Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Akin's apology:

I'll be on Daily Kos radio with Jesse LaGreca this morning at 11 Eastern.

Daily Kos Radio Logo

Listen here.

The Blue Skies Netroots Radio Player

Open thread.

< Obama Addresses Akin's Remarks on Rape | Romney Statement:: Akin Should Step Aside >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Diana Nyad (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:57:10 AM EST
    At 62 years old, Diana came out of the water late last night during another thunderstorm after approximately 57 hours in the water and short of her goal in the quest to be the first to swim from Havana to Key West without a shark cage.

    So this try is over? Too bad. (none / 0) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    I was so hoping she would make it this time. How many more attempts can she have in her?

    I don't see how she expects (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    to ever do it without being surrounded by sharks as she was when she withdrew. It just seems humanly impossible to stay so long it in those waters without being shark lunch, no matter how strong a swimmer.

    Oh, Todd...I beg to differ. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    It wasn't that your rhetoric was wrong, but that your underlying beliefs that seem to be based at least in part on junk science, and your efforts to impose both your beliefs and your judgment on all women, are what's wrong.  

    When you take to the airwaves to disavow that, I might consider that you are sincere.

    Everyone knows that rapists are bad.  But you haven't walked away from your comments that rape-related pregnancy is rare because women have some magical power to prevent conception.  And I don't expect you to.  

    I haven't looked into your record on other issues that affect women and children, but if you aren't the fierce advocate for health programs, mother and child nutrition programs, housing, education and jobs, that someone who says he cherishes life should be, then I have to conclude that you don't cherish life as much as you cherish control.  

    Sadly, you would have plenty of company in that regard; maybe one day you can take to the airwaves and explain why so many of your ilk only cherish intra-unterine life.  Many of us would like to know.

    He doesn't need to walk away from his comments. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Farmboy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    He does't even need to sound sincere in his apology. In the one place where it matters, Missouri, he's ahead in the polls by saying exactly what he's saying.

    Yeah, I know that he's not asking for (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    people like me to forgive him - if he were, he absolutely would need to walk away from his comments.

    No, we both know that he's asking the voters of Missouri to forgive him for letting the cat out of the bag, not for saying what he said; every time I've seen that clip of his original remarks, I expect him to stop and say, "oops - did I say that out loud?"

    As much as I think there's a benefit in him staying in the race, for this issue to stay front and center, and for every other Republican to have to go on the record about Akin's comments, I don't think anyone who thinks and believes as he does should ever be elected to anything, much less the US Senate, where it doesn't take as much crazy to put us on the fast track back to the Dark Ages.

    Even as I'm thinking that I'm glad my daughters were raised in the Deep Blue State of Maryland, I remind myself that it's just not right that the choices and options that are available with respect to so many issues are still very much dependent on where one lives; living in one state versus another should not feel like punishment, but increasingly, I think it does.


    I dont know (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Amiss on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:17:38 PM EST
    How mysoginistic idiots like Akin get themselves on committees such as the Science Committee. I really really fear for my granddaughter. Even moreso than before.

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    ...no need to watch the apology, he's not getting blasted because he misspoke or didn't phrase it in the correct manor.

    He's getting blasted because he's making policy decision for other people based on completed BS.

    And that is why I hope he does what the GOP does the best, believe he can ride this out, damn the party.  I don't want this going anywhere and Obama's remarks, while off the point, the rest of left is not going to let this go.  And the more they attack, the more cave men will come out to defend and clarify their position which will reenforce the notion that this is a GOP mainstream position.

    And Romney and Ryan will never get away from it because while they may not agree with factual pregnancy bit, they are down with depriving about half our citizens rights to decide what is best for them in regards to their bodies.

    And lastly, if these tools cared so much about microscopic life, they would care about all their living sperm, not just the ones in a woman's uterus.  


    Fierce advocate for nutrition and education? (none / 0) (#23)
    by drjat42 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    Not so much:

    U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican candidate, said he opposes federal spending for the National School Lunch Program, which provides cash and surplus food for nearly 650,000 school lunches in Missouri each day.

    "Is it something the federal government should do?" Akin said. "I answer it no. ... I think the federal government should be out of the education business."

    Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/at-state-fair-akin-and-mccaskill-spar-on-federal-spending-for-s chool-lunches/#storylink=cpy


    Exactly as I suspected. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    The truth is that people like Akin don't give a flying fig about "life" once it emerges screaming from the womb, in need of food, clothing, shelter and education.  

    I'm not saying that all people who want abortion banned are like that - there are many people who adopt babies and young children, serve as foster parents, who mentor in the schools, volunteer at shelters and clinics, who provide food and clothing and other assistance, but it seems that those in positions of leadership and power are, more often than not, also adamantly opposed to any government money being provided to assist either the mothers or the babies once those babies are born.

    They don't approve of abortion under any circumstance, and they also don't approve of birth control or sex education, two things that could go a long way to preventing unwanted pregnancy.  But, again, allowing females of child-bearing age access to birth control makes them more independent and harder to control.

    It's about control.


    "It's about control." (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by unitron on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    I lean more toward the theory that it's about making sure the female is punished for having had sex, regardless of the circumstances under which it happened.

    Get 'em riled up about it and sooner or later you're going to hear "If she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have..."


    I think it is more than that (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    Growing up in Wyoming, I'm shocked I could even have an orgasm.  Conservatives hate the thought of women experiencing sexual pleasure, they despise it.  It makes them doubt themselves or something.  It is bizarre.  If you are such a woman you are lower than snail $hit, except they all seem to fantasize about you if they believe you are such a woman.  It's too twisted and warped and shame based to try to understand.

    Candid (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:59:09 AM EST
    The truth is that Akin blurted out what the game is about.  The right wing is mad at him because he exposed their core beliefs, values and agenda.   Couched in all the language of virtues they have this patriarchal world view that they want to impose on all of us via their legislation.   The Tea Party and the Evangelical right wing are the grand coalition that control the GOP and their authoritarian patriarchy is at the center of this grand alliance.  

    At least Santorum was clear about his backwardness.  Romney and Ryan adhere to all the backward knuckle dragging mentality, but come in a package passing is a businessman and a "policy wonk".  Akin and Ryan co-sponsored legislation on renaming rape and cutting off public funding for abortions.  Giving a pass to the glib side of the fanatical right wing is to our detriment.  

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    except on the one point about Romney.  I suppose he does now adhere to the knuckle dragging but it does amaze me how he seemed to slide into these hard right wing positions without any sort of conviction whatsoever.  If Romney has any sort of consistent governing philosophy at all you would be hard pressed to find it.  I don't find that reassuring, I find it deeply troubling.  At one point he thought we had rights, and now he doesn't.  Why?  Political convenience.  Yes, pols are pols and they do what they do but he does it at such a large scale of Republican "do as I say not as I do", it's breathtaking.

    If Romney's shown us one thing, ... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    ... it's that he has an innate capacity to tell his audience whatever it is that he thinks they want to hear. I believe him to be a man with no moral center.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    ....he has an innate capacity to tell his audience whatever it is that he thinks they want to hear

    Just like every other successful politician on earth - including the current occupant of the White House.


    Don't forget Dr. Ron Paul (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    and his talk of "honest rape."

    Permit me to suggest a minor amendment (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:31:31 PM EST
    To your comment wherein you refer to the Evangelical & Tea Party as the Grand Coalition "that control the GOP" with the phrase "that are used by the controlling $$$ GOP elite to control the Party."

    CNN is galloping down the road (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    off the chain.  They just started a program out with stating the fact that making abortion illegal in all instances has been a part of the Republican platform since 2004 and it is a part of the platform for 2012.  They also said that this fact runs completely counter to the latest abortion statement issued by the Romney campaign.  Someone hand me a cool towel, facts are being reported, I think I'm hallucinating.

    What a great phrase: (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    galloping down the road off the chain
    Is it local to where you are?

    It makes me think of the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou?"


    I anticipated you would object to (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    the word "chain" a la the hoopla after Biden's remark.

    I thought the hoopla was because the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Farmboy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:06:00 PM EST
    decided that "y'all" was racist. Now it's "chain" that's racist? As in bicycle chain, dog chain, log chain, etc.? Wow. At least he didn't call Obama an anti-war government nig. Then the GOP would really be upset, right?

    I'm gonna need a score card to keep up with the game...


    until just now. Then again, I was incommunicado up in the Sierras for much of last week...

    Call (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:32:51 AM EST
    me callous, but I do not forgive this idiot.

    Even this "apology" is fercockt.

    The "mistake" was not in the "heart I hold".
    He holds a heart.

    Oh boy.

    One of his supporters, referred to a pregnancy resulting from a rape as the victim being "blessed with life". I just wish that someone like Akin could be convicted of something, jailed, and after dropping the soap be "blessed with life". It's just not fair.

    These people are nuts, ideologues, authoritarians and compassionless zealots.

    And they all have this soft, pleading, goodness sound that they affect.

    A very (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    good article by Michael Moore and Oliver Stone in the NYTimes about the persecution of Julian Assange.

    Julian Assange

    Part of it reads;

    Since WikiLeaks' founding, it has revealed the "Collateral Murder" footage that shows the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Baghdad civilians by a United States Apache attack helicopter; further fine-grained detail about the true face of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; United States collusion with Yemen's dictatorship to conceal our responsibility for bombing strikes there; the Obama administration's pressure on other nations not to prosecute Bush-era officials for torture; and much more.

    It also points out that Assange has not been charged with a crime and has offered to make himself available for questioning by Swedish authorities in London. He has also said he would appear in Sweden if they or the British would pledge not to extradite him to the US. They have refused. So you have to know this is about politically motivated persecution on the part of the US - and has little or nothing to do with determining the facts of what Assange is being accused of in Sweden.

    Why does my country always have to be on the wrong side of things when it comes to transparency, freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

    Agreed. Have the (none / 0) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:46:13 PM EST
    Swedish authorities come up with a good reason for not conducting, at least, an initial investigation in London?  

    If (none / 0) (#92)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    they have, I haven't heard it.

    Me neither. (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    But, maybe the Swedes couldn't book a hotel room, what with the Olympics and all.  Things should now ease up--if not, the Queen might be gracious enough to lend them one of her castles for a few days.

    Your questions answered (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:00:48 AM EST
    David Allen Green of the New Statesman says: "Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. He is wanted for arrest. ... It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise."  

    In Feb 2011, the Swedish prosecutor said: "... Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

    The Senior District Judge agreed, and Assange's lawyers did not appeal this point to the High Court.

    Adrian Chen debunks the op-ed at Gawker, with handy links to people who understand the law better than Moore and Stone.


    whoops, here the link for (none / 0) (#136)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:02:29 AM EST
    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    Mr. Mo Senate women should be incubators for rapists is staying in the race.

    Allow me to introduce you to hyphens... (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    They would turn this:

    Mr. Mo Senate women should be incubators for rapists is staying in the race.

    into this:

    Mr. Mo Senate women-should-be-incubators-for-rapists is staying in the race.

    And I wouldn't have had to read it three times to make sense of it!

    Actually, I prefer to think of Akin as:

    Todd if-you're-pregnant-you-probably-weren't-raped Akin, Senate-wannabe-whose-name-should-be-Dick.

    [Because somewhere in there is a comment about his Dick Akin]


    LOl (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:00:16 PM EST
    As you can tell English nor grammar was my strong suit in either high school or college. I would have rather have done almost anything to any assignment in English.

    Perfectly amusing. (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:07:33 PM EST
    He's getting some love from (none / 0) (#59)
    by observed on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    Rep. "pregnancy doesn't occur after incest or statutory rape, to my knowledge" King.

    Excellent (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:23:36 PM EST
    "Republican Party officials conceded Tuesday that they no longer thought they could pressure Mr. Akin to withdraw by the evening deadline."

    Akin and Ryan aren't much different. They are right in line with the GOP platform for the convention. And Romney has said he would happily sign legislation banning all abortion.


    Correction (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    Romney said he would be "delighted" to sign that bill.

    He did say that (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    But he also said in 2005:

    "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."

    - Governor Romney, Boston Globe, Op-Ed, July 26, 2005

    Politicians contradicting themselves.  Or rather, "claryifying" - WORM / WMRM??  Shocking.


    So, jbindc, what should Romney do about (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    The plank in his party's  platform that provides no exception in the matter of abortion for rape or incest?  

    While we know (or, for those who do not yet realize, soon sill know) that partner Ryan takes the same position as Todd Akin as to "forcible rape," we do not know where Romney stands or will stand later in this week or next.  And, I saw in the past hour that Democrats are starting to call said platform plank the The Akin Plank.

    The twists & turns....  

    Also:  The "personhood" amendment is coming into the news again because it is also in the platform.  


    Well, if I was paid by the Romney campaign (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:56:01 PM EST
    I might try and find an answer for him, but since I'm not, and I already know they are crazy, especially with regards to this issue, I'm not sure why you are trying to pin me down to get an answer.  Actually I do -  a lawyer's trick - so that it may appear that I actually support these people.  Sorry, it won't work. Just because I pointed out a quote of his from 2005, does not mean I support him or what he says.  Nice try, though.

    But since we are playing this parlor game, how would you defend Obama against the 2008 Democratic Party platform and ask  why he hasn't fulfilled many of these goals and core beliefs of the party?  (I'd start with page 55 and the section titled "Open, Accountable, and Ethical Government").  Sure, he's hit some of them, and good for him, but some of the big ones -well, he's failed or not even tried.  How should he address that with voters in 2012?


    Nice try...but, my question still stands. (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:22:26 PM EST
    My question was put to you, btw, for myriad reasons.  Apart from what I perceive to be your support of Romney--in view of comments that critique others much more thoroughly & often while appearing to move away from any such commentary about one Mr. Romney (just my subjective observation)--your general commentary illustrates a political perspective of one who has been around the political block.  (Yes, that is a genuine compliment!)

    As for the interesting, unpredicted timing of the events relating to "The role of women according to Repubs:" We began the year with the Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood conundrum; encountered the Church's re-emphasis on Humane Vitae, birth control, & "who pays" for contraception in the context of the ACA; heard Limbaugh & others castigate Sandra Fluke as to contraception (followed by other rightwing media); here & there, as in Mississippi & other states, see renewed conservative interest in the so-called "personhood" of the embryo initiatives; faced the "rape" positioning of the Republican Akin during his Missouri US Senate run (& learned that approximately 16% of conservatives in Missouri support that backward approach); and, found that Akin's position is not really disavowed by the more conservative Senators.

    Now, with the timing of the Repub convention next week & the happenstance of VP almost-nominee Ryan co-sponsoring legislation with Akin that would define rape only with the adjective "forcible," I would say that the Repubs have a dilemma. Especially, when the circumstances will now mean that the platform will get much more attention than usual.  Throw in the "personhood" amendment--which even failed in Mississippi--and talk a bit about the Repubs' failure to support equal pay legislation in recent years or failure to support addressing violence against women in the past session or the open admissions/knowledge that the Repub budget plan (aka Ryan budget, and now the titular head of the party Romney's plan) will cut programs depended upon by women with young children in start-up programs, school programs etc....and, that term "Republican War on Women" revives in prime time & in full-view as we head into the general election.

    Now, my question concerns the pushback argument...you know, the one one where the Repubs say that (& rightfully so) that the election is about the economy.  Understood.  But, here's the problem: When the economy & related issues come to a standoff that needs a tie-breaker--and based on what we have seen so far, that may well be the case--a number of voters turn to what we always turn to.  When going back & forth, we look to trust, instinct, & our own interest. What do you suppose women will do?

    Did I miss something?

    P.S. I'll get to your very different question when you respond to mine. Okay?


    Party platforms are completely (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sj on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:51:00 PM EST
    irrelevant.  I haven't read the most recent Democratic one, but do you think that Dem party officials are doing their part to support and strengthen unions, protect SS, secure reproductive rights, preserve civil liberties, ensure equal rights and opportunities for all, etc, etc, etc?

    I don't.  I also don't see any of them having to answer to the electorate for that either.  If I were the Dems I would keep my hypocritical mouth shut.  Of course I am basing the presumption of hypocrisy on Dem platforms of years past.  Maybe there's no hypocrisy involved at all.  What would I, as an Independent, know?


    Most years, sj, party platforms (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:06:43 PM EST
    are forgotten as they are written.  Every so often, tho, a particular issue might take center stage--e.g., during the 60s & 70s for Dems, as you know, the war issue & party positions dominated interest in the platform.  In the case of the Repub convention next week, it may be one of those 'circumstances coming together with a favorable wind to the Dems' kind of thing that almost ensures lots of attention (in prime time & then throughout the media) on the Akin-related issues...or more broadly, and accurately, the Repub War on Women.  Thats my best guess.

    If that's true (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    Most years, sj, party platforms (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:06:43 PM EST

    are forgotten as they are written

    Answer me this, then Batman:  Then why should we care what's in the Republican platform this year?  Especially when the nominee does not hold that position?  And especially since this same language has been in their platform, as you point out, since 2004?

    They are never going to get a constitutional amendment outlawing all abortions.  First - it will never pass, and even if for some miraculous reason it did, it wouldn't pass in the states.  Second, it would kill a great deal of the Republican fundraising efforts.

    This is still a side issue - a news story for this week because there's nothing else to talk about.  Half of DC is on vacation, since Congress has been out of session.  The particular issue that will take center stage (at least at the Republican convention) will be the economy and Obama's stewardship of it.  The Democrats will be the one to put social issues front and center because they know they cannot discuss the economy in a really good light right now, and it's not going to get any better before election day.


    Why is it an issue now? (none / 0) (#150)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:00:30 PM EST
    The platform issue of the day--called by some "the Akin Plank"--mushroomed for a number of reasons.  Of course, the "it's August & we need a new story" may be part of it.  I suspect, tho, that it has a lot to do with the list of perceived War on Women events (which are listed elsewhere) in that the goofy swirl of events started by Akin played into the extant perception of the Repubs.  

    In this day & age, emoting by someone such as Akin on the subject of rape--and suggesting somewhat the old "blame the victim"--was bound to have repercussions.  The storm of response probably could have been foreseen when the site is a crucial state relative to control of the Senate & when the Repubs have been seen to be moving further right on the social issues & when one considered Ryan's close
    association with Akin's beliefs..  IMO, it doesn't take much to see that the story had the ingredients that make for explosive.  Plus, tendrils everywhere.  In Colorado:  We were reminded earlier today how there are components of the present Repub imbroglio similar to the 2010 Senate race wherein, foolish earlier statements by the Repub candidate Ken Buck (including ignorant language about rape) resulted in the Democratic candidate, now Senator, Michael Bennet using the perception That the state Repubs were anti-women all the way to victory in November...against all odds in 2010.


    Stubborn as he is stupid... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    Though I don't know if it is good news or bad news...good to keep the crazy front and center so people know exactly what we're dealing with, the truth always comes out in the "misspoke".  Bad that the voters of MO might still vote for the anti-woman anti-science posterboy.

    The anti-science cover boy (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Amiss on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:55:49 PM EST
    Is on the Science Committee is what is even sicker!

    Love the (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:55:19 PM EST
    'I used the wrong words in the wrong way' pseudo apology.

    Akin now says (none / 0) (#74)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:07:15 PM EST
    according to family in Missouri who just posted this, that he meant to say "false rape."  

    (Echoes of Dr. Ron Paul, who used the term "honest rape" -- and was not so called out for it, for some reason, as is Akin?)

    Also pointed out by family following this more closely is that "false rape" simply does not make sense in the context of Akin's full quote.

    All I can think is that McCaskill has a mole in Akin's camp, advising him -- and handing him the shovel to keep digging that hole deeper by the day.

    Fortunately, my family in Missouri has only sons.


    Well, it sure doesn't fit into this comment: (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    "It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, [rape resulting in pregnancy is] really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

    Let's state the obvious: terms like "legitimate rape," "false rape" and "honest rape" are just dog-whistles for "bitches can't be trusted."

    The more I read and research about Todd Akin, the worse it gets; I've decided that "Neanderthal" would actually be a compliment.  You can't know how utterly pained I am to realize that Claire McCaskill is the better choice - or maybe you can.

    My head hurts.


    This (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    whole Todd Akin thing has had me laughing shocked etc. First of all I found it funny that people were actually shocked by what this idiot has been saying. This school of thought has been very prevalent in evangelical circles and has been being spread by evangelicals for probably 2 decades or more. This is one of they ways they justify banning all abortion in their mind: women who are raped don't get pregnant and it also kind of comes under the same school of thought that brought you the Salem Witch Trials. I guess if she's pregnant then it really was not "rape".

    Remember Jocelyn Elders riling these people about their "love affair with the fetus"? Boy, was she ever on the money for the most part but got the fetus part wrong. They have some kind of massive love affair going on with a zygote. On one level that sounds like a Monty Python sketch "I'm in love with a Zygote" and on the other part of my brain just thinks what is wrong with these freaking people? They can't love their fellow adult human beings but they can fall in love with a zygote?

    Akin's logic is starting to convince me... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Farmboy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    that the zygotes under discussion have more brain power than anyone in the GOP.

    There does seem to be a (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    remarkable unfamiliarity with the human reproductive system that finds its way into  right wing policy and political goals.   From notions that  life begins two weeks before conception to the female body's ability to discern spermatozoa with frowning faces from smiley faces and then shut the  "whole thing down", something  akin to a venus fly trap snapping shut.

    Perhaps, Todd Akin would have been better prepared for his campaign with a degree in biology rather than one in Divinity.  But then, this ignorance has never really hurt Republicans in the past, as I am reminded of George W. Bush's statement that "too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."


    I know, it's like, really? A zygote? (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    Kinda like the other end of the spectrum, those who support abortion at any time up to the actual moment of birth. You know, like our host does.

    To be fair.... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    supporting something is a very different animal than wanting to criminalize something.

    There's lots of sh*t I don't support that I don't think should be illegal.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    must not have read what BTD said about this the other day then if you think that? Frankly the whole day before their born is something that the hysterical right made up. There might be a few cases that fall under that category when it comes to fetuses that are not compatible with life but the fact of the matter is most people would not wait until that late to have one anway? I mean if you don't want to be pregnant why would you wait months later to do something you could have had done months before?

    Sorry, I should have written: (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    You know, like our site's host does.
    iow, J.

    I don't think I could do it myself; (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    I've been pregnant twice, and at least for me, by the time I got to eight or nine months, that was a real, live human being in there, just waiting to come out.  When you can see the shape of a foot rippling across your belly, or been kicked repeatedly in the bladder, there's no getting away from the reality of what's going on.  

    But, I wanted these babies.  They were the result of a happy marriage.  We were financially secure.  By all accounts, these were healthy babies.  I was in good health.  Given the multitude of things that could have been wrong or gone wrong, it was about as textbook normal as I could have hoped.

    But, I'm not everyone.  I know how lucky I was.  So, could I preclude someone else from making that decision that late in the pregnancy?  Why would it be my business?  Should it be my business?  I don't think I'm going to be consulted, and I'm certainly not going to demand that I be - or that anyone else be.

    I think that if one believes in a woman's right to choose, if one wants that right for herself, one can't go throwing roadblocks at other people's decisions and situations.  It's painful, but I don't know how we protect our dominion if we aren't willing to accept these kinds of truths.


    I was 24 hours from the decision (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    as to whether to abort, when I went into toxemia mid-pregnancy; for those who don't know of the condition, it can be fatal and killed several women in my family in childbirth.  It was coming down to the question of the mother's health -- and I already was a mother, with a toddler at home.

    We made it through, but both my health and that of my second child were affected, ever since.  (Hers is affected in a way that may make pregnancies very difficult and life-threatening, too. Much as I want to be a grandmother, I would hope that if it comes down to such a decision again for my daughter, the option of abortion for the sake of the mother's health still will exist here.  If not, I'll pay her way to go elsewhere.)

    Even before then, but certainly ever since, I fully understand the sadness of the decision that many women make.  But I also understand that nobody-but-nobody gets to make it for them.  Period.



    I hear you, but the truths are that (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:43:02 PM EST
    we, as human beings, do - and should - "throw roadblocks at other people's decisions and situations." We do it every minute of every day. We do not allow people the vanity of their own personal definitions of "rights," especially, of course, when it comes to things like taking the life of another human being, etc.

    been there (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    done that twice with two high risk pregnancies. If Todd Akin told me that I had to go through that with some rapists child I would literally go ballistic on the moron. Oh, I don't even want to go there as to what that might drive me to do. And then carrying a rapists child would certainly make me pretty lackadaisical about going to the doctor and what if I started having problems like I did with my first child? In that situation I probably would not have even bothered to call the doctor. And then what is he going to do to people who don't treat a pregnancy from a rapist with the utmost care? Hmm, perhaps jail for the woman? In Akin's world apparently you cede any rights as a person if you become pregnant.

    Yes, women in my area have been jailed (none / 0) (#111)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    for doing drugs during pregnancy and for similar such reasons.  Arrested, convicted, imprisoned.  

    And for years now.  This is not new.  Apparently, this country needs a wake-up call to face what it already has become -- a fascist state -- for women.


    Not sure who supports ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    ... abortion "at any time up to the actual moment of birth", but it's not our host.

    BTD is not our site's host. (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    And to, hopefully, (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:40:30 PM EST
    avoid your inevitable and unending parsing I was referring to Jeralyn. That is Jeralyn's position.

    She does? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    I haven't seen her state her position, but would be curious to know what it is.

    She does. (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    It is consistent with her position on guns, ie, a right is a right.

    Not sure how ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:43:55 PM EST
    ... that is consistent.  Rights are (by definition) "rights", but rights are not absolute.  Has she written a post on this topic?  I'll do a search later when I'm not on my phone.

    Not sure if she ever wrote an actual post on the topic.. The time I saw her explain it, it was in a comment on a thread in response to another comment. Very clearly stated.

    If you really want her to state her position again, send her an email directly...


    Monty Python (none / 0) (#174)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:08:15 AM EST
    Every sperm's important. Everyone a gem.

    zygotes (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    are people my friend, just like corporations. It's people who aren't people at anytime from birth to life support.

    But apparently, ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:21:43 PM EST
    ... women aren't -- at least, according to the GOP platform and legislative agenda.

    kdog did you forget... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    that St. Joe would have been 60 today, my friend?

    Straight to Hell

    London Calling


    While I'm at it... (none / 0) (#127)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:37:50 PM EST
    A shameless plug for my good friends, The Young Fresh Fellows.  Back to making the sounds of the Pacific Northwest after a too long absence.  

    A Fake Hello


    I did not know... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    But that explains the airing of the Joe Strummer doc on Showtime last night...everytime I catch it I can't tune away.

    I'll check out your boys later w/ sound capabilities...gracias amigo, always love a turn on.


    I dunno.. that sounds like a "forcible" (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:15:17 AM EST
    apology to me, and not a "legitimate" one.
    The situation today remains pregnant with possibilities.

    Well, at least he won't suffer (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    from, um, early withdrawal if he, well, pulls out.

    Bazinga! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:18:52 PM EST
    Growing Pains Kirk Cameron defends Akin (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:43:17 AM EST

    TV star-turned-conservative activist Kirk Cameron came to the defense of embattled GOP Senate hopeful Todd Akin Tuesday, saying that the Missouri congressman.s controversial comments about "legitimate rape" came in the context of his opposition to abortion.

    "He clearly is a pro-life advocate, and for that, I respect him," said the former "Growing Pains" star, speaking on CNN.s "Starting Point." "He said that he misspoke and that he misphrased something and that he apologized."

    I hope more come to his defense (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:05:51 AM EST
    With Todd Akin in the race and the GOP platform once again expected to be against all forms of abortion, including cases of rape and incest, this is a battle that needs to be kept in the forefront.

    Todd Akin and Paul Ryan are two peas in a pod and both are representative of what the Republican party stands for today. Good to know Kirk is far enough out there on the ledge to help keep this in the news and help keep Akin in the race.  


    Even the Tea Party Express (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:06:48 AM EST
    wants Akin gone.

    Kirk Cameron should get the memo.


    I can't trust a TV star turned (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:16:04 AM EST
    bible expert, especially one who abuses bananas in the name of faith.

    And we should be aware ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:20:09 PM EST
    ... of the political opinions of a former child co-star from a quarter-century-old sitcom -- why, exactly?

    Swimming with sharks; (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:59:42 AM EST
    R&R, once again, rebuked,  in time-delay a Republican Congressman.  Taking his turn is Representative Kevin Yoder (R.KS).  Yoder, last summer, was part of a large Republican delegation on an eight-day "fact-finding" trip to Israel.  

    After dinner and drinks at a seaside restaurant, more than 20 people from the party decided to take a dip in the holy Sea of Galilee for religious reasons (where Jesus is said to have walked on the water). Yoder was one of the dippers, but differed from the others in that he was a skinny-dipper.  Yesterday, in New Hampshire, R &R  dipped their toes in the waters of this issue,  calling the garment-less swim reprehensible.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:11:35 AM EST
    they were all just trying to see if they could walk on water.  Or maybe they found it to be a drunken religious experience in midnight baptism. The creepy part comes in where a GOP congressman and his daughter were part of the Sea of Galilee skinny dipping party.

    You all upset over skinny dipping?? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:05:08 AM EST
    Please.....spare me.

    Upset? (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    No. I think it's hilarious that you have got a bunch of sanctimonious morons doing this.

    I'm not (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    But let us see, there were children present.  He jumped off the deck of a restaurant doing it along with his companions who kept a bit more clothing on.  That's kind of freaky and exhibitionist. And it was in their own precious Jesus water.  If had defiled the Jesus water with my naked Liberal vagina....unHoly conniption!

    If Democrats did this, Fox News rumors would have traveled onto a make believe orgy afterwards by now.


    You mean Demos don't do foolish (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:43:28 PM EST


    Come on MT.


    Changing the subject again? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:48:49 PM EST
    This was a Republican. You know, one of those "family values" folks. hahahaahaha......

    An excellent point (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:43:03 AM EST
    as was mine...

    I just always find it humorous to watch both sides running around like school children pointing at the others yelling, "He threw the gravy!) (I only threw a roll!)


    You mean things (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:32:16 PM EST
    Wrong again, Jim (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:47:54 AM EST
    Joe Biden doesn't drink alcohol due to a history of alcoholism in his family.  That's not Joe Biden in the video ... just some guy who looks like him.

    "The Drunk Smear"

    Might have to keep a running list of how many false statements you make in your posts.  Guess I'm gonna need a bigger hard drive.


    Romney is the one (none / 0) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    who found the overly-zealous dip in the holy waters by the Republican Congressman to be "reprehensible".   A pretty strong admonition--a word I would think he would reserve for something like women's health, same-sex marriage,  school lunches or other free stuff.  

    Who's upset? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:27:40 PM EST
    I think its phuquin' hilarious, especially when they're falling all over one another in haste to apologize for supposedly defiling the Sea of Galiliee with their drunken nakedness -- as though the Good Lord somehow gives a rat's a$$ about nudity, in the Holy Land or anywhere else.

    My favorite blog header on this story (none / 0) (#42)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    is "Speedo Bulges in the Holy Land."

    Or lack of Speedo, as 'twere.


    From the files of (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    "Do these people never learn?"

    Democrats want him gone, Republicans want him gone, yet, he's still in the fight (for now).

    A Minnesota state lawmaker who authorities say admitted having a liaison with a 17-year-old boy at a rest stop faced calls from party leaders Monday to give up his re-election bid.

    Rep. Kerry Gauthier, 56, hasn't been charged in the July incident, and authorities said he wouldn't be because the boy was older than 16, the legal age of consent, and no money was exchanged. Police say the teenager responded to the lawmaker's Craigslist ad for "no strings attached" sex.

    Gauthier admitted to the liaison, according to police reports made public late last week. The teen told police the two had oral sex, according to the reports.

    The scandal has hurt Democrats' hopes of retaking at least one chamber of the Legislature. They need to pick up at least six seats in the House, and Gauthier's Duluth-area seat usually is reliably Democratic. But if he drops out, any Democrat seeking to replace him would have to run as a write-in candidate, making the race much more difficult to win.

    Still, Democratic leaders called on Gauthier to withdraw from the race. House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, D-Minneapolis, said he was "deeply disappointed" in Gauthier's conduct and wants him to step aside.

    Where's the Scandal ? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:32:09 AM EST
    He's not married, the teenager was of legal age to consent.  It's a little slimy, but nothing illegal occurred, no one is sanctioning him.  Seems like the angle being worked her is because it the teenager was a male ?

    If this is the bar for leaving, hot digity dog, a quarter of the GOP has ethical issues far greater then oral sex with a 17 year old.  Legally, it a lesser offense than J walking.  But good try.


    Good try for what? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    Pointing out sleazy behavior?  Behavior that even makes the Star-Tribune call for him to drop out and go away?

    That age deception provides Gauthier little exoneration in the court of public opinion. Solicitation for sex in a public place with a stranger, male or female, nearly 40 years one's junior is conduct unbecoming an elected official. That's why House leaders of both parties, GOP House Speaker Kurt Zellers called on Gauthier to step down, and DFL Minority Leader Paul Thissen urged him not to seek re-election.

    A resignation now would come too late to remove Gauthier's name from the ballot. That situation points to a defect in the state's election law. But it ought not delay his resignation, nor impede DFL Party efforts to unite behind another candidate. The time remaining until Nov. 6 is sufficient for a well-orchestrated write-in campaign in District 7B

    Maybe when you answer (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    You could start with this:

    Democratic Party officials say they will not release the names of donors to next month's political convention before the event, despite an earlier pledge that they would regularly disclose the contributors.

    In its marketing materials, the party promises that the "people's convention," set to begin Sept. 3 in Charlotte, N.C., will be the "most open and accessible ever." But the names of donors, some of whom are giving up to $100,000, will remain secret until federal disclosure documents are filed Oct. 15, six weeks after the parties have ended and public attention has shifted to Election Day.

    Democrats have made transparency a central theme of the campaign, pushing for legislation requiring groups to disclose donors. In a recent e-mail to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina asked for signatures on a petition calling for conservative interest groups to reveal the names of contributors.

    "They have a vested interest in being able to spend millions anonymously to influence our elections," Messina wrote.

    The Obama campaign and its supporters also have called on Romney to release more tax returns, suggesting that he may be hiding information about his personal finances.

    Four years ago, both parties voluntarily listed convention donors online and made regular updates to the information.

    It's not sleazy (none / 0) (#99)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    to protect your team from potentially embarassing situations brought about by the background of a donor.  Especially in a tight race.  Both parties changed their mind on disclosure, I am shocked!  Oh the outrage!

    They're exactly the same, except when they're not.


    Then maybe (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:22:53 PM EST
    You shouldn't make public proclamations and talk about things like "transparency" in your party platform.

    When it comes to telling the truth and being honest, they ARE both the same.


    What is it (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    with politicians in Minnesota airports and rest stops? Doesn't anyone get a room anymore?

    You've no doubt heard of... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:22:37 PM EST
    Minnesota Nice, right?  Well...

    Yikes, I'm getting this visual (none / 0) (#128)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    of large, blonde, smiling people with "dishes to pass" -- casseroles of white-on-white food like their beloved rutabagas, blecch -- descending upon men's restrooms across Minnesota.  

    And saying, no matter what they see, "that's nice, dear."


    Hey!! don't diss my peeps! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:02:22 AM EST
    although I love the "dishes to pass" phrase.

    It's the Economy! (none / 0) (#123)
    by Amiss on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:15:25 PM EST
    Don't ya know that?

    His fate's for the voters to decide. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:40:23 PM EST
    What people do in their personal lives on their own time is really nobody else's business.

    That said, I don't think it's a good thing for middle-aged adults to be having sex with teenagers -- particularly in a public place, such as a rest stop.

    First of all, YUCK!! And secondly, get a room! As I said, it's really none of my business -- and I prefer to keep it that way, thank you very much.

    But knowing what I know now, I certainly wouldn't vote for Mr. Gauthier. I expect a 56-year-old public official to show much better judgment that this.


    Tuesday funnies (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    Here's Juan Cole on Islamic (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    Shariah & Ryan/Akin:  Informed Comment

    Free Speech or Hate Crime? (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    Some jerk played a prank in Staten Island, strewing raw bacon around a field where Ramadan prayers were being held.

    Not to be outdone, NYPD plays the bigger jerk by trying to make a "hate crime" out of it.  Uncool thing to do, yes.  Not nice, yes.  Sinful waste of delicous bacon, oh hell yes.  But a hate crime?  You're outta your f*cking minds coppers.  

    If you have the free speech right to smear feces on a likeness of Jesus, burn an American flag, burn a Koran, and I believe you most definitely do...then you have the free speech right to play with bacon.  

    Though as we well know, the NYPD pays no mind to that pesky Bill of Rights thingy...they wipe their arse with it every damn day.  There's your hate crime right there, hating on freedom.  At most they have a littering investigation.

    Kindergarten Cops (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    thought this might make you spit your coffee this morning:


    A local parent is demanding changes to the dress code policy at her son's Elementary school.

    Last week, The principal at Wilson Elementary asked 5-year-old Cooper Barton to turn his University of Michigan t-shirt inside-out.

    The boy's mother says her son was told he was only allowed to wear an O.U. or O.S.U. shirt to Kindergarten class.

    The dress code for Oklahoma City Public Schools states that only Oklahoma college apparel is allowed. Clothes from all other schools are against current policy.

    Welcome to America... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    young Cooper Barton, land of the free my arse!  

    Wait till the resident U of M alums hear that...they'll be flying out to Okie to defend the boy pro bono! ;)


    Send that kid a case of pop tarts! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:22:43 AM EST
    That would be hilarious (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:28:03 AM EST
    Break out the Michigan pop tarts at snack time for the entire Kindergarten class.

    Cooper's mom sounds like just the person that would do that in this video


    For (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    many years now, when I hear the refrain of the Star Spangled Banner "Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave o'r the land of the free and the home of the brave?" - I almost invariably hear myself answer, "No. It doesn't.

    You too? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:48:48 AM EST
    I'm sure we ain't the only ones thinking that.

    Talk about the anthem's big finish falling flat.


    yup - makes me cry for all the wrong reasons (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    I have always believed that the only (2.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:49:35 PM EST
    group that can routinely appear more stupid than politicians is the "educators."

    As an educator, I always have believed (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    that those who can't . . . also can't do well at reading comprehension.  The problem here is the school board.  

    And your posts often are the sort of superficial, glib gotchas that remind me of the worst school board members' grandstanding at school district meetings (which I attended not as an educator but as a parent, and every meeting persuaded me even more to listen, instead, to the teachers).


    As a former educator, ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:20:00 AM EST
    ... I have always believed that the vast majority of educators are hard-working professionals who are also smart enough to ignore foolish people who make these kind of ridiculous generalizations.

    In this case, the school district (read school board/administrators, not teachers) had adopted the policy of not allowing most sports team apparel as a method of fighting gang violence.  Gangs have adopted certain team apparel as a method of indicating membership in a gang and displaying their "colors".  Of course, it's not very likely that a 5-year-old is in a gang, which is why the school district is reviewing this policy.


    More Cowbell.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    Handing out free water to the thirsty on a 112 degree Arizona day?  Sorry ma'am, that's a code violation.

    We all know AZ ain't big on charity or goodwill towards man lately, but this is ridiculous.

    I should add the water wasn't exactly free, it came with the cost of a Jesus sales pitch, but that's allowed.  Or so I thought...


    Oops... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    wrong linkage, here it is.

    Speaking of Oklahoma (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    Valedictorian denied diploma for stating, about her future, "How the hell should I know? I've changed my mind so many times."

    The principle is demanding a written apology for using a curse word.  Who knew hell was a curse word ?  The good news is she isn't going to do it and the college already accepted her and doesn't care about the diploma.

    The grand irony, the school's mascot is The Red Devils.


    Saw that one... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    If "hell" is profane, the bible should have a parental advisory sticker on it.  Where's Tipper? ;)

    I have to disagree with you on this one, KDog (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    Burning your own copy of the Koran, or wrapping it in bacon, is free speech, just like the art works you mention that use a Christian cross in a way offensive to some Christians to make the artist's political or other point. Invading someone else's sacred space to defile it (by their standards), or disrupting their services in their house of worship (or in public place that they have reserved the use of for that purpose), to express your disagreement with or contempt for the adherents of that religion, is not protected speech.  It may be civil disobedience (see case of Pussy Riot, for example), but it is not within the protection of free speech to take over and drown out someone else's protected expression of belief.  It is action designed to interfere with other people's exercise of their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and/or freedom of speech, by vandalizing (in the Staten Island case you referenced) the place where those other folks were exercising, or planned to exercise, their rights.  It's no more protected speech and thus no more immune from police interference than blowing vuvuzuelas during someone else's rally that you disagree with, to drown them out.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    for this.

    I hear what you're saying... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    but a hate crime?  I hope that investigation goes nowhere, classic slippery slope.

    If the dude bumrushed into a mosque to do it, like the P*ssy Riot girls brilliant display of civil disobedience, I'd be more inclined to buy some sort of a criminal charge being appropriate.  But the guy went to a public space before the Ramadan party and dropped some bacon.  Don't get me wrong, a total hater disrespectful unneighborly d8ck move, but the only crime I see is littering.

    I assume a city permit was obtained for the Ramadan event, in which case the group has exclusive use of the field for a set number of hours.  Other than that alloted time it is public space, where you can play with bacon to your heart's content in this supposed free country.  Just don't litter.


    I do not support "hate crimes" laws (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    What this normally means is a sentencing enhancement, based on motive, attached to a list of ordinary crimes.  An ordinary criminal law that applies, should be applied, subject to a substantial dose of common sense discretion by the police and then by the prosecutor's office. (In particular, I favor respecting the beneficial American tradition of civil disobedience, and letting many such incidents pass without prosecution.) Very few criminal laws on the books today feature a maximum possible sentence that is insufficient to deal with any genuine aggravating factors that may exist in the case.  Treating a crime as more serious because of the defendant's hateful beliefs that motivated the crime violates my First Amendment sensibilities. However, if the crime was designed to terrorize a community (such as cross-burning, which is something other than arson) or interfere with another person or community's exercise of protected rights (as in this case), I can see the case being taken more, rather than less seriously for prosecution.  This is not necessarily because the culprit is more deserving of punishment,but because the charging and prosecution decision can send a message of support for community values of respect and tolerance.

    Well argued.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    as always Counselor.

    I guess I just don't see any "real" interference, for lack of a better term...any interference is based on a religous belief that bacon is icky or whatever.  Nobody was denied access to the park, no one was assaulted, no one was forbidden from praying.  Secularly speaking the group was not interfered with...and the law is supposed to be secular, no?  

    Even the alleged internet threat wasn't really threatening...the internet message said nothing about threatening violence towards muslims afaik, just threatening a superstition about pigs.  


    Hate crimes.. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    and the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons..

    We shouldn't forget that it was decades of the law looking the other way in the aftermath of lynchings, assaults and "unsolved homicides" that in large part led up to the debate over "hate crimes" legislation in this country..

    Sometimes some of Lady Liberty's more unevolved citizens need a referee to intervene before things get too out of hand..    


    I know the referee though... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    all too well.  He needs his whistle taken away, he's no honest arbiter.  Last thing we need is to give him more penalties to call, we'll all be in the penalty box watching Mitt Romney skate around scoring empty-netters.

    One of the Greeks (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    used to walk around with a lantern at high noon looking for an honest arbiter..

    Yeah, I know him well too: he's the product of the same cultural wasteland that produces yahoos with nothing more intelligent or imaginative to do than taunt Muslims with bacon..


    Brilliant... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    lets whip out handcuffs to teach tolerance, that'll work.  What could possibly go wrong?

    "All it takes to harden a man's heart is a system of justice"

    - Gregory David Roberts


    I thought the justice system was to (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:53:50 PM EST
    enforce laws, not send messages regarding religious doctrine.

    This is not necessarily because the culprit is more deserving of punishment,but because the charging and prosecution decision can send a message of support for community values of respect and tolerance.

    Well then, Jim, what you thought (none / 0) (#152)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:41:04 PM EST
    is not entirely correct. Isn't that cool, that we can always learn something new?  I certainly feel that way when I learn something new, as I try to do every day.

    You know, it is nice, Peter (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:07:10 PM EST
    I wonder what other messages regarding religious doctrine we can expect the justice system to send?? Everything's gotta close down on Saturday?? Fish on Friday?? Contraception is out????

    The things I do learn.



    You missed this part (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:14:20 PM EST
    Three packages of uncooked bacon were left behind along with a note, which was signed by someone who used a code name and referenced a web site, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters Monday.  The web site mentioned in the note contained references to the raw bacon, Kelly said.

    NBC News


    Followers of Islam are forbidden to eat pork.  Even before the bacon was located, someone left offensive messages on the organization's website.

    "...That he or she was going to do something with a fat pig right at the time of morning prayer," said Hesham El-Meligy of the Islamic Civic Association of Staten Island.

    "The statement came from someone who identified himself as '007Midland,'" Kelly said on Monday afternoon. "Obviously, we're conducting an investigation to determine who put the message on the website."

    Police computer experts are trying to locate the identity of that person, whom Muslim organizers of the prayer service said was clearly trying to taunt Muslims through intimidation, like other symbols disturbing to African-Americans or Jews.



    I saw it... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    still see no hate crime...just hate.  Which is deplorable, but still legal last I checked.

    Now if the note and/or internet comment threatened a person instead of a superstition, that would be a crime, making bodily threats.  Or if a live pig was tortured in some way, that would be animal cruelty.


    Wasting bacon? (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:31:50 PM EST
    I do see a crime here kdog... The crime of wasting perfectly good delicious sweet smelling tasty bacon. Think I'll have a BLT for lunch. (hopefully I didn't just inadvertently step on one of those landmines you found yesterday)

    A sin, to be sure.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    as I said above, a terrible terrible sin...but not criminal. Eternal viligance in defense of liberty CG...even at the expense of the most delicous cut of swine known to mankind.

    Ever heard Jim Gaffigan's comedy bit on bacon?  Youtube it up, you'll love it.


    Well, according to ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    ... Sec. 107-240.25, Laws of New York, such conduct is considered aggravated harassment in the second degree.

    And according to Sec. 107-485, LNY, because the victims of said harassment were specifically targeted because of their Islamic faith, the violation is thus elevated to the status of a bias or hate crime.

    Speaking for myself only, I don't find harassment of Muslim Americans to be something so readily dismissed as a prank or so easily laughed off. Given the recent brouhaha and public hostility engendered over the proposed Islamic Study Center in Manhattan near Ground Zero, if it was a prank, then it was a horribly insensitive one.

    And if NYPD ever catches the guy(s), no doubt it's going to be a rather expensive lesson in social tolerance for him (them).



    I never doubted... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:12:46 AM EST
    there are a multitude of weapons to use in the NY's arsenal of many hyphenated sections, the Baconhater could well be charged with a dozen things....I'm questioning the righteousness of it, and also what we hope to accomplish.  A wise man once said only love can conquer hate...handcuffs just feed the beast.  



    No Offense... (none / 0) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    ...but the people who target others because of race, religion, or sexual orientation aren't going stop with hugs and kisses, their hate is way too intrenched.  

    And while all crimes are hate crimes, we have some sort of mechanism in the legal system to stop people from targeting minorities.

    This is Phelps like territory IMO, while they go after people at their weakest, these are going after group who are the weakest.  They are exploiting the very right that protects them while diminishing that exact same right for others, and they know it.

    Just seems like you issues are more with NYPD and hate crimes law rather than this specific instance.  For all the BS the NYPD pulls, this clearly isn't overstepping the law, it's exactly what the law was written for.  Aholes who target minorities, be it religious, racial, or sexual.  How is this not a hate crime ?  the degree is small, but they picket their victims because of religion.

    And if some Muslims had gone after Christians, then I think your over-reaction would probably be accurate because they wouldn't see the light of day for a long time and I suspect they would get a good old fashion NYPD working over.


    Yes indeed... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    the issue is the NYPD, hate crime enhancements, and free speech.  I would hope nobody is worried about one baconhater in a nation awash in haters...that would be silly.

    If the NYPD gave a f*ck about tolerance for muslims, they'd stop all their special ops surveillance of the local muslim community.  Pleas of tolerance coming from the intolerance kings of NYC...that's funny sh*t.

    Of course hugs and kisses are a longshot, it's difficult to open closed minds and warm cold hearts.  Harder work is hard to find.  But I think loves gives us better odds of success than handcuffs...that will only teach the guy not to get caught, or give creedence to whacko claims of sharia law being right around the corner and the islamification of America.


    Tell it to my Sikh friends (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    still in mourning.

    Tell it to my Jewish neighbors, many of them immigrants from lands where they endured attacks, too, who have found bacon on the porch of their synagogue.

    And both endure graffiti on their buildings.

    All of that is hateful hating hate speech -- and, yes, it does kill.  See:  the news.


    If the worst thing muslims and jews... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    had to deal with was encountering bacon, what a wonderful world that would be!  All superstition aside, it's just food.

    Unless your saying the baconhater is fixing to resort to violence, to which I'd say you're assuming facts not in evidence.


    To you, it's just food, kdog, but the meaning (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:11:48 PM EST
    you ascribe to it isn't the one that matters.

    It's like telling Catholics that the wine and wafer of communion are just a Sunday morning snack, and they shouldn't be upset if someone writes hateful messages on the wafers or desecrates the communion chalice.  To them, it's the body and blood of Christ and you don't get to decide that that's silly or not worth getting worked up about.

    Or like saying that a noose hanging from a tree in a predominantly black neighborhood is "just a rope."

    I know you're smarter than that - so all I can surmise is that you allow your absolute rejection of anything related to law enforcement to close your eyes to the ugliness and damage that disregard of others' beliefs does in the larger community.  


    I can see the hurt, the ugly... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    can you see the danger of legislated law enforcement "solutions"?  You're a smart cookie too pal.

    I don't know how many ways to say how uncool it is...the question I'm asking is, is it criminal?

    The meaning anybody ascribes to any symbol/belief/inanimate object shouldn't matter, legally speaking.  Whether for religious, cultural, or personal reasons.  People with beliefs, as human beings with the ability to reason, gotta understand that their sacred beliefs don't necessarily mean sh*t to somebody else.  Gotta meet halfway in a free society.  Unpleasant as it is sometimes.  


    I think you have it backwards (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:38:15 AM EST
    People with beliefs, as human beings with the ability to reason, gotta understand that their sacred beliefs don't necessarily mean sh*t to somebody else Gotta meet halfway in a free society.  Unpleasant as it is sometimes.  

    We, as a society, have decided that people are free to worship as they see fit and should not have to worry about some jack-a-ma-hole desecrating where they choose to worship. Our founders thought it so important a right, they embodied it in that same amendment that you are using to defend the "bacon-spreader" - the First Amendment.  

    Yes, you have an absolute right to think whatever you want about people who hold religious beliefs and practice certain rituals as part of those beliefs.  You are free to write about those thoughts, or shout it from the rooftops.  What you do not have a right to do is engage in behavior that can be construed as desecrating someone's place of worship.

    I apologize if I've missed this, but where (at least in your posts) have you been willing to "meet halfway" when it comes to matters of the criminal justice system?


    It's a public place... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:27:26 AM EST
    if the guy strewed bacon in a mosque, that's crossing the halfway line.

    Out in public, the believers gotta meet halfway and understand they might run into some "desecration"...women in bikini tops, people drinking beers (err, that's illegal, even communion wine violates open container laws, no outdoor mass for you!;), pork, taking the lord's name in vain...all that sh*t.  Just as a heathen gotta understand they might run into a group prayer, a soapbox preacher, a guy with a "god hates f*gs" sign.  That's freedom baby, isn't it grand?

    I meet halfway all the time pal...I'm somewhat extreme but not unreasonable or close-minded.  Your arguments just often fail to convince me I'm wrong.  Just yesterday I met halfway about noise complaints...sometimes a neighbor is so rude they give you no choice but to drop a dime, but one should always try to work it out in the neighborly way first...that's meeting halfway.

    As for this debate, I came in believing the baconhater is a total douche, but not a criminal.  You haven't convinced me otherwise.  Expecting public space to be pork-free is what is unreasonable.



    You often go to public parks (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:12:26 AM EST
    Where bacon is spread out all over the place? Bacon that was not dropped as a result of a sloppy eater and by accident, but as a result of someone deliberately putting it there for the only reason to offend and intimidate people who, by their religious beliefs, do not come into contact with pork products?

    Of course not... (none / 0) (#161)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:23:14 AM EST
    a bacon crumb on the floor is an accident, this was intentional douchebaggery meant to offend muslims.  Which is deplorable.  Making a crime out of it is also deplorable in my book.  We must accept some ugliness in order to stay quasi-free.

    No, kdog, that's not how this works; (none / 0) (#164)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:42:27 AM EST
    it's not even how it should work.  

    No one is saying that one person's beliefs have to have meaning to any other person; what they are saying is that we should be able to acknowledge that those beliefs exist and that they have meaning to the person who subscribes to them.

    I wouldn't expect an Orthodox Jew, for example, to "meet me halfway" if I insisted that he or she share my BLT or pulled pork sandwich, nor would I be offended by his or her politely declining to do so.

    What's unpleasant, to me at least, is that you see one person's choosing to subscribe to certain beliefs or religious laws as acts of selfishness that somehow interfere with another person's desire to show their disdain for those beliefs by mocking or defiling the things that person holds sacred.

    Really, sometimes your attitudes and opinions just take my breath away - and not in a good way.


    Likewise... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    you guys scare me sometimes.  Legislation can solve any problem, and if we just prosecute enough people for enough things Utopia will be achieved.  

    I wouldn't expect your jewish friend to share your sandwich, but I would expect them to respect you eating it at the same table without making a "hate crime" out of it.

    I hold certain vegetation sacred, and it is illegal to possess it.  Are drug laws hate crimes?  And don't try to tell me my scared is any less legitimate than anybody else's sacred.


    You're hung up on the legislation; I'm (none / 0) (#169)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    addressing your attitude.  I haven't spoken at all about the "hate crime" aspect of this that was the genesis for the extended discussion.

    But let's be clear about one thing: the bacon's presence in the park wasn't the result of incidental sharing of communal space; this wasn't someone eating a ham sandwich while observing Muslims at prayer.  The strewing of bacon was for the express purpose of defiling a space that was to be used for a religious purpose and intimidating the Muslims expected to gather there.

    Should that be a hate crime?  Should it be a hate crime to burn a cross on someone's lawn?  To hang a noose from a tree outside someone's house?  I don't know.  I'm no law-and-order authoritarian, kdog; I agree we don't need to make a law for everything.  

    What I do know is that a lot of the stuff you've been saying could be summarized as "who gives a sh!t what people believe - that's their problem," and I don't see that as contributing much to the general well-being of anyone's community.

    And I don't think you now have any room to say:

    don't try to tell me my sacred is any less legitimate than anybody else's sacred

    after you've said everyone else just needs to understand that their beliefs don't mean jack squat to you.

    Oh, the irony.  It burns...


    Freedom of thought, opinion,... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    expression, and what you choose to hold sacred (or not) is most definitely a vital component to any community that wishes to thrive.

    Don't confuse my opinion of how the law should view the situation with how I view it.  

    And of course I have room to say what I said about my sacrament...an individual can piss on the plant I hold dear, call it evil, call potheads names for holding it sacred, throw bales of it in the ocean in protest, show up at the pot parade and wipe their arse with it...what ya can't do is make it illegal, punish people for using it, that violates inalienable rights.  It's akin to making communion wine illegal, or the burqua, or witchcraft, or circumcision.  Or speech.

    I don't think burning crosses, hanging nooses, swastikas, etc should be illegal either.  Just frowned upon and denounced with positive speech at every turn.   Burning a cross on someone's lawn or spray painting a swastika on a synagogue are long-standing crimes...trespassing, vandalism, and destruction of property.  Burning a cross on your own lawn, or tagging your own house with swastikas, should be protected speech....for all of our protection.  Believe you me, it breaks my heart and makes me sad too.  But the First Amendment is clear on the point in my opinion...it doesns't freedom of some religions, freedom of popular speech, freedom of positive speech.  It says freedom of religion and freedom of speech...the best of it, and the worst of it.


    Yes, I am saying, as many studies tell us (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:32:23 PM EST
    that hate escalates.

    This is not true just of hate groups but also of street gangs and others relying on the most basic psychological tactics to desensitize members.  For pity's sake, we see it in grade school bullies.  

    This must be another kdog pulling-the-leg game.  I'm just too tired for it today.  Google.


    Oh, and by the way, if the worst thing (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:34:24 PM EST
    that you had to endure was acquaintance rape, what a wonderful world that would be!  It's so much better than stranger rape.

    See how that works?

    And what Anne said:  It's really not about you and your beliefs.


    Comparing bacon to rape? (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:32:37 AM EST
    I love ya Towanda, but you're off the deep end.

    How much speech do you wanna criminalize in your Quixotic mission to reduce violence? And what makes you think it will even be effective?


    kdog, you are capable (none / 0) (#162)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    of understanding analogy . . . although, as we sadly have seen, not so well on that issue, either.

    You just don't want to understand, so as to continue to defend the indefensible.

    That is sad, as you have done good work here in past -- but in the last few days here, you've done your good stances a disservice.


    Jesus H... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    are you being intentionally obtuse?  I am not defending the guy, no more so than the ACLU defends racism when they take a case from the KKK or Neo-Nazis.  It's about defending speech and protest, regardless of how you feel about the particular cause, which in this case is repugnant.

    You neanderthal, you. (none / 0) (#166)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    Should kdog put himself of time-out? (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    First the issue of notifying the putative father a female is pregnant.  Now the bacon.  What next?  [snk.]

    I've offended... (none / 0) (#168)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    liberal dogma...forget a timeout, I might be excommunicated from the church;)

    Oh, I certainly hope not. Your (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:34:31 PM EST
    "voice" is "unique."

    Add... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:51:52 PM EST
    there are those who are as offended by 1500 muslims praying in a park as muslims are by the presence of pork...they all need to check themselves before we wreck ourselves, cuz intolerance is bad for our national health.

    Germany, France, and other countries in Europe don't have anywhere near the free speech rights we have here, they might have bigger problems with haters than we do.  I don't think there is a criminal justice solution to the hate problem Towanda, we've got the longshot hard work of the love solution.  


    DoJ approves (expanded) VA voter ID law (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:26:31 PM EST
    The Justice Department approved changes to Virginia's voter ID law Monday, suggesting there is a way forward for such laws -- even in states that must have election laws pre-cleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- so long as they're written in a way the federal government will sign off on.

    Unlike voter ID laws passed in South Carolina and Texas (both of which have been opposed by the Justice Department under President Obama), Virginia's voter ID law allows voters do show a wide range of types of identification to cast a ballot. The law, labeled a "strict non-photo identification law" by the National Conference of State Legislatures, OKs types of identification more likely to be held by voters who lack a state-issued photo ID.

    "Unlike other voter ID laws that the department has challenged in recent months, the Virginia law does not require a photo identification," Justice Department spokeswoman Nanda Chitre said in a statement.

    "Instead, this law actually expands the types of identifications voters may use at the polls, and the state is required to mail to all registered voters a voter card prior to the general election, which voters can use to vote, removing the burden of travel on many residents to obtain the necessary documentation," she said.


    I don't (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    think most people around here would have a problem with this. Actually for years in GA we had a similar law until the morons in the gold dome decided that nonexistent fraud was a huge problem. The problem is with a lot of these laws is they only allow certain ID, a pretty restrictive list of what you can use to vote with is the problem and then' there's the 7 items you have to bring with you to RENEW even if you'd had a DL for decades.

    When I moved to VA (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    I had to have numerous pieces of ID to transfer my DL from Michigan.  And don't get me started on what it took to get license plates because I leased my vehicle, so therefore, I did not have possession of the car's title.

    And as far as I know, you have to show ID to register to vote at the DMV, and they send you a voter ID card anyway.  I've always gotten one, but no one has ever asked me for it - why have they bothered to send one out if they weren't going to use it? Isn't that supposed to be your voter ID?


    When (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:33:31 PM EST
    you figure these conservative idiots out will you let me know? In GA they think they're so smart but they're just too clever by half and think they're cutting out the votes of African Americans--people who will fight for their votes and will put up with this crap to vote because the majority of them know what it means to NOT have the right to vote. The people that are going to lose out on this one are the elderly GOP voters who have always taken their right to vote for granted. They were the ones walking away from the DMV when I went there.

    Another "teachable moment"; (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    Even as the Republican establishment continued to call for Representative Todd Akin of Missouri to drop out of his Senate race because of his comments on rape and abortion, Republicans approved platform language on Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

    This represents a golden opportunity for the Democrats and their titular leader, Mr. Obama, to clearly and definitively denounce the Republicans and to clearly and definitively differentiate their position on abortion rights from that of the Republicans.

    Now, why do I think they aren't about to do that?

    Great Video about Pot legalization (none / 0) (#112)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    Missouri pol explains why Akin ain't quitting (none / 0) (#129)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:17:47 PM EST
    and could win.

    Basically:  You can't figure it out if you can't get your head out of the Beltway.  

    He's just not that into you, all of you -- Romney, et al. -- calling for him to quit.  

    Frankly, you're just making him dig in his heels.  It's not called the "Show Me" state for nothing.

    Akin knows exactly (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:33:33 PM EST
    what he's doing and what choir (in the literal sense of the word in this case), he's preaching to..

    If anything he's just being more honest than Romney/Ryan about needing his "social liberal" base to get the vote out..

    Meanwhile, Ryan blows St Thomas Aquinas dogwhistles and Elder Romney feigns christian/mormon patience and longsuffering..