home

Thursday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 01:57:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Do voters really want a return to the politics of yesterday and mores of the 1950's?

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional.

They [the judges]found that gays and lesbians are entitled to heightened protection from the courts, based on the history of discrimination the group has suffered.

"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the majority.

The evangelical producer Dinesh D'Souza of "2016" resigned from Kings College today due to his affair with a woman not his wife. He brought her to a family values conference last month, introducing her as his fiance. He hadn't even filed for divorce yet.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mitt Romney: Pardons and Stem Cell Research | Nobody Puts Baby in a Binder >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Open Thread | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    That's not fair... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    to Ward Cleaver, who is old-fashioned but an otherwise decent fellow....even if he was a little hard on the Beaver last night.

    Sorry, that one never gets old!

    So, he's more like (none / 0) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    Eddie Haskell?

    Parent
    Some similar traits... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    the shameless pandering for one...Mitt woulda came over to hang with Wally and not only told Mrs. Cleaver how lovely she looked, but that he would also let her pick a number for her and Ward's tax deductions, as well as balance the Cleaver family budget gap with less income and increased home defense spending.  And once nobody was looking, empty June's jewelry box.

    Parent
    Aren't you a little young to know (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:31:05 PM EST
    the details of "Leave It to Beaver"?

    Parent
    I'm a treasure trove... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    of totally useless information, spanning generations.  Think Cliff Clavin.

    Parent
    And then drink all the beer in the fridge (none / 0) (#13)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    before leaving.

    Parent
    exactly! (none / 0) (#62)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    ward cleaver was a decent guy, and didn't treat june like she was a piece of furniture.

    mitt is eddie haskel, smarmy, and you wonder why no one ever punched his lights out.

    Parent

    The treatment Mika B. got from the boys... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by magster on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    ... on the Morning Joe roundtable this morning was disgusting. She's not my favorite, but she definitely had a good point here about how important and insulting it was that Romney made up his story about requesting binders of women, and Joe and Mark Halperin treated her like she was Edith Bunker.

    Gasoline prices dropping rapidly here. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by DFLer on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    $3.59 a gallon this am. That's a 30 cent drop in the last week or so. Add to that the 4 cents off coupon available at Farm and Fleet, and honored at all other stations..viola!

    Good ole Farm and Fleet. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:35:46 PM EST


    Parent
    yeah - and it's cousin: "Fleet Farm" (none / 0) (#31)
    by DFLer on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:40:19 PM EST


    Parent
    The Only Store I Really Miss (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:42:59 PM EST
    No place like it in Texas like it, the closest is Lowes or Home Depot, which doesn't compare.  But the though of my mom taking me their for Wranglers is not a good one.

    And the only store to have people secretly hiding in the stacked boxes.  They busted more shoplifters than everyone else combined.

    Parent

    Remind me DFLer... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    where's your here?  Close enough to run a syphon hose to NY? Sad when 3.59 sounds really f8ckin' good, but that sounds really f8ckin' good;)

    We're maybe down a couple pennies, still north of 4 bucks.  But there's relief on the horizon, I gotta travel on business on Monday, so my plan is to be running on fumes when I fill up Monday, and save that receipt for Lumberg;)

    Parent

    In SE Minnesota, on the Mississippi (none / 0) (#35)
    by DFLer on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:43:31 PM EST
    prices slightly higher in Cheese-land 'cause I believe their gas tax is higher.

    We'd have to barge it down the river.. I think you're outa luck.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:50:34 PM EST
    if ya hit 2.59 let me know, I'll do a cost/benefit analysis;)

    Parent
    will do (none / 0) (#48)
    by DFLer on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:18:37 PM EST


    Parent
    All hail National ACLU LGBT project (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:35:54 PM EST
    for winning the DOMA case today in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Windsor v. United States - full copy available via a link at "How Appealing."  Excellent case for a clean shot at DOMA - Ms. Windsor and her partner were married in Canada in 2007, and recognized as married in NY State when her female spouse died in 2009.  Because DOMA bars the IRS from recognizing their marital status, Windsor had to pay over $360,000 in federal estate tax that would otherwise not have been owing. The Court held by 2-1 vote that in such cases DOMA violates the "equal protection" principle that is part of the "due process of law" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.  The court ruled that legislative classifications that disfavor gay folks over straights are unconstitutional unless they satisfy "intermediate scrutiny" -- a substantial relationship to an important and legitimate governmental interest.  This is a less demanding level of judicial review than the "strict scrutiny" given to racial classifications, but more than the mere "rational basis" test used to evaluate economic regulations, for example.  The dissenter contended that a "rational basis" standard should be used, and that the legislation satisfied that minimal test.  I think this case has a good chance to be selected for Supreme Court review, and a reasonable chance to win there.

    Do you really think the Supreme Court, with it's (none / 0) (#37)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:44:50 PM EST
    present makeup, will overturn DOMA? They have not been a model of either judicial restraint or actual respect for the Constitution.

    Well-reasoned legal arguments seem to take a back seat to the political leanings of many of the justices.

    Parent

    So people often say, but (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    in fact our very conservative Supreme Court has, relatively recently, defended gay rights on both equal protection (1996) and privacy/substantive (2003) grounds against arbitrary state laws.  The question here is whether they will overturn a federal statute -- fortunately, not a tax law, at least not directly, since those are particularly hard to invalidate -- on such grounds.

    Parent
    IMO, the additions of Roberts and Alito (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:38:12 PM EST
    to the Court pushed an already conservative court even further to the right. The switch of O'Connor,  a conservative but not an ideologue and certainly a woman who lived in the real world, to Alito was especially harmful, once again IMO.

    Having Roberts and Alito around seems to have given Anthony Kennedy's inner reactionary a huge shot of adrenaline. I don't know that if the Court were to hear Lawrence today that Kennedy would make the same decision he made in 2005.

    And after the Citizen's United decision, well, I just don't have much faith in the Court as it is currently populated.

    Parent

    I only said "a reasonable chance" to win (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    in the Supreme Court.  It is true that Justice Kennedy authored both of those decisions, and that O'Connor joined (Romer) or concurred (Lawrence) in both of them.  What you say is not necessarily wrong.  Of course, both Romer and Lawrence are now precedent of a decade or more's standing.  So, all in all, I'm willing to stand by my cautiously optimistic estimation of the chances of victory.  Interested to hear others' views.  Andgarden?  BTD?

    Parent
    I so hope you are right, Peter. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:00:51 PM EST
    I am not a lawyer (to my mother's everlasting dismay). So, my observations and comments are based on nothing more than avid court-watching.

    And while as a rule I like to be right, in this case I would be thrilled to be wrong.

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 12:11:38 AM EST
    with taking solace from the fact that this court has passed rulings indicating that they are not 100% in the grip of political considerations should be obvious on its face. Surely George W. Bush supported some legislation that was beneficial to our society, and George, the father, signed laws that raised taxes in spite of his "no tax" pledge. Who can forget that Mussolini made the trains run on time, and a certain reactionary Senator was lauded for fixing potholes in NYC....."a stopped watch," and all that.

    However, I'm more interested in the damage inflicted on our country by as little as one decision, if the totality of that decision trumps whatever good some other decisions may have provided:

    I'm thinking the "per curiam decision," Bush v. Gore - 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

    and (to quell any doubts as to their motive)

    "limited to present circumstances"

    Parent

    Some points (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    from Judge Jacob, writing for the majority:  On the tests:  (l) history, evidence of discrimination since at least 1920, and 90 years is enough, whether or not discrimination existed in Babylon is here nor there; (2) on relation to ability to contribute to society--nothing to do with aptitude or performance; (3) distinguishing characteristics--a sufficiently discernible characteristic to define a minority class, sexual preferences is disclosed when two persons of same sex apply for a marriage license and a survivor seeks benefits,  discrimination is invited when manifest: (4) political power--encumbered by lack of power to protect from discrimination.

    Other comments from the opinion: DOMA is an unprecedented intrusion into traditional state regulation and a breach of long standing deference to states.  As for tradition, the case is about  a civil status--law, not Holy Matrimony.  A state may enforce and dissolve a couple's marriage, but it cannot sanctify it.  For that, the pair must go next door.

    Judge Chester Straub, in his dissenting portion, presented  traditional and conservative arguments,  perhaps reflecting his Catholic heritage  (Straub was the only dissenter, among nine circuit court judges who, in 2003, upheld the Partial Birth Abortion ban as constitutional).

    Parent

    Why don't conservatives launch ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:30:00 PM EST
    ... a crusade against the homophobic Boy Scouts of America for its decades-long covers-up of pedophilia in its ranks, instead of forever pissing into a 50 m.p.h. headwind by constantly scheming against Planned Parenthood:

    Chicago Tribune | October 18, 2012
    Boy Scout files reveal long history of child sex abuse cases - "A popular Colorado Boy Scout leader named Floyd Slusher allegedly had a strategy when it came to molesting boys: He first plied his victims with alcohol, then abused them and threatened to kill anyone who talked. On one occasion in 1976, according to police, Slusher told a Scout as he undressed the child that 'what I'm going to do now, if I get arrested, after I get out of jail, I'll come after you and your family.' [...] Slusher, who was convicted of sexually abusing a child in 1977, is among those named in 1,247 files on suspected and convicted pedophiles that the Boy Scouts kept from public view until Thursday, when they were released under a judge's order. The roughly 20,000 pages of files lay bare disturbing incidents of child sexual abuse within one of America's most respected organizations between 1965 and 1985 and illustrate its long struggle to keep pedophiles out of its ranks."

    I find it terribly ironic that while the clown cars of the far right remain dead silent about looming cloud of sex abuse scandals surrounding the Boy Scouts, the most unhinged amongst them are allowed to rant and rave away at the Girl Scouts with impunity, falsely accusing GSA of being a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood in public schools that promotes abortions and lesbianism.

    D'Souza is, and always has been, a fraud and a (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:30:24 PM EST
    hack. the only "family" values he (and his ilk) ever espoused are mafia family values. they just take the evangelical rubes for all the cash they can suck out of them, then move on to the next grift. i'm sure the koch bros. will find him another well paying sinecure, at some no-name "christian" college. liberty baptist, oops, excuse me, liberty "university" seems like a good place for his skanky ass to alight.

    Y'know, I love to hate D'Souza as much as anyone (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 08:03:20 PM EST
    but to try to be minimally fair here ... by whose standards was he hypocritical?  Has he ever written (or implied) that someone who is legally married, but getting a divorce, and has been separated for some two years, must nevertheless remain celibate until the divorce comes through?  Or cannot openly introduce his new lover as his "fiancee" if they intend to marry once legally free to do so? (This is my understanding of the facts, and is not exactly either D'Souza's version or his accusers' version.  Of course, I don't really know the facts, nor does anyone else here or elsewhere.)  I mean, I don't see any evidence of a secret affair that betrays a commitment to the spouse and children, or any such.  If he has taken that extreme a position on the "sanctity" of marriage for others, then I condemn his hypocrisy.  But otherwise, I'm having some trouble with this.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 07:58:00 AM EST
    the version of Evangelical Christianity that D'souza professes to adhere to is very much against divorce in the first place. Divorced people are to hold no leadership roles in any religious organization and the only legitimate reason for getting a divorce is infidelity.  Now that may be the grounds that his soon to be ex-wife filed on but we don't know that yet.

    And yes, you are not supposed to even date until the divorce comes through. So he is being hypocritical even dating much less sleeping with someone and becoming engaged to them.

    Parent

    Man, oh man, I had no idea (none / 0) (#110)
    by Peter G on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 10:00:13 AM EST
    that there were Protestants out there with pre-Reformation theologies and social codes. What I don't know ....  Thanks for the travel guide.

    Parent
    Anyone think it strange the (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    conservatives who post here gave up on Libya?

    It looks like the directive was to focus on Mitt hiring women and economic issues....

    And, they all got the memo.

    Ha (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:56:44 PM EST
    Even Romney has dropped Libya from his swing state stump speech. I don't follow fox punditry but I assume they got the memo too that one beat down per topic is enough.

    Parent
    I want Obama to bring up the 47% (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:07:23 PM EST
    Romney comments again during the foreign policy debate.....

    It works.  During that fundraiser, Romney said he would be looking for an event in the Middle East to blast Obama with.

    So, when Libya comes up, Obama can point out what a miscreant Romney is on Libya, and hit him again on the 47%.

    Parent

    Maybe, President Obama (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    will be able to weave the 47 % into his jokes tonight at the Al Smith Dinner  for the benefit of Catholic Charities (Waldorf Astoria, 9 pm, C-Span)--a crowd of one percenters, or as George W. Bush called them, the haves and the have mores, and, the country's elite, or my base.  

    Parent
    It's the economy, stupid (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    Unfortunately for mitt, the next debate is on foreign policy....if anyone is still watching.

    Parent
    A trade war with China (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    could bring it back to the economy.

    Parent
    That would at least give Obama a chance to (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:12:46 PM EST
    get back to the 47%.

    Parent
    Detroit Tigers Headed for World Series! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    Damn!

    Been a long time since that right wing anal retentive a$$hat Tom Monaghan ran them into the ground because he didn't like Kirk Gibsons fuzzy face.

    I'm ready for a Detroit-St. Louis series. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:27:44 PM EST
    I only wish Gibson-McCarver and Lolich-Freehan get penciled in as the starting batteries.

    Parent
    My late former wife's partner is ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:57:59 AM EST
    ... absolutely walking on top of the clouds tonight. She's originally from Detroit, and is just a HUGE Tigers fan.

    And in my book, anyone who loves baseball is all right by me. That's why we hit it off so well when I first met her. The very next night, I stole her away from my ex for the evening (with permission, of course), and she joined my friends and me to watch the Angels play the Tigers in Anaheim.

    She called me this afternoon after the final out from a bar in Phoenix where she watched the game while playing hooky from a conference she's nominally supposed to be attending She was giddy to the point of near-incoherence.

    Parent

    Viewer's choice best world series one has seen (none / 0) (#94)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:46:11 PM EST
    or listened to...

    I gotta vote for 1968 Detroit-St. Louis. Incredible. Every game was incredible.

    Second I have to say '72...saw the A's and the Big Red Machine... only one blowout, Game 6. Every other game was a 1 run game.

    The 60 World Series ended with a bang, but it was pretty humdrum otherwise... still ranks high, but not as high as '68.  

    Greatest moment in a series? Kirk Gibson's Home Run in '88. He told Lasorda he had two swings in him. He needed both.  That hit took the wind out of the A's. Anyone else?

    Parent

    As a Dodger fan, my shout-out is for ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:30:05 AM EST
    ... the 1991 World Series between the Minnesota Twins and Atlanta Braves, which is considered one the all-time great Fall Classics.

    It marked the very first time in MLB history that a team rose from a last place finish the previous season to a pennant and World Series the next, and both the Twins and Braves accomplished that feat together.

    And boy, did they put on a show! Twins pitcher Jack Morris' Series-clinching 10-inning shutout in Game 7 has to be one of the clutch performances for the ages.

    Parent

    Daily Show Fans (4.50 / 2) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    President Obama will be on with Jon Stewart tonight at 11:00pm ET.

    I suspect Bill O'Reilly is already spitting bullets.

    Totally non-political, but (none / 0) (#4)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    I still don't care what the Farmer's Almanac says.  I have now seen quite a number of woolly bear caterpillars, and they are all telling me that it's going to be a moderate to mild winter here, just as the first couple I saw did.  None of them are predicting a harsh winter.
    Jeez, I hope they're right!

    What's the tell Zorba? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:08:10 PM EST


    Parent
    The wider (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    the reddish-brown hairy band in the middle (and the narrower the black bands at the ends) of their little bodies, then supposedly, the milder the upcoming winter will be.
    The woollies I have seen are well over 50% brown.  Some more like 80%-90% brown.
    Take this with a grain of salt because it's pretty much an "old wives' tale."  Or an "old farmers' tale," but then, I'm an "old wife" as well as an "old farmer," so there you have it.   ;-)

    Parent
    could you check (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:56:00 PM EST
    those wooly worms and see if we're going to get any hurricanes down here late in the season...thanx

    Parent
    Sorry, fishcamp, but (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:11:13 PM EST
    they only seem to predict the upcoming winter in the general region they live in.  Which would be Maryland and, possibly, the Mid-Atlantic area.  And I don't think they can predict hurricanes in Florida.
    :-(
    You'll have to find your own, regional folklore for hurricane predictions.

    Parent
    This particular folklore (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    isn't that regional.  I grew up with that as well.  (Although mayhap my second grade teacher was originally from this area.  Who knows?)

    Still, the weather predicted by woolly caterpillars must surely be regional.

    Parent

    The woolly bears, as far as I know, (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    are pretty widespread- we had them where I grew up, too.  But I think their predictions are "regional," as you said, and if my woolly bears are correct, Maryland, at least, should be in good shape this winter.   ;-)
    Although, I keep hearing that we're going to get another "Snowpocalypse" in the region this year, so who knows?

    Parent
    So does that mean the (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:59:39 PM EST
    river here will not be frozen over in 2 weeks? :)
    Does it mean that the usual 2 week cold snap of -40 temperatures in the new year will only be 13 days long?

    Parent
    Where is "here" for you, observed? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    Seems like it's pretty far north, because we don't get weather like that in Maryland.  You'll have to check your own, local tales.  Sorry!

    Parent
    Now that it's appeared twice in one thread (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:22:07 PM EST
    I hereby dub "Where is 'here' for you, __?" as the new TL daily salutation.

    Parent
    If memory serves: (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    Қазақстан

    Parent
    Ah, yes, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:39:40 PM EST
    Now I remember.  Well, who knows if they even have woolly bears there?  I always thought that they were more or less North American.  I'm sure they have their own "predictors" in Kazakhstan.

    Parent
    Like to see how Gallup will screen me out of ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    ... their likely voter model now that I've just voted.

    Had to put it on my facebook (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    That Dinesh D'Souza lost his daytime "evangelical" job today.  Thanks for the info Jeralyn.

    Let me guess: (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    he thought that it didn't 'count' because a) she was an untouchable (or a welfare mother, which to D'Souza means the same thing) or b) because they always wore rubber gloves and wet suits.  

    Parent
    The college gave him a million dollar salary (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    But according to what I read some of the faculty said his public image was hurting the college, and he didn't really do anything to earn such a salary.  Now the college is working very hard to lose all entanglement with his name.  He hasn't been on their facebook page all year, and they said that wasn't an accident.  So his blatant affair was the last straw.

    Parent
    a million for that walking (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    pustule on the face of honest, open-minded scholarship..

    Dollars to doughnuts alot of that mil came from a Koch, Scaife, Coors etc 'endowment'.

    Parent

    The school claims that losing him (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    Will not harm their scholarship programs.  I have to say, their faculty is earning some respect from me.  It wasn't enough for them to have A FACE appearing to run the show.  They seem to have some sort of standards they expect their leaders to meet.

    Parent
    No benefit of the doubt 'round here? (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:34:51 PM EST
    Maybe D'Souza converted to fundamentalist mormonism in honor of Mitt Romney, and was just taking a second wife.  Get his own binder of women going.

    Parent
    Then he will have to be President (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:37:48 PM EST
    of BYU.  The King's College was sort of done with him before he took another wife anyhow :)

    Parent
    Absolutely no benefit of the doubt (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    for Dinesh.  Typical right-wing, more "Christian than thou" hypocrite who thinks he can tell everyone else what the he!! to do and condemn them, but the rules don't apply to him.


    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    thought about posting this too. What did they say in  response or is it crickets?


    Parent
    Nothing yet (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:30:08 PM EST


    Parent
    What was the appaling thing D'souza (none / 0) (#36)
    by observed on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    did as editor of the Dartmouth Review?
    I didn't see it on the wikipedia page.
    As I recall, it was some kind of vile, undeserved, public shaming for a female.

    Parent
    I was going to say (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    he dated Ann Coulter, but the mutual shaming cancels the whole thing. And, at least they didn't reproduce.

    The guy does seem to have a bottomless capacity for calculatedly vile attacks on others.

    An Indian Roy Cohn is what he reminds me of.

    Parent

    Thanks a lot...I will have to drink (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:49:58 PM EST
    myself into oblivion later to get THAT mental image out of my head.

    Parent
    I know that he outed (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:51:44 PM EST
    some gay students at Dartmouth.

    Parent
    Hard to pick (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 09:10:05 AM EST
    In addition to outing the officers of the Gay Straight Alliance and publishing confidential files (justifying it by saying he wanted to make sure university funds weren't being used for gay parties or orgies), he published an interview with a KKK leader featuring a photo of a mock lynching, and the rest of the publication became known for its mocking tone of "black speak".

    Parent
    On the DOMA Ruling (none / 0) (#14)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:27:46 PM EST
    Three points:

    1 - the judge that wrote the opinion is extremely conservative, apparently.

    2 - the judge that dissented is a Clinton appointee(doh!)

    3 - if I understand this case correctly, the gov't claimed an 80-year old woman owed 360K+ in estate taxes because plaintiff's partner left her estate to the plaintiff.  W/o knowing plaintiff's financial status, I'm assuming she's of moderate means, seems crazy that the gov't would make you pay for a gift you received because of a relationship, but then not acknowledge that relationship as valid.

    See my comment (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    at #27 for a legal analysis.  There is -- or was, in 2009 -- a federal "estate tax" (derided by Republicans as "the death tax") on decedents' estates of more than $2 million (I think it is; is that right, Anne?). It is tied in with the "gift tax" on very large gifts, by the way, vicndabx.  The tax is on the donor or estate, not on the recipient.  

    Parent
    The exclusion amount in 2009 (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:54:42 PM EST
    was $3.5 million, so anything above that, not sheltered by the marital deduction, would have been subject to tax.

    And that exclusion amount would include the total taxable gifts from prior years.

    Parent

    A "marital deduction" is allowed on (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:41:59 PM EST
    the estate tax return of a decedent who is married and who makes provisions for his or her spouse by Will; because the state didn't recognize this couple's marriage, the deduction was not allowed, and therefore became subject to the tax.

    Typically, you will see bequests to the spouse of "whatever amount allows my estate to pass tax-free."  Sometimes in trust, sometimes outright.

    It's not a complete giveaway - when the second spouse dies, the amounts subject to the marital deduction have to be included in the second spouse's estate - assuming that, together with whatever other assets there are, the estate is large enough to be required to file.

    Parent

    Thanks for the clear explanation, Anne, but (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:19:57 PM EST
    one important quibble here:  The problem -- and the heart of today's court case -- was not NY State's failure to recognize the marriage.  The federal court determined that NY State would recognize the two women's Canadian marriage for its own purposes.  The cause of the large estate tax bill was solely the federal DOMA law, which prohibited the IRS from recognizing their marriage even though under federal tax law the IRS is ordinarily required to defer on such questions to the law of the state where the person died.

    Parent
    I realized my mistake right after I (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    shut down the computer - so thanks for the correction.

    I think this is a great ruling; was delighted to see it.

    What's been kind of amusing me is thinking about how someone like Romney - or any of the anti-tax/anti-gay conservatives will even be able to discuss this.  They're opposed to same-sex marriage, but they're also opposed to estate taxes; maybe they stick with the anti-tax position because then they never have to address the issue of the same sex married couple benefiting from the current tax laws.

    Parent

    According to NPR, the two women (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:32:12 PM EST
    we're married and the benificiary would not have owed the tax if the government recognized the marriage.  

    Parent
    Sad (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:33:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Not all Cops are Bad (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    Some even return your stolen marijuana plants.

    Awesome... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:48:16 PM EST
    lets hear it for the Elsworth PD...violating federal law to do their duty, serving and protecting the people of Elsworth.  A job well done, sarcasm-free for a change!

    Parent
    Reminds me of Ellsworth (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:24:50 PM EST
    of HBO Deadwood fame...how appropriate.  He was one of the few truly fine and upstanding individuals in that town.

    Parent
    How I do miss Deadwood (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:51:21 PM EST


    Parent
    The Mighty Yanks (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:12:46 PM EST
    are flailing at the pitches of young Mr. Scherzer. And the hefty Mr. Sabathia is already in the showers. The brooms are warming up in the Motor City.

    A Broom With a View. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    But hey, I'm a lifelong Dodgers fan, and it's supposed to be in my nature to hate the Yankees -- although I daresay the historic animosity between the two clubs and their respective fans has naturally abated somewhat from the halcyon days of the 1940s and '50s, when they were regular crosstown World Series rivals in New York.

    Nowadays, I hate the Yankees because I thoroughly despise George Steinbrenner, even posthumously, and any day his Payroll in Pinstripes is humbled is a good day for me.

    Parent

    6 -1 Tigers, Top of the 6th. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:34:45 PM EST
    Given the Yankees swept the Pads, I am not shedding even one tear.  

    Parent
    Well, you never had to endure, as ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:40:20 PM EST
    ... an impressionable baseball-loving teenager who bled Dodger Blue, the emotional pain and ignonimity of seeing his beloved Boys of Summer beaten TWICE in consecutive World Series (1977 and 1978) by the Yankees.

    35 years later, I can say that my grandfather was right, when he tried to console a then-crestfallen 16-year-old grandson in the wake of Reggie Jackson's monumental 3-home run feat in Game 6 against the Dodgers to clinch the '77 Series for the Yankees.

    He predicted that as a true baseball aficionado, I would eventually come to appreciate Jackson's accomplishment as I got older, which I most certainly do. But I can freely admit today that back then, it was an extraordinarily searing experience for me to watch it happen in real time.

    Parent

    FINAL: Detroit 8, New York Yankees 1. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:46:30 PM EST
    Let the Bronx Bombers' annual cycle of accusation and recrimination commence.

    Parent
    Bye bye A-Rod? (none / 0) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:59:18 PM EST
    Did he get off the bench today?

    Parent
    He did (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:08:24 PM EST
    he went 0-2. But to be honest his performance in this series was just about average for the Yankees. He blended right in. The team scored 6 runs in the four games and batted .157 as a team. A-Rod came in at .111, Robinson Cano at .056, A-Rod's replacement at 3B Eric Chavez .000, Russell Martin .143, and Curtis Granderson .000

    Parent
    Well, maybe (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 12:15:07 AM EST
    if they paid the players a living wage they'd be a little more motivated to play better.

    Parent
    Late night TL reading (none / 0) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 12:29:48 AM EST
    is always good for finding a great one liner. Usually its oculus that makes me laugh but tonight you get something in your tip jar.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    and I didn't even have to use a <snark> tag.

    Parent
    Hi all (none / 0) (#67)
    by loveed on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:35:08 PM EST
     Have not posted for awhile, but I still read this blog 3 or 4 times a week.
     Jeff as always you are in my Prayers.
     I stopped posting because life is short. Mortal combat is not my forte.
       I will always vote for America. For someone whom I feel, will serve the country well. I don't want to have a beer with them. I don't care what color their skin is. Or their faith. I just want a good president.
       There is only one God in my life.And only he can make the oceans rise.  
        All of us have one thing in common, we're  Americans and we love this country.  
       It should always be God and Country.

       In my 60yrs., the country has changed a great deal, to meet the goals of our constitution (civil rights,women's rights,ect.). We have fought so many battles together as a nation. When we band together as American, we never fail.
      The last four years has really trouble me. We're so separated and divided. If I did not know better, I would think we're back in the fifties.
      Everyone should start respecting each other views and opinions. Disagreement is a good thing.
      This is not what I wanted to write about. Just something I had to say. When my mom was ill, this blog was a safe place for me. I will always be eternally grateful for the kindness of the posters at this site.

      It's no secret that I will never vote for Obama. I felt, he did not have the experience.

       Was Obama  intentionally trying to misled the country on 9/13/12, or outright lying?

       This attack was watched in real time by video camera,. Hillary, sent in reinforcements,there was verbal communication, instructions given.  Did anyone here read the report from the state department? There is video tape of the whole attack.
      I would like to think Obama was watching the attack in real time with Hillary and the rest of those viewing the live video feed .
      On the  morning of 9/13/12 when Obama addressed the nation, he knew exactly what happen . He also knew who it was. I watched the address from the rose garden that morning. I was stun to find out the U.S. ambassador had been slain.
       In the fog of the protest in the middle east (there was lots of protests marches even in Australia)it was easy to lump them together.
      When he finish speaking on 9/13/12, there should have been no doubt in Americans minds about what took place. The b**l Sh*t that Susan Rice spread on the Sundays talks shows is very troublesome. Obama continuing denials. The final straw was the debate.

       It's funny, this battle was amazing, the responds was like something out of the movies. If he had just told the truth, he would be winning now.
      The respond by Obama at the debate, lost him the election.

     P.S. I know I do not have the best writing skills. I respect whomever you want to vote for.

    This coming from someone (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    that said Jon Huntsman would be our next president.

    Parent
    disappointed in his action (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by loveed on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:43:08 PM EST
    since the primary. He appears to be a sore loser.
    I never said I was voting for Romney. This you assume.
     I think both of these men, are good men. I understand a pol is a pol.
     Vote for whomever you want,for whatever reason.
    As far as the terrorist attack. The facts are the facts.

    Parent
    I spoke too soon (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:58:54 PM EST
    loveed,

    The videotape proves nothing.  Susan Rice never said that the attack grew out of a protest in Benghazi.  She said it was a "spontaenous reaction" to protests in Cairo.

    The New York Times has an article indicating that the locals said the attack was motivated by the videotape.  And the attack was apparently put together on very short notice.

    So, the evidence at this point is that Susan Rice was right.

    Obama calling the attack on the consulate an act of terror is correct.  Whether it was motivated by the videotape is a different issue.

    But, yes, you have recited the right wing talking points--all of which appear to be quite wrong.

    Parent

    unbelievable even Susan Rice (1.67 / 3) (#96)
    by loveed on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 08:32:11 PM EST
     has admitted she was wrong. Go to the state department web site the information is there.
     Also look up the transcript for the press conference given by the state department. I read this last weekend.
     The very next day after the attack, the prime minister said it was a terrorist attack. Hillary said it was a terrorist attack a couple days afterward. Before Susan Rice went on the Sundays talk shows. When Hillary took responsibility for the security failure,she said they we're in real time contact, watching as the event unfold, giving instructions,sending in reinforcements. Where do you think the plane came from?
      I have a few questions for you. Susan Rice work for Hillary. Did she tell her boss she was going on the sundays shows? Did she tell her what she was going to say? Did she ask Hillary what happen?  Who asked her to go on these shows, and where did this misinformation come from?
      This reminds me of Cheney.

     I want to say this again. This was a heroic mission. Yes the ambassador died, but the length these soldier took to try and find him,is truly amazing. The rescue from the safe house, fleeing to the airport. Why aren't we talking about this. I guess we will have to wait for the movie.

    Parent

    You did not respond to my points (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    It can be both a spontaneous reaction and an act of terror.

    How could you not call the killing of four people an act of terror?  That does not mean that Susan Rice was wrong.

    The New York Times article suggests that Susan Rice was right.

    Go read that article, which is based on the accounts of locals, and then let's see where you come out on this.    

    Parent

    loveed, you can find (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 01:22:25 AM EST
    right wing sites to discuss it.  Right now we have an election coming up and this has no bearing on it. Even if mistakes were made, it hardly means Romney is a better choice. So it's irrelevant to the election.

    This site supports Obama and has commenting rules for the election. You have stated your opposition to Obama, and said you will never vote for him, so perhaps you should return after the election when we are not as strict.I don't intend to host your allegations when I don't have time or interest in fact-checking them and don't want readers distracted by them. When you write things like  asking why aren't "we" writing about it, it's irksome, because you are not part of the "we" here given your disagreement with this site on many issues. You are a "you."

    You have three posts on Libya in this thread. That's enough. From our election commenting rules:

    So here's a fair warning to anyone reading what we write who does not support President Obama's re-election for President: You will be limited to four comments per thread expressing your disapproval of Obama. You must still comply with our other comment rules. And you may not shill for an alternative candidate or urge other readers not to vote.

    Thank you. I am not trying to insult you or suggest you should agree with me. I appreciate you reading TalkLeft, but I'm not going to allow this site to be used as a vehicle to spread anti-Obama thoughts all over the internet through search engines. I hope you understand. This is a personal site, not a Government site, and I pay the bills. Therefore, I get to set the rules.

    It has been more harmonious than usual here the past week, and it's not because we are all in sync on every issue. It's a welcome change, and one I'd like to see remain through the election (although I have no illusions it will.)

    Parent

    I don't even know how to respond to (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 08:41:54 PM EST
    this; it ignores the information that is out there and seems to be a regurgitation of all the crap that's coming out of conservative media.

    Believe what you want, but honestly, it's like people's minds just slammed shut and now refuse to consider anything else.

    Parent

    This issue was stupid from the start. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    It was bad luck and nothing more in a crappy warlord ridden part of the world.

    Parent
    can you explain to me why this is so important? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by womanwarrior on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 10:28:03 PM EST
    Why should it cause him to lose the election?

    I think the President had a responsibility to find out what happened.  You can't always know that right away.

    i think it is a scandal that Romney tried to exploit the death of the Ambassador and others for political purposes, instead of us having a unified front on this tragedy.

    And Romney was not correct when he tried to put the President in a trick box.  That was a tacky tactic.

    Parent

    it shouldn't and I would (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 01:24:03 AM EST
    encourage you not to get sucked in by this. I've already limited Loveed's comments on this topic. She's done.

    Parent
    If you need to reinforce your preconceptions, (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jack E Lope on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    I suppose I can see why you
    ...would like to think Obama was watching the attack in real time with Hillary and the rest of those viewing the live video feed

    My own fantasy is that in Obama's second term, he will stop being as conservative as Reagan.

    Parent

    The soup kitchen that Ryan visited for phony (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 07:16:06 PM EST
    photo op is losing donations as a result.  

    http://tinyurl.com/9emwyy6

    That is an unfortunate and unfair result (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by DFLer on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 08:40:05 PM EST
    for the soup kitchen, as they were bull-rushed into the event. We should all send them ten bucks. I couldn't find a website specific to this kitchen, just a general donation to the St Vincent De Paul society.

    However, here's some info for a check mailed the old fashioned way:

    Society Of ST. Vincent De Paul Soup Kitchen
    208 W Front St
    Youngstown, OH 44503


    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#114)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 06:48:18 PM EST
    SPAM. Just not very well done.

    Thursday Open Thread | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment