home

Monday Morning Open Thread

I'm out for the rest of the day.

Open Thread.

< What "Religious Liberty" Used To Mean | CNN Runs Live Feed of Whitney Houston Funeral Home Stakeout >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What everyone needs... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    ...is a little Booty Swing. (LINK)  

    Have a great Monday, y'all.

    Lol. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    That's pretty uplifting. Got me right up out of my chair. Thanks! ;-)

    Parent
    You should see this guy (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    hah! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:58:06 AM EST
    Isn't he David Lee Roth? ;-)

    Parent
    I just want to know... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:10:13 PM EST
    ...where you find a basement with green shag carpeting and chestnut paneling.

    Parent
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    I've never seen a trailer with a basement before. ;-)

    Parent
    I just want to know... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:10:25 PM EST
    ...where you find a basement with green shag carpeting and chestnut paneling.

    Parent
    In a time machine (none / 0) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    that takes you back to the late 60s, early 70s.

    Parent
    The Linsanity continues... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    the Lin-omenon rolled on through the weekend...drops 38 on Kobe & the Lakers in a W Friday night, battles through an off night on the road against Rubio and the T-Wolves for a gritty road win Saturday...as Clyde would say, Lin-dipitous!

    Next stop on the Lin Express, Toronto Tuesday night.  Knicks fever...catch it!  

    Steve Nash 2.0 (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    Except quicker and with more hops.  The kid is the real thing.  Got skills, a sick kind of deceptive quickness, and the game just seems to, as they say of the great ones, slow down for him.  Pleasure to watch, and I phucking wish my Lakers had hims, cuz we is OOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDDDD.

    Parent
    It will be interesting... (none / 0) (#67)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:00:07 PM EST
    to see what happens when the Black Hole of Offense, aka Melo, comes back.  Will he, or can he, play without the ball in his hands?  I have my doubts.

    Parent
    Kobe (none / 0) (#68)
    by Rupe on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    learned how to share in his old age.  Maybe Melo can too.

    Parent
    Perhaps. Anything is possible. (none / 0) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    Apparently some guy tweeted similar concerns about his being a bit of a ball hog and Melo tweeted back to thank him for bringing it to his attention.

    Must have been trolling because I can't believe he hasn't heard that before now.

    Parent

    That is the question... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 08:10:26 AM EST
    every Knick fan is asking...if Melo wants to win, the play of Jeremy Lin has laid the blueprint. It's all up to Melo.

    Lin has made every player on the floor better...if Melo buys in, whoa baby, the sky is the limit for this team.  If he reverts to being the 30 shots a game black-hole, we're gonna struggle just the same as we did before Lin's emergence.

    Parent

    You realize (none / 0) (#100)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    Lin is taking more shots per game than Carmelo right? Don't get sucked in by 4 games. Check back in 40.

    Parent
    F*ck that... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    I've been waiting a decade for the Knicks to be exciting again, I'm sucked in! Don't be such a killjoy;)

    Lin has been shooting a lot, he's had to with our top two scoring options out...but hard to find more than a handful of bad shots.  He's penetrating and creating for himself and his teamates...look what he's done for Landry, Tyson, and Stevie Novak.  Making those around you better...like a point guard should.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    Enjoy.

    And this little mini run the Knocks are on have them back in 8th place in the Conference.

    Life is good :)

    Parent

    2 more wins... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    and we're at .500! ;)

    You're right of course, too early to tell if he'll be a perennial All-Star, a solid starter, or something else...but early signs are most promising.  The effect he's had on the team and how they're now playing has been nothing short of astounding.  Two weeks ago this team was unwatchable.

    Parent

    Might be just as interesting to see (none / 0) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:42:34 PM EST
    if the first three games were an aberration. In game four Lin was 33% from the field, 0% from three point range, and 57% on free throws.

    Parent
    In his first 4 NBA starts... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    ...he score more than ANY player in the league's history.  I doubt that's an abberation, when you see the guys below him on that list (think Hall of Famers), and having seen him play he is definitely the real thing as a player.  Whether Amare and Melo can mesh with him in a team offense, we shall see.

    Parent
    His points are bound to go down... (none / 0) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    but with both Melo and AS coming back, his assists will probably go up.  I think they are going to be running an awful lot of pick and roll with Amare like Coach D loved to do in Phoenix.

    Hopefully Lin's not a flash in the pan, because it is good for the league to have a competitive team in NYC (and lord knows its not the Nets!).

    Parent

    More life in the fiction ridden South stuff (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    For Josh's Valentine's Day party his class had an Italian dinner served in courses, to learn manners and what a salad fork is.  I thought it was kind of a cool idea.  I went and helped.

    After dinner the kids played a game sort of like Wheel of Fortune, and the puzzles were famous couples.  You know who the first couple was.  Seriously, you do.  Yes....it was Mary and Joseph.  What a hella romance that was :).

    It wasn't Josh's teacher that lorded over the game either, volunteer person.  Cleopatra and Marc Anthony were next and the facilitator was frustrated that none of the kids knew the story.  She invited them to read in a very hoity-toity tone.  She told the children they had a suicide pact.  I wanted to invite her to read something other than bodice rippers :)  Being paraded in shame through the streets of Rome, maybe executed in public, maybe living your life in chains, maybe both, had more to do with why those too offed themselves than anything....but okay.  And she was leaving out the part where Cleopatra claims that her first child is from mating with Julius Caesar first, but I get it...that's just nasty and not romantic at all.  It just smacks wickedly of survival instincts.

    The third couple was Scarlett and Rhett, and I promise you that Miss hoity-toity never read 'Gone With the Wind' and understood how unladylike and single minded swinging penis entrepreneurial Scarlett O'Hara was.  I'm certain she only ever saw the movie :)

    Hahahaha! (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    Yes, I particularly liked the Mary and Joseph one.  Joseph, who was going to dump Mary because she was pregnant (and not by him), until (supposedly) an angel appeared to him and told him "Yo, Joseph, marry Mary anyway!  She's still a virgin!  She's pregnant with the Son of God, through the miraculous agency of the Holy Spirit!  No, seriously, dude, really.  You'll be like, an awesome step-father and protector."  And then, at least according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology, he never, ever slept with her.  What a couple!  Well, I guess they were a couple, of a sort.
    I'm still giggling over the rest of your comment, too.  Oy, vey!

    Parent
    I gather Ms. hoity-toity didn't read (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:21:24 PM EST
    the new bio of Cleopatra by Stacy Shiff.  Cleopatra's first husband was her brother.  

    Parent
    Stacy Schiff. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:23:23 PM EST
    I will read it (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:25:58 PM EST
    She fascinates me.  Always has, that girl knew how to survive right up the moment that she didn't :)

    Parent
    A very fine politician. I'll mail you (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:29:34 PM EST
    the book if you like.  I'm finished w/it.  

    Parent
    Thank you for the offer oculus (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    I really appreciate it mucho.  I'm very lucky and privileged in this life so far to get to purchase and read everything I want, at least so far.  Any chance someone in your more immediate vicinity is less privileged than I am?  I emailed my wish for the book to my husband for Valentine's Day.

    I'm in the middle of the Game of Thrones series right now.  The first book ended slightly differently than the HBO series.  The series followed the book very very closely but that last scene just wouldn't have been palatable on television I suppose.

    I don't know if you watched any of it, but in the book Daenerys Targaryen burned off all of her hair as well as her clothing in the fire that consumed the body of her dead husband.  And the dragons that hatched in the fire?  They were nursing at her breasts that would have fed her son had he lived.  Crazy story books, balancing the all too believable with the outrageous :)

    Parent

    I've always been (none / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    fascinated by her as well.  And your original comment has me in stitches.

    Parent
    I'm happy to send you the book if you like. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    It'a good read  

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    I'd love that.

    Parent
    Yes. I'm finished w/it and my (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    friends have either read it already or aren't interested (their loss).  

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:24:39 PM EST
    I'll ask Jeralyn to share my email address with you.

    Parent
    That works. Also, kdog has mine. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:33:01 PM EST
    Gees, that seems like a morbid selection (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:50:01 PM EST
    of famous couples!

    Parent
    There was no REAL couple (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:55:30 PM EST
    presented to the kids demonstrating coupleship.  

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi?

    Parent
    Good one... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    I was thinking "no Sid & Nancy?"

    Parent
    I was thinking Brangelina (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:11:16 PM EST
    Well, Marc Anthony and Cleopatra were real (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:57:00 PM EST
    But what is our understanding of their relationship and how do you parlay that into a modern relationship?

    Parent
    Her motive was to keep Egypt (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 06:15:15 PM EST
    from becoming subsumed by the Roman Empire--a very real possibility, and Egypt's ultimate fate.  According to Schiff.  

    Parent
    This was always my understanding (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 09:50:26 PM EST
    And if she managed to truthfully become impregnated by Julius Caesar, well....he either wasn't very fertile if at all or he wasn't that crazy about girls.  If I had been Cleopatra I would have been hunting high and low for a Julius Caesar resembler though.

    Parent
    Unless JLo changed her name to (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    Cleopatra, I think Cleo's other - not necessarily better - half was Marc Antony (Marcus Antonius).

    Parent
    Parade Raining. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    The New York Times is celebrating the 50th anniversary of the orbiting of the earth by John Glenn.

    My how time flies.

    Fine.
    I admire his courage. I admire the courage of all of the test pilots in this risky endeavor.

    But then the Times goes on and claims that this feat "revived national morale and hope".

    To me, this was a triumph of individual courage, along with technical prowess. Personally, I cannot but be aware that we were helped in this endeavor by the former Nazi, Wernher Magnus Maximilian von Braun who helped create the V2 rocket using slave labor and dropped it on London and Antwerp.

    About this lifting national morale and hope I know nothing.

    National morale and hope is generally lifted by good jobs. Secure jobs. Fulfilling work. Security. A place of your own. Good, safe schools for your children. Caring health services. Some money in the bank. Being able to spend some money on a good dinner, an evening out, maybe a car. And, of course, advancement in social justice and civil liberties. Those things really boost morale.

    The military aspect of our space program was and is ever-lurking. I do not feel humiliated by the achievements of another country. The rest of the world did not feel demoralized when we landed on the moon. They celebrated. Yet, the implication is that our morale was crushed by Russia having put Sputnik into orbit.

    So it became another tentacle in the "cold war".

    Ever since, it seems as if politicians and the people who love them have been content to measure our national well-being in terms of technical proficiency and military capability.

    I have simpler, more homey wishes for our people.

    You are a nay-sayer today. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:34:20 PM EST
    Yea. (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 07:18:15 PM EST
    I yam.

    Parent
    All (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 04:46:34 AM EST
    I was saying is that Glenn's flight into orbit was not about lifting morale or hope.

    As you correctly noted, it was about the cold war.
    Better Van Braun, (a reluctant member of the SS, be our Nazi than their Nazi. ("Mein Fuhrer! I can valk")

    I agree with you that,

    The United States is hardly unique in conflating our national self-interest with our military and technological prowess...

    I just was saying that "The United States", meaning the government which is part and parcel of the fabled military-industrial-legislative complex, does not speak for me when it comes to telling me about how we feel as a country. Nor do its intermittent media arms like the NY TImes.

    Glenn's adventure was what it was.

    But it does nothing for my morale.

    The Salk vaccine does something for my morale.

    Parent

    I don't know your age (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 10:09:29 AM EST
    but I remember it quite well.

    And everyone I knew and saw on TV, etc., felt better because it affirmed that we had the ability to defend ourselves from potential Soviet attacks.

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    am amazed that you would instinctively feel the weaponry aspect of this flight of John Glenn.

    I made no such connection - I believe we already had the capacity to deliver intercontinental missiles by that time - with lots of nuclear warheads.

    But - I don't believe that is the kind of morale and hope and the Times was talking about. I believe the gist of their column was to infer that we were made to feel better about ourselves - not that we were simply made to feel less afraid.

    Parent

    They're never unafraid.. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    if it isn't the Rooskies, it's the radical Islamists, the secular humanists, internationalists, hedonistic hippies, "envirowackos", and Satan hiss-own-self..

    Parent
    jondee, one of the saddest things I have (2.00 / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 08:41:33 PM EST
    ever seen is a person who has been attacked realizing that the world is not an Unicorn Corral with lemonade skies that they thought it was.

    The realization that evil does exist and that it is capable of reaching them is truly devastating.

    I believe it is the very essence of the mature person to understand this and to take the necessary actions to protect their family, friends, country and themselves from harm.

    That you can do your continual snark about people who believe in being prepared proves that the people who believe in being prepared and defend allow you to adopt your hollow self serving philosophy and spread it about.

    Go in peace, jondee. Because someone has been keeping it for you. I pray to God that someone continues to do so.

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 08:52:33 PM EST
    think that it is to the benefit of our government, tied irrevocably to the military-industrial-legislative complex, to keep us in a perpetual state of fear and a perpetual state of war.

    This does not mean that there are not real threats to our safety, but if there were not, our government would (and has) fabricated them.

    I think you are being a little too harsh with jondee.

    Parent

    Jim has a point (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 09:58:21 PM EST
    Some people, no matter what efforts others make to educate and help them, will go to their graves desperately clinging to their delusions like a drowning man to an anchor, and forever refuse to recognize evil when they see it.

    Parent
    Edger, you mistake a calm reasoned (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 10:26:34 PM EST
    decision as fear.

    As a someone with lowland Scot blood I never trust the government. And the WOT meme has produced some laws that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

    But in this world we must make decisions. Should we tie the hands of those we elect to protect us in the hope they can do the job without the tools the new laws give them? Or should we give them the tools but try our best to insure they don't turn on us?

    It is a tough question and one that deserves careful thought based on experience and information.

    Parent

    Oh I think (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 10:40:50 PM EST
    we should watch them carefully, and calmly and reasonably make those decisions based on experience and information.

    Parent
    When the CIA declares jihad on us (2.00 / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 06:48:34 AM EST
    and starts flying airplane into buildings......

    let me know.

    Parent

    I just did Jim (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 09:00:47 AM EST
    In those two links I gave you. It started many decades ago. It's called blowback, but you missed that 11 years ago one September morning.

    Parent
    There is all kinds of blowback (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 07:04:13 PM EST
    What happened to the blowback we should have got from trying to protect Muslims re Kosovo?

    Not joining England and France when Egypt seized the Suez??

    Helping the Afghan rebels get rid of the Soviets.

    If you want to claim that we should have just left them to their own devices, be my guest.

    But the facts show otherwise.

    Parent

    It's ok Jim (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 07:06:37 PM EST
    No one expects you to get it.

    Hang on to that anchor.

    Parent

    It is ok, edger (1.00 / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    We all understand it is always your country wrong or wrong.

    Parent
    That's not even a good insult Jim (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 07:48:06 PM EST
    It's just pathetic...

    Parent
    You know, edger (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 08:54:44 AM EST
    I agree. It is not an insult, just my thoughts as what your base beliefs contain a lot of. So maybe I should have said, "90% wrong."

    I gather from your comments that you are a fan of a isolationist foreign policy in which we would not intervene in the affairs of foreign countries unless they....

    The disagreement is in the "unless they..."  I have no problem with taking necessary steps against a country that has convinced me they mean us ill, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan for examples.

    You, I would say would favor aid to Haiti and Sudan as the proper use of military force.

    Parent

    Of course not (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:34:57 AM EST
    I have no problem with taking necessary steps against a country that has convinced me they mean us ill, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan for examples.

    Armchair warriors rarely do.

    Parent

    It doesn't take much (none / 0) (#129)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:28:51 AM EST
    convince you someone means you ill, Jim.

    A few transparent lies out of the people in Washington who mean you ill to point you in the wrong direction and you're running with those lies forever, apparently.

    Reality be damned.

    Parent

    Well, Japan and Germany both were busy sending (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 04:46:59 PM EST
    signals and we mostly ignored them.

    The radical Muslim terrorists were doing the same, even up to actually attacking is in the US as well as over seas... and we mostly ignored them.

    The problem with ignoring and not responding is that we have to be 100% correct. In today's world 99.9999% can mean we have thousands dead.

    It all boils around to, if you were in charge, knowing what Bush knew and having just lived through 9/11, would you pull the trigger on taking down Saddam?

    Based on 20/20 hindsight, no one would.

    But neither Bush, or any other leader, has the luxury of being 100% sure these days.

    Parent

    I know, there's so much thinkiing involved (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 06:22:39 PM EST
    Safer to believe lies - no thinking involved and doesn't hurt your head as much - till later after millions are dead.

    Parent
    I'm trying hard to ignore the slurs and have a (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 11:05:14 PM EST
    conversation but you are making it difficult.

    The thing is this. It isn't your call or my call. We elect'em and are stuck with'em for a least 4 years.

    So the question becomes, how much of a risk do you want the person we elected to assume? When it comes to American lives I am not a risk taker. Obviously you are.

    What I continue to get a chuckle from is all those people on the Left who criticized Bush for what they saw as his failure to stop 9/11 are many of those who criticize him for invading Iraq.

    Parent

    Jim, this entire conversation (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 05:05:39 AM EST
    has been about you asserting that you believe what you are too smart to not know are lies and about you promoting the lies of those in power that have resulted in the deaths of millions of people around the world from attacks and subversions by those you hail as "leaders" and in the blowback - the retribution ( 9/11 being one example ) that is directly caused by those attacks, subversions, and lies that you support so strongly.

    You've wriggled around like a fish on a hook all through this conversation and every conversation you and I have had for years doing your best to avoid having a direct and honest conversation about it.

    If you cannot have a honest conversation and you want to change the subject go talk to someone else.

    Parent

    No, Edger (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    You are now making things up.

    You are claiming that "Bush lied." That's an old saw that has never been claimed. I have pointed out time and again that all the world's major intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam's actions reinforced that belief.

    So let me clear. If I had known what Bush knew I would have done what Bush did and I hope that any and all future Presidents do the same.

    As far as the "blowback" goes, 9/11 and the other attacks occurred before Bush's invasion.

    My point is that the Muslim terrorists want to ignore the good that we did. The reason is they want to establish a world wide Islamic rule. That this is highly unlikely doesn't stop their attacks or mean that we must quit protecting ourselves.

    Parent

    Lies, lies and more lies (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 03:41:19 PM EST
    I have pointed out time and again that all the world's major intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam's actions reinforced that belief.

    Almost funny how people can continue to repeat this lie with a straight face.  Of course, that's not what the Senate Select Committee found:

    Let us begin with America's own intelligence agencies. Did they agree there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Well, no. The aforementioned Select Committee on Intelligence report, which was signed by all of the committee's Democrats, along with two Republicans, said that while the administration's statements on Iraq's nuclear capabilities were supported by some intelligence, the administration's statements, "did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."

    On the issue of weapons of mass destruction in general, the report found that administration officials exhibited a "higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves." The report also found that, "Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

    Oops.

    But that didn't stop Bush and the wingers from continuing to pressure the intelligence agencies to sell the case for war.  The Washington Post reported in June 2003 that Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby took the unprecedented step of personally visiting CIA analysts working on the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002 in order to inspire a re-examination of the case.

    Then there's the fact that Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, revealed on "60 Minutes" that in the fall of 2002 President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq's foreign minister--who agreed to act as a spy for the United States--had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

    Of course, it wasn't just the US intelligence community that wasn't buying the unfounded claims of WMDs.

    The Russians didn't believe it:

    Vladimir Putin yesterday rejected Anglo-American claims that Saddam Hussein already possesses weapons of mass destruction ... With a tense Mr. Blair alongside him at his dacha near Moscow, the Russian president took the unusual step of citing this week's sceptical CIA report on the Iraqi military threat to assert: `Fears are one thing, hard facts are another.'"

    France, Germany and Russia even took the unprecedented step of issuing a joint statement regarding the WMD fears and how there wasn't enough evidence of WMDs to go to war:

    France, Germany, and Russia have released an unprecedented joint declaration on the Iraq crisis, demanding more weapons inspectors and more technical assistance for them . . . `Nothing today justifies a war,' Mr Chirac told a joint news conference with Mr Putin. `This region really does not need another war.' He said France did not have `undisputed proof' that Iraq still held weapons of mass destruction."

    Of course, the agency which was in the best position to evaluate WMD claims against Iraq (the IAEA) regularly pointed out that there was no evidence of WMDs.


    The International Atomic Energy Agency declared in 1998 that Iraq's nuclear program had been completely dismantled. The UN Special Commission on Iraq estimated then that at least 95 percent of Iraq's chemical weapons program had been similarly accounted for and destroyed. Iraq's potential to develop biological weapons is a much bigger question mark, since such a program is much easier to hide. However, UNSCOM noted in 1998 that virtually all of Iraq's offensive missiles and other delivery systems had been accounted for and rendered inoperable.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, January 2003 - "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990's." He also "put the kibosh" on the administration's charge that Iraq was seeking aluminum tubes for nuclear weapon development. Eleven days before the invasion, he repeated his assertion that there was absolutely no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.

     Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said in 2003 of his inspections leading up to the invasion, "The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later."

    Scott Ritter, who was chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991 and 1998, added this, about the world's intelligence agencies: "[W]e knew that while we couldn't account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for 90 to 95 percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this."

    In short, your claim that "all the world's major intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had WMD's" is a nice, winger talking point, but like most of them, ...

    ... it's a lie.

    Parent

    He wouldn't necessarily have (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 11:49:20 AM EST
    had to invade a country to prevent some people, a few of whom intelligence agencies were already aware of, from getting on a plane..

    Sheez. Slight difference between following through on some necessary, common sense, interventions here, and invading an entire nation -- and destabilizing an entire region.

    What? Is this string theory we're discussing here?

     

    Parent

    you know you're in the presence (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    of a neocon koolaid-marinated, true beliver when they start spouting about how the Iraq invasion's purpose was to prevent future 9/11s.

    Of course 2/3 of those people are all "Independents" now. Not that they're ashamed to admit they supported Bush..

    Parent

    Uh, Jondee..... Independents (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 01:15:14 PM EST
    vote for both parties.... And fyi - I have voted for every Repub since I voted for Carter in '76....

    Fool me once....etc.

    So nominate a man who is a better choice than the Reoubs put forward and I'll vote for him. The Demos haven't 32 years.

    Parent

    Does you claim include (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    attacks during the Clinton years???

    I mean common sense tells us that Clinton should have arrested OBL when he had the opportunity.

    But Clinton claimed he had no legal reason.

    Parent

    Sorry, Jim (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    I mean common sense tells us that Clinton should have arrested OBL when he had the opportunity.

    That's not "common" sense ... it's nonsense.

    Winger talking points and myths don't cut it with people who know the facts.

    Parent

    When the CIA topples (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    democratically elected governments, thery ARE declaring jihad on us. Einstein.

    Where's all that "justice is mine" Christianity when it come to the actions of your own country? evaporated out the window like the summer wind..

    Parent

    The CIA reason to exist is to gather information (2.00 / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 06:59:27 PM EST
    and topple governments the people we have democratically elected to govern and support us want toppled.

    Einstein is as Einstein does.

    Parent

    like I said.. (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    right out the window..

    And Blessed are the Chickenhawks..

    Parent

    jondee and I have a history of some 6 to 8 years (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 10:11:08 PM EST
    He has never missed an opportunity to beat the "he fears" drum as well as other false claims.

    I was most restrained with him and truly meant it when I wrote:

    Go in peace, jondee. Because someone has been keeping it for you. I pray to God that someone continues to do so.

    Does our government try to keep us in fear??? Well, when I read this I tend to agree with you.

    RAEFORD -- A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

    The girl's turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

    Link


    Parent

    Heh, heh ... "in fear" (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    Does our government try to keep us in fear??? Well, when I read this I tend to agree with you.

    "In fear" of having your lunch replaced, but perfectly happy having others go to war and die for a war based on false claims and lies.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    The Vietnam (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:04:12 AM EST
    War was totally bogus and unnecessary. Lies from the government caused us to go to a decades long war and lose over 50,000 people.
    War with Iraq was bogus and unnecessary. Lies from the government caused to go to war for a decade and lose at least 4000 people and over 30,000 wounded.

    What "real" threat has even come close to causing us so much damage?

    Parent

    all I know is it sure as hell (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    ain't you, oh commander of all armchair and barcalonger forces around the world..

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 07:06:12 PM EST
    My armchair did 10 years of service in Naval Aviation.

    What did your chair do? March around protesting??

    Parent

    Did you ever notice that ... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    ... - so often - the guys who puff out their chests and wear the most paraphernalia at the local VFW are the guys who were logistics clerks during peacetime?

    Wonder why that is ...

    Parent

    jacking it vehemently (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    whenever a few more young men on either side died in that war movie in your head..

    Parent
    When you write (2.00 / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 08:22:15 PM EST
    I made no such connection - I believe we already had

    I take that as meaning you were not there. Or if you were you were too young to remember Pearl Harbor, the sudden attack by North Korea, the Berlin Wall, the Suez Crisis, the Yom Kippur war and other tid bits that had the Cold War only a single match strike from becoming very hot.

    And ICBM's were launched from ground based sites. Space launched missiles were another problem.

    And to be transparent, at that time I was in the military and been through several "rapid deployments - The sh^t has hit the fan." (BTW - They don't tell you it's all in fun until you've done enough to allow your work to be evaluated.)

    So yes, I definitely had an instinctive feel for the weaponry side of space flight.

    Of course millions of other non-military had the same concern.

    I do not know what the intent of the Times was. But I do know that most people feel better about themselves when they feel less afraid.

    Where we right to be concerned?? I think it is absolutely clear that the Soviet Union was a threat to world peace and meant to dominate the world. And at that time we were the only thing that stood between them and the end of the free world.

    Parent

    dominate the world.. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    someone explain to me how a barely-fully-industrialized-country, that the Nazis had run roughshod over, that lost thirty million people in the war, got so quickly into a position  to threaten to "dominate the world"..

    Micky Spillane, the writers of Capt America, and the beneficiaries of the military-industrial gravey train may have desperately wanted us to believe it, but that didn't make it so.

    Parent

    Contraceptives and the Primaries (none / 0) (#3)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    I didn't know this:

    "Obama's greatest skill is in getting his opponents to overreach and self-destruct. And this issue could not be more tailor-made to benefit the candidate with real potential pull with far-right-wing Catholics and evangelicals: Santorum. If the GOP really makes this issue central in the next month or so, Santorum (whose campaign claims to have raised $2.2 million in the two days following his victories last week) is by far the likeliest candidate to benefit. It could finally unite the Christian fundamentalist right behind him--especially since Romneycare contained exactly the same provisions on contraception that Obamacare did before last week's compromise was announced.

    That's right: Romneycare can now accurately be portrayed as falling to the left of Obamacare on the contraception issue. This could very well be the issue that finally galvanizes the religious right, especially in the South. Imagine how Santorum could use that on Super Tuesday. In fact, it could be the issue that wins him the nomination. And do you really think that would hurt Obama in the fall?"

    - Sullivan

    Seriously, guy, Andrew Sullivan? (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    You are citing Andrew Sullivan again? If you are going to try to make your Obama is great points by quoting other people you've got to use people whose opinions are respected. And that eliminates Andrew Sullivan.

    By the way, "getting his opponents to overreach and self-destruct" is not Obama's greatest skill. Arguably, his greatest skill is his ability to deliver a speech.

    And Obama has pretty much nothing to do with the Republican primary candidates self-destructing. They are managing that all on their own.

    Parent

    I think it was a typo (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:02:05 PM EST
    abg probably meant "Obama's greatest skill is in getting his getting his supporters to overreach and self-destruct"?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#11)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    I am citing Sullivan because I am giving him credit for the point.

    I specifically used him because his point is valid and being made by others more respected around here.  I really wanted to make the point and the fact that the quote came from Sullivan was I dig his stuff generally and I know many here don't.

    Anyway, I think Obama stumbled into this contraceptives thing, but agree with Sullivan that the timing is hugely beneficial to Santorum and therefor Obama.

    Parent

    To: CaseyOR (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    While "consider the source" can be useful at times & in shorthand, sometimes it does make sense to consider the words as well as who wrote them.  This Sullivan quote may be one of those exceptions.  Really.

    Normally, I turn from most things Sullivan because he seems the poseur (as well as the misogynist and the self-centered writer.) but, the conjecture about the tangles for Republicans should they get too caught up in the overblown contraception argument could be many-snarled.

    Parent

    Sully is (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    Sully also known for his agreement with "The Bell Curve".  Do you still give credence to what he says?

    Parent
    Teresa (none / 0) (#12)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    I disagree with Sullivan on a host of issues, but I also think that people I strongly disagree with can make valid points.

    If you have a good point objectively, you could be Karl Rove and the point would still be a good one.

    I like using strong quotes from people disliked by the target audience because people tend to react to the speaker instead of analyze the quote and once that happens, I am normally in a superior position to make the point.

    [See, eg., what happened just now.]

    I mean the facts are that Romneycare is to the left of what Obama is proposing, Santorum benefits greatly on this issue and Obama benefits the stronger Santorum becomes.

    That's as clear as it comes.

    When people ignore that because [insert writer you don't like] said it, it reveals something I think.

    Parent

    Oh, so that's why you keep bringing (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan's deep thoughts here - because you know how much he is reviled for so many of his positions, and you think that gives you a leg up in the debate.

    Seriously?

    You - and Sullivan - are still just talking horse race - failing (at least you are - I didn't have any desire or need to read the full Sullivan piece) to address the actual issue of contraception coverage and the role of religion as it affects the very real women who work in Catholic-affiliated institutions - with not a care in the world as long as your guy comes out on top.

    People ignore Sullivan because on issues that affect women, a misogynist isn't someone whose opinions we would consider credible, anymore than we would accord him credibility on issues of race, for similar reasons.

    Is he right about the politics?  Don't know and don't care.  I don't think Santorum's going to last much longer - the brighter spotlight just means it will be easier to see the crazy, and there's plenty of that to see.

    As for you "normally being in a superior position to make the point," that may be the most amusing thing I've read all day.  


    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    he clarifies the fact that assumptions about people cloud the reality of what those people actually say or do.

    So that the words and actions matter less than who is saying the words or doing the actions.

    I understand that you don't get it, but reactions unfocused on the facts/actions prove a lot of points I attempt to make.

    Parent

    Totally, unbelievably, hilarious... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:06:17 PM EST
    Random typing of letters, like this, cnmjasjhgokniabglsieb, makes as much sense as what you just wrote.

    And this:

    assumptions about people cloud the reality of what those people actually say or do

    from the person who almost exclusively focuses on the who - Obama - to the exclusion of what that person does?

    Please, peddle that nonsense elsewhere.

    Parent

    You can't find anyone else. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by observed on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    Thats more like it.
    By the way, funny how you say you disagree with Sully, but you quote him regularly, and always favorably.


    Parent
    I disagree with Sully (none / 0) (#60)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:54:35 PM EST
    on taxes and the safety nets and a bunch of other issues.  

    I will happily bring those up when they arise, but where is the interest in that.  There are enough people disagreeing with him regularly.  Why add my two cents to that pile.  Not interesting at all.

    Parent

    What you are saying is that you (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by observed on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    bring up Sully when he is provocative, and solely because he is provocative.
    I wonder why that is?
    What comes to mind is that by deliberately quoting a proven idiot, you steer debate away from the issues.
    What's the benefit in this strategy?

    Parent
    Rick Santorum as the Repub nominee? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    Hold on a sec, I have to start laughing.  Listen, if R.S. is actually the nominee, you can tar and feather me, AND I'll give you half an hour to draw a crowd.  

    Parent
    Today's polls (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    Santorum closes 8 points on Romney in the last two days in the Gallup Tracking to only trail by 2.

    Santorum takes a commanding lead in Michigan where was born and his father was Governor.

    But most interesting, will Romney lose California where Santorum has gained 27 points in the last two months and now only trails by 2.

    Parent

    Should read (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    ... in Michigan where "Romney" was born and his father was Governor.

    Parent
    I remember reading (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    that Romney's michigan roots were gonna help him beat Obama there in the General.

    Not so much?

    Parent

    After Romney proclaimed the (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    U.S. auto industry should fail, I'd think MI voters wouldn't care he was born there or his father was Governor.  

    Parent
    Last 2 MI polls (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:08:40 PM EST
    have Obama beating Romney by 11 & 8. That's better than McCain did but the outcome is the same.

    Parent
    If Santorum is the nominee (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    I'd be a happy camper so if what Sullivan describes actually happens I won't complain.  

    But it's hard, esp. in that context, to see how Obama's position is not an example of the hated "triangulation," at least when it comes to style.  The substance of the compromise in this case is okay, but as a long-term strategy, the style is a head-scratcher.  


    Parent

    Santorum won't be the nominee (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    But the more Romney is forced to run right, the better for the good guys.  Particularly on social issues.

    Parent
    The 'Sociak Issues' Good Guys (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by smott on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:40:02 PM EST
    Would be Whom in this particular field?

    Parent
    The guy in office (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    who is taking hell for making contraceptives available with no copay.

    To start.

    Parent

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by smott on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    Truly.
    Nice one.

    Parent
    I think you're right (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    Romney as nominee will be much better for Obama's prospects in November.

    Even the far right wingnuts over at World Nut Daily figure that 20% of their fellow wingnuts will vote for Obama this year because in their view Romney is too moderate and they want a real republican - so it looks like you'll get your wish in November.

    Parent

    While Santorum is this month's (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:54:36 PM EST
    centerfold, the Republicans may just take out a longer subscription.   He is the last non-Rmoney winger standing and it is down to the resilience of Rick or the magic of Mitt.

    So far, Rick is showing that he is a plugger if he can just keep away from curious statements about women in the military and emotions in combat, and getting caught lying about his argument that more women should stay home with pesky quotes from his own book and then attributing the questionable section to authorship by his wife (who is not acknowledged at all in the book).

    Of course, with a little help from Rmoney's PAC, we could expect Rick to go the way of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier and Spy--or whatever their names were (they do seem forgettable).  Unless Rick's resilience falters in the South,  Mitt will have to wring some magic out of his unders when he next does his laundry.    

    Parent

    His greatest skill: (none / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    Obama's greatest skill is in getting his opponents to overreach and self-destruct.

    That's his greatest skill?


    Parent

    Yeah, wait for it... (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    I wouldn't (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    call that a skill because Obama won't throw them an anchor. Throwing an anchor on a political opponent that is drowning takes political skill.

    Parent
    To me (none / 0) (#87)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 07:16:19 PM EST
    this is an unintentional parody.

    We're supposed to vote for a guy whose "greatest skill" is getting his sorry keister elected.

    I can't take it.

    Parent

    I don't believe (none / 0) (#98)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 10:08:27 AM EST
    it's an Obama skill.

    Republicans overreach without anyone's help.  Unforced errors are in their DNA.

    When W won in 2004 the next step was the attempt to privatize Social Security.  Overreach that helped Democrats recapture both houses in the mid-terms.

    Parent

    new england news dump (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    NH, the "libertarian" neighbor to the north, acting not so libertarian.

    "New Hampshire legislators appear poised to repeal the state's 2 1/2-year-old gay marriage law within the coming weeks."

    "Governor John Lynch has promised a veto"

    In defense of the NH public, it seems like the legislature is going rogue here, not sure what they want to accomplish unless it's not holding onto power very long.

    "A recent poll by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center showed that support for gay marriage remains relatively strong. Fifty-nine percent of those polled said they are either strongly or somewhat opposed to repealing the gay marriage law, while 32 percent said they back repeal. Another 8 percent are neutral or don't know. The poll results are largely unchanged from those of a year ago."

    Hopefully the veto holds.

    Meanwhile, Romney continues his winning streak in New England.  He won Maine with a whopping "2,190 votes, or 39 percent, compared to 1,996 -- about 36 percent -- for Ron Paul, the only other candidate to aggressively compete in the state."  Congratulations!  It's in the bag :)

    also "Romney's showing was down considerably from 2008, when he won 51 percent of the vote."

    Boy, they really elected (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 09:08:56 PM EST
    a bunch of nutjobs to the legislature up there.  Has there been any polling done of NH voters?  I'm really curious to know whether this is what they were expecting, or they just got carried away with a bunch of Tea Party rhetoric and didn't really stop to think what it would mean.

    As you say, this is extreme even for NH, which has long been the "bad boy" of New England, thanks heavily to all those ill-tempered refugees from "Taxachusetts."

    Parent

    polls of the legislature? (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Tue Feb 14, 2012 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    I haven't seen any.  But the polling on gay marriage shows pretty clear support.  New Hampshire is a lot of things but it's one of the least religious states in the country and that's where most of the opposition to gay marriage is.

    NH use to be way more Republican, it's only in recent years that they've strayed blue at all. The ill-tempered refugees go there for a reason.  They may have brought the tea-party types though since they seem more willing to go scorched-earth.

    Parent

    Sorry, I meant (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 02:09:02 AM EST
    polls of the voters as to whether they're happy with the nutjobs they elected to the leg. in 2010.  I have to think, given polls like the one you cite, that they've been pretty wildly overreaching.

    Did you hear the one about the GOP bill up there that would require all public schools to provide alternate courses if a kid's family doesn't like the way a course is being taught?  That's just flake city.

    Parent

    College tuition plan (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    Obama announced a proposed change in federal funding for public universities.  Frankly, it's unlikely to pass in this congress, but it's unconventional enough that I think it deserves a discussion on it's merits.

    "The plan would increase the amount of campus-based financial aid: Perkins loans, low-interest government loans for low- and middle-income students; Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, a subsidy for needy students that requires no repayment; and campus-based work programs.

    It would also change the formula calculating how federal financial aid is distributed, by shifting money away from schools with rising tuition to campuses holding tuition increases down."

    Public university presidents are predictably crying foul, claiming that they need the money to "improve education".  But these aren't private universities, they are here to serve the public.  To me, if they are unaffordable, they aren't accomplishing that.  I can't wait for the right-wing cries of "government overreach" in a public education system.

    But more importantly, do people think this would actually work?  Or is there too much money in tuition for it to make an impact?

    Unwise. This is not the time (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 01:55:55 PM EST
    to beat up on the public universities, being battered badly by their own state legislatures.

    Students will suffer.  States don't have the money to make up the difference.  Nor is this the time to beat up even more on middle-class students, the ones most squeezed out of school in recent years and/or saddled with the most loans -- a big part of the reason for the declines in retention to graduation.

    And to go after the publics that have far lower tuition rates than the privates is political pandering of the worst sort, to the uninformed on where these funds go, since private campuses get immense amounts of indirect federal aid.  

    For those reasons, it's fortunate that this will go nowhere, I suspect.  But for the pandering in this and other ideas that just keep me amazing me as so simplistic; he is not being well advised as to the complexities of higher education.  Is that Duncan the Dunce again?  I don't know if he is the point man on higher ed, as he is in K12.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    It would apply to both public and private universities.

    "Obama is targeting only a small part of the financial aid picture: the $3 billion known as campus-based aid that flows through college administrators to students. He is proposing to increase that amount to $10 billion and change how it is distributed to reward schools that hold down costs and ensure that more poor students complete their education."  So he is proposing to more than triple the total funding, although now with strings attached.

    Parent

    Ah, then it's really doomed (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    if it is to have impact on private campuses, per your initial conjecture.  Yes, for what they charge, they would opt for raising tuition, I would think -- if, that is, the limit set by the feds is so low as to be easily surpassed.

    Then, that could leave such limits having impact only on public universities, already so strapped as to get only 10 percent of so of their operating costs froms their state taxpayers.  The decline in public support has been extraordinary, and then, the only options to pay the bills are raising tuition or raising more from grants, which buy out more of the profs from the classrooms, which has not been a good solution.

    And the costs of education do go up, constantly -- but not in faculty salaries, which are going down in real dollars, and many have had no raises for years.  But the bills go up for heat, light, water, etc., as for the rest of us, pluse for the massive costs in infrastructure, equipment, and staff these days to keep up with new technologies for students to be trained for the workforce.

    There is something that Obama and Congress can do to keep down one of the fastest-rising cost areas, though -- the midlevel administrative staff required to meet more federal mandates by the day.  But Obama and Congress won't do so; the feds will just keep mandating more and more for campuses to do but not funding a bit of it.

    Parent

    that's my fault (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    as I originally read it to mean just Public.

    Parent
    CaseyOR is now h/t at DK too. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 02:32:11 PM EST
    Famous pirate capt.

    BTD is just kissing Captain booty... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    hoping for a slot on Casey's pirate ship...j/k ;)

    Parent
    We do need more swabbies (none / 0) (#53)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    -- always, more swabbies!

    Parent
    I was envisioning him standing (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    on the yardarm proclaiming opinions re current events.  

    Parent
    As in (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:13:55 PM EST
    that pelican is tacking to the right? Or the approaching seagull has moderately independent tendencies? Or there isn't a dimes worth of difference between those frigatebirds?

    Parent
    Or maybe mojitos. (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    I do believe this is the first time (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 06:18:37 PM EST
    my moniker has appeared at DKos.

    Parent