Wednesday Open Thread

I have a list of 50 or so things to do before I move. I'm on number 3.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

I dumped the spam from the last week. I'll try to check it every night.

< Not Your Average Narcos Review
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When is someone going to ask (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:04:49 AM EST
    Kim Davis about what God thinks about her three divorces?

    lol. When will somebody ask God what she (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    thinks about Kim Davis?

    St. Kimmy of KY (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:55:09 AM EST
    It's actually way better than even that.

    I had not heard the rest until Dan Savage last night.  She has, I hope I get this right, two kids while married to her first husband that were sired by her third husband and adopted by her second husband.

    Oh saintly tower of virtue and morality, please tell us more about the righteous path.

    What a world.


    On the other hand (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    it is entirely possible for someone to hold, on faith, various beliefs that seem logically inconsistent to a rationality-oriented person. Nor is it unusual for a religious person to have a past life of sin, even by her own professed standards. To be clear, none of the foregoing has anything to do with the Clerk's total lack of any legal defense in the present situation.

    I was Going to Post This in the... (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    ...last thread until I remembered a new thread was out there.  Sorry about the duplicate info.


    ...she has long skirt and hair to her waste.

    She has been married 4 times, divorced 3 times.  Remarried one dude twice, her current 'redneck hillbilly' husband who has stated he loves the second amendment, implying he will shot and ask questions later.

    She has two children out of wedlock, then found jesus 4 years ago, she is born again, the worse kind of 'christian' on the planet because they want to make up for all their bad deeds by insisting everyone follow their new beliefs.

    She has stated she has no savings, which I am guessing is to influence the judge.  I don't get the feeling the courts are pleased with her BS.  IMO he is going to slam her hard, but the idiot brigade will pony up the funds and this is going to drag out as long as the idiot brigade keeps financing her religious view.  I hope she is held personally responsible for any costs of her decision.

    I am guessing the rest of the crew, including her son, will cave and issue licenses.

    Remember, she doesn't want to discriminate, so no one is getting a license, gay or straight.


    Davis until then might have seemed an unlikely candidate to wage a moral war over the institution of marriage. She has acknowledged through her attorney that she had made "major mistakes" before she was born again.

    But that Sunday morning, as the preacher spoke from the book of Galatians, Davis -- then 44 years old -- repented and pledged the rest of her life to the service of the Lord.

    At the time she repented in the church pew, Davis had been divorced three times, according to court records. Her current husband, Joe Davis, arrived at the courthouse Tuesday to check in on his wife as a protest raged on the courthouse lawn. It's been an ordeal for her, he said. People have threatened to kill her and set their house on fire.

    Joe Davis, who described himself as "an old redneck hillbilly," pointed to the rainbow-clad protesters on the opposite side of the lawn.

    "They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways," he said. "But they won't accept our beliefs and our ways."

    He said he and his wife have been together 19 years, but declined to elaborate on how much of that time they've spent married.

    Court records detail Kim Davis' turbulent marital history: She has been married to her current husband twice, with a divorce and another husband in between.

    She married her first husband, Dwain Wallace, when she was 18, and divorced him in 1994.

    She acknowledged in a 2008 divorce filing having had two children in 1994 while she was not married.

    In 1996, at age 30, she married Joe Davis for the first time. They divorced in 2006.

    The next year, at 40 years old, Davis wed Thomas McIntryre, though their marriage lasted less than a year. She re-married Joe Davis in 2009.

    The real question is would Kim Davis sign Kim Davis' additional 3 marriage certificates ?  She couldn't, not based the bible's view of marriage.

    Pretty damn convenient for he she didn't find jesus while she running around committing every man/wife sin in the the book.  Other wise she would have more than one heaven/hell issue on her plate.

    And while I doubt the judge will throw her in jail, I think that is were she belongs.  I don't care if she is a martyr for the lunatics, and as someone mentioned yesterday, an example has to be made, your new founded religious views do not allow you to refuse to sign something stating the information is accurate.

    Although a cop refusing to sign a ticket because of religious convictions would be awesome, just kidding.  But just as ridiculous if the speeder way gay.

    Speaking of, the media has failed to point this out, she is no way authorizes a marriage, straight or gay, her signature is a validation of the technical information on the certificate.  She is the only one who thinks she is sanctioning gay marriage by signing the cert.


    I don't have a problem with (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    anyone who, for whatever reason, and by whatever means, makes a commitment to change his or her ways.

    What I do have a problem with is people who decide that they must impose their new-found commitment on others.  In the case of Kim Davis, she has, by virtue of her position as county clerk, the power - or so she believes - to dictate in the name of the Commonwealth of Kentucky who is and isn't permitted to marry.  She believes, apparently, that by not issuing any licenses, she is not discriminating against anyone, but the reality is that she is infringing on the rights of  all those seeking a license, no matter their sexual orientation.  

    If she cannot carry out her duties as County Clerk, she should, as a matter of principle, resign.  


    I don't really want to see her go to jail (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    either, but the problem with financial sanctions is that others can volunteer to pay them, thus putting no pressure on her to comply. (The point of a contempt sanction -- whether it be financial or even jailing -- is to encourage/pressure the person to comply with the court's command, not to punish her for noncompliance.) And I would guess that she has more than enough supporters to raise enough money to pay plenty of fines. A conundrum. Perhaps the judge could order her to pay a financial sanction and specifically stipulate that she pay it personally, but I am not sure that could be enforced, nor am I sure it would even be lawful.

    The Judge ordered (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    the entire office into court....

    The Judge could try and find someone who will issues licenses and fine or jail the rest....


    I am sure the judge is planning (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    to give them an educational lecture about the separation of church and state. I hope he has something to say to her lawyers also, who seem to be ideologues and on that basis to be giving their clients very bad advice. Of course, I don't really know what advice the lawyers are giving. But the arguments they have made in court for the last several weeks are frivolous (in the legal sense) and hard to think are even being advanced in good faith.

    Well What Do You Do... (none / 0) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    ...if you are a lawyer and you don't have a legal leg to stand on.  Rhetorical, the point being if they could make a good argument it would have been made, all they have is frivolous.

    Here is what I don't understand, how is it not a crime to disobey the SCOTUS ?  Basically, above, you mentioned the only reason for jail would be to influence her decision, but she is breaking the law, no ?

    What I am taking away, there is no recourse for elected officials who refuse to abide by the SCOTUS decisions beyond temporary jail for contempt and fines that most likely paid by others.  This seems like a gigantic loop-hole in that anyone with enough funding can say F the SCOTUS.  And if the judge is on board, no jail or fine.  Not that the judge is on board in this case.

    The idea that their ruling, had all clerks stood firm, means absolutely nothing if people don't willingly comply is bothersome to me.

    I would also think she took some sort of pledge to the Constitution, which the SCOTUS has ruled it meant this, meaning she is not defending the Constitution or even abiding by it, and that is not a crime ?

    I really don't it.


    I didn't say it wasn't a crime (none / 0) (#125)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:18:23 PM EST
    I said that the proceeding that will take place tomorrow is a hearing on a citation for civil contempt. Civil contempt can only lead to a coercive sanction, not a punitive sanction. She may also be committing a crime, but the federal judge who issued the ruling she is disobeying cannot convene a summary proceeding to determine that. His sole concern at this point is to secure compliance. Other comments have pointed out that her conduct may constitute a crime under Kentucky law. Or it may (also) constitute criminal contempt, which is a federal crime. (See also here.) And anyone who uses "threats or force" to prevent the judge's order from being implemented could also be committing a federal crime. Escalating the possibilities, there are also potential violations of federal criminal civil rights laws in play here, both for individual state employees and for anyone conspiring with them (not excluding lawyers).

    You Did Not (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    I was asking why isn't it a crime to disobey the SCOTUS.  

    I think you covered it somewhat, but I am still unclear as to why this particular instance relies on her getting a chance to be ordered to do something and not complying when she is already not complying.  I believe the stay expired on 08.31 so she is not doing what she was ordered to do.


    Again, I do not understand where you got (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    the idea that the hearing tomorrow is about "her getting a chance to be ordered to do something and not complying when she is already not complying." She has already been ordered, and she has already disobeyed. There is nothing that a civil contempt hearing can do about that past misbehavior, although there are many other remedies that have been discussed in other comments, and in my last one. Tomorrow will tell what the judge will do now, looking forward not back, to ensure compliance. What he or anyone else does about past non-compliance is a separate question. Doing one does not preclude the other.

    BuzzFeed (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    reports on the motion filed by the lawyers

    Kentucky Clerk Files Brief Arguing She Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court

    In simple terms (none / 0) (#150)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:22:57 PM EST
    the argument is... you can't find me in contempt in my day in court because I haven't had my day in court?

    That's one of their weaker arguments (none / 0) (#162)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    of which they make several. None of them are even moderately strong, that I can see.

    Here's a very good (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    rundown at BuzzFeed .   Lots of stuff I did not know

    Few Options To Remove Kentucky Clerk From Office
    There are few options, under Kentucky law, for addressing an official who doesn't want to do their job.

    A person who wilfully disobeys an order (none / 0) (#163)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:37:18 PM EST
    of the United States Supreme Court can be prosecuted for criminal contempt. (The linked case saying so was decided in 1906. A very interesting story.) Again, no one here has said, nor am I aware of any source that would claim, that it "isn't ... a crime to disobey SCOTUS," so you wouldn't have any reason to ask why it isn't, Scott. If your comment is about Rowan County, Ky., clerk Kim Davis, though, I am not aware of her being under any order of the U.S. Supreme Court (directed at her to do something), so the question doesn't really apply. The ruling is Obergefell is a binding precedent, but not an "order" that she can be punished for disobeying, and the Court's denial of a stay of the district court's order directing her to comply (even while she appeals that order) is not an order directed to her and commanding action. The order that she is disobeying and might now be compelled to obey (and in the future might be punished for disobeying) is the order of U.S. District Judge Bunning.

    At what point is she at the end of (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:52:56 PM EST
    the legal road?  She went to court initially and was ordered to issue the licenses.  She appealed that decision, and lost again.  The Supreme Court then flat-out refused - unanimously - to hear the case, thus allowing the original ruling to stand.

    So, what else is there?  

    Well, I found this:

    U.S. District Judge David Bunning's order has been upheld by a federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court. But Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis continues to disobey it, saying she cannot do something that violates her religious beliefs.

    Bunning has scheduled a hearing for Thursday. He could hold Davis in contempt of court, which could lead to fines or jail time.

    But on Wednesday, Davis again asked Bunning to delay his order so she can appeal an earlier decision on a related issue. Davis had asked Bunning last month for an injunction against Gov. Steve Beshear for ordering her to issue the marriage licenses. Bunning refused to hear that motion. By doing that, Davis' attorneys argue that Bunning effectively denied their motion, which they have the right to appeal.

    Davis' attorneys asked Bunning to delay his order while they appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    What are the chances she wins on this issue?  It just seems like more delay of the inevitable - at the expense of people who have the right to get married.


    You have to be more careful about (none / 0) (#178)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:51:11 PM EST
    what order, exactly, has been upheld. Davis's appeal of Judge Bunning's decision requiring her office to implement the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision locally is pending before the Sixth Circuit. The appeal is in its early stages, and has not been decided. The issue is whether she has to comply with Judge Bunning's ruling (and thus with Obergefell) while that appeal is pending; in legal terminology, whether she gets a stay pending appeal. Because of the low probability of success in her appeal, and the balance of harms to the two sides if a stay were granted, a stay has been denied by Judge Bunning; that denial (of a stay) was then upheld by the Sixth Circuit, and again by the Supreme Court last week. Her right to appeal the merits of the decision still stands, but the current status of the matter is that she is out of appeals of the question whether she has to comply in the meanwhile.

    Duly noted, Peter - thanks for the (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:10:41 PM EST

    This is why I have come to hate "the news:" seldom is anything ever explained with any thoroughness.


    Her Lawyers (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    are the Liberty Counsel

    Liberty Counsel is a non-profit public interest law firm and ministry that provides free legal assistance in defense of "Christian religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family."[1] Liberty Counsel is headed by attorney Mathew D. Staver, who founded the legal ministry with his wife, Anita, in 1989 and currently serves as its chairman. Anita L. Staver, his wife, serves as president of Liberty Counsel. A close partnership exists between Liberty University, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Liberty Counsel; Staver serves as Liberty University's law school dean.[1] In 2004, Liberty Counsel became affiliated with Liberty University/Falwell Ministries and Liberty Counsel opened an office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

    Perhaps my feelings are skewed by my own experience with these sanctimonious hypocrites.   I have seen how they work up close.  Around here they are seen as a sort of religious mafia.   They are even rumored to be in the meth business.   Though supposedly forbidden to use it.   It is my belief that unless you have seen these people up close you will not understand.   I have seen on her face the surprise that comes from being challenged.  She, they, are NOT used to that.  They almost always get their way because, God.

    I agree completely with Dan Savage who says this person is a total fraud.  Her goal is to be martyred, go to jail for a while and then have a book ghost written and hit the religious freak lecture circuit and never work another day in her life.

    This is why I am hoping for astronomical fines.  She has reportedly already been working with the same groups who raised millions for the people who owned the anti gay pizza parlor who made millions from the internet after saying they would not make pizza for a gay wedding.


    Adding (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:14:37 PM EST
    at least around here they are not seen as legitimately religious.  Lots of very legitimately religious folks around here who despise them and see them as nothing more than business that exploits the laws with religion.

    If the Clerk's claim of a religious objection (none / 0) (#120)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:00:49 PM EST
    were legally relevant, which I believe it is not, then the judge would be well warranted in putting the burden on her to prove (a) what exactly her beliefs are; (b) that they are religious rather than political or personal in nature; and (c) that they are sincerely held and not pretextual. When the fundamentalist members of the Dover, PA, school board were caught lying in their depositions (or maybe it was their trial testimony) about whether they believed that creationism ("intelligent design") actually had a scientific basis, that was the end for them in the federal court challenge to their pretend "alternative science" curriculum.

    Well (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:07:08 PM EST
    A and B seem pretty easy for her.  As far as C I can't imagine how one would prove her beliefs are not sincerely held.  

    As other comments have said, even if it was not always her belief it could be now.

    I'm curious what you think of her lawyers proposed solution of taking her name off the documents.  They said last night that she would be ok with it if her name was not on the document.


    Many an applicant for conscientious objector (none / 0) (#126)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    status under the draft law (or seeking a discharge from the military on the same grounds) have thought their sincerity and religious basis would be obvious to a neutral (or hostile) decisionmaker, only to find out otherwise, and be denied.

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:42:02 PM EST
    i really do.  I just saw there are now three.  Two more clerks In KY are refusing to issue licenses.



    Rule 11 applies to attorneys (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    so fine the attorneys too?

    The Rule 11 question (none / 0) (#106)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    Do we know anything (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    about the judge in the contempt hearing.

    Wiki (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:44:03 PM EST
    On September 4, 2001, Bunning was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky vacated by William O. Bertelsman. Bunning was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 14, 2002, and received his commission on February 19, 2002.

    You absolutely cannot predict what (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:07:26 PM EST
    a federal judge will do, based on their prior political affiliation or the name of the President who nominated him/her.  As for the bio, you left out the best part:
    Bunning is the son of former Sen. Jim Bunning, a Hall of Fame baseball pitcher who represented Kentucky in the United States Senate from 1999 to 2011.

    And his father (none / 0) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:27:24 PM EST
    threw a perfect game for the Phillies back in 1964 which is also unlikely to have an effect on tomorrow's hearing, unless Judge Bunning throws a few fastballs right past Kim Davis and sends her to the jail cell bench.

    As I recall, Sen. Bunning ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    ... seemed to go off the rails with increasing frequency at the end of his second Senate term. He crassly predicted at a 2009 Hardin County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg would be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months.

    There is reportedly one (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:33:23 PM EST
    of the office employees who has no problem issuing licenses.  

    Personally I hope she goes to jail and gets fines.   Big fines.


    You need an edit button for that post (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    Unless you want one of the office employees who has no problem issuing licenses to go to jail and get big fines.

    I think that (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    most of us know what Howdy meant.  D*mn that "no edit" function!    ;-)

    A tale of two counties (from NYT reporting): (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    Flavis McKinney, 72, a retiree, said he had come to the courthouse "to stand up for God and his word, and to stand up for our clerk."

    Shalma Cercone, 22, a student at nearby Moorhead State University, said, "We're out here trying to support love.  Christianity supposedly supports love in all ways, so it seems kind of contradictory that they're out here, I guess discriminating."  She added, "Its 2015, Times have changed, and I think every one that's an American citizen needs to realize that."

    And, then there is the nut of the problem: "She's a hero," said Florene Whitt, 68, of Morehead, a retired housekeeper who is related to Ms. Davis by marriage (which one is not stated), "she's standing strong against the gays.  And, I agree with her. The Bible says husband and wife. Not two women, and not two stupid men. This world has become so sick that it is ruining our younger generation."


    Wrong (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:38:09 PM EST
    Shalma Cercone, 22, a student at nearby Moorhead State University, said, "We're out here trying to support love.  Christianity supposedly supports love in all ways, so it seems kind of contradictory that they're out here, I guess discriminating."

    And way out of context...

    Christianity does support love. But it condemns homosexual acts in both the New and Old Testament.

    It also condemns fornication in all its forms including incest.

    It also condemns divorce except in certain situations.

    Too many people forget these details.

    So all this posturing is silly. If you take a job that says issue marriage licenses, then issue marriage licenses or resign and go to church on Sunday and rant all you like.


    Paul (none / 0) (#165)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:45:10 PM EST
    said things against homosexuality.   Jesus did not. Not one thing.

    And, Paul has a poor track record.  He also wrote that slaves should be subject to their masters.

    The Old Testament says all kinds of things that most people ignore.


    Apostolic Christian Wiki (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:48:43 PM EST
    A minister opens to a random Old Testament passage, and sometimes discusses it briefly
    The minister selects a hymn to be sung by the congregation, the congregation sings, and then the minister prays out loud
    The minister opens to a random passage in the New Testament - this passage serves as the basis of most of the sermon, although the Old Testament passage (or fore-reading) is often referred to as well

    The Old Testament (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:51:20 PM EST
    was been fulfilled by the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. So that wipes the punishments called out for various acts. But, does that mean that if God saw something as a sin, it no longer is a sin? Some will say that is exactly what Christ did. He died for our sins and that we can be forgiven by accepting him as our savior and not repeating the sin.

    Yes Paul did. And Jesus said render unto Caesar which can be seen as slaves obey. Plus there's confusion over slave vs bondsman, etc. But that has nothing to do with homosexuality.

    As for Paul only, we don't know who wrote Jude which also has some strong condemnation, but you have a good point. Never the less, if you toss out Paul then you wipe out a good part of the NT.. unless you want to say he was right on this and wrong on that.

    My position is simple. I believe that people should be responsible for their personal actions.

    And if their actions do not harm someone else then we should keep our long and pointed noses out of their lives. If God disagrees with their, or my, actions then I am sure he will do as he desires.



    She is an Idiot... (none / 0) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    ...that failed to verify the sex of someone and married a transgender fairly recently.

    A transgender man and his wife were issued a marriage license in February by the Kentucky county clerk who, in defiance of a US supreme court order, cited "God's authority" this week as reason to deny paperwork to same-sex couples.

    Kentucky clerk denying licenses to gay couples has married four times

    On 26 February, Camryn Colen, a transgender man, and his wife, Alexis, went to Kim Davis's office to obtain a marriage license. The clerk's office didn't ask to see Camryn's birth certificate, which identifies him as female.

    "She took me at face value and judged a book by its cover," said Camryn, 30, of Davis. "She shouldn't do that; she should just see two people in love and grant them the ability to get married."

    Camryn and Alexis, 21, married hours after receiving the license - a decision that has since left a "bittersweet" taste in light of Davis' decision to buck a supreme court order and outright refuse to issue marriage licenses.


    The more I find out about this person the more I realize she is wholly unfit for the job she was elected to do.  She never checked the birth certificate, that seems like a pretty big deal when your job is to validate that the people are who they say they are.


    McKinley/Denali (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:22:19 AM EST
    I have been to Alaska a number of times.  One way to give away your "visitor" status is to refer to the large peak as "McKinley."  It is a matter of Alaskan pride that the mountain is called Denali.

    I have been waiting with bated breath for the Palin response to Mr. Obama accommodating a request that the Alaskan delegation to Congress has been pushing for decades, and stalled by the Ohio delegation.  This is a WIN for Alaskan Republicans.  Hard for them to accept that Obama delivered it.

    Here is Brisket's blog, in which she whines: "By the way, no one is buying the 'Denali is what the Alaskans have called it for years' line. I've never called the mountain Denali .. and neither does anyone I know ..."

    Here is the money quote from her mother's concession speech, I forget which one.  

    "And getting up here I say it is the best road trip in America soaring through nature's finest show. Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun."

    But, isn't it awful that Mt.McKinley's (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:53:59 AM EST
    name change was by dictatorial executive order, And, awful because Obama.

    In a news flash for some Republicans, President George W. Bush changed, by executive order 13428, the name of Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Rico to El Yunque National Forest, on April 2, 2007.  President Bush made the name change to better reflect the cultural and historical feelings of the Puerto Rican people, according to a WH spokesperson.


    Better Yet... (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:18:35 PM EST
    ...the head of the meathead brigade called it Denali in her gubernatorial resignation speech.  Denali was also the Secret Service code name for her.

    And getting up here I say it is the best road trip in America soaring through nature's finest show. Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun.

    Link w/ Video

    Also... Sen. Murkowski


    I found the authority (none / 0) (#132)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:55:56 PM EST
    ...for the name change, a 1947 act of Congress  Here is the money 'graph:

    Public Law 242
    AN ACT [To provide a central authority for standardizing geographic names for the purpose of eliminating duplication in standardizing names among the Federal departments, and for other purposes.]

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior, hereinafter called the Secretary, conjointly with the Board on Geographic Names, as hereinafter provided, shall provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature and orthography throughout the Federal Government. The Secretary may exercise his functions through such officials as he may designate, except that such authority as relates to the final approval or review of actions of the Board on Geographic Names shall be exercised by him, or his Under or Assistant Secretaries.

    Note: the referenced Board on Geographic Names is appointed by the president.


    So...if people can talk about Biden (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    maybe getting into the race, why not talk about Romney getting in?

    "He's someone to whom civility means a lot. The whole Trump thing really bothers him," a close Romney adviser told me--and some Romney-ites are only too happy to talk up the prospect of their man jumping into the race if the Establishment fails to stop Trump, whose support in Iowa and New Hampshire is currently greater than Jeb Bush's, Scott Walker's, Marco Rubio's, Chris Christie's, and John Kasich's combined. "Mitt wants to run. He never stopped wanting to run," a senior member of his 2012 team told me. Other Romney-ites, watching this cycle's candidates falling short, feel a sense of vindication after all the attacks they endured after Romney's failed 2012 bid. "These guys like Walker and Perry, they were big deals in their states, but you get them onto the national stage and it's a different story," a former Romney adviser told me. "It's like they were in middle school, and now they're freshmen in high school and they're getting their faces slammed in the toilets."

    Charlie Pierce:

    Still, the idea makes sense on paper. The field has been hijacked by an elaborate confidence man, and by a physician whose political ideas are the equivalent of bleeding people with leeches. The dynastic scion of this cycle is campaigning in a style that reminds you of nothing more than Willie Mays in his sad career denouement with the New York Mets. The single-digit crowd is a spectacular gathering of warmongering chickenhawks, failed governors, and outright theocrats. The smart money, such as it is, has got to be looking for a lifeboat right now, and why not choose the one that got you almost all the way to dry land last time? I'm not sure, but it may be time for me to dust off that old fedora, the one with the green feather, and take up my old job as a speechwriting consultant from last time.

    He's Mitt Romney, b!tches, and he's all you got left.

    My bet is that neither are running (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:05:44 AM EST
    OTOH (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    i really really really hope Mittens jumps in to save the day.   I would love to see what Donald did to him.

    Frank Brunu admires (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    Biden but urges him not to run. But first Bruni must again tell us how much and why he detests Hillary Clinton:

    But while many Democrats have enormous respect for him and he's done plenty to deserve it, this isn't really about him. It's about Hillary Clinton: her presumptuousness, the whole email mess, the sloppy administration of the Clinton Foundation, the sense that scandals are as inextricable from her political identity as pantsuits.

    Yes, whenever Bruni (and MoDo) (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:45:30 PM EST
    discuss whatever, he manages more digs on Clinton than an archaeologic discovery.  It may be careerism and/or facing a blank slate as deadlines approach--always a good filler.

    Well (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:40:24 PM EST
    doesn't that just drip smarmy sanctimony.

    Bruni is a long time Clinton... (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:02:26 PM EST
    ...well I will use the term 'critic' to be charitable. If the Daily Howler archives are still active you can see how his journalistic malpractice helped elect GWB.

    god I love this (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CST on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:36:28 AM EST
    "He's someone to whom civility means a lot. The whole Trump thing really bothers him,"

    This describes a lot of northeast republicans to a T.  Nevermind that a lot of the policy in question is abhorrent.  We've got to be polite about it and put "lipstick on that pig".


    There's a great line... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    in the Bessie Smith biopic "Bessie" you reminded me of that kinda applies...

    "White folks in the south don't care how close you get as long as you don't get too big. And white folks in the north don't care how big you get as long as you don't get too close."

    Romney (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:20:39 AM EST
    jumping in is completely irrational. It's not like he's going to take any voters away from Trump.

    I think the GOP establishment is (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    just utterly desperate to find someone, anyone, who can end the nightmare that is Donald Trump - and Ben Carson (not that the more establishment candidates on the roster are really any better).

    Problem is that to the extent the GOP has pandered to that segment of the party, to the extent they have allowed themselves to be associated with Fox News, making a deal with the devil just to win elections, this is the result - this is the monster they have created.

    So, now they realize they may have to live with it, and they are grasping at straws for a way out.

    Looking ahead to a possible Trump/Clinton race, I cannot even begin to fathom the level of misogyny that will be generated; I don't think I can take it.


    I'm not (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    sure the misogyny is going to be any worse from Trump than it would be from any of the other Republicans.

    But I agree they are grasping at straws.


    It's Less Sutble... (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    ...which IMO is one of the things I hate about living in the south, the subtlety & politeness of ugly.

    At least you know what Donald thinks, and as ugly as it is, he will never have a hidden camera moocher class moment.


    Anne (none / 0) (#169)
    by Politalkix on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    Irrespective of whether you can take a Trump/Clinton race or not, a lot of Clinton world folks would love it. They will not have to talk about issues anymore. Trump will make misogynist remarks and HRC will talk about Trump's toupee, misogyny and xenophobia. Issues like Wall Street thuggery, income inequality, etc will go to the back burner.

    Rubes on both sides however will be roused with insults and counterpunches flying back and forth. And then when it is all over, Bill will go and play in Trump's golf courses and the Clintons will show up with adoring gazes (recall the photograph from the Trump wedding event) at Trump celebrity events and laugh with him at the Donald's stupid jokes.  


    Now I just feel ill. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:12:36 PM EST
    Regardless of whether there are people in Clinton-world who want to see it, my sense is that the media would wet their collective pants to see it happen - after, of course, they beat up on Clinton for pretty much just being Clinton, and after they milk the Biden will-he-won't-he flirtation until we all just beg for the media to get a room - a big room - so we can be spared the orgiastic mutual masturbation they can't stop engaging in.

    Ugh.  Just...ugh.


    This is one of your least intelligent comments (none / 0) (#174)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:15:11 PM EST
    The Iran Deal (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    looks to be a done deal with enough Senators now backing the plan to prevent any potential veto override from the GOP.

    I don't get the anti-deal (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    commercials running on t.v.

    They are aimed at the militaristic wackos on the right.  But they needed to convince Democrats in order to block the deal.  

    Are they so insular that they can't help it, and they are only able to toss their own talking points back and forth?  

    The t.v. commercials run by the anti-deal groups are a waste of time and money. The consultants sure fleeced some right wingers....


    Wealthy People (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    Attempting to gain a political edge through the use of their money and failing is not a waste of money, but rather the only known successful version of trickle down economics.

    I doubt that... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:22:27 PM EST
    It doesn't trickle past News Corp., Time Warner, GE, Disney, Viacom, & CBS.  The trickle stops there.

    Anybody else seen... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    the film "Kill The Messenger", currently on heavy rotation on HBO?  The based on a true story of investigative reporter Gary Webb, who you may recall revealed the CIA-backed cocaine dealing to fund the Contras, which in part caused the rise of crack cocaine.  It was a pretty good film.

    Ed Snowden kinda reminds me of the late great Mr. Webb...the way the story became about Webb/Snowden instead of the scary truths they revealed about our lawless government.

    Also was left to ponder if the CIA is involved in heroin dealing today, with the streets awash in smack now like they were with crack in the 80's.  And pondering how the CIA is so much powerful today than they were in the 80's..scary f*ckin' thought!

    Snowden? (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:32:49 AM EST
    The same guy that thinks Bin Laden is eating a grilled Mahi sandwich with a side of conch salad, while sipping on a Gully Wash in the Bahamas this afternoon?

    Good a guess as any... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:34:25 AM EST
    I think he's got his old office back in Langley, clean shaven and going by the name of Oliver Laden.

    I have it good authority (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    that Bin Laden is currently living in West Bank settlement and also playing Fagin in a dinner theatre revival of Oliver!

    ... and going by the name of Ophelia Uppe.

    Just saw it (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    very good.  

    I remember Carl Bernstein in the Seventies (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    talking about the fact that going back to the Fifties, the CIA had employed, at one time or another 400 American journalists from our "independent press", and that the Church Committee had redacted that information from it's final report..

    Of course the weasels all tried to destroy Gary Webb..  


    I think they succeeded in that effort, (none / 0) (#64)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    didn't they?

    I'm afraid so... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    if in fact Webb shot himself in the head twice after being blacklisted by CIA stooges in the media and unable to support his family.

    Too coincidental for the CIA's Most Wanted Man in America to also be the one in a million shot suicide that requires two bullets for me...I ain't ever buying that sh*t.


    Two bullets to the head (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:44:39 PM EST
    is pretty much hired assassin sop practically since they invented handguns..

    A country that employs Contra and Cuban ex-pat terrorists, thugs, and drug dealers and destroys a Gary Webb is a country that can not long endure..


    Perhaps it's a country... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    that should not endure...when Webb broke this story of all stories, the nation was more interested in Bill getting blowies and hardly even noticed.

    Gloria Steinem (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:35:30 PM EST
    was at one time a CIA asset.  The idea was to show the Left in Europe to stay in the Democratic process as Liberals, like Steinem, rather than turn to Communism.  Or so the story goes.

    and she dated (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    Mr "power is the greatest aphrodesiac" Kissinger. Thats a big strike two.

    Yes, "Kill the Messenger" (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    was a very good movie. Cowardice v courage. Courage loses.  Unnerving and unfulfilling ending.  Made me think about the journalist, Michael Hastings and his end at the hand of an exploding Mercedes--a little less conspiratorial with news of remote "killing of a jeep," by hackers.

    Michael Hastings was traveling at ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    ... speeds of up to 120 mph in a southbound direction down Highland Ave. He apparently lost control of his vehicle as he crossed Melrose Ave., collided head-on with one of the stately old date palms which align the roadway median, and likely died instantly.

    The impact was so violent that the engine of the Mercedes CL 250 which he was driving separated completely from the drive train, and landed intact on someone's curb nearly 150 feet south of the point of impact, on the corner of Highland and Clinton St. The sudden impact and violent detachment of the engine caused the gas tank to explode immediately. A security camera recording from a neighborhood pizza parlor on Highland, just south of Melrose, shows Hastings' car whizzing by, and the ensuing explosion only seconds later.

    I happen to know this particular area of Hancock Park quite well because my aunt, uncle and cousins used to live on N. McCadden Place, which is only one street to the east from where that accident took place, and I used to spend a lot of time there during my youth. Area residents have long had a problem with speeders on Highland Ave. particularly during the wee hours, because the road is wide and completely straight without any traffic signals and stop signs between Melrose Ave. and Beverly Blvd.

    Since it's pretty obvious from the video that Hastings was traveling at an unreasonably high rate of speed as he passed by the pizza parlor, it's easy to understand how he could've quickly lost control of his car and hit the big palm tree in the median just down the block. Toxicology reports showed trace amounts of marijuana and methamphetamine in his system, but otherwise the coroner's report concluded that he was not drunk or otherwise physically impaired at the time of the crash.

    From my take of the evidence, the person most responsible for his death appears to have likely been Michael Hastings himself. There was no bomb, because an explosive device would have shredded his car into pieces and scattered them up and down the street, including the engine -- which, again, was found intact 150 feet to the south of the main wreck -- and that's clearly not what happened here. So there was no conspiracy, only the loss of a great investigative journalist through his own reckless driving behavior.



    Any thoughts on why he was (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    going 120 on Highland?  I know that area too.   120 mph is not typically the speed for that area.  

    Yup. I rode my bicycle to work (none / 0) (#181)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:59:02 PM EST
    down that street every day for nearly a year, in 1985-86. Had to wear ski goggles over my glasses to do it (in addition to my helmet), because the air pollution was so bad that particulates would otherwise get in my eyes and blind me. The air is actually much better now, I hear.

    Yes, it is much better. (none / 0) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:49:35 PM EST
    When I was growing up in Pasadena in the 1970s, we used to have smog alerts over 200 days per year, which meant that the air was of such unhealthy quality that it was advisable for most people, especially children and the elderly, to stay indoors. Summertime was especially brutal.

    That's no longer the case. In 2013, L.A. had only 42 smog alert days. And for that vast improvement, we can thank the 1970 Clean Air Act, which mandated the creation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Resources Board to oversee and mange the legislation's enactment, and that Act's 1990 amendments, which really tightened up air quality standards. That said, 42 smog alert days is still 42 too many.



    I simply don't know. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:27:42 PM EST
    Was Michael Hastings agitated, angry or even suicidal? Given that he's no longer with us, it's irresponsible for me to speculate when I really don't know.

    Newspaper accounts at the time of the accident recounted the fears and concerns of close friends and family members that after 14 years of sobriety, Hastings had once again started doing drugs, and the post-mortem toxicology report would seem to validate those suspicions. But the report also only found trace amounts of pot and meth, certainly not enough to have rendered him impaired physically in those early morning hours.

    But given my own experience as a driver in the Hancock Park area, I would note that there is a slight but very distinct rise and fall on Highland Ave. as it crosses the intersection with Melrose Ave. If you remember the area, you're perhaps aware of that, too. Because of that rise, most drivers on Highland slow down considerably when approaching Melrose in either direction, even if they have the green light. But Hastings, who had only recently moved to L.A., was likely unaware of it.

    Per the LAPD report, traffic cameras on Highland show that Hastings' Mercedes coupe ran at least two and possibly three red lights at a very high rate of speed while approaching the Melrose Ave. intersection from the north. When Hastings hit that cross street, his car became briefly airborne as it crossed the intersection, before landing very hard just east of Pizzeria Mossa's valet stand, as evidenced by the tire marks left in the street.

    According to Detective Connie White from LAPD West Traffic Bureau, who was the lead investigator, these were marks left by a sudden impact of tire to road, and not skid marks made by a driver's application of the brakes. She concluded that Hastings had already lost control of his vehicle by the time he had sped past the pizza parlor, and then his car hit the palm tree and exploded mere seconds later.

    We have to accept the fact that life is peppered with random incidents, and some of them can be fatal. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I have to conclude that Michael Hastings's own reckless behavior behind the wheel that early morning caused the crash which killed him.

    People who promote conspiracy theories about his death need to provide evidence in support of such, and not simply depend upon their own self-feeding suspicions of government, regardless of however well-founded they feel those suspicions to be.



    Thanks, k-dog (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:32:49 PM EST
    I just watched the movie based on your recommendation....

    I am glad a I watched it.   I had remembered the CIA cocaine story as a crackpot story about the CIA wanting to get African Americans hooked on crack.   But it was more about the Contras and the CIA attempt to get money to them.  The running of drugs was just the means to an end.

    I believe Webb.  The right in this country was insanely obsessed with Central America--and killing rebels who were trying to overturn military dictatorships......


    The John Birch wing (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    of the Joint Chiefs and intelligence community seems to a large extent to have hijacked U.S foreign policy in the early fifties and sixties..

    People should never forget what people like Lemnitzer, Lemay, and Edwin Walker proposed doing to oppose "communist expansion" in the Carribean and in Latin America back then. They were unhinged; like homegrown jihadists..


    El hombre, (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:56:02 PM EST
    is at it again.  Or still.   On Jeb! "He is a nice man, but he should really set an example by speaking in English while in the US."

    Mr Robot (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    remember the delayed season finale tonight.  Delayed because it contains a scene similar to the on air shootings last week.

    Every time you mention this show, (none / 0) (#186)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:40:10 PM EST
    I think of Mr. Roboto, the '80s Styx song.  This time I googled up the youtube.

    That old video is tough to watch.  A lot of great acts have turned into smeared messes.


    Haha (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:07:14 AM EST
    Jennifer Rubin GOP voters are morons

    Whose campaign is she (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:10:07 AM EST
    looking to work for?

    Seriously, aside from the contempt she clearly has for Donald Trump, she also apparently thinks the GOP/conservative voters are way down there on the IQ scale, as are the candidates themselves.

    I've decided that it isn't at all funny that (1) this is the state of the electorate, and (2) this is the state of the candidates.  Maybe one deserves the other, or one is the result of the other - I don't know.

    I just know that I spend most of my time now in a state of utter befuddlement that any of this makes sense to anyone.


    I don't (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:32:07 AM EST
    know that it is the state of the electorate but it certainly seems to be the state of the GOP. When you feed your voters a constant diet of garbage then you get an informed bunch of voters. The GOP is going to have to do something about Fox News and talk radio if they are ever going to be a rational political party again.

    I think what will be really interesting to me (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    Over the next few weeks is see how the "moderate" attacks pan out.  It could go a number of ways.

    1 - Trump could become less moderate.  No one will care what his past views are.

    2 - Trump could tell everyone to shove it, that his views are better, and people will still love him and fox will implode.

    3 - Trump could tell everyone to shove it and people abandon him and everything is nice and shiny in the GOP.

    Let's just say I'm really hoping for door number 2.  I think it presents the first real crack in the GOP economic rigidity we've seen in a long time.  I hope it finds a way to sustain itself past this election (after Trump presumably loses).


    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    so far the attack ad Jeb ran was meh. It was basically saying the same things the GOP has been saying about Trump and nobody cares. I would think number 2 is most likely because that's been the history with Trump.

    There's no way anything goes back to nice and shiny after all this. Trump has gotten so much attention you would have to be living in a cave to not know exactly what he stands for. I don't see how the GOP de-Trumps itself at this point. Those Trump voters sure aren't going to show up for Jeb after seeing Trump. Maybe someone like Ted Cruz would be able to pick up Trump's voters if he faltered.


    More Options Than 3... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    ...like Donald remains the same, so does his disciples, and Fox News get behind him once they swallow that large inevitable pill of reality.

    I get the feeling they could find a video of Trump F-ing a goat and he would only get more popular.  No one cares Kim Davis was married 3 times, that Trump used to support abortion, or that the 14th Amendment is here to stay.  They care about what they are saying today, and today he is unhinged, but the kind they like a whole lot.  If they had any sense they stop getting rolled over by every charlatan who uses religion to dupe them, again and again.

    But what else are they going to do, get behind HRC ?  Same with Fox, they either get on board or hand HRC the Presidency for 8 years.  Trump has shown he is King Dingaling.

    We had this exact same discussion over Romney, the crew did not like him, but in the end, he was their guy.


    yea but Romney (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:52:08 PM EST
    also played ball.

    His willingness to capitulate on issues was astounding.

    Trump won't.  And I agree that is what may happen, but that's also kind of what I mean by Option 2.  They'll play ball with him, and perhaps in the process lose their economic dogma.


    If By 'Played Ball'... (none / 0) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    ...you mean Evangelicals/Baptists/Fox got on-board with a Mormon, then yes.  Just kidding, but that was one of their main objections, something he was not able to change, much like Donald, a fundamental part of his being that they will most certainly have to comply with if they wanted any sort of chance in winning the election.

    When originally polled, people said 'no', but by the election, they were all on his team 100%.  The notion that Fox News/conservatives are going to splinter for any reason is IMO absurd.  They might be dumb, but not that dumb.  Republicans without the religious faction can't win, and vice versa.

    What I find really funny, republicans hate their own so much that the top three candidates are not republicans in the normal sense.  I mean seriously, they know what they are dealing with and they are saying, give us a douche bag, a lunatic, and a professional failure, and we will choose them before actual republicans.

    They hate the monsters they created and their solution, create dumber and more reckless monsters.


    No what I meant was (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    Romney ditched all his so-called moderate positions in order to win the nomination.  He said anything Fox and Friends told him to say.  Specifically on healthcare, but other things too.

    I don't see Trump doing that.


    I Know... (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    ...that is why I said just kidding.

    But my point was this, they B & moan about Romney or Trump and GWB, but in the end they will all get behind their candidate, AKA no splintering of the party.


    Jennifer Rubin (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:13:11 AM EST
    is a moron and a GOP establishment mouthpiece.   Her fretting condescendtion pleases me.

    Me too (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:21:43 AM EST

    Funny (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:33:27 AM EST
    on Mourning Joe they are having vapors over the recent polling that say 66% of Donald Trump supporters think Obama is a Muslim.  This is delivered with somber side eye by Mica who quickly and parenthetical adds under her breath that "it's 12 points higher than the "main stream" of the Republican Party"

    If 66% is "12 points higher" (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:56:18 AM EST
    then 54 percent -- a significant majority -- of Republicans (or perhaps, Republican voters) hold the same willfully ignorant, bigoted opinion. And, inferentially, are immune to factual information.

    tee hee (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    Where have they been for the last seven years?

    Exactly - that is what amazes me about all (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    of this GOP 'concern' about Trump and his supporters...they are the same 25% of the party that have always been there. The GOP has depended on their votes in the last however-many election cycles. Now they have a mouthpiece that catches the media's attention and shines the light on the crazy. I do give Trump credit for calling out the GOP on their hypocrisy.

    According to (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    polling it's now over 50% who think that way.

    Ready or not, here it comes (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:16:46 AM EST

    GM embryos: time for ethics debate, say scientists

    Leading UK research funders are calling for an urgent national debate on the ethics of genetically modifying human embryos and other tissues to prevent serious diseases.

    The plea has been prompted by scientists' rapid progress in developing a powerful tool called genome editing, which has the potential to transform the treatment of genetic conditions by rewriting the DNA code of affected cells.

    The title says "scientists say".  It seems more like science funders say.

    "Blowhards who can't do science say" (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    The Chinese reach for the stars.  

    - while B/S addicted western conservatives reach for their caves.


    Okay, so I've been listening (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    to a lot of Radiolab podcasts on my commute lately, just kind of catching up, so I just heard about CRISPR. I don't know what they mean about "research funders" but I think the ethics discussion is not only warranted but long overdue.

    You might like the podcast. I love Radiolab, I get all kinds of science-y stuff in a way that doesn't put me to sleep.


    Discussion is good (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    discussion started by funders, which is what it says, is a bit troubling.  Of all the things out there that might be scary I think genetic engineering is the most fertile ground for truly horrifying abuse and misuse.  Naturally it is equally fertile ground for miraculous possibilities.

    Very dangerous mix.  IMO.

    But discussion, sure.


    One of my favorite (none / 0) (#143)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    Jurassic Park quotes

     Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.


    Does (none / 0) (#9)
    by FlJoe on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:11:04 AM EST
    anybody else get homicidal urges when watching this vile creature and his demon spawn spew uncontested lies, or am I just oversensitive to sociopathic war criminals.

    You are not alone (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:39:37 AM EST
    They are detestable.

    They think Joe will run, I hope it proves to be yet another thing they get wrong.


    Cheney convinces me (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    evil does exist.

    Personally, I shy away from ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:38:04 PM EST
    ... regular use of a loaded term such as "evil," because it too easily lends itself to hyperbole and we've certainly seen much worse in history than Dick Cheney, relatively speaking.

    But that said, I'm definitely of the opinion that Cheney is a likely sociopath. Given his public statements and political behavior, he's proved himself positively Nixonian, and is one of the most amoral individuals to have ever held high office in this country.



    If he is not actually evil, but (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    "merely" a sociopath, it could at least be said, I think, that he used his power to tap into the worst parts of people's character and consciousness in order to satisfy and carry out his own sick agenda.

    I might even go so far as to speculate that the events of September 11th, rather than cause him any particular emotional pain, just provided him with all the reason he needed to sell his dark and damaging vision to a country that was paralyzed with fear and grief.


    I'll certainly agree with all of that, Anne. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    After all, Cheney himself said to the late Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press only five days after the 9/11 attacks, "We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will."

    In obvious retrospect, while he wasn't giddy about it, he also showed absolutely no reticence whatsoever -- nor any remorse later on -- about going there. It may have appeared a reasonable position at the time he said it but now, it's scary to note how quickly he channeled his own fear as well as ours, to first invoke and afterward justify such extremist behavior. For all his considerable bluster, Dick Cheney seems to be a very fearful man at heart.

    I believe that all of us possess a so-called "dark side" -- for immediate want of a better term -- that's hardwired within ourselves somewhere, a likely vestige of our innate mammalian instinct for survival. But for most of us, it's not pre-programmed in our psyche as our immediate default position during those moments when mere adversity rears its head, because we have a pretty decent sense of proportionality.

    Personally, while I admit to having been foolishly reckless and over-the-top at times in my younger days, those experiences have rendered me a very sober person as a middle-aged adult, one who recognizes that fear is a powerful and dangerous emotion if left unchecked.

    Therefore, because I'm not at all prone to panic, it would likely require some rather extraordinary circumstances for me to first unlock and then unleash my own "dark side."



    Well the signatories of Project (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    for a New American Century did say that the American people required a "Pearl Harbor-like event" to wake them from their isolationist slumber..

    I would ususally agree (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    And I don't use the term "evil" for very many people.

    But I do believe it applies to Cheney......

    I think Cheney among other things knew about and had authority over torture chambers in Guatemala when he was Secretary of Defense under Bush I. The evidence is circumstantial but there.

    Yes, Cheney is evil.  


    I think (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    Cheney actually enjoys torture. It makes him happy or something.

    I think you're right (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:58:48 PM EST
    Which makes MKS right, IMO.

    There's evil and then there's training (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    enabling, and excusing Central American torturers and nun rapers..

    Indeed (none / 0) (#161)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:15:40 PM EST
    Cheney was one of the biggest apologists for U.S. involvement in Central America.....

    I remember Jeane Kirkpatrick (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:56:30 PM EST
    trying to publicly minimize the rape and murder of the Maryknoll sisters in El Salvador by calling them political activists..

    All those cold blooded, Machievellian neocons were and are a stain on what this country is supposed stand for.


    I think Cheney actually believes ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    ... that he's right. And being amoral, the ends always justify the means, and if you and I can't understand that, well, then we're just a couple of kumbaya-singing liberal pu$$ies who need to either get out of the way or be run over. But I can't and won't say that he enjoys it, because I really have no evidence to that effect.

    However, I do believe that Cheney thinks torture is indeed necessary and Saddam was an all-around bad guy who had to go, any laws or evidence to the contrary be damned. That renders him egregiously misguided in his warped perception of reality and overall disdain for our democratic system of government, but not evil.

    Hitler and the Nazis were evil. Pol Pot Was evil. Charles Manson is evil. They clearly enjoyed and relished what they did to others. Dick Cheney is a self-righteous a$$hole with a grossly inflated opinion of himself and his own intellect, a man on a mission who doesn't care who he has to step on in order to get the job done -- regardless of whether or not that job ever actually needed doing in the first place.



    You're definitely not alone (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    Unarmed Texas citizen gunned down by cops (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:41:10 AM EST
    A second video (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    Reportedly shows "unarmed" man had a knife in his hand.

    Not sure what to think here (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    Except that

    1. Good thing you said "reportedly" since your link didn't actually have a video. It had just two sentences and piles and piles of advertising and moving parts, so... thank you for that. It locked up my laptop while it loaded.

    2. If such a video actually exists, and, if the first video shows him with his hands up (full disclosure: I find it nearly impossible to watch video of someone's death, so I'm trusting the reporting on this one) then presumably the knife would either be
          a) in his hands, which were up, or
          b) elsewhere on his person which would be inaccessible to his hands, which were up

    3. Having a knife is not a capital offense.

    I guess I'm thinking a lot of things, including that your attempt to excuse this is typical.


    There was no video to see because (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    it hasn't been made public.

    I didn't read any opinion one way or the other in jb's comment, so I don't understand your leap from her letting people know there may be more to the incident, to her making any excuses for the shooting.  

    It strikes me that you may be as guilty of making assumptions as you have accused jb of doing.


    Yes, she does that a lot (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    She presumed to know what people mean, when. In fact, she usually doesn't have a clue.. You're right, Anne, I didn't offer an opinion, because I don't know all the facts.  

    Here, maybe this might help you.

    A second video has emerged showing two Texas police officers shoot and kill a man who appears to have had his hands up.

    The new video shows, a "very clear view" of the confrontation, Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood said Tuesday. LaHood said it was unclear what the suspect's intent was in raising his hands and cautioned against a rush to judgment.

    "I don't know what his intent was," he said. "All I can tell you is the video is disturbing. But my encouragement to everyone is to press the pause button."

    The shooting was first seen by the public in cell phone footage obtained by a local TV station, KSAT, and available on its website, which shows two San Antonio-area sheriff's deputies shooting 41-year-old Gilbert Flores Friday after they responded to a domestic disturbance call.

    According to another station, KENS-TV, police said the deputies found a woman who was bleeding from her head and holding a toddler, who also may have been hurt.

    At first, Flores is seen running shirtless in front of a home as the officers approach him. He then seems to put his hands up moments before they shoot him to the ground.


    The incident began when deputies received a call to a block in the northwest section of the city regarding a woman who allegedly had been assaulted, according to Bexar County Sheriff's Office public information officer James Keith.

    According to Keith, Flores at one point grabbed a deputy's taser and threw it as deputies attempted to use non-lethal force during the approximately 20-minute confrontation.

    Because the video is shot from a distance, it's not clear whether Flores is holding a knife, and though it's clear Flores has one hand up, the other is obscured by a utility pole.

    Okay that's a fair criticism (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    because I do look at your comments through a lens of "that's our law'n'order, jb". The fact that you rarely disappoint is sort of irrelevant, I guess.

    But I was seriously annoyed at the link which had no information but piles of adverts, that locked. up. my. laptop. If you aren't going to give any more information than is provided by two sentences at least provide a warning that that's what we get if we are stupid enough to click.


    Since it worked fine (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:42:37 PM EST
    On both my phone and computer. Why would I assume it wouldn't work on yours??

    But you don't disappoint. Assuming the police are guilty while remaining fact-free - that's our sj! And then, while admitting your rash judgments, you, as always, still have to give snide commentary without any substance.  

    Seems like you might want to clean your lenses.


    To be clear (none / 0) (#70)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:09:33 PM EST
    I wasn't saying I needed a warning that said "Watch out! this may lock your computer". But I would like a warning that says "Watch out! This link will give you two sentences and about thirty ads!"

    Better yet, have links with more than two sentences.


    Come On... (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    ...you can see the link before you hit it.

    The news sites are definitely a mixed bunch, but depending on your config, the site, which didn't bother my PC, does not effect all computers the same.  I have Ad Block and Adobe plugin set for authorize because my home computer is getting old, but at work none of it because they filter a lot of cr@p for me.

    There is no guarantee that all links are going to work on all computers, and acting like no warning is some big deal is silly.  It's on you, not us, to ensure your computer can handle the content.

    When you scroll over a link, without clicking, the actual link should appear in your bottom bar.  Don't click on USA Today links.  I would recommend setting your Flash plugin to 'Ask to Activate' rather than 'Always Active'.  It stops many ads from playing and showing without consent.


    Wev (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:58:40 PM EST
    Maybe. I don't know. But seriously? Two sentences? Literally, it had two sentences. And lots and lots of crap. I just wouldn't do that. To anybody. Not without a warning. I think that's a first cousin to spamming.

    And you are assuming that I don't look at links in advance. You would be wrong. I never look at USA Today, either. Or MSNBC. Rarely on YouTube or Huffington Post or Daily Mail and never for tinyurl.

    If I had parsed the link mentally instead of just spot checked I could have concluded that it was a "news" site. Or alternatively, I could have been notified that there was as much information in the link as there was in her one sentence comment.


    If she hadn't provided the link, (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    there would be people screaming or whining about that, too.

    Sometimes, if I'm not sure what's in a link, I will just google whatever's being claimed to see if I can find more on a site I know - and trust.

    I think what it comes down to, sometimes, is that if one doesn't trust the commenter, one isn't likely to trust the sources/links, either.

    Just seems like a rather silly thing to be wasting the limited number of comments we have on what might be the only open thread we have today.


    How could I know to trust (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:56:13 PM EST
    or not trust a source that I've never been to before? I trusted jb. Should I not have?

    And I agree, it's a silly thing to waste a bunch of comments on. So I'm not sure why I have a comment here to respond to.


    I'm Confused... (none / 0) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    ...as JB posted a couple quotes that are, and I am guessing about 15 sentences, and the article is about 30.  It's a valid link with a valid story.

    It also has a video and from what I can tell, two ad spots.  Not sure where you are getting 2 sentences from.

    This is coming across like I care, I don't just letting you know what you are seeing isn't what I am seeing.


    Well.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    ... you could click on the link. And, unless the page has changed you will answer your own question. I personally am not going to confirm that it is in the same condition that it was when she linked to it. From this comment (#19).

    OK sj... (none / 0) (#123)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    ...I got it now, I thought this was about USA Today link.

    Local news links are the absolute worse.  I stopped posting Houston Chronicle links because they are more like porn sites with the ads than news sites.  They are milking themselves right into oblivion.

    No longer confused.  But still not anyone's responsibility to ensure the link will meet others expectations.


    ::sigh:: (none / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:43:11 PM EST
    I know that really.
    But still not anyone's responsibility to ensure the link will meet others expectations.
    I was just seriously annoyed. I would expect a link like that from the jim crowd. From them it wouldn't even really be worth mentioning because they always grasp at straws.

    Scott, how do you set Adobe Flash ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    ... to "authorize"? You told me once a while ago, and it worked, but when I downloaded an updated version of the player it went right back to its former default settings. I've tried to reset it but I've apparently forgotten how to do it, and need a quick refresher. Thanks.

    Go To Plugin Manager in Options (none / 0) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    For me, Firefox:
    Tools> Add Ons> Plugins

    It's Shockwave Flash


    CAUTION!!! Opening the (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:19:44 PM EST
    link may harm your computer. Do you wish to proceed?  



    Seriously (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    even your cryptic comments have more substance than that link :)

    Where did I use the word (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    "guilty" or "police"? I took your criticism as valid. Now shine that lens on yourself.

    I hate it when that happens. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    sj: "Good thing you said 'reportedly' since your link didn't actually have a video. It had just two sentences and piles and piles of advertising and moving parts, so... thank you for that. It locked up my laptop while it loaded."

    SFGate.com, the parent website for the San Francisco Chronicle, has so many long-running video ad scripts on its pages nowadays that they often take forever to load, which renders the site practically unusable. That's unfortunate, because the Chronicle is otherwise a good paper for news about California, albeit one which I now tend to avoid online.

    The Los Angeles Times was also headed in a similar direction when they recently overhauled their website, but they've since cleaned up their online act considerably after numerous customer / subscriber complaints about frozen and crashing browsers.



    Oh yes, that's another one (none / 0) (#87)
    by sj on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    SFGate.com. I forgot about that one. Execrable.

    please put your urls in html (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 08:52:43 AM EST
    format. Long ones skew the site. I have to delete the comment as I can't edit them.

    Today is (none / 0) (#15)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:05:35 AM EST
    Freddie Gray Court Day

    Several things could happen during the pretrial hearing, including:

    • Mosby's office could be recused.

    • The case could be dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct.

    • The court could discuss how and whether the officers will be tried, together or separately.

    I'll take (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:26:56 AM EST
    ...door number three.

    I hope they throw the library at them.


    Judge has denied the defense's (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:25:14 AM EST
    motions to recuse Mosby, and dismiss charges; when court reconvenes this afternoon, motion to separate will be heard.


    Trials are seoarated (none / 0) (#177)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:48:57 PM EST
    6 trials will be held (if it gets to that).

    Very bad news for the prosecution.


    Remember, the prosecution had (none / 0) (#182)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:07:25 PM EST
    only asked for three of the defendants to be tried together - trying all 6 at the same time was not their plan - so I don't see this as "very bad" news for the prosecution.  Maybe whatever strategy that caused them to want three of them tried together is now complicated, but I don't know that it necessarily rises to the level of "very bad news."

    Lots of questions, more to come.  But I think that not having the charges dismissed, and the judge rejecting the defense's attempt to get Mosby to recuse herself, are clear victories for the prosecution.

    Next up: will the trials stay in town, or be moved?  I'm thinking they will stay, but who knows?


    Has anyone heard of Movie2k before? (none / 0) (#33)
    by topcheese on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:27:30 AM EST
    I have been looking for ways to watch movies online and I find it very difficult, but I found this service http://movie2k.io and it seems to work really well for watching movies. Has anyone ever heard of movie2k?

    SITE VIOLATOR (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:53:59 AM EST
    seems to me

    No.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    but I've heard of you, Spammer Man.  Get a job bottomcheese! ;)

    All cheese no crust? (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    Long Island Dweller to... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:54:35 AM EST
    Upstate NY secessionists...go ahead, make our day!  But I want the New Amsterdam name, you keep New York.  And Cuomo goes with you!  

    An angry band of the last surviving (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    Civil War veterans in New York State; pumped up by talk radio and enraged over anti-fracking regulations and the SAFE Act..

    My door... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 01:10:31 PM EST
    is always open for a refugee of your caliber, old friend.

    What happens to all the prisons and prison guards without a steady stream of downstate youth?  Do the screws take up fracking?  


    You're a good man, Charley Brown (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:45:21 PM EST
    right back atcha.

    Nicholas Burns (NYT op-ed, Sept.2), (none / 0) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    Assistant Secretary of State, appointed by George W. Bush, working under Condi Rice, offers advice to President Obama on the next steps on Iran.

    Mr. Burns, a supposed expert on Middle East affairs, was initially a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, but has come to the belated conclusion that it was a disastrous and strategic mistake.

    While he now pronounces that he favors the Agreement with Iran, and, indeed, indicates that he has testified to that effect before four Congressional committees, he feels that President Obama should not be content to have his veto sustained (as he predicts will happen). The President needs a bipartisan muscular policy to keep Iran on its toes. Surely, McCain, Cotton, and Lindsey will be happy to craft a little something.

    The wrong-headedness of Burns is, in my view, embedded at every point. Starting with the name of his suggested policy-- "coercive diplomacy."  And, then moving on to his plan for a "bipartisan" separate resolution to support a "tough-minded approach."

    It almost makes me believe he has not read the Iran agreement that he claims to support.  Or, understands it.

    This bipartisan resolution that will attract Republicans and Democrats, has four elements: (l) "reaffirm" President Jimmy Carter's doctrine to defend US interests in the region against any aggressor. Even if a new kumbaya agreement could be achieved, why is reaffirmation necessary. If Burns remembers Carter's work, maybe others in the State Department and Congress do, too.

     (2) Mr. Obama should make "unmistakably clear that the US would use military force to strike Iran should it violate the nuclear agreement and drive toward a nuclear weapon."  This, he says, is not for the Iranians so much as to "reassure" members of Congress--as if to go unnoticed by Iran. But, importantly, to limit or remove the flexibility of Obama or a future president, in decisions as to violations--minor/major and appropriate actions.  Coercive diplomacy, indeed. More like, suggestive war.

     (3) Expedite Israel military assistance agreement (set to expire in 2017) and,  the President should close the gap between himself and Bibi--by Mr. Obama traveling to Israel to stand side-by-side with Bibi against a nuclear Iran.  Again, the agreement needs to be read, or re-read by Burns, after all it does deal with being against a nuclear Iran.

    And, it does not seem wise for an American president to travel so as to sidle up with a foreign leader who has opposed him to the extent of appearing and lobbying before the US Congress.  There are much  better ways to show US commitment to Israel without showing a chumpish commitment to a specific  opponent of your efforts.  

    And, (4), again, he wants to "reaffirm" a commitment to a strong regional coalition (e.g. Turkey, Arab states, European allies).   A nice thought, but maybe Burns thought he was from the Department of State Department.

    Redundancy, reaffirmation, all to the good, Except when it is not.  Do we need to reaffirm, confirm?  It brings into question, that which was not questioned.--weakening and not strengthening the agreement.

    I hope President Obama gives Burns' ideas the reading it deserves and, then, places them in the circular file.  

    Jeb's (none / 0) (#124)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:12:02 PM EST
    attack against Trump seems to be to say that Trump is not really a conservative - that he (gasp) was in favor of single-payer healthcare for heavens sake.

    To add to the general sense of stupidity that I get from each and every one of the Bushes, this move will not lose any of the people flocking to Trump, because they don't care what he is. And it may gain him some followers in the not-conservative camp.

    The one silver lining I can see in the Trump candidacy is that it appears to have derailed what had seemed inevitable - a contest (if it could be called that) between Bush and Clinton in 2016. Grab the Digitalis.

    I think that Bush's candidacy has thankfully been successfully derailed. That is a good thing.

    Clinton, if she keeps up talking in that way that she has of not actually saying anything, will probably result in her derailment as well.

    That leaves Bernie.
    Of course we always have the prospect of Biden who has received the kiss of support from Cheney the vampire who has risen from the casket once again.

    But I think it may leave Bernie.
    That could be interesting.

    New Iowa Poll Released Today (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    has Hillary at +25

    Averaging all 5 Iowa polls conducted in August:

    Hillary +22.2%

    Throw out the high and low:

    Hillary +23.6

    No Matter how you cut it, Hillary currently is still looking at a minimum of a 48 state win in the Dem primary.

    There have been lots of "game-changers" over the last month, but nothing changed.


    Yes what about those (none / 0) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    game changers.   The Clinton emails have all the glamour and vitality of reading someone else's busy schedule.  Skin milk, channels for favorite shows. Lot's of political pizzazz.

    I am waiting for all the delving into Trump's career-surely ripe for picking--having a long career as a real estate developer and casino owner.  While any shenanigans uncovered will make as much difference to his followers as his Potemkin policies, it would be important to many others, such as those Americans who care.  


    Those emails (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:50:33 PM EST
    are such a dud like most of us around here knew they were going to be.

    I also completely disagree with (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:57:38 PM EST
    the droning conventional wisdom that these endless dumps are bad.  I think every time it happens and nothing comes of it far from underscoring her deficit in "trustworthyness", what it does is underscore how completely pointless and partisan the whole circus is.

    Pain in the arse though (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 11:42:26 PM EST
    You know they just won't shut up. Eventually it wears on people. Spouse has to deal with classified information soooo, the fact that spillage had occured has "affected" him. He said something this morning about how Hillary must step forward and admit spillage. I told him none of the spillage came from Hillary. Spillage originated with career state department employees who have participated in spillage for decades and overlapping administrations. Didn't matter at first, at his pay grade and level spillage is intolerable. Huge stupid fight, he called at lunch to apologize. It just freaks him out and he gets all crazed emotionally black and white thinking, projecting fear and ignoring the facts all over the place. Count me officially tired of this $hit.

    At this point how do I know that Darrel Issa's woefully insecure/unsecured emails aren't full of spillage too discussing all this?


    I believe (none / 0) (#146)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:55:01 PM EST
    There are a lot more questions for her to answer
    in the latest trove of e mails

    She did send classified material by e mail

    Although she couches it " I never sent anything marked classified"

    It is getting worse , the drip continues , and will continue with each additional release of e mails


    You guys (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:34:18 PM EST
    are going to beat a dead horse and keep shopping conspiracy theories until the last dog dies. There is not going to be anything in those emails. There was nothing classified and we've been over it 1,000 times with you but you refuse to acknowledge the facts and that this has to do with FOIA requests.

    You just keep on with your magical thinking that some smoking gun is going to magically appear out of nowhere. All you're doing is making the GOP look more insane than they already are.


    Keep on (none / 0) (#153)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:43:29 PM EST
    Whistling past the Graveyard

    While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department....

    The classified e-mails, contained in thousands of pages of electronic correspondence that the State Department has released, stood out because of the heavy markings blocking out sentences and, in some cases, entire messages....

    But the presence of classified information in e-mails Clinton wrote appears to contradict her assurances that she sent no such material.


    Everything new that comes out contradicts her prior statements


    Your (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    concern trolling is duly noted. This is the standard thing the GOP says oh, it's really something and if you don't think it's something then you're "whistling past the graveyard". The fact that you refuse to understand facts and continue to concern troll is not problem it is yours.

    There is no smoking gun that is going to come up. You guys keep wishing and hoping and crying for it but remember when every week you said Bill Clinton was going to be indicted for Whitewater? Everybody is onto the GOP's game at this point in time.

    Of course, if I had the clown car you have running for president I would be saying the same thing you are saying and refusing to believe it's nothing. After all it's the only hope you have.


    Carville said yesterday (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:54:45 PM EST
    that he thought this would eventually rise to the level of the Christmas Card list scandal that, seriously, resulted in 150 hours of sworn congressional testimony.

    He's (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    probably right. The GOP is asking for a big time spanking at the polls. They can't seem to manage to do anything but have stupid investigations. I had forgot about the GOP and their stupid obsession with a Christmas card list. Of course, they also were obsessed with Obama's Christmas tree some rumor that it was called something else in their bizarre world.

    Carville? (none / 0) (#159)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    The human spin machine.

    At every release of new e mails, another part of Hillarys prior statements are ending up to be proven false.
    That is not concern trolling, that is stating the obvious.



    If the State Department's markings are correct, it appears that Clinton and her senior staff routinely did not follow the regulations in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual, which tells employees they "must" safeguard foreign government information by treating it as classified.

    "It's hard to square the secretary's conduct with the strict letter of the FAM," Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project, said in an email.

    The department and spokesmen for Clinton have declined requests to explain this apparent lapse.


    Once again (none / 0) (#185)
    by FlJoe on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:29:15 PM EST
    Reuters misses the point. Even if you take this at face value
    department's Foreign Affairs Manual, which tells employees they "must" safeguard foreign government information by treating it as classified.
    . There has to be a level above mere employees who make the final decision on the actual classification level.

    FGI is the bailiwick of State, it always has been. If the upper levels of the SD does not have the right to decide how exactly to "safeguard" this info then who does?


    Oh well (none / 0) (#191)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Sep 03, 2015 at 05:20:20 AM EST
    "Executive Order 13526, issued by President Obama at the beginning of his term, addresses the classification and handling of national-security information. It provides that "foreign government information" -- which includes "information provided to the United States Government by a foreign government or governments, an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, with the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence" -- must be treated as classified. The president made a determination in the Executive Order that disclosure of these confidential foreign communications "is presumed to cause damage to the national security."

    "Since a reasonable expectation of harm to the national security is the threshold for whether to classify information, the president's determination necessarily establishes the classification of any foreign communications provided to the U.S. with the expectation of confidence. The Executive Order leaves no doubt on this point, when it directs that an agency "shall safeguard foreign government information under standards that provide a degree of protection at least equivalent to that required by the government or international organization of governments that furnished the information."


    Ha ha.... Socksgate! (none / 0) (#187)
    by desertswine on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 10:47:29 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:53:53 PM EST
    that is the catch NOW say. They say it is NOW but that doesn't mean it was THEN. They say it is NOW because they don't want to release it. There's nothing there silly.

    Good old Coral Gables... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    Always the killjoy with your polls. Polls are polls;)

    Just the facts kdog (none / 0) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:17:39 PM EST
    I try to ignore the make believe :)

    A lot (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    of magical thinking seems to be going on these days.

    Dog in an airplane (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 06:22:28 PM EST
    as Anne says (none / 0) (#168)
    by the capstan on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:01:13 PM EST
    She believes, apparently, that by not issuing any licenses, she is not discriminating against anyone, but the reality is that she is infringing on the rights of  all those seeking a license, no matter their sexual orientation.  

    If she cannot carry out her duties as County Clerk, she should, as a matter of principle, resign.  

    Peter G... Predictions? (none / 0) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:11:43 PM EST
    If you were reading tea leaves, what will be the ruling tomorrow by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman in the Tom Brady case. And what will U.S. District Judge David Bunning do in the Kim Davis case?

    Personally, I hope that ... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 09:42:46 PM EST
    ... the court throws Tom Brady into jail for contempt, and orders the NFL to allow the New England Patriots to start Kim Davis at QB against the Pittsburgh Steelers.