Wednesday Evening Open Thread

Open Thread.

Update (TL): I'm still decompressing from spending 5.5 hours of my day at the jail and driving to and from it. The only thing I'm looking forward to right now is ordering in a "King and I" (crispy Vietnamese soft-shell crab with avocado, cucumber and rice noodles and chile-lime sauce) and watching American Idol, Survivor and Justified. Libya and the news will have to wait for me, but I'll check in to read comments.

< Would Arming Libyan Insurgents Be A Humanitarian Intervention? | Colo. Prison Inmates to Cater High School Prom >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, add me to the list of (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 10:26:13 PM EST
    crime victims...

    Last night our cars were all broken into - although, since none of them were locked, it wasn't really a "break-in."

    We live out in the country - have been here for almost 30 years - with never a problem.  We don't lock our cars, our house - no one that we know out here does.  So, I guess the word finally got out that we were just sitting ducks.

    My purse was taken from my car, my daughter had a small box with jewelry in it taken from her car; change  - and a pack pf gum! - was taken from her boyfriend's car and nothing from my husband's.  Daughter's and boyfriend's GPS's weren't taken.  All my husband's fishing gear that was sitting out on his car was right where he left it.  Nothing taken from the garage; no one came into the house.

    Interestingly enough, a Verizon employee spotted my checkbooks strewn on the side of the road, and stopped to pick them up - and then found my purse with my business cards inside, called my office and spoke to my secretary.  I ended up meeting him to retrieve what he had found.  Later today, I got a call from a woman about a mile from me, who found my wallet and most of what had been in it, strewn over her lawn.  She had also had her car broken into last night - as had someone one street over, so I guess it was a busy night for criminals in my area.

    Bottom line was losing two bank cards, my cell phone and the cash in my wallet.  Still can't believe I got as much back as I did - nice to know I live in an area where people care about their neighbors.

    New driver's license, new bank cards on the way, gonna have to get a new phone.  Still pissed off that my nice, quiet country life has been defiled, and we're now locking everything up as if we lived in the city.

    But...all things considered, it could have been worse.  A lot worse.

    Sorry to hear it (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 10:33:56 PM EST
    Think of it this way: at least you won't have to have your car windows replaced. ;-)

    spoken like a true urban dweller :P (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 10:37:36 PM EST
    {walks the Dot around yet ANOTHER pile of safety glass}

    I've been robbed when I've been locked up (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 10:56:10 PM EST
    and my neighbors (in another building) were robbed when my apt wasn't locked (and they literally had to break in the door to the other apts, one across the hall). I still haven't gotten used to locking after years of not in my last apt, even though I prob should considering where I live now. I think it's the luck of the draw in the long run. In the short run, especially for women, just don't put yourself in 'front page territory headlines' positions. BUT, still live in the comfort zone.

    Sorry you had your trust breached and the hassle that comes with it :( Nice to hear there are some decent people out there helping you out when they found your stuff.


    Aw, I'm sorry to hear that (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sj on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:48:54 AM EST
    Glad you recovered so many things, but it's still makes you feel violated, doesn't it.  Brings the idea of the "sanctity of home" up front and center.

    Sorry to hear this (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:32:12 AM EST
    My purse was stolen many years ago and the worse thing was trying to get everything replaced. What a nightmare! I hope all that goes easier for you. This was back in the day when people actually used your credit cards too and I thought I would never get the charges that were made straightened out.

    Something similar happened in my brother's (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 08:02:21 AM EST
    little town a couple of years ago. All the cars left out got hit. Really upsetting when you have never doubted your security. My sister happened to be visiting from a much higher crime area and her car got hit. Never happened to her at home in the city!

    Anyway, sorry it happened to you. PITA to replace that stuff.


    So sorry to hear that (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 08:54:57 AM EST
    Glad you got some of your stuff back. That is such a pain.

    Tough break Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    my sister has this problem out in her McMansion development...cars getting broken into all the time.  Never seems to happen in my ghetto 'burb...the luxury of broked*cks with clunkers I guess:)

    Don't let it get ya down too much...part of doing business on this orb...thieves abound.  Whaddya gonna do?


    Thanks to everyone for their kind (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    thoughts - it has been a pain, no question - and it's disheartening to realize there just isn't anywhere that's truly safe anymore.

    And times are tough; according to my sister-in-law, who manages a substance abuse program for Johns Hopkins through NIDA, there is a growing problem in my area with 20-somethings with prescription drug and heroin addictions - and they're looking for the easiest access to cash and credit with the least risk.

    And now - maybe all the stress from yesterday - I'm apparently getting a freaking cold!!!  Argh!


    hey a question (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    you said you read the Lovely Bones.  how did the guy get that big heavy safe with a body in it out of his basement and into his suv buy himself?

    First he puts the body in the garage (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    then cuts it up and puts it in the safe. No real details about getting the safe into the truck, but it being not much heavier than an empty safe, I'm guessing it is not that tough.

    ok (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:42:52 PM EST
    but it looked pretty darn heavy when they were rolling it toward the sinkhole.

    Yeah, but I don't remember the book (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    being specific about how big the thing had to be. I suspect the director picked one that looked impressive on film.

    This is the point that seemed most unrealistic to you? I know what you mean though - I recently saw that new Matt Damon movie and could not get past the fact that the supernatural guys that run the world had to be wearing fedoras.


    heh (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:09:05 PM EST
    I mentioned Rubber downthread.  I really recommend it.  it has the best intro ever.  this guy does a monologue on how every great movie has a "no reason" part.   why did the people in love story fall in love, no reason.  etc and then explains that is movie is the ultimate exercise of "no reason"

    and it truly is.


    There never was... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    anywhere that was truly safe...if you've never been robbed you've just been lucky.

    Sh*t if you consider taxes collected for services not rendered "theft" we all get robbed weekly, biweekly, monthly, or yearly.  And don't get me started on private sector thievery considered totally legal...aka modern banking and finance.


    It's really a shame (none / 0) (#55)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 11:33:07 AM EST
    And I'm so sorry.  I think you're right- there is no safety, anywhere.  You would think that where I live, for instance, in a very, very rural area, we might be safe.  But, no.  We have had home break-ins (no cars, though....yet).  One gang (that was finally caught) was breaking into homes while people were gone and stealing stuff to sell in order to buy heroin.  They weren't kids, either- they were in their 30's and 40's.  (Of course, up here, if someone is going to break into a person's home, he'd better be darned certain that nobody is home, because the majority of the people around here are armed.  A lot of people have large dogs, too.)

    Hey, if you live in South Carolina, (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    gun owners soon might be able to bring their weapons to restaurants, day-care centers, and churches. The large dogs will still probably be prohibited. :-)

    BTW, not against all laws allowing people to own guns. Just against what I consider stupid gun laws.  


    Keep fighting the good fight J (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 11:05:12 PM EST
    and enjoy your evening.  

    the history of video games (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:04:18 AM EST
    this is really pretty interesting.  it came out of the PR for Saints Row.  I did not know a lot of this history and I have been here for three and a half years. really pretty interesting.   its pretty amazing what has happened in 18 years.  as one of the comments says,  "wow, this is, like, a real documentary!"

    The Secret History of Volition

    What started out as a simple interview about a studio evolved into this: an hour-long documentary about the 18-year history of Volition, Inc. The studio provided an unprecedented amount of never-before-seen concept art and early footage of their great games, even from a couple that were canceled before their release. The video covers a lot of ground, so we divided it into four parts so that you can jump right in and learn the story behind your favorite Volition games. We recommend starting from the beginning to get a full look at not only the history of Volition, but how far the gaming industry has come in 18 short years.

    Grrrrrr (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:53:42 AM EST
    And Bing!  You have almost become a computer virus trying to get a leg up on google.  And you are starting to tick me off a little.  Stop invading my computer.

    the first trailer is up (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    for our game.  and its awsum.

    sadly the video quality sucks.  there will be better versions up soon I suspect.

    did you like it (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:24:01 PM EST

    That's mess up (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    At least nobody got tea bagged.  I walked into Josh's room when he was playing HALO and I see him shoot someone and then do this strange thing over his head, then he does it again, then again...finally I have to ask.  He didn't know I was standing there.  He went five different shades of scarlet.

    I think its pure aswum (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    Saints Row in three seconds.  and from the comments I think the peanut gallery agrees.  hardly a discouraging word except for this one:

    "I am disappoint"

    which I honestly think we can cull.


    update (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:39:14 PM EST
    already discussions on how to include this:

    "I am disappoint"

    in the game somehow.


    Sometimes the things that characters say... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    You guys have come a long way baby

    secret (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:45:15 PM EST

    I suppose this is the wrong time (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    to bring up how refreshing it has been lately to have so many cool pg-13 movies coming along.  In the past three days we watched 'Get Low', 'Morning Glory', and 'The Next Three Days' and all three were very enjoyable and all three boring pg-13.  The teen actress from the Lovely Bones now has that new flick 'Hanna' and that one is pg-13 too.  Then again, Racking and Tea Bagging when fully clothed are probably pg-13 events too :)

    Hanna looks great (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    and I suspect you will see more.  studios dont want to make R films.  particularly expensive ones.  for adults like me this sucks.  see Guillermo Del Toro abandoning his Lovecraft film (at least for now) because the studio insisted that it be PG13 and he refused to make it unless it was rated R.  which if you know anything at all about Lovecraft makes perfect sense.

    Snyder had to butcher Sucker Punch to get a PG13 rating.  he refused to do it for Watchmen and it got killed at the BO.


    thank god (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    we have HBO Shotime and the other premium networks or adult entertainment would completely disappear.

    Is that what's going on? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:16:37 PM EST
    On a certain level I like having more family options and suddenly there is magically more, but I am an adult and I do have MY TIME too.

    Porky's isn't a family option? (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:34:04 PM EST
    That was just my family?  :)

    Pops brings home our first VCR and Porky's was our first family VCR night feature.  


    My husband's family considered Porky's (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 08:16:49 AM EST
    a family movie too.  They laugh about that.  They had strange rules though, like all MOB movies are X rated where kids are concerned....but ANYTHING that reminds you of Monty Python is fine for kindergarten.

    Crap, I can't believe I almost forgot this (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    I was so tired last night, but so tired I couldn't get my eyes to close easily either...just stupid tired.  I crawled into bed grabbed the remote to look for something to download and DirectTV let me download the first episode of the Borgias last night even though the Premiere isn't until April 3rd.  I don't know why, don't know if it was a fluke or what. I think I fell asleep 15 mins into it so I didn't get to finish it either and I was so tired I forgot about the whole thing until just now.

    heh (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    last night on HDNET I saw a preview of Rubber.

    absurdist.  weird.  funny.  

    sort of reminded me of some of the wacky absurdest movies of the 70s like Robert Downey Srs Greasers Palace.

    but I did fall asleep.



    That is a must see (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 08:20:12 AM EST
    I have about six 5th grade boys that would love it.

    an incredibly telling article (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:21:03 PM EST
    about the economic recovery here, versus other parts of the world, and the culture and how it effects the recovery.

    Long story short, our economic output coming out of the recession has outpaced most developed countries, yet our hiring/unemployment is dead last.

    Key exerpts:

    "In the past, when the U.S. economy fell into recession, companies typically cut jobs but often kept more than they needed. Some might have felt protective of their staffs. Or they didn't want to risk losing skilled employees they'd need once business rebounded."


    "Japan and Europe have been following that script."


    "Panicked by the 2008 financial crisis and deepening recession, U.S. employers cut jobs pitilessly. They slashed an average of 780,000 jobs a month in the January-March quarter of 2009."

    "Japanese, European and Canadian companies are less inclined to purge employees. Their customs, labor regulations and unions discourage aggressive layoffs.

    U.S. management practices "make it easier for employers to avoid adding permanent jobs," says economist Erica Groshen, a vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. "They have temporary help they can hire easily. They're less constrained by traditional human resources practices or by union contracts."

    Fewer than 12 percent of American workers belong to unions, which provide some protection against job cuts. That's the fourth-lowest union participation rate among 31 countries the OECD tracks."

    wont someone think (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    about the children?

    At one point Randolph suggested that his wife "incorporate her uterus" to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Republicans, after all, wouldn't want to further regulate a Florida business.

    Apparently the GOP leadership of the House didn't like the one-liner.

    They told Democrats that Randolph is not to discuss body parts on the House floor.

    Nice zinger... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    don't stop at the uterus...wise to incorporate your children too, might help keep them outta our cages.

    G.E. pays no taxes (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 06:57:25 PM EST

    Wind power besides being unreliable is very expensive in more ways than one.

    Well the CEO of G.E. is full of hot air (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    But I'm not sure that's what you mean.

    No (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:21:18 PM EST
    Boots (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 07:26:01 PM EST
    GOPers Demand Sean Duffy Salary Tape Be Pulled (none / 0) (#3)
    by dead dancer on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 07:34:53 PM EST
    Food and clothing drive for his family (none / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 09:38:51 PM EST
    is being planned by Wisconsin Democrats -- a friend just sent a very funny Facebook post on this, after the Congressman's complaint that his family is "struggling" on his pittance of a $174,000 salary.

    Poor thing . . . (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 10:19:53 PM EST
    the burden of 6 children they chose to have . . .

    I'm betting he's all for cutting funding to services for women/children/families who are struggling . . . . ya know, in the name of the "budget deficit"


    Well, yes (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 08:12:02 AM EST
    He has said that he is definitely in favor of cutting funding to services for women/children/families who are struggling.

    They must make sacrifices so that he does not have to.  


    insurance subrogation (none / 0) (#6)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:30:03 PM EST
    i just rec'd a subrogation letter from a company in another state, asking about an incident 3+ months ago when i was treated in the ER for a very minor but extremely painful soft-tissue injury to my foot - whole thing cleared up w/a good dose of ibuprofen but x-rays were taken to make sure it wasn't a stress fracture - also had to get to ER by ambulance since i could not walk

    there was no accident & no 3rd party was involved - my provider (Kaiser) covered the incident & i have already remitted my $100 ER copay as well as my $100 ambulance copay

    so am i legally obligated to respond to this letter? or is it safe to just ignore it?

    Since we can't give (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:53:22 PM EST
    legal advice at TalkLeft, I suggest you ask a personal injury attorney, or if you don't know any, try posing the question at Ask a Lawyer at Lawyers.com. A lawyer will review all questions submitted that week and pick one to answer. Maybe it will be yours. I have been their criminal law panelist for 12 years -- I answer one question a week from a few hundred submitted. If your question were in my field, it's the kind I would pick. Not too detailed, interesting and many readers would find the answer informative. Personal injury questions are answered on Tuesdays, which means the panelist will probably do it Friday or over the weekend, so here's the link.

    thanks so much, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#13)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 09:16:03 PM EST
    i didn't mean to ask for legal advice here though of course i understand why my question looks that way - thanks for the link to Lawyers.com

    & meanwhile if anyone here who, like me, is not a lawyer has received a letter like this & wants to share their experience, i'm eager to hear what that was


    That's a great resource to know about (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    Thanks for mentioning it.

    I had (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 07:04:40 AM EST
    the same thing happen with my husband w/r/t Kaiser. He went in for an infection and his neck was hurting. The neck hurting was really nothing to do with the infection but Kaiser saw neck and sent it to subrogation. I called the people and what they were wanting to do is see if the injury was job related so they could get some of their money back from worker's comp. I told them that it must have been coded wrong because he went the to ER for an infection. They said okay and i never heard from them again.

    Small amount of radiation (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:51:34 PM EST
    has been detected in milk out of Washington state.

    Not to worry (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:54:50 PM EST
    Japan and the U.S. will just keep raising the limits on how much radiation is O.K. for humans until everything is safe regardless of the amounts.

    Tip: remember not to drink milk (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 09:10:28 PM EST
    at the same time you eat radiated veggies and fish, you might go over the legal limit. Just spread it out (along with the contaminated water) and you will fit into the Gov's safety guidelines just fine per ingestion . . . .  :P

    nothing to see here . . . .


    With the fish, you get an extra bonus (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:12:49 AM EST
    of the chemicals that were put into the water because of the oil spill in the gulf. Fish and dolphins are turning up dead all over the place but rest assured that humans are safe because your government has told you you were safe.

    Listening to Rachel tonight (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    on her Understand Nukes spot.  Most of our nuclear power plants don't have more than 4 hours of stored emergency battery power?  And only an 89% chance the batteries would hold out for as long as they are supposed to?

    I wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    worry until you glow in the dark.

    Oh goody! (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    apparently when I watch the late night news, I get to learn it's in my tap water and milk. But nothing to see here . . . all safe :P

    I may just do an independent test on my veggie garden . . . . .


    The Politics of Deprivation (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 11:43:48 PM EST
    I have finally found a name for the current Democratic Party Doctrine.  Hoo...ray.

    Obama and democracy. (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:03:49 AM EST
    We are doing what we are doing, whatever that is, in the name of democracy.

    You just know that that is a crock. Untrue. A lie.

    And there is this:

    From Talking Points Memo:

    The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.
    Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.

    So much for respect for democracy or the constitution.

    Quaddafi should send troops here to support those who prefer an unapolgetic dictatorship against the puny squeaks from those who are trying to promote the democratic process.

    the writing on the wall (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    In a major diplomatic setback to Col. Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's foreign minister Moussa Koussa resigned from his position and may announce his defection as early as Thursday, European government officials said,

    So he hasn't officially defected yet? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:22:08 AM EST
    It sounds this morning like many of our leaders are hoping this is a disabling blow to Gaddafi, though nobody has said this will topple him and CNN says someone else in his inner circle must desert him such as a family member or someone in the highest ranks conducting his military operations.

    on the news this morning (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    it sounded like he had already defected and was talking.

    I'm interested in what he has to say (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    It does seem like there is some inside information out there that the Gaddafi inner circle is about to fall apart.  If that's how he goes, that would be great.

    yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:50:10 AM EST
    Libyan news this morning I've seen (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:15:41 AM EST
    Gates testified this morning that in his opinion someone else needs to help the Libyan rebels, he said there are many other nations just as capable of helping and training the rebels to fight.

    And it sounds like some people on the Hill are still banking on the Gaddafi inner circle breaking apart and bringing him down.

    the poor victims (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    Thousands have sent e-mails criticizing state Rep. Sally Kern for comments that were posted on the Internet in which she calls homosexuality "the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam," the legislator said today.

    Jump cut three years. Sally Kern is still an Oklahoma state representative, having been handily reelected by what must be her equally bigoted constituency in 2008 and 2010. She's doing just fine -- and hey, she even has a new book out in July!

    The Stoning of Sally Kern: The liberal attack on Christian conservatism -- and why we must take a stand

    via stinque

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:29:18 AM EST
    I did see two guys holding hands walking down the street.  I could tell everyone else around was on edge waiting to see what came next.  Folks were phoning home, telling their loved ones goodbye, some people were praying and asking for absolution before they met their maker, others were plotting to take the offenders down, even if it meant sacrificing themselves.

    Yep - as big a threat as terrorism.



    you know what is really as big (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:35:39 AM EST
    a threat as terrorism?  

    Sally Kern.


    Budget/The Deal (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    I am itching for an open thread to discuss.

    I think you are in one (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:48:32 AM EST
    Here is that link (none / 0) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:11:23 AM EST
    Screwed up the post somehow. (none / 0) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:13:04 AM EST
    Here is what I was trying to say:

    But I thought this one might die shortly and I want to get maximum response.

    If the latest reports are to be believed we are at the crucial point at which BTD's fundamental point of the Deal comes to a test.  He believed that in addition to the concessions on the Deal, that we would be seeing massive cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid that would compound the issue.

    My position was just the opposite.  The oncoming primaries and the fact that people overwhelmingly oppose those cuts would serve as a curb on any outrageous cuts to entitlements.  I thought the GOP's position would be further inflammed (and the dems look more reasonable) by the Tea Party's pressure to slash and burn.

    Sure enough Ryan is really beginning to feel the heat.

    Way too early to tell where we end up, but if the rumors of a 2011 budget agreement are real, there will be no massive entitlement cuts this year and in the 2012 budget, Ryan looks like he's already conceded ground that BTD and others thought they'd be fighting hard for.

    From a thousand feet, it looks the Obama game theory model is working. Throw in the fact that the GOP just woke up and realized that stalling in the Senate isn't helpful to their position: Link) and you have the makings of a game strategy that could work in the dem's favor.


    Just to clarify positions (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:20:45 AM EST
    I don't think people were only concerned about cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid.

    It's about cutting other services as well, which is most certainly happening.

    And from your article:

    "In the weeks since, though, Democrats from the White House and Senate have been at work on funding compromises, most recently floating an offer to cut an addition $26 billion from the current budget. With the $10 billion already trimmed during stopgap funding bills, the final $36 billion in cuts are seemingly in line with earlier proposals by House Republicans. The House GOP initially proposed cuts of about $32 billion from current funding levels, but nearly doubled the figure after pressure from the more conservative faction of the conference, including freshmen. "

    Emphasis mine.  So we are at a place where the Dems are proposing what the republicans originally proposed, and this is a win?

    The fact that the republican party is splintering, might mean that democrats are winning the political battle.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that the country is winning the economic battle.


    I don't necessarily have problems (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:35:02 AM EST
    with the gross amount of cuts.  I am concerned with the allocation.  I want SS protected and the cuts to medicare and medicaid to be reasonable.  We aren't going to get a wall of protection around all social programs.  That's not realistic. We want a resting place that includes cuts but doesn't do catostrophic damage.

    in this environment that is a huge win.


    Those are your priorities (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    but they aren't the only possible priorities.

    Just remember that one person's government waste is another person's bread and butter.

    And I'd say it's too early to tell what the damage will be.  We're not out of the woods yet, and it's not clear yet what, specifically, is getting cut.

    On a more positive note, I'm glad to see the president sticking up for education funding.  That may be one area that escapes the federal axe.  Unfortunately it seems to be getting it pretty bad at the state level.

    Honestly, I agree with you on a lot of the political stuff, but I think where you are blinded is that you don't really care about policy for policy's sake, and so when people have specific issues with that, you're not particularly effective at engaging, because it's not your priority.  But it is a legitimate priority to have.  And the assumption is that if you pass good policy, politics will follow.  Because opinions can change, logic does not.


    I can concede (none / 0) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:35:01 PM EST
    to your points. It comes from my perspective I think.

    Most of the stuff we are arguing about will have no impact on me personally.  I am banking on getting no social security, medicaid or medicare for a number of reasons (age, career, etc.). My work is largely separated from government funding, etc.

    So I don't prioritize Medicare over SS, for example. I do prioritize in the traditional liberal/conservative way (social programs over tax cuts/defense, for example).  But amongst the liberal hot button programs, I care primarily about maximizing the benefits to as many people as possible.

    It's kind of hard to win an argument that's in the policy weeds with that sort of broad ideology, but I think the ideology is still a valid one.


    This only makes sense if you have (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    bought into the idea that we MUST cut - clearly you have, but I - and many others - have not.

    The cut-cut-cut deficit hysterics have done a great sales job, and have convinced a lot of people, through extremely faulty logic and information, that it isn't a matter of whether to cut, but how much.

    We don't need to be cutting in this economic climate; the government is in no danger of default.  None.  

    And honestly, I have a seriously hard time with your position that all that matters is getting Obama and the Dems over the next electoral hump - especially when Democratic policy is only marginally less bad than the GOP's - and thst's just not good enough - it's not even close.  

    Dems prevailing at the ballot box is meaningful only to those who have secured a job for another two, four or six years, if the rest of us aren't going to get better policy that will positively affect out ability to survive and even thrive now and in the future.

    Policy matters.


    Must Cut (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:39:37 PM EST
    It seems to me that everyone agrees that cuts of some sort are needed at some point.  The deficit crisis isn't made up.  It's almost certainly real.  The question is timing and allocation.

    I think it is a fair point to say that there is never going to be a time when cuts are popular.  If we had tried to make cuts during the Clinton years when we were in good shape, my sense is that many people would be making the same arguments.

    Personally, I don't want cuts now but believe that cuts of some sort will be needed to appease a significant percentge of our country that believes that deficits must be attacked now.

    Now I disagree with those folks, but my disagreement doesn't make them, or their representatives go away.

    I am thinking about the political realities of our country.


    No, that was my point, ABG: (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    everyone DOESN'T agree that cuts are necessary, and there is no deficit "crisis."  The "crisis" has arisen as a means to strangle the government and get rid of or seriously impair valuable programs that help average people and those who are falling off the economic cliff.

    As for appeasing people who don't know what the hell they're talking about, what kind of sense does that make?  You don't make people like that go away by giving them some of what they want - because it's never enough, they always come back for more, and then what?  More appeasement to make them shut up?

    It's time we stopped greasing this particular squeaky wheel by conceding on policies that are wrong - and started making our own noise about the policies that are right.


    The deficit 'crisis' IS made up (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    That's exactly the point. The administration ceded that argument. The current high deficit is mostly a result of the generally bad economy, which will not get helped by cutting government spending.

    there are two ways to solve a deficit (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:56:50 PM EST

    Only one of those involves cuts.

    The other involves taxes.  Guess which one people here prefer?

    It's also fair to say that there is never going to be a time when tax increases are popular.  But when choosing between two unpopular positions (tax increase or benefit cuts) - people here will generally pick the former.  You don't even acknowledge that as a choice.

    We didn't have to make cuts during the Clinton years, because they raised taxes and balanced the budget.  That's kind of the whole point.


    No everyone doesn't agree (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    that the cuts are needed. All this so called "deficit hysteria" is just so much B.S. Anyone who was really worried about the deficit would have let the Bush tax cuts expired instead of passing the Obama tax cuts which were even more generous to the rich while raising the taxes on the working poor. If the deficit was a top priority with the politicians in D.C., they would not be seriously considering lowering the taxes on corporations and the rich even further.

    Poll after poll, after poll indicates that the American people are strongly against cutting needed domestic programs, favor raising taxes on the rich and that the deficit is no where near the top of their priorities list.

    Poor people cannot eat your fake "political realities." The pols just claim against all facts that these are the "political realities" so that they can pursue the agenda that they and their very savvy friends want.


    And Anne (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    My position isn't that all that matters is getting Obama and the Dems over the next hump.  My position is that Obama is doing a good job.

    But let's take your position: that Obama isn't fighting the good fight.  That he's doing a bad job.

    If he fights the good fight and the dems lose power, are you in a better or worse position than if he compromised and retained power. That's really the question that defines your thinking about the job he's doing. There has to be a risk/benefit analysis here.  My biggest problem with those focused like a laser on one policy or another, to the detriment of the bigger picture is that there is no risk benefit analysis.  If your concern is SS, you want Obama to fight to the death on SS, regardless of what else is happening.  As you said, that is completely understandable.  If your life depends on that issue, it is the most important thing to you. I get that.  But a President (and congress) can't think of things in those terms.

    I fear President Romney more than I fear the fact that Obama didn't risk it all to fight against The Deal, etc.

    There are battles and there are wars.


    If you put it that way (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    I don't accept your choices. I prefer he do a good job with the economy - meaning recovery from the recession: primarily putting people to work. Then on the next tier taxes, consumer protection, the mortgage crisis.  All done in an environment of protecting entitlements.

    There will not be a president Romney if Obama does a good job with the economy. The economy is the most important issue to most voters. I believe doing well there will also enable him to stay in power, which is why I don't accept your choices.

    If Obama fixes the economy and we get a Pres Romney anyway, well that would be a world I do not understand, but I could live with it.


    Ruffian (2.00 / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    Therein lies our liberal arrogance IMHO (and I include myself in that group).  

    There are some things that we, as liberals, believe are important that won't help the economy.  Let's keep it real here if the conservatives won't.

    Every party tries to portray their positions as simultaneously helping the economy and helping people, but there are many cases where that won't happen. For example, if we wanted to maximize stimulation to the economy, we'd cut education subsidies and pour money into projects with great short term impact, etc.  We'd probably figure out a way to get cash away from those likely to save it and into those hands of those likely to spend it. Etc. We'd probably leave defense spending at current levels and authorize a trip to Mars. Etc.

    The most effective policy for boosting the economy wouldn't be popular with anyone.  

    All I am saying is that Obama is striking a balance between the economy, the danger of losing power, and the progressive agenda that is extremely complicated.

    Given the degree of difficulty, accusations that he's a closet republican or conservative and what not miss the point.

    If you had the goal I think he does in mind, getting to that point would require you to project an aura of moderacy and making painful concessions for the greater good.


    I guess I just think your balance is unbalanced (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    The economy and danger of losing power are the same thing in my view.

    The most effective policy for boosting the economy wouldn't be popular with anyone.  

    I would change this to say it won't be popular with everyone. Nothing is popular with everyone. But if the economy was truly boosted, no matter the method, it would be enough to ensure reelection.

    I don't think it is arrogant to say that there are measures that have helped the economy in the past, and advocate for trying them again. I really do want to try things that have been effective in the past. Nothing the conservatives have proposed has ever been effective.

    Spending money putting people to work helps the economy. When the private sector can't or won't spend enough money, government sometimes has to step into the void and put some money out there creating jobs. 'Cutting government spending' is just a euphemism for cutting jobs.

    I'm not a liberal for the sake of being a liberal. I believe those are the policies that work.


    Ruffian (none / 0) (#124)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:55:31 PM EST

    1. No.  I actually don't think it would be popular with anyone (or at least the overwhelming majority of people with few exceptions).

    2. I don't think we can be credible if we assert that nothing the conservatives have tried in the past economically will work.  There are some conservative ideas that deserve consideration.

    3. I believe liberal policies work as a general rule as well.  I just don't believe that the line is so clear cut that you can say that

    liberal policy = good
    conservative policy = bad

    I think I understand what you said better now (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:12:34 PM EST
    But I still disagree ;-)

    I understand you to say that the most effective way to boost the economy would be to cut some popular programs like education subsidies and use that money to create jobs elsewhere. And maybe raise taxes too. And that combination would not be popular with anyone.

    For example, if we wanted to maximize stimulation to the economy, we'd cut education subsidies and pour money into projects with great short term impact, etc.  We'd probably figure out a way to get cash away from those likely to save it and into those hands of those likely to spend it. Etc. We'd probably leave defense spending at current levels and authorize a trip to Mars. Etc.

    The most effective policy for boosting the economy wouldn't be popular with anyone.  

    I disagree that a) that is the best way. I believe the best way is to cut nothing right now, and invest in infrastructure, energy programs, aid to the states for education. And revoke the Bush taxes on at least the top 2% of wage earners, possibly the top 5%. 5% would mean everyone making about 100k and above.

    b) it would not be popular with anyone. Parts of your plan would be popular with some and not popular with others. That does not mean everyone is unhappy with every part. And if it worked, he would be re-elected.

    Good discussion, and I really think Obama will be re-elected regardless.


    When you say that, "(t)here are (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    some things that we...believe are important that won't help the economy" what things are you referring to?

    Specifically, please.

    I think what I find so hard to respond to is the kind of reasoning that accepts as a given that if we want to spend, we also have to cut.  Or the kind of reasoning that doesn't see value in a well-educated populace - to society as a whole and to the economy.  Or the kind of reasoning that accepts as a given that the government has a finite ability to spend, regardless of the economic conditions.

    These are not the only choices we have - they have never been the only choices we have.  And this thing about "balance" is just more baloney.

    If one believes that one's policies are the right policies, it seems to me that leaders bring those who object closer to their point of view, not the other way around.  If it is wrong to make cuts to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, to maternal and child nutrition programs, to student loan programs - and on and on - the way to secure those programs and the policies they represent is not to concede that one's opponents might have a point, and do what they want.  

    The sad reality is that there is little about Obama's agenda that is progressive, and many of his positions have been about taking us closer to the conservative side of things and not leading the conservatives over to a more progressive place.

    If it is Obama's desire to advance a progressive agenda, his actions demonstrate a gross failure of leadership; if, on the other hand, that is not his desire, then he is, in fact, doing a "good job," but not for those of us who believe that liberal policies are the best ones for the country.

    It irks me no end when false choices are established for the sole purpose of winning the argument those choices create; and yes, that's what you've been doing - and with one goal: making sure Obama gets re-elected.


    sort of nitpicking here (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:11:16 PM EST
    but you cut education subsidies and a teacher loses a job.  That's not short term stimulus.

    Getting cash away from those who save it (the rich) and into the hands of those who spend it (the middle class/poor) is EXACTLY what we're proposing with the tax increases on the rich combined with government spending.

    Amen on ruffian's "I'm not a liberal for the sake of being a liberal".  We're liberal because we think it works.  And history has shown that government spending works.  A lot of people bring up the point that the great depression was not ended by the new deal, it was ended by World War 2.  What they don't acknowledge is that World War 2 brought on unprecedented amounts of government spending, far higher than the new deal, and that's what got us out of the depression (the new deal certainly helped get through the depression, but World War 2 got us out).

    Obviously as a liberal we would prefer to be spending the money elsewhere.  But the point remains that wherever/however you decide to spend it, it requires spending.


    CST (none / 0) (#125)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:03:23 PM EST
    I was thinking of the multipliers though. The short term job creation multiplier of hiring more teachers or giving out more federal scholarship aid, for example, is probably lower than spending the cash on a road to a new area or laying a mile or two of fiberoptic lines.

    To bring it back around.... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    that wall is only unrealistic because of The Deal.

    Given (none / 0) (#126)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    the fact that the GOP was willing to risk losing middle class tax cuts to provide tax cuts to the rich, the Deal was the only moral option.

    What put into motion the mechanics that brought us here were two fold:

    1. Conservative willingness to kill all economic momentum for the sake of the wealthy.

    2. The fact that Obama and the dems were responsible.

    Obviously you can argue that if we don't have a democratic caucus willing to do what's right, even if it means compromising, we don't have a Deal.

    But the levers and triggers responsible for the Deal were thrown into place before the mid terms when polling showed that a fight on tax cuts would have been an absolute blood bath for the dems.


    That's not a fact at all (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:07:51 PM EST
    Given (none / 0) (#126)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 04:32:26 PM EST

    the fact that the GOP was willing to risk losing middle class tax cuts to provide tax cuts to the rich...

    They only said they were.  Negotiation 101:  Draw your first line in the sand way back from where you are willing to end up.


    Well what happens if you are wrong? (none / 0) (#133)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    1. We don't get all of the other goodies that we got before the GOP took the house?

    2. Unemployment benfits shut off.

    3. Tax cuts on everyone expire and there is a logistical nightmare even if we come to a last minute resolution because of check deadlines, the January 15 pay cycle, and a bunch of other related dominoes that would have effectively tanked the entire first quarter, erased the job growth we've had the last few months and caused chaos in the markets.

    It's not the dems fault that they were unwilling to play chicken in that situation. Being more responsible means you have to concede where the lunatic willing to end it all won't.

    Let's quit pretending that the only (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:37:52 PM EST
    option available was to wait until the 11th hour at the end of Year Two of Obama's term, right after big defeats in the mid-term elections - when Dems were in the least favorable position for "bargaining" anything - to take on the expiring Bush tax rates.

    And let's not pretend that there just wasn't any way to deal with the Bush rates any earlier because we didn't want to endanger health whatever legislation - that no Republican was going to vote for anyway.

    This is all just so much crap, and I'm sick of people pretending that we had no other choice but to make The Deal.

    And what were all these other "goodies" we wouldn't have gotten?  Do you seriously think the GOP was not going to vote to extend unemployment benefits?

    It never had to come down to playing chicken - never.  It came down to a two-year failure of leadership - assuming you still believe Obama was at all interested in "leading" on progressive policy; given the Deficit Commission stacked with entitlement haters and deficit hysterics - given that he convened such a commission at all - tells me that he had no intention of taking advantage of Congressional majorities and his big win over McCain to advance good economic policy.  Jesus - look at who his economic advisors were/are: there was never any belief in progressive economic policy.

    It is the Dems' fault; you don't lead by giving credibility to your opponents' crazy ideas - you lead by bringing them to your point of view.  If Obama's point of view is a liberal one, he's not much of a leader; if his point of view is what pretty much all of his actions have indicated, he's leading Dems over to a conservative point of view.

    Yeah, good job, Mr. President.


    Lordy, are we such spineless weaklings? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by sj on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    1.  What are you talking about?  This isn't even a good scare tactic, it's just babbling.

    2.  I'm sure you didn't mean to use such a charged scare tactic and meant to say the unemployment extension for those unemployed up to 99 weeks.  So I fixed that for  you.  Anyway, wasn't going to happen.  Even cheap labor/supply side Republicans and Dems want to get re-elected.  It was, however, a very effective bargaining chip for somebody.  Would have worked for either side but the Republicans used it better.  And even if it did happen, the public howling would have sent them back to legislative chambers in a hurry.  

    Frankly it would have been hugely effective for the Dems to put that on table before the 2010 elections.  Which is probably why they didn't.

    3)  Tax cuts on every one expire.  That's a good thing.  And everything after the first 5 words on your item number 3 is more babbling.  A bunch of assertions pulled out of ... the air.  

    This is the well-being 300 million people you're talking about.  And now one is willing to go mattresses on it?  

    Playing chicken?  "Thou talk'st of nothing."


    with Cantors (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:38:38 AM EST
    desperate shut down prevention play yesterday I think it clear they are starting to realize this is a loser for them.

    what do you think will happen when the baggers get what they want and shut down the government and surprise their government checks dont come?


    The government won't shut down (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:40:35 AM EST
    Even if it does, it will be short (as most of the previous 20 or so shutdowns), and 80% of the workers will still go to work.

    I predict most people won't really notice, and this is all "inside baseball" talk.


    this is very funny (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    The Crazy Nastya$$ Honey Badger

    Richard Simmons is doing nature narration now I guess.

    Hate Crime Laws... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:05:34 PM EST
    pass them and prosecutors will use them in crazy ways...like fixing to charge a 12 year old boy who bullied a muslim girl on the schoolyard with felony assault as a hate crime.

    Sounds like the kid is in desperate need of some love & discipline, but felony assault as a hate crime?  12? Are we that insane? How bout we try a suspension from school and a cultural sensitivity lesson first?  Or is that too "soft" on hate crime...

    At least it will be in juvenile court...ya never know with 12 year olds these days.

    well (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:09:38 PM EST
    NEW YORK - New York City police arrested a 12-year-old boy on hate crime charges and accused him of trying to rip the head scarf off a Muslim classmate during recess.

    this is not stealing lunch money


    No... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:16:28 PM EST
    but 12 year olds man...gimme a break.

    At that age it is pretty common for boys to pick on girls, especially girls you like...push them off the swings, pull on their ponytail, dip their hair in the inkwell.

    We learned better via sane discipline from teachers and parents...nary a felony to be found.  Are we trying to turn this young boy into a hardened criminal?  Is that the goal?
    I just don't get it.


    acts of violence (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    against muslims is way up all over the country thanks to the republicans non stop demonization.   I understand why they might do this.

    cmon now though (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:45:48 PM EST
    I agree with kdog here.

    It sounds like a 12 year old with a crush.

    I literally got into punching/hitting fights on the school bus with the boy who had a crush on me in elementary school (he kissed me, I smacked him, he hit me back, and it escalated from there).  That's how juvenile romance works.


    to a muslim (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    pulling off the headscarf is not much different from pulling off her clothes.  

    doesn't change a thing (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    IMO.  And I don't agree with that statememnt.  They will take off the headscarf around other women and men in the family.  They don't strip naked.

    Does intent mean nothing?  I bet you anything it doesn't mean the same thing to the boy who did it.

    But sure, lets say it is like a "pantsing".  That's still not a hate crime.


    the point is (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    as I said, hate crimes against muslims are up all over the country.  and you know why?  because this is what he hears from his parents most likely.

    did you actually read the article?  he has a history of harassing her.   and I am fairly sure its usually about her religion.  

    I am fine with this.  this sh!t has to stop.  and this is as good a place to start as any.

    anyway, nothing is going to happen to the kid.


    And how many others... (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    has he harassed?

    Not to me (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by sj on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:01:56 PM EST
    It sounds like a 12 year old with a crush.

    To me it sounds like a 12 year old bully.  Don't think he should be charged with a felony, but that is clearly bullying.

    Having said that, as long as there is no actual felony at the end of the day, I find that I'm actually fine with scaring the bejesus out of the kid and his family if that's what it takes to change his behavior.


    if this is love (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    Police and school officials say the boy has a history of harassing the girl, taunting her and threatening her on at least four separate occasions.

    I can live without it.


    thank god (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    for frontal lobes.

    I have no desire to go back to middle school either.

    I'm not saying that what the boy is doing is okay, I think there should absolutely be some intervention/discipline by parents and school officials.  But criminal?  I just can't go there.


    one other thing (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    it has become impossible for teachers to discipline kids.  and clearly he is doing what he learned from his parents.

    so its up to law enforcement.  again, IMO this bullying sh!t has to stop.  generally.  and in particular if it is related to something like religion.


    Gotta say though (none / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    That I disagree with the idea of charging a 12 year old with a crime for this kind of thing.  Suspend him. Detention. Whatever.

    But charges? That's a bit much for a confrontation in which no one was physically hurt.

    Now if he keeps doing it, maybe. But not for a one time incident.


    as I said below (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    you know nothing of the history.  it says in the piece he has harassed this girl at least 4 times.  and as someone said, who knows how many others.

    do you suppose they would have done this without a good reason?  knowing what the response would be?



    I read that (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    Kids talk trash to each other regularly.

    I don't think you call the cops unless there are repeated violent confrontations. I think a principle should handle it at his level and if the kid can't be controlled, expel him and make sure the reasons for expulsions show up on his record.  The parents would be persuaded to get him help before entering into another school and the kid avoids the stigma and label as a criminal, which can cripple for a lifetime.


    Dear Gawd (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:53:47 PM EST
    I think the world is coming to an end.

    I actually agree wholeheartedly with one of your comments.


    I just looked out the window to check (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:57:42 PM EST
    the sun is still there and the sky is still blue.

    In one article... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    the mother is quoted as saying her child was not taught to hate muslims or discriminate based on religion.


    More likely this is common schoolyard bullying...wrong of course, and requiring discipline...but if its a felony assault, with or without hate crime bonus time, we better build tens of thousands of new prisons to house all of our new juvenile delinquents created via legislation and zero-tolerance enforcement.


    and what (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    would you expect her to say?

    He is being charged as a juvenile. That's (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    good, huh?  And I don't see anything in the link about "felony."

    I don't think there is... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:16:55 PM EST
    a misdemeanor assault as a hate crime...but I know I saw felony somewhere...here it is, in the Post.  Felony assault and aggravated harassment, both with the hate crime bonus in play.

    I think her muslimhood is largely irrelevant fwiw...whatever makes her different would be what is picked on...if not the headwrap a big nose or squeaky voice or out of style clothes, what have you...it's what kids do, it ain't right or cool but it is reality...and I don't think felony charges are the best way to handle it, even for a problem kid with more than one bullying incident, at least at this very young age.  When ya get to 15-16 maybe the police need to be involved, but that should be avoided at all costs because once ya drop the dime you are powerless to control the course of events from there...it's in L&O hands and they often don't have anyone's interests at heart....they've got their own interests, ain't justice often ain't one of them.


    this is (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:21:27 PM EST

    I think her muslimhood is largely irrelevant

    The police report says he asked, "Are you Muslim?" while trying to remove her scarf.

    sorry I think that was all BS.  if thats what kids do they need to be stopped.  if it takes a felony charge go for it IMO.


    plus (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    you know nothing about the history of this person or this school.  I doubt they would have done this without a reason because responses like yours was inevitable.

    Either do you friend... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    yet you're ready to felonize the little brat.  

    I could be wrong of course but I remember we had one jewish girl in our majority catholic public elementary school, she was ridiculed for her religion relentlessly, and I don't think it was because we were all hardened anti-semites...it was simply because it was what stuck out as different about the girl.  Same as the boy who got picked on for wearing the same clothes everyday, the really tall girl, the kid who p&ssed his pants.  I got picked on for my Thom McCann cheap sneakers by the kids whose parents bought them Reeboks...whatever makes you different will do.  

    I mean the kid is twelve, do you think he can even comprehend what he hates and why he hates it?


    if not its time to learn. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:36:37 PM EST
    This ain't how you teach... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    this is how you make him hate authority too...harden his heart.

    Rehabilitate?  Surely you jest.


    Bachmann (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    I didn't know that Bachmann (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    was originally from Kenya. :-(

    today in DUH (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:57:03 PM EST
    (CBS News)

    If you are attractive, you are more likely to be happy in life, according to a study by the University of Texas at Austin.

    For Lack of (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:14:42 PM EST
    a Thursday at 4:15pm ET Open Thread.

    It's time for oculus to settle in with her Traveling Friars against the hopped up Clydesdales where you can now order your Bottoms Up Beer for only $8.50.

    A beer at a game in St Louis costs almost as much as a 12 pack now.

    I already regret axing my cable and (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 12:17:14 AM EST
    it's only opening day!

    Adding insult to injury... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    ya can't even smuggle in your own sixer in your waistband anymore with all the pat downs and increased security measures...small well-hidden flask at the most.

    $8.50 for a draft (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:32:44 PM EST
    at a stadium named in part for beer. We're going to hell in a handbasket.

    Preachin' to the choir CG... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:53:54 PM EST
    Can you at least drink 7.99 12-packs in the parking lot?  At the stadium formerly known as Shea, you gotta be slick to dodge the occasional summons blitzkrieg for open containers.

    Zip-lock baggie of rum in my pocket (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    to mix with an also overpriced $5 coke and I'm good to go!