Tuesday Open Thread

I spent all my blogging time last night and today on the Aaron Swartz post below. Here's an open thread for other topics.

< Did the Justice System Fail Aaron Swartz? | Zimmerman Defense Receives Trayvon Martin's School Records >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Guns and Gawd--don't cross us!! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 06:35:17 PM EST
    Kentucky sheriff tells the Botoxified One that he will defy ANY new gun laws, because the second amendment is like the bible: "You either believe it or you don't."

    Hmm. Curiously enough, I think the second amendment and the bible are alike too: they are both a bunch of mythology, monopolized by people who want the power to control other people through fear.

    They are similar... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by unitron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:09:52 PM EST
    ...in that the awkward wording written in different times hundreds of years ago makes descerning the exact meaning after all these years very problematic.

    I thought of this letter when I saw your comment.. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by vml68 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    awkward wording written in different times hundreds of years ago makes descerning the exact meaning after all these years very problematic.

    You have probably all read it before, but I saw it for the first time a couple of days ago.

    Dear Dr. Laura:

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

    When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

    I thought it was funny.


    made my day! completely awesome, thanks vml (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:54:37 PM EST
    I don't know how this happened but this (none / 0) (#81)
    by vml68 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    was actually a reply to Dr Molly's comment on fundamentalist and literalist thinking!!!

    West Wing reference! (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    LOL! (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:49:48 PM EST
    "Why can't I own Canadians?" Indeed, the U.S. petrochemical industry has been asking that same question for some time now.

    Laws - laws are for other people (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:33:55 PM EST
    I don't have to obey laws.

    New York is expected to become the first state to pass a gun safety measure since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, with a final vote scheduled for Tuesday. The comprehensive measure outlaws assault weapons and high capacity ammunition and requires New Yorkers who own military style firearms to register them with the state police. Gun magazine that can hold over 7 rounds of ammunition would be banned, the state will conduct more background checks and access to guns by the mentally ill will be drastically limited.

    Speaking against the bill, Katz warned that it transforms gun owners into "a new class of criminals overnight" and pledged to load his wife's guns with more bullets than is allowed under the proposed legislation:

    KATZ: After what happened to the young mother in Loganville, Georgia who defended her two young children against an intruder, this bill would turn me into a criminal because you can bet that before I leave to do the people's work, there will be more than 7 bullets in the magazine of my wife's firearm.

    Isn't the whole push right now (none / 0) (#33)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:28:23 AM EST
    For gun control (Gov.  Cuomo calling it an emergency), using fear as a factor?  

    Partially, but in this case, (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:23:12 AM EST
    there is actually something to be afraid of (see:  Newtown and one thousand other examples), unlike the paranoid fantasies of second amendment literalists or fundamentalists.

    Yup, or as they say, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    "you're not being paranoid if someone really is  following you."

    Actually, fear is less a factor than anger. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    And frankly, a lot of us are mad that sensible firearms policies are constantly being shelved at the behest of gun manufacturers. Our right to walk the streets and live our lives (relatively) free from fear, without having to worry about the potential for someone to engage in irresponsible gunplay.

    Let's get one thing straight here. Nobody's talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment; this is first and foremost about common sense, and about taking charge of our own lives and destinies.

    Poll after poll shows that the NRA leadership isn't even representing the wishes and desires of its own rank-and-file on what is obviously a very serious public health and safety issue. Rather, Wayne LaPierre & Co. are clearly urging everyone to put out the fire with gasoline.

    Sorry, but the answer to Travis Bickle is NOT Dirty Harry.


    Funny, I've been thinking about the similarity too (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    A common thread, IMO, is fundamentalist and literalist thinking - whether applied to the Bible or the Constitution.

    Non-fundamentalist theologians discuss religion, or God's word, as evolving along with humanity evolving over time. Fundamentalists object to this, obviously.

    I often wonder how this analogy applies to the strict constitutionalists.  Are they just fundamentalist thinkers as well?


    Bu-bu-bu-bu-but, ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    ... we'd have no good and earthly reason otherwise to smite the heathen and the nonbeliever, if we don't have a bible. It's ju-jus-ju- why, it's simply un-American, that's what it is! And indeed, what's the point of living, if we can't have some means to get rid of the people who get in our way?

    Cuts to Obamacare - one finger at a time (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:25:44 PM EST
    From the files of if it has a chance of keeping the cost of insurance down, eliminate it.

    When Congress struck a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, it also dealt a quiet blow to President Obama's health overhaul: The new law killed a multibillion-dollar program meant to boost health insurance competition by funding nonprofit health plans.

    The decision to end funding for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans has left as many as 40 start-ups vying for federal dollars in limbo. Some are considering legal action against the Obama administration, after many spent upwards of $100,000 preparing their applications.
    The Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan, or CO-OP, program was aimed at spending as much as $6 billion to help launch nonprofit health insurance carriers. It came into favor with Democrats when it became clear that a government-run plan, known as the public option, could not gain enough political support. link

    That (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:05:39 AM EST
    really stinks because that was one of the few good things about the ACA.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:32:00 AM EST
    Eliminating all the good things one at a time. By the time they are through the only thing left will be forcing people to buy junk insurance. That is if we are lucky and they don't use the existence of the program to force people into the exchanges at 65 instead of going on Medicare.

    In those states where Republicans control the state legislations and refuse to expand Medicaid, the poor will be even worse off then they are now because the law reduces the amount the government pays hospitals to treat people who lack insurance and have no means to pay for treatment. When the hospitals receive even less money, they will be much less willing to treat people then they are now.


    More on adverse effects and cuts (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:06:00 AM EST
    to what was good in health insurance law. This article talks about the adverse effects of cutting aid to the hospitals for treating more than their share of the uninsured. While this article focuses more on undocumented immigrants, many extremely poor citizens who do not now qualify for Medicaid due to severe restrictions to the current program are also treated at these hospitals. The citizens who will be denied access to Medicaid in red state will put an even greater burden on the safety net hospitals and people will receive even less care. Source NYT

    The federal government has been spending $20 billion annually to reimburse these hospitals -- most in poor urban and rural areas -- for treating more than their share of the uninsured, including illegal immigrants. The health care law will eventually cut that money in half, based on the premise that fewer people will lack insurance after the law takes effect.

    But the estimated 11 million people now living illegally in the United States are not covered by the health care law. Its sponsors, seeking to sidestep the contentious debate over immigration, excluded them from the law's benefits.

    As a result, so-called safety-net hospitals said the cuts would deal a severe blow to their finances.

    Another of the few good things in law that was curtailed (i.e. funding cut):

    The act did call for increasing a little-known national network of 1,200 community health centers that provide primary care to the needy, regardless of their immigration status. But that plan, which could potentially steer more of the uninsured away from costly hospital care, was curtailed by Congressional budget cuts last year.

    If this poorly designed law fails to provide good quality affordable health care and causes more problems then it solves, the failures will be used to support the misconception that the government should not be involved in health care. The fact that a bad Republican process was implemented rather than going with a single payer system that could work will be ignored.


    Have I mentioned lately (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:40:25 AM EST
    how much I hate these people?

    BTW (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:33:48 AM EST
    nice to have you back and hope your husband gets a great job soon.

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:12:59 AM EST
    I think I can safely say that we all missed you posting for quite a while.

    Luis Leon, Episcopal priest, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    will deliver President Obama's Inaugural Benediction replacing Louie Giglio, the Atlanta-pastor who  jumped/was pushed from that job after his past anti-gay preaching came into better light.

    Father Leon is pastor of St. John's Episcopal Church just across Lafayette Park from the White House.  St. John's is known as the "Church of the Presidents"  and the church at which the president and his family attend.  Father Leon came to the US from Cuba at age 12.

    St. John's  and  Father Leon welcome all Americans and is of a different stripe than Paster Giglio --who even in announcing his withdrawal could not help but register an inelegant au revoir: "his prayer would be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the Inauguration."

    This is (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    precisely the kind of thing that is annoying about Obama. He should have know about this guy before asking him.

    yes yes yes (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:47:58 PM EST
    "Along with our freedom to live our lives as we will comes an obligation to allow others to do the same. We don't live in isolation. We live in a society, a government for and by the people. We are responsible for each other. We have the right to worship freely and safely; that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peacefully; that right was denied shoppers in Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.

    That most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school students at Columbine and elementary school students in Newtown; and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent basis to tolerate; and all the families who never imagined they'd lose a loved one to -- to a bullet, those rights are at stake. We're responsible."

    --President Barack Obama

    Mark Sanford for Congress (none / 0) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:53:41 PM EST

    Not mentioned in the story, I thought he married his Argentinian love interest.

    He did have 37 ethics violations related to his term as governor, but I have a feeling he will make a comeback.

    Ethics violations? (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:04:20 PM EST
    Aren't those résumé builders for aspiring congresscritters?

    All he has to do is be a Repub (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    and very publicly declare that he's rediscovered the Lord, and he'll probably be in like flint.

    [Clears throat.] (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    That Was... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:43:08 PM EST

    From the NR interview in your link, (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    he is engaged but not yet married to her.

    Here are some more of his statements, much of it seems to be "OK, I did it, but everyone else did it/is doing it too." or "OK, I did that, but I made up for it by doing this:

    Look at the charges. There was a charge in there that I had an unitemized receipt for $40. That's one of the 37 claims. Does anyone believe that I'm trying to get some money out of the campaign? Forty bucks? There's some things that don't make sense.

    If you look at the house and senate, the senate never moved forward on impeachment. The house, after doing their study, dropped 32 of the 37 questions. Think about that. If you were to look at the history of my dealings with the house, you would know they weren't exactly a fan club. But even they went in and looked and said, "This is ridiculous."

    Every governor has traveled business class on international flights when crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific. [Governors ] Beasley, Hodges, Campbell, Riley, the current governor. The accounting office before 2009 would look at all of those receipts and sign off on them without question. Not only every former governor, every former secretary of commerce, a number of different senior staffers, and house and senate members -- in essence, the people who had been prosecuting the case! -- had been on the exact same trips I was.

    Some former governors wouldn't take business class because they took the state's private jet instead. When I came into office, we sold the jet. If you look at the Hodges administration, they spent just shy of $400,000 on that jet. Just the cost of that jet alone, selling it, you immediately lost a $10,000 monthly maintenance fee, you lost operating costs, and so on. Those savings alone paid for all of the operating costs of my flying.

    I'm the only governor of South Carolina who ever got into a single-engine Cessna owned by the DNR and used that for flights. We saved $60,000 per year because we kept the King Air 350 at one-seventh the operating costs -- it was cheaper. We discontinued the use of a particular airfield and saved $70,000.

    ... "hiking the Appalachian Trail." It's not the fact that he was chasing nookie in La Argentina, but that he actually departed the state surrepticiously, without informing the lieutenant governor -- or anyone else, for that matter.

    And for most if not all serving governors in this country, that's a very big no-no. A governor enjoys no legal executive authority once he or she steps physically outside his or her jurisdiction, i.e., leaves the state, and that authority will automatically pass to the constitutionally designated second-in-command until the governor's return. By not telling anyone that he'd be out of state, Gov. Sanford actually broke South Carolina law.

    In Hawaii, such a secretive departure would be considered a direct violation of one's oath of office to uphold the state constitution, which expressly requires the governor to inform in writing not only the lieutenant governor but also the Speaker of the State House and Senate President of his or her plans, before departing the islands for whatever reason.


    There is a distinction between being unethical (none / 0) (#54)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:48:53 AM EST
     and violating codified ethics laws or regulations.

     I don't believe he did violate a law or regulation in not informing anyone he was out of state. this issue was raised at the time.


      Ultimately, it was determined that on a previous trip to meet up with his lover he had used state money. There are specific SC laws addressing that.

      I believe, that apparently unlike Hawaii from what you say, SC has no constitutional provision or statute requiring the governor to give notice he will temporarily absent from the state. A provision stating the Lt. Gov. shall have the power to act during an emergency if the Governor is absent cannot be read to establish a law that the governor is required to give notice. And, it also can't be fairly read to grant the Lt. Gov. the powers of the governor whenever the governor is out-of-state. Defining an "emergency" might be ripe for dispute but in SC the Lt. Gov. has only that power when the Governor is temporarily out-of-state.

     Is it "unethical" and stupid to depart without telling anyone? Sure, but that's different than violating a law.


    As you said, it was unethical ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    ... for Gov. Sanford to tell his own staff that the was "hiking the Appalachian Trail," implying that he was still in South Carolina, when he was actually in Buenos Aires.

    I only mentioned the other part because in the majority of states, the governor is required to serve formal notice to someone else in authority, when it be the lieutenant governor or the leaders of the legislature, when he or she leaves the state for whatever reason.

    From a legal standpoint, most state or municipal chief executives cannot technically exercise their constitutional / statutory authority from afar, i.e., while out of state, and someone has to clearly be in charge should a situation arise needing immediate executive attention.

    We actually had one such situation three years ago during a major tsunami warning requiring mass evacuation. Both the governor and mayor of Honolulu were on the mainland, so crisis was in the hands of the lieutenant governor and city manager as acting governor and mayor, respectively.

    But when the mayor called from Pittsburgh to start issuing directives, he was told in no uncertain terms by the city and county's civil defense director that by terms of the city charter, the city manager was in charge, and not him. A week later when he returned home, he tried to sack that civil defense director, which unleashed a firestorm of very intense criticism from the Honolulu City Council and the general public -- and yet, he wonders aloud nowadays why nobody likes him. What an a**hole.

    Thank you for clarifying South Carolina law in that regard. That was rather enlightening. Were I a South Carolina legislator, I'd seek to clarify that law and the chain of command. A period of emergency is no time to be wondering or arguing about who can legally call the shots in the chief executive's absence.



    Well (none / 0) (#95)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:35:26 PM EST
      with today's efficient and instant communications technology, the whole idea that mere physical absence requires (or even makes a good idea) the transfer of power to another official an anachronism.

    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    ...but if memory serves me right, he was not in communication with anyone.  He was missing and again, my memory is that he was discovered by a reporter at the airport slipping back into the country, days later.

    Everything else aside, he went off the grid to visit his mistress on another Continent.  That kind of willful dumbassery alone should disqualify him from any public office regardless of the law or the morality of what he was doing.

    The odds of him being needed for an actual emergency are pretty low, but people did think he was missing at first and a lot of resources were wasted looking for him.  Grown-ups would tell people where they re going, maybe not what for, but they wouldn't put themselves in a position where people think you have disappeared.


    If you mean "disqualified" (none / 0) (#103)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:06:15 PM EST
     in the sense that people should not vote for him even if his only errant behavior was that episode, I agree. On the other hand, if you mean it in the sense of not eligible to hold office I don't think that should be the standard. To be "disqualified" in the legal sense should require something clearly spelled out in the constitution or a statute in effect at the time of the conduct.

    That might well be. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    Still, during a time of immediate local crisis when one must decide and act promptly, I think it's best that the person in charge be actually present and on location, and not thousands of miles away. As awesome as our modern technology can be, it can still be a very poor substitute for one's own eyes and ears at such times.

    Mr. Sanford reflects: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    "There's a larger philosophical question. In life we're all going to make mistakes, we're all going to come up short," Sanford said. "The key is, how do you get back up and how do you learn from those mistakes? . . . But I think that the bigger issue is, don't judge any one person by their best day, don't judge them by their worst day. Look at the totality, the whole of their life, and make judgments accordingly."

    He added, "You've got to look under the hood. There's that sensational headline, to look and say, 'Wow, big ethics charge.' Beyond the headline, what does that mean? You say, 'Hm. There were 37 counts the ethics committee brought, and did you know half of those are for taking a business-class ticket?' You look under the hood and you say, 'Wow.'"

      So, hey, half of the 37 were for flying business instead of coach on the state dime. It's not as if he went first class and why should a governor have to follow the regs that were obviously intended only to apply to those lesser state eployees?

      And, many of the rest were just using the State airplane for travel unrelated to his official duties. Is it really fair to expect him to pay for his own personal travel or forego having a personal life? You know how seriously he took his duties. He was really doing the taxpayers a favor by ensuring he wasn't tied up in airports or in a car on the road and freed up time to be diligently working for them.

      Finally, I believe the remainder of the charges were all related to converting campaign funds to his personal use. Shouldn't that just be a matter between him and the donors? I mean after all if the people who donate to his campaign don't mind him personally enriching himself what's the problem?


    Plus he's very humble! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:35:45 PM EST
    "I'm not saying it was God-ordained or anything like that," Sanford said, "but a series of rather miraculous events have coincided here, that did not escape the attention of the friends who were urging me to look at this."

    I Couldn't Believe What He Said... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    ...back then and now.  The god fearing man isn't saying god wants him to be in Congress, but a series of miracles...

    I swear, I would love to live one week of my life in that kind of delusion, just to see what it's like to believe that everything and every F-up is all a part of some master plan for me because I'm ordained because of my devotion.


    DoJ to Kim Dotcom: We never asked you... (none / 0) (#10)
    by unitron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    Tweet from Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:58:13 PM EST
    if that has any value...

    Person briefed on WH gun violence proposals described them as most sweeping attempt at gun reform since '68 (post RFK/MLK)"

    if true, i wish he were that bold... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    ...on the economy. far more people affected. and just as much boldness is required. why can he talk about guns as things, but not money as a thing?

    ack, why give myself the headache so close to dinner?



    Just bear in mind (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by sj on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    that some people were calling the ACA the most progressive legislation since the New Deal.

    Just for perspective.


    Remember, Obama's "boldness" still ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:17:13 PM EST
    ... has to pass Congress. He doesn't enjoy unilateral authority. If he can't get the votes in the legislative branch, I don't care how bold or cutting edge he is as a chief executive, all he will have accomplished is the political equivalent of swinging for the fences and striking out to end the inning.

    I learned from personal experience how hard it can be to round up a majority of votes on those issues where public opinion isn't necessarily cut and dried -- and we were just having to deal with a 51-member Hawaii State House of Representatives, where we only needed 26. I can only imagine the obstacles one might face with a 435-member body like the U.S. House, when you need a minimum of 218. That why I admire Nancy Pelosi so much. She's a master at it.

    Sometimes, you just have to take what you can get, with the idea that you're going to come back later to grab the rest of it. Several singles can bring the runner home just as effectively as any home run.


    Much better (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:30:52 PM EST
    to take your three swings than concede and walk back to the dugout. But in this case it appears he'll be swinging for a homerun, and about a dozen singles.

    More "boldness" (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    Obama to use DC "Taxation Without Representation" plates on presidential limousines.

    I applaud the move.  Good for him.

    Why did it take him 4 years?

    In a statement, White House officials said Obama will use the protest license plate because after living in the city for four years, he has seen "first-hand how patently unfair it is for working families in D.C. to work hard, raise children and pay taxes, without having a vote in Congress."

    "Attaching these plates to the presidential vehicles demonstrates the President's commitment to the principle of full representation for the people of the District of Columbia and his willingness to fight for voting rights, Home Rule and budget autonomy for the District," the statement said.

    Wait - wasn't he a Senator for 4 years before becoming President?  He may not have been a resident who needed DC plates, but didn't he see "first-hand how patently unfair it is for working families in D.C. to work hard, raise children and pay taxes, without having a vote in Congress?"


    Because Bill Clinton did it (none / 0) (#52)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:22:41 AM EST
    and from the start of his time in D.C.?

    The plates (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    only came into existence in 2000, so yes, Bill Clinton DID use them for his last weeks in office.

    No hestitating.


    November 2000 (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    is when they were issued, to be exact.

    He has ZERO imagination (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    That is my problem.  Sigh. Do you really think I believe he's king?  Come on. He simply is NOT a creative person, at all, and does not understand the genuine power of it in rhetoric, conversation and conflict. When the other side is sooooooooo lacking creative chops, it is a powerful indictment that the President doesn't seem capable of even beating them at a game that is supposed to be "our" specialty.

    I'll say it again, artists and those who genuinely create and change the social landscape, DO NOT get elected in America. Only in other countries and former dictatorships. Very odd, very sad, and very destructive to this nation ultimately.


    Given that the last "artist" who ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    Dalder: "I'll say it again, artists and those who genuinely create and change the social landscape, DO NOT get elected in America."

    ... got elected and changed America was the actor Ronald Reagan, small wonder why most people should be pretty skeptical nowadays of such dreamers.

    Reagan launched us on an unsustainable fiscal and economic trajectory, and for the better part of two decades everyone admired the rocket's red glare, until the bomb burst in mid-air with the Crash of 2008.

    Speaking for myself only, I want my political leaders to be grounded in reality.


    So, what reality are the current (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    crappy crop of political leaders grounded in, Donald?  The reality of catering to the monied interests?  The reality of making sure the powerful stay powerful and don't have to be accountable for their actions?  The reality of balancing budgets on the backs of the old, the poor and the sick?  The reality of indefinite detention, drone killings, disregard for the rule of law?  The reality of an authoritarian mindset that can drive an Aaron Swartz to his death, but ignore the real crimes of the banksters and Wall Street?

    Yeah, that's some really great reality these leaders have going on, isn't it?  

    And Ronald Reagan as an "artist?"  Come on, Donald, Reagan wasn't an artist even when he was "acting," so for you to hold him up as an example of what kind of leadership we could expect from someone in the creative world is just a cheap and demeaning shot at that segment of the population.

    If Reagan's all you've got, hey, at least Obama's not alone in his lack of imagination, huh?


    Reagan wasn't an artist (none / 0) (#109)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    Vaclav Havel is my idea of an artist who led a country. We will never have a poet, a writer or a musician leading this country.

    Washington Post covers it (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    NY Times covers it (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:09:17 PM EST

    From the article
    "More serious steps -- like those taken by Australia, which reacted to a 1996 mass shooting by banning the sale, importation and possession of semiautomatic rifles and by removing 700,000 guns from circulation -- are seen as politically untenable. In the 18 years before the new gun laws, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and in the decade afterward, there were none, according to a 2006 article in Injury Prevention, a journal."


    Or perhaps this one (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:08:43 PM EST
    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#16)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 06:36:41 PM EST
    Bad Turkish SPAM, that still doesn't include any recipes.

    Are you sure? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:31:31 PM EST
    I put the text of the comment into Google Translate and here's what it came up with:

    Fully tested, implemented, and has been photographed with the famous recipes Recipes recipes Turkey's most widely followed

    And the link translates as:

    famous recipes

    I can't help it - I think this is hilarious!


    Speaking of recipes... (none / 0) (#22)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:08:48 PM EST
    Many thanks to you and Casey for your soup recipes.
    Zorba, I thought of you today...I made Spanakopita and Kreatopita for dinner.

    Oh, you;'re so welcome! (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:21:08 PM EST
    I've often thought Jeralyn should do a "Friday Food" or "What's Cooking This Week" thread - I love getting inspiration from the many good cooks here, trying some new things - it's fun!

    I don't go there anymore (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:39:50 AM EST
    so I don't know if this is still a custom at DKos, but at one time, rather than engaging a troll or other obnoxious user looking to mix it up, commenters would post recipes as a response.  I'm thinking there are some people who could generate dynamite recipe threads.

    I think I may have done that once, here, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    but since Jeralyn prefers that we stay on-topic in non-open threads, I've refrained from doing it, as tempting as it's been on occasion.

    And it's been pretty damn tempting lately.


    I hear you (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sj on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    It seems to me, though, that a couple of recipes are much better than "everyone" getting caught in the hooks of the troll and generating a bunch of comments that only get deleted.

    But that's just me.  Not my site, so not my rules.  

    OTOH, some of the most trollish behavior is on open threads... :)


    Maybe I'm misremembering, (none / 0) (#72)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    but as I recall, way, way back in the day at DKos when they were still doing the recipe response to trolls, they wound up with enough recipes to actually have a  DKos cookbook.  
    I can't remember though, if they actually offered one for sale, or if they were just talking about it.  I think they made it available, though.
    Yes, that was one of the things that I found amusing at DKos in the early days.  Like you, I haven't been back there in a good long while.

    You aren't misremembering (none / 0) (#82)
    by sj on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    They did create the Trollhouse Cookbook, but the links in here to the cookbook itself are no longer valid.

    Too bad (none / 0) (#89)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    I should have downloaded it back when I could.  There were some pretty good recipes on DKos, as I recall.     ;-)

    I wonder if there are any (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    Looney tunes recipes.

    The only one I can think of might be (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    for ""Thylvethter'th Thufferin' Thuccotash."

    [Oh, dear.  That was really lame]


    You made me laugh (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    There may not be enough recipes (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:45:54 AM EST
    to go around even if you use everyone ever published.

    As probably everyone has heard, there was a shooting at a St. Louis business school. According to reports, a currently enrolled student, allegedly shot one administrator before fleeing to a stairwell and turning the gun on himself.  digby has examples of how this event has generated even more right wing conspiracy theories. Going to need a whole lot of recipes for stuff like this:

    Military-grade psyops! There's NO WAY LEOs are going to be in on something like this. If they are, we have a serious, SERIOUS problem at all levels of government in this nation. To the point that an armed rebellion and reinstitution of the basic tenets of the Constitution would be necessary.

    This is live-action, real-deal theater being orchestrated by Obama and his minions. I really cannot wait for it all to come to a head. I want to either get the shooting started or die at the hands of Obama's stormtroopers.


    Or this combination of conspiracy and the ultimate thrill of anticipating torturing another human being:

    Not the brightest dirtbag in the dump. Now torture him for information on who put him up to it.

    Definitely need more quality mental health programs in this country.

    Attention Yman: digby has a lot of quotes for your collection.


    Holy Moley (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    That is some serious crazy.

    Me too (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:03:58 AM EST
    but we could just start the conversation ourselves in an open thread.

    And sometimes (none / 0) (#41)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:33:34 AM EST
    We do that.    ;-)

    Sounds like you are feeling better, vml. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:28:01 PM EST
    And you are welcome for the soup recipe.

    it seems to be ok (none / 0) (#114)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:49:45 PM EST
    when you chefs go to recipes and I saved two of those chicken soup ones.  Thanks.  It's also ok when you go to actress' dresses after the different awards shows.  Those...meh.

    maybe they are spam recipes (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:44:57 PM EST
    Spam recipes (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:46:49 PM EST
    I love Monty Python (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:07:29 PM EST
    And I can't hear or read the word "Spam" without thinking of them.     ;-)

    I can't hear it (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    without thinking of Private Charles Lamb and the spam lamb.

    Oh my Lord! (none / 0) (#92)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:23:18 PM EST
    How could I have forgotten about that one!  Radar and "Private Charles Lamb"!

    Yes, that is what I meant... (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:09:15 PM EST
    my words were not working!

    That's actually what I figured, Ruffian (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:10:49 PM EST
    but I wanted an excuse to provide the link.

    As a Muslim (more or less) nation... (none / 0) (#25)
    by unitron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:13:25 PM EST
    ...I'd think they'd consider all pork products (although in the case of stuff like Spam you're sort of taking their word for it) bad.

    Hence, no recipes.


    Obama & Biden (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:54:03 AM EST
    presenting their gun control plan now on CSPAN

    Gun Control Main Points (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    Proposed Laws

    1. Universal background checks
    2. Restore Assault weapons ban
    3. 10 Round Limit on magazines

    A step in the right (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    direction at least, but I'd like to see that assault ban include a provision outlawing possession of existing ones, else there'll still be a massive number out there, including the ones bought now and in the weeks/months leading up to passage.  Put in a buy back incentive and give a grace period after that.

    Last I checked, the DiFi-related assault ban acts only prospectively.  At least O should be trying for total elimination, then negotiate down from there if abs necessary.  Put the heat on the House GOP, expose them as the loony extremists they are.

    10-round clip maximum sounds about right at this point, even a little ambitious.  Did he mention gun show loophole issue?


    Yes, that was the major loophole (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    in the previous legislation that made it much less effective. Seems that DiFi's legislation is repeating the same mistakes.

    The buy back component in Australia's legislation was the reason it was much more effective than our legislation.

    Also, I am somewhat concerned about the criteria for information gathering of the proposed mental health data base and how that information will be used. The majority of people with mental illnesses are not a danger to society and I would hate to see the information about their illnesses to be used to prevent them from obtaining employment etc.

    On the whole, I do think Obama did a good job on laying the whole thing out.  


    I agree we need the retrospective buyback (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    The complete plan (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:59:58 AM EST
    22 pages has been
    posted by the NY Times

    Easier to read (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    The gun show loophole (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    would be covered by universal background checks.

    I'm watching it (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    and he is saying basically everything I think.

    including the point (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:15:13 AM EST
    that we don't live individually, we live in a society, so that individual rights must always be weighed against others' rights.

    AND (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    a direct callout on NRA thuggery.

    Go Barack!


    Pretty impressive (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:30:32 AM EST
    called out everyone to act immediately. Especially enjoyed the part of the letter from Julia(?) who took a poke at Congress.

    RE: NRA thuggery--TV ad hits new low (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    Saw that ad on my TV this morning... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    almost couldn't believe what I was seeing/hearing.

    I find it disturbing that the NRA is putting out material that seems designed to call their devotees to arms and ratchet up the anger and fear; I can't imagine this ad or others like it will have any appeal for rational people.

    Given how much of the anger is being directed at Obama and Biden, the Secret Service must be plotzing over security for Monday's inaugural ceremony and activities.


    Impossible, at this point, for the NRA (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    to be seen as anything but irrational. Therefore, all they have left is appealing to other irrational people. Which Republican politician will stand up to them? Ha! Just joking...irrationality everywhere.

    And, yes, the ad plays right into the hands of those already predisposed to want to see harm to the Obamas. This president has received more death threats than any president in modern history.


    Also implementing (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    23 Executive Actions.

    Quick Capsules found here


    NCAA football (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    appears just as was done to the Irish by Alabama, Chip Kelly has changed his mind again and is now dumping Notre Dame.

    Got my Kelly's mixed up (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:51:41 AM EST
    It's the Ducks Kelly that's skipping town

    And where's Mr. Chips going? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:52 PM EST
    Sorry, but once the college football season is over, my attention wanders elsewhere. Your post is the first I heard of it.

    Chip Kelly is heading to the Eagle. (none / 0) (#104)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    Oregon is awash in broken-hearted football fans today. When no deal was struck last week we thought Chip's flirtation with the NFL was over. Clearly, we did not grasp the lengths the Eagles would go to in order to lure our beloved coach to their lair.

    Oh well, Chip is gone. Now we get to obsess over who will replace him as head coach. Top candidate seems to be offensive coordinator Mark Helfrich. People are talking like that is a done deal. They seem not to know that in its last session the Oregon legislature passed our own version of the Rooney Rule. Helfrich cannot simply be anointed. Oregon must interview minority coaches for the job. They are not required to hire a minority coach, but this must be a good faith effort, not a sham. We shall see.

    Sayonara, Chip. It was good while it lasted.


    Chip Kelly cannot leave fast enough for me.. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cashmere on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    So happy not to have to deal with his arrogance anymore.  I certainly will not be watching any Eagle games and think that Kelly's sliminess will mesh well with the sliminess of Michael Vick (notorious for his animal abuse).  Yes, I know he served his time, but I cannot forgive his treatment of innocent dogs.  

    Just had to get this off my chest... I feel better now.  Proud Portlander here that is not broken-hearted at all!


    Armstrong (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    Looks like Lance bared his soul to Oprah.  Seems like he's admitting something everyone already knew, but it's odd for someone to actually admit something they have denied for nearly a decade.

    The thing I always wondered, is it possible his testicular cancer was a result of steroid use.

    Crocodile tears, as far as I'm concerned. (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:51:36 PM EST
    This man not only lied for years, but he accused others of lying about him, and conventional wisdom is that he's just never been a particularly nice guy, so...while I suppose it's possible that he's actually sorry for the doping and the lies and impugning the character of others, I think it's much more likely that this is, once again, just about Lance.

    I'm normally someone who believes in second chances, but considering how many times he had the opportunity to come clean, I'm not feeling that.

    F**k him, and the bike he rode in on.


    Well, if he follows the pol script (none / 0) (#78)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:24:33 PM EST
     he'll proclaim he has found the Lord and intimate those unwilling to forgive the repentant sinner lack Christian compassion.

    so I don't think so.

    Lance began riding professionally in 1992. (none / 0) (#105)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    He was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996. He won the Tour de France for the first time in 1999.

    Before concentrating on the bike, Lance was a triathlete. And was reasonably successful as a bike racer before the diagnosis. So, maybe he was doping before the cancer. No way to know unless he tells us.

    I did hear that riding a bike, I am guessing riding a bike a whole lot, is a risk factor for developing testicular cancer.


    Ya, that's my point. (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:38:33 PM EST
    He was a good, perhaps even very good, athlete before the cancer. After, he was as close to superman as a rider can be. Just my guess based on the facts in hand. But, you're right, as my dad loves to say, "we shall see."

    Who Knows... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    ...but plenty of dopers out there not winning the tour or any other events.  Just seems like that type of cancer is something more common to people taking steroids.

    Obviously, no one, including Lance or his doctors, would know that answer unless he was 100% clean.

    I would find it odd that someone would decide after having cancer to take steroids.  I would think at some point his morality was bouncing around in his brain.  And if it were me, I would think being clean, not just drugs, but food and all health would be something I would concentrate on.  Then again maybe that mortality moment wanted a legacy.

    It's a shame, before it became obvious many people, including myself thought he was being harassed.  Now to find out he was actually a ring leader of sorts, and now not only is he coming clean, he has decided to take the snitch route.  The very people he demonized, he is becoming.  I don't know how anyone can have any respect for this man.

    Speaking of, does anyone know what channel the Oprah network is on for DirecTV ?  I tried to find it this morning to tape the interview and I can't.


    Re "Angels in America" as a new opera: (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:57:06 PM EST
    Definitely worth the drive to L.A.  Hungarian composer took a bow. Kushner didn't, although he toldbLAT he might show up. Orchestration is fascinating. Wonderful voices and vocal lines. Roy Cohn and Mr. Lies were not as edgy as in the play.

    Interesting article: (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    Nowitzki Goes to Space... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    ...not really, but this video shows his bobblehead going 94,630 feet into Earth's atmosphere.

    I (heart) bobbleheads.