home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

What's going on?

Open Thread.

< Understanding The Politics Of AZ SB 1070 | Phoenix Suns Owner Denounces AZ SB 1070; "Los Suns" On Cinco De Mayo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    According to anonymous sources (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:24:17 AM EST
    the person arrested re Times Sq., who is a U.S. citizen is talking to investigators.  Was he Mirandized?  GOP says he should not have been--if he was.  

    Really though, the GOP (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    deep down does not think anyone should be Mirandized. So it is easy for them to throw that out there.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    They think that rights should be reserved for people like them and not "those" people.

    Parent
    Guy's an American citizen (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:18:06 PM EST
    commited his crime and was arrested on American soil.  You cannot not Mirandize him under any set of rules or laws I'm aware of, even Georgie Bush's.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    Your statement is false, imo. The only thing that happens is that anything he said cannot be used against him, prior to having been read his Miranda rights.

    Stupid for prosecution, but perhaps they believed that he would tell them something about another car bomb about to go off, and made the choice to try and get that info, before saying something that could make him clam up.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    Huh? Huh?  LOL.

    Parent
    Defensive Much? (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Wed May 05, 2010 at 09:47:27 AM EST
    Oh, right, you believe that your comments are always correct, and as a result hate to have a comment challenged as being incorrect.

    Parent
    Teabaggers (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    I find this hilarious:

    What about a special case -- the worst word in American English, as some of us see it, namely the N-word? When I was growing up, in Ann Arbor, Mich., there was a little debate: Should school officials try to prevent black students from using the N-word? I don't believe the issue was ever settled. And this brings up the question of whether "teabagger" could be kind of a conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family.

    Um, I'm sorry - your moronic anti-government group picked that term for themselves.  That is among one of the many, many, MANY reasons that it cannot be compared to the N-word.

    The 100% true origin of the term Teabagger (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ellie on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    ... and why the self-defined, self-named Teabaggers are fricken morons, and why they should not have the world child-proofed for them. Also, it's simply too funny not to use.

    (Plus, I really wish they'd also splintered into a group that targeted undocumented restaurant workers, which called itself The Salad Tossers.)

    Teabagging's off a parody of the giant hissy fit (hiv+)Andrew Sullivan threw after discovered trawling online for partners with whom to have unsafe sex.

    Here's the world's greatest living author, Mr. Neal Pollack:

    A Man Wronged [Sep 18, 2002]

    Recently, I've come under editorial attack for my interest in the sexual practice known as teabagging.

    Before I address the specific calumnities tossed my way by jealous hacks, let me say that if a man enjoys lowering his scr0tum into his partner's mouth, and enjoys having his partner suck on one test!cle, then the other, and then, if possible, both test!cles at once, followed by a judicious application of the tongue to the base of the scr0tum, sometimes accompanied by a gentle stroking of the pen!s, then I say that man should be granted his fun, and should be permitted to look for other teabag afficionados however and wherever he can. No one can disagree with me on that point.

    Except, apparently, the "journalist" Michelangelo Signorile. In his column in this week's New York Press, Signorile uncovers the shocking fact that I've been trolling for teabagging partners on bulletin boards at America Online, a known repository of perversion, and The Atlantic ,where a surprising teabagging subculture has appeared. Mike, who I've known since the mid-80s, when he published an East Village bar 'zine called "Out and About: I Will Bury You", is apparently no longer my friend. He writes:

    "Neal Pollack has crusaded at length against what he calls male 'pathological libidinity.' He published, in The New Republic, an essay called 'Against the Blowjob,' in which he said that men should brush aside their oral fixations and spend more time playing sports with their families. For years, he's appeared on television saying he's become a born-again virgin, and won't have sex again until two months after his next marriage. He's publicly referred to the male sexual organ as a 'disgusting mutation of God.' His on-line d!ck-l!ck trolling is the height of hypocrisy."

    Is it, Mike? Is it really? Why? Does a man have to behave in private as he commands others to behave in public? Isn't morality fungible, after all? And, let's face it. I'm a celebrity. If I put out a call on the Internet looking to get my balls $ucked by willing men and women, don't you think I'm gonna get a lot of steamy offers? What would you do, Mike? Would you be an exemplary rock of celibacy, or would you squirt hot j!zz into 100 willing mouths? These are stressful times. The threat of war looms over us like a looming cloud. I think a little teabagging, for someone who has an important public-opinion-shaping job like mine, is just what the midwife ordered.

    People like Michelangelo Signorile, who I call "Al-Queda sympathizers," had better watch their targets carefully. I still believe American men should spend more time with their families, Mike. It's their duty as men, and as Americans. We haven't slurped the last hair off this teabagging debate, but remember that my right to privacy trumps your right to criticize. And if you think I'm wrong, you're a terrorist.

    (Presented in its entirety because it's a short item and I doubt there'd be copyright issues, plus, why should I be the only one who p!ssed herself laughing here?)

    Parent

    "The Salad Tossers"... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    was all I needed to wet myself...you are good kid.

    Let's not even go near their off-shoot splinter group..."Dirty Sanchez".

    Parent

    'Dirty Sanchez: the Teabaggers' Osama bin Laden (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Ellie on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    You just KNOW that's where the AZ movement's headed!!

    Parent
    Uh...they self-identified as members (4.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    of the "Tea Party;" it was puerile "progressives" who decided to call them "teabaggers," and who were oh-so-proud of themselves for it - when they weren't snickering about how funny it was.  

    Rachel Maddow was among the first to label them, if I'm not mistaken.

    Parent

    They self labeled (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    as Tea Baggers until the connotation was trumpeted by certain progressives....who will not let them live down their early mistake...

    Parent
    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    They were running around carrying signs such as "teabag the liberals before they teabag us" long before it became a MSM meme.  

    But you got to love the revisionist history perpetuated by some around here.  

    Parent

    The whole point (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:10:10 PM EST
    of the article - the National Review article - linked to by the TPM piece is that the teabaggers started it!  But why would someone click on the links?

    Parent
    But, but... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:15:25 PM EST
    Maddow!1!  Teh liberal media!!!11  

    Parent
    To slam Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:24:52 PM EST
    because of her past support for.....

    Yes, that bias still exists....

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    It was her unbecoming, vitriolic assault towards.......

    Parent
    Okay--but the bias still exists... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    Would Teabots (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    be better?

    Parent
    Love it - a lot easier to type (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:40:46 PM EST
    I for one will be using that

    Parent
    Hmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    I think that's what they're calling the Teabow fanantics around here.

    It's hard to keep up with the crazy sometimes.

    Parent

    It's a little wordy... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    but I'm partial to "All Hannity's Children".

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    ..."waste of a first round draft choice by a team in desperate need of talent to put on the field right away" is even more of a mouthful.

    Parent
    Actually, (3.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Emma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    your moronic anti-government group picked that term for themselves.

    No.  They didn't.  It was the term assigned to them by the left press, prime among them Rachel Maddow who thought it was sniggeringly funny to call them that.

    Parent

    Maddow only did that (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    because that is what they called themselves in the beginning....

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Emma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:01:34 PM EST
    That's not true.  They always called themselves tea partiers.  Maddow and buddies coined "tea baggers", har-de-har-har.

    Parent
    Tea baggers (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    I clearly remember them referring to themselves as teabaggers because of the response of my 17 year old son and his friends.  Many times I told my son not to tea bag when gaming and thought 'uh-oh when I heard the Republicans adopt tea-bagging as their slogan.

    I also remember the hats decorated with the bags, the baskets of tea bags, the signs.  Don't you remember the signs?  Balloon Juice.  People called themselves tea-baggers without understanding the contemporary slang.

    Parent

    Read the link (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:29:52 PM EST
    that lilburro provided. I know it goes to TTPM, but the history is documented. Maddow did not make that up. Do I agree with her dwelling on it like a 7th grader? No. But it was not her idea.

    Parent
    Well, I recall that they started (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:07:47 PM EST
    a campaign to mail tea bags to members of Congress, and that this shortened to "teabagging," but it wasn't coined as a pejorative by those within the movement; that didn't happen until the MSNBC gang decided to hoist the tea partiers on their own petard by explaining what the term really meant - and then using the term against them.

    I think it's a stretch to claim that the members of the Tea Party movement decided a term for a sexual act would make a good label for what they intended the movement to represent.

    Next up: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    Parent

    Hey (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    if I was dumb enough to start a movement against someone by saying "We are much more cunning linguists!" I would expect to receive some flack.  For being an idiot.  Esp. if the person in question were a recent former President.

    Parent
    Read the actual (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:07:47 PM EST
    National Review article.  

    So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.


    Parent
    Well, if the (3.66 / 3) (#70)
    by Emma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    National Review said it, it must be true.

    Regardless of "who started it", I find the liberals' sniggering over a word that is synonymous with sexual assault disgusting and misogynist.

    Parent

    I would hardly call (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    teabagging "synonymous" with sexual assault.  It is just a sex act.

    And this whole thread is about a National Review article.  Did you read the link?

    Parent

    True, it should be dropped by now (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    I did find it amusing that the protestors adopted language that had this sexual connotation of which they were blithely unaware....

    But, it was amusing for all of 60 seconds, and it is now well past time to let it go....

    Emma, the issue was who originated the term--"the who started it" issue....

    I know there is a contingent that just waits to blast Maddow....because of the past...

    I do agree that Maddow's humor can be very annoying and distracting....but she has done some very good analysis and research on those who have funded and organized the town hall protests--and on other issues as well.  And NBc is featuring here--letting her broadcast from the Gulf and giving her the EPA administrator to interview....She is the future....

    She is exceptionally bright and well-educated--while not advertising it.  I have never heard her brought up the fact the she holds an equivalent of a Ph.D. from Oxford and was a Rhodes Scholar.  She does not come across as elite snob....she has an everywoman touch.

    And, I know some here point to some such-an-such blog as definitive proof that she is a hack...but I found the criticism to be petty....

    I wish she would get a broader perspective (her concern about C street is too narrow), drop some of the goofy humor, and stop being such a negative Cassandra....But as for broadcast journalists....This is progressives best bet in the future.  

    Parent

    I don't mind a broadcaster flashing (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by brodie on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:46:56 PM EST
    a little humor now and then, but too often Rachel just can't stop giggling over her own supposedly funny remarks.  It gets tiresome and annoying.

    Keith needs to learn to shorten his Proustian-length sentences and convolutedly formulated questions to guests.  Rachel needs to stop with the schoolgirl giggling.

    Other than those improvements, and given that we all have our annoying habits, I say carry on for both.  Including coverage of the TeaBagger morans.

    Parent

    Argh, my edits were lost (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    There were a couple of changes to this that did not make it in the final version....

    Parent
    I wouldn't call it misogynist (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Raskolnikov on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:59:58 PM EST
    The word as its used in at least my generation is generally used homo-erotically.  Watch "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" for example.  

    That said, I think its idiotic to continue to use it.  There are many other problems with their "platform", attack them on the merits, not on some ignorant misuse of a ridiculous expression.

    Parent

    I have no idea how this term could (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:02:39 PM EST
    be misogynist....You would have to go through a couple of turns in the funhouse that is religious right thinking to get there, I think....and this assumes non-gay sex....

    And who would be assaulting whom with teabagging?

    But when using relative unknown terms like these--I think I heard Bill Mayer recently say (seriously) on his HBO show that he did not know there was any sexual connotation to the term teabagging, while his audience and guests seemed genuinely embarrassed for him that he didn't get it--misunderstandings will occur.  

    Parent

    Not Maher--must have been someone else (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    I had no idea about (none / 0) (#98)
    by brodie on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    the term when I first heard it last year, so all the giggling by KO or Rachel at first didn't quite register.

    As for Bill Maher, he would be one of those I'd think would be very much on top of this sort of interesting lingo.  If he did indeed deny knowing about it, I'd find that even less credible than any statement he has made about Brazil and oil consumption.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    Well leave it to the GOP to engage in an activity which also connotes sexual assault.

    Rather than get your knickers in a twist by commenters here and elsewhere referring to people in the Teabag movement as teabaggers, your energy would be better spent writing to the GOPers who appropriated the term.

    Does teabag also have a sexual connotation, implying some sort of assault. Anything to do with getting into hot water?

    Parent

    Squeak... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    "teabagging" no more connotes sexual assault than "oral sex".

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    Even if the person performing oral sex is a smoker? .... lol

    Parent
    Did anyone catch Charlie Rose (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    last night? The Iranian Maynard C Krebs made some quite valid points - that Charlie wouldnt touch - concerning exactly who should feel "threatened": with military occupations on two of it's borders, no nukes vs thousands of nukes and eight years of saber rattling grandstanding from a neocon puppet, (and some more yesterday from the great, liberal, once-and-future-queen.) "Existential threats" indeed. Now why would the Iranians, even in their wildest dreams, feel compelled to pursue the possibility of a nuclear deterrent?

    The ability to see things from the other side's point of view in this situation is as willfully, destructively, short-sighted as it was after the Bay of Pigs, when Cuba's nukes were spun by the Right in this country as offensive weapons threatening the U.S.  

       

    Parent

    There's always an ongoing (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    war over the political language and who decides what words mean. The wingnuts (sorry, I know that's insensitive) made "liberal" a dirty word some years back and now some at this site seem to have been attempting to redefine "progressive" to mean: those other moderate, elitist Democrats who threw us, the true liberals under the bus..Even though the term "progressive" never connoted anything like that before 2008.

    Parent
    It sure would be a lot easier (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    to stop calling them stupid if they weren't so stupid.

    Parent
    Would you mind (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    using a term a little less pejorative and insensitive than "stupid"?

    Parent
    Which of course (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:31:06 PM EST
    isnt meant to disparage or minimize the sufferings of ACTUAL shipwreck victims.

    Parent
    What word would you prefer for (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    suggesting the n-word is equivalent to tea-bagger?

    Really, that was the least pejorative word I could think of.

    Parent

    I think he (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    is snarking...

    But really, isn't it an awesome reflection of conservatives, their ability to compare the evolution of "teabagger" with the n-word?  Amazing.  As if the tea partiers didn't have enough racial issues.

    And another thing from the National Review article linked to in the TPM link:

    In any event, it may well be too late to purge "teabagger" from our discourse, certainly from discourse controlled by liberals. But I'm for giving it a try: for running "teabagger" out of town, even at this late date.

    Go ahead and try.  Considering the ability of Fox to label liberals exactly the way they want to over the past year, getting "teabagger" to stick is a real political achievement on the part of liberals.  I see no reason for the political opposition to treat "teabaggers" with excessive respect.

    Parent

    Some of them just can't help themselves (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    But really, isn't it an awesome reflection of conservatives, their ability to compare the evolution of "teabagger" with the n-word?  Amazing.

    they've been trying to claim that 'victim of discrimination' status for white males for a long time.

    Parent

    Kidding, Ruff (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    Ok, sorry...hard to tell these days (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    I hear you (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    Hey, you can run downwind (none / 0) (#118)
    by cenobite on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:59:29 PM EST
    With just a foresail and no rudder. I'm sure some transpac entries have proved it a time or two. :-)


    Parent
    Terrorist suspect initially questioned... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by magster on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    under emergency exception to Miranda, and then later Mirandized.

    Not sure what the immediate threat to public safety existed (original exception created by cops need to know location of loaded gun in public area) and how much questioning was done before he was Mirandized. Risky move by the arresting officers.

    He was arrested on the airplane (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    That might explain it. Close quarters if he had more time to resist.

    Parent
    Or was 'wired' (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:27:55 PM EST
    to explode . . . .

    Parent
    Well, here's some legislation that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Anne on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    seems like a bad way to achieve the goal of promoting "heterosexual marriage:"

    (Missouri) House Bill 1234 claims to promote "heterosexual marriage" by making divorce more difficult; what it really does is to strip away hard-won protections for the victims of domestic violence. Indeed, the bill's proposals are so one-sided, it should be renamed "The Full Protection of Batterers Act."

    The proposals start by limiting divorce to cases of mutual consent or "marital irresponsibility." Marital irresponsibility, however, includes domestic abuse only in cases of "serious spousal abuse involving injury to petitioner where petitioner was not the initiator of physical violence" or a "history of serious emotional or physical abuse."

    Consider what this means. Husband and wife argue. Husband threatens to kill the wife, and beats her up so badly she ends up in the hospital. Wife sues for divorce.

    The husband insists that the wife slapped him first (a common allegation whether true or not) and that the episode of "serious" abuse was an isolated incident. Wife, in the hospital with a skull fracture, has no grounds for divorce.

    The bill gets worse. It mandates that the assertion of domestic violence "shall not be deemed credible in the absence of physical evidence or convincing testimony by parties unrelated to the spouses."

    There's more, and it doesn't get better...

    The proposed legislation also makes it more difficult to protect children. Impressive empirical evidence demonstrates that exposing children to domestic abuse has lifelong negative consequences even if the abuse is directed only at the spouse.

    [snip]

    It provides that even if a spouse meets the act's tough standards and proves domestic violence to the satisfaction of the court, "a protective order shall not deny the [abuser] parenting time if the petition for dissolution does not allege child abuse or neglect."

    In other words, if the husband cracks open his wife's skull, but does not touch the children, he cannot be denied parenting time.

    But, what about child abuse?  Oh, the legislation has an answer for that, too:

    And the new definitions of child abuse are even harder to prove than spousal abuse. Punching and hitting children is not physical abuse unless it causes injury.

    Moreover, if repeatedly striking a child causes injury only rarely, it is not abuse where it can be said to be an "infrequent" mistake or a manifestation of parental differences about appropriate discipline.

    Yet, interfering with the other spouse's parenting time because the children are terrified is emotional abuse, while threatening to kill a child becomes abuse only if it is "continuing and chronic."

    So, what happens if abuse is alleged, but cannot be proven?  I thought you'd never ask:

    Finally, the bill punishes spouses who allege domestic abuse, but fail to prove it under these draconian standards.

    To take only one example, the proposed legislation would threaten a spouse who alleges domestic violence with loss of custody if the court does not find in her favor, while a battering spouse who commits perjury is guaranteed continuing contact with the children unless he has been separately found guilty of child abuse.

    Taken together, these measures provide a handbook on how to inflict domestic terror with impunity. The bill threatens all of us as it puts the cycle of violence that brutalizes parents and children outside of public view - until the violence tragically erupts in ways that are impossible to ignore.

    What's the natter with Arizona?  I want to know what the hell is the matter with Missouri...

    (h/t to lambert at corrente)


    And, we thought right-wing (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    family values types were so passe' within the Republican party.

    This bill is for show only--to gin up the base.  True-blue Republicans like them some divorces too....

    It will never pass, but shows how cynical (and unserious) politics has become.  

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#63)
    by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:19:03 PM EST
    who writes these bills...

    on the same subject, I just started reading John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality which is the first of his studies on tolerated/condoned homosexuality and even gay marriage in the early Church.

    Parent

    Steve Nash... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Tony on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:16:04 PM EST
    and the Republican owner of the Phoenix Suns have come out against the Arizona bill.  And tomorrow, on Cinco de Mayo, the team will wear jerseys that say "Los Suns."

    Steve Nash Calls Arizona Immigration Bill "Very Misguided"

    IA-Gov GOP candidates (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:48:54 PM EST
    A front page article in today's NYT (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    by John Broder and Tom Zeller, presents a rather upbeat story about the BP blow, entitled "Bad, but How Bad?"  While some experts expressed their grave concerns, the article notes other experts who said that while the potential for catastrophe remained, there were reasons to remain optimistic. "The sky is not falling", said Quenton Dokken, a marine biologist and executive director of the Gulf of Mexico Foundation (GMF), described in the article  as a conservation group in Corpus Christi.  "We've certainly stepped in a hole and we're going to work ourselves out of it, but it isn't the end of the Gulf of Mexico."  However, it always seems there is someone ready to throw water (or a mix of water and oil) on our NYT generated hopes.  And that was TPM, via ProPublica, who checked out GMF and found that at least half of its 19-membered Board have direct ties to the offshore oil and gas industry, including one who is an executive with Transocean, the Swiss firm that ran the exploded rig.  Seven others are currently employed at oil or oil service/supply companies. Represented around the Board Table are Shell, Conoco Phillips, LLOG Exploration, Devon Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, and Oceaneering Intenational.  The most recent Board meeting of GMF was graciously hosted by Transocean.

    My question today: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    What is the function of government?

    Umm.. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    a protection racket for the ruling classes...next question.

    Parent
    Well then. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    Next question:  what is the meaning of life?

    (and don't say '42')

    Parent

    That one is much harder Doc... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    I tend to think there is no official or real meaning, it just is what it is...so whatever you want it to mean, it's your life:)

    Parent
    Long ago (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Raskolnikov on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    I decided there is no meaning to life, but only meaning in life.  No ultimate reality, only daily actuality.

    Parent
    I like that. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:49:57 PM EST
    Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily. Life is but a dream.

    Parent
    It takes a life time (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:41:09 PM EST
    for some to learn to row their boats gently down the stream, though.

    Parent
    Provide for the common defense, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    Promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

    According to those nutty liberals who wrote the Constitution anyway.

    Parent

    Socialists. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    Do you feel that our government (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    is:  providing for the common defense, promoting our general welfare, and securing our liberty blessings?

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    Were you even able to type that with a straight face?

    Parent
    I'm genuinely interested (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:55:23 AM EST
    in whether people feel that our government is working for them...

    Parent
    That's cool... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    I didn't mean to imply you were being insincere or anything...it's just so obviously not the case from my seat, the question is laughable.

    Promoting the general welfare...that's a real knee-slapper allright.

    Parent

    I knew what you meant! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    Yes, I would say the 'promoting the general welfare' part is kind of an epic fail....

    Parent
    But we have succeeded in (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by brodie on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    promoting the generals' welfare.

    Sadly, the current incrementalist admin seems no different in this respect than the previous military-worshipping Repub ones.

    Parent

    Worse yet (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    I bet a sizable portion of the population would support amending that part of the Constitution, if they even knew it was there.

    Parent
    Ow. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:18:25 PM EST
    James Madison on (none / 0) (#129)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed May 05, 2010 at 06:10:29 AM EST
    General Welfare:
    "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
    and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
    they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
    they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
    and pay them out of their public treasury;
    they may take into their own hands the education of children,
    establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
    they may assume the provision of the poor;
    they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
    in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
    down to the most minute object of police,
    would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
    of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
    it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
    of the limited Government established by the people of America.
    "


    Parent
    With varying degrees of success (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    from issue to issue, in general I believe so.

    Parent
    Details (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    1. Way overboard on defending us
    2. They need to seriously look at the term 'general welfare' instead of slanting it toward the welfare of the rich and powerful.  I give them a C on this one. most other developed countries do better.
    3. B, but the grade is sinking fast.


    Parent
    Defending us? (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:35:10 PM EST
    Far as I can tell our government spends obscene amounts of money to motivate people to wanna kill us.

     

    Parent

    Even more on the means to kill them (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:55:46 PM EST
    It is a self perpetuating system, by design.

    Parent
    Now I'm confused... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:12:47 PM EST
    by your general belief that our government is fulfilling it's mandate...you sure it's just not you wanting to believe ruff?

    Wanting to believe I can understand...who doesn't wanna believe the fairy tale of liberty and justice for all...I sure do, it's a beautiful concept.  But the evidence points to the contrary, and there is too much evidence to ignore.

    Parent

    I'm not comparing it to the perfect ideal (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    I'm comparing it to nothing.

    We have a great Constitution - still. It is being eroded by poor enforcement, but it is not gone yet, and won't be any time soon.

    We have a government that provides basic security for most of us. That's more than a lot of countries can say. Does it go overboard, both in national defense, and the police at times? Heck yeah.

    We have lots of government provided services - roads, SS, Medicare, you know the list.

    Overall, yeah, I'm happy with my government. And I live in FL, which provides nothing added.

    Parent

    Thanks for clarifying... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    and yeah, even I gotta admit they do the occasional thing well...National Parks rock, for example...thats a general welfare promoter.

    Just real hard for a guy like me to get past that whole criminalization of my lifestyle...clouds everything, its a shame cuz its so unnecessary.  I think we'd have a lot more believers if we got rid of that welfare demoter.

    Parent

    I understand (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    I'm in a glass half full mood today...ask me again tomorrow and I might be on the other side.

    Parent
    Must be the Hiatt... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:56:12 PM EST
    still fresh in your mind:)

    American music always makes me feel better, and feel proud, of our not-so-humble home.

    Parent

    You know, that is right (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    It's not the end of the world
    It's just the wreck of the Barbie Ferrari

    Parent
    Besides which.... (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:43:10 PM EST
    You can love your country and hate your government, so enjoy what you will. That is the default condition of the world, I would  venture to guess.

    Another reason to go on- new live John Prine record coming out at the end of May. do you know John Prine? If you liked Hiatt you will like him too. More on the folk side than blues though.

    Parent

    Interesting, thanks. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    In response (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by christinep on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    to your general question about the preamble and the purpose of our government: Yes, I believe that -- overall and, especially when considered in terms of other times in history and/or in other societies--the government has worked in a longstanding way. We all know the problems; and, sometimes those problems seem to overtake every optimistic thought about representative government that I might have, yet...to this optimist, it still works. Sometimes hobbled, sometimes hamstrung, sometimes with a hold-the-nose, sometimes quite well. (And, I say this as one who today--particularly after reading the evocative earlier comments recalling the terrible Kent State events so long ago--felt again the daze of those days as a student in neighboring Indiana involved in shutting down the administration building while feeling fear for all of us as to where it all would end. So, we all respond differently; and, since those days, I decided always to act in the interests of making government work the way that I learned it should.)

    Parent
    Elections have consequences (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:33:07 AM EST
    I found a new hero... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:46:47 AM EST
    in the latest Rolling Stone, you guys gotten a load of Colton Harris Moore yet?  The Rolling Stone article is subscription only, here's something from Time.

    I love this kid...gives me hope.  The latest Great American Outlaw...all the luck in the world to you young man.

    I just listened (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    to an old interview with Ironweed author William Kennedy (a good man and helluva writer) in which he and the interviewer got into an in-depth discussion of the perennial appeal of the outlaw, not just in the American consciousness, but in many parts of the world throughout history. We already know about all those Whiskey in the Jar highwayman songs from England, Ireland and Scotland, and of course, Waltzing Matilda is about a poacher. Even Russia's patron saint, St Basil, had a reputation for being an unrepentant shoplifter (or so the legend goes), who of course, shared his take with the poor. Seems the more the fix is in for the "too big to fail" and the bigger, greedier and more destructive they become, the more the sympathy and imagination of those struggling to get by swings over to those who have liberated themselves from the demands of society, not by greasing lobbyists, but by arriving at the end of their tethers and deciding to give the slumbering multitude a lusty, discomfiting kick in the pants ala Pretty Boy Floyd..Or to put it in Freudian terms, a final, Luciferan rebellion against "the tyrannical demands of the super ego" that all too often SEEMS to dole out rewards all-too-arbitrarily.

         

    Parent

    The allure makes perfect sense to me... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    it's certainly no mystery...in economic and criminal justice systems that stack the deck, how can you not respect and admire a soul who refuses to play?

    The mystery is that anyone is suprised that young Colton is respected and admired...he lives his dream for everybody who had theirs crushed.  

    Parent

    It's too bad (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    Lloyd Blankfein, John Paulson and all those people who didnt know from Bernie Madoff until the economy tanked aren't forced to watch their backs and look over their shoulders the way this kid now does.

    If only Greenspan could've gotten to him first and taught him that fraud is the safest way to rip people off -- if preying on people's weakness is what floats your boat.

     

    Parent

    The Goldman boys... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    couldn't carry Colton's jock...having a protection racket watching your back makes one soft as toilet tissue.

    Parent
    Where can I find that interview? (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    I like Kennedy's work a lot.

    Parent
    I have it on cassette (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    it's from a series called the American Audio Prose Library. The interviewer is a woman named Kay Bonetti.

    Parent
    OK - it's in your private collection (none / 0) (#126)
    by shoephone on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:16:00 PM EST
    Darn.

    I used to record broadcasts of Ben Sidran's old jazz interview show. It's hard to keep those 30-year-old cassettes in good shape! I guess there's a way to transfer them into other formats but I don't have the tech chops to do it.

    Parent

    Tech chops (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:38:22 PM EST
    compared to me, you're probably Fuller and Tesla rolled into one.

    That Ben Sidran program was a great series. At one point, he even got Miles to come out of his shell and open up, as I recall. It takes a musician to know how to get a musician talking, I suppose..

    Parent

    The Miles interview (none / 0) (#133)
    by shoephone on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:08:39 PM EST
    is one of the ones I have on tape. It's... wacky! He insisted Sidran meet him at a restaurant in Santa Monica. They sat outside, and all you can hear is the sound of traffic going by and Miles chewing and swallowing, because (as you probably know) he couldn't speak above a whisper. When you can actually make out what he's saying it's usually stuff like, "That mother****r" and "That was some real sh*t" and "Man, they hate me 'cuz they want to hear me play like I did in the 50's and sh*t, I don't want to repeat myself."

    It's pretty hilarious, but not really that illuminating.

    The best interview was Sidran and Carla Bley, from either 1986 or 1987 (can't remember exactly). She is relentless in her criticisms of Wynton Marsalis and his album, "Think of One." It's really an entertaining and interesting interview.

    Parent

    Good bill (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    As such, it will probably die a quick death.

    The bill, authored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Col.), would prohibit any member of the House or Senate from taking a job with a lobbying firm after retiring. It would force staffers to wait six years before becoming lobbyists, and it would force lobbyists to wait six years before they can become staffers -- a phenomenon that gets little attention despite its prevalence. And the bill would ban campaign contributions from lobbyists, who contribute tens of thousands of dollars over meals and hundreds of thousands in mysteriously legal "bundles." link


    Honestly, (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    good luck finding staffers with that restriction.

    You'd probably have to raise staff pay substantially to get a good result. (And Congress is understaffed as is).

    Parent

    I don't know if there (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:08:30 PM EST
    have been minor ups and downs in recent years, but in general the size of congressional staffs have risen substantially in the last 50 years.

    In fact, prior to the late forties, a congressman's staff rarely exceeded two people.

    And I'm not convinced that larger staffs have made congress a better legislative body.

    Parent

    The Executive branch (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:10:19 PM EST
    has grown much more by comparison.

    Parent
    Two wrongs ... etc ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:11:52 PM EST
    Actually, it would be better (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:14:11 PM EST
    Consider the impact of having had a properly staffed opposition in 2003.

    Parent
    If staff size has risen (none / 0) (#31)
    by brodie on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    in the past half-century that would make sense -- the country's populations has doubled since then, it's no longer so much a semi-rural country with family farm issues in the forefront; technology, society, the economy and the larger post-Cold War worldview have become much more complex.

    Congress should be much more staffed than in the 50s.  If we need to up some senior staff salaries, let's do it.  The entry-level younger staffers can take smaller amounts, and there shouldn't be a major problem there, what with no need to financially support a family.

    Parent

    The world is vastly (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    more complicated than it was 50 years ago and fund-raising vastly more time-consuming.

    The less staff they have, the more power the lobbyists have.  I say pay staff more than Congress critters and forbid them from becoming lobbyists permanently.

    Parent

    The alternative of having (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:08:46 PM EST
    former health insurance VPs writing health insurance legislation is not acceptable to me.  

    Parent
    Oh, they will (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    They just send it over.

    Parent
    Then eliminate the staffers altogether (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    No need for taxpayers to pay their salaries for work produced by and for the benefit of the major corporations.

    Parent
    Oculus... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:54:41 AM EST
    Please see Melissa's Monday post on one R. Polanski's recent statement (called "Quote of the Day"). I won't link to it here because most will hate it, but you should go to the Shakesville blog and see it - you will enjoy!

    I saw that quote. Amazing. Poor him. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    Who Dat? (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    Who dat gonna beat dem Saints?

    Looks like the DEA is fixing to beat dem Saints.

    What a joke...you know there is a problem with drug policy when it is easier for wealthy men to steal drugs than it is to buy them...I wish someone could explain why Sean Payton or anybody else walking into a pharmacy and buying some 'Dins without a permission slip is so terrible.

    The stock market skids: (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    Greece and oil.

    Fresh Air on NPR (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:35:56 PM EST
    Gross is interviewing Morgenstern of NYT on Goldman investig.

    Variations on a theme (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    The theme being 'no one could have known'.

    Great post by digby here.

    I can only add that a decent news media would have ferreted this stuff out.

    End of an Era... (none / 0) (#124)
    by michitucky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:57:23 PM EST
    Legendary Detroit Tiger's Broadcaster Ernie Harwell has died...

    Stunning commentary on oil spill: (none / 0) (#125)
    by observed on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:10:18 PM EST
    I got this quote from The Washington Note; a friend of Steve C's said:
    A good friend and former senior government official sent me this inquiry today. I'm just not an environment/oil industry expert, but the way this person frames the question certainly puts me on edge:

    Steve,
    Are you following the oil spill?

    I have had several scientists and engineers -- not the alarmist types -- e-mail me in the last 48 hours that this is a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. One engineer suggested the USG use a small yield nuclear device to try to seal the leak.

    Another said that every ocean on earth is threatened -- and not in a long time but a relatively short time. He also suggested there was no way to seal the leak due to the depth, high pressure with which the oil is being released -- compared it to Krakatoa -- and the fact that the heavy rig sunk and now lies on the site of the leak.

    I have no way of evaluating the leak but find these scientists' and engineers' fears of deep concern -- particularly when I know somewhat the track record of the WH, BP, Haliburton, et al with regard to these sorts of crises.

    Are you hearing anything remotely like what I'm hearing?

    [Steve C] It would be useful for knowledgeable commentators to share what they know or think in Comments.