home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:09:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I didn't blog this weekend because my laptop got taken over by the latest virus (malware) scam, which starts with an alert that your computer is infected. It uses the official Microsoft logo. Within minutes, all executable security programs are disabled (it plants something in your computer registry) so your anti-virus and anti-spy software programs don't work; it hijacks your browser; and every 20 seconds or so, it pops up on your screen telling you to activate its program for $60 to be free. It took me all weekend to get it removed, no easy task, because it also disables your ability to implement the fix. It even disabled my printer from printing the fix. What a nightmare. [More....]

Microsoft's Security Essentials didn't catch it. I'm still not sure it didn't infect my desktop through the network, so I keep scanning both computers, which is a 4 hour process leaving no computer at home to blog on. McAfee doesn't report anything wrong on the desktop, but I see the fake logo in my task bar so I'm pretty sure it's lurking there. Be careful what you click on. After spending a bunch of money on new programs that say they can fix the problem, the one that worked on my laptop was StopZilla.

In TV news, Showtime's Homeland introduced a new twist on Sgt. Brody, which should make next week's finale riveting. Rolling Stone has a good recap of last night's finale of Boardwalk Empire.

Since I need to get back to work and make up for my lost weekend, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Noriega Returned to Panama, Still Jailed | Jerry Sandusky Prelim: Media Will Live Tweet From Court >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 202 comments (202 topical)
    I can't imagine the ugliness of the soul (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    of the jerkwads who write viruses.

    It's all in the deployment... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    I can think of good uses for a computer virus...this is not one of them.

    BTW I meant a serious reply to your point about tax-free smokes on the rez...I misread and thought you were joking.  Tobacco sales are the only economic game in town for some native nations, especially those who don't have gaming operations.  In the case of my pals the Poopsatucks, selling smokes to cats like me is how their kids eat.  

    I don't think it is about helping them kill themselves cheaper, it is about jobs on the rez and money for the rez.  I checked, they are in fact allowed to sell to non-NA's, but non-NA's are supposed to notify the state/county and pay the obscene taxes after the fact...same as an internet purchase.

    Parent

    I don't argue with anything in your comment, (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    in fact nothing in my comment had anything to do with any of that.

    Considering the life and death implications of cig smoking, I simply think it's insane for our gvt to encourage and enable NAs (or anyone, for that matter) to smoke cigs, which the gvt materially does by reducing the price NAs pay for their cigs by exempting them from paying sales tax.

    Regardless of gvt intent, the similarities between this scenario and, for example, hooking NAs up with cheap/free, but disease-ridden, blankets, are pretty shocking to me.

    I'm surprised no NAs with lung cancer have sued the Fed gvt...

    Parent

    Is it more common for Native Americans (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    to smoke than non-Native Americans here?

    Parent
    No idea. My point is not in comparing rates, (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    as that has nothing to do with it, it's that when price decreases, demand (usage) increases. The gvt, presumably unwittingly, has targeted NAs for increased cig usage by lowering their price.

    Parent
    Reason for my question: common (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    knowledge Native Americans are genetically and situationally wired for alcoholism with higher rate than non NAs.  

    Parent
    Ah, thanks. (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:19:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Increased sales to non-tribe members... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    they've unwittingly given the tribes a nice living owning their own smokeshops.

    If anybody has a beef here it is the 7-11 right outside the rez who can't compete.

    Parent

    All it is encouraging... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    is economic opportunity for the tribe.

    There is no "free" or "discount", just no tax because as sovereign nations they are not subject to taxation.  And since the feds and states and localities tax the sh*t out of tobacco sold within their jurisdiction, it has created a loophole of economic opportunity for NA's selling to US citizens...a loophole NYS and NYC is trying to find a way to close, believe you me.

    Parent

    NAs can legally buy the cigs for a lower price, (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:45:33 PM EST
    due to no tax. When the price is less, purchases/useage is more.

    Parent
    Which, one assumes, is due to Native (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    American sovereignty.  

    Parent
    Well, there you go. It's not the Fed gvt that's (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    lowering the price of cigs for NAs, it's the NA gvt.

    Parent
    More accurate to say... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    the feds/states/localities are jacking the price up.  What the NA's are charging are what smokes actually cost to produce plus profit...as it should be.

    Parent
    No arguments from me, (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    do away with all sales taxes.

    Parent
    Works for me too... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:04:21 PM EST
    though it would s*ck for the Poopsatuck economy!
    Sh*t I'd settle for a reasonable vig of 5% or so...over 200% is a bit much:)

    Parent
    Aren't the tribes obligated to collect sales tax (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    when selling to non-tribal members?

    If not, the tribes should open car dealerships and other high-ticket/high-tax retail bizinesses.

    Parent

    I thought they were... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    but I was wrong, the burden is on the non-tribe member to pay all applicable taxes to their city/county/state/etc...like an internet purchase.  NYS tax forms have a line to declare purchases subject to NYS tax.

    But that only applies to Native American brands...US brands started charging tax when selling wholesale to the tribes due to government pressure, so the tribes by me have just about stopped selling US brands.

    Parent

    I don't think there is much (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    price elasticity of demand for cigarrettes.

    Parent
    From wiki: (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    According to Nobel prize winning economist Gary Becker, who has studied the long-run price elasticity of cigarettes, the tax increase as a result of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act increases the price of cigarettes 13.3% which ultimately means a 10.6% decrease in unit sales.


    Parent
    Would have never thought that (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:28:25 PM EST


    Parent
    "selling smokes to cats like me" (none / 0) (#190)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 09:39:34 PM EST
    hey... i thought you wuz a dog.

    Parent
    Nowadays it's mostly ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    organized crime that is behind viruses.

    The days of the spotty, teenage hacker writing viruses for fun are long gone.

    Parent

    Interesting--to steer (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    business to gaming sites?

    What do they get out of it?

    Parent

    If they're good at it... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    your credit card and/or checking account info.

    Parent
    Sometimes ... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:11:51 PM EST
    but mainly they just want to use your computer as part of one of their massive botnets.  Which are then used or sold for a variety of nefarious purposes.

    Parent
    Not always nefarious... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:06:26 PM EST
    doesn't Anonymous use that tactic?

    Parent
    Occupy v. Unions (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    Who speaks for the worker here?

    Both are claiming to.  Complicated stuff.

    Seems like (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    It's not helpful to actually sideline workers with protests, especially if those workers are hourly and could potentially be sent home early if they can't work.

    Parent
    Are you aware of the Goldman (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    Sachs connection to the ports?

    Specifically, that Goldman Sachs owns the Stevedoring Services of America?

    From David Dayen (all bold is mine):

    The reasons for the attempted port shutdown have as much to do with the core complaint of Wall Street greed as anything. As Gavin Aronsen writes, one of the main rationales is that Goldman Sachs owns the Stevedoring Services of America, who run several port terminals on the West Coast. Labor strife marks many of the other port situations; 26 truckers in Los Angeles and Long Beach were recently fired for wearing Teamster T-Shirts to work at their non-union sites.

    And David brings us this, from Alternet:

    Occupy organizer Kari Koch in Portland says that their action is aimed at disrupting business as usual for "Wall Street on the waterfront." In particular, they are targeting EGT (Export Grain Terminal) and Goldman Sachs. EGT is part of a multinational conglomerate, and the company is engaged a labor struggle with the International Warehouse and Longshore Union in Longview, Wash., and Goldman Sachs, much maligned for its shady business dealings, which were part of the economic collapse, owns half of SSA Marine, which operates four terminals at the Port of Long Beach and also owns the trucking company Shippers Transport Express (more on them below).

    "We will be creating a community picket in front of the port, and we expect to have a work stoppage, and we expect the workers to not cross the picket line," said Koch. "We are disrupting it for one day, but it is also a symbolic action to show that the workers are actually the ones with the power in this country." Actions are planned at major West Coast ports such as Oakland, Portland, Long Beach, San Diego, Seattle, and others, but solidarity actions are springing up as well in Albuquerque, Denver, Houston, Salt Lake City, and even in Japan, where Doro Chiba railway workers plan to strike at a trading partner of EGT.

    If work is shut down at the ports, "It's one more day that Goldman Sachs and Wall Street firms are unable to create profit," said Koch. And as the website for the action says, "U.S. ports have thus become economic engines for the elite; the 1 percent these trade hubs serve are free to rip the shirts off the backs of the 99 percent, who turn their profits."

    More here than meets the eye, ABG.


    Parent

    I was aware of the Goldman connection (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    It's pretty complex.  I worry about this kind of issue muddling the message of both ows and the unions.

    Parent
    It's clear (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    These people don't know how business works.  Any "profit loss" the protestors think they stopped Goldman from getting will just be written off their taxes.  If it was a sustaining thing, all that will happen will be an increase in prices to those using the port to ship and receive goods, which, in turn, will lead to higher prices for the 99%.

    Parent
    So putting people out of work (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    and stopping commerce in a useless protest is ok.

    I say again.

    Get thee to DC, oh great carers of all of us.

    And let the rest of us alone.

    Parent

    If you read the Alternet link provided, (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    and realized the degree to which many truck drivers are being taken undue advantage of by port owners/operators, you might grasp that this one-day event is about drawing attention to the exploitation of labor - you know, the little people whose efforts keep the wheels of commerce moving?

    But, I would guess that you didn't read the linked article, so I don't even know why I am taking the time to write this.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    150 workers were sent home in Oakland, and more were sent home in Washington.

    Hope they actually get paid for a full day, but I guess it depends on their contracts.

    Seems Goldman Sachs won't be hurt too badly by this.

    Parent

    Seems to be unclear (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    Not a good way to win people to your message.


    The longshoremen's union says 150 workers have been sent home after anti-Wall Street demonstrators blocked two entrances at the Port of Oakland.

    Longshoremen's union spokesman Craig Merrilees said Monday that shipping companies agreed with workers' concerns that the protests were creating unsafe working conditions.

    Workers in unaffected parts of the port remained on the job.

    Port spokesman Isaac Kos-Read says the facility remains largely operational.

    It's unclear whether the longshoremen will be paid for the missed work. Union officials say longshoremen were not paid after Occupy Oakland protesters blockaded the port Nov. 2.

    Protesters cheered when they learned about the partial shutdown, then dispersed. Another march on the port is planned later in the day.



    Parent
    i agree (none / 0) (#92)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:23:11 PM EST
    something like a "general strike" is a dicey proposition when so much of the workforce is temporary or employed without a contract

    OWS may run the risk of re-creating a contemporary version of the 1968 split between the (student) left & (underemployed) workers

    Parent

    and what (none / 0) (#157)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    great societal advance was achieved by oppressors voluntarily relinquishing power and domain over the oppressed?

    What freedoms, or even Rights, were ever gained without a struggle?

    The 1% have so taken over our country that the drivers are scared to death to step a tiny bit over some arbitrary line, or missing a single day's pay causes real pain.

    And Goldman Sachs, days away from 1000 of them collecting multi million dollar bonuses, while drivers, petrified that people trying to change this lopsided life we've been herded into may cause them to lose a day's, or half a day's pay.

    I'm surprised GS hasn't sent the drivers CD'S for Xmas, "I've got plenty of nuthin, and nuthin's plenty for me."

    By the support the Wall Street swine are getting here, It's become a little clearer why Obama sees our salvation "across the aisle."

    There are no more Democrats, not in Washington, and fewer and fewer right here at TL it seems.

    Parent

    your questions (none / 0) (#161)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    seem rather abstract & are probably not eliciting actual answers, so i won't attempt to reply except to say that i agree with the general points you are making

    i also agree with this:

    missing a single day's pay causes real pain

    i live in Oakland - these are my neighbors, most of them underemployed & working without contracts

    & people around here are increasingly sensitive to (& suspicious of) the evident divergence between (1) the day-to-day economic welfare & facts of life for communities of color, particularly in this Depression, & (2) the programmatic idealism of well-meaning young white men in dreadlocks

    but, yeah, i hate Goldman Sachs with the best of them

    Parent

    I appreciate that (none / 0) (#174)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    and I certainly don't have the answers.

    But, I do have some insight into the genesis, and goals for OWS. They are good, very good.

    It will be a long, long struggle. Conception has occurred, but gestation has hardly begun.

    But, I will fight back against uninformed, malicious, disinformation regarding OWS's motives, goals, and especially their dedication & intelligence. They are warriors, for all the right reasons , but they've just begun.

    They've just begun

    (p.s. certainly not referring to you in my protective comments above)


    Parent

    got that (none / 0) (#175)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    & i support #Occupy but think they need to be very very smart from here on out

    Parent
    When I get nervous (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:57:49 PM EST
     about some activity OWS gets involved with, I think to myself, "what, am I smarter than the people who have given birth to this movement? They know everything I know, and much, much more. They don't need my fears and doubts. And, they certainly don't need my advice. "

    It's gonna be nerve racking for a long, long time. But, so far they've accomplished what no one, regardless of money, power, or position has been able to do.

    Let's give'm some credit. Let's send our best wishes.

    And let's be vigilant against the vested interests when some successes appear.

    The black-ops military approach we've already witnessed isn't about what's going on now, it's what the 1% fear will develop if the long sedated public begins waking up.


    Parent

    not necessarily (none / 0) (#185)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 07:53:54 PM EST
    They know everything I know, and much, much more. They don't need my fears and doubts. And, they certainly don't need my advice."

    i would be sorry to see them replicate, in a current incarnation & for stupid reasons, the left/labor split (primarily along cultural lines) that we saw in 1968, a schism with disastrous consequences that cannot be viewed in total isolation from the dismal state of progressive politics today

    no one has a monopoly on knowledge or truth

    & we can say so with no loss of support or respect for #Occupy

    Parent

    No quarrel (none / 0) (#196)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 12:43:47 AM EST
    with anything you said.

    Not sure what you're referring to about a Left-Labor Split?

    The trouble I remember were the protesters and the "Hard Hats" getting into it in NYC. And, there were the `68 demonstrations, riots, and unfettered police violence.

    But, none of that matters with OWS. It's not that I hold some secret plans they have. But, I know that their approach will be like something you never saw before, or even imagined.

    Very, very basically (I can't get into the long explanation that would be required to do the story justice tonight) they are going to try and maneuver themselves into a position of not merely learning about some quaint, dusty concepts we remember something about from our school days, freedoms and restrictions under the Law, many of which are spelled out in the constitution, but trying to live their lives as if they really had the freedoms promised in the constitution. Right nows, they're just testing the waters with basic rights like, "freedom of assembly"

    Now, that's all the Constitution says. "You, American citizen, have this right. Congress is specifically prohibited from interfering with citizens' rights  to freely assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So, where does a police chief, sheriff, mayor, or anybody else get off saying to you, Ms American Citizen, sure you have those stupid rights that those dopey forefathers imbedded into our most important laws. And just to guarantee that these little piss ants can't screw around with such basic human rights, they placed it into the 14th. amendment to the constitution.

    They're going to test America's "freedoms." Can a person, in 2011 America truly live as if he's free?

    That's what their doing. We'll see.

    And, please believe me, they know history.


    Parent

    The problem with your comment is (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:26:40 AM EST
    The sherriff, judge, whatever DOES have the right to control because the Constitution says that speech can be regulated based on time, place, and manner restrictions,

    There's also that pesky little concept that while the protestors have rights, the people working on the docks ALSO have rights - to be able to work without protestors blocking them, for example.

    The protests are great, although I don't see them lasting because without a coherent message (besides completely dismantling Wall Street, which will never happen), they will run out if steam, and more importantly, the public will lose interest and patience.  Instead of sleeping in tents and just being tourist attractions, they need to channel that energy into active grassroots lobbying, fundraising, working with organizations to help write better legislation, knocking on doors, etc.

    Parent

    i hope you are right (none / 0) (#198)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 12:58:55 AM EST
    And, please believe me, they know history.

    but someone watching Occupy Oakland up close & personal could reasonably wonder about that

    Parent

    I read the links (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    I understood the links.

    I still think it is very complex and both the unions and OWS have good arguments for why they each believe they are doing what's best for the little guy.

    Unions have the interest of the working person at heart as well.

    This could be a situation where both parties, in good faith, believe they are doing the right thing.

    Parent

    Funny thing (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    it appears that it isn't the workers who are striking....

    ....but a bunch of non-workers who are living off someone else.

    Parent

    Are there really that many ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 09:06:05 PM EST
    ... retired, SS recipients there?

    ;-)

    Parent

    You could say that about any labor strike (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    Strike breakers would love you.

    Parent
    Except in this case (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:34:39 PM EST
    Workers and management agreed safety was being compromised, but workers were sent home, probably without pay.

    Parent
    Okay--choose a different location (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    Bank offices ae good.....

    Parent
    No, better yet, (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    foreclsoure auctions.....

    In California, the auctions for non judicial foreclosures can be in any public place, but they ae usually conducted on the courthouse steps.  Oakland should be no different.

    Go to the auctions.....

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#43)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    i posted several links to this & related questions a couple of days ago

    Parent
    linux (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jharp on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    I had it and you are right. It is a real pain to get rid of.

    So much so that I pitched Windows and now use Linux and have been for some time.

    I cannot recommend it enough.

    Just saw Obama on TV (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    When asked about the spy drone with our latest technology that is down.....

    He said we have asked Iran to give it back.

    Honest. He did. On TV. In front of God and everybody.

    He makes Carter look like a genius.

    That's (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    the response we give whenever this happens and we cannot deny it since we've had planes taking these kinds of missions.

    You know that right?  If Obama is stupid, so is every other president because they all say the same thing. Check the 2001 spy plane that went downin China for example.

    The first thing you do is ask for it back.

    Parent

    That does it (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    We should bomb 'em and make the rubble bounce.

      That'd teach 'em a lesson.

    Parent

    You can't bomb the white house. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    Even the nuts in the GOP wouldn't go along with that.

    Parent
    Yes, I know you view Obama (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    as the enemy.....

    How's Ralph Nader doing?

    Parent

    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:53:25 PM EST
    But I'm pretty sure even he wouldn't go along with you wanting to bomb the white house.

    Parent
    My boy Ralph is old... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    but if he runs, I will likely be there to pull his lever...same as 2008.  He's the best match to my views...I don't do Machiavelli with my vote, and with all due respect I think we'd all be better off long-term if all voters gave the Machiavellian games sh*t a rest.  

    Parent
    We might risk... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:48:45 PM EST
    damage to our beloved drone...better send in the ground forces instead...and a flatbed towtruck.

    Parent
    I can imagine the feigned outrage (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    if this had happened during the Bush admin.

    I mean, no way to destroy the thing?

    Totally stupid and Obama is the CINC.

    But when you realize the utter... I can't even grasp the enormity of the sheer dumbness.. disregard for the safety of the country that Obama's comment makes... I mean it. Obama makes Carter look brilliant.

    ABO.

    Parent

    Your feigned outrage is only rating about 4/10 (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Farmboy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    You started well when you made the obligatory straw man comparison to Bush, because everybody knows that Bush's failures, such as getting 5000 Americans killed in a war started under false pretenses, is exactly the same as Obama employing diplomacy to solve problems with a foreign power.

    And speaking of diplomacy, you also compared him to Carter, a president long reviled by the right as ruining a perfectly good end-times conflict between Israel and Egypt.

    But you left out the whole sekrit Kenyan muslim liberal fashist communist rant. Sorry Jimmy, you simply failed to stick the landing.

    Parent

    Of course you don't (2.00 / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:13:44 PM EST
    actually address the point that under Obama's leadership we have given our enemies a huge technology information dump.

    That can't be hidden by you denying that Carter was a failure only exceeded by Obama.

    Sorry, Farmy Child, you provided no facts.

    Parent

    abc (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:48:30 PM EST
    (a) The military recognized that drones, by their operational nature (remote control planes flying over hostile territory), were apt to get into the "wrong hands". So they didn't actually put much high-tech on it, because they aren't idiots. As an example, it has a curved wing and an unshielded exhaust. So yes, it's "stealth" in terms of seeking to minimize radar reflectivity, but the drone didn't represent anywhere close to our capabilities. Certainly not a level of technology worth instigating a war over.

    (b) You complain about "facts" and then decide it's okay to assert that "Carter was a failure only exceeded by Obama", and you expect that to...what? Be taken seriously? Win people over? Change the topic from Bush's far more impactful foreign policy disasters?

    (c) "Farmy boy". Wow, really pulling out the big guns, aren't we?

    Parent

    Oh, wait... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    ..."farmy child" my mistake.

    Parent
    My tears, they just won't stop falling... (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Farmboy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    tears of laughter, that is. Jimmy is giving me some major lulz today.

    Parent
    Turn about (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:05:14 PM EST
    (a) You have no knowledge to how much or how little stealth technology has been revealed.

    (b) That was an opinion. I stand by it. But neither you or Farm Boy has provided any facts re the stealth technology give away and the dumbness of the Obama admin for allowing it.

    (c) Farmy Boy?? Yes. That's what a "Jimmy" does.

    Parent

    abc2 (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    (a) No, I don't have specific, exhaustive knowledge of what was on the stealth drone. If I did I obviously wouldn't say so. It is, however, reported to lack several stealth technologies that are considered more sensitive. It was sent to Afghanistan with the tacit understanding that it'd be used in Pakistan and Iran. It's unmanned. The idea that they'd stick the most sensitive possibly high tech (both software and hardware) on it and fly around over Iran strains credibility. Perhaps they did, and perhaps the self-destruct function failed to fry the undercarriage and the insides -- but that really isn't Barack Obama's fault since it was built and sent to Afghanistan before he was in office. Blame Bush? Anyway it's 10 years old and, even among stealth drones, it's not even the newest stealth drone.

    (b) Allowing it? The thing crashed without his go-ahead, you know. And post-crash, he decided not to put boots on the ground or launch a missile attack in order to stop the Iranians from taking apart our remote controlled radar-surveillance plane. Sounds like a good choice to me. Anyway, we likely don't even know where the drone carcass is from minute to minute. Shall we just invade the whole country, or bomb it all just to get this thing back? The two options were apparently not feasible and clearly stupid. Oh, but silly me, we live in a Tom Clancy-authored world, and all the challenges and ambiguities and holes in the plan would be resolved if only Barack Obama weren't such a gosh darn Jimmy Carter all the time...

    (c) It was "farmy child". I have an excuse for screwing it up, but you made that particular diminutive of his username, up so you really ought to get it right.

    Parent

    Okey dokie (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 07:29:37 PM EST
    (a) So since it lacks several stealth technologies....that's ok?  That's your argument?
    So what we lost isn't important???

    BTW - In the mid 50's we had a transponder that was used to ID friend/foe. They'd call up and tell the pilot what mode to squawk. So it was kinda important that it not fall into enemy hands. It had a self-destruct feature in case of a crash or unauthorized removal.

    Surely we haven't forgot about such things and how to do them..... But it looks like we did.

    (b) And if Obama is going to get credit for the good, he get's blame for the bad. He's CINC.

    (c) See comment #90. I didn't start it, just responded in kind. If you don't wanna play, stay off the field.


    Parent

    abc3 (none / 0) (#184)
    by Addison on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 07:49:46 PM EST
    (a) I didn't say it wasn't important, did I? Assuming Iran was showing off the real deal the craft represents many steps above their current drone technology (cell phone camera tied to vulture). What I said was the tech on-board didn't represent our full capabilities and that it likely wasn't important enough to start a war over, so Obama's options are going to be very limited vis-a-vis destroying it.

    Regarding the self-destruct issue: reportedly a self-destruct mechanism for the plane was that the wings would be blown off. Look at the wing joints in the photos Iran released. Also, we can't see underneath the craft, all we really see if the top half of the carbon shell and the wings. The shape wasn't really that secret, there were already photos of it circulating. It would be regrettable if, inside the craft, the software was still intact. But we don't know about that one way or another.

    (b) What's the bad in this case? He didn't order the drone to crash. So I assume you mean that the "bad" here is that he's not willing to (even assuming we know where the drone carcass is) put boots on the ground to get it back or to bomb Iran? That doesn't sound bad to me.

    (c) I guess. Jimmy is kind of a mainstream diminutive of Jim, though. Farmy child not so much, even for "Farmboy".

    Parent

    heh and heh (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 10:05:29 PM EST
    (a) Perhaps I was wrong but I see your comments as an attempt to down play the damage.

    (b) What's bad? Obama's whole foreign policy for starts.

    (c) I was always taught not to use the diminutive of anyone's name until I personally knew them and understood that it was acceptable.

    He was trying for a not so subtle put down and got it pushed back. If you can't take it, don't pass it out.


    Parent

    Here ya go (none / 0) (#187)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 08:21:23 PM EST
    The design lacks several elements common to stealth engineering, namely notched landing gear doors and sharp leading edges. It has a curved wing platform, and the exhaust is not shielded by the wing. Aviation Week postulates that these elements suggest the designers have avoided 'highly sensitive technologies' due to the near certainty of eventual operational loss inherent with a single engine design and a desire to avoid the risk of compromising leading edge technology.

    Link
    citing Fulghum, David A.; Bill Sweetman (14 December 2009). "Stealth over Afghanistan". Aviation Week (McGraw-Hill): 26-27.

    In the mid 50's we had a transponder that was used to ID friend/foe. They'd call up and tell the pilot what mode to squawk. So it was kinda important that it not fall into enemy hands. It had a self-destruct feature in case of a crash or unauthorized removal.

    Surely we haven't forgot about such things and how to do them..... But it looks like we did.

    If that's your issue, take it up with GWB.  The RQ-170 was operational in 2007.  It was designed under Bush, not Obama.

    You have no knowledge to how much or how little stealth technology has been revealed.

    Ditto, Jim.  You haven't the slightest clue about it, yet you make these accusations.


    And if Obama is going to get credit for the good, he get's blame for the bad. He's CINC.

    Okay, if that's the "logic" we're using - I'll see you the loss of a drone and raise you ....  
    ...9-11.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Typical Yman (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 09:59:50 PM EST
    You have no knowledge to how much or how little stealth technology has been revealed.

    That's a fact.

    And when was the design approved?? I'd say before 2001 if it went operational in 2007.

    But no matter. It was deployed and used during Obama's watch.

    Surely the smartest man in the world should have known better.

    I'll see 9/11 and raise you:

    Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.


    Parent
    YOU would say a lot of things (none / 0) (#201)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:24:21 AM EST
    And when was the design approved?? I'd say before 2001 if it went operational in 2007.

    Most of them, like these, based on nothing more than sheer speculation with zero evidence.  Thanks for making my point.

    You have no knowledge to how much or how little stealth technology has been revealed.

    Exactly my point, Jim - neither do you.  But the experts at Aviation Weekly think it wasn't cutting edge technology, and I'll defer to their expertise rather than your ... imagination.

    I'll see 9/11 and raise you (Clinton/Osama).

    Sorry - It happened on Bush's watch.  That's the standard you're using.

    Heh.

    Parent

    What is your basis for ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:23:33 PM EST
    ... faulting Obama for this?  The fact that there's no self-destruct mechanism, or something else?

    Parent
    Obama took the credit for (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    killing bin Ladin....

    He can take the blame for this.

    Turn about is fair play.

    ;-)

    Parent

    As Obama ordered the killing of bin Laden, (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Farmboy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:22:34 PM EST
    your latest argument is that Obama ordered the loss of the drone?

    I can't quite tell: are you playing the Obama is really dumb card, or the Obama is a traitor to 'murka card? Either way, it doesn't help your earlier post about Obama being such a wussy for employing diplomacy.

    Parent

    Yes, he did order that there drone (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    be done in....I knows it to be true.  He is a Moslem and can't be trusted....

    Parent
    I see that you have now (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:07:11 PM EST
    moved into writing things I never said.

    Congratulations on find the typical default position of people who don't want to debate, just snark.

    Parent

    Seriously - trying to figure ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 08:05:23 PM EST
    ... out your logic on this one.

    You were suggesting that he's responsible because either: 1) there's no way destroy the drone, or 2) as C-in-C, and he's responsible for everything that happens on his watch.

    Although I understand why you're now reluctant to actually say it ...

    Parent

    And? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said.

    You wouldn't expect the government to ask for it back?  He didn't say he expected Iran to return it, but asking another government to return it seems like a logical first step.

    Parent

    Maybe Pres. Obama will fulfill (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:43:52 PM EST
    his campaign debate promise and personally go to Iran and request return of our drone.  

    Parent
    Jeralyn, every night (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:46:05 PM EST
    I make an image of my hard drive onto a USB drive. I have a scheduled task set up to run the backup while I'm asleep.

    If I ever have a problem like this I can restore the entire system from the backup within an hour.

    You can image your system using Norton Ghost, or with the free version of Macrium Reflect which I use. There is also other imaging software out there that will do the same thin.

    It's saved me hours of work and frustration at times.

    Okay when I read this I assumed (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    that USB equaled thumb/drive drive.  But you meant an external hard drive, right?

    Parent
    Well, you could (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    buy a USB thumb drive big enough, and that would work fine.

    I use a 300MB Seagate Free Agent External Hard Drive, connected to a USB port.

    My disk images are compressed - about 30MB, so I can keep ten days worth of backups at any one time.

    Parent

    I don't think they make thumb drives (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:19:15 PM EST
    big enough for my computer -- which is why I was a bit taken aback :)

    I have a big old giant external drive that IS big enough, but, I'm embarassed to say, I haven't done a full back up in far too long.  I will rectify as soon as I get home...

    Parent

    I just bought (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    a 16 GIG thumb from BJ'S.

    Incredible, isn't it? That tiny device has about 10,000 times more memory capacity than my first 5 computers....combined.

    Check'm out, they're getting bigger (capacity) and cheaper by the day.

    Parent

    Oh, forgot (none / 0) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:35:57 PM EST
    it was less than 20 bucks

    Parent
    There is an old saying (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:24:42 PM EST
    in the industry...

    Q: What's the worst thing your sysadmin could ever say to you?

    A: Go get your backup. You DO have a backup, right?

    Parent

    I was always taught the ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    3-2-1 back-up theory:

    3 copies of everything.

    2 copies local.  One hard.  One soft.

    1 copy offsite.

    Parent

    At Work (none / 0) (#132)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:59:04 PM EST
    We have a back-up in Dallas and North Carolina, just in case Houston and Dallas are ever incapacitated at the same time.

    I always say, we got bigger problems if that would ever happen, like who in hell would they be backing the data up for.

    Not sure beyond an extremely expensive cloud application how one at home would ever have an offsite back-up at home.  I back-up around 850GB's at home.

    Google Music actually has free cloud service and your music is available anywhere you have an internet connection.  I think they will store up to 60GB's for free.

    Parent

    Off Topic (none / 0) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    sj, I posted a reply on Friday in regards to why hitting the 401k is really a bad decision, if you are interested.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#133)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    I'll peruse this evening.

    Parent
    typos (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:25:25 PM EST
    that GB for each of them.... not MB

    Parent
    A note for anyone interested (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Towanda on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    in purchasing an external hard drive:  Act fast!

    Supply and demand rules apply, and prices are starting to go up, we are told at my worksite, as supply of hard drives has been hard hit, because most are made in Bangkok, and plants are flooded.

    Parent

    I Have an Automatic Back-Up of Important Files (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    Namely because the image doesn't break the files out, which is important to me, and/or you could be copying a latent virus with the image.  Then maybe once a month I back those up to an unattached hard drive.

    Pretty sure Windows has this built into the functionality as well, the image back-up, and if I am not mistaken, you actually have to make several clicks to cancel it.

    I also have a gadget of CPU usage, if the that starts going nuts, I will open the restore program and open it to the day of a couple days before.  Not sure if I got viruses, but my CPU is pretty heavy duty and very few programs should be any sort of strain on it.  Certainly not my browser.

    Sounds like a lot of work, it's really not.  Trust me when I say this, once you lose all of it a virus, you will find the process a lot less troublesome.  Like 8 years ago I lost a lot of pics because of a virus, and last year I lost an old computer to a virus.  The difference is last year I had everything important backed up and losing a computer I was going to replace wasn't a big deal.

    No virus protection is fail safe, even companies that spend a lot of cash get hit.

    Parent

    One of the reasons I chose Macrium (none / 0) (#138)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:14:26 PM EST
    is that I can explore the images it creates, and pull single files out of them if I need to...

    Parent
    Didn't Now That (none / 0) (#191)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 09:54:14 PM EST
    Very cool, will have to check it out.

    Parent
    It adds (none / 0) (#194)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    an "Explore Image" link to the right click context menu on the image files it creates. Clicking the link opens a prompt for you to assign a logical drive letter to the image you want to browse through.

    It's nice software. Also adds a "Restore Partition" link to the context menu, but I don't use it. I use a linux boot CD (which you make with the Macrium program) to run the Macrium Restore, so complete restores are easy and virtually unattended once you start them. You only need to intervene if you had imaged multiple partitions or drives in a backup run.

    Parent

    Keeping it simple (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    Since OWS perplexes many people, including myself, I've been trying to research a little deeper into the organization to find out something about their core tenets. We all know the basics: fairness, eliminating exploitation, true equal opportunity, etc, etc. But, I knew that from the very beginning, just intuitively, for want of a better word.

    But there's more. I've volunteered some explanations as to why there are no demands, no negotiations, no glimpse really, of "what they want." (other than the basic decency mentioned before) I said that if they succumbed to stating a demand, or a list of demands, it would greatly narrow the scope of their real goal. And that goal is, a completely new society. Not "fixing" this one, but wiping it out, and building a new one.

    Obviously, if they said that now, the 1% would replace the rubber bullets with full metal jacketed ones.

    There's more, but I can't get into it right now.

    Stay tuned

    If the goal is a new society (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    I think OWS is doomed to fail.

    I hope that they become more focused.  I do not think that people will start shooting them if they do.

    Parent

    "I think OWS is doomed to fail." (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    "--if the goal is a new society."  I think that we would need to know more about what is meant by a "new society."  It seems to me that achieving greater economic fairness and equity would involve development of new organizational and governmental patterns of relationships and interactions.  If capitalism to be yin to democracy's yang, there needs to be a fair and equitable opportunity for members of the society and provision for those less able to compete, for any number of reasons.  Hence, I am not willing to make the same conclusion as you do at this point

    Parent
    Well, the first thing (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:44:18 PM EST
    we have to accept if any meaningful dialogue is to take place is that this a "movement." You say it will fail if "changing society" is the goal. But, if the time frame is, let's say 100 years, you might think differently.

    You know as well as I do that blogs aren't the best forum for in depth, complicated discussion about serious matters. I think the important point to take from this movement, at this stage, is to calm down, slow down, and expand the horizon of possibilities, and the forms, it may take.

    That's enough for now.

    After all, slaves as free citizens was inconceivable, impossible. And, it was.....if the framework was right now, today!!

    Check the White House lately?

    Parent

    So then you think (none / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:20:55 PM EST
    that "people" will start shooting them if they don't become more "focused"?

    Parent
    SJ (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    No.

    I believe that no one shoots anyone with real bullets in response to OWS taking any position despite this quote above:

    "Obviously, if they said that now, the 1% would replace the rubber bullets with full metal jacketed ones."

    You are trying too hard.

    Parent

    Or maybe you (none / 0) (#56)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    weren't trying hard enough to be clear.  I'm not reading thread top to bottom.  Stopping in when on wait for processes to complete.  I read your comment on a standalone basis.  

    ::shrug:: thanks for the clarification.

    Parent

    SJ (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:44:52 PM EST
    I am kind of defensive around these parts. I probably shouldn't be. Sorry.

    Parent
    See Glenn Greenwald's post re local (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    law enforcement calling in ICE drone to apprehend suspected cattle thieves.

    Drone sellers state drones being equipped to fire rubber bullets and taser.  Not pretty.  Prediction:  this technology may be unleashed on large groups of OWS.  

    Parent

    Thanks -- I hadn't gotten to that yet til now (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:40:08 PM EST
    There is a special place in the Universe for Glenn.  He truly is an absolutely fearless voice of one crying in the wilderness.

    It sounds pompous but it's true -- I am humbled by his voice, and the courage he has to use it.

    Parent

    I read the initial article in LAT and (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    posted it here.  But no replies--surprising.  

    Parent
    What is there to say, in a way (none / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:37:09 PM EST
    It makes my head ache and my heart hurt.  It's difficult to live with a certain amount of adrenaline always coursing through your system.

    But I was also surprised that there wasn't more discussion. There wasn't any from me because I hadn't yet read his column so I'm not in a position to be critical...

    Parent

    I don't like Glenn (none / 0) (#149)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:29:53 PM EST
    But that shouldn't surprise.  I think his heart is in the right place but he writes from a position of ideals and not reality.

    Close Gitmo tomorrow? Of course.
    Reverse the Patriot Act? Just do it.

    Etc.

    He's very weak on the "how do we do it" part.

    Parent

    While I understand that you might (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    dislike Glenn Greenwald, I do not understand the basis for your dislike being that he writes from "a position of ideals and not reality" --unless, of course, you dislike his ideals.   Glenn's writings stem from his knowledge and interpretation of national and international law and his keen moral compass.  Although I do not subscribe to the argument that he is "very weak on the how we do it part," that does not seem to be what he tries to accomplish as a prime goal in any event.   Moreover, he does not advocate for the instantaneous closure of Guantanamo, as a location, as tainted as that prison has become, thanks to the Bush administration, but to stop abuses "tomorrow."   Most importantly, Glenn 's writings have the primary purpose of serving the Constitution.

    Parent
    Wait - do you mean Glen ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    I think his heart is in the right place but he writes from a position of ideals and not reality.

    Close Gitmo tomorrow? Of course.

    ... or Obama?

    Parent

    Speaking of shooting (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    The Portland police arrested two guys last night who had a gun and a sword in their car.

    Parent
    you must've run out (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    of bandwidth before finishing the story.

    The TWO GUY!!! had nothing to do with OWS.

    Of course, you didn't SAY they did, just thought we'd be interested about two guys being arrested somewhere.

    Thanks, that was interesting.


    Parent

    That's being used as an excuse (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    to let them disrupt ordinary people's lives.

    But hey, it's just Christmas. Why would Joe and Jane care about a short paycheck?

    Parent

    "That's being used as an excuse (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    to let them disrupt ordinary people's lives."

    Yup, that Martin Luther King, a real "disrupter (or is that disruptor?)

    yeah....live'n let live, things will work out. Homeless are starving anyway, what's a few more days?

    we'll get to the freedom crap after K-Mart's 2 fer 1 sale-o-thon.

    I'm a Christian, dammit! Now, get the He!! outta my way, go disrupt someone else.

    oh, and Merry xmas.....ho ho

    Parent

    Two? (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    I thought there can be only one.

    Parent
    Here is what they want in their words (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:47:55 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    Read this... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    In 2008, Barack Obama lit a fire among young activists. Next year, Occupy Wall Street could consume him.

    Parent
    I read that (none / 0) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    seems really silly.

    It assumes that O hasn't already begun the process of incoporating ows concerns into his campaign strategy.

    He can't be seen as embracing ows but needs to be seen as being sympathetic to their cause.

    If he plays it correctly, he will campaign as a person on the side of the 1% while ows provides enough space from him that he isn't tarred by the negatives of the group.

    Fine line to walk but one clearly possible based on his non-partisanpositioning.

    If Obama sold hadn't tried to take a pragmatic approach, he wouldn't have this option.  Again this is where the blows he took for bipartisanship pay off.  He can honestly say that he tried his best to find a middle ground.  That much is obvious.

    Parent

    He'll say (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    all the right soaring words, as he already has multiple times, and they'll be absolute bullsh*t.

    He gives good speech. People nod off smiling.

    Parent

    Well, no one ever said Obama wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    good at adopting the right rhetoric for the moment - he is a politician, after all - but what's sad is your complete embrace of rhetoric as a substitute for policy and action, in service to the glory of a political win.  

    How very fortunate for Obama that he has the option of playing a man of the people instead of actually being one; way too much aggravation in the latter, you know?  Far better to play the part, and work on his responses to criticism from the radical-uber-loony liberals: (1) the sincere shrug and the suitably rueful expression that will accompany it, and (2) the paternalistic lecture that is accompanied by either the (a) looking-down-his-nose expression or (b), the now-I'm-pissed-off expression.

    If he wins, and when he abandons all that populist rhetoric for his real comfort zone - somewhere distinctly to the right of center (a center which itself has already moved to the right) - I am confident you will be prepared with a host of excuses why he simply had no choice.

    Ugh.


    Parent

    In fairness (3.00 / 1) (#129)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:52:34 PM EST
    my thinking is pretty clear these days:

    1. The left will never be happy with him. Ever. No matter what he does.

    2. He couldn't execute the left's goals even if he wanted to.  The GOP will not allow him.

    3. His first priority is to stay in power and then to work as best as he can during the next term.

    With all of that in mind, my preferred strategy for him is to play to the largest base he can get fired up (moderate/left), win and then not worry about disappointing folks when he has to.

    It would be different if the left or the right were fair in their evaluation, but he's simultaneously a communist, socialist, marxist AND a big government, wall street loving, money and power hungry member of the 1% support group.

    I say forget all of the people making those views and play to those who are reasonable.

    Why work to win y9our vote Anne? You will never give him a real opportunity at this point so he should just go the route of ticking you off.

    It's not like you are going to advocate more loudly against him.  Folks like you are pretty much at Max-Anti-Obama levels right now.  

    He should focus on those who will give him a fair shot, which is actually a large block of the public.  People like the guy, they think he's trying pretty hard to make it work, but they want results. He should focus on asking them to look at his progress and extrapolate that into the future.

    And he can embrace some fundamental ows goals in doing that.  If you hate it, so be it. I don't think people with your ideas of him matter in this election.  YOu've placed yourself on the sidelines and have little influence.

    Parent

    Pay attention (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:01:55 PM EST
    He should focus on those who will give him a fair shot, which is actually a large block of the public

    The public like him? You know I think many of those polled just say that so they can't be called racist.

    But in any event, the public feels that he has been given a fair shot, and failed.

    Parent

    You see Jim (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:32:14 PM EST
    There are things we agree on.

    the public feels that he has been given a fair shot, and failed.

    If he hadn't spent the past three years pursuing his batsh*t crazy idea that doing everything he could to pre-emptively give batsh*t crazy republicans everything he knew they would demand and more, he'd be looking at a landslide win next year and he'd be batting republicans off like the pesky mosquitoes they are.

    But no. Now he figures that giving in even more to republicans is his best re-election strategy.

    The guy's delusional. A pre-emptive failure.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    Let me see... yes, the Repubs wanted high energy prices, a health care system that will destroy Medicare......

    lol

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:18:05 PM EST
    they did. Even Newt was for mandates before he was against them. All of this was whacko GOP policy from the 90's except for maybe repealing DADT. Obama is a supply sider much in the same vein as many Republicans. The truth is that Obama has failed with the economy because supply side economics is a failure. Too bad he STILL hasn't figured that out.

    Parent
    The Reoubs want (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 07:33:07 PM EST
    high oil prices???

    Puleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

    Parent

    high oil prices (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by womanwarrior on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 12:23:56 AM EST
    They own the oil wells and refineries, don't they?

    Parent
    Didn't (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:22:39 AM EST
    prices start skyrocketing under Bush? Yeah, prices went up and profits went through the roof for the oil companies so yeah, it's not too logical a leap to think that two oilmen would want that for the their campaign donors.

    Parent
    I recommend (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    Webroot's "Spy Sweeper." Haven't had Malware or Trojan problem since I installed it.

    BTW - One floating around using email claims to be from American Airlines support.. Provides some scant details re a flight and the charges to your credit card. Provides a download link for more details.

    If you hit the download you're toast.

    I called AA and they acknowledged it and said they hoped I didn't fall for it.  I hadn't.

    Also... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:47:09 PM EST
    a faux Fedex and faux Verizon email containing a virus floating around.

    Parent
    This guy (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    nails it re. the new MLB press "dress code".

    This quote in particular:

    "Major League Baseball firmly believes that no reporter should show up to cover a game dressed the way it requires its waitresses to dress for their job serving overpriced beer to the fat cats in the club seats."

    Got that pop-up also (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    First time I got it, it cost me $250 to clean my computer.

    When I saw the pop-up, which mimics MS, come on the screen last night, I shut down and restarted, and it went away.

    let us know if it returns (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    I hope it doesn't, but run a full scan and be sure. Microsoft has some free malware scans. It took 4 hours for it to scan my entire computer so plan on having something else to do in the meantime.

    Parent
    I've had a version of it (none / 0) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:17:21 AM EST
    It's a real bugger to get rid of.

    Malware Bytes Anti Malware (free) will get rid of it, but some versions recognize MBAM so you have to rename it and run it off of a thumb drive.

    Very annoying malware.

    We got hit by that same virus last year, (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    and after we had the computer "cleaned," installed Kaspersky Security, and it's worked great.

    My sympathies to you for the incredible aggravation, not to mention that you now are likely not to trust any kind of message you get that has to do with the security of your computer.

    Combofix probably would've fixed it (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:29:04 AM EST
    In fact, I think it's a good idea to run Combofix even now because there's a good chance you haven't gotten rid of all of the malware.

    But combofix is one of those programs that, if you hit the keyboard at the wrong time, will destroy your computer and make it unrecoverable.

    Segue: "security." Greenwald re (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    local law encorcement's use of drones:  drones

    General Atomic mfg. the Predator drone.  Local employer.  

    That's crazy scary... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34:44 AM EST
    if they'll deploy a Predator (and tasers) over an ownership dispute of 3 measley cows in N. Dakota, we are so f*cked.

    Parent
    Now, now, Dog (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    It was six cows.  Three men, but six cows.  Enough cows, obviously, to completely justify the deployment of a Predator drone.  (/snark)  

    Parent
    I'd abolish the police (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:40:52 PM EST
    especially in rural ranch and farm areas.

    Parent
    That's OK (none / 0) (#34)
    by rdandrea on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    The local Sheriff's office used its toy-helicopter drone here last week looking for pit bulls at a homeless camp.  Impounded two of them, too.

    Parent
    Name of the virus? (none / 0) (#9)
    by vicndabx on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    anyone know the name of this scourge of the internet?

    this is super-belated (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:21:33 PM EST
    and that comment thread went over 200 so I can't say it there, but I wanted to mention that you got me thinking more about the Plan B abuse angle and your point about not wanting to make it "easier to hide" was a good one, and one I hadn't thought of before.

    But in the effort to be totally honest I think what I (and probably others) are worried about is the kid who is having sex, something happens, and mom and dad refuse to let kid get plan B/see a doctor.  That's not abuse per say, but I still don't think a teenager should lose that option because their parents disapprove.  Although I can appreciate that you would want your kids to tell you.

    Parent

    Thanks for respectfully disagreeing. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by vicndabx on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    I had wanted to finish that discussion also, particularly in light of some of the responses I got, but as you note, full thread.

    We're all in agreement here, I feel at-risk kids should be able to get it too.  But...thru consultation w/a knowledgeable adult, e.g. planned parenthood or some similar organization, if their own parents can't or won't.

    No reason, IMO, why planned parenthood for example can't buy a bunch to keep on hand just for those situations you talk about.


    Parent

    As a teenager in Boston (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CST on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:10:36 PM EST
    where the nearest planned parenthood is a short T-ride away, this would be no problem.

    In other states, or rural areas with less access, it could be.

    Parent

    They'd have an issue anyway though right? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by vicndabx on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:52:37 PM EST
    Those out in the sticks, that is.  Getting to the local pharmacy, local pharmacy not stocking it, etc?  In that scenario, I can see the school guidance counselor or nurse as the point of contact.

    The hormones involved are serious.  SOME knowledgeable adult needs to be involved.  I just can't support the possibility of some 15-year old taking this drug over and over w/o an adult being aware and trying to give the kid a little guidance.  

    I think we abdicate our responsbilities w/r/t "raising the kids in our village".  This, IMO, would be another example.

    Parent

    Couldn't a teenager get a (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    Plan B prescription without her parents' consent?

    Parent
    Can a teenager (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    Get a precription for anything without her parents' consent?  I dunno.  

    I do know that you can't do things like get your ears pierced if you're under 18 without consent.

    Parent

    getting (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    your ears pierced is not a preventative action.

    As to the prescription question - I believe the answer is yes.  I definitely recall some friends getting prescription birth control as teenagers - and I'm 100% sure they didn't tell their parents.  Also, I don't recall my parents being with me whenever I visited the doctor to get a prescription - no matter what it was for.

    Here is a link to a web article that agrees with me.  I just googled and this is what came up, so with all things on the internet - take it how you will.

    Parent

    Getting your ears pierced (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:31:45 PM EST
    Also doesn't happen in a doctor's office and isn't nearly as serious as getting a prescription, but you still need parental permission, was my point.

    I also thought the prevailing meme around here was that teenagers' brains aren't fully developed and they cannot necessarily be responsible to make adult decisions?  

    Parent

    As I understand it, (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:02:00 PM EST
    it is the person with the uterus and ovaries who gets to decide whether or if to seek birth control or anything else related to her reproductive system, and to do so with all the protections of doctor/patient confidentiality - or the anonymity of being able to get it over the counter.

    Which is as it should be, and here's why: because while it's tempting to take the parental approach, where we fear for our child's safety and health and all that other good stuff, eliminating the ability of females to have autonomy over their reproductive systems may start with the best of intentions to protect young girls, but it wouldn't end there.  Soon, everyone would want to have a say in what any female - young, old, single, married - could do with respect to her own body.  Haven't we seen that play before?  Haven't we worked hard to have that autonomy?  And in so many other areas of reproductive health, aren't we still fighting that battle?

    It may well be that a teen's brain isn't fully developed, but I know plenty of women who are well past their teen years whose brains don't seem to have matured, who don't make adult decisions and no one's telling them they need someone else's permission to get birth control - or anything else.

    We either want to prevent unplanned pregnancies and reduce abortion, or we don't.  And while we would all like young girls whose systems are capable of bearing children to have wonderful relationships with the adults in their lives, we need to stop pretending that that's the world we all live in.


    Parent

    stratagems of rhetoric (none / 0) (#142)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    . . . eliminating the ability of females to have autonomy over their reproductive systems may start with the best of intentions to protect young girls, but it wouldn't end there.  Soon, everyone would want to have a say in what any female - young, old, single, married - could do with respect to her own body.  Haven't we seen that play before?  Haven't we worked hard to have that autonomy?  And in so many other areas of reproductive health, aren't we still fighting that battle?

    move from pure speculation (bolded above) to rhetorical questions intended to buttress the speculation

    We either want to prevent unplanned pregnancies and reduce abortion, or we don't.  And while we would all like young girls whose systems are capable of bearing children to have wonderful relationships with the adults in their lives, we need to stop pretending that that's the world we all live in.

    false dichotomy, followed by broad-brush distortion of opposing point(s) of view

    It may well be that a teen's brain isn't fully developed, but I know plenty of women who are well past their teen years whose brains don't seem to have matured, who don't make adult decisions and no one's telling them they need someone else's permission to get birth control - or anything else.

    me, too - & the point, for me, is that they are women, with women's bodies, whereas this decision concerns a health issue because it's about giving powerful hormones -- without a prescription or medical supervision or even the kind of physical workup that might be involved in prescribing ordinary birth control -- to children who may or may not use this medication as intended

    i greatly respect you, Anne, & think i have addressed your comment in a reasoned & respectful way - i appreciate being able to have a balanced discussion here at TL

    Parent

    Maybe some day, eons from now, (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    women's rerpoductive ability won't kick in at such a young age, and more females will actually be closer to being legally adults when decisions have to be made about these things.

    For now, we are stuck with being physically able at ages as young as 10, as if we were still living in caves and had life expectancies in the 30's instead of the 80's, and we needed to get the reproductive show on the road or risk extinction.

    Please don't think I come at this in a cavalier way; I am a mother of two, now 20-something young women, one married and trying to get pregnant and the other engaged and looking ahead to children.  Does this confer any special knowledge on me?  I don't know.  I've run the gamut from trying not to get pregnant to trying to get pregnant, from being pregnant to giving birth, to trying to shepherd two girls through all that puberty puts them through.

    I'm happy we made it through, and some days that seems more miraculous than others, lol.

    I look around at all the states where barriers have been erected to obtaining an abortion, and even to obtaining birth control, where fertilized eggs are getting closer to personhood, and I know as sure as I'm sitting here - or at least I don't think it's unreasonable or overly imaginative to think - that once the debate starts about how "minor" one has to be and still be able to obtain Plan B, there will be people who will be able to argue that we can't take the risk of crossing the line from 18 to 17, much less from 17 to 16 or from 16 to 15, and so on.

    And I guess I'm doing the opposite, in a way.  I'm absolutely horrified at the prospect of an 11-year old needing medication to prevent a possible pregnancy, but I'm also horrified at what happens to her life if she doesn't get the medication.  And so, I find myself asking, well, if 17's not too young, why is 16 too young?  And if you're going to say 16 isn't too young, why would 15 be too young?

    At some point, there you are, crossing the threshold from 12 to 11, and the only argument against doing it is that that's just too young.

    But not too young to get pregnant, sadly.  Are we really going to tell a 12 year old that, sorry, if only you were 13, you could get Plan B and try to prevent something happening that you didn't intend, or that was forced on you?

    I'm not trying to create false dichotomies, and perhaps the either-we-want-to-prevent-abortions-or-we-don't was not the right approach.  But why is the objection to Plan B any different in concept than the objection to sex education, or birth control?

    For me, it's not so much that I'm anxious for 11 year olds to have access to Plan B as it that I fear - I really do - that limiting it when the science shows that it's safe for them ultimately eats away at the autonomy all women would like to have over their reproductive health.

    I wish these girls, the 10 - 13 year olds, weren't having sex, or being raped, or making bad decisions - but they are.  Giving them an option to avoid really sending their lives in the toilet doesn't encourage them to continue their sexual activity - the research supports that, as well - but it can avoid the health risks associated with both abortion and pregnancy/childbirth - and those are real risks, too.

    Hope my expanding on my original comments helps; if not, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - something that doesn't happen often, as I almost always agree with the points you make on other issues.


    Parent

    i think we agree (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:15:08 PM EST
    in every respect about the ends

    we disagree on the means

    i did say earlier that i wish the decision had made Plan B OTC for ages 14 & up

    & thanks for sharing those details about yourself as a mother & prospective mother

    like you, i don't come in a cavalier way to my position

    in 1967 (pre-Roe v. Wade), my older sister, as a college freshman, living away from our very strict parents for the first time, got pregnant during her first week of school, the first time she had intercourse

    she told our parents, & the decision was made to secretly send her to live with an aunt in our city, & then later to a "home" for "unwed mothers" in a neighboring state

    i only found out about this as an adult in my 30s

    my sister had her baby, & by that time our conservative parents had decided (yes, belatedly: such was the fear of social ostracism in that day) to adopt the little girl - but somehow they all miscommunicated, & our parents found out that my sister, only hours before, had already signed the papers to put her baby up for adoption

    it broke my sister's heart, & our mother was "haunted" till the day she died by the loss of that child

    i'm crying myself as i type this

    Parent

    Oh, Addams Family - that's awful. (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:04:13 AM EST
    Something very similar happened with my husband's sister, and it did damage to his family that has never been repaired.

    Dynamic of the family was, stern and authoritative and much older father who traveled a lot and wasn't home much, and overly-permissive mother who pretty much let her children do whatever they wanted.  Daughter gets pregnant, and not only does she get shipped out of state to have the baby, her father pretty much disowns her - "never darken our door again" kind of thing that her Mom can't seem to undo.  My husband was 16 at the time, and his brother was 11.

    Daughter has baby - my husband is the only member of the family who ever saw him - and baby is given up for adoption.

    Daughter is never really the same.  Has two failed marriages, desperately wants children, but doesn't get pregnant until she meets - and eventually marries - husband #3 (a psychologist who knew her history and yet, when she got pregnant, told her maybe this wasn't the best time to have a child and she should have an abortion - he backed off that position, married her and their son is now 26 years old).

    My husband's father died before he and his daughter could have any kind of reconciliation, so that baggage is alive and well - and she takes it all out and flogs my husband with it in some fashion whenever they are together, which isn't often.  Their mother died over 30 years ago.

    She ended up searching for, and finding, the baby she gave up, and she has a relationship with him, which was probably all she ever wanted.

    Bottom line here is that there was more going on than "just" my sister-in-law getting pregnant - the family dynamic played a role, for sure.  

    So, you and I have both seen the effects of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, and while your sister and my sister-in-law were older - my sister-in-law was 17, I believe - the damage and toll it took on their families was shattering - and continues to this day in ways large and small.

    Thank you for sharing and giving me more insight into where you're coming from.

    Parent

    Very sad. The Florence Crittendon (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 12:53:36 AM EST
    Home for Unwed Mothers era.  

    Parent
    Thank you for making the exact same points (none / 0) (#148)
    by vicndabx on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    I was going to make.

    Parent
    What about requiring a prescription? (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    It would be less convenient but we don't give a lot of drugs over the counter.

    And with respect to abortions, we do want women (and girls) to have them safely, which means by a doctor.  So why not extend that reasoning to Plan B?

    I suppose Planned Parenthood does not want the liability of giving presciptions to minors, so and over the counter Plan B would make it easier.

    Parent

    The recommendation was for no (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    prescriptions for anyone. Sebelius decided to ignore the science, and mandate that females under 17 could get Plan B only with a prescription.

    Since Plan B must be taken with 3 days of intercourse, Sebelius pretty much put it beyond the realistic reach of anyone under 17. I disagree with her decision for many reasons.

    The scientists on the panel were in agreement that Plan B was safe for all to take regardless of age. And Sebelius did not base her decision on science, but rather on politics. And to my mind that is never a good thing. It was wrong when Bush did it, and it is wrong when Obama does it.

    Everyone wishes that all girls had good relationships with their parents and felt safe turning to their parents in times of crisis. That is a wish, though, not reality. I do wonder just what kind of relationship a 10 or 11 or 12 year old girl has with her parents if that child is having sex and getting pregnant.  

    I've read the comments that express concern for the physical toll PLan B might take on these young bodies. The concern for me is the well-known toll pregnancy takes on a young body. Young girls are physically devastated by pregnancy. Their bodies, while able to conceive, are far from ready to carry a pregnancy to term. Their bodies are too under-developed. They still need all the nourishment they can get to facilitate their own growth. Adding a pregnancy into the mix sets up a competition for nourishment between the girl and the fetus, a competition where they both lose. And that is all before the girl tries to deliver a baby.

    A young girl's body is not ready to deliver a baby. Her hips are not ready, her pelvis is not ready. She is too small.

    Given what we know about the ability of the young to ignore and deny that which they do not want to be true, there would still be many girls who did not get Plan B. Still, it seems unconscionable to me to place it beyond the reach of anyone who might need it.

    And to do so for political reasons is unforgiveable.


    Parent

    3 days does make a prescription (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 08:52:49 PM EST
    unlikely.

    Parent
    You say that (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:44:43 PM EST
    all the time, but I disagree.  I thought the prevailing meme was to err on the side of the teenager's defense.

    It's not about whether they are responsible or not.  It's about giving them a chance to grow up.

    I know what your point was, I didn't find it relevant.  There are no real consequences to not piercing your ears.

    Parent

    i found (none / 0) (#130)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    this comment on a self-described feminist site in a thread about the Plan B decision:

    I think I'm gonna go stock up on some Plan B and let all the local teenage girls know that anyone underage can get it at my house.

    what's so revealing is that these could equally be the words of a well-meaning feminist neighbor or of the friendly neighborhood rapist

    the ambiguity of the comment shows that the underlying issue, confusing to many & exploited by some to advance other issues, is the phenomenon of girls having sex before the age of legal consent

    the site in question does attract its share of trolls, but, trolls notwithstanding, the two threads devoted so far to the Plan B decision evince a mind-boggling level of intolerance for the slightest variance from the prescribed response, which is blind rage - mind-boggling hypocrisy, too, from a site that has championed Sarah Palin as a feminist

    Parent

    I thought the question was one of children under (none / 0) (#164)
    by Farmboy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:42:02 PM EST
    17 needing a prescription, not parental consent.

    Regardless, even with the Federal rules staying unchanged states have their own laws and rules for parental consent and parental information, as well as the minimum age for being allowed to have birth control pills.

    And to make it more complicated, Planned Parenthood has their own guidelines that can be stricter than the state laws. For example, here in Iowa any minor girl can be prescribed birth control pills, but PP will only prescribe BCPs at 13, no younger.

    Here's a handy chart that goes state by state.

    Parent

    i may shock (none / 0) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    some of my friends here, but not only do i think the Sebelius/Obama decision on Plan B was indeed "common sense," i think it was a courageous decision, given the predictable uproar & outrage from women's groups - all the more so since the political advantages of the decision are plain to see - it would have been ridiculous for Obama to head into the 2012 campaign with Rush screaming that Obama wants to give your 10-year-old daughter "abortion pills" - but even though the political "common sense" is self-evident, i don't think that is what drove this decision

    one possible interpretation of Secretary Sebelius's statement is that there has not been sufficient testing of whether girls of 10 or 11 will use Plan B as intended, & that there are legal implications of that uncertainty

    to my mind, giving children over-the-counter access to powerful hormones, especially when it's not clear that they will use the medication only as intended, is a health issue - it disheartens me no end to watch some people turn it into a stalking horse for sexual liberation & women's reproductive rights (both of which i fully support, for women)

    i do wish that the decision had made Plan B available over the counter to girls 14 & up

    & i don't know what we do in terms of emergency contraception for the youngest rape victims, or for very young girls whose parents would honor-kill them for having had sex or would force them to go through with a pregnancy - one possibility might be to require a consult with a pharmacist (& make it illegal for that pharmacist to do anything but provide the medication & the necessary information) - but those are problems that call for interventions far beyond giving Plan B over the counter to a child, along with the message that she's on her own

    Parent

    Addams Fam (none / 0) (#131)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    Pretty balanced comment.  Let me shock the world with you and say the opposite.  Obama should have overruled Sebilius.

    I think the upside in terms of decreased abortions was to high to cave.  But I think your analysis politically is correct.

    I just wanted him to take a stand on the issue because no one gives him credit on anything gender related, and I hate to fuel the Obama hates Women narrative.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#135)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:09:47 PM EST
    it must be a damned cold day in hell

    I just wanted him to take a stand on the issue because no one gives him credit on anything gender related, and I hate to fuel the Obama hates Women narrative.

    where some people are concerned, i don't think Obama has to do or not do anything to fuel that narrative - i hasten to assert that i don't think those people comment here at TL

    i was interested in reading a range of feminist opinion on the Plan B question & perused a number of well-known feminist sites over the weekend but found some of them to be a sewer - it was quite shocking to me - made me want to send you on a mission to kick some P*MA @ass, seriously

    because if reasonable people were going to be called trolls for not being fundamentalist rageaholics, why not throw a real troll into the mix ;)

    Parent

    It's "name" (none / 0) (#40)
    by rdandrea on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    is a generic family name:  Fake Windows Security Center.  It's not a virus, per se, it's more in the malware genre as it's not self replicating.  And there are lots of variants of it.

    It's hard to get rid of because it attaches itself to a low-level device driver, which loads before windows loads (about when the windows splash screen is up).  So you can't even boot up in safe mode to run your anti-malware program.

    There's an old discussion of it here, from a couple of years ago when it first came out.

    Parent

    when it hit me (none / 0) (#45)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    it was called Microsoft Total Security

    Parent
    the new one is (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    something like vista 2012. Microsoft offers Security Essentials for free and testing programs.

    Yes, it was malware (I didn't realize that's different than a virus.) They both infect your system.

    I was able to download stopzilla but could only run it by booting up in safe mode. So safe mode does work. But all of the fixes suggested by Malware Bytes (except for putting the registry fix on a flash drive on a clean computer and then installing it on the infected one) didn't work because everything had been co-pted by the malware.

    Parent

    I think that's what mine was called as well (none / 0) (#51)
    by rdandrea on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    There are lots of variants.

    That writeup link I posted is old.  The variant I had was still present even in Safe Mode.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#105)
    by vicndabx on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    Link to MS page w/more info for those interested.

    Parent
    Microsoft Windows (none / 0) (#74)
    by Andreas on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    If you use Microsoft Windows you should expect to waste time with viruses, worms etc.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#13)
    by fiver on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:25:55 PM EST
    that's a nasty one...got it on my brothers computer once...didn't even open a file or anything (that I know of).

    In a startling and heartwarming display (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    of courage and moxy people all over America actually raised their eyebrows for a minute or so last week at the announcement of the coming indefinite detention of Americans section of the 2012 NDAA.

    There were unsubstantiated rumors that the Peoria Journal Star newspaper received a panicked call from a local man reporting that a woman in his neighborhood lost control and dropped her nail file on hearing the news, but that after a hurried conference with an unnamed Homeland Security official the Star's editor declined to run the story out of concern that public order might break down in the city.

    Fascism obviously has no chance in America. No chance.

    People are fighters. They don't just roll over for travesties like this. In some places they even put the words "Live Free or Die" on their license plates. And they raise their eyebrows for a minute. Before changing the channel.

    They are secure in the knowledge that Obama will veto the 862 page 2012 National Defense Authorization Act rather than sign indefinite detention of Americans into law creating the most powerful fascist state in history.

    No way are Americans getting down on their knees for this. They'll change the channel before they'll do that.

    Just you watch....

    Everyone Should See "Torturing Democracy"
    by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

    Carl Levin... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:40:16 PM EST
    speaking in the Senate, recorded by CSPAN:

    "[T]he language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the Administration asked us to remove the language, which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section"

    Petition on WhiteHouse.gov:

    We petition the Obama administration to:
    Explain why you requested Citizens included in NDAA 1031 imprisonment without trial, as confirmed on C-SPAN


    Parent
    NPR asked Brennan last week what (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    the Admins. wanted in addition to Feinstein amendment.  Brennan did not answer the question directly.  Looks like Admins. wants to be able to detain those legally in U.S. on U.S. soil.  

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:49:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Packer Stock Anyone ? (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    $250 + $25 handling fee, not good for much but you do get a vote and of course become a partial owner. HERE

    Please don't flag this as a violation since I have nothing to do with it except for my love of the Green Bay Packers.

    Sounds like a scam. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    COMMON STOCK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN INVESTMENT IN "STOCK" IN THE COMMON SENSE OF THE TERM.

    PURCHASERS SHOULD NOT PURCHASE COMMON STOCK WITH THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A PROFIT.



    Parent
    Not a scam at all. This is easy to check (none / 0) (#98)
    by Towanda on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    in a second, at the link, in googling the news, etc., as this was publicized a lot prior to the sale -- only the fifth time in almost a century of glorious green-and-gold history of the team owned by the townspeople . . . and now by others as well.

    Parent
    Jim (none / 0) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:03:06 PM EST
    Its like all Packer stock offerings, a donation/collectable with the right to vote on Board Members.

    They clearly state it's not for any sort of investment opportunity, it's chance to become an owner and to support the team.  Plus the funds generated are for a specific purpose, enhancing the stadium, they don't get intermingled with general funds.

    To me this is awesome, for football fans it's a time to put-up or shut-up and for people who aren't fans, or can't afford it, they aren't forced by the city to support football via taxes, like most cities.

    The 'scam' is just about sold out, and at 250,000 shares, they will generate $62.5 million for stadium upgrades, and they did it voluntarily.

    If you weren't so simple, your republican nature would realize this one is a wet dream, 'no stadium taxes', yet millions for stadium upgrades.

    Parent

    So I should care that the Pack's (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:07:10 PM EST
    stadium gets upgraded????

    Puleeeeeze.

    And you think it takes a Repub to say, "Actually, I don't care what happens to a stadium in a city in which I do not live."

    BTW - In your last giggle session I asked you to show your abilities by picking one problem we have as a country and propose a workable solution.

    I haven't seen one.

    Maybe it is just old worn out Social Liberals who can do things like that.

    Your turn, if you wanna play.

    Parent

    crickets from down Houston way (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    Thought so.

    All giggle and no cattle.

    Parent

    Virus (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    Do you know how you got it, that would be especially helpful in preventing it.

    don't know how Jeralyn got it (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:28:25 PM EST
    but i got it by clicking the "close" button on the pop-up

    i figured it was a scam but my fingers hit the "close" button in response to that perception, & that was my mistake

    with more presence of mind, i would have hit ctrl + alt + delete to open Task Manager & kill the program from there

    but who would know to do that when the pop-up uses the Microsoft Security shield icon & calls itself Microsoft Total Security & says the computer is infected?

    Parent

    it came either (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    from links I clicked on for the money laundering post or links to drug cartel cases. There were hundreds, if not more, links I checked on. And many foreign ones. When you're always seeking that one extra piece of information, sometimes it gets the better of you and you click on a site you don't know. I've learned my lesson now though. I'm not even reading emails unless I know who they are from and they have a meaningful subject line.

    Parent
    Run a good antivirus program (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    Avast is good, and free.

    And NEVER open an email attachment from someone you don't know.

    Parent

    everyone i know (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:11:22 PM EST
    who got this virus was already running McAfee or Norton or another well-known antivirus program, but maybe those are not on your list of "good" antivirus programs

    Parent
    They're ok I guess (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:33:56 PM EST
    I've used them in the past as well as FProt which I liked.

    I've been using Avast for about five years now - I normally have 50-60 web sites open at any given time and I get maybe 400 or so emails every day - and I have have zero virus infections in that time.

    Avast has caught and quarantined about five spam emails containing viruses in the past three hours for me here today. Usually any given day it'll catch 2 or 3.

    I also turn off the WinXP one way firewall, run a Sygate two way firewall, and turn off Microsoft automatic updates.

    And run AdAware.

    Parent

    Heck, sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    you shouldn't open an email attachment from someone you DO know.  

    If the email looks atypical and generic and is sent to large numbers of contacts DON'T OPEN IT.  

    Even if it's sent from me as happened last week.  I'm pretty careful so I was mightily pi$$ed off that my email account was compromised.  

    Appears to be okay now, but you never know.

    Parent

    I have a.t. & t. (none / 0) (#106)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:02:34 PM EST
    as my carrier, and they automatically scan all emails for viruses. never had a problem.

    costs 7.95/mo.

    Parent

    This wasn't a virus exactly (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:05:02 PM EST
    it was spam from my account to every contact sending out a link to who-knows-what.

    Would it have caught that?  

    Parent

    you're talking (none / 0) (#126)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:47:04 PM EST
    to the the one person on the planet that knows less about these things than anyone here, but my brother, the Harvard, MIT, Berkeley Phd physicist says it will.
    So, if it doesn't, sue him, not me:)


    Parent
    Anyone watch "Luck" last night? (none / 0) (#79)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:57:19 PM EST
    I'm extremely jealous of HBO subscribers today.  I love David Milch and find horse racing (and horse track gambling) fascinating.  I'm hoping to have HBO by the time it "really" premieres.

    Looks very cool... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    I plan on On-Demanding it up tonight or later in the week.

    Nick Nolte & Dustin Hoffman in a track-based gambling drama?  Sign me up!

    Parent

    Prevx 3.0 (none / 0) (#166)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:57:54 PM EST
    My wife the network specialist swears by it, and it's nabbed everything so far on our home computers.  Much better than any security software we'd previously used.

    Monday Open Thread | 202 comments (202 topical)