Thursday Morning Open Thread

Busy today.

Open thread.

< George Zimmerman Charged With Second Degree Murder | George Zimmerman's First Court Appearance >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There is an (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 10:52:38 AM EST
    "Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law" on the blog of a New York criminal defense lawyer.  Criminal law as cartoons....who would have thought?

    What scientist shortage? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    I can believe it (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    Daughter Zorba and her fiance are post-doctoral fellows, looking for jobs in science (research).  They're also looking overseas, because jobs here are in short supply.  Of their classmates from graduate school, very few are still in scientific research.  Many have gone on to other careers.  Most of those careers are related to science in some way, but they are not "doing science."  Good article.  Thanks, Dadler.  I am sending it along to my daughter.

    I noticed it (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by sj on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 12:26:29 PM EST
    Read it, too.  Thanks for re-posting.

    From personal anecdotal experience (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CST on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    A significant number of the engineers and scientists I know who really cared about making decent money ended up working on Wall Street.  Wall Street loves hiring engineers and math/science majors and will pay them very well to crunch (and "project") numbers.

    And that doesn't even include all the people who switched to business while still in school.  Not because it's "hard", but because that's where the money is.  But if you actually want to practice in those fields, you might be out of luck.  I think it's a bit more complicated than the "visa" issue though, I think a lot of U.S. companies today are less interested in creating and more interested in selling.

    I wish I could find it but a couple of months ago I was reading this article about how the culture of invention has changed at those types of companies.  There is so much focus today on the next product and deadlines, that there isn't enough time and money being invested in long term revolutionary ideas.  The scientist/engineering work is routinely undervalued compared to the sales/marketing work, even at tech companies.


    I started off in engineering (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    many many years ago... I got tired of working until 4, then driving a 100 miles in a beat up Ford to fly 3 hours to have a meeting the next day with a salesman who could only say "Let's drink some mash and talk some trash" to HIS customer....

    So I became a salesman, got a 30% raise because, as I pointed out to my new boss, I didn't need an engineer so he was saving tons of money...

    If you can't beat'em, join'em.

    BUT..... we need the next level down to do the basic research. That's the hurting point and for that we need money to motivate and bonuses and patients to keep people happy and more people coming.

    And the problem is no company wants to pay for basic research anymore. Bell Labs and ITT Research developed the transistor and T1 transmission which ushered us into the digital age. Neither group exists any longer. NTI, ATT, ITT/Alcatel and Hitachi pioneered the 10 gbs pipes that made the Internet practical.... NTI and ATT are gone... Just about all R&D is product/project funded and if you can't show a 3 year payback forgetaboutit....


    what do you know (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    we're in 100% agreement.

    And I have to thank you doubly because you triggered my memory for the article I was looking for, as it was about the Bell Labs.



    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 09:35:37 PM EST
    that's a great article, and so truthful.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:16:35 PM EST
    Xerox PARC.

    I got to know slightly some folks from Bell Labs many years ago in a professional context, and they were not only exploring and inventing fabulous new things, they were the most blissed-out people I've ever met.  I doubt they even cared much what their salaries were, it was the funding for the labs and the freedom to pursue any darn thing that interested them, whether it had the slightest potential application to the company or not.

    Pure heaven for scientists and electrical engineers.


    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    the Republicans here in GA think that Santorum would be an "excellent" choice for VP. Me thinks they are so out of touch that they don't realize how odious Santorum is to the majority of Americans.

    I was thinking about you last night (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    My husband dragged me to a dinner with someone who did a teaching workshop here last night.  This guy was so cool, he spent hours talking to Josh about history and invited him to play some military strategy games online with him.  He also played the Honey Badger video before he started teaching yesterday too, he says it shakes people up because of the "F" word, but it is only a colorful adjective that shakes his class up and gets them paying attention.  He was a hoot.  As the night wore on though I realized he was a very humble Christian as well.  He stole my heart though how he spent all his time with my son who was sitting in a wheelchair in a halo traction vest.  I was looking him up today so that Josh could join his gaming circle and he is a published author, taught at Georgetown and the Naval War College, retired out of the military and has his own Wiki. I chewed my husband out for not even really letting me know who we were having dinner with, but my husband told me the guy gets upset if people introduce him with his bio.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:43:28 PM EST
    this guy is the good kind :). The kind I aspire to be--helping others is the best way.

    Thanks for the compliment and I do really want to have lunch with you the next time you are in town.


    Does my heart good to see this today (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:49:10 PM EST
    So glad you all had a lovely time, and Josh has a new friend. Sounds like he will get a lot of pleasure from that connection. As always, thanks for sharing.

    On the likeability factor (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    Romney and Santorum are nearly identical 37%-35%. They both have weak likeability ratings but likely for different reasons.

    However, the unfavorables are actually higher for Romney 49-42. That's a 12 point negative gap for Romney compared to a 7 point negative gap for Santorum.

    Across the nation, odious appears to be a word slightly more describing Romney although both probably classify.


    I'm wondering (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    though if it's the tea party nuts who disapprove of Romney.

    That has been my assumption from the get-go (none / 0) (#11)
    by sj on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    but I could be wrong.

    Every time I read (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    "Baa waa waa," I hear a sheep crying...or Gilda Radner doing Baba Wawa...all I can figure is that what you're going for is the "evil" laugh that I think of as "bwaaa-haaa-haaa."

    Sorry - it just strikes me funny every time I see it!


    Don't (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:39:04 PM EST
    be sorry. It's meant to be funny Anne. I'm glad to know that it tickles someone's funny bone.

    I'm thinking Rubio (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    Rubio (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    the guy that has made up his family history??? Oh, boy everybody will have a good time with that one.

    He's charismatic though (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 04:30:52 PM EST
    And boy howdy that campaign is going to need some Charisma with a big C.  Romney endorsed Nikki Haley, and she brings a womanthing to the table but I just watched her on Colbert and she's pretty dry...not very charismatic, and she is not able to make me forget even a smidge how evil Republicans have been to women.  She just looks lucky a few times, and now more entitled that I am because of it.

    Haley (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:18:14 PM EST
    is just plain awful though better than Sarah Palin--kind of backhanded compliment I guess. The other day some of my facebook friends in SC were talking about her and one of them said he wished that she would take a walk like Sanford did but only not come back. She has the worst economic record in the country or one of the worst. Last time I looked, she was number three in country in UE numbers.

    My friends in SC don't like her at all (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:47:15 PM EST
    and they are GOP. She is too crazy for them.

    I don't think she is going to be on the ticket. Romney is going to be extra careful after the Palin experiment. Charisma at the expense of what little credibility he has is not a good trade.

    I'm wondering if they think they need a Southerner on the ticket.

    I think it is going to be someone boring and statesman-like. If they are going to go after Obama on the theme of 'failed presidency' they have to ooze competence, not charisma. They cannot compete with him on that factor.


    They (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    might need a southerner though for the life of me I can't think of one that would help the ticket. The Gov of FL who has a 29% approval rating? Nathan Deal the crook? Haley Barbour the racist? Jindal the idiot? Perry the idiot?

    I would think Romney (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:26:37 PM EST
    would not want a VP running mate who would completely eclipse him on the charisma front.  My guess is he'll go for one o' those nice-seeming indistinguishable white Midwestern governors, somebody more along the lines of Pawlenty.

    I've seen Haley do a couple of interviews, and what struck me was her inability to talk about anything in any detail.  She had her basic GOP talking points and repeated them over and over again.


    This makes me happy, somehow (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sj on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    And I already liked penguins.

    Penguins Ain't the Only Ones (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    Cows like their freedom too.

    FYI, the links in the article are MSNBC.


    Nice piece... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    on Grantland about Ozzie-Gate.  

    Well said on all counts, Mr. Pierce....especially the MLB team in Havana idea.

    I wish Charlie Pierce would accept a fee (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    as my personal spokesman.

    NY State AG... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    to review the unconstitutional NYPD stop & frisk program.  Here's hoping its not just a cursory review and stamp of approval for this unconstitutional behavior.

    Meanwhile, Governor Cuomo's ex-wife and daughter got a taste of the Mexican military version while doing human rights work in Acapulco.  Lets hope they tell Andy how wrong it is for free people who have committed no crime to be treated in such an invasive authoritarian way.


    Yesterday at Philadelphia airport, (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 07:51:10 PM EST
    I was referred to by a male TSA employee as a "target."  I reacted.  He sd., that's how we are trained to identify people.  All due to an underwire bra.  

    I've said it before, (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:51:54 AM EST
    I'll say it again...we're all suspects now kid.  

    Why can't you see
    What you're doing to me
    When you don't believe a word I say

    We can't go on together
    With suspicous minds
    And we can't build our dreams
    On suspicious minds


    Right (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    Because we can't have them thinking of us as real people, right?  A little conscience might slip in.

    But to me it's similar to the announcements I hear when using public transportation.  Instead of passengers we are now "consumers".  It's the depersonalization of US citizens.


    This middle-aged male did not crack (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:17:28 AM EST
    a smile when I questioned him re his use of the word "target" to refer to me.  He did it several while I stood next to him.  He was calling for a female TSA employee to search me.  She smiled though when I sd. "target"?  

    That doesn't surprise me a bit (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    Even as it makes me uneasy.

    First TSA encounter this trip was (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    being directed into the scanner but not out of it.  So I moved.  Which brought on the fullest body pat down I have ever experienced.  All explained in advance.  

    I got my hands swabbed once (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    They told me to wait "over there" and someone would be with me.  I waited 5 minutes, went up to the TSA Supervisor and was told I could proceed through.

    Did the groper... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    buy you a Cinnabon first at least?

    This female was all business. (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 06:22:39 PM EST
    Just imagine... (none / 0) (#122)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    the fun this poor guy had.  Talk about being a target!

    Every time I think about saying anything other (none / 0) (#142)
    by Farmboy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:12:55 PM EST
    than yessir or no sir to TSA I remind myself of going through Heathrow.

    My book bag made the scanning machine beep. In moments I was standing in the yellow box with my hands in the yellow circles on the wall. One man cradled a weapon as his mate took a utility knife to my book bag.

    In response to asking if there was something wrong the uniform with the gun out just told me to shut it. I shut it.

    This was pre 9/11. I can't imagine that place now.


    Okay enough about No criticizing of (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:14:45 AM EST
    spouses in campaigns, if your spouse enters your campaign or you use your spouse to make any campaign point or plank.....your spouse is now open to be criticized.

    Mitt Romney told us Ann Romney was advising him on what was important to women, and some women feel that it is very important (me being one of them) to point out that Ann doesn't have any idea what it is like to be an "average" woman in this country.

    And for some women it isn't a choice whether or not to work, it is work or the kids starve.  So nobody is saying that Ann made a bad choice, what we are saying is that probably about half of American women don't even get the luxury of having a choice!

    This discussion needs to take place, and it is bull$hit that anyone is arguing to take spouses off the table in campaigns, if they join the campaign fray (which Ann apparently had) in any way they are on the table....they are on the battlefield, they joined the battle.

    Ann Romney (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:27:57 AM EST
    will never know the stress of having a stack of medical bills and trying to figure out how to pay them.

    Either it's okay to go after wives or it's not. They seem to think it's okay to go after Michelle Obama. If she's fair game then so is Anne Romney.


    And, can anyone forget (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:31:28 AM EST
    The sustained attack on HillaryClinton when she appeared on the national stage in 1992!  

    Ah well....  


    No, no, no (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    You're not getting it!  It's legitimate for Republicans to attack or criticize the Democratic wives, but it's terrible/horrible/no good/very bad for Democrats to criticize the Republican wives.  Repeat after me:  "IOKIYAR, IOKIYAR, IOKIYAR."

    Remember that bumper sticker (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:46:20 AM EST
    "Impeach Clinton, and her husband too".  I loved that bumper sticker.  I loved scrapping it out with those people :)  I loved that Clinton was very involved, and successful at being involved :)  Her husband served two terms, and did so well from my perspective.  He certainly handed a fairly turn-key country in good shape to that crazy W bastard.  And then it all went to hell in a HUGE way.

    My husband is cracking me up (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:18:18 AM EST
    He says with five boys, if Ann never discussed with Mitt whether or not those child toy backpack leashes constitute child abuse....she's never been a real stay-at-home either :)

    Boo Hooo (none / 0) (#79)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:40:32 AM EST
    No one in Washington that is the wife of a politician knows the stress that you are describing.

    What's your point?


    Point (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:00:35 AM EST
    Wealthy men should not go around pointing to their wealthy wives as their major source of info about the concerns of working class or middle class mothers.

    Got it?


    Nope (2.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:32:46 AM EST
    Should he refer to the nanny?

    Not exactly sure why Mitt's wealth is relevant when he's simply more rich then Obama who's never worked a day in his life.

    This need to hold success and wealth against republicans and not democrats is quite frankly funny.


    Nobody's holding the Mittster's (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 06:30:39 PM EST
    success and wealth against him.  What is held against Mitt is his utter oblivious to the needs and concerns of working people.

    And saying Obama "never worked a day in his life" is more than ridiculous, it verges on derangement.


    My point (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:44:04 PM EST
    being don't try to say that you understand when you obviously don't. You would be better off just explaining policies that might help me.

    Are we really going to say that (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    not having the actual experience - whatever it is - means someone isn't capable of grasping the problems or issues of those people who do?  

    I hate to bring her up, lightning rod that she is, but let's use the high-profile example of Hillary Clinton.  What was her experience with struggling to pay bills, or being a stay-at-home mom, or being a single parent?  She led a very comfortable life, as I recall, and yet, somehow, she managed to convey - through her work and the things she put her energy into and focus on - that she grasped quite well what those problems and needs were - and are.

    So, rather than just take Hilary Rosen-style potshots at any of the candidates' wives, why not look at what issues they stood up for?  What were Ann Romney's public interests when Mitt was governor of Massachusetts, for example?  Who did she speak up for?  I haven't done the research on that, but it would seem to me far better to go there, than to attack someone for "never having worked a day in her life."  At a minimum, I think raising children is hard work, and so is being on the campaign trail or being the governor's wife, or the wife of a major executive - they all require balance and a lot of juggling and major organizational skills and demands on one's time that mean putting one's own needs on the back burner.

    There is no question that Ann Romney was fortunate to be able to choose to stay home with her children, but we all know that she - and every other woman in the public eye - gets damned one way or the other.  Had she been a mother who worked outside the home, don't we know that she would be attacked for not being the "right kind" of mother?  Don't we know that, rather than talking about her "experience" in the working world, people would  be talking about how she neglected her kids, or let strangers raise them?

    And Ann Romney didn't choose to get MS or breast cancer, either, even if she did have the wherewithal to pay for whatever treatment and medications she needed or still needs, but that doesn't mean she isn't capable of being struck by how daunting those bills would be if she didn't have the means to pay for them.  But where is she publicly on those kinds of issues?  I honestly don't know.

    Please don't misunderstand: I am not putting Ann Romney on any kind of pedestal.  Or back-handedly advocating for her husband.  That's not the intent or end-game of my comments.

    I just hate the way women are attacked no matter what personal life choices they make.  As I said, go after her - and every other candidate's spouse - for their public stands, the issues they work and advocate for, the organizations they've volunteered with - that's what's important, and that's what's fair.


    I've never disagreed with you more Anne :) (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:10:43 AM EST
    That's okay, I think I can handle it. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:53:16 AM EST
    Look, I think Mitt Romney is a dangerous doofus, who's been "advised" that the way to woo the female vote is to make more use of his wife - and he clearly has no idea how to do that.  In his latest testament to what he believes is the low intelligence of the electorate, he probably thinks he can make Ann Romney into a woman-of-the-people type, but the comments he has made about her up to this point have been nearly as insulting to her  - and to the rest of us - as Rosen's comment.

    Nothing Romney does ever feels or seems genuine, and this latest attempt feels the same way.

    What I actually know about Ann Romney isn't much; for all I know she and Mitt are two peas in an alien pod; has anyone ever checked the backs of their heads?


    I don't think (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:43:24 AM EST
    it's not about "not criticizing Ann Romney".  If she speaks out on policy, then she's fair game, in my opinion.  But this stupid comment by Rosen was in response to a comment by Mitt who said that Ann would help him talk to women better.

    Yes, some women have the luxury of not having to work so they can stay home and take care of their kids - does that mean they can't sympathize (or at least educate themselves to "better speak the language") of someone in a different situation?

    This was a whole lot of stupidness by someone who should have thought before she spoke, and it's had a huge ripple effect.


    And what, may I ask (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    can Ann Romney contribute to Mitt's ability to "talk to women better"?  As far as I can tell, the single thing she and I have in common is the same type of genitalia.

    If he convened a real panel (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    of working, not working, middle class, poor, and working poor women.....and asked them a few things and chose some things they need to fight for, I could have some respect for him and he would have some real credibility on this issue with me.

    I realize that Republicans find his existing credibility on this issue up to snuff though - even if their wives obviously according to the polls don't :)


    I don't know (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    But what does Michelle Obama have in common with you or me?  For that matter, what does Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton have in common with you or me?

    Bill (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    not so much now but when he first ran I could totally relate to what he was saying since he wasn't all that removed from his working class roots at that time. Hillary I could relate to because of the attacks on her because she was a working mother as I was at the time. The GOP attacking her made me want to vote for Bill all the more.

    Not much (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 06:28:14 PM EST
    but then their husbands aren't claiming they do.  Get it?

    Seriously? (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 14, 2012 at 07:27:27 PM EST
    Barack Obama's grandparents had to become his parents....been there fully. Bill Clinton lost his same sex parent in early childhood and was self made, and guess what...he has the exact same Briggs Meyers personality type that I have...the exact same (you asked).  Hillary Clinton overcame the affects of the love of her life serial cheating on her....okay, so I didn't marry the guy, but I had to recover my self esteem for Christ's sake...and Hillary Clinton married beneath her if you want to ask the snobs....Hillary married for love :)  Every Liberal in my family will tell you I married right out of the gutter, but I married for love :)

    Michelle Obama has nothing in common with me.  Her family is from humble beginnings and her father worked his ass into the ground making sure that she and her brother had a chance at the education he wanted for them.  She anted up the rest needed though starting in the second grade.  She is self made too, and she did all this while being female and being black and she possesses an amazing unmeasurable grace.  Michelle Obama and I have almost nothing in common in that department.  I was also very skeptical when she began this supporting the troop's families business too.  But I'm quiet now, because she never tells us that she knows what it is like, and only says thank you and how can I help.....and then she says thank you again.


    I was wrong (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 14, 2012 at 08:08:22 PM EST
    My husband tells me that I'm wrong because I also grow arugula in my yard and I also expect my family to eat it.  I have something in common with Michelle Obama.

    The news this morning is running out (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    Sound bite after sound bite of various campaign  and party operatives saying spouses should be off the table.  That is what I'M responding to.  And exactly what Mitt said that kicked this off was his wife had relayed to him the economic concerns of women around the country.

    How in the hell would she know?  As for being a stay-at-home mom she has five housekeepers.  Give me a damned break, and give her "housekeepers" a break too, they probably need it.  It's hard work giving your shopping list to the maid.

    Women have every right to throw down the bull$hit flag on Ann Romney's concern trolling.  Does she even realize that birth control and economic stability go hand in hand for the peasants?  Does Ann Romney realize that being forced to have a disabled child in the world she and her husband fight for completely guts the economic stability of the whole family and spins the other children into poverty and their parents into so much stress that nobody gets decent parenting and that many families just disintegrate when that all goes down?

    Most women don't get a choice as to whether or not they get to stay at home, and Rosen apologized for the poorly worded initial comment but reworded it to essentially say what I just said.  Ann Romney's "choices" are so immaterial to the reality and the choices that the rest of us MUST make that it isn't even funny.  Personally, I think Ann Romney and her snooty response to all this can kiss my a$$.  I just saw her response and it is obvious that she has never REALLY cared two spits about me.  Right now she is busy being self righteous about her choices and portraying herself as vilified.  All the while the women in this country truly do suffer and suffer and the poor little rich girl has been attacked, Lions and Tigers and Bears....Oh My!


    Yes, Hilary Rosen (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:23:05 AM EST
    did not focus her thoughts and sharpen her words well enough and missed the rightful target, Mitt, and, counterproductively,  hit Ann.  FDR, being physically incapacitated, deployed Eleanor for certain information.  Mitt, apparently psychically impaired on women's issues, needs all the help he can get.

    The problem, as I see, it with his statement that he seems to know what he knows because his wife keeps him up-to-date--one trusted source, but a boutique resource and not a representative sampling.  The unintended consequence is that Mrs. Romney got the best of it, being politically gracious to Ms. Rosen and her choice (good word) to balance the tremendous "jobs" of being a mother and having a career.  And, in contradistinction to the despicable William Donohue, a spokesman for Catholics and defender of the Church hierarchy, who ridiculed Hilary Rosen for having adopted children.


    Yes, a boutique source and resource (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    And where this is going to kill Romney is how much women really are hurting out there.  This is not a "normal" election cycle, to speak of what women are going through out there in such a usery fashion just about constitutes a form of social abuse.  The pain for some of them trying to make it out there is a blinding pain.

    Agred. And, like (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    the Catholic bishops in their claims of"war on religion", let's not let Romney and his gang, change the subject.

    Yes, and my President will have a different (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    response in the public domain because he must on this.  I understand the dynamics, and no man can publicly carry the torch on this....and certainly not a black man in this country right now.  This job must be taken on by Feminists and Women who care and/or have been deeply harmed, damaged, and affected by Republican party policies. This is our torch to carry and if some feel it a burden then I guess it is our cross to bear too, I'm very willing to continue to move forward on this.  

    Honey, you gotta stop (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    trying to claim the President for your very own.  It really is quite sufficient that s/he is THE President.

    At least it is for me.    :)


    Ha! Sometimes I just get (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:56:23 PM EST
    so attached to him.....like say when Mitt Romney waits in the wings.  On Women's Studies, he ain't been much so far but he isn't an incubus either :)  This election though guess what?  Women's studies matter :)  Women's studies really matter, and if we do justice to ourselves during this time, Time Magazine should have Women as the next Person of the Year!

    It is time to knock some dust off the PIE :)


    Women's studies ALWAYS matter :) (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    Not at DailyKos they don't (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 03:40:04 PM EST
    :) Well then the question is (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    "Does DailyKos matter?"  Not to me it doesn't.  That's one of several reasons I don't go there.  Another reason is that after spending time here, I find that I'm annoyed by so much gratutious profanity.

    It does matter though (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:01:36 PM EST
    It is a prominent Democratic internet hub.  And hopefully the days of belittling "Women's Studies" are over.  It does pi$$ me off though how women were all told there once upon a time that abortion issues weren't real and nobody needed to worry about women losing their right to choose.  Belittling women fighting that fight did little more than open the door and invite in what has happened to women's rights very recently.

    Your last (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:04:50 PM EST
    sentence says it all. The fact that Obama has not fought has embolden the GOP to do all this stuff. Little do they know that making 52% of the population mad is not a good thing. Remember 1992 and how ticked off women were? It was not a good year for the GOP.

    I don't think her comment was stupid at all. (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    I fully agree with it.

    The right-wing women-should-stay-barefoot-and-pregnant crown is what's stirring it up


    One World Trade Center (none / 0) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    HERE is a super cool panorama of NYC from the 69th floor.

    Still makes me blue when I think about the last time people saw the city from this angle.

    Thanks for trying (none / 0) (#10)
    by sj on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    But can I say for the record how much I hate the MSNBC website?  It's fairly slow to load at home, but at work it activates darn near every filter and/or restriction we've got. It completely locks up Internet Explorer for minutes. Even NEW instances of IE.  And then, half the page shows up restricted and it can't be read anyway.  Or maybe it could be read if the scroll bars would work!!

    I have got to start checking urls before clicking on links.

    /end rant

    I feel better now.


    In light of the DoJ's lawsuit against Apple (none / 0) (#4)
    by Farmboy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    and five major publishers, is "antitrust" the appropriate term to use when talking about a company (Apple) that has 2 percent marketshare in the book selling business?

    I understand that price-fixing is the primary allegation, but I thought you needed a monopoly, like the 90 percent control Amazon held prior to the agency model pricing change, to be regulated by antitrust regulations?

    It just seems odd to me that the underdogs who allegedly broke the law by banding together to compete against the 800lb gorilla are the ones being prosecuted under a law indented to prevent anti-competitive acts.

    The impact is much larger (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    on the market, as I understand it -- from lots of interesting discussions on ebook boards -- i.e., the impact of Apple's pricing agreements, Apple being Apple, and the impact of major publishers.

    Also interesting has been Amazon's reaction in encouraging self-publishing, which has exploded -- and Amazon's encouragement of free ebooks for a day or a few days, which also has had huge impact.  So have ebook boards, forums, etc., in which readers help each other find the freebies and sort the wheat from the chaff.  There is a lot of chaff, unfortunately, when authors do not have editors. :-)

    But the simplified process now of formatting and the like for self-publishing so intrigues me that I am bookmarking sites about it and, when I am past my current stage of having to be published via standard processes (for my job) and finally can write for fun -- and retire! -- I may have some fun self-publishing, as I have been an editor and may be able to avoid adding more chaff to the thousands of ebooks emerging daily.

    Anyway, back to this news, we need more and better analysis about the impact for authors and readers, not just for publishers.  


    During the course of my checkered past (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Farmboy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    I've worked for both a national bookstore chain and for an independent so I'll admit to a personal bias  Plus, one of God's greatest creations is the smell that greets you when you walk into a used book store. I often stop, close my eyes, and take a deep breath upon crossing the threshold.

    At any rate, if Amazon hadn't dropped the price of books below what any of their competition could match I'd maybe - maybe - have a degree of sympathy for them. But as it is, many brick and mortar stores are gone forever because of their undercutting practices. A cardboard box with a half a smile on the side is no substitute for a good book store with a knowledgable staff.

    Good luck with your self-publishing endeavors. Please, though, no vampires or zombies or know-it-all teenage protagonists. Please?


    I'm with you brother.... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    Give me the stacks in the bookstore to scour through, booksellers and customers to interact with, and that sweet bound paper you can hold in your hands.

    Besides all those advantages for the old-school, they want 13.99 for a book without the book?  Get the f*ck out of here!  I got the same beef with music downloads, they practically want the same price as a CD without the CD.  They're crazy.


    I love bookstores too (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    But where I live there is B&N or nothing, and even they have fewer and fewer actual books in the store.

    I so miss the Tattered Cover in Denver.

    So, I buy a lot of books on Amazon, as well as audiobooks from audible.com and ebooks from anyone. I do like the experience of reading an old fashioned book the best, but I can't do that in a car, or easily at the dog park and other places I can read ebooks on my phone. To me it is the ideas and art in the books that are the main thing, not the medium. And a good reading of an audiobook is an artform in itself.

    I want the authors and publishers treated fairly - I know there are a lot of issues surrounding that in the brave new world, and I don't have the answers.

    The idea of being able to self publish so easily really intrigues me, like Towanda. But she is right in that you really have to sort the wheat from the chaff in finding something to read. But publishing something electronically that my family would want to read would be fun.


    The self-publishing aspect... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:07:39 AM EST
    is pretty cool, one for the pro column.

    Another con is the ebook seller can seize the book.  And the possibility of easy post-publication editing is kind of scary, in an Orwellian Ministry of Truth kinda way.  


    Here's one title... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    that will never work as an ebook.

    Rolling Words: A Smokeable Songbook
    By Snoop Dogg

    Just in time for Mothers Day!


    Amazon has 1000's of music downloads (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 04:57:30 PM EST
    for 97cents @.

    97 cents a song... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:10:06 AM EST
    10 or more songs on an album, 10 bucks or more for an album, and ya don't even get a case to break up your ganja on.  Sh*t ain't right! ;)

    Where is the savings for not having to produce the CD, the case, the liner notes?  


    Dowloads are still typically in MP3 format (none / 0) (#73)
    by DFLer on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:19:06 AM EST
    Which is still compressed and never as full-audio spectrum as an audio cd.

    Good point... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:27:18 AM EST
    And I happen to prefer analog sound to digital...MP3's are a lesser quality of a lesser quality imo.  

    For basically the same price, and worth repeating, no break-up tray! Total ripoff! ;)  


    and no graphics, credits, etc (none / 0) (#102)
    by DFLer on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:35:52 AM EST
    meant to say also Dog (none / 0) (#157)
    by DFLer on Sat Apr 14, 2012 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    if you can download in a "flac" format (often available at a free concert site, like Grateful Dead)that is a better format. Unlike MP3, it doesn't compress a wav file by taking out frequencies, but uses a "lossless" file compresion...Anyhoo: it's mo better.

    Oh, I'm a paper booklover, too (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:15:03 PM EST
    and support my local bookstores, believe me.  But I've run out of space to support more bookshelves to support more books, and we're in beginning stages of getting rid of so much "stuff" in a big old house, with kids gone, to sell when the market comes back.

    We have more than ten thousand books, just at home, and thousands more in our offices.

    And when we do extended travel, I need a book a day, and that has meant an extra (and extra-heavy) bag of bargain paperbacks -- but now the extra-baggage fees made those not so much of a bargain.

    And our local library branch is heading toward having to close down for a year or so for demolition -- but to replaced by a new building, because we're in a bookloving neighborhood.

    So, I got into an ereader and ebooks to feed my book-a-day habit here and overseas.  However, I'm still buying a book a week that isn't an ebook yet, still keeping my local bookstores in business.  Yes, plural bookstores in my bookloving neighborhood, although so many of us have ereaders, too.

    It's an interesting transitional time to watch for someone like me who researches the history of media and new information technologies.  I'm not seeing the demise of all bookstores, necessarily, as the smart ones will make adjustments and survive.  For a fun read, a fictional perspective, on where all of this could be headed, I recommend a new novel -- an ebook, too -- called The Last Bookstore that is marvelous.  

    And I recommend it to our kdog, too, for the hilarity of the parts that finally explain just how this fictional bookstore survived when all others failed.  Let's just say that the others were weeded out, while this one was, um, weeded in. . . .


    ha! sounds like a good book! (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:50:22 PM EST
    Your neighborhood sounds wonderful. Wish I were there!

    What about the public library? (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 07:46:43 PM EST
    Free.  Great selection.  On line catalog  Ability to reserve books on line and have delivered to nearest branch library.  No books to store at home.

    Regarding the analysis question, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Farmboy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    I'd say that during the pre-Amazon era (distributers pay publishers approx. 30% of list, then sell to retailers for 60-90% of list) the authors did okay, the publishers did okay, the distributers did okay, the retailers did okay, and the readers did okay.

    During the Amazon dominant era (Amazon pays publishers approx 30% of list, then sells to readers at 60-80% of list) overall book sales dropped as brick and mortar stores closed, even though Amazon's market share grew to 90%. So as sales dropped the authors did worse, the publishers did worse, the distributors did worse, the retailers did worse, and the readers had a mixed bag (fewer but cheaper books). And oh yeah, Amazon made money hand over fist.

    Under the agency model (publishers get 70%, seller gets 30%, price fixed) sales have increased back to pre-Amazon days. Authors are doing better, publishers are doing better, distributors still suffer, retailers still struggle, and the readers have a mixed bag (more titles available in more formats, higher prices).

    The pre-Amazon days are never coming back. I guess I fall on the side of the agency model because at least sales are up and the rate of independent store closures has slowed. The Amazon dominant days were going to kill the industry, or at least demean it beyond respectability.


    Oh, agreed, but only for some authors (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:21:13 PM EST
    and as an academic author who only got five percent royalties, a third or less of what popular authors got, the agency model meant nothing to me.  The royalties were so little on that first book that it was easier for tax purposes (and other purposes, to be able to assign readings from it) to just donate my five-percent royalties on the second book to a good cause.  That good cause, by the way, was my publisher of that book, a non-profit organization.

    Still, the agency model served some writers, and thus some readers, and I do agree that the Amazon solution and the Apple solution have not served as well in many ways.  I see all of this as still in transition, as all of this will be for a while -- standardizing is needed in ereading formats, for example, and apps and much more.

    But since I wasn't around for Gutenberg's invention and a few since, I'm finding all of this fascinating to attempt to understand -- and so I thank you for your fine summary as well, which will go into my files. Efiles, of course.


    When I worked for the national chain that is no (none / 0) (#85)
    by Farmboy on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:50:55 AM EST
    longer with us, I wasn't surprised to find that we paid around 60 percent of cover for each book (on average). It just made sense. When I later was hired by an indy run by college students I didn't understand why we didn't do things to increase sales like membership cards and big discounts, just like the chains. I'm sure I pulled a serious Tex Avery face when my boss asked me how to accomplish those promos when they paid 90 percent of cover for new books. Buying and selling used books were what paid the bills for them.

    However, used book sales don't do diddly for the author. That's another reason I like Apple's textbook publishing model. From what I've read a writer can self-publish through Apple if they have an ISBN for their book. So instead of you selling one copy of your textbook at full price, for which you get a nickel, and then getting nothing when starving students buy it used, you can sell lots of copies for $15 and get lots more nickels.


    I more or less agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    with you (don't faint)and I love book stores....and old magazine stores and old books...

    But how much of an effect did Ebay have on all of this?


    eBay? (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:21:48 PM EST
    Do people buy books on eBay?  Or do you mean the easy availability of used books in general?

    If the latter, I'd say Amazon's partnership with hundreds of used book stores that have to fight to underbid each other has had much more of an impact.


    Yes, people buy used books on Ebay (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 09:38:58 PM EST
    not to mention collectible magazines. (I collect scifi and fantasy magazines and some hardcovers.)

    I would guess, and this is just a guess, that Ebay had a real impact on the book market.


    Hoist (none / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    by their own petard.  it was really fun when the Fox targets were his enemies also.  But now that Republicans are also targets, suddenly Gingrich claims "bias".  Of course it's bias.  Always has been.

    It looks like the wheels of the Republican machinery -- which has seemed like a juggernaut for the last to decades -- are coming off all at once.  Too bad the Dems seem prepared to take up the cargo.

    er... (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    That would be the last two decades.

    Santorum (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    ...made the same claim.

    We are seeing the inter-workings of the conservative mind, if they don't tout me or my views, then they are biased against me.

    It's the victimization view that made Fox News popular.  It's why conservatives think there is only one 'Fair and Balanced' news source, it's the only one that supports their warped world view, therefore it must be right.  And the mountains of other news sources are clearly biased.

    Just seems like logic or accuracy isn't part of the equation, it can never be the obvious, the facts simply don't support their views, aka they are wrong/inadequate.  In this case it's simply that the majority of republican didn't want either running for President.


    Does Hillary know (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 04:45:41 PM EST
    that this is going on at the State Department?

    Old News (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 11:07:51 AM EST
    And if htis guy has a beef and wants to be a whistleblower, why doesn't he give up his job?  When you become a Foreign Services Officer (or anything else with a high level of clearance) there are things you are told you are not allowed to do - is that so hard to understand?  You make a choice - isn't that what we all want and demand - to have choices in our lives?

    Don't write a book about the government while still taking their money and then complain when you feel they are being hard on you.


    War on Women (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:26:11 PM EST
    This is what happens when you start a phony war.

    It comes back to bite you.

    I can't decide which war on women I'm more fond of.

    Stupid comment by Rosen (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    I thought the war between women who "work" vs stay-at-home moms (who don't work, I guess) was over 20 years ago.

    But don't kid yourself - Republicans want to control women's vaginas and uteri.  That IS a real war.


    there's nothing phony about it (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CST on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:36:21 PM EST
    and a stupid comment by Rosen vs. actual policy being implemented across the country by the Republican party isn't even close to a real comparison.

    Yes, it was a stupid comment.  No, it doesn't make me want to vote for Romney.  Not one bit.

    I'll take the "war on women" with the 19 pt. gap.


    Romney 46 Obama 44 (none / 0) (#58)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 06:16:03 AM EST
    We have a long way to go and this war on women doesn't have staying power, because it's not real.

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:34:20 AM EST
    so the GOP didn't write a bill decriminalizing rape? So the GOP didn't write tons of misogynistic bills across the country? So the GOP had nothing to do with Teri Schiavo? You can say over and over there is no "war on women" but the actions of the GOP speak differently.

    It's a war on your particular views of (none / 0) (#66)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:54:32 AM EST

    Not all women.   Some women actually wrote the bills your getting all worked up about.

    My point is there is no war on women as the democrats are trying to make it seem.   That is a very broad brush and opens the dems to attacks on how their policies affect women.

    Say how more women have lost their job while Obama has been president.   How women in the administration are paid less than men.  Etc.....

    This small episode is a foreshadowing of how this fake war could bite the dems because a Romeny is not going to sit around and let team Obama have free run against him so they will be playing defense with a group they should historically already be dominating.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:10:37 AM EST
    the attack on women has hurt the GOP. Obama has a huge lead with women and Romney has been pandering to the radical tea party views during the primary. Maybe he can get away from that and maybe he can't.

    As far as the economic message, Romney doesn't have one other than vulture capitalism but neither does Obama so that's why the GOP is getting clobbered with all these bills they are writing.

    I know there are women who write these bills but their views are not shared by the majority of women and saying that it's not anti-woman is like when the KKK used to say that they weren't anti-black because they had a black member. And there are some fundamentalist women who actually think that they should be controlled by men and aren't capable of making their own decisions.  

    The GOP has managed to tick off the majority of the population. How stupid is that?


    That's actually factually false (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:52:44 AM EST
    "more women have lost their job while Obama has been president."

    See here.

    The title of the post is "Lies, D**n lies and Romney's charts"


    It's not about stay at home moms v working (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:57:14 PM EST
    moms, though that is of course how the media likes to frame it.  It is about Mitt Romney using his wife as his link to the needs of all women, when her experience is limited.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:03:10 AM EST
    Can any candidate's wife really speak to "all women"?

    And Ann Romney is both a breaat cancer survivor and has MS.  By tbat logic, can Michelle Obama speak to those people suffering from those diseases?


    To be fair (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    Nobody else is claiming that.  It's the gazillionaire who keeps saying he stays on top of women's economic issues by talking to his wife-- who has absolutely no clue what it's like for most of us.

    Obama has never claimed that he consults with Michelle to understand the trials and tribulations of women with breast cancer and/or MS, has he?


    But he did claim that he and Michelle (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    didn't have a choice about whether she worked or not.

    Really?  They had a choice and she chose to work.  His kids aren't 20 they're young and they have been making lots of money for a while so give me a break.

    Are they as Rich as the Romney's?  No. but they will be one day.

    There is no excuse for what Rosen said and democrats are doing wild mental gymnastics to make this about a real issue when it isn't.

    Romney's rich, but so is Obama and pretty much any politician we care to mention.   Do any of them know what it's like to struggle?  Why is Romney held to a higher standard than the Obama's or Pelosi, or Hillary?

    Give me a break.  

    Seems to me some are falling for simple political pandering .

    But then again I'm in the army fighting the war against women.


    Give you a break? (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 06:32:10 PM EST
    I can't even figure out what you're talking about or what it has to do with the issue or what I said.

    My point exactly (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:58:09 AM EST
    I actually find the war on women thing offensive because it assumes that all women hold the views that dems traditionally value.  

    That is simply not the case so when dems try to paint republicans with such a broad brush it will open them to attacks on their policies and how they affect women.

    Lets be realistic.  This war on women is an attempt to distract voters from Obama's record and if he spends his whole re-election campaign re-fighting the gender/culture/abortion wars of the last 30 years he will loose because today's voters for the most part see this as a sideshow.


    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:20:11 AM EST
    As I said before, there most definitely is a war on women.  Mostly from the Republicans, but the Dems hands aren't clean either.

    There's a war on humanity... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:36:23 AM EST
    who's got it worse than the single african-american bisexual woman who smokes reefer?  

    I'm stumped.


    She's got bigger problems (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:38:46 AM EST
    in her own sphere of influence

    Rephrase... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:45:03 AM EST
    who's inalienable human rights are less respected in this country?

    Depends on your definition (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:47:49 AM EST
    of "inalienable".

    That would be... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:57:53 AM EST
    the loose as a goose definition, of course;)

    All snarking aside, I do think the way we finally all get our rights is to claim them as humans...not by gender, race or creed.  The big tent of human rights.  Different but equal.


    Do (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    you really think that this equates to the 1,100 pieces of legislation that are in state houses all over the country? The GOP is doing a great job at making sure that Obama gets 75% of women in 2012. Even the GOPer's down here in GA realize that the GOP is completely botching this.

    Of course not (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 06:14:21 AM EST
    But the war on women was never real because the war isn't on women it's against abortion.

    If the war is on women then the dems have a war on unborn babies.

    I wish a republican had the guts to make this point.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:24:28 AM EST
    it's about birth control. They say it's abortion but it's not. Their real desire is to try to control women. It's beyond obvious. If a woman has a miscarriage she should be investigated by the police and possibly given the death penalty is one of your party's bills. Do tell me how putting women in jail for having a miscarriage is not the ultimate in misogyny? These people are disgusting and they are ticking women off left and right.

    Oh, the GOP has already said that and the funny thing is they consider a fertilized egg the equivalent of a baby. I have asked many a conservative if the fertility clinic is on fire then they need to save the frozen eggs and let the doctors and nurses die. They don't have an answer but that's because they are hysterical idiots.


    Trust me it's about dead babies (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:01:58 AM EST
    That's why when I drive to work I see little crosses in the cornfield signifying how many babies where aborted in Indiana last year.

    Look I'm actually pro-choice.   I think abortion should be legal but I also don't think it should be as easy to get as a prescription.

    The true believers actually think that killing the unborn is a sin.  I don't necessarily share that view in all circumstances but it's not some evil crazy scheme to control women like the Taliban.

    When you can't understand the opposite sides motives then there is no hope for compromise.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:05:43 AM EST
    it's not because if they were so "concerned" about "dead babies" then they would be advocating for birth control. Didn't your grandmother tell you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Their stance against birth control has shown that it's not about abortion AT ALL.

    That is your opoinion (none / 0) (#82)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:45:38 AM EST
    and mostly mine.

    However I can respect someone else for believing that it's wrong to kill an unborn baby no matter the circumstance.

    This is why he abortion issue will never die.  Both sides see the other as having different motives then what they really do and the difference of opinion is over a life and death issue which makes it so emotional.


    I can respect that belief too.... (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    what I can't respect is imposing that belief on others of a differing belief via prohibition or criminalization, as a social libertarian.

    If a pro-lifer wants to never have an abortion under any circumstances god bless 'em, that is their right.  If ya wanna advocate for and educate about adoption thats fine too.  But at the end of the day you must respect the liberty of others, the sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship of others, even if it breaks your heart.  Freedom means tolerating any number of things that are against your personal beliefs.


    But (1.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:41:07 AM EST
    when the state/gov't takes money from me to to give to someone else to get a free abortion or birth control is is my issue.

    Just like it's my issue if the state chooses to put a road through my yard, send someone to war etc....

    Can't have it both ways.  

    Libertarian-ism is very liberating.   If the state doesn't have any money then it can't offend.


    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    is that the GOP ALWAYS brings up these two issues that they don't think they should pay for but they had no problem wasting 1 trillion or so in a useless adventure in the desert. Why do people who are against birth control and abortion deserve special treatment when it comes to the federal budget? People who were against the War in Iraq still had to pay for it whether they liked it or not.

    I for one am sick of these people getting special treatment with regards to the budget. You get to vote for a rep or a senator who you agree with on every other issue but why does this one have to get aside?


    Libertarianism is disingenous crap. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    Individual liberty unless what you think infringes on others' rights, then too bad.

    You nailed it... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:52:49 AM EST
    in paragraph two, we all pay for sh*t we don't want bro, is what it is.  If nothing else we should be used to that by now, it's the way it's always been.  Thoreau didn't wanna pay for war in Mexico, and had the convictions to get locked up over it.

    I can respect the "I won't fund what I don't agree with" position too, but the only answer I have come up with to that mess is Thoreau's...tax revolt and get locked up.  Ya don't do an end around with some of these terrible laws to discourage abortion by invading a woman's uterus...ya cross the line from victim to aggressor.  Righteous to arsehole.


    It's the price (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 11:05:08 AM EST
    For living in a democracy.  Our country was actually founded on compromise, and that's the only way things work.

    You think you pay for things you don't want to now? Try living in a monarchy or dictatorship.


    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 11:16:13 AM EST
    I know the "official" answer is elect representation that funds the sh*t you like, but when the democracy is busted that just isn't practical.

    Tell ya what I do, since I've given up on representation and am highly allergic to chains and cages...I delude myself into thinking all my federal income taxes pay for food stamps.  Gets me through the night;)


    I do the same thing! :) (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    I delude myself into thinking all my federal income taxes pay for food stamps.  Gets me through the night;)
    Also Head Start and National Endowment for the Arts.

    An attractive approach for the selfish (none / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 14, 2012 at 11:29:52 AM EST
    Libertarian-ism is very liberating.   If the state doesn't have any money then it can't offend.

    Particularly those born with every advantage.


    Dead babies? Really? (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 05:02:22 PM EST
    If that's what they think, and/or if that's what you think, then don't have an abortion. And leave everyone else alone.

    Typical 'libertarian' hypocrisy.


    And it's (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:30:56 AM EST
    kind of ironic that they don't think the government should do this or that but they should mandate that women be stuck with probes.

    If they had to go through a government mandated procedure to get Viagra how would they feel? they would be outraged I'm sure. Maybe someone should propose legislation where men have to drop their pants in front of a committee and let that committee decide if they should get Viagra.


    Don't lump me in with said group (none / 0) (#83)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 08:46:54 AM EST
    That is the mistake dems are making in this whole idiotic war on women.

    I am a libertarian.  I don't think the government should do anything.


    Again (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:05:53 AM EST
    the point you seem to be continually missing is that the GOP is writing legislation that is anti-woman. It is passing the legislature in many states. They are going whole hog.

    You might think it's a mistake about the "war on women" but all Obama has to do is point out all the legislation that the GOP has written and/or passed and most women are not going to agree with what you are saying. The GOP is making this easy for him. If you have a problem with all this, you should be taking it up with the GOP and calling them the idiots that they are for making the majority of the country detest them.


    If you don't think (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:08:58 AM EST
    there is a war on women, it might be because you are not a woman.

    If it's a war (1.50 / 2) (#101)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:35:29 AM EST
    Who's the general?

    What's the goal?

    When will we know that we've won?

    No I'm not a progressive women who thinks abortion on demand and unlimited government funded access to birth control is a national priority nor a good idea.

    If that puts me in the army fighting the "war on women" then so be it just send me the memo that tells me what I'm supposed to do.  Also could you let me wife who doesn't support it either know what traitors to women are supposed to do.



    In the war on human rights... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    the general is Big Brother aka The State.

    The goal is power over sovereign human beings.

    It's a war with no end.


    When you will you know that you've won? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 09:54:17 AM EST
    When women have no access to birth control, are forced to give birth whether they will or no,  and are completely at the mercy of their menfolk in every decision that is made about their lives.

    Straw man alert (2.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    In what world exactly will that ever happen?

    Of COURSE it will never happen (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    Probably, anyway
    When women have no access to birth control, are forced to give birth whether they will or no,  and are completely at the mercy of their menfolk in every decision that is made about their lives.
    Won't stop them from trying to make sure women don't have sex unless they want to make babies.  Or from being at the mercy of their men.  Or doctors.  Who are probably men.  Or should be men.

    In other words, women will have to always deal with this cr@p.  Which you are presently dishing out so freely.


    So how is that different (1.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    then access to food, medical care, housing etc...?

    All good things but dems make all politics about abortion and birth control.

    The main difference is women do have a choice.   A choice taught to them by the state that if you don't have sex you don't get pregnant.  But we're not allowed to talk about that.

    Now in the case of rape etc... we have to have means to help those women but women in my view to not have a constitutional right to birth control on demand.

    Sorry, they just don't.


    Ah, here it is (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    You have declared your position in the war against women.
    The main difference is women do have a choice.   A choice taught to them by the state that if you don't have sex you don't get pregnant.  
    Notice that on your side of the war, men are not required to make a similar choice.  But if women don't want to get pregnant they should just not have sex.

    I figured that if you talked long if enough you would make clear what you have been dancing around all thread.


    Not true (1.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    But I didn't make the rules that men don't have babies.  Still sob't understand why tax dollars are required to right a biological wrong.

    We're even (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by sj on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    Not true (none / 0) (#128)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:01:12 PM EST

    But I didn't make the rules that men don't have babies.  Still sob't understand why tax dollars are required to right a biological wrong.

    I don't know why tax dollars are required to make cluster bombs.

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 05:13:21 PM EST
    All good things but dems make all politics about abortion and birth control.

    Are you fecking serious? DEMS make all politics about abortion and birth control? Are we living on the same planet?

    The main difference is women do have a choice.   A choice taught to them by the state that if you don't have sex you don't get pregnant.  But we're not allowed to talk about that.

    How utterly revealing....


    Straw man alert (1.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    In what world exactly will that ever happen?

    libernut (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    No I'm not a progressive women who thinks abortion on demand and unlimited government funded access to birth control is a national priority nor a good idea.

    right wing talking points alert. funny how libertarians always have these at the ready.

    If that puts me in the army fighting the "war on women" then so be it just send me the memo that tells me what I'm supposed to do.

    don't worry, you're already doing it. good soldier.


    yeah, except control women's reproduction (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    I don't think the government should do anything.

    That's crap. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    what about the anti-birth control crowd then?

    your use of 'unborn babies' is a huge tell on your philosophy.