home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

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

Daily Kos Radio Logo

Listen here.

See this:

Open Thread.

< Bad Arson Science Frees Mom After Serving 16 Years | Lance Armstrong Folds, Will Be Stripped of Titles >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Condi to introduce Paul Ryan at convention... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    Just reading at Marcy Wheeler's place and saw this:

    And today, we learn that Dr. Rice will have the honor of putting lipstick on the pig that is the GOP's rabidly anti-woman Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan. Presumably, having one of their most respected woman introduce Ryan will draw attention away from the fact that Ryan shares Todd Akin's beliefs that even women who have been raped shouldn't be permitted to choose not to bear the child. Indeed, in spite of the GOP's efforts to drive Akin from his race against Claire McCaskill to downplay his disdain for women, the party nevertheless adopted the Ryan-Akin no rape exception policy as part of their platform.

    Yet with an Augusta ground-breaker like Condi introducing Ryan, I'm sure we'll all forget how systematically the GOP has fought women's equality and autonomy in both personal and professional venues.

    Ah, yes...well, when some of us see Condi, we see the smiling face of evil, so who better - assuming Cheney isn't available - to introduce the New Evil that is Paul Ryan?


    Good for my old friend and (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    college classmate, Jon Delano, political editor for KDKA television in Pittsburgh, for insisting twice on following up with Ryan during an on-air interview yesterday, with such questions as, more or less, "So, when you tried to add the word 'forcible' before the word 'rape' in a federal abortion funding restriction, that change meant nothing to you?" A real journalist, a rare breed.

    Parent
    It is quite a line-up of speakers. (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    While Todd Akin and Sarah Palin will be among the missing, the others will be suitable substitutes.   It seems that they will all be wearing a Santorum sweater-vest.   Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of NY and president of the US Conference of Bishops will bring it all to a climax, so to say, with his benediction.

    An archdiocesan spokesman stressed that Dolan's benediction would not be an endorsement, its as a priest going to pray.  And, Dolan and Ryan are very good friends from the olden days when Dolan was archbishop of Milwaukee. The spokesman did not indicate if the archbishop will be wearing a sweater-vest.  

    Parent

    Dolan is to be feared (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    as the consummate Irish pol, but in a cassock.  

    I have closely watched him for years, since tipped to do so by St. Louis family and then when he landed in Wisconsin, where I know folks who worked closely with him, including a Vatican consultant stationed there.  They say that Dolan actually could be the first American pope -- although that could constrain his power, compared to his power now.

    He is incredibly conservative but brilliantly folksy about it -- again, the consummate Irish pol.  And his presence at the convention is an endorsement that could have huge impact.  

    Of course, now we wait to see how many conservative Protestant clerics are going to be trotted out at the Democratic convention . . . again.

    Parent

    True the jocular (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    as a heart-attack bishop has molded himself for opportunity--- which means out-extreming all his  competitors. His specialty is opposition to abortion and gay rights.

    Dolan came to Milwaukee in the wake of the resignation of his disgraced predecessor, Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who paid $450,000 of diocesan money to his former male partner to prevent a lawsuit.

    Dolan showed that he is pretty good at making things go away (which is a necessary talent for a Church administrator) with no prosecution of Weakland who still lives in Milwaukee and continues to be supported by the diocese (originally it was claimed that Weakland would leave the area).   Also,  his monetary  pay offs to "un-assignable" pedophile priests was a creative spiritual application to a temporal problem.     Never-the-less, Dolan will have stiff competition at the next Conclave.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    I just was at an event with Weakland a few weeks ago.  He is a marvelous man in so many ways, and those were sane years in the archdiocese, so his mistakes have had huge impact in bringing down upon Wisconsin (i.e., far-reaching beyond the archdiocese, in such a Catholica area) first Dolan and now another arch-conservative but one with no folksiness at all, as he messes with politics -- the Walker recall, the continuing and so-destructive push for school vouchers, where they started -- and even the Jesuit campuses.  I gather that you are savvy to the church and to what that means.  Even Dolan did not take on the Jesuits to foist his wishes on faculty hires.

    As for the pedophile priests, Dolan's "fixes" were only stopgaps, and whether the archdiocese will escape more . . . well, the mess continues.  With major/coastal media focused more on Boston and the like, little attention has been given to where the mess started, decades and many archbishops ago.  

    Parent

    A potential competitor: Archbishop Gomez (none / 0) (#25)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:26:13 PM EST
    The Los Angeles prelate is equally personable & from the powerful See of LA.  The first US Hispanic Bishop when serving in San Antonio after Denver.  

    This Archbishop has demurred from following Dolan & that very conservative group in the various ACA lawsuits over "who pays.". He heads now the Council's committee on international migration ( trans: immigration)...and, has written & spoken strongly about the humanity of full immigration reform (applauding the President's first step this year while stressing the need to move further without delay.). Another aspect:  The charismatic Gomez --while not Irish-- has the important quality of reaching Hispanics here & elsewhere.  

    Parent

    Christine, you are a local? LA CA? (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:40:41 PM EST
    Denver (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:55:07 PM EST
    But I have been fascinated by the progression of Archbishop Gomez since he served as the Auxiliary Bishop of Denver.
    And--for a number of rasons--the possibility of the next Pope being non-white or non-European increases.  In that regard, the importance of Spanish-speaking populates to the Church universal cannot be denied.  

    Parent
    Interesting, thanks. (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    Gomez may have a leg up, (none / 0) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    on Dolan, being Opus Dei.

    Parent
    Yea...that part has flags & caution (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:03:53 PM EST
    In one of those strange situations, then Auxiliary Bishop of Denver Gomez resided in our local parish residence (fairly near to the Cathedral.) My first reaction: Yoiks...Opus Dei.  Then, I spoke with him...more than once...more than twice.  In spite of my very self, I found him to be a compelling individual, tho--because of the association--clearly conservative.

    I'm sure that my husband thinks my thinking has skipped a bit when it comes to Gomez.  Maybe.  Because the man has so many good qualities--gauged from conversation & from listening to sermons--and because he didn't harangue/obssess about the "life" issues to the exclusion of the social justice issues, he broke down lots of barriers here.  All I know is:  That man, that human being, left a strong & very good impression...despite what I was prepared to believe. (Let me add that Gomez has a great sense of humor as well as the humility that goes with self-effacement.  I'm no neophyte; but, Gomez is that kind of rare person that you don't see or meet too often.)

    Parent

    I'll say one thing for Msgr. Gomez. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    Speaking as a Roman Catholic, I find him to be a marked and refreshing improvement over Cardinal Roger Mahony.

    So does my cousin, a longtime priest in the archdiocese who works with the majority-Latino population in east L.A., particularly those who've been caught up in the legal system, either through direct incarceration or losing a parent or child to the same.

    These are people who recognize that the Church's true mission is to be found in its service to the poor and unfortunate, and not through its obseqiousness to the wealthy and powerful, as seems to be Archbishop Dolan's chosen lot in life.

    Parent

    I'd (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:30:01 PM EST
    like to see a few Rabbis, Buddhist Monks, Mormon priesthood holders, Mullahs, Imams, and a sprinkling of Jathedars.

    Rick Warren is probably sewed up for the Dems, but I understand that Jim Bakker is out of jail, back in business and probably would accept a spot if properly greased.

    And maybe ol' fun lovin' Jimmy Swaggart could belt out a few of his greatest hits and rock 'em.

    Now that's entertainment.

    Parent

    And I can recommend ... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    ... a good kahuna or two.

    Parent
    Love it! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    I also wonder if the Dalai Lama is available.....

    Parent
    Wouldn't that (none / 0) (#18)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    be fun?   ;-)

    Parent
    Per CNN, the Cardinal's spokesperson (none / 0) (#21)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    says now that he would be willing to attend the Dem convention for the Benediction also if invited.

    In the larger negotiation waltz--because that is what is going on here (see, e.g., the upcoming Al Smith Dinner in New York )--the appearance at both Conventions would neutralize perceived preferences in terms of influence pressures for church-going Catholics.  They vote...and, in a close election, one doesn't dis a potential vote(s) based upon disagreement over even the more significant issues.  

    My husband, initially, did not agree when I said this (especially in view of my strong disagreement about the "who pays" contraception controversy still ongoing as to the Administration & the Church)...until reminded that the Cardinal is quite the affable "politician.". My point:  Take the Cardinal's office up on the offer...don't be snagged in the position of seeming to be the disser.  After all, it doesn't cost anything to be equally affable (and, thereby, not ceding the upper hand to the argument that the Administration is somehow at fault in the ongoing referenced negotiations.). Besides, a Benediction comes at the conclusion when many have exited or are in the process of leaving.

    Parent

    Per CNN, the Cardinal's spokesperson (none / 0) (#22)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    says now that he would be willing to attend the Dem convention for the Benediction also if invited.

    In the larger negotiation waltz--because that is what is going on here (see, e.g., the upcoming Al Smith Dinner in New York )--the appearance at both Conventions would neutralize perceived preferences in terms of influence pressures for church-going Catholics.  They vote...and, in a close election, one doesn't dis a potential vote(s) based upon disagreement over even the more significant issues.  

    My husband, initially, did not agree when I said this (especially in view of my strong disagreement about the "who pays" contraception controversy still ongoing as to the Administration & the Church)...until reminded that the Cardinal is quite the affable "politician.". My point:  Take the Cardinal's office up on the offer...don't be snagged in the position of seeming to be the disser.  After all, it doesn't cost anything to be equally affable (and, thereby, not ceding the upper hand to the argument that the Administration is somehow at fault in the ongoing referenced negotiations.). Besides, a Benediction comes at the conclusion when many have exited or are in the process of leaving.

    Parent

    Well, speaking for myself only, ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:44:01 PM EST
    One of my favorite laughter films (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:55:21 PM EST
    We could all use some laughter by now.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:58:22 PM EST
    Yes, they're just "jerking off."

    Parent
    Please. Let's not fall for that from (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    the masters of PR, the Catholic church.

    Christine, your enthusiasms often are enjoyable, but it's naive to not see what Dolan is doing -- as the head of the American Catholic church that is suing the Obama administration, after all.

    Of course, the campaign may be cornered by this now -- and the Great Compromiser probably would go along with it, anyway, as inviting ministers who denounced the Democratic platform and principles was no problem, so why not invite someone suing you?

    No matter who is invited, though, it's if one or all of the above and the conservative ministers and more are invited at all that disgusts me, the continued intrusion of "faith-based" pols and politics into my life.  I won't change my mind on that until the Rev. Obama is invited to the convocation to bless the next vote in the Vatican.

    Or, if we must have a faith-based convention, use it to make a real statement and start the promised national conversation about guns as well as about immigration and prejudice and etcetera:

    Invite a Sikh leader.

    Parent

    Ah Towanda (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    But I do know exactly what His Excellency the Affable Cardinal in doing...and I do know that you get more flies with honey than viengar.  In my youth, I would have turned my back & more.  Not so now.  If my guess is right, the Cardinal wants to not-so-silently signal the undecided Catholic voter (and, remember that the Catholic voter has a higher turnout record than almost any other religious affiliated voter in the country) that it is really the Administration that has picked the contraception (aka freedom) fight with the Church and that you can see it in the Administration's attitude in ignoring his offer to show up.  Nope.  I'd say: Take him up on his offer, put your arms around him (so to speak) & out-affable the affable.  In sum: To show one's anger or disapproval or disgust by a harumph gains nothing...it is, in fact, a losing emotional response.  

    Note: Please understand, Towanda, that I agree with the substance of what you are saying.  It is my response that it different...my response is totally political in terms of where the votes may be assumed to be.  

    Parent

    Yes, I know that your responses (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:28:17 PM EST
    are totally political, again and again.

    Parent
    Hmmmm. With this addition... (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:04:38 PM EST
    For the first time in many years, I'm hurtin inside (yes, hurting) by these months of listening to the sermonizing from the likes of Dolan's doubles/surrogates.  I don't want to see my Church move so far down that nasty political road.  IMO, it won't end well for anywone.  But, be that as it may, I'll emulate the likes of an E.J. Dionne, the nuns on the bus, and others.  And, if that means, separating my insides & feelings from the political necessity required to get beyond this divisive incident(s), I will.  That is where I am, Towanda.  At this time & in this place, it would be foolhardy to allow the emotional action & reaction to the likes of the more conservative face of the American Bishops--as opposed to so many good, caring, wonderful religious who seek to help those who need help among us--to provoke short-lived unseemly, undiplomatic, etc. responses.  The important thing to me is to ensure that we don't suffer the four years of a Romney/Ryan result if we take our eyes off the goal.

    Parent
    I not only (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    see the smiling face of evil when I see Condi, I also think what a lousy piano player she is.

    Parent
    I don't see evil in Condi Rice. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    I merely see an overrated and obsequient policy wonk who was in way over her head, sitting in a Ferragamo shoe store in Manhattan, as a city drowns a thousand miles away.

    Condi didn't perpetrate evil. Rather, in her willingness to please her bosses, she wound up enabling it -- which some might argue, with some justification, was just as great a sin.

    So, I don't see Dr. Rice as necessarily a bad person -- just someone whose photo should appear next to every encyclopaedic entry for the term "Peter Principle." That woman should never have left the halls of Stanford.

    Parent

    Bosh (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:02:35 PM EST
    Condi did perpetrate evil.
    She justified evil.
    And when she went shoe shopping on Fifth Avenue at a time when the country was horrified - watching people drowning in the wake of Katrina - she personified evil.

    Parent
    I'm inclined to go with both of you (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:49:09 AM EST
    on this...is that possible?

    Parent
    My goodness, MT (none / 0) (#91)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    Insomina??? (I noted the time stamp)

    Parent
    I had an extreme mold exposure yesterday (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:05:00 AM EST
    I'm very allergic to mold, but allergy shots are working.  I ended up in an enclosed space though yesterday cleaning mold out...because mold is everywhere here.  I took an antihistimine, and passed out at 6:00 pm.  Which means that I get to get up at 3:00 am.

    Parent
    I can relate. (none / 0) (#98)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:19:32 AM EST
    My allergies have been particularly bad throughout the summer.  

    Parent
    I had an extreme mold exposure yesterday (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:05:34 AM EST
    I'm very allergic to mold, but allergy shots are working.  I ended up in an enclosed space though yesterday cleaning mold out...because mold is everywhere here.  I took an antihistimine, and passed out at 6:00 pm.  Which means that I get to get up at 3:00 am.

    Parent
    And undoubtedly, there are people ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    ... on the right who would no doubt say the same damned thing about you -- and me, for that matter. So there.

    Nobody owns a monopoly on truth. Nobody. What exactly do you accomplish by using extremist language to denounce others with whom you happen to disagree? Do you think that makes you more right than them, or somehow better than them?

    And speaking for myself only, I'd like to believe that we can vociferously oppose other people's politics and their lousy and even horrible policies, without always resorting to the type of nuclear hyperbole that serves only to impugn their character and personal integrity.

    All that accomplishes is to further preclude any possibility, however remote it may sometimes be, for a rational discussion to take place. And when you've succeeded in shutting down the dialogue, then you best pray that your side can marshal the forces sufficiently necessary -- politically or otherwise -- to compel the other side to bend to your will. Because if you can't, there can be Hell to pay.

    Adolf Hitler was evil. Josef Stalin was evil. Pol Pot was evil. Linda Blair in The Exorcist was evil. The worst one can say about Condi Rice is that she's an amoral tool.

    There's a significant difference between amorality and evil -- the former concerns a lack of moral center and clarity, while the latter is clearly sociopathic in nature.

    I suggest that you expand your vocabulary and learn to choose your words wisely, and stop flinging incindiary devices so cavalierly into the debate hall.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And what about (none / 0) (#127)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    Goebbles, or Eichmann.

    Just tools of the evil one?

    If you excuse enablers of evil, you may as well excuse everyone - because without enablers, the evil ones are just hot air.

    Parent

    What are your credentials as a (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:22:56 PM EST
    music critic.  From the taped chamber music playing I heard, she plays quite well.  

    Parent
    If (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    you like the way she plays, it's ok with me.

    Chacun à son goût

    Parent

    I much prefer her musicianship to (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:35:07 PM EST
    her other roles.  

    Parent
    I can't knock her playing either (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    as she blows my version of chopsticks out of the water. Like you, I can appreciate things even in those I'm not totally fond of.

    (god I hate ending a sentence with a dangling preposition)

    Parent

    I prefer (none / 0) (#126)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    mold to her other roles.

    Parent
    Get him oculus (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:49:53 AM EST
    I don't know if she's a good piano player.  I was going to take your word for it though.

    Parent
    I declined Peter G's request I state my (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:28:37 AM EST
    credentials to opine on legal matters!

    Parent
    She's an accomplished pianist. (none / 0) (#77)
    by observed on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:54:34 AM EST
    Any criticisms would have to be about style and taste.


    Parent
    I defer to oculus in such musical matters (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 05:03:07 AM EST
    Well, Oculus and I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by observed on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 05:18:50 AM EST
    Hopefully that doesn't make you believe her  less! :)

    Parent
    Gawker publishes 950 pages of Bain docs... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by magster on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    ... about Romney's finances. Asks people for help interpreting. Could be a big story....

    I especially love that it is gawker (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    and not some so-called mainstream "news" org.

    And before anyone starts with the 'So what, it shows that he is rich and uses legal tax shelters' please keep in mind he is doing the same things he criticizes Obama for allowing, has stretched the definition of 'retirement' to the point of breaking - and that he would be in charge of enforcing the tax code as POTUS. A more massive conflict of interest cannot be imagined.

    Parent

    Isn't Gawker (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:52:12 AM EST
    Still a shell company of Gawker Media, and isn't Gawker Media still based out the Cayman Islands itself?  Only one reason I can think of....


    Gawker is organized like an international money-laundering operation. Much of its international revenues are directed through Hungary, where Denton's mother hails from, and where some of the firm's techies are located. But that is only part of it. Recently, Salmon reports, the various Gawker operations--Gawker Media LLC, Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology LLC, Gawker Sales LLC--have been restructured to bring them under control of a shell company based in the Cayman Islands, Gawker Media Group Inc.

    Why would a relatively small media outfit based in Soho choose to incorporate itself in a Caribbean locale long favored by insider dealers, drug cartels, hedge funds, and other entities with lots of cash they don't want to advertise? The question virtually answers itself, but for those unversed in the intricacies of international tax avoidance Salmon spells it out: "The result is a company where 130 U.S. employees eat up the lion's share of the the U.S. revenues, resulting in little if any taxable income, while the international income, the franchise value of the brands, and the value of the technology all stays permanently overseas, untouched by the I.R.S."

    The irony is pretty funny.

    Parent

    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:20:40 AM EST
    Romney can't get too upset with Gawker, obviously they admire his "business sense", monkey see monkey do.

    Parent
    I think in this case, (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:44:56 AM EST
    It's more "Money see, money do".

    Parent
    Basically (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:53:20 AM EST
    You can't trust anybody.  At least, anybody with power or influence.

    Parent
    And if they have enough money, (none / 0) (#111)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    then they acquire power and influence.

    Parent
    WhatI found funny (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:54:00 AM EST
    Is that Gawker is "outraged" over Romney...

    Parent
    I missed the outrage in the linked story (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:30:43 AM EST
    Where do you see that?

    Parent
    Seems like (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    They are being pretty critical in a "How dare he!" mode.

    Here's one example:

    Many of them are offshore funds based in the Cayman Islands. Together, they reveal the mind-numbing, maze-like, and deeply opaque complexity with which Romney has handled his wealth, the exotic tax-avoidance schemes available only to the preposterously wealthy that benefit him, the unlikely (for a right-wing religious Mormon) places that his money has ended up, and the deeply hypocritical distance between his own criticisms of Obama's fiscal approach and his money managers' embrace of those same policies. They also show that some of the investments that Romney has always described as part of his retirement package at Bain weren't made until years after he left the company.

    Definitely judgmental on their part.

    Parent

    Wouldn't It Be Hilarious... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    ...if they got the docs because of proximity?  Public records or something like that in the Caymans.

    Parent
    Is gawker running for president? (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:28:58 AM EST
    Exactamundo... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:56:43 AM EST
    If ya wanna be a tax avoiding grifter, that's your prerogative.  

    If ya wanna be a tax avoiding grifter turned president, that aggression cannot stand man!  

    I got no love for (certain) taxes either, I'm a tobacco tax avoiding fool...but I ain't itchin' to join the outfit that taxes tobacco...that's the difference.  Sh*t I'm so down on the state I won't even apply for a civil service job, never mind run for office.  

    Parent

    Baroque Yo' Mama (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    Self Parody written by Obama long ago as Head of the Harvard Law Review. I'm sure some won't like this but I flippin loved it.

    Between Barack and a Hard Place: My First Hundred Days by Baroque Yo' Mama


    That was funny... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    wait till the birthers send PI's to Oslo, and find no trace of a Volvo factory;)

    I wish there was more Baroque Yo'Mama in the Barack Obama we know, but I guess that's impossible in "gotcha!" country.  Joe Biden tried to be funny, and we see how that turned out.

    Parent

    Not just funny, but clever (none / 0) (#33)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    Makes me sad to think that we never get to see that Obama. Even the footnotes were funny (in particular nos. 5, 20, and 22).

    Parent
    Wait, change of plans! I just realized (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    that I have the deadly class coming in just a few weeks on how to "do footies," as the students say.  I'm bringing up the doc again to save the url for a class exercise -- anything to spare me from having to read through hundreds of pages of unnecessary footnoting four months from now.

    Plus, I bet I get "cool points" for listing a reading by Obama, Barack, on the syllabus.  Of course, per the reading, that would be incorrect, but no way am I citing Yo' Mama Obama, Barack.  Or is that, in this case, Obama, Barack [Yo' Mama']?  Or maybe I just let the students find their urls to Turabian and figure out that, too!

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#47)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:27:29 PM EST
    Don't ask me. When I went into editing, I decided to stay the heck away from footnoting gigs, and stay with indexing. (It can be boring and laborious, but its rules for notation are easy.)

    Parent
    Oh, a kindred soul, I see! (none / 0) (#49)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:35:12 PM EST
    I actually enjoyed my experiences in indexing.  I try not to mention that much, as it brings looks from those who only endured it, and unwillingly.

    I just was thinking, the other day, that my current project may bring me the task of indexing again in the coming year, and I smiled at the thought.  And then I realized that is weird. :-)


    Parent

    Yes, it is weird! (none / 0) (#54)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:15:07 PM EST
    But I understand completely.

    ;-)

    Parent

    The footnotes, yes -- and the footnoting (none / 0) (#35)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:27:38 PM EST
    itself, after every word, which took me back to hours in the law libe, looking at pages upon pages with more footnotes than text . . . and deciding to pursue another field.  

    Also, changing the spelling of the august Review to Revue and similar sly touches that I did spot made me bookmark this to go back and read it again, when I have more time and need more laughs.

     

    Parent

    Wow, when I read something like that (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 05:02:02 AM EST
    with his footnotes he seems so smart.  The first hundred days weren't all that bad, but as a whole the first two years?  WTF was that about brilliant Barack?  Holding out on me!  That's what the first two years were!


    Parent
    "Drones Over Tampa" (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    From Marcy Wheeler:

    The Republican party-goers in Tampa will be surveilled by drones.

    This will mark the first time unmanned aerial vehicles will patrol the skies over a national convention, according to an engineer with a Naples company that builds and will operate the drones.

    The vehicle, called an Aether Aero, is an eight-bladed vertical takeoff platform that will provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to government agencies, according to Curt Winter, an engineer with United Drones.

    Presumably they're being deployed to defend against the "anarchists" the government has already leaked pose a threat to the Convention.  Or perhaps they-and United Drones' unmanned ground vehicles, the Wraiths-will be there just to get delegates all hot and bothered to approve more drone spending.

    Just so disturbing, on so many levels.

    My guess is (none / 0) (#112)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    they could fly away like kites if used early next week.

    The nomination has been moved from Wednesday to Monday. Multiple theories behind this move.

    • Move Ann Romney's speech to national television
    • Avoid potential trouble from Ron Paul supporters on national television
    • Having the nomination officially in the pocket gives access to general election money
    • Get out of dodge with nomination secured in case Isaac makes a right hand turn
    • all of the above


    Parent
    Probably all of the above (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    All good reasons.  

    Parent
    But Romney (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    Will still give his acceptance speech on Thursday.

    Parent
    Still too far out (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    to accurately predict, but Hurricane Isaac is expected to be a Category 1 (the weakest on the hurricane scale) and off the coast of Tampa just about the time Ann Romney is scheduled to speak on Monday

    Anyone heard of their contingency plans?

    Anyone Want To Take Bets... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    ...on who has the most offensive rape comment ?  

    Smart money is on Trump I would think, or Rush if we was speaking.  I am doubling down on Huckabee, he's speaking later and I hoping he throws back a couple belts before he takes the stage.  

    But even if the hurricane doesn't hit Tampa, they rain surrounding ti will surely

    Speaking of, from The Onion
    Gay Bathhouse in Tampa Gearing Up for Republican National Convention

    Parent

    I'm kind of thinking that (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    it will be Huckabee, while assuming his smiling, pseudo-affable, "aw shucks" persona, so I agree with you, Scott.
    The link was hilarious, BTW!

    Parent
    He's Due (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    I think they are going to (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:22:51 AM EST
    re-locate the convention to Miami.  

    Parent
    Gee thanks (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    While I won't complain about money coming to the state, I can't help but see the coming week as the Republican cone of death

    Parent
    Look at the brightside... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    all those fine upstanding Occupy people coming to town will offset the invasion of the GOP dregs;)

    They did wonders for the atmosphere in Lower Manhattan before they got evicted...hope was in the air, for a change.

    Parent

    Cone ? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    Look again doctor Freud...

    I think god is making a statement.  No, actually I don't, but since I am told one hurricane ravaged a city to make a point, surely they realize the irony of their stupidity.  Either they were wrong, and made statements about gods actions that weren't true, which has to be a huge sin.  Or they were were right which means god is about to let the republican party know exactly how he feels about them.  Surely the bible thumpers realize the significance of a hurricane name Isaac heading right for the GOP convention.

    Parent

    If Isaac strikes Tampa and routs the GOP, ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:06:43 PM EST
    ... I have only one question: What would Pat Robertson say?

    Parent
    As a substantial number of them, (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:22:25 PM EST
    if not a majority, apparently do not believe in science -- and in particular not in either biology or climate science -- a hurricane headed for the convention must be a Sign of disapproval from Above. Perhaps disapproval of their rejection of the scientific method for advancing human knowledge and well-being.

    Parent
    WWPRS (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    Awesome bumper sticker.

    Parent
    I'd like to put the Republicans in... (none / 0) (#34)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    ...The Cone of Silence. Permanently.

    Parent
    Ann Romney (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:23:41 AM EST
    might get changed anyways because the networks aren't planning to show her speech (because the R's convention is 4 days and the D's are 3 days).

    Parent
    I heard they're going to ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    ... replace Ann Romney with Donald Trump, so he'll huff and he'll puff and he'll blow Isaac back out to sea.

    Parent
    Richard Belzer today on (none / 0) (#7)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:08:40 AM EST
    Morning Joe probably went one dark conspiracy too far -- ie, Marilyn Monroe most likely died of an accidental overdose and not by murder as he alleges.  But otherwise, JFK, RFK and MLK -- check, check, check on the conspiracy angles.

    And I liked the no-nonsense way, even with some hyperbole, he answered Scarborough about the believability of the Warren Report:  "Ninety percent of the public doesn't believe it, and the other ten pct are the plotters and those in the Media."  So true about the main players in the MSM, even those few of liberal bent, who seem to all have gotten the same corporate memo from on high warning about embracing conspiracy theories.  Or something.

    Well, has 90% of the public ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    Richard Belzer: "Ninety percent of the public doesn't believe it, and the other ten pct are the plotters and those in the Media."

    ... ever READ the Warren Report -- or even its one-volume summary? Because quite frankly, if one hasn't bothered to read the report or summary for themselves, then one isn't really in any credible position to so blythely dismiss the Warren Commission's findings.

    The majority of lay people who find fault with the commission's work are basing their opinions not upon any first person examination of the primary source themselves, but upon hearsay, i.e., what other people are saying about its actual findings.

    Now, I'm not saying that the Warren Commission's work is necessarily foolproof, or that a case can't be made for conspiracy regarding President Kennedy's assassination. But honestly, I haven't seen one made that I find relatively credible, regardless whether it involves Cuban exiles, the Mafia, Soviet agents, Fidel Castro, the Mafia, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, gay CIA agents, cuckholded husbands or any combination of the above thereof.

    The elemental problem with conspiracies is that the more people who are initially involved or become involved, the more unwieldy they become, because there are more people out there who may have trouble keeping their big mouths shut. High-stakes political conspiracies in particular tend to unravel eventually; one needs only to look at the Lincoln assassination, Watergate and Iran-Contra to see how that happens.

    And sometimes, people often have trouble accepting the fact that when it comes to political assassinations, it can often be the subversive actions of the lone wolf which can successfully alter the trajectory of history.

    You can make a lot of enemies in politics the higher you rise and / or the more power you accumulate, but it only takes one sufficiently pissed-off or disturbed individual to actually take it upon himself or herself to pull the trigger. The lone wolf proved the undoing of the best laid plans of President James Garfield, President William McKinley and Sen. Huey Long.

    Now, if we want to talk about a Kennedy conspiracy, I'd love for someone to explain to me how Sirhan Sirhan could fire thirteen rounds from a eight-shot pistol, and shoot Robert Kennedy in the back of the head when by most all accounts he was standing in front of him. L.A. County Coroner Thomas Noguchi's findings indicated that the fatal shot was fired at RFK from behind, at a distance of one inch.

    Personally, I've always felt that RFK's assassination was actually more consequential that his brother's killing with regards to its ultimate impact on our country's history, because it was RFK's death which ultimately paved the way for Richard Nixon's victory the following November. And it was only four short years later that we saw what the Nixon campaign was fully capable of doing, when a team of burglars dispatched by that campaign were caught red-handed bugging the office of the Democratic National Committee Chairman Lawrence O'Brien in the Watergate Hotel.

    Anyway, lots of food for thought. Aloha.

    Parent

    Plenty of good analyses (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:36:54 PM EST
    out there in book or essay form which at least point a very credible finger at elements of the CIA as being centrally involved in the plot and coverup.  Books such as Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" or Anthony Summers' "Conspiracy" or "The Assassinations" by DiEugenio and Pease (www.ctka.net).  

    The involvement at the ground, operational level of anti-Castro Cubans is usually found as part of the CIA involvement as there was a prior and trusted history there.

    It's also plausible to assume some Mafia elements -- as with the obvious silencing role of mid-level Mobster Jack Ruby -- also had a hand in the assassination plot, though not a controlling one.

    I would even throw in elements of US military high brass, some of whom hated Kennedy with a passion (Gen LeMay most famously; he may have even been present at the autopsy -- keeping a lid on and circumscribing the activity of autopsy surgeons).

    That's elements, probably small but powerful elements, of four important groups, or about the same collection of operators which would have been involved in the CIA's clandestine efforts to assassinate Castro.  No more people than are necessary, highly compartmentalized operations. They don't need to be told to keep their mouths shut.  Those who seem no longer reliable or who become vulnerable, as with govt subpeona to testify, are dealt with.  As in the several witnesses scheduled for HSCA testimony or those identified by DA Jim Garrison as suspects who ended up dead before they could testify.

    Obviously if some of the same people who arranged for the assassination are also in power, the easier it is to cover up and keep the lid on things for a very long time.  And sometimes -- as with the Lincoln assass'n and the assertions of a Confed Govt-driven conspiracy -- those in power might feel it's best to bury the truth.

    No one is asserting though that it's always a conspiracy -- obviously lone nuts have acted.  Just not always quite the loner nor the nutter as initially advertised.  As with Sirhan. So too Oswald, a suspect never allowed to have his day in court, someone never plausibly put in that window with a rifle by any credible witness.  Ditto James Earl Ray, another suspicious case that makes little sense if seen through the official lens. The two patsies who were allowed to make it to trial also suffered from suspiciously bad/corrupt counsel.  I don't think that was an accident.

    As for the RFK case -- one of several which prove conspiracies can hold together, at least for a good long while -- I would disagree slightly as to its consequentiality.  JFK intended to withdraw in '65 from VN; his successor gave us the war, then the country split in two b/c of his policies and perceived indifference/hostility.  RFK needed to overcome two significant political hurdles before you could even put him in the WH --beating HHH for the nom, then Nixon in the general, the latter easier than the former.  At which point you could then start to talk about how he would have governed.  

    Certainly he would have ended the war quickly, tackled issues of poverty, and avoided engaging in corrupt activities.  But actually his brother had firmer more specific plans, some quite bold --and we know that from Bobby's own oral history account.    

    Parent

    ... probably would have forced a brokered convention that summer in Chicago, where he stood a very good chance of beating Hubert Humphrey, who was seen -- rightly or wrongly -- as LBJ's surrogate and had declined to participate in the primaries, preferring instead to work the backroom in garnering the necessary number of delegates for the nomination.

    I agree that Richard Nixon stood little chance of beating RFK in the fall of '68, and that's really the point. Robert Kennedy's assassination precluded any possibility of Democrats leaving their Chicago convention united, and in fact exacerbated tensions between the left and the right, which subsequently erupted in the streets.

    In the wake of Kennedy's death, the Dems splintered and Humphrey was hamstrung when George Wallace went his own way and took the Deep South with him. In a three-way race that otherwise wouln't have happened, Nixon was subsequently able to eke out a victory that was otherwise almost unachievable.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes, the context is crucial (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    to understand the impact of the RFK killing -- and not easy to impart, but you have done so well, Donald.

    The '68 convention mess also is so rarely given more than a couple of sentences in too many history books -- which also tend to date the disillusionment of the masses to Watergate, when that was just the coup de grace.  Many of us already were gone, and just saw Watergate as vindication of what we already knew.

    Parent

    While I've always believed Bobby (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:43:25 PM EST
    would have prevailed at the convention, and probably with Mayor Daley's help following his CA win, I can't avoid the argument that LBJ, operating behind the scenes to defeat his most hated rival, might have been enough of a force to tip the scales to Humphrey.  Close probably, but not quite, as with his late but unsuccessful 1960 convention effort which wasn't enough to stop JFK.

    But Daley was arguably in a better power position than lame duck Lyndon, and the Mayor was sick of Johnson's War and didn't think Hubert had the cojones to beat Tricky.  Daley wanted to back a winner and someone who would be sure to disengage from the war.  RFK fit the bill.

    Parent

    And who was the ultimate beneficiary ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:17:12 PM EST
     of RFK's demise? It only underscores what my grandfather -- a former GOP chair for L.A. County back when Earl Warren was California governor -- had always contended about Richard Nixon, almost from the moment they first met: He was a cancer on the body politic who would lead Republicans to grief.

    My grandfather couldn't stand opportunistic Red-baiters like Nixon and Joe McCarthy and the right-wing crackpots who adored them, which included my grandfather's own sister, an unapologetic John Birch Society member. He ran afoul of Nixon in 1950 when he expressed his disgust to the Los Angeles Times over the manner in which Nixon was freely smearing Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas in the U.S. Senate race that year. When Nixon won that election, he had my grandfather removed as chair.

    Parent

    Two pols benefitted mightily (none / 0) (#59)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:41:51 PM EST
    from Bobby's demise.  Obviously Nixon -- he greatly feared (the record somewhere no doubt shows) losing another presidential election to another Kennedy, and he barely beat Humphrey (thx to some illegal backroom dealing with SVN leaders).

    The other pol who benefitted was LBJ -- in two ways .  The first personal -- he hated Bobby with a white hot passion and didn't grieve a minute over his death.  

    And political, if temporarily and futilely -- the record shows that Johnson intended to get back into the nomination race after his withdrawal (or "withdrawal") announcement, around the time of the convention.  But the expected sympathy surge of support never materialized and his convention people had to tell him it would end in a humiliating defeat if he tried.  In any case having Bobby out of the way led him to probably believe the convention comeback would be all the more plausible.

    Parent

    RFK's killing actually didnt (none / 0) (#56)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    initiate but exacerbated the already existing deep division in the party -- begun over differences over Lyndon's War. You had the hawk wing (LBJ, HHH, Connally, senate Dixiecrats, and some union leaders) and the dove wing (RFK, McCarthy, and a dozen or so leading senate Dems) and not many in the middle.

    I also differ on your Wallace analysis.  He would have been all the more certain to run had Bobby -- someone he detested personally -- been the clear Dem nominee.  He was prepping to run (again) as soon as he arranged for his wife Lurleen to replace him as AL gov, providing him with a nice base of operations.  It was going to be at least a three-way race with or w/o Bobby.

    Parent

    Wallace did run in '68 (none / 0) (#58)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:31:02 PM EST
    (and did better than any third-party candidate since).  Clarify your point? as it's unclear to me.

    Parent
    Not sure what there is (none / 0) (#61)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:52:47 PM EST
    to clarify.  I said Wallace was going to run as an Indy no matter the Dem nominee.  I was and am unclear about what Donald was getting at when he said

    In the wake of Kennedy's death, the Dems splintered and Humphrey was hamstrung when George Wallace went his own way and took the Deep South with him. In a three-way race that otherwise wouln't have happened, Nixon was subsequently able to eke out a victory that was otherwise almost unachievable.



    Parent
    I read the verb tense (none / 0) (#64)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:10:24 PM EST
    i.e., "he would have been" as that he did not do so.

    As for Donald's intent, I'll let him address it -- but I read it as, and agree, that there was no way that HHH with his civil rights history would have worked out something, anything, with Wallace . . . but LBJ would have found a way.  He always did.

    Parent

    See my answer below. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    I was not very clear in my wording there. I think Wallace would've run, but his candidacy would not have been a significant factor up north to the extent it was with Humphrey as the Democratic nominee. My bad.

    Parent
    I agree that Wallace ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:34:48 PM EST
    ... probably would've run for president in 1968 regardless of who the Democratic nominee happened to be that year, and that he probably taken several of the same states he subsequently won down south.

    But with Humphrey as the Democratic standard-bearer, Wallace also took a significant chunk of anti-war, white working-class votes up north in states like Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio, which ultimately was enough to swing those states to Nixon. One could argue plausibly that had RFK been around to take the Democratic nomination in Chicago and unite the party on an anti-war, pro-economic justice platform, those states might otherwise ended up in the Democratic column.

    It's a fascinating subject and I could talk about this all day, but I do have to get back to actually doing some work before heading home for the day. We'll have to do this again sometime.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Crackpot Judge in Texas (none / 0) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:44:45 PM EST
    I guess I should never be surprised
    Crackpots are bigger in Texas

    Which begs the question: (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    How much pot could a crackpot spot if that crackpot wasn't on crack?

    ;-D

    Parent

    Lance Armstrong news (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:55:25 PM EST
    surprised BTD hasn't chimed in on this yet...

    Lance Armstrong says he will not fight charges brought by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, a surprising decision that sets the stage for the cyclist to be stripped of the Tour de France titles.


    Jeralyn is a Lance fan (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:09:27 AM EST
    so out of respect for her, I won;t be writing posts on the subject.

    FTR, I'm of the strong opinion that he engaged in systematic doping.

    Parent

    Change in Republican Convention (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:15:13 AM EST
    Romney will officially be nominated Monday night, instead of the traditional Wednesday night, partly because of the potential storm, and partly because of things to be worked out with Ron Paul supporters.  Romney will still give his acceptance speech on Thursday.

    Here we go again - another shooting incident, (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:50:43 AM EST
    this time outside the Empire State building in NYC:

    As many as five people were shot Friday in front of the Empire State Building in New York, a spokesman for the New York Fire Department said.

    Authorities converged on the building around 9 a.m. after reports of gunfire.

    Additional details were not immediately available.

     

    Now, just hearing that cops shot and killed the alleged shooter.

    Norway gunman Anders Breivik ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:56:50 AM EST
    ... declared sane, sentenced to 21 years - but experts say it will likely be a life sentence.  

    I hope so (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:06:18 AM EST
    Fewer than 100 days per victim for such a brutal crime is a complete outrage.

    Parent
    It does seem low, ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:01:00 AM EST
    ... but Norway doesn't have life sentences or the death penalty.  The longest fixed term is 21 years, with most people being paroled in 7-14 years.  They also have an indeterminate term that is set at 21 years and can be renewed in 5 year increments if the prisoner is deemed a danger to society, resulting in (up to) a potential life sentence.

    From what I've read, Norway created a new maximum penalty of 30 years for "crimes against humanity".  Not sure why this wasn't applied in Brevik's case.

    Parent

    ex post facto. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:16:59 AM EST
    Thére's my dailykos radio (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:14:20 AM EST
    I can hear you

    Looking forward to (none / 0) (#99)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:20:00 AM EST
    Mr MT's take on "No Easy Day" and if he thinks the author crosses the line regardless of what's between the covers.

    Parent
    He just heard this morning (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:28:39 AM EST
    That the SEAL was outed on Fox News.  What a bunch of phucking losers.  Mr MT says that when you leave service in special forces most of the people you serve with will beg you to not write a book.  They are all very uncomfortable with it, and he says that most of operators are mostly right leaning in their political philosophies but that no matter who the President is you never ever stab your President in the back, the President is the President.

    At Friday drinking, I've just decided to call it what it is...on Fridays we all drink together...I took a senseless survey about the President revealing secrets and I was pretty shocked.  I see the President as having to be as transparent as possible in order to preserve a democracy, but soldiers said that if the President says something then it is declassified.  I brought up government transparency and their eyes glazed over, they have little concept of that in their lives I guess.  But they repeated over and over again that the President is THE Authority over what is classified and declassified and he can say whatever the hell he says.  Well....Okay Then

    Parent

    I used to joyfully refer to "my Thursday (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    martini group."  But I changed it to "my Thursday drinking group" based on the reactions of the non-invitees.  

    Parent
    This isn't good news (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    going into the final days of an election:

    Household income is below recession levels.

    Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.

    From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.

    Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report, which analyzed data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. The recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

    Especially bad news when your main argument is that you inherited the mess and your plans have started to make things better.

    Additionally: (none / 0) (#119)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 03:53:08 PM EST
    U.S. Census report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007. Numbers in the report are adjusted for inflation and reflect 2007 dollar values.

    The report indicates that under Bill Clinton, median household income rose from $44,359 in 1992 to $50,557 in 2000, an increase of $6,198.

    During the Bush administration,  that median household income dropped from $50,557 in 2000 to $50,233 in 2007, a decline of $324.

    So.....

    Parent

    An unexpected critic of Joe Biden (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:13:02 AM EST
    Charlie Rangel

    Not that I think anyone is listening to old Charlie these days, but makes you say hmmmm...

    Rangel condemned Biden's most recent gaffe in a radio interview with The Perez Notes last night, saying the vice president's "back in chains" comment was directly alluding to slavery. (see the full video below)

    "Was he talking about slavery? You bet your ass he was," Rangel said. "Was he using the vernacular? Yes, he was. Did he think it was cute? Yes, he did. Was it something stupid to say? You bet your life it was stupid."

    "It's something that if a black had said it, we would have been laughing because we would know that deep down they may be beating the hell out of us but they ain't thinking of putting us in chains," Rangel continued.

    Good news, though, is that, being a good Democrat, he saved his worst for Romney - Ryan.

    NCAA women's volleyball ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    ... begins tonight (Friday, Aug. 24) and Elder Daughter and her Albany Lady Danes are in town to face the No. 5 University of Hawaii Rainbow Wahine in the season opener at the Outrigger Hotels Invitational. The other two schools at the tourney are No. 6 Stanford and St. Mary's, who play each other in the 5:00 p.m. opener. The Albany-Hawaii match is at 7:00 p.m.

    It's a very tall order for the Lady Danes, since Hawaii after all is the fifth-ranked team in the country, and it would be a HUGE upset if they somehow actually won. It'll probably be the only time you'll ever see me root against the home team. It will also probably be the largest crowd the Lady Danes will have ever played in front of at one of their volleyball matches, as tonight's match is a sellout, and upwards of 11,000 fans will be there.

    Last night, we hosted a party at our place for Albany, 93 people in all (team, coaches, parents and supporters). There's something about a road trip to Hawaii that brings fans out of the woodwork. It was fun, and our neighbors joined in and a number of them are also planning to attend tonight's match, and my mother flew out here from Pasadena for the weekend -- so there will be a sizeable contingent in Stan Sheriff Center rooting for Albany tonight.

    Talk to you all later. Aloha.

    Good luck to the Danes. (none / 0) (#116)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:58:53 PM EST
    Even though I am not in Hawaii to see the match ( which is too bad for me ) I will root for the Danes.

    Go, Danes!

    Parent

    Has to be great (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    to have her home for a match. I presume this Hawaii/Albany match was no accident of fate falling in your lap. Or was it on the schedule before she ever chose Albany?

    Parent
    They were invited 2 years ago. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    I used to work with the UH athletic director and have known him for years, and to its credit, the University of Hawaii does try to arrange matches with schools that have players from the islands whenever possible.

    So, yeah, it was really no accident that the Lady Danes were invited to this tournament, and the girls are very excited to be here. They're used to playing before crowds of anywhere from 300 to 600 people. Tonight, they'll be playing before a crowd of over 10,000.

    Since it's a round-robin tournament format, Albany gets to play three matches out here -- tonight against Hawaii, tomorrow night against Stanford, and Sunday afternoon against St. Mary's. They return to New York Sunday night.

    This is going to be very high-caliber competition for them, given what they're used to back in the America East Conference -- after all, Hawaii is ranked No. 5 in the country, Stanford is No. 6, and St. Mary's is No. 25 -- but it will certainly help get them ready for conference play. And still, the Lady Danes are the defending AEC champs, and they played Stanford pretty tough in the NCAA Regionals in Palo Alto two years ago before falling, so nobody better overlook them in anticipation of the next night's match.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Journalist Carol Rosenberg's twitter feed (none / 0) (#118)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    has been covering the trials at Gitmo, and she is now covering the impending tropical storm or Hurricane, whichever it turns out to be. Should be an interesting couple of days.

    From our "Fellini in Real Time" file: (none / 0) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:47:12 PM EST
    RNC member Pat Rogers told New Mexicos Gov. Susannah Martinez that she had dishonored the memory of Gen. George A. Custer by meeting with a group of American Indians. Un-phuquin'-believable.

    And of course, Mitt Romney steps all over his message once again, by making a birther joke that nobody's ever had to ask him for his birth certificate.

    What BTD said before about the GOP bears repeating: The Republican Party is a clown car.

    It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    that George Armstrong Custer did a perfectly fine job of dishonoring his own memory.  No outside help needed.   ;-)
    And I really wonder why nobody has asked Willard about his own father being born in Mexico.  Of course, George Romney was a United States citizen, since both his parents had not relinquished their U.S. citizenship, despite living in Mexico.  But if Willard wants to set up a straw man, somebody ought to ask him about his dad, who also ran for President at one time, although he lost the nomination to Richard Nixon- more's the pity.  In my estimation, George would have made a he!! of a lot better President than Nixon, and also a he!! of a lot better President than Willard could ever be.  

    Parent
    Agreed, absolutely. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:17:16 PM EST
    What Mitt Romney said: "I love being home, where but the both of us were born. No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate; they know that this is the place where both of us were born and raised."

    What Mitt Romney's cheering audience heard: "Hey, in case you haven't noticed, Ann and I are white, and those people in the White House are not."

    What a disgusting and vile little man Mitt Romney has turned out to be. The fact that his own church didn't recognize black men and the equal of white men until 1978 only serves to underscore how nauseatingly sick his so-called "joke" actually was.

    The late former Michigan Gov. George Romney was actually a good and decent man. I'm glad he's not alive to see his own son trash the family name like this, pandering to his own party's most extreme elements with his craven behavior.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes, George was a decent man (none / 0) (#124)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    I can't help but think that he must be rolling over in his grave regarding his son's behavior.

    Parent
    Native Americans... (none / 0) (#125)
    by desertswine on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 12:06:42 AM EST
    account for maybe 11-12 percent of the population of NM and is an important voting bloc - for the Democrats.  Pat Rogers is your run of the mill rw crazy. But there's no escaping them anymore.  

    Parent