Saturday Open Thread

What's on your mind? Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Adam Lanza Motive Still Unknown | Most Interesting Crime Stories of 2013 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 06:09:30 PM EST

    Take that conspiracy theorists! More egg on your faces!

    I'm sure there was a conspiracy... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by unitron on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 07:56:53 PM EST
    ...I just have no clue as to which one or who was involved.

    That NYT link is interesting reading, I had just finished it before seeing your post.


    One thing I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 09:14:22 AM EST
    About the Benghazi incident and the scapegoating of the President over it, why would everything about that attack be immediately crystal clear?  For a demonstration or attack of that style there are always many factors in play because the attack was not as organized as many have tried to say.  Ansar al Sharia is not "united" in Libya, it is fractured, it is more of a club...not an organized fighting force in the respect that Al Qaeda is, or perhaps has been is a better descriptor.  Do some members have empathy for Al Qaeda?  Sure. They share the same branch of Islamic faith and are affiliated with each other because of that, and human beings seem to very often experience empathy for each other when they share a faith.

    There were members of the attack that hoped to put together some kind of attack, and the video unfortunately made recruitment for such a thing easier.


    Issa and his ilk (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 09:31:18 AM EST
    are not looing for truth and hate nuance.   They want an easy label.

    I like how you put it--the video was a recruitment tool for perhaps a planned attack.


    I, too, found the NYT article interesting, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    as well as disturbing.  Also, the reporting puts the lie to the Republican accusation of cover-up of evidence of al Qaeda's role so as to avoid undermining the President's claim that al Qaeda had been decimated owing, in large measure, to the killing of bin Laden.

    However, the Benghazi tragedy brings foreign policy concerns of a nature other than the sham investigation for political points.  If the Republicans wanted to be a real opposition party, or if Democrats were more questioning, underlying policies need to be probed.

    While the NYT article provides a detailed description of the terrible events of that day, a startling policy analysis  is .."a fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons to the US. that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment."  

    A lesson we are just now learning?  Which brings to fore our misleading involvement--to protect civilians, including those in  Benghazi elasticizing UN Resolution 1973 on humanitarianism to the overthrow of Gaddafi.  And, for the Administration to to claim, unchallenged by Congressional opposition or others, that the War Powers did not apply. Although, credit should be given for the creative argument that our military support and action did not amount to "hostilities."  

    There are several tactical issues related to the  Libyan militia attack, such the thin security, the unfounded optimism of the  experienced Ambassador who paid for his beliefs with his life, and why he traveled to the outpost on that day.  But, these, to me, are tragic individualized decisions.  But, the policy issues are there to see, and continue for Libya and elsewhere.


    Our foreign policy is sound (none / 0) (#18)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    The untold human suffering in Syria is demonstrating to us everyday that you cannot wish away a civil war by not intervening. The Obama administration did the correct thing by intervening in Libya. A humanitarian catastrophe was averted. Our relations with the current Libyan government is also many times better than the relations we have with the Syrian government (our non involvement in Syria has not improved our relationship in that country).

    I fully supported intervention in Libya but not in Syria. I explained the reasons in this subject before we intervened in Libya. I am very happy to say that the Obama administration followed a foreign policy path that was exactly to my liking. It was a pragmatic path.

    I know that you were strongly against the intervention in Libya. IMO, your foreign policy view on this subject is very theoretical and ideological. As events in Syria have unfolded, it is very easy to see that you cannot always improve your standing in the world or prevent a humanitarian crisis by not intervening.


    Our foreign policy on (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    Libya has volleyed from  Ronald Reagan's Gaddafi is "the mad dog of the middle east" to George W. Bush's reconciliation and normalization of diplomatic relations and removal of sanctions--which he considered a foreign policy achievement in that Gaddafi, in turn,  dismantled his weapons of mass destruction programs and paid reparations of $10 million to each of families of the victims of the Pan Am 103 terrorist attack. President Bush then worked closely with Gaddafi in the wake of the Iraq war in 2003 deploying the CIA in the war on terror.

    Aside from Reagan being off in his geography,he was right that Gaddafi was a mad dog, but he became our mad dog, until he wasn't.  So what went wrong with out relationship, did Gaddafi change his character?

     It is my view, that Gaddafi went off the reservation and ticked off our allies, who in turn, goaded us into action.   What did Gaddafi do that he did not have a long history of doing?  Oil. For France, UK, and Italy, he talked about nationalizing oil.  For us, he talked about accepting the euro rather than the dollar for oil.

    he foreign policy issue was that the consequences of the overthrow of Gaddafi, under color of humanitarianism in Benghzi, was not well-enough thought out. The NYT article give a glimpse of that outcome.


    All moot points (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    Once the Arab Spring unfolded, there was going to be a civil war in Libya. Once the civil war unfolded, we had to take decisions in real time.
    By intervening we prevented a humanitarian crisis.

    All said and done, the problems that we have in Libya are small compared to what we have elsewhere in the region and in the world.


    Very convoluted thinking (none / 0) (#21)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 04:43:06 PM EST
    "It is my view, that Gaddafi went off the reservation and ticked off our allies, who in turn, goaded us into action.   What did Gaddafi do that he did not have a long history of doing?  Oil. For France, UK, and Italy, he talked about nationalizing oil.  For us, he talked about accepting the euro rather than the dollar for oil."

    You can as easily ask what did Gadaffi do to tick off Bernard Henry-Levy. Bernard Henry-Levy is a French philosopher, not an oilman. link


    Well, we agree, apparently, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    at a 50 per cent level--and if we were negotiating, I would focus on our area of agreement, Syria.  Although, we started to go off the track on Syria for a while, until President Obama reversed course.    On Libya, we differ.  While Gaddafi wound up in a meat locker, Libya is not a success story.

    Oil companies... (none / 0) (#59)
    by unitron on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 10:27:37 AM EST
    ...can get governments to take military actions.

    Henry-Levy might be able to get a parking ticket fixed.


    Hooey (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 11:45:29 PM EST
    Obama and his minions ran around claiming that it wa a reaction to the "video."

    What lies. Period.


    But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.

    Plus we still don't know why they received no support or where Obama was and who made the decision to not support.

    Obama and his staff are responsible.


    We know (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    the answers to all those questions. Petraus told the idiot Issa the answers but it's all really a moot point. If you aren't telling Issa and other conservatives what they want to hear, they start spinning about a coverup. Issa decides what happened based on no facts and then when people don't justify his conspiracy theory, he's convinced there's something afoot.

    Conservatives have fallen for hoax after hoax when it comes to Benghazi but yet they persist continuing to fall for them. I guess if you've got a good operation "fleecing the rubes" then why stop. Mostly I think the NYT article makes them made because now they can't put it in fundraising letter to fleece the GOP base out of yet more money.


    Did you read the article? (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 12:34:59 AM EST
    Speaking of media BS (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 07:54:22 AM EST
    And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

    Just another claim made under direction from the WH. Having been shown a liar the decision to repeat it as truth with no proof is obvious. Look how it just causally thrown in.

    And still we don't know where Obama was. Vegas has several great put put golf courses.

    And we still don't know why they received no support and who made that decision.


    Speaking of BS (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    It's amazing how these silly claims are always repeated as fact when they are so fact/evidence-free.

    The "stand-down" lie.

    How the "stand-down" lie began.

    The "advanced warning" lie.

    Retired Admiral Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering destroy the wingnut claim that the Obama administration failed to deploy adequate military resources to Benghazi, Libya, in response to the September 11, 2012, attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission.

    Etc., etc., etc.

    And still we don't know where Obama was. Vegas has several great put put golf courses.

    Gotta love this:

    Having been shown a liar the decision to repeat it as truth with no proof is obvious. Look how it just causally thrown in.

    followed by this:

    And still we don't know where Obama was. Vegas has several great put put golf courses.

    is seriously funny.

    This silly, wingnut lie has been repeatedly debunked.

    AP - Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible.


    BTW - Earlier in the day (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 10:45:48 AM EST
    Obama spent the morning at a 9=11 ceremony at the Pentagon and then spent 2-1/2 hours in the afternoon (around the time the attack began) visiting wounded soldiers and Marines at Walter Reed hospital.

    Anything else?


    They want so badly to catch Obama in a (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    'My Little Pony' moment. Just not gonna happen.

    You folks can keep on (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 05:27:45 PM EST
    believing and keep on trying to rewrite history but it isn't working.

    You are (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 07:03:26 AM EST
    the perfect example of how the conservative echo chamber works. Just repeat a lie enough times and you will get people to believe they are "facts".

    You're not the only one. I don't think I've ever seen a more gullible group than the current crop of conservatives.


    Yman (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:37:00 PM EST
    Obama and his minions could pee on your shoes and you'd believe them when they claimed it was raining.


    Facts are facts.

    The attack wasn't about the video.

    No help was launched.

    Obama lied and men died. Period.


    If you cite something (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:09:35 AM EST
    other than yourself perhaps more would pay attention.

    He's been practicing (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    that semi-coherent rant for years here and still no AM radio station's offered him a slot.

    Facts are facts, indeed (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:58:28 PM EST
    Your little, baseless, evidence-free fairy tales, OTOH ...

    "What lies. Period." (none / 0) (#11)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 09:50:59 AM EST

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by kmblue on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    Did you read the article?

    The NYT article was as bad as the (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 11:06:02 PM EST
    60 minutes piece.


    We will never know for sure what exactly happened because this administration covered it up.

    It was never about the video and it was never as bad as many on the right would hope but the bottom line is it should go on Mrs. Hillary's permanent record and will be a factor in 2016 no matter how hard her allies in the media try to make it not be.

    On her watch a US ambassador was murdered and it was preventable.   That should be considered by voters when she runs to be commander in chief.


    Not only do other (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 11:15:01 PM EST
    News organizations contradict the NYT

    According to Stephen Hayes so does the NYTs


    Misinterprets (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:16:16 AM EST
    what Schiff was saying.

    Affiliates of Al Qaeda means exactly what?  A copy cat group in Libya?

    The facts are again getting the way of right wing talking points.

    And tell me this, do you hold Bush and Cheney responsible for 9/11? If not, you really cannot even begin to blame Hillary for Benghazi.   It is not about truth but a political attack job.


    Of course I blame Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:15:25 AM EST
    The ambassador and his security staff repeatedly asked for more protection.   Hillary's state department denied these requests.


    She will be running for Commander in Chief.   To me this failure of leadership should be considered by the American voters when she is on the ballot.

    That and the fact that she will be an unaccomplished Senator and Ambassador who is almost 70 years old.

    But that's just me.


    IMO you hit on the real reason this (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:59:43 AM EST
    story will be kept alive at least through the 2016 election. Conservatives have a vested interest (pants-suited interest?) in disbelieving anything that removes HRC as the villain of the piece.

    And I will ask anyone who cites this (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:09:22 AM EST
    'Failure of leadership'  as a disqualifier whether they voted to reelect GWB in 2004. If yes I will file their opinion accordingly.

    Age (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:24:37 AM EST
    Just an FYI, I don't think she's too old to be president, just that she won't appeal to young voters.

    Hillary will appeal more (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    to young voters than the conservative candidate because of her stand on the issues.

    Conservatives keep thinking it is all about style.....Young voters can't stand the GOP because of their stand on the issues....And are more liberal by far than any other group.


    You are (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    mistaken. You really need to go back and look in the states that had primaries back in 2008. She did quite well with young people and you have to realize that the GOP is doing a great job running them off.

    And someone spouting (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    a mixture of 19th century robber baron capitalism, dog whistle racism, and religious fundamentalism is going to appeal to younger voters? Because that's the corner you guys have painted yourselves into.

    Now Rush and Fox are going after the Pope; because a religious figure dressed in medieval garb at the head of a religious institution that believes birth control is sinful isn't conservative  enough for them..  


    Do you blame Bush and Cheney (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    for 9/11?  You did not answer that question.

    Are you even trying to be fair, or is it just a political attack?


    I can (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:04:01 PM EST
    answer for you. Bush and Cheney are not responsible for 9/11. They are going into hysteria mode because they have nothing else. They are terrified of Hillary and this is all they can think of to say right now. By the time 2016 rolls around everytime they say BEHGHAZI the crowds will start laughing.

    It's a unique talent the GOP seems to have for turning tragedies into punchlines.


    And so you did not vote (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    for McCain because he was too old?

    And you will support Christie--without concern for his health?


    Althouse and the Weekly Standard (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:00:06 PM EST
    Are you trying to be funny?

    Yman (none / 0) (#53)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:05:11 PM EST
    The blogger who shuts down debate by declaration .

    How progressive.


    Slado (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 06:19:24 AM EST
    The commenter who declares "facts" by citing opinion pieces from other conservatives.

    How conservative.

    BTW - No one is "shutting down debate", despite your protests to the contrary.  When you cite opinion pieces - particularly from other conservatives - as "facts", you should be prepared to be challenged on their credibility.  Credibility of sources is always an issue in a debate.


    And isn't that the same (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:08:04 AM EST
    Stephen Hayes who idolizes Cheney?    



    Classic (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:06:03 AM EST
    When you don't like the facts disparage the source.

    No point debating anyone that does this.

    I could say the same thing about the NYT but istead I chose to provide a counter narrative.   That is called a debate.

    If you want to believe the video is the cause dispite all facts to the contrary then so be it.

    The facts show this was a coordinated terrorist attack.   Maybe by AQ, maybe by AQ wannabes.    What it wasn't was a spontaneous demonstration by people upset by a video.

    My point is we'd know more if the administration hadn't covered it up in an election year.

    Oh well.  It doesn't matter now for Obama.

    It will matter for Hillary and this debate, except for you, will resume in 2016.


    Covered it up in an election year.. (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:13:17 AM EST
    thats some tremendously powerful, vast liberal conspiracy pulling all those strings..

    Maybe if the Right hadn't established wild-eyed flailing, ax-grinding, and empty grandstanding as such a prominent part of it's public discourse, their analysis of events like Benghazi would be taken more seriously by the public.  



    If you cite data, (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:04:27 PM EST
    or quotes, from a source other than a political hack, then we can discuss.

    You were relying on the analysis of Hayes.....His interpretation.  Might as well cite Fox News or El Rushbo.


    This converation has been useful (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    You express the certainty that comes from conservative media.  So, listening to you here is a window into the conservative media narrative.

    What this tells us is that the attacks on Hillary will be twofold:  (1) a direct attack based on Benghazi, and (2) and indirect attack, perhaps a whisper campaign, that Hillary is too old.


    The good (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    thing is that conservative media is helping kill off  conservatism. It's their largest problem and something they are unwilling to do anything about. As a matter of fact, they seem to be doubling down on stupid.

    Something (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    you need to face but probably never will. All of this is small potatoes compared to Iraq and the disasters that happened under George W. Bush. Now i'm sure the GOP will scream Benghazi until they are blue in the face and out of breath but people have not forgotten what happened under George W. Bush.

    And like the other posters here have stated, you must make George W. Bush take responsbility for 9/11 in order to tag Hillary with this. I don't think conservatives are going to take any repsonsbility for what they have done and are just going to keep screaming and the rest of the country is just going to keep on laughing at them.


    Those aren't "facts" (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:41:09 PM EST
    If you want to believe the video is the cause dispite all facts to the contrary then so be it.

    What "facts" are you talking about?  You've cited two opinion pieces - Althouse and Stephen Hayes, neither of which are "news organizations" - and yes, I'd put the credibility of the NYT up against either of them any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    "All the facts to the contrary" doesn't include actual news reporting at the time.

    On-the-ground accounts indicate that Ms. Rice's description of the attack, though wrong in some respects, was accurate in others. Witnesses to the assault said it was carried out by members of the Ansar al-Shariah militant group, without any warning or protest, in retaliation for an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad.


    But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.


    Hadeel al-Shalchi (reporter, Reuters - at the scene - Sept. 13):

    In Benghazi at the consulate, the consulate is now not secure at all, like, you can walk in and out of it. And people all day yesterday were doing that. They would come, sort of take a stroll inside the grounds, you know, take pictures and little videos of the damage.

    The majority of those people said two things. They said, first of all, why did the United States allow something like this movie to happen? Because at the end of the day, almost everybody here believes that it was a reaction to the movie that - and they believe that the United States had a responsibility to stop the production or...

    Al Jazeera producer Suleiman El Dressi (Sept. 12) from Benghazi:

    About 11:30 PM, a group of people calling themselves as "Islamic law supporters" heard the news that there will be an American movie insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Once they heard this news they came out of their military garrison and they went into the street calling [unintelligible] to gather and go ahead and attack the American consulate in Benghazi.


    As opposed to say, Hayes, the Weekly Standard opinion writer who made this ridiculous claim:

    "... there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."

    Too funny.


    Agree to disagree (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    There are too many links on the internet to post that dispute the video narrative so I won't bother.

    In my opinion the facts show this was a coordinated attack by terrorists.   The involvement of AQ is debatable and not worth arguing over.

    What the facts so show is the ambassador repeatedly asked for more security and was denied by the State Department.

    The only way to hold Hillary unaccountable for this disaster is to use the standard Obama defense of negligent leadership.   The boss didn't know because the underlings didn't tell them.

    That seems to be the defense of all such scandals these days when it come to Obama and in this case Hillary.  

    So you take the facts you want to believe and I'll stick to mine.

    Happy New Year


    Heh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 05:19:31 PM EST
    There are too many links on the internet to post that dispute the video narrative so I won't bother.

    Too many "news sources" like Althouse and the Weekly Standard?

    No doubt.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 233 (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    When the Garden of Eden needs a little extra, um, MiracleGro. (link)

    And here's wishing my lovely wife a Happy 17th Anniversary (link). We met 21 years ago at a New Year's Eve party, then got married on New Year's Eve four years later.

    Peace & Love, y'all. May TL come to life again after the new year.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 230 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    She doesn't exactly think his cur will be winning Best in Show. (link)

    v. 229
    v. 228
    v. 227
    v. 226
    v. 225
    v. 224

    My wife and I are heading into The City to see TWLEVE YEARS A SLAVE at the little theatres in the Embarcadero Center. Want to see the movie, but mostly we want to be in the city because our 13.5 year old is being granted some freedom to ride his bike around the city with his buddies today. They are serious riders for their age (8th to 10th grade), and they've proven to be nothing but responsible kids so far, so they're taking CalTrain from San Bruno into The City, then biking up the Embarcadero as far north as they can go and get back to the train south before dark. Probably get up to Crissy Field, Golden Gate Bridge, then head back. And we'll be close enough seeing our movie to feel secure in our own insecure minds. But I do love that my son has the chance to get his little first tastes of responsibility and freedom in one of the most beautiful cities in the world. So we let him have the chance, and hold our breath, as all parents do at many points before the nest is left for good. Listen to me, a little nervous? Oh no, egad, ahem. Have a great Saturday, y'all. ;-)

    Are you a helicopter parent?!!! (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    No, he's not! (none / 0) (#3)
    by the capstan on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    Neither was I-- but I am not sure I'd have wanted my 8th grade daughter to bike in SF when we lived in Menlo Park (1976).,  But she did enjoy biking around town with a class at the middle school.

    Oh, believe me, I went back and forth (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    But, ultimately, he's a smart kid, we almost moved to the city, and if we lived there he'd be riding all over the place. But it was only a four hour excursion in total time, it all turned out well, and Eli passed his little responsibility test. My biggest fear, in truth, was simply cars and their often distracted and clueless drivers.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 231 (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    She reads palms, he has crystal balls, they're a match made in, um, somewhere. (link)

    Peace out. Go Niners! Eff the Seahawks and the Panthers! And go Chargers, too!!

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 232 (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    Honest laborers are honest laborers, whether they're from Sioux City or Mexico City. (link)

    Vol. 231
    Vol. 230

    Rainy days and Mondays, my friends. No rain here though. Wish there were.