Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Obama in Old San Juan.

NYTimes Editorial on SCOTUS' 5-4 decision (PDF) weakening the securities fraud law. I have not read the decision, but I will note that Congress can overturn this SCOTUS decision and political parties can at least talk about it. Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen any reactions from politicians on this case.

Open Thread.

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | Aspen Officials Blast DEA Over Unannounced Arrests >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Another one that's confusing for non-lawyers. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:38:05 AM EST
    I don't understand the decision (from a non-lawyer perspective, that is), as it seems to overvalue the final product/end user of a process over the process itself in terms of where regulatory oversight is applied.

    At issue was whether Janus Capital Group and its subsidiary Janus Capital Management could be held liable for their mutual funds' misstatements and thus be charged with violating the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) rule prohibiting "any person, directly or indirectly" from "mak[ing] any untrue statement of material fact" in connection with buying or selling securities.

    [...] Justice Thomas' logic revolved around his interpretation of the word "make".  [...]

    "One who prepares or publishes a statement on behalf of another is not its maker," Justice Thomas wrote. "Even when a speechwriter drafts a speech, the content is entirely within the control of the person who delivers it."

    But if the preparer lies and is in a position of expertise or power, and is advising a lesser-informed client (as usually happens) how is the recipient even supposed to know and become liable? The preparer has presumably been hired to not lie, the lie has originated with them, and that expectation should count for something to the regulatory body. It's like saying the food safety regulators should prosecute people who eat tainted meat because, "the content of the steak is entirely within the control of the person who cooks it", whereas the slaughterhouse folks are not technically "making" the steak. But meat production should still be looked into!

    I guess in the end disreputable advisors are something the free market has to snuff out, and Thomas is putting formal advising on par with power of attorney in terms of responsibility level? And perhaps it all makes sense in the context of corporate law, where not making sense to laypeople is par for the course...

    The average person (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:41:13 AM EST
    seeking to make money in the markets by trading in individual accounts (buy low sell higher)would be better off coming to Tunica and playing blackjack, craps or poker.

    At least the games are honest, the odds established and the investor can expect to receive free food and drinks.

    If you throw a little healthcare in there (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    Tunica can have me :)  I could probably learn to eventually like it.

    Speaking of legitimate investments... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:55:06 AM EST
    Big ticket going in today's Pick-6 at Belmont. 1.2 million dollar carry-over from Belmont Stakes day.  Myself and two partners on a $432 dolla ticket. Gotta be in it to win it...sh*t could be better odds than Social Security being around in 40-50 years:)

    Paging all pirates...I should know by 5 pm EST if we're pulling anchor post haste:)


    I wonder what my odds are now (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:00:06 AM EST
    in ever receiving Social Security?  Probably not that good at all.

    My play is... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:12:31 AM EST
    think of it as an additional income tax specifically to assist old folks...that way I won't be disappointed if its belly up in 40-50 orbits.  

    And if not, all the better....extra gravy.  But I wouldn't be so bold as to count on it, not with our track record electing caretakers.  Like mbs investors, our just desserts would be "no soup for you!" for picking such shady fund managers.


    Good luck (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:29:29 AM EST
    Bring your winnings to Tunica.

    You can double up in the 2-5 No Limit.



    2-5? (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    If this money train pulls in my station I make the leap to 25-50 Euro stakes holmes!  At the Holland Casino.

    But of course I'd finally stop by for some BBQ first...gotta pick up Jeffrey 'round that neck of the woods anyway...always a spot for you too.


    Back to the drawing board... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:43:58 PM EST
    started 3 for 3, dropped the next two...no uber longshots, so somebody will hit....pool was 5 million.

    kdog, your captain stands ready (none / 0) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    to depart at a moment's notice. Just tell me where to meet you and Jeff and when.

    If you head south to meet up with  Jeff, I can head overland SSE, and we can connect in NOLA. As this is an historical home to pirates (Jean LaFitte anyone?), it should make for an auspicious start to our travels.

    I await your signal.


    See above... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    no dice Captain...if at first you don't succeed, wait for the next big carryover...or start casing banks:)

    PS I left Shantaram at home again...it shall be in the post tomorrow for its trip back West...sorry for the delay.


    Not a problem. (none / 0) (#96)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    Whenever it gets here is fine. I appreciate you sending it along.

    TL readers: this is the official TL copy of the book Shantaram. This copy originated with oculus, who passed it along to kdog, who is now sending it to me. This book has received rave reviews from Jerilyn, oculus and kdog.

    If you would like to be next in line to read this book, just let me know. I will be happy to pass it along when I am finished.


    I will add a rave review! (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    I did not read the official TL copy, but listened to the audiobook. Great stuff.

    Which of our two "front pagers" might (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 07:50:06 PM EST
    be willing to post a weekly thread:  "What I'm Reading" so well can all chime in.  My faves at DK.  

    Actually, I doubt I gave it a rave review, (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 07:54:46 PM EST
    as it isn't that well written and needs an editor.  But it is a good yarn and I'm on an India kick re reading.  

    Because none of the other (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by itscookin on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:53:12 AM EST
    candidates have "power hungry ambitions"? Or is it just unseemly for a woman? The candidate most hungry for power in the GOP race is easily Mitt Romney. He doesn't give up until he gets what he wants.

    Nobody thirsts for power... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    like the Ghoul Rudy Guiliani...he's gotta be jonesing to be actively be involved in slapping chains on people at this point...this worries me.

    Hope he don't run cuz this field is so lame he has a shot, and Obama is so lame Brand R has a shot.  


    He's no Ruettiger (none / 0) (#16)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:07:36 AM EST
    I think Rudy's actively interested. And he's meeting with both Chris Christie and former backer Rick Perry, so it seems more and more likely that he's in (if Perry was meeting with both the others, I'd say he was likely to enter the race, same with Perry).

    I don't think there's much to fear with Rudy, though. He's got the same problems personally as Newt (both marital and psychological) so social conservatives don't have much to latch onto. And in his main wheelhouse (which is, somewhat inexplicably, national security and terrorism) Obama has done pretty well by Rudy's own metrics. So.


    Thats what I'll keep telling myelf... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    hopefully he just missed hearing his name in the discussion, like Newt, and it goes no further than that....like Newt.

    Mitt Romney (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    has also been called all sorts of nasty stuff, mostly by me, on this blog.

    You know, I am kind of tired of this whole "we can't criticize female politicians" thing.  Yes Mitt Romney is power hungry, so is Michelle Bachman.  Why can't we say it about both of them if it's true for both of them?  No one has called me to task for my many posts that only talk about how evil Romney is - despite the many flaws of the other candidates.

    Radical right-wing hacks are radical right-wing hacks.  The fact that some of them have a uterus does not make them any more appealing or somehow immune from criticism.

    There is nothing particularly gender-specific about calling someone "power-hungry".  Now, if the poster had called her a "MILF" or whatever that would be different.  But it's not like we pull our punches around here on the male candidates, I see no reason to treat the female ones with kid gloves.  That, IMO, is just as sexist.


    With respect (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    the fact that you've called Romney nasty names (as have I!) has nothing to do with the fact that somebody else chooses to call out Bachmann as "power hungry" out of the whole crowd.

    Just sayin'.


    I think when it comes to quantifying (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:12:41 AM EST
    the level of ambition and the desire to wield a tremendous amount of power, you probably would have to go to 7 decimal places to figure out which one has the most; they are all ambitious, they all seek power, and it comes down to - once again - which one of them has the potential to do the most damage if elected.

    I'm getting really tired of having to add, or having to read, "and it's not because she's a woman," to or after any comment that's critical of a woman in power or who aspires to power; the constant, "you just think that because she's a woman" is as bad as "oh, is it that time of the month?" that - still - gets asked of women who express themselves too forcefully.

    Policy, policy, policy: the more attention we pay to it, the more detail we ask for, the more follow-up questions asked, and the less time spent on the gender or appearance of the contender in question, the easier it will be to assess them and the clearer our heads will be.

    I wish.  The media won't ask the questions, won't demand the follow-up, will pander on the basis of gender and appearance, and it will be an even bigger and uglier goat rodeo than 2008; there's a part of me that just wants to pretend there isn't going to be an election - especially considering how little difference it's going to make - for the better - in most people's lives - but I'm sure I will get sucked in.



    in context (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    I did not read it that way at all.  I saw it as calling out her radical-ness and therefore fearing the fact that she is power-hungry because of how radical she is.

    The comment in context wouldn't apply to Romney.


    can't speak for Saul (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    but i read him as saying that he fears Bachmann's "power hungry ambitions" in particular because she is too radical for him

    i didn't see a clear implication that the rest of the field is not also power-hungry or ambitious, & that Bachmann should be singled out for being a woman


    game 7 tonight... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CST on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:07:25 AM EST
    I really enjoy living in a city that cares about (and has history in, and is currently playing well at) every major sport.

    Time to bring down those evil foreigners in the north!

    Have found myself rooting for the Bruins, (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    but heard this morning that, of the 15 Game 7's that have been played for the Stanley Cup, the home team has won 12 of them.

    For whatever reason the Bruins haven't played well, or been able to score much, in Vancouver, here's hoping that's not too much in their heads tonight and they can win convincingly.

    Good luck!

    [sorry, kdog - gotta go with Boston on this one]


    yea... (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    the way the games have gone this series makes me very nervous.  But the Bruins have never played in a Stanley Cup game 7 before, and they seem to want it bad.  So I hope they can turn it around.

    Also making me nervous: "Boston is 0-4 all-time in road Game 7s, most recently losing in Montreal in the 2008 quarterfinals."

    That just means we're due... right?!?!


    No worries... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:30:51 AM EST
    no skin in this one really.

    Whats up with the teen curfew taking effect in B'More?   Trying to give NY a run for our police state money down in MD?  

    I'm sure the intentions are good, but so is the paving on the road to hell...it should be a parental decision what time your kid has to be off the street.  I was allowed out past 11 way before I turned 17...I never really had a curfew, just had to keep moms and pops informed...err, misinformed:)


    hehehe (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CST on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:31:29 PM EST
    Not tonight I think.

    HEY! Congrats!!!! (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:48:39 PM EST
    Congratulations... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 08:42:25 AM EST
    you've gone and broken Vancouver hearts...tore them apart.



    hah! (none / 0) (#132)
    by CST on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    aparently they were rioting over there too.

    Woot woot!  Thomas is a beast!  And the rest of the team had no problems scoring last night.  There's something very satisfactory to absolutely crushing them.  Sure, close games are exciting, but exciting is overrated, IMO.  This was very satisfying.

    Early in the NBA playoffs I made a deal with the sports gods that they could let the Celtics lose if they let this be the Bruins year.  I'm very glad they held up their end of the bargain.

    Now if only the New England Revolution would stop slacking off.  2nd place isn't gonna cut it guys!


    Yep... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    riots in BC...I hope you're satisfied! :)

    And you can go ahead and forget about the Revolution...this is the Red Bulls year.  I'd like to them win one MLS Cup before I am forced to switch allegiance to the expansion Cosmos...since my buddy will be working for the Cosmos youth program, I'm told a friendship hangs in the balance and not to get my allegiances skewed:)  


    "Oh Canada.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:20:53 AM EST
    Canucks...please take down those evil foreigners from the north! :)

    USA still looking shaky, but we advanced and avoided total futbol disaster in the Gold Cup.

    Better start putting the ball in the damn net! Shoulda been 5 nil.


    team USA (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:53:26 AM EST
    has some issues.  We don't really have a world class bona-fide striker.  Without it, we'll never really be able to compete with the top dogs - and it appears we may not even tread water as a top-20 power.

    side note - we cannot lose to Jamaica.  I've got a lot of trash-talk riding on that one :)


    Striker is a big hole... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    means we especially can't play so sloppy and leave goals on the pitch.

    Jamaica will be tough and forget Mexico if we don't get our sh*t together and fast.


    I don't care who wins (none / 0) (#43)
    by dk on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    (sports isn't my thing), but as a resident of downtown Boston I'm definitely glad that game 7 isn't here.  I'm sure there will still be crowds of noisy folks outside my window keeping me up tonight, but since the game's not at home I'm hoping the crowds will be a little smaller than they would have been otherwise.  Some comfort, at least.

    Time to bring down those evil foreigners... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 12:33:58 PM EST

    Get your spelling right, its "furriners."  Besides what makes the Canucks think they can win a game that true blue Amuricans invented?



    Hey (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    Even most of Canada doesn't care or want the Canucks to win!

    Should have expected this (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    ....one of the women who corresponded online with the congressman -- former porn star Ginger Lee -- is set to hold a news conference in New York early Wednesday afternoon...

    The presser is set to begin at 12:30 p.m. at the Friar's Club in Manhatten. Lee will be accompanied by her attorney, Gloria Allred....

    Gloria has become nearly as ubiquitous as a TV camera at press conferences recently. She's on her way to become this decade's version of the ultimate ambulance chaser.

    Live Feed of Lunar Eclipse (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    Here.  Fun to watch if you're into this sort of thing.

    Was just gonna post that :) (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    Brilliant minds ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:22:00 PM EST
    and all that.



    Sounds like something out of a movie (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:17:44 AM EST
    Emilio Barzini at the Commission meeting:

    If Don Corleone had all the judges, and the politicians in New York, then he must share them, or let us others use them. He must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly he can present a bill for such services; after all... we are not Communists.

    Well played Edger... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:32:56 AM EST
    Rob the country blind, eat the unconnected, just don't deal in narcotics...that cannot be tolerated, or so say the two familias.

    I'll take the mafia anyday over government...at least when the mafia kidnaps you it is against the law, and you can legally resist.  


    At least the Mafia is honest (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:52:09 AM EST
    and you know where you stand with them. Long as you pay their tax they don't usually turn around and screw with you.

    How to explain all those cement boots. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    Government Mafia equivalent... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    leg shackles...innocent civilian or combatant in the police vs. thieves conflict, they don't care...in ya go to the stormy waters of the prison system.

    None of them (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    were 'civilians'...

    That is not true (none / 0) (#98)
    by nyjets on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    Many of the victims of the mafia were innocent people. (and no, I would never take the mob over the government)

    take the mob over the government? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    You have been, for decades.

    Insert (none / 0) (#89)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:14:37 PM EST
    Weiner joke here.

    That ought to create some confidence (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    in the markets and get some of that dumb money in there.

    Off to an annual conference. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:47:10 AM EST
    why does it have to be in oklahoma?

    It's Christian Charity, you are a missionary (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    Oklahoma needs to experience you, but they will not pay for the experience or the needed teachings :)

    Brings back not-fond memories (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Towanda on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    of a meeting in Norman.

    That was the darndest group, which also got me to destinations such as Fargo -- but it was Florida in August and more than 100 degrees that did it for me.  I switched membership to a different group that meets in sites such as New York, D.C., etc.  Air fare is a lot cheaper when meeting in cities with more than only a few flights a day (or week?), too, which compensated for higher housing costs.


    Hey! I went to air prep school in Norman (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    Wonderful place.

    Taught me how to play Snooker.

    And it aint far from Okie City and it also has a fairly good football team in the vicinity.


    Norman (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    is exactly where I'm headed.

    And, to top it off, I've now been to 3 different conferences in the last decade there. They must have really cheap rates or something.

    So boring.


    That settles it... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 05:06:24 PM EST
    they hold conferences in Norman and Wichita to make sure you and Doc stick to the itenerary.

    R-crat's industry wants to party...hit Harrah's for me, 30 Red specifically!


    The hotel is across the street from Harrah's (none / 0) (#126)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 09:19:02 AM EST
    30 Red one time for you.

    Hope its... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    half as lucky for you as its been for me...have a ball ragin' N'awlins stylee!

    I have one next week in New Orleans, :) (none / 0) (#40)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:57:51 AM EST
    Lucky!!! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    Go to K-Paul's for me!

    The point is that Hussein (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    convinced the world that he had WMDs.

    Libya gave up their WMD's when Iraq was attacked.

    What did you expect Hussein to do? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:27:14 AM EST
    He had Iran to deal with, and we all know that.  Bush refused to listen to the IAEA and there is evidence that Hussein was making attempts to have private conversation with the Bush administration about the fact that he had none but he needed to appear that he might in order to be able to hold his own against Iran.  But the Bush administration was not interested in the truth and refused to listen to anybody or take calls from Hussein because they were having an Iraq War come hell or high water, and they got hell and an economy under water.

    MT, see what I wrote to Dadler (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    It just bums you that Bush was such (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:41:31 AM EST
    a horrible screw up of giant proportions Jim.  I lived all of that though in an active duty family.  The man was an utter idiot from hell of a Commander in Chief.  Nobody in my lifetime has caused me as much pain for nothing.  And then when he was so fecking wrong it was just about not believable, his mantra became "Stay the Course".  Think about what he did to us in the military.  He literally broke the spine of the United States Army.  We had to stop-loss, we had to give $30,000 bonuses to re-enlist....just to try to stay viable and alive.  Everybody got promoted too.  If you were still alive and in uniform, automatic promotion no matter who you were or how incompetent you may be.

    Not there anymore thank God.  I couldn't survive it.  I've had enough of horror and feeling so tired and worn down to nothing that I could just fall over.


    Didn't know this (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:38:51 AM EST
    Bush refused to listen to the IAEA and there is evidence that Hussein was making attempts to have private conversation with the Bush administration about the fact that he had none but he needed to appear that he might in order to be able to hold his own against Iran.

    I have read inside accounts about the lead up to the war but I hadn't heard this.  Interesting...can you comment further?


    It's odd, it's like the net is scrubbed (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    of the reports of Saddam attempting to make contact with the Bush administration on the eve of the war.  But here is Hans Blix on inspectors being IN IRAQ TO INSPECT and being told to leave because it was about to become a war zone.  I remember that day all too well.  That was the day I knew that the father of my kids was going to Iraq to fight for sure.  There were some people in our country though having the discussion then about why Saddam was trying to act all puffed up in front of Iran.

    I can't find anything easily though right now about the Bush administration ignoring Saddam's direct pleas on the eve.  Here is an FBI report about their interview with Saddam after he was captured, before he was executed.  It clearly shows that everyone who cared about the truth were correct in what they were saying about Saddam trying to appear strong in front of Iran during the lead up to war.


    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    Thank you.  I will look into this.  It's so interesting (well, and sad) how contemporary accounts get lost, and "canonical" accounts take over.  It doesn't take very long.

    I had read (none / 0) (#109)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    same thing many places

    Bullsh*t (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:27:58 AM EST
    We had more than enough proof that he had zilch, and once again you cannot even bring yourself to face to obvious -- you were had, Jim, taken for a fool and thus made an accomplice to an act of mass murder for which we should never be forgiven.  Just like we all were.  I am no different.  

    Delusion doesn't suit anyone.  Lose it.


    Dadler we have been here before (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    If you choose not to believe, fine.

    But the next time any President has the proof Bush had I pray that he acts.

    Unfortunately Obama is ignoring Iran's nuclear weapon program.


    What? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:49:04 AM EST
    If you think Obama is ignoring Iran's nuclear-based programs then perhaps you're over-valuing the military usefulness of bright shiny explosions on the teevee. Sometimes that's not the best way, and folks who want a summer's worth of war reality programming are just gonna have to be disappointed.

    I know (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 05:19:43 PM EST
    The two leading scientists in Iran's nuclear program end up mysteriously assassinated with collateral damage, and a computer worm destroys centrifuges.  I don't know who did these things, but our President isn't bent out of shape about any of it and he isn't questioning anybody about any of it.

    Also, Bush didn't have proof. So there's that... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:50:35 AM EST
    Your comment (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    shows why the GOP is losing the foreign policy argument in this country. We know Pakistan has nukes but they aren't much of ally but we aren't going to do anything about that and North Korea has them but we aren't going to go to war with them either. Fact of the matter is, the GOP message to the world has been you better d*mn sight get nukes or we will make crap up and attack your country.

    The GOP doesn't understand alliances since the Cold War and as a matter of fact is still stuck in the past when it comes to Foreign Policy. Any person who says that terrorism can't survive without state sponsorship is living a fantasy world.


    "Hussein" convinced "world"? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    Lol. You mean "bush" convinced "you": video

    Silly me, I believed the weapons inspectors (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    and not Saddam Hussein.

    UN Inspectors (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:17:26 PM EST
    were finding nothing.  A dictator in a weakened position will always imply he has great power as much for domestic consumption as for his neighbors.

    That should be obvious.

    It should also be obvious that even if Hussien did have nukes it was still not right for us to invade.


    Zerohedge says Greece is kicking off again (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    today.  The people are packing the square and they are pissed.

    Gay judge's ruling on same-sex marriage upheld (none / 0) (#49)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:25:41 AM EST
    Judge Walker's Prop 8 decision is upheld in federal court:

    ''The single characteristic that Judge Walker shares with the plaintiffs, albeit one that might not have been shared with the majority of Californians, gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits than would exist for any other judge or citizen,'' Judge Ware wrote.

    Well, that's probably not true, but it's a good end result, and acknowledging innate bias would mean that no judge could ever rule on any gender issue.

    To be clear, Judge Walker's ruling has not (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    been "upheld" on appeal.  Rather, another judge of his court (since Walker is now retired, he couldn't rule on the motion himself as he ordinarily would have), has dismissed as baseless the belated, desperate, sore-loser claim that Walker had an undisclosed bias that should have led him to withdraw from adjudicating the Prop 8 trial.  The appeal of Judge Walker's ruling has been briefed (and orally argued already, IIRC) before the Ninth Circuit, but the appellate court's decision has not been yet been announced.

    I should also have made clear (none / 0) (#119)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:07:46 PM EST
    that the appeal is on hold in the Ninth Circuit (federal appeals court), following that court's certification to the California Supreme Court of a state-law question about who (if anyone) has "standing" to defend the validity of an enacted Proposition, if the Governor and Attorney General decline to do so.

    not sure i understand you (none / 0) (#79)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    "that's probably not true"

    what's probably not true?


    What MLM is suggesting s/he thinks is (none / 0) (#108)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 06:06:24 PM EST
    "probably not true" is yesterday's holding that Judge Walker, by virtue of being gay (and by virtue of nothing else), has no greater legal interest in the outcome of a case challenging the validity of Prop 8 than does any other Californian, or any straight Californian.

    thanks (none / 0) (#112)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 07:15:45 PM EST
    i wonder why MLM thinks this is not true - hope s/he will elaborate

    I don't see a whole heck of a lot straight people (none / 0) (#135)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 05:16:01 PM EST
    taking to the streets to demand gay rights. Certainly, straight people can understand the plight of gays, just as whites can be empathetic about racism and men can understand the oppression of women. But experiencing something first hand gives not just more insight into the problem, but motivation to change it.

    I think Judge Walker wrote a very well reasoned decision, a very useful decision that tears apart the lies that homophobes have been hiding behind for years. Protecting marriage? Baloney. Prop 8 doesn't enhance marriage one bit. Traditional marriage? Nonsense, traditionally, marriage was the exchange of ownership of one or more women from their fathers to their husbands. Traditional marriage in this country was anti-miscegenistic. The people that got this law passed are fearful and cruel, and are despicable liars.

    The brilliance of Judge Walker's decision is that it ties the Prop 8 proponents' AGENDA to the passage of the law, and their agenda is promoting homophobia in order to either 1) Feel better about themselves (rally the troops against "the other"), and/or 2) Make money from other people's fears (NOM - the National Org for Marriage Exclusion - is raking in millions right now).  

    I don't think the judge made this decision just because he might benefit from getting married someday to another man. But I DO think being gay can be a huge motivation to be part of the change process. Although many straight people agree that lesbians and gays should have equality, they're not bothering to make an effort to see it happen. The general public is just not as motivated as the group that is oppressed.


    i am gay myself (none / 0) (#137)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 05:32:08 PM EST
    & i hope the judge's potential to benefit played no part at all in his decision, & i wonder if you realize how you undermine a good decision by suggesting otherwise

    I don't think the judge made this decision just because he might benefit from getting married someday to another man.

    this is not to invalidate anything else you said, which i do appreciate very much


    hmm (none / 0) (#138)
    by CST on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:12:50 AM EST
    that's kind of a sad statement, and I'm not sure it's true or really fair:

    "Although many straight people agree that lesbians and gays should have equality, they're not bothering to make an effort to see it happen."

    At the very least, there have been straight judges who would, and did, rule exactly the same way as Judge Walker.  So I feel it's disengenuous to assert that he would only care that much because he is gay, and that a straight person couldn't care as much.  Conecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia all have gay marriage, and it didn't happen without the active engagement of straight people along with gays.  I mean it's not like all of those judges were gay, but they managed to figure it out.


    Not commenting on the issue (none / 0) (#139)
    by Nemi on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    as I haven't been following, but this is well said:
    Certainly, straight people can understand the plight of gays, just as whites can be empathetic about racism and men can understand the oppression of women. But experiencing something first hand gives not just more insight into the problem, but motivation to change it.
    The so called "consequence experts" will always know, and feel, and have experienced things that can't possibly be related to others outside the demography - no matter how empathic and receptive they may be.

    Re Puerto Rico, I had forgotten (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    people in Puerto Rico have dual citizenship.  Was surprised by NPR's report of the vast no. of Puerto Rican's who have recently moved to FL, which is why Pres. Obama chose to go to PR now.  Not really for the Puerto Rican's remaining on the island.  

    What do you mean by "dual citizenship"? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    The only national citizenship that Puerto Ricans have, I'm quite sure, is U.S. citizenship.

    According to Wiki, Puerto Ricans are (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:54:55 AM EST
    also citizens of Puerto Rico, whatever that entails.  

    Many Puerto Ricans consider the island (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    to be "my country," as they say, and would use the terminology of citizenship as a political or cultural statement.  That, I understand.  But in formal terms, they are "citizens" of Puerto Rico only in the same sense that I am a citizen of Pennsylvania.  I wouldn't say that gives me "dual citizenship," the way one can be a dual citizen of the U.S. and of Italy, for example.

    What got me interested was NPR report (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    on large no. of people immigrating recently from PR to FL.  So I looked up whether Puerto Ricans can freely immigrate to U.S.  They can and do.  

    Again, along the same lines, this is because (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    Puerto Rico is not another country, and the Puerto Ricans who move to the mainland (or "to the United States," as they put it) are therefore not "immigrating" to Florida.  No more than if I moved from Pennsylvania to Florida.  I suppose the law governing residents of U.S. "territories" and "Commonwealths" could be otherwise, but it isn't.

    Since they are US citizens, (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they are "moving" to Florida, instead of "immigrating"?  If I ever re-located to Florida (G-d forbid) from Maryland, I would be "moving" to Florida, not immigrating to Florida (or emigrating from Maryland, for that matter).

    Heh. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    Way too humid for me in Florida; I've visited- fine for a visit, not so much for living there.  If you want strawberry jam (I have home-made quince jelly, too, and if our cherry trees don't let us down this year the way they did last year, I'll be making cherry jelly and probably cherry preserves), you'll have to come out to Western Maryland.   ;-)

    I saw a guy driving today that obviously didn't have a/c in his car and he was holding a large lid out his window to direct airflow into his car, I felt sorry for him.

    The jelly sounds delicious, just don't give me the jar with the crooked band :)


    Some of those cherry preserves for me, (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 09:12:48 PM EST
    please.  One of my favorites.

    Then you have forgotten (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Towanda on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    the riveting days of 2008 here, on the days of the presidential primary elections in our colonies.  I recall especially the updates on the primary in Guam, about which I learned more that day about Guam than I have in all of the days before or since.

    Went to Guam once (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    My fondest memory is looking out my hotel window and watching some kids, maybe nine or ten years old, throwing dice against a rotting schoolbus that was turned on its side in a field.

    Ah the Northern Marianas!  Spent several weeks on a few islands a kid.  Saw the biggest pot plant I've ever seen, on the island of Saipan, the things was the size of an oak tree.


    Yes, there has been a lot in the local news (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:59:04 AM EST
    about that. The I-4 Central FL corridor is where the Puerto Rican community is most concentrated. The Dems are attempting to counterbalance the Republican support among the Cuban-Americans.

    Interestingly, Huntsman is going to establish his campaign headquarters in Orlando.


    Not pleasing. NATO refuses to rule (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:46:40 AM EST
    bombing Roman ruins in Libya.  

    "Operation Hoodwinked", (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    Day 88 (to be reported in days not weeks). The Financial Times reported yesterday that U.S. military operations (based on UN Resolution 1973, no-fly zone, prevent bloodbath in Benghazi,  freeze assets, but no regime change since that would be wrong) are expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than originally estimated.  Secretary Gates said last month that the Pentagon expected to spend $750,000 million in fiscal 201l (365 days). . A Pentagon update puts costs at $2 million/ day on airstrikes, refueling operations and intelligence gathering, up from about $1.3 million/day.

    The whole thing was ill-conceived from the get go (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    but spring was in the air.

    Good thing we don't need that money.


    The influence of spring (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 06:40:44 PM EST
    Your point about "spring...in the air" is well-taken. At least for me. I know that the uprising in Egypt & throughout the MidEast (seemingly) led to an upsurge in my own beliefs about the ability of certain nations to move from dictatorships to a true self-determination. I don't usually fall for that siren song...for example, from the beginning of the Iraq talk, something told me that it would be a Vietnam-style imbroglio. But, this spring.... It did seem different; and, it was different in terms of the true spontaneity in several instances.

    We wanted to stand with the rebels in the several countries. Even when we were all wiser about getting entrapped in a location of a culture quite different from ours. But, so many of us--here & elsewhere--cheered them on. Y'know I still do. And, I am relieved that my country recognized that we can help without the "full monty"...We can assist; we don't have to deploy ground troops for yet another war.

    Mayhaps there is no good immediate resolution here. Yet--given the circumstances & the desire to be supportive where we can be, I find little if any fault with our situation in Libya. Ignoring the clearly murderous status quo had conscience problems for me; but, another deployment had huge drawbacks financially, ethically, pragmatically. The model of the US in a limited support role is something that I can live with from time to time. The limited approach satisfies the longing to help & also responsibly recognizes that we can't be the world's policeman.


    Going to cost more (none / 0) (#82)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 02:21:02 PM EST
    than originally estimated.  Imagine my shock and surprise.  Not.  This seems to be SOP for all our wars, unfortunately.

    Would could have predicted {snark x 10} (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    Three months of the no fly zone war against Libya started NATO officials are starting to admit there is no clear end game strategy besides basically hoping Muammar Gaddafi just goes away somehow. From the UK Guardian:

    Almost three months into the campaign of air strikes, Britain and its Nato allies no longer believe bombing alone will end the conflict in Libya, well-placed government officials have told the Guardian.

    Instead, they are pinning their hopes on the defection of Muammar Gaddafi`s closest aides, or the Libyan leader's agreement to flee the country.

    I sure slaughtered that subject line (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 07:12:42 PM EST
    Should read:

    Who could have predicted {snark x 10}


    What's a lil' subject line slaughter . . . (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    among friends ;)

    Gaddafi flee? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Nemi on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 06:33:04 AM EST
    Nah, he's playing chess - multi-dimensional I'm sure.

    And now voices within the International Chess Federation call for his opponenet the FIDE President to resign. Will undoubtedly be a whole lot easier than outing Gadaffi. :(


    Juan Cole disagrees w/those who (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    state U.S. military action in Libya is due to U.S. oil interests pressuring the WH.  Cole doesn't mention Greenwald by name and/or link to Greenwald.

    Juan Cole has a lot to defend. (none / 0) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    What does this mean? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    Are you of the opinion that NATO's military action in Libya originated in demands by Western oil companies?

    Who knows? But Glenn Greenwald is (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    convinced of this theory.  

    Link: (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    Yup... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    ...see my response to Greenwald's post as a response to the above comment. I think he's trying to walk back his original post a little bit, and in the process being a little dishonest about what he wrote.

    Surprise, suprise (none / 0) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 01:26:19 AM EST
    I've quit reading Greenwald.  His rants have become less and less honest over time.

    Link: (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:39:37 PM EST
    More on that... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    Greenwald stated that the US and its allies intervened to Libya to get a more compliant and favorable regime, which is (as he says) undeniable since it's so vague in the first place. Has anyone ever intervened with the idea of getting a less compliant or worse ally out of it? It's close to a truism, that.

    Now, Greenwald goes on to say that the details of that motive are debatable. He then talks extensively about oil, recent history, and "resource nationalism" -- all of which clearly implies that he believes oil is the prime motivation.

    He later states it much more clearly, which I quote here:

    After almost three months of fighting and bombing -- when we're so far from the original justifications and commitments that they're barely a distant memory -- is there anyone who still believes that humanitarian concerns are what brought us and other Western powers to the war in Libya?  Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?  

    Does it get clearer than that? Greenwald is stating that it's "obvious" that the "prime objective" of the war in Libya is about oil. But then he walks it almost all the way back in an update:

    That's not to say that Gaddafi's "resource nationalism" is the only or even overriding motive for the war in Libya.

    But that isn't what he wrote initially, he wrote exactly what he's saying he didn't, as anyone can see.

    I don't deny that the reason NATO is intervening in Libya is not entirely or even predominantly humanitarian, or at least it's obvious that there are other instances of worse humanitarian situations in which NATO has not gotten involved in. But Greenwald shouldn't expect that he can insinuate (and, in the above-quoted case, state openly) one explanation and then pretend like he was being far more vague in the update when people like Juan Cole argue against the oil-centric analysis of his original post.

    So that's my two cents on that.


    Juan Cole says that (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    "those who more or less support Qaddafi and wanted to let him roll tanks on civilian protesters have weaved themselves into a pretzel".   Leaving aside the allegation that opposition to military intervention equates more or less to support of Qaddafi, Cole, too, it might be said, has been caught in a web weaved of deception. And, one he seems unable or unwilling to  free himself of, now being content with defending his spidery abode.

    Whatever the real motivation, the actions are not limited to humanitarian and blood-bath prevention.  President Obama and Secretary Gates were the reluctant warriors who yielded to  Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Rice and Ms. Powers who were portrayed as the humanitarians.

    Cole claims that the administration was dragged into military intervention "kicking and screaming" to satisfy Saudi Arabia, France and Britain---if so, the tactic was quite effective, if not too flattering. The US cajoled and fought for UN resolution 1973 and provided the military muscle.

    Greenwald may be off base to think that oil is somehow involved, but Cole is base to think that opposition to the intervention leaves out concern for ordinary Libyans

    For my two cents,  your assessment is much sounder: namely: "I don't deny that the reason NATO is intervening in Libya is not entirely or even predominately humanitarian, or it's obvious that there are other instances of worse humanitarian situations in which NATO had not gotten involved."


    I find myself actually (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 01:25:34 AM EST
    with Obama's explicit policy on this, and Clinton's clear but unarticulated one post-Rwanda-- if you can intervene fairly cleanly and with allies, you do.  If not, probably not.  I guess that's a bit of realpolitik.

    Prosecution rest (none / 0) (#100)
    by loveed on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    in the Casey Anthony trial.

      Everytime I watch these high media hype trials,I truly worry about our Justus system. The prosecution,FBI,the good ole boys experts there not out for justice. There only out to win. Leaking of information and misinformation to the media. And you can say anything about the defendant, someone will pay you.
     Something funny. The media is upset because the prosecutors did not put there version of the evidence."The jury don't know what we know". The media is nervous that the Prosecution did not prove there case.

     Yesterday the most interesting fact was that Kaylee whom is 3yrs.old. The shorts was a size 24 months. There is no way she had theses short on. there way to small. She wore theses short before she was 2yrs old.

    Weiner resigning (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 09:06:05 AM EST

    He hit the 5 stages of grief right on cue. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Addison on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 09:51:05 AM EST
    I actually thought (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    This has gone on so long that he might survive this.

    He could have easily (none / 0) (#130)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 10:20:23 AM EST
    But the Dems did Republicans work for them...again.  The Repubs don't, or rarely, turn on their own like the useless Dems do.  

    And, yet again, every big discussion of sex in this country starts from a puritan perspective.  To speak frankly and forthrightly about sex, it seems, is still too much for our Pilgrim minds to bear.  The most natural instinct humans have (it IS part of the survival instinct), and we still can't bring ourselves to get over blushing.  Tribal folks in the bush have a better relationship with sex that we do.  By far.

    It's either sin or it's wholesome.  We just love our noses in there.  

    Wake me when we decide to be adults.


    Well said... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    Sh*t, the guy at the far left of the evolutionary chart had a healthier view of sex, never mind fully evolved tribal bush people.  We should only vote for eunuchs and the asexual if this is how we're gonna act...save ourselves all the trouble.

    I can't imagine the size of the sh*t-eating grins Breitbart and Ailes are rocking this morning...and Weiner has only encouraged them to go after the next congressional slob with equal vigor, for all the wrong reasons.  Shame on the lot...shame on us.


    It's good that he resigned. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Addison on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    I think he should've "resigned" as a Democrat and kept serving as an independent -- just left the party. That would've been an interesting loophole to try.

    That said, I think it was right for him to resign entirely. What he did was (IMO) morally wrong, but I don't really have to rely on morals to want him gone.

    I don't care about him or his personal life, and I don't live in his district. My only interest in him is in terms of (a) his Congressional votes and (b) his effectiveness as a national spokesman/fundraiser. His district is either going to be eliminated or elect another Democratic representative, so the votes will stay the same. And he's not an effective national spokesman or fundraiser anymore either. So, for me it's good that he resigned.


    I don't mind if a politician sleeps around (none / 0) (#136)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 05:24:17 PM EST
    It's cheating on your wife and lying to her and the public that bothers me.