Monday Afternoon Open Thread

BTD is in hearings and I'm busy at work. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome. Please keep it civil.

< Roman Polanski Freed, Extradition Denied | Drugs, Inc. Airing on National Geographic Channel >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The more it changes.... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    So what have we learned in 2,065 years?

      "The budget should be balanced; the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

      - Marcus Tulius Cicero, -55 BC

    Ah, the Cole Porter Theory of History (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    as I call it -- aka "everything old is new again."

    Marvelous quote; thanks.  A find that I forwarded to a colleague who teaches ancient Roman history.  No doubt he knows it, but just in case . . . I told him that he can claim to students that he is teaching relevance to current events!


    Sometimes (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:45:57 PM EST
    It does seem like times before the fall of Rome...

    55 BC is (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:23:43 PM EST
    a long ways from the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.....

    Was speaking (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:32:41 PM EST
    To the sentiment and 2010 rather than the historical age of the quote

    Contracted to be killed (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    by Mark Antony, and finally found and offed for being such a royal pain in the ruling class butt.

    Cicero (none / 0) (#10)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:27:05 PM EST
    Yep--that quote must be somewhere near his bemoaning "O tempora, o mores! The Cassandra of Rome. Thanks.

    We've made great advances... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:29:35 PM EST
    in expensive weaponry to go busto even faster.

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:34:15 PM EST

    I don't know... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    Rome could party...we're still recovering from the Puritan influence.

    Maybe one day we'll be back on track to rival Rome in debauchery:)


    According to some experts (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    It was a big part of why Rome fell - the lead in the glasses (mixed with the acid in the wine) led to infertility, especially among the upper classes, and lead poisoning, so it became way to conquer them.  Add to that their willful disregard for order and the rule of law led to instability and an eventual complete collapse of society,

    Maybe we're out to prove the opposite... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    how too much law and order can turn a once flourishing free society into a broke-arse dystopia.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    Too bad lawlessness was one of the precursors to the downfall of most every society that organically declined!

    Too much lawlessness... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    in the USSR? Or how about the British Empire?

    Or do you not consider those organic?


    Yeah (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:45:53 PM EST
    When you have to many laws, and ridiculous ones, the people start to get antsy, and down it goes...  

    Lawlessness is dependent on laws. An excessive expression of  lawlessness in any given society would imply an excessive amount of laws that people refuse to follow because they are unfair.


    The debauchery (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    that tends to get cited the most is Caligula and Nero who ruled in the First Century.....while Rome was on the rise and before Rome reached the peak of power about 100 years later.....

    Recent scholarship and Peter Heather again focus on the Barbarians.....

    Gibbon blamed the Christians.....Rome was fine until after 313 C.E....

    Social conservatives blame "debauchery" but that is a very hard argument to make.....


    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    There were a lot of reasons why the Roman empire 'fell.' (In fairness, what people refer to the fall of the Roman empire was in fact the distengration of the Western half of the Roman Empire. The eastern half, aka the Holy Roman Empire lasted till I believe the 1400's.)

    1. After 4-5 stable rulers,Rome would get an idiot who left no heirs. There would then be a civil war to put a new emperior on the thrown.
    2. More and more leaders in the Roman empire was coming from the eastern half of the Roman Empire.
    3. The empire had gotten to big to control.
    4. The barbarians.

    Actually, nyjets (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    the Holy Roman Empire was a realm in central Europe (see link).  (Voltaire said that the Holy Roman Empire was "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.")  What you are referring to is the Fall of Constantinople (sometimes called "New Rome") and the Byzantine Empire (which was, indeed, the Eastern half of the Roman Empire), in 1453, to the Ottomans.

    And, as a technical matter (none / 0) (#78)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:18:09 PM EST
    and depending on how you want to pick, the Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1815 (and the Vienna treaties ending the Napoleonic Wars) or 1918 (when the Habsburgs, successors to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire, finally decided to cash it in).

    Correct me if I am wrong (none / 0) (#84)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    During WWI it was called the Austrian Hungarian Empire, correct.

    Sorta. (none / 0) (#115)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:51:54 PM EST
    From wikipedia's entry on the Holy Roman Empire:

    The Empire was formally dissolved on 6 August 1806 when the last Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (from 1804, Emperor Francis I of Austria) abdicated, following a military defeat by the French under Napoleon (see Treaty of Pressburg). Napoleon reorganised much of the empire into the Confederation of the Rhine, a French satellite. Francis' House of Habsburg-Lorraine survived the demise of the Empire, continuing to reign as Emperors of Austria and Kings of Hungary until the Habsburg empire's final dissolution in 1918 in the aftermath of World War I.

    So, while the Holy Roman Empire was formally dissolved in 1806, the reconfiguration of the Confederation of the Rhine as a part of the 1815 closure of the Napoleonic Wars made that dissolution irreversible.  I.e., it is conceivable (though unlikely) that once Napoleon had been finally defeated the changes he compelled thru Pressburg could have been undone, but the Austro-Hungarians didn't have the juice to pull it off.  The imperial family - the Habsburgs - which had "ruled"  the Holy Roman Empire continued to "rule" Austria-Hungary for another century, until Austria-Hungary split up and became (mostly) republics in the aftermath of WW I and Versailles.  I put "rule" in quotes because neither the Holy Roman nor Habsburg Austria-Hungary were "ruled" in the stricter sense we think of.

    For that matter, there are still Habsburgs around and they still have a claim to the throne, though no real way of enforcing it.  

    So, to my eye, "when" the Holy Roman Empire ended depends on how you choose to count or define "end".


    damn (none / 0) (#82)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    I knew I got the name wrong.
    Thanks for the correction.

    Wow (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    All you need to do is throw in something about the sanctity of life and it could be a wingnut campaign speech.

    Why Obama is the Perfect Progressive (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:56:00 PM EST

    a USA Today/Gallup poll released today indicates that a majority of Americans still aren't sure what "progressive" really means.
    While 45% of "progressives" separately identify as "liberal" or "very liberal," a full 32% identify themselves as "moderate," and 22% identify as "conservative" or "very conservative."

    My favorite response to this article is from Atrios:

    Maybe Because It Doesn't Really Mean Anything?

    My question to Atrios is this.  If progressive really doesn't mean anything, why has he used the word "progressive" hundreds of times already in his blog?

    Is he in the habit of using meaningless words in his blog?  Will he stop using meaningless words like "progressive" in the future?

    I used to call myself progressive (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:03:31 PM EST
    But I notice that I don't use the word anymore because what I thought it meant in these times, it obviously does not mean.  I am now undefined I guess :)

    I've long felt that the word (none / 0) (#6)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    "progressive" has too many meanings to too many different people to work well & over the longterm for a political party. It has mutated too often; and, has a pablum-like quality to the sound (or maybe--on good days--a very good Irish oatmeal with currants.) In recent years, it actually has felt like a dodge or a sort-of reinvention of something.

    I read the Gallup narrative earlier; and, now find more comfort once again in the word and (most of the time) reality known as "liberal."


    Ideals are independent of political parties (none / 0) (#166)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:44:37 AM EST
    I would think any grownup would understand that.

    My point (none / 0) (#171)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:57:06 PM EST
    as a "grown-up" is that the whole area of what a "progressive" is or is not has been obscured by too many different definitions by too many individuals. And, for want of a known term, I'll use the manufactured "mushification" to describe what may have happened with a proud word from the early part of the 20th century.  

    Clearly you said (none / 0) (#172)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:54:52 PM EST
    "to work well & over the longterm for a political party". Seems to me you had a party in mind.

    Effective movements have always existed outside of the party system. It's a matter of survival. Movements make parties react, not vice versa.

    The parties exist without ethic. The sole purpose to concentrate power. When the movement becomes partisan they cease to exist. Co-opted, they have traded their leverage to the party for a seat at the table. Their fate to be just another barking dog.


    Independent? lol Kidding (none / 0) (#100)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    Progressive Era (none / 0) (#49)
    by bison on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    I define progressive against the backdrop of the Progressive Era in American History from about the 1890s to 1920s.

    The Progressive Era was  an umbrella label for a wide range of economic, political, social, and moral reforms. These included efforts to outlaw the sale of alcohol; regulate child labor and sweatshops; scientifically manage natural resources; insure pure and wholesome water and milk; Americanize immigrants or restrict immigration altogether; and bust or regulate trusts. Drawing support from the urban, college-educated middle class, Progressive reformers sought to eliminate corruption in government, regulate business practices, address health hazards, improve working conditions, and give the public more direct control over government through direct primaries to nominate candidates for public office, direct election of Senators, the initiative, referendum, and recall, and women's suffrage.



    college and class (none / 0) (#107)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    Having grown up in a college town NOT in Ivy league class, I do not equate an urban, college-educated population of that time with middle class.  Even in the 1930s, the university population I observed was a pretty exclusive club. Not sure how progressive they were before the 30's either: rich men's sons to a large extent even in my Appalachian hometown where women and middle class folk actually did have a chance at college.

    Shrimp de jonge recipe-- (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    add garlic and just light and serve. NOAA's Steve Murawski, announced yesterday that shrimp and seafood from the oil-soaked Gulf is still safe to eat. Samples (400) in open waters and those closed areas were tested for polycyclic hydrocarbons, the most common carcinogens in crude oil. Kevin Griffins of the Commerce Department re-assured us  that inspectors are also trained to smell oily fish. Those that failed the sniff test did not, you will be glad to know, have contaminants. Don Kraemer (not to be confused with Mad Men's Don), leader of the FDA's Gulf seafood safety efforts cautions, however,  that the results do not rely on testing alone, but that confidence rests in preventive measures (fishing closures), and notes that enough samples cannot be tested to make sure the seafood is safe.  On the bright side, we can now reduce our dependence on foreign oil, use shrimp as fuel--on my scooter I am getting up to 50 miles/pound of shrimp

    Perhaps the FDA will do (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:53:16 PM EST
    color-coded threat levels!

    Our daughter spent the weekend (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:55:22 PM EST
    in New Orleans.  Cheap vacation for her, she drove.  She said that the beach smells like her Great Uncle's engine shop though and the water looks WRONG.  It may not be washing up oil right now, but she's been to the beach many times down here and she is not getting into whatever that stuff was.

    She did say that the hottest selling (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    T-shirt in New Orleans is white, has a big BP logo on it and four capitalized letters under it.  B P F U

    Yes, and the (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    Administration's tentative seafood safety statements can't but help its partner, BP, in challenging fisherman's claims for losses.

    Great laugh :) Thks (none / 0) (#119)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    Sorry, referring to #16 (none / 0) (#120)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    Mel Gibson (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    Who knew such talent (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    could hide in such an ignorant feck.  Life always surprises me, sometimes that is an exciting comfort and sometimes it is not.

    Oh, Gibson is an even better actor (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    than we knew, spouse and I have decided -- as Gibson plays such nice guys on the screen. . . .

    as the jilted former lover of an actor (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    told me once.  

    "they are all liars.  they do it professionally."


    Little wonder... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:02:22 PM EST
    that they sometimes switch to politics, eh?  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    A trait they share with police and pols.

    You sure he didn't mean (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    politicians and actors?

    politicians (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    ARE actors.  ugly actors.

    True story. (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:44:07 PM EST
    Talent, unfortunately (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:33:12 PM EST
    or maybe fortunately, I'm not sure...

    Anyway, talent and character are entirely unrelated.

    People like Gibson are able to tap into something, channel something from somewhere, that has nothing whatsoever to do with their own souls.  Or personalities, or characters, or whatever you want to call it.


    Method acting? (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    Worried of what may happen if he [Max] stays in the job, and fearing he may become as savage and brutal as the gang members....

    Max shoots and kills Bubba at point blank range with his shotgun....

    Throwing Johnny a hacksaw, Max leaves him the choice of sawing through either the hi-tensile steel of the handcuffs (which will take 10 minutes) or his ankle (which will take 5 minutes). As Max drives away, the vehicle explodes; an emotionless Max drives on further into the Outback without turning back.

    Helluva run kid... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    Helluva run, but John Law finally caught up to outlaw legend Colton Harris Moore, aka "The Barefoot Bandit", after a two year chase from Washington to the Bahamas.

    Love him or hate him...the kids got skills, I've been in awe.  Good luck in court Bandit, and/or your next escape.

    This kid blows me away (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    I'm not on his facebook or anything, don't get me wrong.  I have a geniune respect for brilliance though.  I was the probation officer for a talented kid too who got to the point that he was very remorseful and ashamed.  I told him the truth, he had everything right...now do it legally and we call that a success in this country.  It has to be "legal" for you though from here on out :)  P.S. Barefoot's damned mom is part of the problem IMO :)  Brilliance can survive bad parenting and bad mentorship, good luck Barefoot.

    Moms does seem like a winner... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    part of why I admire the kid so much...born behind the 8-ball so to speak, and despite the odds he freakin' taught himself to fly...gives me hope for the human race.

    And to make it all the way to paradise, buying ladies drinks at the bar...wow.  It's such an amazing story of an amazing kid.  


    I have news for you (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:32:57 PM EST
    He's a little sh*t who's wreaked havoc all over the Northwest. We can't wait to get him back and prosecute him to the fullest extent.

    Well I'm not the only one.. (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    who sees it differently, judging by his various fan clubs.

    It's good to be in the majority for once...the people love The Barefoot Bandit!


    It's easy to admire "brilliance" when (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:51:03 PM EST
    it didn't steal from you, didn't invade your space, didn't violate the integrity of your home, didn't steal your car; I'm pretty sure those who were his victims - to the tune of some $3 million - who have had no recourse to recover their losses, are not quite so admiring of this young man's "talents."

    On the flip side of cleverness are people who presumably worked - legally - for the things that were taken from them; I don't find that admirable in anyone, but maybe that's my honest streak showing.  

    I know that part of - maybe a lot of - your admiration comes from your contempt for authority, for always wanting the individual to triumph over the law, for wanting people to be free to do their thing, unencumbered by rules and laws.  I get that.

    But where is your contempt for those, like Harris-Moore, whose "thing" is stealing what others have worked and sacrificed for?  Put in the hours and kept nose to the grindstone and played by the rules - only to have some cocky kid, too lazy to put his brilliance to work in a real job, take from them?

    I guess you're enjoying the vicarious thrill of him having evaded the law for so long, but maybe if you lived the vicarious experience of his victims, you wouldn't find it quite so thrilling.


    you seem to have (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    the victim thing covered.

    did he "steal from you, invade your space, violate the integrity of your home, steal your car?

    I guess that part of - maybe a lot of - your resentment comes from your contempt for those who flaunt authority.


    It's not that I'm trying to "cover the (none / 0) (#124)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    victim thing," it's that I think in expressing admiration for the exploits of this kid, it's too easy to lose sight of those he victimized, that's all.

    Hell, we're all being victimized - more than ever - by people wearing suits and custom-made shoes, and I'm no happier about that; if anything, that's almost worse, because the suits are doing it legally.

    I don't have to be personally on the receiving end of this particular criminal's actions to be able to appreciate what they may be feeling - I had my purse taken from me at knifepoint, and had my home broken into some years ago; yes, it was "just" money - and all the stuff in my wallet that I spent hours canceling and replacing - but I did, indeed, feel intruded upon.

    It's really too bad that you once again have tripped all over yourself in your eagerness to find some way to insult me, and managed to lose whatever tenuous grip you had - if ever you did - on what I was expressing: that lost in the admiration for the brilliance of this kid's ability to evade capture were those he left in his wake who didn't ask to be stolen from.  

    It's the other side of criminal brilliance that I thought was worth raising as a point to consider - and gentleman that he is, kdog had the maturity and intelligence to acknowledge that; you could learn something from him, I think.


    Honestly Anne... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:47:55 PM EST
    if I were to learn that it was the Backfoot Bandit who robbed my place a few years back, I'd feel kinda honored to have been robbed by the legend.  We get legally robbed every day, at least this kid has style, ya know?

    I get your point though, stealing is not righteous, me taking joy out of it ain't either...no doubt.  And if I were to catch the next Barefoot Bandit in the act of jacking my sh*t the Louisville Slugger is comin' out.

    I guess in such an unrighteous unfair world the lines get blurred sometimes.


    of course you would. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:52:23 PM EST
    I have been robbed.  it was an awful feeling.  that doesnt stop me from admiring a 21 year old kid who seems to have taught himself to fly an airplane and stole 5 of them a boat and two cars to get away.

    would I be pleased if it was my car. no, but thats why I let the insurance company rob me.


    It is awful... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    but if ya can't get over gettin' beat outta material things non-violently on this planet good luck to ya, cuz you're in for a rough go of it.

    It's not the freedom to rob sh*t I'm talking about either...its the freedom you just mentioned, to leave a halfway house and end up in the Bahamas dodging cops the whole way...it's the coolest thing ever, if the authority minded can't appreciate that they don't understand their authorities.


    It is not a question of an authority mind (none / 0) (#159)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    It is a question of right and wrong. What the bandit did was wrong. He broke the law and stole from innocent peeople. There is nothing to appreciate.

    Landing it, though, is a different story. Just ask our hero, the BFBandito...

    kdog, I am a great fan of "smart;" (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    there's just way too much "stupid" out there!  It just pains me sometimes when I see such clearly talented people use their abilities in ways that take unfair advantage of others.

    From what I've read about this kid, this all pretty much started because no one was doing a very good job of providing him with food and clothing - and that's not his fault.  I think it's just as much of a crime  - maybe more - that there wasn't some way to effectively channel his survival instinct and his clever and creative mind toward a better life that didn't involve courts and the prison system; children deserve so much better.

    That being said, I don't think it serves much purpose to lionize what he did, and make him sound like someone others should emulate - but America does love its bad boys, doesn't it?


    Yes we do love our bad boy rebels... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:21:00 AM EST
    I think its because the good boy authorities are so often self-righteously rotten.

    My favorite hero (or anti-hero) when I was (none / 0) (#163)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:48:41 PM EST
    a child: Robin Hood. I loved reading about this noble brigand, enjoyed the old TV show with the theme song saying "feared by the bad, loved by the good--Robin Hood," and watched the old (and newer) movies re-run on TV. That type of story--even more than the tilting-at-windmills--always gets to me. So...here we are today, and its not all about Sherwood Forest.  As you noted just above, Anne has a point. I think she has a very good point.  

    I hope that you keep that skepticism of authority, and that you double-down in your support for the ordinary guy trying to live independently, freely.  But, please, kdog....Careful of the absolutism (and maybe stubborn streak?) that can back yourself into a bravado corner.


    Fear not Chris... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:19:43 AM EST
    Unlike the Barefoot Bandit, I'm all talk and no action...my rebellion occurs in the shadows, under the radar...I've worn the chains and the goal here on out is too stay out of them, while not sacrificing too much of my pursuit of happiness.

    Hogwash (none / 0) (#39)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    The people of Camano Island do not love him.

    Not to worry. He'll get his day in court.


    True enough... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    be happy, you'll get your pound of flesh I'm sure.  Breaks are harder to come by in court than they are in life.

    But he'll always have those two years, which is more freedom than most of us will ever know...and that's why we love him.


    Freedom to break the law (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    You mean to have the 'freedom' to steal and hurt other innocent people. To be irresonsible and not care who you hurt.
    That is not my definition of freedom and certainly nothing to be proud of.

    Eh (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    Who cares about innocent people who are hurt?  The important thing is he got away for awhile (although he's not that good - he got caught).

    Caring about victims of crime is so 19th century - unless you can see a way to blame a cop.


    If you actually knew anything about his history (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    you would know that he would already have gained his freedom, had he not gone AWOL from the halfway house. His choice, and a stupid one at that.

    A little knowledge of facts goes a long way.


    look on the bright side (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:17:54 PM EST
    you may have lost Roman but you can take it out on this kid.

    Gobbedly gook (none / 0) (#85)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:24:30 PM EST
    Now you've simply stopped making any sense -- which, by the way, is not "a historic first" for you. It's your boring m.o.

    Some birds... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:42:12 PM EST
    aren't meant to be caged...even in a halfway house.

    Oh please, you just sound absurd (none / 0) (#56)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    and that's being charitable.

    He'll get his day in court, and he will, undoubtedly, have excellent legal representation. Regardless of your boy crush on him, if found guilty, he will have to pay for his crimes. That's the way our justice system works.


    No need to remind me... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    how it works.

    Guilty as charged on the boy crush...I wish I had a tenth of his stones.


    Well yeah (none / 0) (#140)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    they turned him in, din't they?

    meant to be a reply to shoephone (none / 0) (#142)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:59:07 PM EST
    The people of Camano Island do not love him

    didn't I


    People loved (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    Gangsters of the 20's, Ted Bundy, the Menendez brothers, and Charles Manson too.

    nice hyperbole (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:44:44 PM EST
    he killed no one.

    Point is (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    Some people love criminals.

    Doesn't mean that's a good thing - because they have fans.


    Yeah, people these days sure know how to (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:13:25 PM EST
    pick their heros.  

    no (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    the point was to equate him with a string of murders in order to make him look as bad as possible.

    I'm from the Northwest (none / 0) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    and I was half rooting for him.

    He's stolen much less, and wreaked much less havoc than the banksters, than BP, than our government and their corporate greed, than all of the corporate crooks out there. Muuuuch less.

    You gotta look at this in perspective He is small time.  


    and he did not have (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    institutional help.  if fact if was all arrayed against him.

    He is a criminal (none / 0) (#30)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    So I have to question how amazing the kid actually is.

    Why am I now surprised... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    you feel that way?  :)

    Think you would have the chops to evade the long arm of the law for 2 years while teaching yourself to fly small aircraft all on your lonesome?  I know I didn't and don't...this kid is special.


    It does not matter (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    He is a still a criminal. No more or less.
    The fact he taught himself to fly a plane while evading cops is irrelvant.

    possibly (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:42:46 PM EST
    irrelevant but still awsum.

    "Criminal"... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:57:16 PM EST
    doesn't carry the stigma you think it does bro...remember you're talking to one:)  

    Some of the greatest human beings to ever live got tagged with that label.


    Sometimes the derring-do (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    can blind the eye to the crime.  While this guy's misadventures are certainly not of the same degree of criminality, I think of the celebrity status awarded by some followers to Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Centennial Bomber (after the scandalously sad FBI treatment of Richard Jewell). Rudolph managed to elude capture for years, staying on the lam from 1998 to 2003. He hid, probably with a lot of help from kinfolk and pals, in the mountains gathering acorns and eating salamanders; his Christian racist supporters sang country music about him and T-Shirts with RunRudyRun were all the thing in them thar hills.  His older brother, Daniel, was a hero of sorts, when in the presence of reporters, he suddenly sawed off his own hand.  Now that was an attention getter if there ever was one.  Lots of derring-do, lots of crime.

    I went to a Federal Bar (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    Association luncheon a couple of weeks ago.  The speaker was a local Federal Judge who had been a long time civil litigation partner at the most egghead of firms in SoCal....

    A Republican (Bush II) appointee who had seemed a little gruff before.  His topic?  The things I learned about criminal law on the bench....

    I was stunned by his little talk.....I expected the standard all-the-stupid-things criminals do speech.  Instead he popped up a PowerPoint with bullet points.

    One bullet point: Most people who commit crime are not intrinsically evil.

    Another bullet point:  Each defendant is to be treated with dignity.

    And the last (that I can recall):  If we can solve the drug problem, we can reduce crime significantly.....

    He talked about sentencing bank robbers in his court.   One guy lost his job and could not buy gifts for Christmas.  He stole his brother-in-law's gun and went to rob a bank that was located inside a grocery store.  He left the gun in the car.   He gave a note to the bank clerk who thought it was a joke because he was so nervous.  The clerk was told by her supervisor to give him money and the guy got about $3,000.  When he left the grocery store, he discovered he had locked his keys in his car.

    The judge gave him one year home confinement.

    A Republican judge.  But he was an egghead lawyer who had practiced civil litigation for years....


    err, "not suprised"... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    but you've got good taste in football teams, so you can't be all bad brother:)

    HBO Hard Knocks should be interesting this year.


    a movie (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:43:47 PM EST
    is coming.  just wait

    Wondering... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    if that law about profiting from criminal acts will keep him from ever seeing any cash for the film or book.

    Sign me up for both...what a story.


    funny thing is (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    all the whiners would probably love a movie of the same story.

    And would respect him... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:14:07 PM EST
    if he was a bankster.

    I think the crime that has 'em most ticked was making the authorities look bad.


    His mother has already retained counsel, (none / 0) (#65)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    a well-known entertainment lawyer -- for the exact purpose of guaranteeing that no one but she profits from the movie.

    oh my (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    a historic first.

    I look forward to watching (none / 0) (#83)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    Revis Island, suffering from severe erosion, sink slowly beneath the waves.

    I'm hoping he plays even better... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    when he's angry, like Sidney Dean.

    Looks like the BFBandit (none / 0) (#134)
    by BTAL on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:49:25 PM EST
    has reached the adoration level of Madoff.

    Madoff used his cunning and wyle to rob a boat load of those evil rich bastards.

    Maybe they can get a cell together and compare notes.  You know, a mentoring type program.


    Madoff (none / 0) (#148)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:23:11 PM EST
    never had the guile as a teen to evade the FBI. Gotta agree with kdog here. The Barefoot Bandit is like a mini version of D.B. Cooper. The Great Northwest is fertile ground for the quirky rebel type that becomes idolized. Perhaps kdog needs to look into a cross country move.

    Why not (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    just drop those shopworn labels; they've long since lost any semblance to reality based definitions. Was Bush a "Conservative?" Of course not. Is anyone in Congress today really a "Liberal?"  The species is extinct.

    Why not use terms that mean something, that everyone can understand, and is truly honest. There are only two classifications: "Intelligent" and "Ignorant."

    "Jeff Sessions," a member of the Ignorant class, went before the CNBC cameras today and stated...........

    time to kill? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    Is Time Disappearing from the Universe?

    Remember a little thing called the space-time continuum? Well what if the time part of the equation was literally running out? New evidence is suggesting that time is slowly disappearing from our universe, and will one day vanish completely. This radical theory may explain a cosmological mystery that has baffled scientists for years.

    The team's proposal, published in the journal Physical Review D, dismisses dark energy as fiction. Instead, Senovilla says, the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down, like a clock with a run-down battery.

    The theory bases it's idea on one particular variant of superstring theory, in which our universe is confined to the surface of a membrane, or brane, floating in a higher-dimensional space, known as the "bulk". In billions of years, time would cease to be time altogether.

    considering there are thousands and thousands (none / 0) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:17:49 PM EST
    of "vessels of opportunity" burning fuel in-shore its not surprising it smells like an engine shop

    Segregate the gays (none / 0) (#47)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:48:46 PM EST
    Read Aravosis.... the gummint is considering segregating gays from barracks and showers.  Really.  Way to go O.

    Rob Smith has Hit the Showers perspective.

    Aravosis (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:53:06 PM EST
    is a blathering fool and I wont read him.  but the fact that some questions in that thing deal with this does not mean the government is considering it.

    it will never happen.


    TPM is covering it also (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    Feel better?  or how about the Advocate.

    It's coming from Gates press secretary Geoff Morrell.  Geoff was defending the 'shower' questions on the survey and stressing the 'privacy' issues of heterosexuals and the facility adjustments that will be needed if DADT  is repealed.

    I have no belief that a President, who has been very clear he does not support gay marriage, would never segregate gays. The survey is evidence of Obama's attitude towards gays.  I find the survey (and that the WH supported it) disgusting.  I also find that the WH would even consider segregation sickening.  There were no surveys regarding women or blacks in the service but this administration finds gays so 'different' an exception must be made for them.  ugh.


    how about (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:39:52 PM EST
    if we wait and see if gays get "segregated"?

    Measurement (none / 0) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:57:42 PM EST
    People have their own bars or thresholds of measurement.

    Gay survey ok.
    Baiting language in survey ok.
    Govt proposing segregation as an option ok.

    Democrats treating this a politics rather than a civil rights issue is wrong to me.... but as long as they don't actually segregate?

    Still.... ugh.


    look (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:03:59 PM EST
    if the purpose of the survey is to gauge prejudices what is the problem with baiting language?

    seriously I dont get it?

    should the questions have said something like "how much will you love showering with a gay man?"
    or "how many ways will serving with gay people enrich your life?"



    There should not be a survey (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:50:12 PM EST
    That is the point.

    then how (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    are they supposed to gauge what they are up against when they change the rules?

    Members of the military (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    do what they're told or get discharged. What's to survey?

    whats to survey? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    look, anyone who thinks this is like integrating women or blacks into the armed forces simply does not get it.  its not.  this is different.  for a whole bunch of reasons from cultural to religious.

    all you have to do is look at the comments in this thread that see nothing wrong with segregating gays.

    honest to god, just step back a minute and think about that.  when did it become ok, even with people who see themselves as progressive, to SEGREGATE ANYONE?

    this is different. and its not only acceptable IMO for the armed services to try to get an idea of the hate and prejudices they would come up against it would be irresponsible not to.  and possibly even dangerous to the gay troops.


    Disagree (none / 0) (#181)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:58:45 PM EST
    Not to take your specialness away, or even suggest that you or others do not suffer a unique type of discrimination based on your sexual orientation, but I really thing that the survey was bunk and entirely unnecessary.

    If you look at other countries, like Britain lets say, they had no problems integrating their military.

    And just because some morons think that segregating gays is a good and smart thing, does not give any credibility to the questionnaire. For a very long time people would say blacks should be segregated, and some still thing it would be a good idea.

    when did it become ok, even with people who see themselves as progressive, to SEGREGATE ANYONE?

    Many progressives would say it is good to segregate women and men? And as someone has pointed out that has done little to stop rape, or unwanted sexual advances.

    Hate and predujice is almost always a product of ignorance. THe questionnaire fosters that ignorance by the stupid questions and assumption of the homophobic stereotype.

    The best antidote to hate and prejudice is to end DADT, the rest will sort itself in a jiffy, imo..


    and segregating gays? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    Many progressives would say it is good to segregate women and men?

    whats that about?

    I hope it goes as smoothly as you think.  I dont think it will.  you talked about Britain.  thats Britain. they do a lot of things we dont.  this country is in the grips of the most virulent right wing swing in my lifetime.  wingnuts are being enabled at every turn.  encouraged to take up arms and use "second amendment remedies" to things they dont like.  
    I will predict right now that people will die, gay people, as a result of this integration.
    that doesnt mean I think it should not happen it just means this is not like anything the US military has done before and it has absolutely nothing to do with being "special".  its about being hated.


    also (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    I just found this about the smooth and surveyless transition in Britain:

    A Military Times poll in December 2008 found that 58 percent of U.S. troops do not want gays to serve openly in the armed forces, with nearly a quarter of respondents saying they would leave the armed forces -- or consider doing so -- if the ban were lifted. Yet polls of British soldiers "found that as many as two-thirds of soldiers said they would consider leaving the service if gays were allowed in," yet when the ban was lifted in the UK, "few soldiers actually chose to depart."

    Your concern for gay troops, (none / 0) (#184)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    who are presumably well-aware of what they face, is noted.

    I disagree on all points.


    fine (none / 0) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 04:54:44 PM EST
    at least the conversation has moved from believing Aravosisis inane blathering to the wisdom and advisability of the survey.

    I call that progress.


    Up Against (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:51:40 PM EST
    Insubordination? I think the rules are clear. There is little question that some homophobes will be horrified, but most will adjust, or pay the consequences.

    Think of it this way, your life is dependent on group cohesion, you trust the best guy in your group with your life. You find out that he is gay, so wtf, you still trust the guy with your life because he is dependable and to be trusted.

    The rest is nonsense.


    Talking point (none / 0) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:18:16 PM EST
    One of the admin talking points I've been hearing recently is the fact, they say, that the countries that have opened their military to gays serving openly do exactly this, have separate facilities for gays and straights.

    I'm with you, Walden, as usual. I think this is exactly what the survey was in aid of, and I think it's almost certainly going to be done that way.


    I Would Be Really Curious To Know (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:43:37 PM EST
    What countries have separate facilities for gays and what kinds of facilities are you talking about.

    I saw this on a British ex pats site while trying to find some evidence that other countries segregate their gays in some way.

    Problem solved? What problem is solved by that? Take a look at the statistics of male on female rape in the military. Segregation didn't much help the women.

    The only country that I found allows segregation is Israel. A gay person can take a shower alone if he or she chooses.


    Hope you are right, (none / 0) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    but the "issue" of needing appropriate "facilities" is mentioned just a little too often, as are stereotypes and analogies, including  separate bathrooms needed for males and females for :unit cohesion" blah, blah, blah. (see Sam Nunn)

    I saw some of the (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    questionnaire.  it really seemed like they were trying to push buttons and encourage people to vent in some places.

    seems to make sense if you really want to get a sense of what you are up against.


    I think this will eventually happen (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:37:13 PM EST
    The Brits don't have a problem with open gays.  They have already had to deal with a whole gammut of issues that have arisen.  We can easily steal a lot of their learning curve.  We have to change a few things up.  I think they will stall this because of combat operations that are currently ongoing, but I do think it will eventually happen.

    So... Obama ends DADT only to apply (none / 0) (#51)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    institutional segregation? Not exactly the change we can believe in.

    Good luck in November, Dems.


    why thank you (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    but we wont need it.  we will do just fine.



    Your defintion of "do just fine" (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    doesn't likely apply to this November. The Dems are going to lose seats, with or without any debacles on DADT.

    lose seats?? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    in an off year election where we hold the white house.

    another historic first.

    sure.  we will lose seats.  
    we will not lose the house.  or the senate.


    Segregation? (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:04:25 PM EST
    Well maybe once that happens, the heterosexuals will lobby for the same treatment..  Bunking with those who you would like to have sex with.

    With a little work, I am sure that the bunk assignments can get very refined, using sexual preference as a guide.


    I think this is pure hysteria (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    for example the blog "the strager" has this:

    The Pentagon confirmed on Friday that it is considering segregating gay troops, specifically with regards to creating separate showers and/or barracks for straight and gay troops.

    oh but wait, then there is this:

    "We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn't try to address these types of things. Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."

    so in other words, its not being considered at all.  they are trying to gauge feelings about it in order to know what might need to be done in terms of education.  among other things.
    anyone who thinks gay are going to be segregated  might also think Obama is a Muslim.


    Too Bad (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    I think it would be great for moral if the sleeping, showering arrangements were determined by sexual preference.

    I think it would be very popular, and for those who wish to remain celibate, special soundproof barracks for them..


    perhaps (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    the point of the questionnaire is to see if many gay soldiers agree with you.

    I dont necessarily disagree.  but I think the term has serious baggage.  not the kind we want when the great documentary The Stonewall Uprising is making the round in the country.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    I answered a few questions myself...  can't wait for Jon Stewart to give his q and a response.

    Anyway, I find it all hard to take seriously, the DADT is on its way out. The generational fear of homosexuals is dying out. Yeah some of it gets passed on, but less and less.  

    And don't get me wrong, oppression is always to be taken seriously, sometimes humor is an effective tool of resistance.


    honestly (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    I find the idea this would be seriously considered a little silly.  I dont believe it for a second.  

    on the other hand the fact that the questionnaire, designed to give a roadmap of what they have to deal with, would have questions that deal with it is not at all surprising.


    Well (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    My take is that the questionnaire was designed by "someone" whose sole intention was to scuttle DADT.

    Since when are the grunts allowed to not follow orders, or to have an opinion about decisions from the top: Never.

    The questionnaire is a ruse, imo.


    I actually dont think it was a ruse (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    to me t seems entirely logical, if you are putting out a questionnaire to find out what kinds of problems you are going to encounter by repealing something like DADT, that you would include questions that really reveal the prejudices people have and how much of a problem they may be.

    it honestly seems like a no brainer to me.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    But you are forgetting that we are talking about the military, not sleepaway camp, or some corporate retreat. It is irrelevant how the soldiers "feel" about gays openly serving, what matters is that they follow orders. There was no such attempt for a touchy feely questionnaire when racial segregation was ended. Nor was there any such questionnaire when the troops were ordered into Iraq.

    This is all utter BS. The military works top down, IOW the soldiers are always a bottom.


    I completely agree with you (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:13:52 PM EST
    but it seems to me the point of the questionnaire was to gauge what they think.   not to really take it into consideration but to know how to deal with the problems that may arise from "what they think".

    Well (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    That seems to have gotten lost....  leaked....  And the questions, are absurd, imo. If anything the questions were meant to fuel homophobia.

    Americans are no different from other cultures whose armed forces have gays serving openly. The whole slant is akin to

    Reefer Madness
    , implying that gays are sex crazed maniacs who turn straight men into fags with one look at their genitals.

    This is about politics, and politics only.

    If the bosses cared one whit about the military's feelings they would end all wars.


    well sure (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:24:02 PM EST
    the questions are absurd.

    the prejudices are absurd.


    What do you think is meant by: (none / 0) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    "...or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."    My interpretation of .."the Pentagon confirmed that it is considering separate showers and barracks.." means  that they are considering separate showers and barracks.  It is true that there is no mention of separate drinking fountains, but the study is not yet complete.  The bright side, is that this all may just be leveraging for an extra few $billion for facility adjustments. Haliburton and Bectel no doubt are drawing up no-bid contracts and retiring generals are vying for lucrative  Board positions.

    exactly my point (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    the Pentagon didnt confirm anything except that there are questions that deal with those subjects.

    to me, that doesnt mean anything except they are curious what the rank and file think.  as we said, not because they care beyond being prepared for it.

    after the shameful history of segregating blacks the idea they would do this is just silly afaiac.


    Nobody will be allowed to have (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:38:47 PM EST
    sexual relations on the job, and get caught without suffering the usual consequences.

    Damn Gays (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    Making trouble for everyone. Now sex will be prosecuted.

    Well at least rape is still an option as it is 90% unreported and then out of the 10% that is reported 8% of those charges result in a conviction, mostly honorable discharge.


    Rape is not an option (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:05:33 PM EST
    The majority of rapes outside of the military go unreported too.  What overall skewage.  What we have seen happen though is that most of the time the woman raped is very young and not very proficient in caring for herself within the military system yet.  Unfortunately there isn't physical evidence remaining usually when command finds out what has happened.  You can't hang some guy without zero physical evidence Captain.  And for the record, now you are just muddying the discussion.  Changing the subject to point to other "victims".  There are always victims in this life Captain, but we can conduct ourselves in ways that make victimizing us very difficult.  I myself have been raped and it had nothing to do with the military.  If I were raped by a soldier now though I know exactly what I would do from the first moment on, and someone would be going to the big house.

    Unfortunately though for young women, very unsure of themselves and probably even blaming themselves in the beginning, that path is not so clear.  And older women are not usually the target.  We don't make good targets anymore.  We know too much and we usually have some sort of history in dealing with rape and much better support systems.

    Straight soldiers are not supposed to be doing each other on the job or in combat either.  Depending where and how and evidence, the reprimand varies.  Gays will not get different rules nor should they have different rules.


    Not Muddying Anything (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    My point is that is sex is illegal, than why are people so concerned with the showers? Well it is politics as usual. As you point out nothing is going to change regard sex and the rules, business as usual. The only difference is that the offense of gay sex is going to be brought down to the level of straight sex.

    Maybe the questionnaire should be given to the generals, about how to handle icky sex, particularly when the bias is sexist to begin with. It will be really confusing for them when both offenders are men.


    Then men and women must be (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:06:24 PM EST
    forced to shower together too.

    OK (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:11:16 PM EST
    No big deal, sounds right to me. If you are going to be killed together, why not shower together. Takes the sexual tension out of it all.

    Can't the military just (none / 0) (#153)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:20:04 PM EST
    issue those old black wool one-piece bathing suits for use by all in the showers?   The old generals can be referred to tintypes from a day at Coney Island, circa 1900,  a timeframe in keeping with their mindset.

    lol (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    Good one!

    What about boarding schools and college (none / 0) (#170)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:03:24 AM EST
    dorms - or, are they non-existent in America?  Aren't there public bathrooms for freshmen, or are does everyone have their own bathroom?  How do you get assigned a roommate - or roommates - do you specify your sexual preference when applying?

    Went to a boarding school where 24 of us shared a dorm and all of us raced to the showers (at the sound of the bell); then graduated to actual curtains between the beds; and then on to four per room, then two, etc.  Guess we just didn't realize all the problems we should have been considering -

    US Ski Team share bathrooms, bedrooms with fellow team members, and the boarding school (ski school) in Crested Butte, Co, doesn't segregate or inquire as to sexual preferences! They come from all over the world, and, yes, in various colors, God forbid!  Haven't heard of anyone getting raped - either male/female, female/female, or male/male, out of there, has anyone?

    There is so much emphasis on this that it makes people think they have to be put in a category as to how to act and think - division - it is all about division, so that the political machinery and media so-thought intelligence can continue to better identify in order to predict the game to be played to win the next election!  

    Perhaps other countries do not provide the same accommodations American are used to, so this so-called problem doesn't rise to the significance it does here.


    Ugh, Obama is going Schlafly on this? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:05:09 PM EST
    Phyllis Schlafly led the defeat of the ERA by scaring fools with threats of "unisex bathrooms"!

    I remember that so well, and young as I was, I still could figure out that we all, after all, have unisex bathrooms at home.

    What next, drive women out of the military, too?  That was another of Schlafly's great fear-mongering cries: Pass the ERA, and we will have women in the military.  As if we haven't had women fighting in every war -- it's just that they were relegated to auxiliaries and the like, so that we would not have to accord them full (or in some wars, any) benefits.


    There are a lot of legal aspects (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:32:48 PM EST
    to this that nobody is taking into consideration.  The military owns you in many ways but not like they used to.  Their authority has been challenged in court many times and they have had new boundaries defined as what they can order others to do what they can tell soldiers they must be exposed to.  One of our friends in Jag had outlined to us a few years ago some of the issues they must deal with in figuring out how to implement this.  All soldiers human rights and civil rights must be respected in this.  Men and women are "so called" usually segregated as far as living quarters go in the military.  This is no different.

    as far as actually implementing (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    segregation, I disagree.  this is different.

    How is it different? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    because (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:43:24 PM EST
    it is not two different sexes.

    How does any of this square (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    with transgender persons then? Forgive me Captain, but I was under the impression that gender had evolved further than whether or not your dingle berries were inside your pelvis or outside :)

    And maybe the gay guys (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:52:54 PM EST
    can bunk with the straight girls, it isn't as if we haven't been doing so for ages :)  Probably not  though.

    honestly (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:57:33 PM EST
    thats a little insulting.  I get the joke but its part of the problem they are dealing with.

    You know what I see (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:09:06 PM EST
    I see that you want to be more special than straight soldiers.  That's what I see.  Being a soldier is about doing a job, and if you want to be equal getting there doesn't mean you get special privileges or get away with anything that straight soldiers aren't supposed to be getting away with.

    special (none / 0) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:11:47 AM EST
    privileges.  for wanting to serve in the military.




    Didn't the military (none / 0) (#168)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:37:47 AM EST
    have a problem with blacks earlier on?

    Perhaps they can simply follow precedent and designate one area for 'gays' and the other for 'straights'!  

    But one should remember that at the end of the day, they are all putting their lives on the line for their country and segregation should not be tolerated today just as it should not have been tolerated way back then!


    oh yeah (none / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    separate but equal.  right?

    see update in todays open.


    well you have an exception (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    but I doubt that transgender is a big problem in the armed forces.

    but to say this is no different than rules about men and women is not correct IMO.

    and women may be serving in some roles but officially they still do not serve in combat.


    Yeah...cuz my husband didn't serve (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    with any women over there.  Now who is insulting who?

    plus (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    women do not serve in combat, correct?  are they going to say gays can serve but not in combat?

    I dont think so.


    Women serve in combat (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    They sometimes fudge what their job coding is, but they serve.  The Army currently has a really tough bunch of chicks called the Lionesses.  The Marines are now serving with them too when they need someone female next to them in the hot combat zones who can search females without overly violating modest persons.  There are women gunship pilots and women are being allowed out on different patrols if they qualify for a certain standard of physical fitness and proficiency with certain weapons.

    My understanding of the Lionesses though are that most of those girls are not straight.  So once they are openly gay if they choose to be, will they be allowed to do body searches of women in war zones as they currently do?  I dunno


    Sorry, but officially (none / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:24:46 PM EST
    by law they still do not serve in combat but in "support roles" -- plus some exceptions, but they still are exceptions to what still are the rules.

    Of course, the ridiculousness of the rules has been shown by the current wars.  Remember the first POW women?  All in support roles (cook, driver, etc.).

    And check the roles of the many women who have died in the war -- some of them, from my area, because they were not provided appropriate training or equipment and ammo, because they were only in "support roles," after and all.

    That's Congress and weak White Houses for ya.

    Pass the ERA, and we would be done with this nonsense.  But that won't happen under this weak Congress and White House, either.

    I am so sick of it.  I knew a young woman who was killed in Iraq -- while working in her "support role," which got her blown up on a road. . . .


    Cream City, we always go here (none / 0) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:43:33 PM EST
    Call the families of these women and tell them that they didn't die in combat.  And we are choosing to do this.

    A recent addition to my life is Brig. Gen. Rhonda Cornum, who also breeds and shows dogs on the same circuit I do.  I had read about what she was doing before knowing who she was in real life, and I feel like her current work can be considered controversial but will not deny that we should do all we can if there is anything that can be done.  She is overseeing the Army's newest resiliency training, Comprehensive Soldier Fitness that is supposed to teach emotional and psychological fitness to be used in combat.  Part of her combat experiences

    Cornum isn't just a theorist on the subject of mental toughness.

    A physician and flight surgeon in a helicopter unit during the Persian Gulf War, she was shot down in February 1991 while on a search-and-rescue mission. Five soldiers died, and three were captured by the Iraqis, including Cornum.

    She was physically abused and sexually fondled by her Iraqi captors and returned to the U.S. with numerous injuries. They are facts, but Cornum doesn't spend much time talking about them.

    Instead, she says living through the experience made her a better wife and mother, made her a more sympathetic physician and a better commander.

    More detail over what she went through, she kneeled on the ground with a gun to her head while they argued about whether or not they should kill her right there or take her prisoner.  Then all the rest of the horrible stuff happened to her after that.  She is an amazing person, is married, and is a mother too....all at the same time.


    Also last year (none / 0) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 07:29:22 AM EST
    They don't have to claim to temp use you as a gunner.  Your MOS can officially be a gunner now and we have several women doing it.  Norway has a female tank gunner now in Afghanistan too that has killed something like 20 Taliban.  It is likely and is a goal that this year there will be no banning of female U.S. soldiers anywhere on the battlefield any longer.

    no one said they were not dying (none / 0) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 10:19:09 AM EST
    that does not change the official position.
    or the fact that gays will not be barred from serving in combat or segregated because they are gay and soldier X is shy.

    Women at war: officially, American women can't serve in combat, but in Iraq and Afghanistan they're fighting—and dying—as never before


    Women serve in combat (none / 0) (#146)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:11:30 PM EST
    and interestingly enough....there was no survey even though it was opposed by many.

    See above (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    and as I recall, there were surveys done in the military schools -- West Point, Annapolis, etc.  Those may have been surveys of alumni, so my memory tells me.  Maybe faculty, too.  So I have been wondering whether there were surveys of the military then, too.  Can you help?  What is your source?

    From Consumer Reports (none / 0) (#95)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 03:44:33 PM EST

    Lab test: Apple iPhone 4 design defect confirmed

    It's official. Consumer Reports' engineers have just completed testing the iPhone 4, and have confirmed that there is a problem with its reception. When your finger or hand touches a spot on the phone's lower left side--an easy thing, especially for lefties--the signal can significantly degrade enough to cause you to lose your connection altogether if you're in an area with a weak signal. Due to this problem, we can't recommend the iPhone 4.

    I Phone 4 (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ladyjustice on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:56:25 PM EST
    Anybody have a re-think on the purchase of the I Phone 4 after today's report on the antenna problems?

    Miami Globetrotters Update (none / 0) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    Cleveland Cavaliers Owner Dan Gilbert has been fined $100,000 by the NBA for comments he made after LeBron James chose to sigh with the Miami Heat.

    He likely thinks it was (none / 0) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:23:42 PM EST
    well worth it.  Can't blame him entirely.

    And if the old law really ran things (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    No woman could work as a soldier disarming IEDs, but if you took the time to read what I put up you would see that Staff Sgt. Kimberly Voelz of the 703rd Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company, Fort Knox, Ky., died in her husband's arm in Baghdad from her injuries after an improvised explosive device detonated before she could disarm it.

    none of which (none / 0) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    has anything at all to do with the militarys "official position" on women in combat.

    Whatever makes you happy (none / 0) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    Is not reality, but I don't care and neither do the women doing the job either.