Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< McCulloch v. Maryland | Madoff: "They Had To Know" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You can't convince me that SS isn't (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:35:13 AM EST
    a target, or that Obama's given up on trying to "fix" it; Republicans and conservative Dems must be fairly drooling as Obama signals he wants to deal.

    From the NYT:

    But, Mr. Obama said at a news conference, any such compromise to address Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the tax system is months away and will first require an effort to build bipartisan trust -- even as Democrats and Republicans battle intensely over how much to cut from the current year's domestic spending.


    Now some Democrats and Republicans are re-examining whether the political risks of raising revenues and curbing the most popular social programs might be outweighed by the urgency of addressing the looming budget impact of an aging population and rapidly rising medical costs.


    The White House has already opened back-channel conversations to test Republicans' willingness to negotiate about the soaring costs of Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security's long-range solvency and an income-tax code riddled with more than $1 trillion a year worth of loopholes and tax breaks.

    The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, all but invited Mr. Obama on Tuesday to start huddling about the issues, and a bipartisan group of senators held a third meeting to write debt-reduction legislation based on the recommendations in December of the majority of a bipartisan fiscal commission established by the president.


    After much internal debate about the political risks, House Republican leaders announced that their own budget for fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1, "will lead where the president has failed and include real entitlement reforms" in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

    But in the Senate, Mr. McConnell signaled a different approach. He indicated he is ready to negotiate now with Mr. Obama to curb entitlement program costs, which, along with military spending and interest on the national debt, are driving projections of unsustainable debt in coming decades.

    "It doesn't have to be in public," he said. "We all understand there are some limitations to negotiating significant agreements in public. But we're still waiting for the president to lead."


    Mr. Obama, on the defensive at his news conference, said it was wrong to say the fiscal commission's majority report "has been shelved" and said "it still provides a framework for a conversation" between the parties.

    But Mr. Obama also noted that while the commission majority was bipartisan, the dissenters included all three House Republican leaders who were members of the panel, including the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.

    "He's got a little bit of juice when it comes to trying to get an eventual budget done," Mr. Obama said of Mr. Ryan. "So," he added, "I'm going to have to have a conversation with him -- what would he like to see happen?"

    How is it not clear to people that, just as with health "care," this will all be done and agreed to behind closed doors, and the Obama campaign people will then skitter out into the media like the cockroaches they are, putting their best spin ever on the travesty that will result.

    And can I just add that I don't want to hear any nonsense about how this is all about Obama's plan to make it look like entitlement cuts are the GOP's idea, just in time for him to emerge from the WH phone booth in his SuperO costume to save us all from their evil ways.

    Time to face reality.

    Scottish Deerhound (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:51:00 AM EST
    Heh, I was watching that show on t.v. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:20:01 PM EST
    the last couple of nights in lieu of the news shows and police shows.

    I thought I was the only one.  I loved it when the Scottish Deerhound won.  What a cool dog.

    And the Westminster show is over 100 years old.  What frivolity but so engrossing in its own way....  


    yes (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    he was a cutie.  lots of personality.

    I loved that bearded collie (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:39:54 PM EST
    But Hickory was my next choice. Such a sweetie!

    That bearded collie was mezmerizing (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    as it trotted around the ring....Just this white wavy silk all aflow.....

    I liked the sleek little, white terrier too....


    my 3 favs also (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:26:44 PM EST
    Beardie, terrier and the deerhound.  I was hoping to see the beardie bounce in the ring :)

    The announcer was part of the whole charm (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 11:36:39 AM EST
    "This is the bearded collie.  Bearded collies were first introduced to the U.S. in......A strong working dog, with a good disposition.....Bearded Collie #12."

    Or something like that....


    last night while cleaning the fish tanks (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:37:23 AM EST
    I was listening to Lawerence ODonnells new show.  it was maybe the second time I caught it and is was even more stunning in its vapidity than the first time.
    he spent a full 6 minutes talking about the cartoon that showed up on a right wing site concerning Michelles fat fight.  
    now, lets be clear.  the cartoon was stupid.  it wasnt particularly funny.  and it was aimed at the lowest of low brows.  is it racist.  perhaps.  it didnt strike my as particularly racist compared to a lot of the other stuff we have seen about the Obamas.  and I have personally laughed at far worse of Bush and so undoubtedly has ODonnell.  but the preening, pious, self righteous ODonnell succeeded in making them almost sympathetic.
    but that is not the amazing part.  what grabbed my attention.  what made me stop and rewind because I couldnt believe what I was hearing was that at about 5 minutes in he announces the city these people live using his wifes name and actually encourages people to harrass them on the street.
    MSNBC is becoming the bookend to FOX.  its sad.

    the cartoon (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    I Don't See the Racism (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:15:18 AM EST
    Just a typical right wing cartoon, offensive and not anything resembling funny.

    Not sure if making the two super duper dark is racist, if it is, then the cartoon is, but that would be a stretch.


    Is that what passes for wit? (none / 0) (#9)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:07:34 AM EST
    It's offensive because because of its stupidity -- not because it's racist.

    But he really went Michelle Malkin on the cartoonist?


    exactly what I thought (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    lord, who thinks this stuff is funny? (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    That is the disturbing part. Doesn't humor have to have some basis in truth to be funny? Think what you want about Michelle, she does not come across as an overeating hypocrite on the topic of obesity.

    I can see where the huge monkey ears can be considered a race-based insult.  


    I dunno (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    the man does tend to look like a taxi with both doors open.  even he jokes about them.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:54:31 AM EST
    He DOES have big ears.

    And have I to say, I was not a fan of Michelle Obama, but she is winning me over.  I think the Republicans make themselves look silly(ier) by going after her for encouraging people to prevent and reduce obesity, especially in children.


    I completely agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    she is a beautiful classy lady and the more they attack her the more hateful and ridiculous they look.

    beginning to like your pal Mitch (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    "We will need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean," he said, referring to the popular conservative media personalities.

    for that mile rebuke at CPAC he has been attacked pretty much non stop since.

    He does have big ears and other cartoons show them (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:16:08 PM EST
    in a funny way. But this goes way beyond that IMO.

    meh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:44:53 PM EST
    its a cartoonist thing.


    and this is how Luckovitch (the best in the business IMO) used to draw Bush

    this is an interest of mine.  I actually considered being a political cartoonist for a while.  I used to do them for local newspapers when I was a kid.

    if anyone is interested there is a great site.


    couple of other (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    Ok, I retract (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:54:31 PM EST
    I did remember that Bush used to be drawn as Curious George too.

    I'm not entirely convinced there was not race based intent in this case, but will retract based on insufficient evidence!


    I have no problem accepting (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 08:18:49 AM EST
    that the cartoonist in this case could very well be racist.  but I am iffy on the cartoon.
    you know if I wanted to get excited about a racist cartoon I think it is much easier to make the case that this one is racist that I plucked more or less at random from the cartoon site.
    not only is it a markedly more unflattering rather racially stereotypical caricature, if you notice she is being depicted as the colored lunch lady in an apron behind the counter serving food.

    but what mileage would ODonnell get out of calling out a rube newspaper in Rome GA?


    oops (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 08:20:00 AM EST
    IMO (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    he is just not very good.  thats the only way he could, in his mind, make it recognizable.
    and "funny".  and no doubt insulting.

    Have to agree -- it's not (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    funny, and it's not racist.  I think the art and the humor of cartooning (fwiw from this non-cartoonist) lie somewhere in a sweet spot that suggests or cleverly shows, but doesn't bash you over the head with the exaggeration.  

    But this is all too typical of RW "humor" -- overdone to the point of approaching unfunny nastiness.


    Sure. But Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#90)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:56:45 PM EST
    is not fat.  She is in great shape.  

    So:  Yes, stupid -- and bad cartooning, because good cartooning resonates for connection to reality.  

    But no, not racist.  Why even ask if it's racist?  That term really has to be reserved for real racism, or the term loses meaning.


    also from a (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    charactureist point of view it is his defining feature.  you see it in almost every cartoon.  its just that most are better at it than this guy.  whoever he is.

    and worse (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:03:29 PM EST
    and W as well.  check the link above.

    Yes (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:04:25 AM EST
    The best thing we could do for political discourse in this country is for everyone to turn off Fox and MSNBC.

    I agree (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    I was really tuning in to Rachel.  I like her.

    Yes, Rachel is good, but (none / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:04:25 PM EST
    like all the rest she has her annoying habits, like consistently repeating a phrase or idea for emphasis.  I got it the first time, but she sees a need to say it again or have the camera show her underlining that line in the script.  First few times, amusing.  Lately just annoying.  

    Larry O also has his faults, a little more than Rachel it must be said.  He should stop shouting at stupid guests and just let his pretty sharp cross-examination stand alone.

    And I'm not sure what got into him with this cartoon commentary.  It looked like he was trying just a little too hard to score one for white liberals -- or white socialists -- in their attempt to spot and call out anti-black racism on the Right.  I thought it was a bit of a stretch, particularly with naming the home town of the cartoonist.  


    But not quite Fox -- they would have put up the guy's actual home address and phone number.

    Meanwhile, I've been noticing Spitzer & Cohost have been improving of late ...


    wonder if ODonnell (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    will wring his hands and despair over this from alternet?

    In the immortal words of Megatron in Transformers: The Movie, Herman Cain's speech at CPAC really is bad comedy. As you know, I find (black garbage pail kids stricken) black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters.
    When race minstrelsy was America's most popular form of mass entertainment, black actors would often have to pretend to be white men, who then in turn would put on the cork to play the role of the "black" coon, Sambo, or Jumping Jim Crow.
    We always need a monkey in the window, for he/she reminds us of our humanity while simultaneously reinforcing a sense of our own superiority. Sadly, there are always folks who are willing to play that role because it pays so well.

    dont often agree with powerline but in this case . . .

    No, the author doesn't at all take into consideration Cain's individuality; in their sloppy logic they shows their cards: all black people must be Democrats thus, if Cain isn't a Democrat, then he's a captive conservative. The author insults Cain's free will and shows once again exactly what progressives think of black Americans: pawns that must be told what to believe. Humans who lack the cognitive ability to make valid choices. Black Americans couldn't -Cain couldn't - possibly come to the realization of their conservatism alone! They must have been brainwashed! Because progressives don't believe that black conservatives possess the ability to make such rational arguments, they, the progressives, must "save" them. And again, progressives insult black conservatives by insisting that they are victims of stupidity.

    this is so sad and so horrible (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:56:37 AM EST
    it makes me want to break things.  

    A Nationwide Day for Honoring Charles Darwin, but Handled With Caution

    There was trepidation on both sides when a squadron of biologists set out to celebrate Darwin Day in rural America during the weekend.

    The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, N.C., which instigated the road trip in the name of scientific outreach, first held a workshop where seven of its Ph.D.'s staged role-playing games and practiced debunking misconceptions about evolution without sounding confrontational.

    this was the headline on HotAir:

    "You want to send evolutionary biologists out to rural America? On purpose?"

    ha ha really really funny.

    Ouch....hoping Logan is OK (none / 0) (#6)
    by smott on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:10:33 AM EST
    I saw that yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:35:05 AM EST
    at the Huffington Post (I think) but darned if I can recall how I got there.

    Violence against journalists was widespread during the unrest that led to Mubarak's ouster. At least 52 journalists came under attack covering the revolution according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

    Anyway, I'm sure she's not OK.  The attack was described as "brutal and sustained".  And it took

    "a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers"

    to save her.  This was right on the Square.

    No way is she OK right now.  

    To say my heart goes out to her sounds trite.  But it feels anything but trite.


    Do we know who did this? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    Were they some of Mubarak's people or some of the peaceful protestors we kept hearing about?

    Does that really matter? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:54:47 AM EST
    Do you think it matters to Logan?

    Would there be more condemnation if it was Mubarak supporters than if it was members of the pro-democracy protests?

    Here is the statement from CBS News:

    On Friday, Feb. 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a "60 Minutes" story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.

    In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently home recovering.

    There will be no further comment from CBS News and correspondent Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time.

    Given the circumstances, where it appears Logan's life was in danger, the focus was rightly on getting her to safety, not sticking around a frenzied mob to conduct an investigation.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:58:25 AM EST
    a much better response/reaction than mine.

    I don' t know about "better," but if (none / 0) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:07:43 AM EST
    it was, it was only because I deleted what I really wanted to say.

    I thought your reference to the insulting way in which the question was asked hit closer to what I wanted to say, but didn't.


    Doubt it matters to Logan but (none / 0) (#27)
    by smott on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:02:06 AM EST
    But my money's on the pro-Mubs.

    Wil try to find the link I read but apparently the normal societal groping/violence towards women was almost non-existent the first couple weeks as the protesters tried to model society the way they wanted it to be, with equal treatment/respect for either gender and so on....

    Then as pro-Mubs infiltrated it began to change.

    Again - not much matter to Lara - and may she recover as well and as quickly as possible.


    I would ask: (none / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    Who has a greater interest in shutting down journalists:  "Mubarak's people or some of the peaceful protesters we kept hearing about."

    And then I would wonder why you even asked that question.  Especially in such an insulting way.


    I don't think it's insulting (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    I seriously want to know.  We heard about these peaceful protests.  Most of them were - but I can't imagine all the protestors were. (See how many other journalists were attacked, although I don't think Anderson Cooper getting punched in the face, while abonimable, is anywhere equal to being sexually assaulted).

    And since this is not an isolated incident of a female foreign affairs journalist being attacked (this seems to be a growing problem), I think it's a fair question to ask. Especially as it may deter other women from going to volatile regions (or their bosses may forbid it - see CBS)

    CBS is now considering pulling female journalists from Egypt.


    It's insulting because (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    it's loaded with agenda.  What agenda?  The one where you will want to argue to the death over whether a protest can be labeled peaceful if so much as a fingernail was broken.  

    As far as I'm concerned, all anyone needs to know is that is woman was brutally assaulted and raped, which is reprehensible no matter what the politics of those responsible, or the venue in which it occurred.  

    And I'm pretty sure that Lara Logan, who has been covering the Middle East for years, has reported from war zones, is well aware of the dangers women face there.


    The 20 Egyptian soldiers (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:23:02 PM EST
    and the women helping to rescue Logan....

    What about the men?

    It makes the soldiers look good--civically minded....


    This is really getting tiring (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    I realize that some people around here don't like my opinions, but I have to say the piliing on every time I don't "fallow the party line" is extremely boring.

    I'm SURE it matters to Logan.  Maybe her assaulters won't be brought to justice, but maybe they will.  We certainly don't want innocent people punished for this now, do we?

    I also think that while most of the protests were peaceful, not all of them were.  I think there was certainly an incentive to show them that way.  The fact that the media had to keep MENTIONING that they were peaceful also should tell you they were trying to tell a story - one that may be mostly true, but not necessarily completely true.  It's like having class - those who have it don't have to tell you - you just know it.

    What I find amusing is that you, like many others around here, are instantly suspicious of anything that is reported that you don't agree with or from a source you don't like, but will completely buy the party line hook, line, and sinker if it's a message that you agree with.


    The attack happened (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:48:55 PM EST
    during the celebrations, not the protests.  So technically she wouldn't have been attacked by "protesters."  There were a ton of people out there.  Who knows.  The whole Mubarak's people v. protesters narrative (and it appeared, actual dynamic) had already faded by then anyway.  Which is probably why people bristled at your question.  

    IMO the media was mentioning how peaceful they were because our country was freaking out over the fact that a country with a different majority religion than ours was undergoing a major upheaval.  

    The fact that there was some violence is not surprising (and there was some violence).  The fact that the vast majority were peaceful is astonishing, and consistent with all accounts.

    Nothing has been "reported" on this other than that it happened.  Who did it, if there were other incidents of violence towards women during the protests, remains to be seen.


    Mobs (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:32:49 PM EST
    The guy who wrote the little book Blink concluded that police officers in a group kill unarmed suspects more often than a sole police officer acting alone.

    Studies showed that the more cops on the scene, the more likely the suspect will be shot.....Something about not taking the time to correctly or cautiously assess the scene.  At first, it seems counter-intuitive:  with more cops and less of a chance of getting killed, there should be less of a need to shoot, right?  But it doesn't work out that way.

    Less individual responsibility....Just mob dynamics....


    now this makes sense (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    I guess this happened in the frenzied mob after Mubarak stepped down.

    Actually (none / 0) (#94)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    it was on the 11th but it doesn't say if it was before or after the resignation.  Sorry about that.  There was a pretty big mob on the 11th regardless, and I do think the pro-Mubarak versus protester dynamic had faded by that point.  It's hard to draw any conclusions at this point and it'll probably just end up being a meaningless, horrific act, like most rapes are.  But again, who knows.

    Okay, if you had written this: (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    Were they some of Mubarak's people or some of the pro-democracy protestors?

    You wouldn't have gotten - at least from me - the kind of reaction you did.  It was the "peaceful protestors we kept hearing about" that opened that door.

    Why?  Because it conveyed - in my opinion - that you weren't buying into the idea that these people were peaceful at all.  

    Did you ever consider that the reason the media kept stressing the peaceful nature of the protests was because there are too many people in this country who see a crowd that size in the Middle East and automatically think "out-of-control-terrorist-Muslims-who-want-to-get-us?"  That maybe that was the counter to those who kept wanting to raise the scary spectre of the Muslim Brotherhood?

    It's impossible to put that many people in one place and expect there not to be some violence - and impossible not to know that in a country of such poverty, that there would be those out to take advantage for their own purposes - but given the reason most of them were there, the number of days they were there, and the potential for it to have been a bloodbath, it was, by and large, a peaceful 18 days of protest.

    I have no idea what this "party line" is that you see me and others swallowing; I really don't.  I pretty much don't have a "party" anymore, just the things I do believe in and appreciate being supported in the few corners of the blogosphere and the media where there are still people willing to stand up for them.

    You get piled on not because you don't take this so-called party line, but because people don't feel your comments are honest, and when pressed, the explanations you offer don't do much to dispel that feeling.  

    It truly does not matter to me what the politics are of the men who attacked Lara Logan, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter to her, either - and if tht's a party line, well, so be it.


    they were peacful protests (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    the people who chased Cooper and I would bet Logan were PRO Mubarak people.
    thats a fact.  at least about Cooper.  I saw. over.
    and over. and over.

    having said that I way over hearing about Cooper being "injured".  in all the times I saw that he did not appear to me to get a scratch.


    Logan (none / 0) (#59)
    by star on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:16:59 PM EST
     I would not be so sure that protesters - pro or anti Mubarak is not capable of assaulting a woman. especially a western women. Gender equality is not all that important in that area. I was shocked when I visited Dubai (supposed to be the most modern of all mid east places) . My brother-in-law would not let me go down the to the garage in the ground floor of their apartment on my own at about 9 pm. He said it is not safe and a women on her own is free game. usually the victim is blamed there abouts for asking for it by wandering about with out escort.
    Another sad but often true belief in that region is western women are easy and available. I have heard other women at the mosque here in US wonder why someone cries rape, when they really have no qualms to have sex with out marriage or husband.

    so it IS sadly a culture thing and I would not assume it is connected to anything political. I doubt if they even knew or cared that she is a reporter. She was at the wrong place at the wrong time. crowd was high on their success and the belief that they can get away with it.


    I don't understand jb... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:45:29 PM EST
    do you think common criminals and violent thugs of any and all political leanings go on vacation when there is widespread protest or something?

    Similar violent crimes happen everyday in all corners of the globe.  No disrespect to the victim of this traumatic violent crime, but sorry to say such violent crimes are not unique to Egypt or to any nation in the process of overthrowing its government.


    Gah, sorry - (none / 0) (#24)
    by smott on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    Did not mean that as it sounded.

    I sincerely hope she's "OK" as in "recovers as well as possible and my heart goes out to her"

    Will attempt to review before hitting post next time...


    I'm sorry, too (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    My response wasn't a reaction to your comment but rather to her ordeal.

    I didn't mean to make you feel bad.  


    NP (none / 0) (#28)
    by smott on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    My feelings are the least of it. Awful ordeal for Logan and hope she bounces back healthy and strong as possible...

    I know it is hard to find the right words (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    But here are some of the wrong ones.

    It is unfathomable to me that people can be so mean-spirited about something like this.


    Why is the sexual assault victim's name (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 05:58:17 PM EST
    all over the news and this blog?

    She authorized the release. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:12:54 PM EST
    Not sure. Maybe so many people on site knew (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:45:00 PM EST
    about it that CBS felt like they had to make a statement. And they had to say something about why she will be off the air for a while. Why lie about it?

    Look out Big East... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:15:57 AM EST
    The Johnnies are back baby!  We should see them in the Top 25 now after stomping Marquette on the road last night.  It's been a long time coming...too long.

    I'll be at the World's Most Famous Arena for the big game against Pitt Saturday....Go St. John's!!!

    what do you think? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:21:57 AM EST
    17 years and counting... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    no problems here:)  

    I always thought the sacrament had the qualities of an aphrodisiac myself...but it effects everybody differently so who knows.


    completely (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    ridiculous in fact.
    40+ daily and counting and no problem here.

    Thats 2... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    Bob Marley and the proof of the many fruit of his loins makes 3.

    someone looking (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    for an excuse?

    Had my annual cable bill negotiation (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    It's amazing how five minutes on the phone can cut the price by a third. You just have to say some magic words (i.e., "FIOS flyer.")

    Casus belli. (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:46:16 AM EST
    A review by a National Academy of Science panel (funded by the FBI) said that genetic analysis did not definitely demonstrate that the mailed anthrax spores were grown from a sample taken from Dr. Bruce Ivins laboratory (Dr. Ivins committed suicide in 2008). Moreover, the Academy report faults the FBI for failing to take advantage of newer scientific methods between 200l and 2008. (Dr. Steven Hatfill, a person of interest in the anthrax case for six years was exonerated and DOJ paid him $5.8 million in an annuity).  

    On another front, the Iraqi defector, named Curveball by the CIA, has admitted that he fabricated his story that Saddam had biological weapons. Rafid al-Janabi, said he was proud that he had the opportunity to lie so as to give Iraq the "margin of democracy."  al-Janabi's claim was featured prominently in Secretary of State Colin Powell's UN address in Feb 2003 when he laid out the Bush administration's case for war.  (NYTimes, Feb 16)

    Curveball's admission of his lies (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    didn't get much attention....

    Iraq was so yesterday, apparently.


    True, we need to look forward, (none / 0) (#66)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:54:37 PM EST
    not backward.

    whats the point really (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    it was covered.  I saw several places and pretty much everyone already knew it anyway.
    the truth is we have a whole new set of problems now and spending a lot of time saying "see, see, see!" is not all that productive IMO.
    particularly on the presidents part if thats what you meant.  no idea if it was.

    really? (none / 0) (#68)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    I don't know if the political will necessarily needs to be coming from the President, but the run-up to Iraq is a f*cking scandal.  It's shameful that people have no curiosity about it.  People don't care because they believe America has the right to go around freeing nations.  It's absurd.  

    Nothing about Iraq was done in good faith.  There are still too many people who think that Bush "made a mistake" instead of "pathologically lied to the country from Sept. 12th onward."  

    I'm telling you, it'll come back to bite us in the @ss next time we have a Republican President.  Torture will come back and we'll find someone new to bomb.  And people won't remember why we abandoned those approaches to begin with.


    I do not really disagree (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    personally I think Rummy book deserves much more coverage than this.

    really, I mean who didnt know this guy was full of it at the time.

    having said that I believe it should be on the front page of the NYTimes.  no idea if its been there.  be surprised.
    the whole thing.  the truth is the media doesnt want to cover it because the enabled it.  


    History buff (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    ....and the Iraq War is more current events for me than history....

    I don't think Obama should have said anything....

    But the Neocons are still out there and the debacle that is Iraq needs to be framed conclusively as the bad faith disaster that it was....


    yes (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    see above

    Speaking of the flu (none / 0) (#30)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    or TB or an STD...

    Read this article the other day and saw this again on the news this AM.


    As to court records, while 45 CFR § 164.512(e) contains special requirements for covered entities in the production of personal health information in response to a trial subpoena or discovery request, once the information becomes part of the court record it is no longer subject to HIPAA. This information then becomes subject to the general statutory and common law requirements that court records are open to the public unless otherwise sealed by the court or made confidential by statute.

    Don't be the cause of an outbreak - the public may end up at your doorstep w/the pitchforks.

    Thanks Vic... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 05:00:03 PM EST
    Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the 88-page book reminded her of the CliffsNotes pamphlets that have helped generations of 11th graders get through Macbeth. "Needless to say, this makes me a little nervous," she said, adding that the legal issues the book raised were "nuanced, thorny and difficult, and hard to capture in CliffsNotes."

    Yeah...a wee bit nervous.  A cheat sheet from hell.

    Wouldn't it be better in such a rare doomsday scenario to have the authorities break our sacred rules than to have loopholes around them?  


    Tell me about it. (none / 0) (#104)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 05:56:54 PM EST
    Time to stock up on the canned goods.

    Nir Rosen (none / 0) (#40)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    puts the 'twit' in twitter: link

    Wiki page (none / 0) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    When someone does something really stupid, I like to go to wiki as quick as possible.  Oh too bad, it's been corrected this morning.

    Well, I did get a screen capture last night.


    Resigned his fellowship (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    at NYU over it, too.  Valerie Strauss asks:

    Why didn't NYU fire Nir Rosen over Lara Logan?

    Which would have been entirely appropriate.


    Apology seems sincere (none / 0) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    Seemed truly disguted with himself but, unless a conservative, a person will face consequences.

    mediabistro via GG


    Contract, perhaps -- (none / 0) (#98)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    as Geraghty clearly (per other reports) was pushing to get Rosen out.  But the NYU counsel may have had to look closely at the fellowship contract -- if only to be sure that NYU wouldn't be on the hook to pay out more of the funding.

    Who knows, maybe a resignation midway in a fellowship requires Rosen to repay some funding?  That would be good karma.


    Gee (none / 0) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:42:08 PM EST
    "So," he added, "I'm going to have to have a conversation with him -- what would he like to see happen?"

          -- from Anne's comment

    How nice we have a President willing to let Paul Ryan decide our fate.

    welcome to another addition of (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    lets make stuff up and pretend people said it.

    he is the chairman of the budget committee.  that makes that statement entirely reasonable.


    cal9142 didn't make up a thing (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    He had a take on something said by O.  And he quoted it.  And bolded it.

    And tell me, do you think O is going to have a conversation with Ryan so that they can go toe-to-toe?  

    He's talking about the budget here.  Be honest now, when responding.


    this is what he said (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    How nice we have a President willing to let Paul Ryan decide our fate.

    which is not at all what the president said.  

    I think the president is far from Paul Ryan.  lets just leave it at that.

    emphasis mine.


    that was (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    cal1942's take.  Not a quote.  Public statements are interpreted all the time.  That's what this is.  NOT something that was "made up".

    or are you suggesting (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:41:27 PM EST
    that the president should do the budget without consulting the chairman of the budget committee?

    Not at all. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    I agree with you that a meeting is appropriate. But my question to you was:  Do you think O plans to go toe-to-toe with Ryan when then meet?

    Because my take is that we will likely be treated to another case of premature capitulation.

    If I'm wrong, I'll own up to it.  I might need to be reminded, but I'll eat virtual crow publicly.  

    So?  What are you thinking about that meeting?


    Obama has more than once (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:42:12 PM EST
    shared that he thinks Paul Ryan has some really good ideas, so, when I hear him also say that he wants to know what Ryan wants, I think that's cause for some concern.

    In fact, I think Ryan is just the person Obama needs in order to build consensus for some of the things he keeps telling us he wants to do - things I still can't believe someone who calls himself a democrat could ever get behind.

    Sure, we can wait and see what happens, but try as I might, I can't find a reason to believe that the pattern established even before Obama was elected is about to be broken.

    Of course, by the time we can see whatever it is, the chances of undoing it will be nil.


    the chances of undoing it are pretty nil (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    already.  personally I think Ryan is exactly what Obama has been looking for.  but not in the way you think.  IMO he will end up being the Newt to Obama Bubba.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:57:25 PM EST
    that one, Capt.  Big shock, eh?

    For one thing, the GOP isn't going to shut down the government, expecially not when they have Obama not even bothering to hide his zeal for common ground, much of which is going to hurt those who are already hurting.

    For another, Bill Clinton doesn't have what I am beginning to regard in Obama as a deep dislike and disdain for the poor.

    To see Ryan/Obama playing out like Gingrich/Clinton is, in my opinion, to be deeply in denial about what is going on.


    the GOP clearly (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    does not want to shut down the government.  but I have been listening to the tea party caucus and I am not at all convinced they can be corralled.

    "dislike and disdain for the poor" (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    isnt this the "community organizer"?

    yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:35:33 PM EST
    ... he did that for a long time didn't he?  Oh wait, no he didn't.

    he didnt? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:39:07 PM EST
    I really have no idea.  I heard it on FOX.

    from the confluence (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 05:02:23 PM EST
    which we all love here I believe

    It does appear that his history of community organizing is central to Obama's identity, seemingly even more important to him than his work as a legislator

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:44:10 PM EST
    imagination or the conclusionary product of ideology ("dislike and disdain for the poor" comment.)  Of course, we all make conclusionary statements.

    If Obama had shown one-tenth the (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:06:00 PM EST
    protectiveness for the interests of the poor - or even of the ever-dwindling middle class - as he has for the top 2%, I wouldn't have said what I did, but he hasn't.

    He talks about how much he cares, but his actions don't comport with those words.

    It's extraordinarily disheartening to see that - on both sides of the aisle - we aren't even arguing about whether we need to make all these cuts - many of which are going to be made on the backs of the least of us - we moved directly to that we need to cut - and now all that's being argued about is what is going to be cut.  He's quite nicely put the wealthy off-limits - I guess he doesn't want to impose any sacrifice on them - which means the cuts will come at the expense of those who simply have nothing left to sacrifice.

    At every opportunity, Obama finds a way to talk about going after Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - and if you honestly trust, with Obama's affinity for all things Wall Street, that he's looking to make those programs stronger and better, I might just have some swampland I could sell you.


    LOL (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    Well, we can't both be right, that's for sure.  We'll definitely have a chance to see who plays Newt.  You think Ryan blinks.  I think it's Obama.

    I'd be happy to be wrong, but we'll see.


    The key (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:52:51 PM EST
    to spotting a blink...is to agree on the standard for seeing the blink. IOW, since this really isn't mathematics, the "blinker" will be determined subjectively by media, other forms of consensus, etc. Really. If President Obama manages to get more than what he gives--and people could define that differently--then the loser or blinker will be seen as not only Cong. Ryan but the entire Repub party.  For example, the positioning of who is likely to be viewed at shutting-down-the-government is a sparring match in itself.  The markers might well be: Defense cuts (how close to the $80B administration proposal)? Oil & Gas royalties recoupment (or acceptable trade-off, perhaps with the heating assistance aspect)? Percentage reduction on block grants? and, significantly, the infrastructure funding aspect?

    My bet is with the President on this one.  The primary reason: The anticipation in the Republican party has been much higher than they can meet. To me, it has a lot to do with the expectations of the general public and the various media that feed into that.


    just so (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    and you could be right (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    I just get tired of the same ole same ole.
    lets just SEE what happens.

    Dinosaur Duets (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    my buddy Todd

    Urbana Pops Orchestra invites you to a unique pairing of artwork by paleo-illustrator Todd Marshall and music by members of the Pops.

    Im there.

    Todds Work.  besides what he does here I mean.

    more (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    those are incredible (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    they really are (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    he does work for just about everyone from Discovery Channel to National Geographic to scientific publications.
    his stuff doesnt just look great is is as scientifically accurate as it gets.

    which is amazing (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:21:21 PM EST
    considering he works full time here.

    btw (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:30:07 PM EST
    he is a concept artist.  you should see what comes out of his brain for us.

    Now you're making me (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:45:38 PM EST
    miss my brother.

    sorry (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    here an interview with a recent pic

    I wonder if they'll (none / 0) (#101)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 04:49:08 PM EST
    take that World's Leading Intellectual award back, now that this most unfortunate business communicating with and assisting a Holocaust denier has come to light.

    Strange guy, though I don't claim to know what his exact game is.  Just some suspicions ...

    Meanwhile, with apologies to his cheerleader radio friend Amy Goodman, it sure would be nice if we could get a fresh crop of intellectuals to come forward and take up some of the slack -- preferably a younger group with the smarts but without the mean-spiritedness and moral shortcomings.

    "Coup with a (massive) twist" (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    Guest column re Egypt in Informed Consent:  link