    For anyone to state or imply that this is a new US policy is absurd.


    you know (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    I really hate this stuff:

    ....Wake Up, America!!!

    Gentleman, start your teabags (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    This "opens the door.." (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 06:04:56 PM EST
    except for the fact that door was already open.

    "Out-Bushing Bush"
    As in, doing something Bush never did..or is there some other way to interpret those words?

    Luckily though, she never used the EXACT words "invention of Obama", which would imply something completely different from the aforementioned.  


    Really? When did Bush ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 08:01:10 PM EST
    ... approve the targeted assassination of an American without due process?

    Why don't you do a little research (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 09:07:28 PM EST
    CIA assassination programs are nothing new. Here's the one Cheney tried to hide against al Qaeda.

    Dick Cheney 'hid plans to kill al-Qaida operatives abroad'

    Former US vice-president Dick Cheney ordered a classified counter-terrorism plan to be hidden from Congress. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty

    Dick Cheney, the former vice president, ordered a highly classified CIA operation hidden from Congress because it pushed the limits of legality by planning to assassinate al-Qaida operatives in friendly countries without the knowledge of their governments, according to former intelligence officials.

    Everyone covered it at the time, including us.


    CIA assassination programs ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 09:43:31 PM EST
    ... are nothing new, but even Bush didn't go so far as to authorize the assassination of American citizens merely by virtue of a suspecting their involvement in terrorism.

    Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing

    I could understand the argument that terrorist-suspects should be afforded the same due process rights regardless of citizenship, but I haven't seen any evidence that Bush/Cheney went that far, and that's setting the bar pretty d@mn low, IMO.


    Well which is it? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 08:20:23 PM EST
    In the Dana Priest article Greenwald quotes, the claim is made that the post-9/11 Bush Admin made it official policy to target for assassination U.S citizens suspected of being involved in terrorist attacks. It didnt mention anything about due process.

    Greenwald clarifies the diff bet Obama & Bush (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 06:09:20 AM EST
    with respect to targeted killings of US citizens. It's worth reading the full article - the new article dated April 07/10, Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen. Follow the links to get the whole picture.

    In a nutshell:The Bush Administration presumed the authority to assassinate US citizens who were designated terrorist suspects. However, by all accounts, Bush did not enact the policy - meaning that he did not authorize the assassination of any US citizen. Obama has just authorized the assassination of a US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Therein lies the difference.

    Greenwald notes that Obama's directive is particularly egregious since it defies the Supreme Court ruling in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wherein:

    Antonin Scalia wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as "enemy combatants"...The full Hamdi Court held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as "enemy combatants." Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind.  

    Read it and weep.


    Hilarious (none / 0) (#204)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:39:32 AM EST
    Read it and weep.

    The contortions some here will do to prove that Obama is more right wing than BushCo.

    Hilarious, only a fanatic cultist could embarrass themselves so obviously, without any sense of
     self awareness..


    Site Violator: Squeaky - ad hominem attack. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 11:27:54 PM EST
    See the link ... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 06:52:27 AM EST
    ... and Foxholeatheist's response.  Obama is putting the policy (for which Bush presumed to have the authority) into action.

    "A point of view is expressed"? (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 06:06:00 PM EST
    Uhhhh, yeah .... no kidding.  Problem is, it's just not the one you're "dreaming" of.

    Once again, quoting an article that states that this policy exceeds even the authority that Yoo claimed for the President is not remotely the same thing as claiming Obama "invented" this policy.

    I don't know whether the Obama administration's policy is new or differs from what other administration's policies, but if it really bothers you that someone is stating or implying that this is a new US policy, ...

    ... maybe you should stop doing it.

    BTW - Nice use of ellipses.

    One of Drudge's favorite tools, too.


    Oh not even remotely..:) (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 06:08:45 PM EST
    Apologist (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 06:09:41 PM EST
    Now you sound just like an Obama apologist....

    cult wars... will they ever cease?


    Obama apologist? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 08:05:37 PM EST
    Just out of curiosity, how is it even possible to interpret my comments as an apology for Obama's decision to target US citizens for assassination with zero due process?

    Bridget Apologist (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 08:53:08 PM EST
    Why would I do that? (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 09:51:42 PM EST
    There's nothing to apologize for.

    OTOH, it's very interesting how you feel the need to attack criticisms of this policy (Obama's not the first one to do this, it's just like what the military does, other countries do it too, etc. etc.) - with the obligatory "not that that makes it any less reprehensible", thrown in, of course.

    Good stuff.


    Wish BTD was blogging (none / 0) (#126)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:51:12 PM EST
    this week. He'd have something to say about this.

    I wrote it up yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:53:29 PM EST
    here and linked to an earlier post in February in which I commented on it fairly strongly.

    Saw that post and how little (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    commenting it received....don't know what to make of that.

    I wonder what he would have to say? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    He is always compelling.  From a Constitutional Rights perspective I think Greenwald is right.

    Glad to see you MT (none / 0) (#139)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:42:25 PM EST
    There's a special on PBS tonight re: Buddah and his life. Are you going to watch it?? I am - because some of the advertising on the radio about it said some really interesting stuff I'd never heard before. I'm sure it will re-run...doesn't Public Broadcasting usually repeat most of their programming?

    Thank you so much for telling me (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:02:53 PM EST
    We have been working on the heating and cooling system every day for the past two days.  New ductwork, actually putting in air returns.  About twenty grand worth all total in the end....whew.  But I think this will help my allergies a lot and make living here doable.  I'm very lucky in that the guy doing it actually had horrible asthma and allergies too living here, was even on a nebulizer at one point, but not now after doing a fresh air addition to house heating and cooling that runs through a Pure Air system along with all the rest of the air in his house.  He says it has to do with pressurizing the house, forces particulates OUT.  As the industry changed and improved,he tried every change and improvement seeking relief because it was his field  I will DVR it if I haven't missed it.  I'll check the website too to find out if PBS runs things on the net in case I've missed it.  I don't think I've ever watched anything PBS on the web so far.  

    I have it set to record (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 03:14:37 AM EST
    at noon tomorrow.  It will be a nice treat, thanks.

    Book recommendation: Pico Iyer's (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    "The Open Road," about the 14th Dalai Lama.

    You're welcome.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 08:33:31 AM EST
    It's repeating on Sunday afternoon here. I fell asleep half way through, so I'll watch again :)

    All that HVAC work you are having done could possibly work twice for you....if the credits exist again in 2010, that could work toward energy upgrade credits on your taxes! HVAC, windows, insulation, and doors all qualified for credits in 2009.


    We will get a couple credits (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 08:50:48 AM EST
    on this system, we will get a tax credit and then there is a 1200 rebate from Lennox.  We are replacing our back french style doors too tomorrow or the day after.  They are twenty plus years old and everything in the South eventually rots or rusts and the rust was really getting them.  Noticed that the new back door comes with a tax credit too, so that's very nice as well.

    My dad upgraded (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 10:07:07 AM EST
    his insulation, windows, garage doors and furnace last year...he zeroed out all his tax liabilities. Of course, it cost him $20,000 to save $4,000 in taxes, but he was sure a happy old man over that...and if we have a really hot summer, he'll have more company than he can handle with that new air conditioner!

    Obama is a pol. (none / 0) (#153)
    by bridget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 12:29:59 AM EST
    Just guessing - but that was the first thing that came to my mind when I read your qs.

    Words fail me. Fear makes me want to hide and never read or write on the net again.


    Sometimes I used to get afraid (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 02:44:14 AM EST
    to write what I thought on the net, but that was under Bush when I used to at times feel like that.  I have no idea if such fears are founded or not either, but if they are, holding our tongues will not improve any such situation.  If any of us are truly ever in danger from the government powers that be, being silent about it will probably only make it worse for us.  It would seem that promoting Islamic terrorism can get you killed by most any American administration, promoting domestic terrorism is called the News though.  It's as strange as strange can be in that respect.  

    Why be more afraid under Bush since (3.50 / 2) (#176)
    by bridget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 04:53:33 PM EST
    Obama is outBushing Bush? That I don't understand at all? Ordering the killing of Americans (innocent or not) opens the door wide.To just about anything, not just Islamic terrorism. Also, Ordering a hit (with no hard evidence, just conjecture) by the President on an American citizen or "can get you killed by any admin" is a huge huge difference. I bet the constitution has something to say about that, too.

    btw, it is obvious that certain subjects are not discussed on the liberal blogs (I dont check Repub blogs)And Even before Bush entered the WH that was the case.

    Besides, there is a huge difference between liberal blogs (i.e. dk et al) and leftist blogs.

    Even the fearless leftist bloggers who used to  speak out freely in comment sections starting to  think twice these days ...

    I recently followed a link to a leftist website where this particular subject was discussed in the comment section. Folks worried that Certain bloggers who were known for their fearlessness  were missing and their fellow bloggers were v. concerned. Not that they thought that anything had happened to them .... but the disturbing volumes it speaks. ..

    In the meantime The fearmongering is marching on with huge steps under the v. busy Obama. As David Swanson writes :"Murder is the New Torture." Why torture when you can kill. And once he/she is dead who can say he or she wasn't guilty of terrorism etc.?  


    I don't feel that Obama is out Bushing (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:25:00 PM EST
    Bush.  I don't see that or feel that at all.  Bush simply disappeared people without any oversight, that isn't taking place under Obama.  You can of course disagree with him on his policy, but he put it right out there that he's going dead or alive on a certain American born terrorist.  I'm not certain when oversight of military missions and the recording of missions even began, it would appear that before Bush left office they began making the effort.  Under President Obama though, EVERYTHING done is videoed to my knowledge, and all actions taken are subject to oversight and the hunting for illegality.  It would seem that it is Obama's call though on what his terrorist policies are and he is announcing them out front about a certain American born terrorist. I would say he's pretty transparent about it all.  I'm just not seeing myself on some secret rendition list and being quietly disappeared.

    I am happy for you. Life is easier that way. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by bridget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:41:05 PM EST
    " I'm just not seeing myself on some secret rendition list and being quietly disappeared."

    Lets hope that it never never comes to that.

    But it has happened to others. And those who came back told the story. Ever saw "Rendition?"


    5 Myths About Rendition (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    (and That New Movie)

    Daniel Benjamin talks about the myths of rendition, the process of moving people, most notably, terrorists, from one country to another. A former director for counter-terrorism policy for the National Security Council, Benjamin wrote an opinion piece about rendition for The Washington Post.

    Debunking the Debunking on Rendition (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by bridget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 09:08:29 PM EST
    Thank you bridget - excellent link. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:42:15 PM EST
    thank you (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 05:39:46 PM EST

    What point is the "pol" (Obama) (none / 0) (#167)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    trying to make by authorizing the assassination of a US citizen?

    Speaking for me only, I'm not a fan of BTD's refrain. Of course he is correct. But it is a statement of the obvious to say "s/he's a pol" and it doesn't advance the discussion.


    Of course, it is a statement of the obvious (none / 0) (#175)
    by bridget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 04:07:55 PM EST
    and I didn't mean to advance the discussion.

    What point is pol or not pol Obama "trying to make by authorizing the assassination of a US citizen? "

    Now that is just too obvious.


    At the risk of advancing the discussion, (none / 0) (#199)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:31:32 PM EST
    what do you think the point is?

    I see Booman has (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    another B.S. (Booman Special) piece up about how Karzai could be giving Obama the cover he would need to leave Afghanistan because Obama is looking for an easy way out.  Just like the time that Booman said that Obama was not going to escalate the Afghan war, all I have to say is Buwahahahahahaha!  As long as Obama is President and is held responsible for the safety of the United States, you'll have to pry Bagram out of his cold dead hands.  That Booman, he is basted in his own Kool aid.

    Feel like getting spanked?..... (none / 0) (#1)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    Alabama students must choose between being PADDLED or suspended for violating prom dress code.

    What I found totally bizarre is that 17 of the 18 students who violated the dress code CHOSE to get paddled!

    These were teen-aged girls (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by itscookin on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    who showed up in off the rack prom dresses deemed not to meet a school dress code - too short, too much cleavage showing. What are school officials doing "paddling" young women? Who's doing the paddling? Why aren't the police arresting the paddlers for sexual perversion?

    state law allows corporal punishement (none / 0) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:06:11 PM EST

    Also on the books? anti-miscegenation laws. Doesn't matter that Loving V Virginia ruled them unconstitutional and unenforceable... still in the constitution because people thought you'd have gay marriage, or people marrying their dogs or fish or something.



    Before I came to this country, if you had (none / 0) (#8)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    told me these kinds of things happened here, I never would have believed it.
    I still don't get seniors in high school agreeing to be paddled. By the time I was six, if anyone dared to spank me, I would have screamed bl00dy murder and so would my parents. And,I was raised in the middle-east!

    Suspension (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:40:09 PM EST
    comes with loss of classwork grades/points and no makeup possibility. It's a bigger problem on the permanent record, and this late in the process could put timely graduation in jeopardy.

    Public schools have way too much unsupervised power.


    It's just a guess, but I'd bet the (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    paddling would consist of one teacher/principle lightly tapping them with a spoon while the suspension would be very real.

    I doubt that (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    very very much.
    ever get a "paddling" in school?

    No. Where I'm from, if I had, I'd own that (none / 0) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:17:27 PM EST

    as (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:45:34 PM EST
    I suspected.

    they hurt like hell.


    doesnt surprise me at all (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    I made the same choice several times in my scholastic career.

    It's a puzzler about (none / 0) (#6)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    most taking the paddling in lieu of what would have been in my day a welcome few days off from all the usual nonsense of rules and bells and monitored behavior at school.

    Are students today thinking too much about having a suspension on their permanent record, and the implications for college acceptance?


    but less (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:49:40 PM EST

    There is a choice between (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    spanking and detention at Enterprise High School too.  I was going to sign the paperwork making corporal punishment not okay for me child but my daughter pitched a huge fit, said I was running her life again as usualy, and she wasn't going to be one those wimpy kids who couldn't be touched.  Our mouthy daughter (can't imagine where she gets that from) always chose spanking.  I can't understand it because nobody was touching my butt when I was that age.  She said a spanking is over quicker.  I still don't understand.  A nice long detention was alway a good time to hatch much better ideas about how to fight the power and make the power hungry school "adults" pay from my past high school juvenile delingquent perspective.

    Sorry for typos (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    I just read what I typed after a day of insane housework and I'm sorry.  I'll work on proofreading before I hit post.

    Native American leader... (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    Oh, a marvelous woman (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    whom my daughter, then a young girl, and I got to meet decades ago.  The chief shared the stage with Gloria Steinem, the first time that they had met.  It was an incredible evening, and my daughter still talks about it as a life-changer for her as well.  

    Ms. Mankiller's legacy will live on for many of us, but may her last rites not be another Trail of Tears for her remarkable people who can celebrate that they had the sense to elect a woman leader. :-)


    Her speech on "Rebuilding (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    the Cherokee Nation" is here.  Found it amid my task today of browsing hundreds of primary sources -- what a great way to spend a day.  So I think I will do so again tomorrow. :-)

    (The purpose is to try to save students the cost of another book. . . .)


    Woman sues debt collector, wins $8.1 million (none / 0) (#12)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:56:24 PM EST

    I'm seeing business model, Jeralyn...

    Jeralyn, I bet you would have written about this (none / 0) (#13)
    by rdandrea on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    From "strategic partner" (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    to, as Jon Stewart calls him, a "turncloak".  Oh, what to do about Hamid Karzai--it is a dilemma.   But not one without some Republican ideas.  In the NYT op-ed, former Assistant Sec of Defense in the Reagan Administration, Bing West, is concerned that any major upheaval would imperil President Obama's plan to start withdrawing troops next summer (the need for a reassessment of continuing deployment is another one of those ideas that is off the table)  So, let us go for Reagan's Ferdinand Marcos treatment: threaten to cut off his money, and work directly with locall leaders.  A new guy is even identified, provincial governor , Gulab Mangal. While is acknowledged that Gulab is a Karzai appointee, he is an innovative partner, which is different, apparently, from a strategic one.   Also, there are those  admitted risks of Afghanistan morphing into the Pakistan model, an army that has a country rather than a country that has an army. No mention of the Pakistan part of the mission, however.  Whatever, the revised policy becomes, does anyone know how I can take out a term life insurance policy for $1 million out on Karzai?

    might work better to cut off (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    his heroin.

    Does Karzai Have a Drug Problem?

    Could this help to explain Afghan President Hamid Karzai's troubling behavior as of late? Peter Galbraith, a former U.N. envoy to Afghanistan, told MSNBC that Karzai "has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan's most profitable exports"--presumably a reference to opium or heroin. Pressed for clarification, Galbraith said that "He's got his own substance-abuse problems. There are reports to that effect." Karzai raised eyebrows most recently for allegedly threatening to join the Taliban.


    Hashish is what he's talking about (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    Galbraith was on MSNBC last night and specified hashish.

    The only "problem".... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:28:05 PM EST
    I ever had with hash was a lack of hash.

    Spread the wealth Karzai, save some for export will ya? :)

    All kidding aside, nobody cares that Winston Churchill was a hop-head and heavy drinker....I don't see what Karzai's vices, if any, have to do with anything.


    think the other commenter (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    has it right.  if he was not acting crazy it would not be a problem.

    Agreed, and whatever Hamid Karzai (none / 0) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    is about, it is not news to the CIA and other architects of the war. We knew all about him when he was put in as "our man" and while our support for him has continued.  Indeed, to have a political/military strategy that rests in big part on the president of Afghanistan being our "strategic partner" and committing American lives and treasury to that mission  without knowing would be wildly irresponsible.  He can use any of his Afghan drug products and it will be quite OK; he just needs to know that he is a sock puppet whose autonomy is restricted to the color he selects for his capes.  Otherwise, we will have to look for another best friend.  

    "fondness" for opium, heroin (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    The UN's former no. 2 official in Afghanistan says drug abuse may be to blame for Afghan President Hamid Karzai's predilection for "tirades" and "emotional" behaviour. "Some of the palace insiders say that he has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan's most profitable exports," says Peter Galbraith, in a euphemistic reference to opium or heroin. Galbraith was fired from his UN post last September after he accused his boss, Kaie Eide, of willfully ignoring evidence of election fraud in the vote that handed Karzai another term. His accusations come on the heels of a series of troubling statements by the Afghan president, who recently threatened to join the Taliban and suggested foreigners, including Galbraith, had tried to rig the last election. Galbraith said the Obama administration should impose strict limits on Karzai's powers inside the country and questioned the value of the mission if the Karzai government doesn't prove himself to be a more "reliable partner."

    perhaps he is backtracking (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    but the heroin stuff is all over the web.

    Whatever Karzai's "drug problems" may be (none / 0) (#41)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    Galbraith is on a revenge tour for having been fired. I'd take his comments with a grain of salt.

    He was fired (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    by the U.N., not by Karzai.  He was apparently fired for being outspoken and impolite, which he is.  That's what's always been the good thing about him, he's outspoken and impolite about the bad stuff he sees going on.

    I do know the circumstances of his firing (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    and I don't think he should have been fired.  However, since then, I have heard him interviewed on three occasions  (once on NPR, once on the PBS News Hour, and again yesterday on NBC) and -- to me -- he is sounding more and more like he's in retaliation mode.

    FWIW, I was distressed when Karzai stole the election from Abdullah last summer. K was chosen as Bush's puppet and it has not served us well. Of course, yesterday on the Diane Rehm Show, Michael O'Hanlon was peddling this swill: "The fact is that, when it comes to Karzai, 80% of Afghans like the guy!"



    The fact that it's "all over the Web" (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    is meaningless, as you well know.  Whether and what he uses I have no idea.  But you can't say, as you did, that Galbraith sez he uses heroin when the words out of the man's own mouth say hashish.

    Karzai's apparent... (none / 0) (#51)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    or rather alledged drug problem is possibly a program of character assasination prior to his now justifiable removal (one way or another).

    well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    you have to admit he has been acting pretty crazy.

    Well, Karzai had better (none / 0) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    take time to smell the poppy's.  While he was just re-elected to a second five-year term (sure, it was questioned but hey, democracies are messy, as we learned from Rummy)  and while we have a goal of spreading democracy in the Middle east, it sometimes needs to be put on hold. And, from a less esoteric and  more personal level, Hamid should check out the posthumous memoirs of pre-demonized friends like the Diem brothers, or, Saddam, Uday and Qusay.

    I say (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    let the ignorant knob join the Taliban.
    they "remove"  him.

    terrific (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    Madison -- A district attorney is telling Juneau County schools to abandon their sex education courses, saying a new curriculum law could lead to criminal charges against teachers for contributing to the delinquency of minors.

    Starting in the fall, the new law requires schools that have sex education programs to tell students how to use condoms and other contraceptives. Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth said such education encourages sex among children, which is illegal, and could lead to charges against teachers.

    The new law "promotes the sexualization - and sexual assault - of our children," Southworth wrote in a March 24 letter to officials in five school districts. He urged the districts to suspend their sex education programs and transfer their curriculum on anatomy to a science course.

    DA Southworth is trouble (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    and thanks for the reminder; I just tipped the media with such short memories that they do not recall the case of Southworth vs. the University of Wisconsin that cost taxpayers for four years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 -- when it ruled against his argument as a UW law student.

    He had argued that, based on the First Amendment aka freedom of speech and association, he ought not have to pay the student fees that support student organizations -- and I bet that you can guess which organizations he listed as an affront to his ilk.

    The district courts had upheld him twice along the way, for four years.  But no one recalled this in the media.  That's what happens in the Nu Media Age, after firing or laying off or forcing the resignation of staff with experience of years.


    They should ban teaching (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:51:17 PM EST
    history, rather than risking children forming armies and declaring war upon one another.

    Feingold gets a serious challenger (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:38:49 PM EST
    but still awaited is word from the Brett Favre of politics, Bush's HHS secretary and former governor Tommy Thompson.  But a name on a ballot that is on beer bottles is a big name to beat in Wisconsin:

    Outgoing state Commerce Secretary Dick Leinenkugel intends to announce a run for U.S. Senate as a Republican. . . .  Leinenkugel, who has served for the last 18 months under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle . . . declined to say then whether he would run for public office and challenge Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold.

    Middleton businessman Terrence Wall and Watertown businessman David Westlake are already running against Feingold as Republicans and former Gov. and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson is also mulling over a run. . . .

    Leinenkugel previously was vice president of the Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Co., which his family founded 140 years ago. . . .  An announcement by Leinenkugel, whose family name is widely known in the state, would instantly make the Republican primary for U.S. Senate competitive. But Leinenkugel could also face the challenge of being linked to tax increases and other policies of Doyle that are unpopular. . . .

    Also, a respected local pollster reported this week that the Democratic candidate for governor -- the White House's pick, after running others out of the race -- is running badly behind two Republican candidates.  And that Obama's approval rating is down to 44% in one of the hardest-hit states in the Great Recession, not a good place to be a Dem these days.  But a worse place to be in Congress for Feingold; its approval rating is down to 14% in his state.

    Speaking of Favre... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    he's a grandpa!  His 21-yr old dayghter gave birth to a little boy, Parker Brett.

    As far as anyone knows, Favre is the only active player in the NFL who is a grandfather.

    Favre is 40 years old.


    What a hoot he is. (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 01:52:39 PM EST
    But with the behaviors of some pro athletes, I bet some are grandpas, and we do not know it.  They may not know it themselves. . . .

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    I hope so (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:14:16 PM EST
    Your life must be hell if something so common can cause you to "freak out". Have you tried medication, or meditation?

    Not everyone is as overly dramatic ... (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:16:34 PM EST
    ...  as you seem to be, getting "freaked out" at other people's choices. So it's probably a very good thing that you are not planning to have children yet. Wait until you learn to calm down and not over-dramatize little things, or you and your kids will be nervous wrecks.

    Oh, aren't you just a little over the top (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    neurobadger!?! And, yes, you give it all away by noting that you are "creeping up on 22." For yourself, at least, I can understand why you would think that age group is immature.

    I think it depends (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    I know most of us don't, but I have known some people who got married/ had kids young because they wanted big families.  Maybe not 21, but 22 or 23 just after college.  They seem pretty happy and stable.

    It's not something I would choose for myself, but I'm certainly not gonna judge that decision for someone else.

    I was around the age of 21 when I decided that if something happened and I accidentaly got pregnant I would definitely keep the child.  Since by then I had finished my education and was at least employable in the long term.


    some people (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    also just really love kids.

    I don't really see how children are a status symbol in this day and age.  And after you have 1 - you quickly realize they are not dolls or playthings.  So if you continue having them, I assume it's for some other reason.

    Just because you wouldn't choose a lifestyle for yourself does not make it an invalid choice.  You have to consider variations in temperment and personality.  I've known some 21 year olds who act like 30 year olds, and many more who act like they are 12.  But I'm not gonna assume one or the other about someone I don't know.


    "Ew?" (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    When people have children is as personal as when they decide not to, and blanket statements about age correlating to good or bad parenting are, in my opinion, really just kind of silly and a little condescending.

    People should have children when the time is right for them, but as we know, sometimes the time picks you and not the other way around.  I once had someone tell me that if my husband and I waited until all the planets aligned just so before we had kids, we would never have them - there would be no perfect time, ever.  We had two, now 23 and on-the-verge-of-27. and life has not been perfect, but we have no regrets.  None.  These wonderful young women are a pleasure to know and to love, and I cannot imagine a life that does not have them in it.

    Your decision to not have children is yours, and it should be yours for reasons that have to do with you, not everyone else who is or isn't having kids; I think it's possible to express those reasons without offending those who either have kids, or know they want them someday.  I don't deserve the "EW" response/reaction anymore than you would deserve the "how selfish" response/reaction.  It really is no different than refraining from judgment of those who decide to terminate pregnancies and those who carry them to term - even if the reasons make no sense to anyone but the person herself.


    If memory serves, in the 1960s-1970s, (none / 0) (#110)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    there was a counter-cultural trend (in so-called first world countries) toward thinking about our own population control in relation to the environment and global resources. Imo, that was a commendable thing.

    However, with the rise of anti-abortion activism in the US (under Reagan), it seems that public discourse has become rather stridently pro-natalist. In other words, the state of NOT having children has become something that we're once again expected to explain, while also taking pains to convey that we really, really like kids, and people who have kids - by choice or not.

    Waaah! That's all I have to say.


    Yes, interesting how issues swing over decades (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:58:27 PM EST
    or even centuries. Population is used as a weapon and for political control in some parts. Also, population control in China has brought up other issues - such as gendercide. It is a very complicated social issue, but for the planet it is clear that population is very destructive. I am also discouraged it has seemed to dropped off the radar. Not even discussed much in the high profile environmental discussions.

    :) Somebody disappeared from this (none / 0) (#166)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    thread....it seems.

    I think (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    it should legally be 35

    Thank God your wish will never become law (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    Maturity is relative. More importantly, any woman who wants children knows the odds of conceiving after age 35, and the risks involved.

    Well, maybe 30 but I'm with you in spirit (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    I thank the deities every day that my young nieces remain single and/or childless.

    Why? (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    It seems to me that Americans are maturing later and reproducing earlier these days. It is not a good trend.

    ever see (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    Idiocracy?  it is happening.

    bingo (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    its not about not having children its about the wrong people (really stupid ones) having children while all the educated ones wait until they are "ready".

    Oh, my gosh, Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#143)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:10:45 PM EST
    You are certainly just talking, aren't you? You certainly don't mean to get into eugenics in the way of tempting totalitarian thinking? I'm sure you realize that "stupid" means different things to different people? And...who are the "wrong people" pray tell? I'm sorry for falling for this, because you are much too alert & sensitive  to mean what your words say here? (If not, let me tell you about my Polish immigrant grandparents on the one side and my Slovenian immigrant grandparents on the other. You know, the kind who didn't speak English properly, who worked in mines rather than going even to high school, who died much too young. Yep, they were remembered for their unlearned loving ways and their street smarts; but, my goodness...how uneducated. You struck a big nerve here, kiddo.)

    no not talking about eugenics (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:05:41 PM EST
    talking about an excellent movie.  Idiocracy.  in the early scenes of the movie what I described is happening.  that is all the people who should be reproducing are not and all the ones that really shouldnt be (sorry if thats to unPC) are.

    watch the movie and you will see what "wrong people" and "stupid" mean.


    personally (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    I think one of the reasons so many people are so screwed up is that they are being raised by children.

    people just make better parents when they are 30 or older.


    and humble. (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by itscookin on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    Yes, very...that's a funny one (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:32:11 PM EST
    A smart, well-adjusted individual... (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by sj on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:38:09 PM EST
    ...who's freaked out when anyone under the age of 25 gives birth

    Wondering about the "well-adjusted" part if the personal choice of others causes a freak-out, but whatever.


    Confederate History Month (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    is hysterical.  What should I be doing today to celebrate it?


    But Bowling, the head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, hopes the proclamation can bring Virginia's black and white populations together through education.

    "We think the history of the state, and the benefits of the proclamation, will accrue to all people. There's a shared history in Virginia, white and black. We think this will help improve [relations]," Bowling said. "When you see the negativity coming from the black caucus, the liberal media, this to me is the perfect example of why you need Confederate History Month. They won't listen, period."[emphasis mine]

    Wow that is just extending a hand in friendship isn't it?

    The Lurvly Governor:

    McDonnell was asked about the omission by the Washington Post. He said he left it out because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."

    I can think of like 5 different names that would be more sensitive than "Confederate History Month."  "Civil War History Month" comes to mind.  

    Just a heads-up (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    You might want to read the Talk Left comment policy., particularly the section under "more," as it applies to new commenters registered less than 30 days.

    Oh God (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    I've barely survived it.  Can you believe that my son came home from school with stories about how the slaves were worse, poor and starving off after they were freed.  He did.  We had a chat about economics and social problems after that and who created the social problem and who longed to prolong the agony as much as possible and still does.  Oh yeah, and when they "let them" be share croppers....that was sooooo Christian of the South until I explained to my son how "fair" most of that was........fecking Confederate History Month.

    I know you're too young to reproduce (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:15:18 PM EST
    but not too young to research which state was the first to secede.

    LOL 'Obviously' (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    How about (none / 0) (#55)
    by par4 on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    Presidential claim to be able to murder citizens if they determine them to be 'threats'. Say good-bye to what is left of our 'democracy'.

    Not at all what I expected (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:49:04 PM EST
    As usually happens when I get a mental image with no factual basis. Rachel Maddow and her partner susan at home. I've heard her talk about Susan for years on the radio, and pictured a 30 something hipper-than-Rachel type.  Not geeky like Rachel, but on the hipster end of the scale rather than the earth mother end. As I said, I had NO evidence for this.

    For the record, Susan looks kind of like I picture our own Cream City. I'm sure that is way off too!

    my favorite part (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    "The couple met in 1999, when Maddow, who then worked odd jobs, was hired to do yard work on Mikula's property in the Berkshires."

    How quickly things change.

    If I was into women, I would probably hit on Rachel too.  She's pretty cute, and definitely "hipster" enough for the two of them.


    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    Definitely cuter than the old guy that does my yard work.

    Ha. I could not look more the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    of that!  Actually, at Maddow's age, I looked a lot like . . . Maddow.  And at Mikula's age, I still looked a lot like . . . Maddow.  An extremely attractive person, Maddow, wouldn't you agree?

    And now?  A few more pounds, but only a few. :-)

    And I sure never have been a blonde, not with my heritage!  But let's not get Squeaky going again on that, as she is convinced that I must be as white as white can be -- and that I am lying when I say that I have other heritages.  


    Ha! I think it was the Cream that (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:28:04 PM EST
    set my brain off ;-) I'm easily led.

    I was following your exchanges with squeaky and was surprised that you didn't seem to fit my picture. Just funny.

    I think Maddow is extremely attractive - if only she were a little older and a few pounds heavier. ;-)


    Fyi, I just shared with my spouse (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    this subthread, after having him go to the link re Maddow and Mikula.  (Aside:  He is a Maddow fan.)

    He is cleaning his laptop screen as we cyberspeak, having spewed across it amid his laughter.

    He also is amazed that I must have this virtual "voice of a Brunhilda," unquote, as I am, as noted, so opposite of that.

    But I can make grown men quake in their boots, yes, I can!  Just ask him.  When he stops laughing.


    Suddenly I dont feel (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:59:53 PM EST
    so bad about finding Naomi Klein attractive.

    I was once informed that (none / 0) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    Squeaky is a "he."

    I picture Cream City as looking pretty hip (none / 0) (#60)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    just not 30 yo!

    I better mention I think Susan is really pretty! (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    and I'm sure very hip!

    Dunno what hip would (none / 0) (#70)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    mean these days, but I do like the fact that they decided to go without a television in their humble abode.  A refreshing state of affairs in a society seemingly obsessed with buying the latest HD-3D teevee gadgetry.

    So I'd imagine Rachel's mate would probably be one of those people with plenty of interesting conversation to offer.  


    LOL - I'm often wrong in the other direction (none / 0) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    I picture everyone in the comment section as thin and hip and attractive.... :) Same thing in email when I sell something on the internet and get to actually meet the buyer. I'm generally 99% wrong.

    Bless you!!! (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    You are right in my case of course ;-)

    Sometimes I picture (none / 0) (#103)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:24:38 PM EST
    people online as cartoon children from South Park, with South Park voices. Works better for some than others.

    Hmm, prior "mental (none / 0) (#66)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    picture" indeed.  (nervous throat clearing here ...)

    But, as that great stateswoman Chér once said, You fall in love with who you fall in love with.  (said in the context, iirc, of that bagel guy she was dating a while back).


    C'mon, I didn't mean I spent a lot of (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:03:41 PM EST
    time picturing them! Or CC! Or anyone else!

    I'm gonna stop digging the hole now.


    Actually I haven't (none / 0) (#73)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:09:57 PM EST
    either, and only to the extent it might have crossed my mind, well I tend to agree with the implied thrust of your remarks, simply that her mate isn't quite what some of us might have imagined.  Nothing wrong with saying that, in my book.  

    People and couples are different, and they tend to have surprises in store as to whom they hook up with.  I'm still amazed at the choices of some very attractive hetero women and their male mates (aka the Sandra Bullock Syndrome).


    We sure do create whole (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    paradigms based on looks and other fragments of information. I'm sure that trait had evolutionary value to the survival of the species, but it does lead to some funny surprises sometimes.

    And how could folks (none / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    possibly overlook that odd Mutt 'n' Jeff couple from L.A. Law in the 80s?  Tall attractive woman lawyer married to diminutive ordinary looking fellow law partner guy.  Also married in RL.

    Or, speaking of the shock of one's preconceptions being upset, there was Diane Keaton's former boyfriend in Manhattan -- Danny -- the short, bald but "brilliant" playwright.  The reaction when Woody sees him for the first time is hilarious.  And all too human.  


    William H Macy and Felicity Huffman (none / 0) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    surprised me. There's a really great quote about this topic ... if I have time I'll look for it.

    what's wrong (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:47:12 PM EST
    with Jesse James?   He's not so bad in the looks department.  I have certainly seen worse.  He's kind of got the bad@ss thing going for him.

    Well, looks for one, (none / 0) (#98)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    though I agree there are worse examples.  Bad boy -- I guess I was the last person on this planet to learn that he really is related to 19th C bad guy and outlaw J.James (or so I learned on The Larry King Teevee Show).  

    If the name itself should have been a dead giveaway to SB that she would be in for an inneresting marriage, certainly all those tattoos on the guy hardly spelled anything but trouble.  

    (I'll admit I'm not much for tattoos, and tend to form certain preconceptions about people based on number and kind.  Too many 50s/60s motorcycle films from my youth, I suppose.)


    I'll admit to wondering what kdog, (none / 0) (#101)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    SteveM, Andgarden, and some of the other NY/NJ posters look like, since there is a chance that we would pass each other on the street.

    kdog will be the one w/starts in his eyes. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:57:55 PM EST
    If you use my model, they are all (none / 0) (#114)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    very tall, and skinny. Something like the male ice skater currently competing on DWTS. :)

    Rather refreshing actually. (none / 0) (#69)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    jim probably wont be happy (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 03:39:04 PM EST
    Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document

    WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

    The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."

    Well, we wouldn't want to admit (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    that radical Muslims have made a habit of attacking us.

    Radical conservative Americans too (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:48:32 PM EST
    So many "wannabe Tim McVeighs", so little time.  My husband hasn't seen any of the tea bagger stuff due to being gone for six months.  He watched Hannity say that crap and his chin hit the floor.  The look of unable to comprehend astonishment didn't leave his face for about ten minutes.  I'm not kidding about that either.  He can't believe what Fox News thinks is "American" to say.  They all want to be domestic terrorists?  It is still blowing his mind.

    Of course you (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:44:08 PM EST
    have to expect that kind of thing from a non-native born, secret radical islamist whose ultimate goal is to impose a combination of Sharia law and Marxist-Leninism.

    trying to imagine (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:51:20 PM EST
    what that:

    a combination of Sharia law and Marxist-Leninism.

    would look like and its not working.


    The idea is to (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:50:15 PM EST
    throw as many un-American things together and wave them in people's faces until that teabagger blood starts boiling over. It dosnt have to make logical sense.

    Like Jim's refrain about Obama "weakening America" because he's just out for himself.


    Your ability to make things up (3.50 / 2) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:25:35 PM EST
    is amazing.

    I never said connected the two and you know it.

    Are you sure you aren't Squeaky?

    And here I thought I was your favorite Social Liberal.

    And "teabagger?"

    That old insult is just so out of date. The latest is "racist."

    Please keep current.


    you ARE my favorite (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    bogus "social liberal", though "favorite" probably isnt quite the right word..

    Nice social liberal graphic you've got up on your site, ie: "Broke Bank Mountain", the chosen imagery of which of course has nothing to do with playing on wingnut homophobia..

    Btw, My experience is that liberal people dont have to keep telling others they're liberal, as if otherwise everyone would forget.


    Being a social liberal doesn't mean (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 08:17:31 AM EST
    you have to be anti-war/defense or want see the country go broke.

    In my experience intelligent people don't stalk others on blogs, always having to comment on every comment someone makes.

    Of course everyone has to be special to someone.



    Something about a (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    right wing site portraying Obama and Biden as the two characters in Broke Back Mountain just dosnt strike me as something any genuine "social liberal"  concerned with defusing homophobia, would do..

    I get it (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 06:54:57 PM EST
    but its still funny

    And if that dosnt (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:03:19 PM EST
    work, the next thing is to break out in tears and start talking as if America were a puppy that you dont want to have to put to sleep..

    Your limitations are your (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:21:37 PM EST
    own business.

    Karzai may make (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    our Afghanistan policy a lot simpler.  

    If he continues to say, "get out," the Biden idea of getting out and then coming back and striking when necessary actual al Qaeda bases makes sense....

    That horrid video of the Apache helicopter shooting the journalists and kids, and men just trying to help the wounded into a van....just makes the point better than a thousand words that war should always be the last answer...and we may have other options in Afghanistan...and yes that video was of killing in Iraq but it shows how bad things turn out in war.....

    Not you too? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:41:19 PM EST
    We aren't leaving.  Karzai can dance naked with a cardboard cutout of Obama and then pee on it in front of every rolling camera on the planet and we aren't leaving Bagram.  It is our whole base of operations for observing and dealing with terrorist networking.  I'd say that if Karzai continues to desire to be a total idiot he may soon discover all aspects and shades of what can possibly be an embargoed commodity.

    And to think, a la this thread (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 04:50:58 PM EST
    that I never pictured you as looking like a lesbian. :-)

    (I am visualizing all of my many lesbian friends and acquaintances just now, and I cannot find any similarities in their appearances. . . .)

    I had (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    all identifying lesbian markers surgically removed last year.  ;)

    Was that outpatient? (none / 0) (#151)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:20:23 PM EST
    If so, was it covered by insurance? I don't know if my policy covers removing obvious glbt markers. It's good insurance, but geez Louise, if someone else is covered, I want to be covered also!

    The surgery isn't covered. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    But the ex-gay therapy program is paid for.  There's not even a co-pay.

    did someone say you should expect to? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    that would be a pretty silly comment.

    Emma and I are having a moment (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    here.  Do forgive us for our girlish giggles.

    giant beaver (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 05:39:18 PM EST
    I really wish (none / 0) (#140)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    Jeralyn and other lawyers and others would weigh in on the Amanda Knox case. Daily Beast had an article on her today and the comment section was fascinating.

    sorry, I just haven't gotten into it (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    I've tried, it just doesn't grab me.