Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Travel day for me.

Open Thread.

< Rod Blagojevich Asks For RDAP Program in Prison | Report: U.S. Death Sentences Decline in 2011 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Continuing our race to the bottom (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:27:10 AM EST
    1 in 2 Americans are now poor or low income.  That's 50%. Half of our residents are now poor or low income.

    And don't miss the compassion and concern from the requisite, soulless Heritage Foundation ghoul. Don't you just love the "get a job" directive in an article talking about people looking for work for months?

    But no worries, cause the "job creators" are doing really, really well.  I'm sure those jobs are going to be coming real soon.  Right after another rope in the safety net is cut.

    That's really hard to get my head around. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:09:59 AM EST
    There are no excuses for this, none.  

    But I'm sure our resident apologist will be along any minute now to provide some...assuming his most recent rhetorical contortions haven't put him in traction.


    Intersting new study out a couple of days ago (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    Why do we stick up for a system or institution we live in--a government, company, or marriage--even when anyone else can see it is failing miserably? Why do we resist change even when the system is corrupt or unjust? A new article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, illuminates the conditions under which we're motivated to defend the status quo--a process called "system justification."

    System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be."
    When we feel we can't escape a system, we adapt. That includes feeling okay about things we might otherwise consider undesirable. The authors note one study in which participants were told that men's salaries in their country are 20% higher than women's. Rather than implicate an unfair system, those who felt they couldn't emigrate chalked up the wage gap to innate differences between the sexes. "You'd think that when people are stuck with a system, they'd want to change it more," says Kay. But in fact, the more stuck they are, the more likely are they to explain away its shortcomings. Finally, a related phenomenon: The less control people feel over their own lives, the more they endorse systems and leaders that offer a sense of order.

    The research on system justification can enlighten those who are frustrated when people don't rise up in what would seem their own best interests. Says Kay: "If you want to understand how to get social change to happen, you need to understand the conditions that make people resist change and what makes them open to acknowledging that change might be a necessity."

    December 12, 2011
    For Immediate Release
    Association for Psychological Science
    Why Do People Defend Unjust, Inept, and Corrupt Systems?


    We normalize the abnormal and accept (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    the unacceptable as a means of both mental and physical survival, otherwise, it would be impossible to get out of bed in the morning.  

    We've grown used to being at war - and while I cheer the return of our troops from Iraq, I do so with one eye cast at Iran, at Syria, at Libya, at Pakistan, fearful that we may be getting out of one theater of operation, only to be gearing up for new ones, more overt ones.  I mean, why not - we're already used to spending billions and billions on war, so why not just keep doing it?

    We've become indifferent to being spied on, having our movements tracked, our license plates photographed, our spending habits tracked, because we live in a world where we've willingly given up our rights to privacy in order to be safe from whatever it is the powers-that-be tell us we must fear.  

    We've become a nation of people who've come to believe that whatever is happening on any given day is all we can hope for; maybe the new campaign slogan should be, "It Is What It Is," because that's what we've been psychologically and economically beaten down to.

    Movements like Occupy force all of us out of our stupor a bit, and threaten the mental balancing act we have to engage in in order to preserve our sanity and not fall off the treadmill we know we're on.

    It's too depressing for words.


    It's a little like Stockholm Syndome (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:41:21 PM EST
    Or a lot like, rather....

    Brought to You by Corporate America (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    How else does one explain broke A people fighting for Corporations and Millionaires.

    Now, he's hell-bent for destruction, he's afraid and confused
    And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill
    All he believe are his eyes
    And his eyes, they just tell him lies.
     - Bob Dylan

    A holiday story by Dadler (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    Meant to tell you I read (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    the story yesterday, and really enjoyed it; you were able to capture the effects of the economy, a lot of emotion and feeling, inner conflict and the dynamic in several relationships, all within a relatively small framework and in a way that didn't seem forced.

    No small task, that, so well done!


    You write well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    I'm in such a glum mood though today...I have an Annie before Mel hangover of sorts.

    What does your last sentence mean???? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    From Dadler's story (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    I feel antisocial at the moment.  If someone knocks on the door today I feel inclined to pretend that I'm not home.

    True, Dadler, it's not really about the holidays, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    but it is still a sweet tale that brought a tear to these sentimental Irish eyes.

    You've got a way with words, my friend.


    Difficult times (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:03:32 AM EST
    Watching some Liberals seemingly sell their souls to the devil holding up Obama's military brags.  Protecting the nation is necessary, but I can't celebrate it and talk about what a great Special Operations fit Petraeus and McRaven are for Obama.  They always leave out McChrystal too who was cut from the same cloth, walked the same chalk, only with a loose tongue and a looser ego...or was that an ego on the loose?

    I miss the days that seemed full of irritating training exercises.  I miss the days when they all pretended being at war and pretended being the soldiers they would all need to be one day.  And I do not know to celebrate that we are such great killers.  And I don't ever want my Liberal friends to celebrate that either.

    Amen, MT (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:25:09 AM EST
    And I do not know to celebrate that we are such great killers.  And I don't ever want my Liberal friends to celebrate that either.
    Just: Amen

    Yes, coping with an email war now (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    among family members, started by one who trumpets the pullout of troops from Iraq as all about Obama.

    Others responded with perfectly appropriate emails that expressed sadness for all of the troops lost, concern that contractors still are there, worry about war still waging in Afghanistan, word that  our troops now are on the Syrian border for another war, etc.

    The first poster, the trumpeter, is furious that others do not see this as all about Obama, all about politics, all about the 2012 election -- all about those who wage wars but never actually fight in them.


    Damned If You Do . . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    Obviously, I am thrilled that the war is at an end and sad that so many lives and resources were lost and ruined in the process.

    At the same time, people are constantly demanding to know what promises Obama has fulfilled.

    This is one of the promises. The day that he fulfills that promise, I think it's fair for his supporters to say "this is Obama making good on an important promise, please take note".

    Particularly given the criticisms against him.  


    Don't forget... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    ...this had more to do more with Iraq then the US, they demanded we let American soldiers fall under their criminal justice authority, Obama said no.

    Had they not demanded that, we would still be there.  And as much as I hate everything Iraq, when I read about the Embassy coming under rocket fire ofter with troops there, I have to wonder if everything we put into that mess is all for not because of this early departure.

    Don't get me wrong, I hate the people who put us in the precarious mess far more then the ones taking us out.

    I am glad that decision is not mine to make.  But either way, Libya isn't turning out the way they predicted and Syria is next on the list.  Don't act like Obama has lost his lust of blood yet...

    And the cynic in me never trusted Bush and lately, Obama.  I having flashbacks to 2008, the liberal I voted for is making more and more appearances.  If Paul is on the ballot, he will get my vote as big FU Obama and his BS, I am tired of the never ending lies from both parties.


    Obama has a lust for blood? (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:52:15 AM EST
    C'mon.  That's a little much, right?

    Is it really fullfilling a promise (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    if Obama's administration aggressively tried to renege on that promise but were forced by the Iraq government (IOW outside sources) to adhere to the agreement that the Bush administration negotiated and signed?

    If the Iraq War is over, what do you (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    say we dump the AUMF that justified it in the first place?

    Marcy Wheeler:

    The fact that the Iraq AUMF remains on the books matters. It matters because no matter how many times we wax eloquent about Iraqis controlling their own destiny, Nuri al-Maliki knows that little prevents Obama from bringing in troops again-or dropping drones in his country. Maybe that's why Maliki is doing unfathomable things like laying a wreath at the military cemetery of the country that has occupied and ravaged his country for 8 years.

    And, as I keep noting, the Iraq AUMF serves another purpose. That AUMF's general language on "terrorism" has been used to authorize the use of "war powers" against people the Executive Branch claims are terrorists who have nothing to do with al Qaeda. The Iraq AUMF has been interpreted by the Executive Branch to authorize a war against all so-called terrorists, not just the terrorists who hit us on 9/11. And based on that argument, it was used to authorize the wiretapping of American citizens in the US.

    Credulous journalists may want to accept the Administration's propaganda about the Iraq war ending. But until we take the expanded powers given to the President pursuant to a vile propaganda campaign away from him, the Iraq war is not over. And Obama should not be able to use it as a campaign line until he actually gives up those powers.

    Better oil up, ABG - this one's going to really test your contortionist skills...


    Oiling up... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    Iraqis burn U.S. flags to celebrate troop pullout

    FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Hundreds of Iraqis set alight US and Israeli flags on Wednesday as they celebrated the impending pullout of American forces from the country in the former insurgent bastion of Fallujah.

    Shouting slogans in support of the "resistance," the demonstrators held up banners and placards inscribed with phrases like, "Now we are free" and "Fallujah is the flame of the resistance."

    Surrounded by the Iraqi army, demonstrators carried posters bearing photos of apparent insurgents, faces covered and carrying weapons.

    They also held up pictures of US soldiers killed and military vehicles destroyed in the two major offensives against the city in 2004.

    "We are proud to have driven the occupier out of Iraq, at the cost of enormous sacrifice," said Khalid al-Alwa, the local leader of the Islamic Party, a Sunni Muslim grouping.


    U.S. President Barack Obama, who made an election promise to bring troops home, told Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that Washington will remain a loyal partner after the last troops roll across the Kuwaiti border.

    U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq

    MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
    During town-hall-style meetings with military personnel in Asia [in October], the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, noted that the United States had 40,000 troops in the region, including 23,000 in Kuwait, though the bulk of those serve as logistical support for the forces in Iraq.

    That "region" count does not include Afghanistan, where by the end of 2012 after his drawdown Obama will have only twice as many troops in Afghanistan as were there on the day he was inaugurated.

    I think the total now is that Obama has more troops in the region that Bush ever did even at his height.


    See, it's not about that. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:19:18 AM EST
    It's not about Obama to some people.

    It's about war, about the troops, to them.  

    None of them started the conversation as being about pols' promises.  The one who started the conversation claimed that the thread would be  about war, but then it was not, from his perspective -- or yours.  We know how you do that to threads here, too, so I'm not surprised.

    The elitist view of history is as valid as the social-perspective, sure.  But the former still is the elitist view of history.  That's your perspective, too, and it is valid -- but so are the criticisms of it.


    Of course it is not (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:30:05 AM EST
    about him primarily.  But it can be about him secondarily without it being some slap in the face to the solemnity of the moment.

    The bottom line is that he is being judged based on whether he delivered on his promises. If we are going to kill him every time the employment number creeps up or he makes a compromise that we don't like, we can't declare something as fundamental as ending the war as off limits.  All of these issues we discuss involve lives and families and things that are very serious.  That's why promises about the issues are important.  If he didn't end the war, you'd have no qualms with speaking loudly about that.  It would be ALL about Obama.  If you are going to be fair, you should let the road run both ways.  I think we all understand the lives impact by the war.

    This has nothing to do with elitism.  You are missing the reasons WHY we elected Obama.  The war was my no.1 issue in 2008.  I am thrilled that Obama delivered on my number 1 promise and want him to hear the support loudly from the base.

    We just disagree on this, which is sad because this should be a day in which every dem or liberal is happy with both the president and the actions he is taking.


    No, it turns out that we agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    with my point, which was about the email thread I saw, in which one person kept wanting to make it all about Obama -- not just primarily but all about Obama.

    It's good to know that you now see that this is not all or even primarily about Obama, which backs off from your first response, that was not responsive to the point made.

    But you still don't understand the terms "elitist history" and "social history."


    I must not (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:17:50 PM EST
    understand those terms.  

    Agree, ABG.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    I don't know anyone "celebrating" (and I didn't receive any trumpeted announcements from relatives nor friends.) What I am feeling: Glad that we are finally out of there and relieved that that sorrowful segment of war is over. And, I also took note of the final leavetaking process where there was no bombast (with accomplishment banners or otherwise) and where the somberness reflected, as best we could at this point, what the deception of getting into this war was all about.  

    I'm thankful that the President carried out his promise, his #1 promise, to get us out of Iraq in this way. I'm especially thankful when I consider the alternative(s.)  For example: John McCain excoriated President Obama for pulling out the troops, as he had indicated his view of staying in there for much longer. Similarly, he and others of his party, are striking up the hype-band on Iran. And...whats that again? Some would say there is no difference in matters of war & peace and this President or one of this year's McCains or worse that the Repupbs shove forth!!! Maybe those "some" are having trouble getting the sand out of their eyes because of where they have their collective head. The reality shows the difference.


    So (none / 0) (#42)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    you also really have nothing to say about the point made.

    towanda: Which point did you want addressed? (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    I'll speak to your question, but need clarification.

    As for the official-withdrawal-from-Iraq headline today, well...as stated above, giant relief & at-long-last sigh.  For all the bad it represented & became--from the deception of entering the war to the dragging weight of wrong & killing that it became... IMO, today's formal governmental act is a good. It is a time to rebuild ourselves as a starting point. If nothing else comes from this travesty, individually we can rebuild the broken spirits that result from the different ravages of misguided war.

    That the President did what he said he would do in matters of war (areas more often noted for broken promises throughout history) is good.


    I'll let my point go. But as to your point (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:20:54 PM EST
    the answer is no, Obama did not do what he said that he would do and end the war when he said that he would do so.

    He ended the war when Bush said that we would do so.

    But you and ABG are welcome to keep supporting Bush, since it's his promise that has been kept.


    Whoever's "watch" it is on gets (none / 0) (#154)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:33:47 PM EST
    either the thanks or the blame. That is how most people--and records--tend to reflect these historical transitions. The war started on Bush's watch (blame), was inherited by his successor President Obama, and brought to conclusion on Obama's watch (credit/thanks.)

    I understand your position. Yet, also understand that--for many--it is the doing/the implementation that counts. In foreign policy areas in war theatres, change is often the most constant & predictable thing in a strange way. In this case, Obama ran on ending the war...and he did. Thank goodness.


    cx: social-history perspective (none / 0) (#25)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:25:23 AM EST
    Could it be... (none / 0) (#30)
    by coast on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    another Nobel prize?

    Nope (none / 0) (#31)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:48:16 AM EST
    But it sure helps justify the original prize.

    i think (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    nothing about Iraq can justify a Nobel Peace Prize, for anyone, ever

    Complying with an agreement (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BTAL on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    signed by a previous administration is justification for a Nobel Prize?  

    Exactly. Obama fulfilled Bush's vow (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    and the Status of Forces Agreement in November 2008 to bring troops home by the end of this year.

    Obama missed the deadline that he promised by only a couple of years, only more thousands of our troops and Iraquis dead, more thousands maimed for the rest of their lives, more on the homefront economically crippled by the overspending, etc. . . .


    It is (none / 0) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:04:21 PM EST
    when it was clear at the time the agreement was signed that the admin wanted to and were planning to renege on it.

    The fact that we actually complied with the terms of our own agreement is depressingly surprising.


    It must hurt to be a human pretzel (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:08:17 PM EST
    and try to turn this agreement almost at the end of the Bush presidency into a discussion of that administrating trying to renege in its waning months -- while conveniently ignoring which administration tried to renege on it for the years ever since, until it was the Iraqis who stood firm.

    Let's review the promises met: http://cnsnews.com/node/70405

    And that list doesn't even include the 2008 campaign promise to be out by the end of 2009.


    Uh, why do you think the war (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:57:15 PM EST
    is "at end?"

    Rumor of big news re Wisconsin recall (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:21:23 AM EST
    of Walker, an announcement at noon today (CST).  The expectation is that the recall has reached the required 540,000+ signatures already, after only a month, halfway to the deadline of January 15.

    The Walker forces are rabid, of course, with charges filed on several and more on the way for physical assault on recallers, destruction of petitions, and the like, and there is a widespread campaign of fake petitions from Walker forces as well.  The funding soars, too, for the campaign ahead to drag out the challenge process.

    The state board that reviews petitions said this week that it will request twice the allocated time to do so, also delaying the recall election -- but because the board expects as many as 1.5 million signatures against Walker.  That's more than a third of the 18-and-over, voting-age population of the state.

    And another suit has been filed against the voter ID law -- the anger is not all about collective bargaining, no matter what conservative local media say as well as national media, when they even notice Wisconsin (Time magazine's story on protester as the Person of the Year didn't do so, despite Wisconsinites being first to Occupy the Capitol) -- by the ACLU.  It's on behalf of a town board member in her 80s who never has had a birth certificate so is being denied voter ID.

    Other stories abound on a daily basis, such as the pending bill to allow major mining interests to destroy a swath of northern Wisconsin.  The Walker legislators held the hearing on that yesterday -- in Milwaukee, more than four hundred miles for many in the affected area to have to drive down to testify.  But they did so, in the hundreds.  

    Thanks for the update, Towanda (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    the Wisconsin recall initiative doesn't seem to be receiving much play in the mainstream national media.  They seem to be more concerned with the fact that Howard Stern is joining America's Got Talent as a judge.  (Only a slight exaggeration- that was one of the front page "top stories" on the MSNBC news website, I kid you not.)

    The coastal elites are so wearying, yes. (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    And then they wonder why we ignore them and their worldview.

    I'm chuckling today at this wonderful piece making the FB rounds in so-called flyover country:  "It's Cute That New York is Slowly Catching Up with Wisconsin."

    Um, $22 per pound for cheese curds?  They are to be pitied more than mocked, but I'm chuckling, anyway.


    This Silly Farm Boy From Wisconsin... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:32:25 PM EST
    ...can totally relate, but I find people love different, and let's face it, when I got here I was different and still am.  Almost everyone thought I was from Canada with the accent.  Now at work when I talk to Canadians, I just shake my head and laugh, fond memories.

    And trust me, "I'm Just a Silly Farm Boy From Wisconsin" is the swiss army knife of lines.  Texans luv them sum Wisconsinites, and there are a lot of us here.

    Next time you are around someone from another state, explain to them what a Hodag is... For their high school mascot, they have one in a cage.  Only Wisconsin.

    I have no idea what cornholing is this context.
    Cheese curds, OMG, my mom overnights fresh ones occasionally.  My friends want to know when the squeaky cheese is coming.  Apparently there are people in the world who have never had squeaky cheese...

    I miss Wisconsin, but I will never miss a Wisconsin winter, and that was easily the single biggest reason for defecting, maybe global warming will be me back some day.

    I know this had nothing to do with anything, but I love reading from people who right about common roots.  Too bad the state is getting so politically F'ed Up.  Last time I visited, it saddened me to me my people's so rabid.


    They're taking back Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    with a big benchmark met and even exceeded today for the recall -- despite, in the last month, not only a holiday but also deer-hunting season that took many Wisconsinites away from home -- so I'm hopeful that it might be a nice place for us to visit again.  

    But, yeh, not in the worst of the winters, although after moving south of Wisconsin, we actually experienced one worse than theirs last year.  


    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    Yes, I was born and raised in St. Louis and Southern Illinois, and still visit often.  I'm well aware that the East Coast and the West Coast routinely ignore what they call "flyover country."  And speaking of food, I'm still waiting for the rest of the country to discover St. Louis toasted ravioli (really tasty), and St. Louis barbecued pork steaks (much better than pork ribs- way more meaty).

    Speaking of Midwest pork delicacies, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:35:38 PM EST
    I nominate the Pork Tenderloin Sandwich.The best place to score one is at one of the Midwest's many  taverns/restaurants, the ones with the booths along the wall in the barroom and several four-tops in the back room.

    Yes, it really is bigger than the bun. Add a little mustard, and you are in for a treat.

    I can't really speak to toasted ravioli. :-)


    .The best place to get a pork (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:38:34 PM EST
    tenderloin in the part of central Illinois where I was raised was at a small tavern in Spring Bay, down by the Illinois River, and just across the river from Peoria.

    For years every trip back to Illinois included a pilgrimage to Spring Bay.


    Ah, you true Midwesterners know (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    that, as my dad used to say in a line from a restaurant in his hometown here:  "If It Ain't Fried, It Ain't Filling."

    Of course, no one in his hometown actually pronounced the g at the end, or they would have revealed themselves as interlopers.


    Avoiding people who don't pronounce their g's ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by cymro on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:58:33 PM EST
    ... is a good enough reason to fly over them, in my book.

    It's just slightly less annoying than these:

    • 'deen' (or "di-n-)" (dropping the second d and the t in didn't)

    • 'lug-shurry' (for luxury, which (IMO) should be pronounced just like deluxe, and always was until advertisers invented this perverse pronunciation.)

    • 'de-TAIL' (detail). A favorite of newscasters, as in ..., de-TAILS coming up .... Will Arnold Schwarzenegger be giving us "de heads and de tails of de story"?

    I didn't bother listing countless outright errors like 'aks' (ask), 'artic' (dropping the 'c' in arctic, which we hear more often these days, with all the discussion of climate change), and everyone's favorite Bushism, 'nucular'.                          


    Mmmm...my midwestern mom was not a great cook (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    but I loved her pork tenderloin...breaded and fried in Crisco!  No, not Crisco, the yellow colored lard that began with an F (I think). Dang, now that is going to bother me.

    Fluffo? That does not make sense.....


    Ha! I was right (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:07:10 PM EST
    Golden Fluffo

    What did people do without google? All these factoids lost.


    Sister, you need to taste some (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    toasted ravioli (which, of course, isn't "toasted," it's fried- what else?).  I never could understand why the regional upstate New York specialty Buffalo wings made it nationally, but never St. Louis toasted ravioli.    ;-)

    Friday Fish Fry (none / 0) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    The one thing I made sure I caught last time.

    It's weird to me that most bars don't serve food here, maybe frozen pizza.

    Knowing what I know, I would go way out of my way to get me one of those sandwiches and Zorbas ravioli.


    Yes, we had (none / 0) (#118)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:24:55 PM EST
    fried pork tenderloin cutlets back-in-the-day (who could afford the veal cutlet version, after all?).  My dad also used to make the best "toasted ravioli."  He was a chef in a restaurant for a great while, and his specialty appetizer platter included toasted ravioli (with marinara sauce to dip it in), fried zucchini sticks, mushrooms and cauliflower, Buffalo wings, etc.  He also made the best skordalia (a very, very garlic-heavy dip made out of mashed potatoes, garlic, and a few other things).

    The ravioli (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:48:27 PM EST
    has apparently become popular enough here in metro Atlanta for the grocery stores to sell it.

    Well, good for (none / 0) (#120)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:32:20 PM EST
    metro Atlanta!  Not that toasted ravioli is exactly heart or calorie healthy, but if made right, it's tasty.   ;-)

    that's cute (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    although would it be entirely east-coast-elitist of me to mention that that entire list reminded me of Vermont :)

    A lot of people also consider the "east coast" = New York City, with the occasional Washington D.C. thrown in there for good measure.


    And now, Walker files suit (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    against the state elections and ethics oversight board -- the Government Accountability Board of seven judges, chaired by a widely respected Republican judge -- in a claim that they are not going to do their job a month from now, when the process of verifying petitions will begin.

    Legal minds here, can this be done?  Preemptively suing for something that hasn't happened yet?  (The gov is upset that the board has said that it is for him to challenge signatures, not the board, whose job is to tally the signatures and oversee the challenge process.)

    Of course, Walker has filed the suit in . . . Waukesha County, the home of crazy Kathy Nicklaus.


    That dog doesn't hunt (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    It's on behalf of a town board member in her 80s who never has had a birth certificate so is being denied voter ID

    Then how did she get Social Security and/or Medicare????

    And if WI is like TN, all she has to do is go the county clerk, swear to her age and citizenship with a minimum of documentation the petition the Sec of State for a birth certificate.


    You have not been following along (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    as these new Voter I.D. laws have been implemented. Documentation, birth certificates and, if you are a woman who married and took her husband's last name, the marriage license, are required.

    People can swear to their age and citizenship until the cows come home, it does them no good. No papers, no ballot.

    As to SS and Medicare, i was never required to produce a birth certificate, or any other other I.D., when I went on Medicare. I don't know anyone who was.


    Well, I was required (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:01:49 PM EST
    to produce a birth certificate for SocSec and Medicare. Of course that was done at the same time.

    I repeat. The procedure for getting a birth certificate is go to the county clerk, swear that you are a citizen and then petition the state Sec of State for one.

    You cannot claim that an 80 year old woman would be turned down.


    What if you don't live anywhere near the (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    county of your birth?

    That dog hunts, puppy (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    as you can see if you look it up on jsonline.com.

    The ACLU lawyers are not dumb, y'know.


    But the Point is.. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    ...she shouldn't have to jump through hoops to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    The right she was (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:56:20 PM EST
    guaranteed was, as a citizen, she could vote if she followed the law.

    As you know, things change over the years. Part of that change has been the ability for us to have some 11,000,000 non-citizens in the country.

    This dictates that we need to have a voter ID law that allows quick and easy determination of the status of the potential voter.

    To further prove my point.

    If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: "You don't need papers for voting."

    On Thursday night, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, was speaking before a largely Latino crowd in Escondido when she uttered those words. She said yesterday she simply misspoke.

    But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday. After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: "You don't need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign)."


    opppps (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:57:36 PM EST
    If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: "You don't need papers for voting."

    On Thursday night, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, was speaking before a largely Latino crowd in Escondido when she uttered those words. She said yesterday she simply misspoke.

    But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday. After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: "You don't need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign)."



    Your comment is absurd (none / 0) (#130)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    in the context of the facts, which you clearly still have not bothered to find.

    The woman was born here, more than 80 years ago, at home.  There is no birth certificate, the paper required by the new, very strict voter ID law in Wisconsin.

    Even the record that does exist, which could be the basis for a birth certificate, has her name misspelled by the attending physician.  

    The result is that to get a birth certificate would cost her hundreds of dollars.  Hundreds of dollars for an elderly woman who does not have a lot of assets, other than the house where she still lives, where she was born.  Everyone in town knows her, where she has voted for more than six decades and has served on the town board for almost two decades -- but still, she will be denied the right to vote for a piece of paper.

    Stuff your stories of others and of other states from Tennessee to wherever your latest deflection takes you, far from the facts of this story, which ought to tell anyone who cares about rights that there is something wrong with the new law in the state where this woman has lived all of her long life and is told that she cannot vote unless she spends hundreds of dollars for a piece of paper to verify her existence.


    I don't think it would cost her anything (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:41:18 PM EST
    do what I described.

    Amazingly, again, ACLU lawyers (none / 0) (#144)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:09:17 PM EST
    think you're wrong, as well as unwilling to be educable and even admit the possibility that you're wrong against all of the evidence -- that she has tried, that she has been told what it will cost, etc. -- so they're going ahead with the suit.

    But gosh, I'll be sure to tell them to have her call you.  Maybe her governor who got the bill passed, too.  I bet that you and Walker would have a good laugh at the old lady.


    IOW - You have no idea ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:15:23 PM EST
    ... whether it would cost her anything.

    (FTR - That was about a 20 second Google search)

    According to the newspaper, a record of Frank's birth does exist with the state register of deeds in Madison. She could get a birth certificate for a fee, $20. But Frank said that fee amounted to a poll tax.

    There's another problem. Frank's maiden name of Wedepohl was misspelled by the physician who attended her home birth. To get the birth certificate amended, she could petition the court, a process that could take several weeks and cost at least $200, the newspaper said.



    In my experience there is no (2.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:11:27 PM EST
    charge for doing what I described.

    If it costs $20 to correct an error in spelling, then it does. And that error should have been corrected long ago.

    All you have is a straw man designed to try and reframe the fact that we need a way to have positive ID because of the problems created by the Demos Open Border beliefs.


    Your experience is of no import (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:38:17 PM EST
    whatsoever, but you refuse to understand that, just as you refuse to read what now has been cut and pasted for you; it's not $20 but at least $200.

    It's not in your state.  It's not your life.  It's hers.  It's Not About You, and you cannot imagine that anyone else's life is not exactly like yours.  

    Sad.  Just sad.


    "In your experience" (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 08:11:13 AM EST
    See - that's one of your biggest logic fails, Jim - you extrapolate from the singular (you) to the general (everyone), as though your, singular experience is somehow representative of the world.  Then, even when provided clear evidence to the contrary, you misstate those facts.

    First of all, your experience is irrelevant to this case, unless you were recently applying for a Wisconsin birth certificate.  Secondly, it's not $20 to correct a spelling mistake - it's $20 for the copy of the birth certificate, after she has to spend $200 (if she doesn't need a lawyer).

    All you have is a straw man designed to try and reframe the fact that we need a way to have positive ID because of the problems created by the Demos Open Border beliefs

    No, Jim.  What you have here is a group of Republicans spreading lies about "Voter fraud!" - with zero evidence - in order to try to keep certain groups from voting ... groups that often vote Democratic.

    You wanna guess how many recent cases of "voter fraud" there have been?  Please do try, because I would love to see your estimate/guess.


    No evidence?? (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:18:33 AM EST

    Keep on reframing, Yman.

    But the problem has become large enough that our elected officials have acted.

    Quit whining and follow the law.


    Yep - excellent reading skills (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:33:37 AM EST
    The fact that "our elected officials have acted" is supposed to mean something?  Our "elected officials" acted also acted when they gave us poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and literacy tests.  Many of the same states that necessitated the VRA of 1965 through their discriminatory voting laws ... go figure.

    But yes ... still no evidence - unless you want to take a whack at it.  If you think there's a problem with voter fraud, let's see some actual evidence.

    Don't be scared, Jim - it'll be fun.


    Towanda, Yman, et al (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    Rather than read the snarks and slurs, plus the attempts of Yman, in particular, to reframe the discussion. I decided to define the questions and find out from the government what the reqs are.

    (1)     The problem exists because of the very large of legal and illegal immigrants that we have in the country and the possibility that they could/would vote in an election.
    (2)     The legal action to prevent this is to require a government issued picture ID.
    (3)     In most states this is a driver's license, passport or government issued ID.
    (4)    To obtain one of the above one of the key documents required is a certified birth certificate.

    You argue that this removes some people's right to vote.  This is not true. A "person" has a right to vote only if they can meet the requirements established by their state.

    You further argue that some people do not have a certified birth certificate and that to obtain one is difficult and costly. We have had several back and forth comments.

    This morning I decided to call my state's Sec of State office and determine the requirements and cost. I was transferred to the Dept of Vital Statistics. I spoke with a very helpful and pleasant person.  My questions and the answers follow.

    (1)    If a person has never had birth certificate what must they do and what does it cost to obtain one?

    Answer: Contact this office and request one. The first action will be a search to determine that a certificate is actually not on file. Many times a person may have never seen one and just assumes there isn't one. Assuming that one is not found, a letter is sent to the inquirer outline the documentation needed. Along with current address, age, etc., as shown on the form, various proofs may suffice. Examples are, family Bible entries, school records, sworn statements of friends and family, military records (discharge papers, DD214, proof of medals). Depending on the level of documentation the person may be required to go the County Court Clerk and swear the information is true and correct and have that statement noitarized. The cost is $15.00.

    (2)    If a person has lost their certified copy what must they do to obtain one?

    Answer: Contact this office and request one: We will provide the inquirer with a form that must be filled out, sworn to be true, notarized and returned to us. The cost is $15.00.

    With the certified birth certificate the person may, assuming they pass the other driving and other tests/requirements the person may obtain a driver's license. Or they obtain a state issued picture ID. There is no charge for the state issued picture ID.  Fees for driver's license and/or passport vary.


    That's great ... for you (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 01:54:23 PM EST
    But, difficult as this may be to believe, the issue extends beyond the borders of Jimland.

    The problem exists because of the very large of legal and illegal immigrants that we have in the country and the possibility that they could/would vote in an election.

    Your "problem" is a fairy tale, which is precisely why you cite no evidence of such fraud actually occurring.

    You argue that this removes some people's right to vote.  This is not true. A "person" has a right to vote only if they can meet the requirements established by their state.

    Who said it "removes" someone's right to vote - other than you?  What photo-id laws do is add barriers to the voting process, particularly for those without photo-ids.  It suppresses the votes of certain groups (young, poor, elderly, AAs, Latinos) by making it more difficult for them to vote - all to address the fictional problem of "Voter Fraud!" - which exists only in the minds of the wingers.

    Of course, ... that's just the way they like it.


    I cannot imagine (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    putting a very elderly woman who has voted numerous times in the past through Jim's convoluted process.  Do you remember the story of the twelve elderly nuns who were turned away at the polls in South Bend, Indiana in 2008 because they didn't have current ID's?  These were nuns in their 80's and 90's, living in a convent.

    I do remember it (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    And it's precisely the kind of thing these laws are designed to do, while the Republicans stoke fears of undocumented immigrants voting illegally - a problem that exists only in their minds.

    For them, it's a two-fer.


    This is true in several (none / 0) (#156)
    by Amiss on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:27:51 PM EST
    states. And, if you have been married more than once, you have to also furnish copies of each marriage certificate showing how you arrived at the name you currently have. I know, because I am going through this in Florida, my birth certificate of all things has been misplaced, and all of the hoops I have to jump through to get a new birth certificate in order to get a new driver's license are ridiculous. and Jim, it does cost money!

    We just found out a young woman who went to school (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    with my daughter was killed at Fort Bragg on Saturday by her husband.  He then killed himself.  Shot her with a .30-06, spoke to his mother only hours before and everything was fine.  They were preparing for Christmas.  No children.  Nobody knows what happened.  He had served in Haiti, Afghanistan, and had just returned from Iraq.

    Oh, no (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    No, no.  No words.

    I can't imagine how their parents (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:45:20 AM EST
    will handle any of this.  Her dad is a soldier too.  There weren't even signs or evidence of a fight or even a struggle.  

    I can't either. Unimaginable. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    I'm so sorry, MT (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:02:30 AM EST
    Very, very sorry.

    What terrible news, MT. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:12:06 AM EST
    It cuts a little close to home for me...

    About 4 years before my daughter met her now-fiancé, so almost 10 years ago, his father shot and killed his mother, and then killed himself.  They were separated at the time, and my future son-in-law was 17, the youngest of 4 kids and the only one living at home.  His dad had asked him to find something to do for a couple hours while he came over to talk to his estranged wife, and so poor kid arrived at his street later that evening, to find it blocked by police cars, never imagining what awaited him was being orphaned at the hands of his father.

    He's shared a lot with me, and we've talked about the anger and the grief and the upheaval it caused in his life, in all their lives.  It has taken him a long time to come to some kind of terms with this - he still has his moments of depression and grief, and thank goodness he is close to his siblings, and his uncle has taken over as the father figure for his niece and nephew.

    I probably feel more of a need to "mother" him than I would otherwise, because, as strong as he is, it just breaks my heart that he had to go through this at all, much less at such a vulnerable age.

    My heart goes out to your daughter, for the shock and grief she will no doubt be feeling, and to you, who no doubt share her feelings.  And while I don't know the families, I will keep them in my thoughts as they begin to deal with this, and all the things this horror will visit upon them, and will hope they have a strong network of support to keep them going through such an awful time.


    My husband wishes that all returning (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    soldiers could be required to not have their guns in their homes for at least 30 days after they get back from a war zone.  Just to desensitize.

    Can any of us be too surprised when newly returned home soldiers respond to perceived threats stateside with a gun?  Your brain is still in the war zone.  You can't be in an extreme life or death environment for months and months and have your brain calm itself and reorient the minute your feet touch home soil.  And you've been carrying a weapon almost every moment and you are prepared to respond to anything that threatens you in a split second with it.

    But in gun loving America such a proposal would be called unAmerican, and against a soldier's constitutional rights....even though you have no other constitutional rights in uniform if your commander says you don't :)  It's just all so stupid.

    In any case when my husband heard what happened he said, "This is our fault.  This is a huge Army failure, a command failure.  Her death is absolutely our fault."  Her dad is a soldier too.  I'm sure he'll have some questions for the husband's command.  Maybe not, but often when parents in uniform lose their children in uniform they are better able to get others to listen to them if they want to be heard and they seek changes.


    What a tragic story...a tragic reality (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:48:28 PM EST
    Your husband's suggestion about transitioning home without guns for a defined period makes sense. Is there any local authority given to individual base commanders in this regard? How far does a base commander's authority go as to reasonable measures on the base during such war theatre to stateside transition?

    As soon as I read your words about these "peacetime" deaths, a similar memory of a notorious killing after Vietnam...involving wife & children in Carolina...flashed before me. The newspapers were full of the story & all its angles. Then, other similar killings by recently returned soldiers appeared in the newspapers. Then, we didn't hear anything else along those lines about when return adjustment goes off the rails.  I wonder anew what kind of steps would be possible and what, if any measures, have been implemented over the years to address violent responses.


    Commanders have a lot of pull (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:30:59 PM EST
    It literally comes down to what they can get away with.  If something is too unfair the press will eventually become alerted though, and the military hates the press asking them hard questions or any questions for that matter.

    It would probably be a mess because the NRA would show up for the fist fight immediately.  I can see the headline already, soldiers trusted to protect the nation but not their families...Shame....Shame...Shame!  There would be a lot of press.  Military commanders would probably rather be commanded to eat nails and pee lemonade instead.


    Sad story (1.33 / 3) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    But do you any evidence that this was service connected?

    Your turn.


    Have you no decency, Jim? (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    Or respect?  Take your cantankerous self to a more generic comment.  Leave MT to feel her feelings without your provocation.

    What I said to Donald (2.00 / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:56:23 PM EST
    And I see no connection to Mt beyond her desire to become involved and use this as a way to attack the war.

    So the answer is "no" (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:46:01 PM EST
    No decency.  No respect.  And definitely no perspective.  

    I know you'll dig in your heels and stick out your "tongue" and keep on commenting, but this was the wrong place and the wrong time.

    And I hope tonight when you say those prayers that I'm sure are at least nightly, I hope you remember the beatitudes.


    There is no wrong time for the truth (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:06:40 PM EST
    Acccording to MT's comment there was no evidence that this was service connected.

    You are absolutely right Jim (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:32:06 PM EST
    There is no wrong time for the truth.  And when I tell the truth I am not smearing anyone.  I'm still proud that my family serves and has served the nation as we do and have.  It is NO SHAMEFUL THING to admit that serving soldiers and their families are higher risk for family violence particularly right after our soldiers return from the war zones.

    The military are my people now.  We need to look out for each other.  We need to help each other, particularly in order to avoid the violence and killing of spouses that has happened repeatedly as our soldiers return home if for no other reason.

    It was an old Vietnam Chaplain who told me to keep the house quiet for a few weeks when my husband got home.  No crowds, ask the family to visit later, make things quiet so he get used to the quiet again.  First year in Iraq.  He was the only person who gave me such great advice.

    I am always so shocked by your reaction to "combat stress".  I was remembering today that this is the second time you and I have exchanged such words.  If such a thing exists, why is it that it is directly in my face and life all the time and I'm not running and hiding in shame but you are?

    Living in violence changes your brain, it changes what we all consider "normal", it changes our actual brain chemistry, it leaves deep grooves in our psyche.  Sometimes some things can be repaired, love and tenderness can heal much over time, sometimes it can't do all that someone needs done.  But violence, daily violence, life threatening daily violence....changes the people who must live that way.  Preforming acts of violence changes you, it changes you forever.  You will always lose something in that exchange.  Make sure it is worth the loss.  My husband's best friend Mike calls it the flight home, when you remember what it was that just happened.  You have time to replay it in your head.  Make sure you don't do something to yourself that you can't deal with.


    MT, my quarrel with you is (1.00 / 3) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    simply this.

    You have no facts to say that this man's terrible acts were caused by his service experiences.

    When you have some, let us know.

    In the meantime, don't smear all the other vets who haven't murdered anyone.


    While MT didn't disagree with you (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by sj on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    There is no wrong time for the truth
    I do.  Completely.  When a person is in the shock of grief there should be given a safe space to feel the feelings without some a$$ taking potshots about a "position" (or frankly about the deceased and his or her family).  There are lots of "truths" that can wait til later.  If it's really true, it can wait.  It's not going anywhere.

    I would say, however, that there is no wrong time for compassion.


    What is service connected (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    when you just got home from Iraq?  I'll answer since I've been through it before.  The answer is everything at first.  And it will be that way always in some ways, every single phucking thing.  He was 82nd Jim. They stare at roof lines looking for snipers.  Lumps on the sides of the road are possible IEDs. My husband still doesn't sleep like someone who didn't serve in a very dangerous place for a year at a time.  And he never will again Jim.  He will die sleeping this way.  Easily awakened, coming up from the bed like someone about to fight for his life.  When he is out of uniform someday he can take better drugs for it though Jim.

    Don't send your soldiers into war based on bullshit, most of those who go will pay forever.  Only send them to protect you and your nation when you are directly in danger.  It costs.  It costs dearly for many of them forever!!!!!!!!!


    Don't blame his actions (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:58:08 PM EST
    on the war. A lot of other guys went there and haven't done anything.

    You and I know you're just spewing wild claims.


    A LOT OF GUYS WENT (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:06:21 PM EST

    Come now MT (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:38:06 PM EST
    anecdotal comments?????

    Is that the best you can do??

    One more time. Do you not understand that when you blame the war experiences of this soldier causing the murderer you are smearing thousands upon thousands of military people??

    Stop and think.


    Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    One more time. Do you not understand that when you blame the war experiences of this soldier causing the murderer you are smearing thousands upon thousands of military people???

    Completely, .... utterly ....

    ... ridiculous.


    Really???? (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:39:54 PM EST
    Are you not capable of seeing that when you say this man did this because of what his military experiences you are saying that all like him are capable of the same??

    "Gotta watch Dan, he is a vet and may go off his rocker...."

    How's that for a smear???


    Pretty good (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:06:45 PM EST
    Problem is, ...

    ... you're the only one making that "smear".


    No, that is totally incorrect. (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:17:54 PM EST
    You, MT, et al are the ones claiming that his military experience caused him to lose control and kill his life.

    I have just noted what you are doing. You are smearing.

    But that's what you do best.


    Oh, for the love of God, jim, (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:33:49 AM EST
    what is wrong with you?  

    You do this kind of thing all the time and it never goes anywhere - it's actually getting to the point where you are little more than a blog-clogger, and serve no other purpose but to hang around and push people's buttons.

    If what happened at Ft. Bragg was a one-of-a-kind incident, people would still speculate about whether his deployments had affected him in any way because, when these things happen, we look at the totality of people's lives to try to find context and answers and some kind of resolution we can live with.  And a big part of this young man's life for the last couple of years was lived in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It's a factor that cannot be ignored.  Or, perhaps I should say, should not be ignored.  Because, as Tracy can no doubt tell you, and as many of us who read about this issue can tell you, mental problems have long been ignored by those in charge - or simply medicated, as if there are magic pills that fix everything so someone can get back to the business of surviving a war - with sometimes terrible consequences.  

    I think the thing that bothers me most about your attitude is that it is one that perpetuates the shame and stigma of mental illness, keeps people from seeking and getting the help they need, and dooms a lot of people to a life of struggling to be normal.

    Do I know with any degree of certainty that this young man's service is directly responsible for what he did?  No, but how much certainty is there when anyone does something like this?  

    Taking his service into consideration smears no one, jim; it doesn't even smear the young man in question.  Being willing to consider all the factors is the enlightened approach, and one that, if followed with courage, no matter where it leads, could end up helping others, not hurting them.

    Now, please - just for today, decide you're not going to be the jerk you've been since this subject came up.  It's only one day - I'm sure you have it in you to do it.


    NO ONE is "smearing" combat vets (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 07:58:45 AM EST
    But we're also not afraid of acknowledging the obvious - that combat has severe affects among the minds of many (not all) combat veterans.  It frequently manifests itself as some sort of mental health problem - PTSD, depression, alcohol/drug abuse.  Acknowledging that obvious truth does not mean that anyone is "smearing" all combat veterans, and for you to suggest that MT (of all people) would do so is, in and of itself, a smear.

    But that's what you do best.


    The problem is (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:16:34 AM EST
    that there is NO proof that his military experience caused his actions.

    So, with out proof, you are smearing all veterans.


    Not a problem (none / 0) (#177)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    Acknowledging the high rate of PTSD and mental health issues suffered by combat veterans and drawing the conclusion that Sgt. Andrews (allegedly) killed his wife/himself because he was suffering from the same is not, in any way, "smearing" other combat vets.  He's also not the first soldier who recently returned from combat who's done something like this - there have been several just this year at Fort Bragg alone.

    BTW - Since when are you such a big advocate of evidence?  Usually, all we get are a "You know and I know", "Everyone knows", "It's common sense", etc. - or a link to a winger blog.  Suddenly you want "evidence".

    That's convenient.


    There are things that we know (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    ...even when there is not yet proof of the existence of a reality nor proof of its non-existence. Yet, patterns are often seen--whether it was the shell-shocked veterans from the trenches of WWI or the stiff-upper lip heroes from WWII who may not have spoken of the terrors they experienced until their older age to a grown child/grandchild.

    One thing we do know is that people react differently to certain stresses. We all react...it may just be different. My wonderful Dad was in the Marine Corps during WWII, and the other uncles all served in the various branches; and, we were all lucky in that they survived. (Hey, I wouldn't be here if Dad hadn't returned home safely.) At some point, the depth of feeling about what they had seen, what they lived through remained there for all of them.

    Now, this is simply a guess--often as good as any manufactured statistic, those guesses--but, I suspect the returning vets of WWII had one less major stresser, and that is that they were welcomed home as heroes (with GI Bills, a burgeoning America with new homes especially open to the returnees, etc.)  It has been very different since Vietnam...the walking wounded phsically and/or psychologically. Many more walking wounded in view of life-saving procedures for the head injuries that so many often endure now; many more walking wounded reentering an America where jobs have been so scarce this past decade. That has an effect; it may not be provable in a mathematical sense, but you & I & everyone else knows that the pressure points of the Iraq (and Afghanistan) experience has had an effect that remains to be quantified. Let us keep an open mind...let us listen to the anecdotes and read the stories of reentry...and, someday, we'll see a study quantifying what we already are beginning to see with our hearts.


    That's not about your husband (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    That's about the murderer suicide.

    jim, Do You Have to Prove Every Single Day... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:22:56 PM EST
     ...just how GD stupid you are.  Trust me, no one here doubts it.

    Donald and Scott, you both have a potty mouth (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:32:13 PM EST
    and Scott likes to curse and attack people you disagree with. Donald has other snarks.

    Both of you prove my points time and again regarding the antics of too many people on the fringes of our political discourse.

    I thank you.

    Now. You also like to giggle and make fun of. About a week ago I challenged Scott to select any problem we have in the country and then present a workable solution.

    Scott, you haven't stepped forward.

    This speaks volumes about you.

    Now, let me remind you again that comment about the murder and suicide was simple.

    "Sad story."

    What about that do you not understand?

    My objection was to MT trying to tie it, with no other information, to the war.

    Are you not smart enough to realize that when you do that you are smearing all those who have served yet haven't came home and murdered their wife?


    I chalk it up to Jim still wanting to fight (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    the Vietnam War until we win, even though Americans and their families were being systematically destroyed forever fighting for reasons that had nothing to do with protecting the nation.  That's not even counting the Vietnamese, but for most people making Jim's argument those people were never THAT important.  But the argument to fight until we "win", whatever "winning" is, must always ignore that you are destroying Americans forever simply to "win".  Once you acknowledge all the truths about war, fighting to win utterly loses its luster forever.

    MT, why don't you try and answer the question (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    rather than produce some more gobble de gook psycho babble.

    What you have is called an assumption based on your bias.


    Why don't you tell me how it isn't (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    combat related?  I'd love to hear this.

    I realize that you never saw ground combat.  You haven't a clue what PTSD is, or the fact that almost everyone who is senior in the Army these days has some sort of waiver that is allowing them to take meds.  I'm lucky, my husband's anxiety disorder has been manageable with minimal meds.  Our son has a new best friend though and at his bday party his poor dad just unloaded on my husband because it is hard to be 40 and be this broken....as many of us are.  It is hard to deal with things about our soldiers and ourselves that are shattered, and it is hard dealing with all the meds that must be taken to mask what has happened to many.  They were a man's man, they all were....and now many of them are broken in ways that break their own hearts and their souls.

    What insane 24 year old man is able to serve honorably in two war zones and also Haiti when it was from hell.  How does this guy get off the plane from Iraq, go home for a week, and then just blow his wife away if it isn't combat related......?  Maybe he was target practicing and accidentally hit her, and then accidentally hit himself.


    as Col Potter said (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:55:12 PM EST
    Horse hockey, Donald.

    Note the "Sad story." Is there something about that statement of regret that you can't understand?

    Oh wait. I had the nerve to say that I see nothing that connects his service to his actions.

    And that's a no-no in the world of blaming the war for everything.


    How many times has this happened Jim? (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    How many times does it have to keep on happening before some brainiac like you understands there is a connection?

    Defer to Colonel Potter/Jim's expertise (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    After all, they've both seen the same amount of combat ...

    True Yman (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    I never saw combat.

    Did you?

    But I did attend a few squadron requiem services for those who had died in performing their duty while flying.

    And guess what.

    They were just as dead as if shot in the head by an enemy soldier.


    Congrats (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:29:07 PM EST
    I'm sure Harry Morgan went to a few funerals, too.

    Nice one, Yman (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    Facts remain, you never served.

    The only "fact" that remains ... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:03:54 PM EST
    ... is your clueless, fact-free imagination.

    Although, now that we're on the subject, you always struck me as more of a Frank Burns.


    Wanna bring family in??? Okay (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:35:34 PM EST
    My dad was in the Marines in WWII. His youngest brother was in Marine aviation. Came home with a steel plate in his head. Two other uncles were in the Army. One was on Iowa Jima. He lost his hearing. The one with the steel plate in his head had headaches all his life.

    I was lucky. My dad survived and came home. Many did not.

    I spent 10 years in Naval Aviation. I have never said what I did. But I will specify I was never in combat. But I did loose two good friends. One is buried in Punch Bowl. The other's body has never been recovered. I lost three other squadron mates.

    So I think I understand the stress and strain and loss and problems quite well, thank you.

    And please try and not let your hatred caused by the actions of the officer you reference cause you to hold hate for the military in your soul. There are a**holes in all walks of life and hatred is as corrosive as acid.

    I repeat.

    The murder/suicide was and is a sad story.

    There is no evidence presented by MT that it had anything to do with his military service.

    To claim that it is service related smears the thousands upon thousands who has not done what he did.

    Double that down, Donald.


    ugh (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by CST on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    "Nobody knows what happened."

    "He had served in Haiti, Afghanistan, and had just returned from Iraq."

    I bet that's what happened.

    So sorry to hear this MT.  It really does put the "war over, coming home" in perspective.  For too many people the war will never be over.


    MT Tracy, Yman, Scott, Donald, et al: (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    We have had numerous back and forth comments regarding the murder/suicide discussed in MT's comments  # 9:

    The basic thrust of that comment was that the soldier's actions were caused by his military combat experiences. No proof was offered. In fact, Tracy's comment #17 notes that

    "we have our suspicions..... at least my daughter does....our young soldiers are so emotionally unprepared...we do a $shit job of admitting....."

    My comment #58 extended sympathy, "Sad story," but then I asked if she had any evidence that this service connected.

    Now, I was subjected to numerous attacks. Several nasty slurs with claims and notes that was very personal in nature. Disregarding those, the gist of the responses was that combat stress can result in PTSD, etc., and was the cause of the individual's actions. At no point have I disagreed that it is possible that stress can cause irrational and hurtful actions by an individual.

    But there is no evidence that is true in this instance.

    My point has been that I do not think it is fair to blame the actions of one individual based on experiences/background that they have shared with others.

    What it does is smear the group and call the character and characteristics of all members of that group into question.

    And of us who call ourselves liberal should remember what that does.


    I was not responding to you (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by CST on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    not sure why you are responding to me.

    I offered my opinion.  You are free to disagree.

    That being said, you are making a false choice here.  Acknowledging that someone's background influences their behaviour is not the same thing as saying that everyone who comes from that background will act in the same way.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    What it does is smear the group and call the character and characteristics of all members of that group into question.

    No.  It doesn't.  But I understand why you'd resort to that ridiculous smear.  The real motives behind your objections were clear from your response to sj:

    And I see no connection to Mt beyond her desire to become involved and use this as a way to attack the war.

    You weren't concerned about "smearing" of other combat veterans.  Frankly, to suggest that MT (of all people) would do so, is pretty disgusting. You thought she was being critical of the Iraq War - a war that you support and defend.  Your "smear" response only developed later, when you realized how ridiculous this argument sounded.

    Soooooooo transparent.

    ... as is your sudden interest in evidence.  Will this standard apply to your future posts?



    This is truly tragic. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    There is some more info that can be googled:
    Cooke [the mother of Staff Sgt. Seth Andrews] said her son had re-enlisted twice since joining up, and that he loved the Army - especially the travel and the adventure of jumping out of airplanes.

    He never indicated that he had seen major combat during his deployments as a mortarman with the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment.

    "We Facebooked back and forth or emailed, and he said it was pretty boring, actually," Cooke said. "He was mainly training the soldiers over there."

    Assuming his murder-suicide was due to his service, it is pretty chilling to think that what seems to be comparatively "light" duty can trigger such a thing...

    I wonder how much he actually (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:54:09 PM EST
    told his mother? And how much could have been "Don't worry mom . . . "?

    Perhaps so, tragic in any event. (none / 0) (#170)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:10:06 AM EST
    Googling around there are posts by people who claim to know him.
    Amanda Beamer
    ummmmmmmmmm no seth was one of myt best friends and he would never do that. he couldnt wait to get home to be with her. he was one of the best guys u would ever meet. if u want a REAL news story http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/12/13/1143615 copy and paste. there is more to the story than we may ever know
    Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · Wednesday at 8:35am

        Travis Binkley
        Unfortunately a person who experiences such a trauma as war is no longer the person you remember in many cases. Many soldiers though excited about returning are unable to adjust when they return and often turn to unexpected violence. They are not treated properly by the government and left to their own devices which is why I question anyone willing to sign up to fight for the government. Henry Kissinger said: "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." That's who your fighting for.
        Reply · Like · Wednesday at 10:34am

    Amanda Beamer
        i understand war changes people. but i talked to him often and he never changed as a person... and he was never in battle while he was there. im not trying to upset any1 from what i know hillary was the best girl u could ever meet just like he was the best dude. he loved what he did and was thankful that he never had to experience battles while he was over there. it just hurts to see people that dont know him assuming he was some psycho. that man had the best heart i have ever known. maybe he found something out and snapped i dont know and may never know. but i do know he loved her and couldnt wait to get home to be with her. i dont want any1 thinking he was some monster waiting to get home so he could shoot his wife cuz it wasnt like that at all. they were very much in love with each other. thats why this is so sad and confusing because we know how much they loved each other. and there were no signs of sturggle or fighting between them, and the front door was wide open..... its just a really sad time for all their family and friends
        Reply · Like · Wednesday at 10:41am

     Amanda Beamer
        you cant believe everything u read in the news... the investigation is still ongoing...
        Reply · Like · Wednesday at 10:42am

    And yet, the newspaper headlines (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    today give kind of wave of the hand at the backstory of U.S. withdrawing from Iraq.  

    We have our suspicions about (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    what might have happened, at least my daughter does.  Our young families, our soldiers when they are young, are so emotionally unprepared and we do a $hit job of admitting that and tending to that.

    Very true. A close friend is quite involved (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:36:40 PM EST
    in Veterans for Peace.  They have raised $20,000 to distribute sleeping bags and ponchos to homeless veterans.  

    Never put bananas in the refrigerator, (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    or in a republic. And, it looks like we are getting more bananas: The Levin/McCain  bill (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012) is on its way.  President Obama jettisoned his veto threat after having been satisfied with the provisions.

    The concerns of the Obama administration related more to Executive power than to civil liberties and due process.  Indeed, Carl Levin stated that the White House demanded removal of a provision that would have exempted US citizens from military detention for US citizens captured on US soil.

    The bill enshrines  indefinite detention and the authority to "incapacitate" terror suspects including the use of deadly force without a warrant, charges or due process.  And foreign terrorist organizations are are defined loosely, being any organization designated by the Secretary of State.

    The presidential veto always seemed to me, not so much for Congress, but for us--to keep us quiet with the false assurance that the president would protect and defend the Constitution.    Apparently, the bill is going back to Conference due to the outrage from those who know about it--particularly to clarify what some view as nasty--indefinite military detention of citizens.  But, the use of the military to patrol US streets looking for terrorists du jour is likely to stay, despite protests from the military, such as former marine Generals Hoar and Krulak.

    Not surprised ... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:25:32 PM EST
    the White House demanded removal of a provision that would have exempted US citizens from military detention for US citizens captured on US soil.

    ... but I am surprised that anyone who purports to care about civil liberties can support this president.

    And every day he seems to give us another reason not to.


    I have been a member (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    of the ACLU for over 20 years.  I still care about civil liberties, RP, and I certainly don't support this president.

    Clearly the Zorba brain ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    is in full functioning order.

    There is more to civil liberties (1.50 / 4) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:52:58 PM EST
    than these issues. Lots more.  He's bad on some and good on others.  Good outweighs bad.  

    It's not a binary situation.


    Spoken like someone who is (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    under the illusion that his civil rights will be unscathed by these developments. I would make some pithy reference to the "slippery slope", but we are long past that. We've hit the bottom of the toboggan run to quiet authoritarianism.

    Oh, and by the way, there is no good that outweighs the destruction of civil liberties. Absolutely none.


    Agreed. It is unfathomable (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    to me that these statements were made by opponents of the  bill rather  than by the president: "American ideals are assets not liabilities"  "Due process will be a thing of the past"--Generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar;  "the bill may interfere with the
    FBI's ability to investigate terrorist incidents and interrogate those believed responsible.   we are uncertain on how to do (it) if a covered person and an uncovered person are present."--FBI Director Robert Mueller.  

    Oh, under Section 103l, covered persons includes, potentially, every citizen of the US, military detention and no trial, if suspected of support or "belligerent" acts against US or its coalition partners(presently we have about 80 coalition partners in the fight on global terrorism, and "belligerent acts",  could be interpreted as almost anything that aids and abets, even indirectly, such as harnessing bankers).


    He (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:45:30 PM EST
    or she or whatever doesn't care about civil liberties or anything.

    He has one mission. To get us to either vote for you know who, or if that isn't going to work, to get us to believe in the inevitability of you know who's reelection and give up the ghost.

    He is not issue oriented.
    He is a shill.

    But it amazing how he can dominate the conversation with his transparent inanity.


    In the achievement department, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:33:21 PM EST
    I think we would be better off sticking to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and such.  

    Are you F**ing Kidding Me? (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    First of all, I eagerly await your providing us with a list of those of our civil liberties for which Obama gets a "good" rating; that shouldn't take you too long.

    Then, I'd like your ranking of the importance of our civil liberties, from Touch These And You're Dead To Me to If It Helps Obama Win, Eh, I Can Live Without Them.  Wow, look how binary that is... so not enough gray area, not enough room for the situational ethic you're so fond of in service to Obama, huh?

    "Liberal," my Aunt Fanny.


    He (Mr. G) (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    is just a salesman.
    And not a very good one.

    I remember a real estate salesman telling me that the absence of an inter-phone in an apartment building was a "safety feature" because it made you go downstairs to see who was at the door.


    Said the Clown While Negotiating... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:58:06 PM EST
     ...the worth of his soul with the devil.

    And sorry, but civil liberties are 'binary' (whatever the F that means) its why we have an actually list of our guaranteed rights in the Constitution, so idiots won't bargain them away.

    They aren't fricken negotiable instruments.


    Bad is bad. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:34:17 PM EST
    There is no good in this.

    Yet another (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 12:28:32 PM EST
    nail in the coffin of the Bill of Rights.  I never expected Obama to follow through on his veto threat.   :-(

    "Change IS 2012" (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:18:20 AM EST
    Obama Wins 2012 Erection Hands Down

    The White House on Wednesday said that Obama - after a week or so of making empty threats to try to pre-emptively defuse any tentative whimpering thoughts of opposition among the peasants to it - has changed his mind and now announces that he will not veto the controversial 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

    The president's spokesman Carney Barker said lawmakers who crafted a compromise version from rival Senate and House versions of the legislation had addressed his reluctance about growing a pair and publicly taking ownership of the tough rules on detainees contained in Sections 1031 and 1032 of the act.


    Asked by reporters for his thoughts on this new manly "unitary executive" theory that Obama is now embracing, Big Dick former Vice-President Cheney responded saying "It's not new. There is solid precedent. I was asked about this when it was revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration had been spying on Americans, and my answer remains now what it was then - the president can do whatever the h*ll he wants to, whenever the h*ll he wants to, to whomever the h*ll he wants to. Want a glass of water to wash that down with?":

    "If you want to understand why this program is legal...go back and read my Iran-Contra report."


    As Nixon said to David Frost: (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cymro on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:11:20 AM EST
    "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

    A 5-second clip, in case it's not already burned into your memory.


    Meanwhile . . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    "The Department of Labor reported the first-time applications for unemployment benefits fell 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 366,000, the lowest level since May 2008 early in the Great Recession. The four-week running average, which flattens volatility in the weekly figures, fell to 387,750."


    See comment #1 (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:54:42 AM EST
    U6 remains (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    around 15.6% and the new hires will be gone after Xmas.

    It'll be fine (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    Once wages are forced down far enough to get the poverty rate up to 90% or so rather then the current 50% sj mentioned in the first comment up above, then we'll have nearly full employment with people begging for any kind of job at any kind of pay they can get just to be able to eat.

    MICHAEL HUDSON, PROF. ECONOMICS, UMKC: Mr. Obama has appointed neoliberal advisers. The deal that he made when he was elected was that he would get Wall Street's campaign financing in exchange for appointing Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and other Wall Street people. And the financial sector all over the world is opening a class war against labor from the United States to here. Mr. Obama's intention is to reduce wages here by between 20 and 30 percent, and that requires a recession--or, actually, it requires much more than a recession; let's just say depression.

    So about three months ago, Mr. Obama negotiated with the Republicans to adopt the Republican program of cutting back government spending in order to shrink demand, lower employment. His objective is to create more unemployment, in the belief that if you cut back employment, wages are going to go down, and if wages go down, that will create higher profits. That's sort of a bizarre belief, and he's willing to bring on a recession in order to serve the neoliberal philosophy.

    See Two Party Con Job: The President, The Super Committee, and the Attack on Labor

    It'll even become cost effective to operate factories in the US again once labor costs become more reasonable.

    That's what Obama falling all over himself for three years in his batsh*t crazy conviction that giving everything that demanded and more to batsh*t crazy republicans has done for the country.


    Gesh (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:49:52 PM EST
    Any proof of any of this?

    And what does it have to do with U6?


    Why the smear??? (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:41:40 PM EST
    Just angry because I asked for proof about military experience causing the murder/suicide?

    Utterly juvenile, Donald. Utterly.


    Meanwhile, (none / 0) (#125)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:46:47 PM EST
    the weather service reports that there will more days that are cloudy and windy than days that are sunny and windy.

    Here's hoping (none / 0) (#150)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:58:29 PM EST
    this continues...

    anyone have any experience (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    with superfocus specs?

    Not me (none / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    But once you find someone I'd like to hear the reviews!  lol

    No. I have enough trouble walking (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:41:06 PM EST
    wearing progressive lens!

    you have seen the commercials though no? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 06:15:17 AM EST
    Richard Meier

    Joel Grey and Judith Jamison

    they made me want to know more.  they start at 700 bucks


    Holy Goggles :) (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 06:18:34 AM EST
    my last pair (none / 0) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 06:48:41 AM EST
    of regular blended (or whatever they are called) bifocals were almost that much.

    See what insurance does (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 07:43:26 AM EST
    It makes me unaware.  We only have two mildest astigmatisms around here though right now.  They only wear their glasses when their eyes get tired too.

    I realized about ten years ago (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:11:23 AM EST
    that the reason I needed glasses was because by the time I turned fifty I'd probably seen just about everything worth looking at.

    Soon I'll need a hearing aid, because.....


    I think we need a push (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:36:33 AM EST
    to manufacture replacement parts

    For the things (none / 0) (#178)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    we keep seeing over and over again?

    I'm tired of this back-slapping
    "Isn't humanity neat?" bullsh*t.
    We're a virus with shoes, okay?
    That's all we are.

    --Bill Hicks (December 16, 1961 - February 26, 1994)

    As another born on December 16, I have to agree with Hicks: It's Just A Ride, and a lot of it, I've noticed, wasn't worth looking at the first time. Happy birthday to me. Sigh.

    I haven't seen the commercials Did click the (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:59:50 AM EST

    TChris (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    I am wa-a-a-ay behind the curve here, but did I miss an explanation as to why TChris no longer posts here?  I liked his stuff.

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    It makes sense.  I'm not really sure what I'm asking but I think I was wondering if there was an "announcement", of sorts, that I missed.

    Anyway, I'm glad he was here for a while.


    Teeeebowwwwww reveals (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:38:26 PM EST
    he likes country music, U 2, Will Smith, Jennifer Anniston, and Braveheart  Cannot heart a guy who liked "Braveheart."  

    How can Tebow like U2? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 06:23:34 AM EST
    Oh yeah, I forgot because they make it so forgettable.  All but one of them is a Christian, but they have in the past worked tirelessly to save the doomed sinning one :)  It will suck in heaven singing glory to god on high if there ends up being a U2 breakup :)

    Damn (none / 0) (#148)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    guess I have Jennifer Anniston competition. Looks like I'm off the Tebow wagon.

    But don't you suppose that makes her (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:14:09 PM EST
    feel "wanted" after the oh-so-cruel Mr. Pitt?

    I really wish I didn't know this (none / 0) (#169)
    by CST on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    she's seeing someone else now.

    At least according to the line at the grocery store.


    Ha. An amazing source of misinformation. (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    true (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by CST on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    although I generally find the 3 cover test to be someone accurate.

    1 cover and it might as well be an alien invasion.  2 covers and the smoke could be indicative of a fire, or it could be 2 tabloids passing a joint.  3 covers and the next thing you know they are apologizing on Oprah and quitting twitter.


    A friend told me her family sd. to just (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    go ahead and subscribe to "People" mag.  So she came out of the closet and did.  Had a bit of trouble with the recent Duggar references on line.  19 kids?  Really?  

    Who better to take the vaunted (none / 0) (#179)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    Tebow virginity?

    Is there a betting pool for that blessed event? K-dog?


    Lindsey Vonn. n/t (none / 0) (#181)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:17:08 AM EST
    Seems like (none / 0) (#149)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:57:43 PM EST
    his interests were spawned by some sort of Facebook algorithm.  

    High school students suspended for (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:46:05 PM EST
    Tebowing in the hallway.  LAT

    Christopher Hitchens has died. (none / 0) (#159)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 01:12:36 AM EST
    Hitchens, 62, died today (Thursday) of pneumonia, a complication of esophageal cancer.

    He was wrong about so many things, among them the Iraq war which he fanatically supported. Still, he could be entertaining.

    My thoughts go out to his family.


    it saddens me to announce (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 06:18:27 AM EST
    that Newts 15 minutes appears to be over.  I just caught a segment on Fox and Friends where they, of all people - eh tu Doocy? - were calling him nutty and dangerous for suggesting, last night I guess, that when those crazy activists judges do things we dont like we should drag their sorry a$$es before congress and interrogate them and then fire them.

    Joan Walsh at Salon (none / 0) (#180)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:58:19 AM EST
    has a good summary of the debate that I can't link to at the moment. Sounded pretty amusing.  Almost wish I had watched.

    When you agree with what she is saying, Bachmann seems great. I can see the wingnut attraction. Too bad she is, ya know, a woman, or she would be the frontrunner.


    And Nikki Haley, (none / 0) (#188)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    rising Republican star, South Carolina governor,  and a Tea Party favorite, just endorsed Mitt Romney.  Newt's ahead in SC in the last polling, but I wonder how long that's going to last now.  And South Carolina is one of the early primary states.  

    Nikki Haley (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    is not going to help Romney believe it or not as she is extremely unpopular in the state. I think it shows more as to where the GOP thinking is and expect more people to be lining up behind Romney in the near future.

    Perfect! (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    Can we finally all agree the Tea Party is no more committed or idealistic than the rest of the GOP?

    Have you checked (none / 0) (#191)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    Haley lately. She's a fast falling star. Her approval rating among registered voters in South Carolina is at 35%

    Heh. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    That's what I get for listening to NPR news on the radio today- they're behind the curve.

    I think Paul may have (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 06:50:58 AM EST
    really damaged himself last night with his comments about Iran

    You mean he now has less than zero (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    chance of being the GOP nominee?