Monday News and Open Thread

Are drones being used to find Christopher Dorner?

In Texas, updated reports show that since 1992, the state has paid $65 million to 89 wrongfully convicted persons.

The Navy Seal who killed Osama bin Laden is interviewed in Esquire. He says the government has failed "to help its most experienced and skilled warriors carry on with their lives.

This 60 Minutes report last night on how and why you are unlikely to succeed in getting credit reporting bureaus to rectify mistakes on your credit report was pretty shocking.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Open Thread | Inmate Escapes at TX Walmart, Stabs FL Transporting Officer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Glenn Greenwald (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:51:21 PM EST
    Once again pulls no punches:

    That many Democratic partisans and fervent Obama admirers are vapid, unprincipled hacks willing to justify anything and everything when embraced by Obama - including exactly that which they pretended to oppose under George W Bush - has also been clear for many years. Back in February, 2008, Paul Krugman warned that Obama supporters are "dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." In May, 2009, a once-fervent Obama supporter, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, wrote a column warning that Obama was embracing many of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses and felt compelled - in the very first sentence - to explain what should be self-evident: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House." The same month, former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith - who provided the legal authorization for the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program - went to the New Republic to celebrate that Obama was not only continuing the core Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism, but even better (from his perspective), was strengthening those policies far beyond what Bush could achieve by transforming Democrats from opponents of those policies into supporters.

    And exactly as Goldsmith happily predicted, polls now show that Democrats and even self-identified progressives support policies that they once pretended to loathe now that it is Obama rather than Bush embracing them. On MSNBC, Obama aides and pundit-supporters now do their best Sarah Palin impression by mocking as weaklings and losers those who think the President should be constrained in his militarism and demonizing as anti-American anyone who questions the military (in between debating whether Obama should be elevated onto Mount Rushmore or given his own monument). A whole slew of policies that would have triggered the shrillest of progressive condemnations under Bush - waging war after Congress votes against authorizing it, the unprecedented persecution and even torturing of whistleblowers, literally re-writing FOIA to conceal evidence of torture, codifying indefinite detention on US soil - are justified or, at best, ignored.

    Careful (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:29:29 PM EST
    A whole slew of policies that would have triggered the shrillest of progressive condemnations under Bush - waging war after Congress votes against authorizing it, the unprecedented persecution and even torturing of whistleblowers, literally re-writing FOIA to conceal evidence of torture, codifying indefinite detention on US soil - are justified or, at best, ignored.

    A few months ago BTD attempted to hand me my @ss for saying this:

    if George W. Bush were still president, and if a debate moderator had "fact-checked" a key presidential debate in such as way as to favor Bush's talking points while introducing an error of relevant fact, then TL and every other left blog would be screaming foul. . . . I'm disappointed [by the] intellectual dishonesty among people on our side . . . .

    I am shocked. Yes shocked (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    to find that some people have double standards.

    And when it concerns politicians it scares me.


    Talk About... (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    ...the kettle calling the pot black.  And while I agree, there is absolutely no one who watches Fox News that can act like they are part of these numskulls on both sides with different metrics for the same behavior depending on party affiliation.

    And Jim, you have got to be one of THE worse.  Drones bad, unprovoked wars good.  I think all of it stinks, including the loss of privacy and the total disregard of out Constitution rights by both administrations.

    Ditto for the meatheads who keep acting like the deficit just magically appeared in 2008.


    Re: the deficit (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:24:23 PM EST
    It's hysterical how they all said nothing while George W. Bush ran up some of the largest in history.

    And How They Keep Acting... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:08:47 PM EST
    ...like that isn't true.  Tax breaks while engaged in two wars was probably the crux of that idiocy.  

    That was about as straight up as one gets in deficit tracking and not a peep from the right.  For a party that hates handouts, they sure welcomed those handouts with open arms.


    Bush did 5 in 8 (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:19:47 PM EST
    Obama has done 6 in 4...

    I trust you see the difference.


    Are those (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:41:05 AM EST
    numbers even correct for Bush? You have to remember that he was running the wars off to the books with "supplemental spending" bills.

    The biggest addition to the deficit was Bush's Medicare Part B which Obama has not changed.


    Holly Carap !!!! (none / 0) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    Are you stating as fact that Bush is responsible for 45.5% of the deficit ?

    Even though your numbers are complete non-sense, I will take any of Kool-aid drinkers claim that their party is roughly half responsible for the deficit.

    I'm locking you in on that number Jim.


    The biggest difference being ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    ... Bush handed Obama an economy in freefall with revenues dropping right along with it.

    Those fact thingies can be bothersome, huh, Jim?


    Scott, if I am the worst (1.00 / 4) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    you are the best example of the hard Left refusing to allow anyone to PARTIALLY agree with them. e.g. As I have noted for years I am pro minority rights, including gay marriage and women's right to chose a drug law reform....

    But when I disagree over immigration and defense you attack!!!!!!

    And unprovoked??? Do you remember 9/11?? Saddam launching missiles at our aircraft supervising the no fly zone...all the other info that the CIA said was good?? Attempts to purchase yellow cake from Niger?


    Okay, that's quite enough. (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    jimakaPPP: "And unprovoked??? Do you remember 9/11?? [...] Attempts to purchase yellow cake from Niger?"

    The so-called sale by Niger of yellowcake uranium to Saddam's Iraq in the mid-1990s was proved beyond any shadow of a doubt to have been a completely manufactured and false story. Further, the Bush administration was compelled to admit it when former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV called them out publicly on it in the New York Times on July 6, 2003.

    Let me re-emphasize that date to you again -- July 6, 2003. That's nearly ten years ago, Jim. The story of the Niger-Iraq uranium connection is a lie, and that's not a debatable point for further discussion.

    If you really and truly want to understand why your posts get repeatedly ridiculed by people here, I'd offer that it's because you continue to offer ridiculous statements such as the one I quoted above.

    Time and again, you simply refuse to pay heed or respect to established and documented facts. And in this particular instance, you willingly trafficked in a well-known, easily proved and decade-old falsehood for no discernible reason, other than it somehow complements the arc of the Parallel Universe in which you reside.


    You mean you AGREE ... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:52:34 AM EST
    you are the best example of the hard Left refusing to allow anyone to PARTIALLY agree with them. e.g. As I have noted for years I am pro minority rights, including gay marriage and women's right to chose a drug law reform....

    ... on issues that aren't remotely important to you?



    Good Gravy... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    ....9/11, seriously ?  Please Jim, for my enjoyment, explain exactly how 9/11 provides justification for invading Iraq.

    C'mon, Scott. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    You've certainly been around long enough to know that all ethnic Arabs are nothing more than camel jockeys to the Radio Nowhere crowd, regardless of those Arabs' actual place of residence -- be it Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Baghdad or Detroit.

    I would (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    take comments like yours a lot more seriously if i had seen some Bush supporters stand up and say something. IIRC Greenwald was one of the few people saying something back then.

    Reading like something from The Onion (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:09:06 PM EST
    Oops! FoxNews.com Uses Pic of Same Sex Wedding to Tout 'Traditional' Marriage

    With Venker arguing for the traditional male-breadwinner, female-homemaker gender roles, the picture was actually of Stephanie Figarelle and Lela McArthur, who were the first same sex couple to be married at the top of the Empire State Building.

    Figarelle was married in a black tuxedo while McArthur wore a strapless white gown with a train.

    Figarelle said she hopes the couple's home state of Alaska will legalize same-sex marriage, which became legal in New York last year.

    "Equality's a beautiful thing," she said. "Love is a beautiful thing. We don't have enough of it in this world."

    The Esquire interview is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:33:14 AM EST
    And I'm sorry, but I don't think it was humbly given.  There seems to be a fight among the SEALs who took part in the bin Laden raid about who made the bin Laden kill shot.  This guys says he did.  Matt Bissonnette says that he did and he was the first to get to print.  There are two works of admitted fiction about the raid, one is Bissonnette's book and one is Zero Dark Thirty.  This interview is supposed to be nonfiction.  As for how the raid went down this guy and Zero Dark Thirty seem to be in agreement, and Mark Bissonnette seems like he was on a different raid.

    The guy in this interview gets on my fricken nerve though.  I understand that his job was dangerous and stressful.  Let's not forget that within the military he chose to be where he was, and he has enjoyed a position of being a big man among men.  If you want a landing pad though you can't spend your whole military career only doing cool stuff and pissing away your 90 day breaks, you will have to prove that you can also provide administrative structure.  He didn't have to stay an operator, he chose that though because that is where the cool is.

    He also received very generous bonus pays that most in the military never get.  I don't know what his cash bonuses were but I would guess between 20,000 and 30,000 for re-upping for deployments.  Before he went on the bin Laden raid he admittedly bought himself a more costly gift than he did his children so that he could die with some Prada sunglasses swag on.  That's sort of bull$hit and everyone knows it, you weren't going to be wearing Prada sunglasses on a raid but keep singing.

    I realize he is a hero, but he chose to get out so close to his retirement it is insane. He sacrificed his healthcare and his spouses if they were married upon retirement, that would have continued until they died and his children would be covered until adulthood.

    I was a little shocked at how low his base pay was, and that is what his retirment goes off of but my husband told me "DON'T, he's made huge bonuses for years and he is more connected than most people could ever hope for!"

    How is it that this guy has no plan?  And how is it that it is up to this country to have a plan for him when he left service?  This is America!  He qualifies for all sorts of hiring incentives, so does his wife.  I'm not sure if he qualifies for the small business loans that we do, but I'm pretty sure he does.  That in itself is something above and beyond what civilians have right now.  IMO this guy is a horrible self centered whiner, hero or no hero.

    And why?  Why does it seem that this mindset seems to come singularly from soldiers who are right leaning?  Other soldiers seem to get it that just because they served their nation they are somewhat responsible for their lives.  They have a plan, they have worked this out for themselves and their family. We have kids so messed up they are sleeping on the streets but we've got Superman whiner here getting Esquire interviews about how sad his future is.

    The (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:37:37 AM EST
    part I can identify with is that I believe that people who have been in the military deserve far better treatment than they are usually accorded when they come home.

    Too many are reported to be homeless.
    Too many are reported to be jobless.

    And too many are reported to be receiving healthcare that is way below the standard expected by and given to the politicians that sent them into horrific circumstances.

    I do not dispute the specifics of what you said. I could not possibly do so.

    But whenever a soldier comes back and talks publicly about the lack of first class treatment they receive and what they see as an uncertain future, I am very receptive to that message.


    He was very close to retirement (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    I worry about the kids, so does my husband.  You have career military like us and even this SEAL was until the Osama raid.  He says in this interview that he has now done what he was born to do, the one thing.  And now he just gets out.  That's kind of romantic thinking.

    Who is really getting the shaft in all this though are the kids who lined up and enlisted after 9/11.  I think we all have some sort of stress thing going on, but there are big differences between suffering.

    This guy had it made, he is being arrogant.  Kids came home invisibly wounded and can't get the ground under their feet, but they are sleeping on it.  And if you can't get your head together to apply for and fight for your VA benefits and get your disability you must find someone to help you or someone helpful finds you.  Those are the ex-military suffering.  Those kids really had no idea what they were getting into and being the kids that they were with that whole live forever thing we all had back then, they were not going to listen to those who worried about them either.  They need us.

    This guy had six or seven years in when 9/11 went down.  He was no naive innocent patriotic driven kid in this aftermath, and his brain was done forming too.  His whining pi$$e$ me off


    When my spouse gets out (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    We are great.  But we have planned and discussed everything to the greatest degree that we could.  We don't have a crystal ball, but who does?  I bet you have to live that way too.  Everybody on this blog has to live that way.  Police officers and fire fighters and E.R. nurses, they all have to live that way.  This Navy SEAL, he was supposed get something better than everyone else?

    It goes along with the right wing idea (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:03:08 AM EST
    that somehow having served in the military earns you super citizenship.  They also seem to think it makes you more qualified to be president, that service in the military is a requirement.  That is so offensive to me. I am sure it is to many people as we like to think of ourselves as a civilian government, NOT military.

    I thought their idea was... (none / 0) (#142)
    by unitron on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 01:38:32 AM EST
    ...that being in favor of sending the military into action every chance we get, regardless of whether it's a good idea, was what make them super citizens.

    So super that they're greater patriots than people who actually served in that military.


    Obama's troops. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:58:01 AM EST
    It is being reported that Obama is going to announce that 34,000 US troops will be coming home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

    That is the same as saying that about 34,000 US will remain in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, is it not?

    Does anyone else (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    See a problem with the caption on this photo?

    Morgan is on the right... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    Caption says left?

    Yep (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    Or, a white, blond woman is now known as Morgan Freeman, the actor.  :)

    The "professional actor"... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:14:28 PM EST
    as opposed to an amatuer actor, aka a waiter;)

    Same thing happened at the inauguration (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    G. Stephanopolous mis-identified Bill Russell as Morgan Freeman. Jon Stewart has been having fun with that one.

    How is using a drone (none / 0) (#5)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    rather than say, a helicopter, even news worthy???
    In 20 or 30 years people will look back and not be able to understand all the commotion today over drones because they will be omni-present and used for commercial, recreation, and, yes, law-enforcement purposes in ways we couldn't comprehend today.
    Technology evolves and changes, that's life.

    The (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:12:52 PM EST
    concept that people can be killed by the State before they are  charged or convicted of anything is a concept that rears its ugly head from time to time.

    It is with us now.

    It was around during the Inquisition. It was around during the Third Reich.

    And now, it is with us.

    Drones are but a means to an end. The end of killing people rather than offering them the presumption of innocence.

    Drones may go into the dustbin of history in 20 or 30 years.
    But people with fascistic and elitist tendencies will keep appearing from time to time and will either be repulsed by a people who love democracy and due process, or will be embraced by a people who are frightened, humiliated and bullied by their own government into accepting the unacceptable.


    I see (none / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:03:54 PM EST
    Obama is just being progressive.

    And in other news (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    The guillotine provided a fast, simple and effective method of execution...

    That's life!


    Are you that small minded? (none / 0) (#41)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:48:09 PM EST
    The possibility of cheap overhead video and photography ALONE will be game changing. Drones have a million potential uses besides killing people (which they do with less collateral damage than say, a tomahawk missile)

    Life is also what we make of it... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:42:54 AM EST
    a drone isn't a natural disaster, it's a potential man-made disaster and entirely within the human race's control.

    I'm kinda holding out hope for a shift in conciousness, and humanity deciding to live a better way, without robots buzzing all around the skies spying on us and/or blowing us up like some Orwellian dystopia.  A longshot I know...


    Meticulously massive... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    credit card scam uncovered...got the banks to the tune of 200 million.

    Too bad it's over...the scammers do a better job of policing the banks than the DOJ does;)

    gees! there goes a lot of economic stimulus. (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    The only people with spending money are the crooks.

    LOL... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    Visa & MC merchants must be as saddened as I am too see it end...;)

    OT - Have you (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    (or anyone else) heard from Jeff lately?

    Can't say I have... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    not in a long while.  Hope he's just busy doing better things...

    Maybe they will get lighter sentences (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    for having stimulated their local economies.

    Nothing new, (none / 0) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:19:09 PM EST
    the same can be said for most any President, and their ardent supporters.

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:37:52 AM EST
    The pure adoration for the man, rather than his values, world views, positions, and experience has made the support Obama enjoys from some of his followers unlike anything we've ever seen.  Some of this is because he is the first president to embrace, and be the beneficiary of social media.  

    The Bush acolytes liked him becuase they thought he was "a good man", a "good Christian", a "strong leader", and had "business experience".  Many of the people described in this article like Obama because he's "cool" and we can "trust him".


    Not so fast there, pardner! (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:13:42 PM EST
    I always counted on the Left to protect my civil liberties and keep the government out of my bedroom and away from my big gulps and (ahem..) beverages and smokes... And the Right to do the defense thing.

    That's not working anymore.


    Interesting (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    I always counted on the Left to protect my civil liberties and keep the government out of my bedroom and away from my big gulps and (ahem..) beverages and smokes...
    And who did you vote for that supported those positions?

    Heh, heh, heh ... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:46:51 PM EST
    "Huminah, huminah, huminah ...."

    LOL. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    Perfect shot, sj.

    Being a rational person (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:33:10 PM EST
    I voted for... Carter,Reagan, Reagan, GHWB, The Little Admiral, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney...Defense must be No 1.

    I didn't vote for Goldwater because they said if I did we would wind up in a land war in Asia...


    As I said, I depended on the Left to keep the Right's intrusions in line.

    A funny thing happened on the way to the circus...

    The Left became as intrusive as the Right only on different subjects.

    Right - Sex.. abortion..

    Left - Food, Body size... etc.. Diversity.. PC speak..

    And now no one will condemn Obama for what he is doing when they would have had a cow if Bush did.


    ".....no one will condemn Obama ....?." (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:50:13 PM EST
    Jim, my buddy, you really are scaring me now.

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by sj on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:48:31 PM EST
    when it comes to the President you haven't voted for anyone who supports those positions since Carter.  Who at the state and local level?

    Almost forgot:



    LOL...counting on the left by voting right (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    Kind of the Christopher Columbus method - find the east by sailing west.

    Eventually you get the same result as the left chases votes by moving to the right.


    ouch! (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    So you've voted ... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:05:44 AM EST
    ... for every Republican presidential candidate in the past 36+ years?!?

    Being a rational person I voted for... Carter,Reagan, Reagan, GHWB, The Little Admiral, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney...Defense must be No 1.

    Hahahahahahahhahahha ....

    BTW - The "Little Admiral" was a VP candidate, so unless you wrote his name on the ballot, you voted for Ross Perot.  That would be the same Ross Perot who favored cutting the defense budget.


    Wasn't Perot... (none / 0) (#143)
    by unitron on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 01:41:16 AM EST
    ...an Annapolis grad?

    Yep (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:11:43 AM EST
    Although I've never heard him referred to as "the Little Admiral".  I assume Jim was referring to the actual admiral on the ticket, ... but maybe not.

    I think lots (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:45:09 AM EST
    of people have condemned him for it.  You are right though, many people who would have and were screaming bloody murder when bush was acting like a dictator war monger, seem to be okay with Obama doing the same.  Bottom  line, they trust Obama and not bush. I admit I trust Obama a little more than I trust bush....not much, just a little.

    You would be correct (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:24:56 AM EST
    Here's a couple of neat little graphs that show how people's opinion change (for better or worse) when Obama's name is attached.

    This is a power given to ... (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:54:21 AM EST
    the president not Obama.  It will not evaporate when Obama leaves office.

    But, frankly, I don't understand what's to trust about Obama?!?

    He certainly has a weird hypnotic power over some people.  He can violate the constitution willy nilly, support right wing policies till the cows come home, reward criminal bankers who steal from you daily, cut entitlements, and yet somehow it's ... different.

    I vacillate between being amazed that he's able to do this.  And shocked that people are dumb enough to fall for it.  

    When the Obama buzz wears off.  A lot of liberals will wake up with a serious hangover.  They'll shake their heads, and say to themselves:

    "What was I thinking?!?"


    yes, you are correct (none / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    those powers will not disappear with Obama.  The time for democrats to fight them was when Bush was in office because they certainly are not going to do it now and apparently the republicans will not either.  
    Even the people here who would tell you I can't be trusted with the time of day, will tell you I am no fan of Obama.  However, he is still better, or perhaps it is the people he has around him that are better than the people bush had around him, that make me trust him a hair more.
    I don't know what will happen in the future that could possibly make "things" better.  There is a saying "the times make the man".  I would hope that in the future we will find that indeed the times do make the WOMAN.  I would hope that some sort of sea change takes place and we go down a better path and congress becomes a bold brave group of patriots.  I just don't see that path unfolding yet.

    So very, very wrong (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:53:30 AM EST
    The time for democrats to fight them was when Bush was in office
    The time for anyone to fight them is always.  The other way is how we ended up here in the first place.

    can I please have another (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:49:32 PM EST

    the time to fight was back when they had the power to oppose...when bush was in office.  No democratic congress has the same power to oppose a democratic president as they do when they are in the majority against a republican president.  Do I really have to spell out political reality to you?  


    So your recommendation (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:12:56 PM EST
    is exactly what, then?  Throw your hands up in the air and say "oh well"?  I don't think so.  I don't stop objecting just because it isn't Bush in the Oval Office any longer.  

    Like I said, pretty much all I have is my vote, my voice and my "drop in the bucket" dollars.  My voice I can use any time of night or day.

    "No objection" is the same as permission. Do I have to spell out that political reality to you?  


    Moreover, Congress is constitutionally a co-equal branch of the government.  And they can be prodded on a more regular basis and in a more personal fashion than any President or Presidential candidate.

    *What is it with y'all and your inappropriate "lol"s?  You think throwing that in there makes your comments less obnoxious or something?  Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't.


    What we need are more humanists, (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:09:03 PM EST
    with fully functional souls, that have not been sold to the highest bidder in hope of acquiring more power.

    I'm pretty sure we ended up with that horror that is the Patriot Act because a whole group of members of Congress felt themselves to be bold, brave patriots.  And, as near as I can tell, we keep getting rights-eroding, privacy-invading, drone-killing policies in the name of that same bold, brave patriotism.

    So, no thanks.

    How closely have you looked at the people surrounding, advising and working for Obama?  John Brennan?  Uh, not even a hair more trustworthy.  Leon Panetta?  Urk.  Eric Holder?  How much better is he than Alberto Gonzales when you consider all the rubber-stamping he's done these last four years?  Tim Geithner?  Better than his Bush equivalent?  How could you tell?  Hillary Clinton?  Maybe for her tangential work on women's and children's rights around the world, but one reason she and Obama are so comfy-cozy with each other is that she's as big a hawk as they come.

    I could go on.  The point is that if you don't care for Obama's policies, if you think they are too similar to Bush's, or an extension of Bush's, you have to be aware that Obama has surrounded himself with people who think like he does, who are comfortable carrying out Obama's plans, so, where's the comfort?  That he's not as bad as the other guys?



    You've stumbled upon.... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    Vonnegut's Fatal Flaw with the Republic, that nothing can be done to fix.  Only psychopaths want power, only psychopaths want to be president.

    I am not (2.00 / 2) (#134)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    to have a pissing match with you Anne when that seems to be your whole purpose.  It really isn't that interesting.  But I will make one point.  If you think Hillary Clinton is as big a Hawk as there is you are just being lazy rather than bothering to be informed.  The guys say she is a war hawk and that's good enough for you.  Whatever....I know a lot of women who should be feminists but they aren't either.  
    I love it when women say they are humanists, you know, because 17 percent of congress, 0 percent of the Presidency and 3 percent of Corporate America CEO's is proof that Feminist goals have all been reached.  God knows women around the world are all uplifted and living lives of equality and comfort.

    Humanist, shame on you Anne, seriously.


    Really, Teresa, your arguments would (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    be so much more compelling if you would take the time to make sure you understand what it is that others are saying.

    But then, if you did, it probably wouldn't allow you to have the kinds of arguments you're so fond of making.

    I'm not going to bother parsing my own words - again - others, I'm sure, read them and understood my points, which had more to do with your call for "bold, brave patriots" than anything else.

    That whooshing sound you keep hearing isn't a gentle breeze, Teresa...

    Shame on me?  Just bite me, Teresa.


    think about it (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:25:53 AM EST
    the person I live with depends on democrats to keep his medicare safe and sound but wouldn't vote for a democrat if you paid him.  
    I depend on republicans to keep the 2A safe and somewhat sound, but I don't vote for republicans and certainly not on gun rights issues.  I vote for republican women, but I vote for all women and that is a whole other discussion.

    So...you say you don't vote for (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    Republicans, but you also say that you do vote for Republican women.  Huh.  Does their gender neutralize their essential Republican-ness?  Because where I come from, if the person you're voting for has (R) after his or her name, you're casting a vote for a Republican.

    Hey, I think we need more women in office, too, but I'm not willing to put Republican women in them just to get the numbers up.  

    But here's the thing with jim...he's a waste of time and energy.  He's like everyone you've ever known who papers over his bias and prejudice and small-mindedness by saying some version of "some of my best friends are..." and thinks that's enough to keep people from seeing who he really is at his core.  

    It's not - we're onto him and he knows that.  

    He's married to the Republicans, but likes to fool around with Democrats, and thinks that as long as he comes home to the political little woman at the end of the day, it shouldn't matter that he was out into the wee hours doing God knows what with the Democrats.

    Telling us he's in favor of single-payer and the right to choose while voting for candidates who aren't has about as much impact as telling us he believes in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.


    Anne, I find you thinking (4.00 / 3) (#109)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:20:18 PM EST
    self defeating.  As long as you can't vote for women because they are republican, women will never have 52 percent of the political (or any other kind of) power in this country.  Men will always find a way to divide and conquer women...... jut like the top 2 percent divide and conquer the rest of us so that we are fighting each other and forgetting to look up to see who really has their foot on our necks.
    I do not vote for republicans based on 2nd amendment rights.  I don't vote for republicans or democrats or libertarians or green party.  I vote for women, with write in being my default when there are no women on the ballot and democrat being the default where I have a choice of more than one woman.  
    Statistics show that when any legislative body is at least 30 percent women, regardless of the political party of said women, that legislative body will move to the LEFT. So, my voting practices make more sense than yours if what you want is a more liberal government.  I could post you links and we could argue about it.  But if you are interested just google "30 percent solution".

    On the other hand, the equality of women is more important to me, all women, not just liberal women, than it is to move the nation left.  I believe it will make everything better, our politics, our society, our economy...and it is just time.  It is so obvious to me that I can hardly understand how any self respecting women does not see it.

    As far as Jim.....what the heck do I care how he votes or what his politics are?  Why do you care?  Why not just discuss stuff and leave it at that? Is he playing a game? Maybe, who cares?  This kind of "let's trip up the republican" stuff reminds me of dkos.  Who wants to talk only to those who agree?


    Speaking for myself (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    I want to defeat women who don't represent me.  My priorities are different from yours.  It is more important to me to move the nation left.  It is more important to me to retain and strengthen the safety net.  

    I would prefer that it happen with a greater diversity but I'm not going to vote diversity (whether gender based, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race or other) over ideology.  That's not self-defeating.  It might be impinging on your priorities, but then really, you care about that more than I do.

    As for being obvious to you and self-respecting women and all that... oy.  But okay, that's an opinion and is as valid as any other opinion.  (btw, you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion and I won't question it.  It's when you -- or Jim -- denigrate others and/or decide that you're also entitled to your own facts that I get annoyed.  I should have added that to my list of downrate-able offenses).

    This made me laugh out loud.  Seriously.

    As far as Jim.....what the heck do I care how he votes or what his politics are?  Why do you care?  Why not just discuss stuff and leave it at that? Is he playing a game? Maybe, who cares?  This kind of "let's trip up the republican" stuff reminds me of dkos.  Who wants to talk only to those who agree?

    It obviously isn't important to me to be able to talk only to those who agree with me.  That's why I'm talking to you and others who don't agree with me.  And obviously it isn't important to you either since you have more comments taking others to task than you do agreeing with someone.  That's a big ole giant bite of hypocrisy you just ate.


    Vote for human rights... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    regardless of plumbing, that's my motto.

    And pretty much prevents me from voting for Repuiblicans or Democrats...as far as those two parties are concerned we're subjects first, suspect subjects...we'd have to be human to be a man or a woman, we may as well be widgets with a tax bill.


    This is just plain wacky: (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    On the other hand, the equality of women is more important to me, all women, not just liberal women, than it is to move the nation left.  I believe it will make everything better, our politics, our society, our economy...and it is just time.  It is so obvious to me that I can hardly understand how any self respecting women does not see it.

    Last time I checked... equality, particularly w/ respect to women's rights, is a lefty-liberal principal, not a righty-conservative one. But, by all means, keep on voting for right wing women, even though they are deeply opposed to reproductive rights, as well as gay rights. The Jesus people have taken over the Republican party, and don't give two hoots about equal rights.

    Your premise is laughable.


    I long for the day... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    when people are judged on the content of their character, not on the contents of their underwear.

    Kos & the Kossacks? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:11:33 PM EST

    FYI (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:01:21 PM EST
    The Senate approved legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act on Tuesday over the objections of a handful of Republicans.

    Senators voted 78-22 to send their version of the bill to the Republican-controlled House, where it faces uncertain prospects.


    Just about half(22/45) of Senate republicans voted against it.


    for example: (none / 0) (#131)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:34:12 PM EST

    Every Female republican Senator voted for VAWA while all 22 opposing the bill were republican men.  The bill helps not only women, but includes LGTB protections.  I think it's a good idea to encourage women on both sides of the isle to continue in the right direction.  Just like men, women will go where the votes are.


    All 4 of Them ? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    There are 4 female R's and 16 female D's in the Senate, it would seem one party supports women more than another, by 400%.

    One party has ~32% women holding that position, the other ~8%.  But I guess the good news is they are better than the 2 male Independents.  That was a joke.

    I don't really care, and I think most people given the choice will choice a candidate by their positions rather than their gender.  But it just seems like D's seem to get more women in their ranks than R's which would indicate that they are better at supporting women either through the campaigns, through the constituents, but most likely, through their positions.

    The same could be said for minorities, the D's just simply have a better track record, and it's not even close.  Not good enough for either group IMO, but one party is clearly lacking in their support.


    It's a matter of priorities (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    I understand that.  Your Republican friend's priority isn't his Medicare.  He has other priorities and he votes on those.  That's fine.  But then he is rolling the dice on Medicare.  I don't know if he sees it that way, but that's the reality.

    Medicare is a Social Service.  And if Social Services aren't supported then they're going to go away.  Period.  It takes a mindset of caring for others.  It is the very definition of "enlightened self-interest".  

    What I am asking Jim is if he puts his money or his vote where his mouth is.  He's all "I'm a social liberal" but as near as I can tell he doesn't vote that way.  Nor does he support those organizations that focus on these issues.  He does nothing to further these interests.  Just counts on "the left" to do the heavy lifting.  So frankly, who cares what he thinks or says?  

    He may be fooling himself -- as your friend is fooling himself -- but that's the only person he's fooling.  Harumph-ing his way through life.  It's as foolish as all the young workers who rail about "the unions!" while planning their vacation.


    I tell me (none / 0) (#111)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    S.O. All the time that it makes no sense to vote the way he does when he is dependent on medicare and SS, but he does it anyway. In addition he is an ex-cop and has a nice pension which he would not have if not for the union he belongs to. I also tell him that the NRA should address all his mail to SUCKER.  He gets mad but I have convinced him to stop donating to them because they don't need his money.

    not in my memory (none / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    because it has not really been necessary.

    Either you could use a (none / 0) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:07:04 PM EST
    memory tune up, or I'm not understanding your point.

    Didn't the Reagan acolytes offer total fealty to the actor regardless of their prior viewpoints?


    you are not understanding (none / 0) (#68)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:55:12 AM EST
    my point.........boy you made that easy.  

    Actually there is a difference.  Reagan changed people's way of thinking on the issues.  Obama has not done that.  Obama people are just turning a blind eye and pretending that somehow what Obama is doing is different than what bush did.....that he can be trusted where Bush could not.  IOIYAO is not the same as changing people's politics.


    it takes a little parsing, (none / 0) (#141)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 12:10:38 AM EST
    but, I won't argue it. Whatever the justification the culprit is the same....intellectual laziness.

    Military and CIA drones (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AP) -- The Pentagon for the first time is considering scaling back the massive buildup of drones it has overseen in the past few years, both to save money and to adapt to changing security threats and an increased focus on Asia as the Afghanistan war winds down.
    Overall, Pentagon spending on unmanned aircraft has jumped from $284 million in 2000 to nearly $4 billion in the past fiscal year, while the number of drones owned by the Pentagon has rocketed from less than 200 in 2002 to at least 7,500 now. The bulk of those drones are small, shoulder-launched Ravens owned by the Army.
    The analysis began before Brennan's confirmation hearings, where he was questioned sharply about the CIA's use of drones to kill terror suspects, including American citizens overseas. The CIA gets its attack drones from the Air Force fleet, but any decision to stop building them would be unlikely to have any effect on that program.
    Right now, Predator and Reaper drones that pilots fly remotely from thousands of miles away are completing 59 24-hour combat air patrols a day, mostly in Afghanistan, Pakistan and areas around Yemen and the Africa coast. The standing order is for the Air Force to increase that number of air patrols to 65 a day by May 2014, although officials say that is an arbitrary number not based on an analysis of future combat requirements.

    The staffing demands for that increase have put a strain on the Air Force, as they would require nearly 1,700 drone pilots and 1,200 sensor operators. Currently there are fewer than 1,400 pilots and about 950 sensor operators. link

    Very conveeeenient (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    That this story comes out now, after the drone policy has been in the news lately and this has not reflected well on our foreign policy or Constitutional and moral standing....

    If you build them they will CAP (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:50:48 PM EST
    (Combat Air Patrol)

    Classic case of finding a use for something someone's congressional district builds many of. I suspect someplace in Texas.


    Netflix (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    The Nick Nolte post got me thinking, what are some hidden gems on Netflix ?

    One of my favorite movies, 'The Darwin Awards', is about an insurance investigator who tries to profile these people before they do something dumb.  Loads of stars and damn funny.

    I ran across, 'Killing Bono', which is a loosely true story about some of Paul Hewson's(Bono) classmates and their struggles to compete with U2.

    'Billionaire' is a documentary about one of the DHL founders, Larry Hillblom(the H) who's plane disappeared and was he presumed dead.  He lived in the south Pacific and had an insane sex life that lead to many 'heirs' making claim to his fortune and because his plane disappeared, no DNA.  Oddest documentary I have ever seen.

    The Ken Burns multiple part series about the rise of the National Park system is awesome.

    Looking for some recommendations.

    Do you like Brit mysteries? (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    The entire Inspector Morse series is out there. Fantastic.

    Also a very funny film - 'The Trip' - with Steve Coogan, which was made from a Brit series about 2 comedians on a road trip. Won't try to recap, would not sound as good as it is.  


    Added The Trip... (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:48:49 AM EST
    ...not seeing Inspector Morse, is it Inspector Lewis ?

    I loved the Brit version of Law & Order that was on the BBC.  But I don't really care, just looking for interesting stuff to watch.  For the most part I hate subtitles, but The Motorcycle Diaries was pretty good.


    Came after (none / 0) (#100)
    by nyjets on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    Inspector Lewis came after Inspector Morse (and after the actor who played Morse died.)
    Lewis was Morse partner. I beleive Lewis was a Det. Serg during the Morse series.
    (I have only seen the first 5 morse series.)
    FYI, I beleive this years Inspector Lewis will be the last of Inspector Lewis. (I think that is the primary reason why there are doing the morse prequels.)

    Maybe the Morse episodes are not on streaming? (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:02:32 PM EST
    I think I watched them on DVD.

    Police shoot-up another truck looking (none / 0) (#17)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    for Christopher Dorner.

    Torrance police rammed their cruiser into a truck and fired shots into it because they thought it was Dorner's truck. Like the truck that police shot-up the other day, this truck was a different color and model than Dorner's.

    The driver, who is shorter than Dorner and white, was not hit by the bullets, he was injured by the ramming of his truck.

    I get that the police are on edge. They are not used to being the ones hunted. Still, it seems to me that the behavior of the police in this dicy situation puts the lie to the idea that civilians in a dicy situation will have anything approaching the presence of mind needed to shoot at a gunman and hit the gunman rather than any number of innocent bystanders.

    Perhaps, until Dorner is caught, everyone driving a pick-up should park that vehicle in their garage or behind their house. The police are in a "shoot first" mindset.

    some cops are jumpy (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:51:45 AM EST
    and unsuited for their jobs, therefor all or most Americans are unsuited to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

    To Shoot,,, (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    ...jumpy and unsuited cops ?  That is probably the weakest A2 argument I have read to date.  The right is to own a gun, not to actually use it, especially against law enforcement.

    what? (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    That is not even close to what I just said and you might try reading the comment I was responding to which is the one which conflated a completely unrelated topic to gun control.  I was remarking on that, not making a defense of the 2A.
    Honestly, the paranoid pretzels some of you will twist yourselves into over this gun issue.....

    ps....the right be bear arms obviously also confers a right to use them.  D'oh!


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    ...you need explain this one because I have reread it numerous times and still reach the same conclusion.  That you are suggesting we need guns top protect ourselves from the 'jumpy and unsuited cops'.

    The preceding comment clearly discusses the police shooting at innocent people.  And your claim "all or most Americans are unsuited to exercise their 2nd amendment rights".

    For the record, I didn't twist myself into any kind of a knot, I was trying to figure out your non-sense.  And should you some day decide to fire upon law enforcement, you will understand the comment about not having a right to actually use your gun.  That it doesn't exist, and depending on the state, may not exist even when defending yourself, especially against law enforcement.

    If you live in the city limits of most towns, firing a gun is not legal, which means it's not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. " D'oh! "  Unless of course it serves another purpose other than firing it.  

    The right is to own it, not use/fire it.


    Teresa said nothing... (none / 0) (#144)
    by unitron on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 01:50:21 AM EST
    ...about civilians shooting cops.

    I'm at a loss to understand why you think that she did.


    Now that I've recovered from the hilarity (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    of your telling Scott he needs to read casey's comment again, I offer the following:

    (1) Can you point me to the part where casey says that "all or most Americans are unsuited to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?"  Her point, I believe, is that if we can't trust law enforcement officers, presumably trained and certified in the use of firearms, to use those firearms in a prudent and lawful  manner, how are we to trust that Average Joe with a gun is going to have nerves of steel in a pressure- and adrenaline-filled situation and also act prudently and lawfully?  If the cops don't have control, why should we expect civilians will?  This isn't the same as saying all Americans are unsuited to own weapons; it is saying that just because someone can own a gun doesn't mean he or she should own one.  And that just because someone with a gun is wearing a badge, doesn't mean he or she can be relied upon to exercise good judgment in the use of his or her weapons.

    (2) Can you point me to the part of the 2nd Amendment where the right to use weapons is conferred upon the citizenry?

    Finally, I think you need a better understanding of what it means to "conflate" - especially considering how often you do it.


    Yes, Anne, you have very ably explained (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    the point I was trying to make. Given that, I see no need for me to make any further response to Teresa.

    I discussed Dorner with some LAPD (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    over the weekend. I said that shooting the two newspaper deliverers was bad, and they kind of shrugged.

    They also downplayed Dorner's tactical prowess claims saying he didn't have much of that type of training at all as as LEO, as he was only on the streets for about a year. And, said the ex-Marines/current LAPDs that I was talking to, he was Navy. So, there's that.


    Seems Like Reality Disagrees... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    ...with their conclusions.  Maybe it's hapchance, or skill, but he certainly has avoided capture rather remarkably.  The LAPD look like a bunch of bumbling bafoons who aren't showing any sort of common sense restraint.

    They also talked about the re-opening (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    of the investigation of Dorner's original complaint, and said that the IA guys would do a real investigation. That they'd talk to, basically, everyone who ever talked to Dorner. They also said they didn't like/trust the captain, or whoever, who was Dorner's boss during the original trial.

    I wondered (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:03:15 AM EST
    if they were opening the investigation to get a response from Dorner.  No matter the result of the investigation what he did is murder of course.  Are they trying to appeal to his ego, or sense of righteous anger?
    I am starting to wonder if he froze to death somewhere.  I don't see him committing suicide.  I think he has to much of a grandiose sense of his own importance to die without taking as many people with him as possible.

    Personally, I think that ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    ... Dorner is probably dead. His trail's clearly gone cold in Big Bear, no pun intended, after his truck broke down there when a huge snowstorm on the way. The chances are considerable that he was caught outside trying to escape the authorities on foot when it struck Thursday night, and he subsequently froze to death -- unless he's presently holed up in some nearby house or cabin.

    Further, as I'm sure you probably know from living in the L.A. metro area, the San Bernardino Mountains comprise some extraordinarily rugged terrain, and are characterized by high ridgelines of 9,000-13,000 feet and deep ravines that plunges several thousand feet in between. Dorner's not necessarily just going to hike on out of there in the dead of winter, I don't care what sort of training he's received. Big Bear itself is at 6,800 feet in elevation.


    I'm betting he is holed up in a cabin (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:59:47 PM EST
    there are plenty of vacation places up there empty for long periods of time. May not last very long if he can't get out for provisions however.

    If he is, then it's only a matter of time. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:52:14 PM EST
    Big Bear Valley is home to some 11,000 residents, plus several thousand daily visitors during the lucrative ski season, and there are only three roads out of the valley -- Hwy. 18 to north to Lucerne Valley and Victorville, Hwy. 38 east around Mt. San Gorgornio to the Santa Ana River Canyon and Redlands, and Hwy. 320 west to Lake Arrowhead and Crestline.

    If Christopher Dorner's holed up somewhere in Big Bear, then he's also effectively bottled up.


    Ya, the cops said he may only be found (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    after the snow melts.

    Maybe, but Dorner seems to have planned (none / 0) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:49:25 PM EST
    this out pretty well. So, it is possible he had another vehicle stashed in Big Bear, and he drove that vehicle out.

    Yes, the latest I read is that (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    he burned his truck near the property of a friend, so that would suggest he had a pretty high potential of a safe haven (whether or not the friend was directly involved).

    I don't think Dorner had a choice. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    His SUV had suffered a broken axle in Big Bear, and it wasn't going any further. That it might have happened near a friend or acquaintance's property may have been a coincidence.

    Sure, could be. (none / 0) (#126)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    I thought his truck was found (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    burned out on the mountain?

    it's not something that happened today.

    Ah, thanks! (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    was getting confused :)

    Oh really?! (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:04:36 PM EST

    They're probably using a drone ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    ... in the hunt for Christopher Dorner because the mountains northeast of L.A. at Big Bear, to which his whereabouts were recently traced, comprise some very rugged country by any measurable standard.

    Further, given that a large and intense snowstorm hit last Thursday night and Friday, right after his SUV broke and axle in Big Bear, and further that his trail went cold in the vicinity, I'd offer that there's a good chance that Dorner got caught outside and may have died from exposure.

    As you can see from the photo linked above, which was taken just to the south of Big Bear, this is not an area from which you can necessarily just hike out on foot in the winter, even under the most optimum of conditions. The terrain itself is generally characterized by high ridgelines and deep ravines. Big Bear itself is 6,800 feet in elevation, and the surrounding peaks are even taller. Nearby Mt. San Gorgonio -- which rises in the distance in the photo -- is 11,500 feet tall.

    Merger talks between ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:40:26 PM EST
    ... American Airlines and US Airways are nearing completion, meaning that Hell's apparently one step closer to having an official air carrier.

    Could the Pope be concerned about his mind? (none / 0) (#51)
    by mogal on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:24:07 PM EST

    "both strength of mind and body are necessary -- strengths which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me."

    I have have had loved ones in the early stages of Alzheimer's
    disease and this is a very logical decision for a person integrity.

    He's bailing out (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:52:34 AM EST
    before thousands of pages of documents regarding the protection of predator priests get released.  

    first thing I thought of (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:13:38 AM EST
    was Alzheimer's disease.  A semi famous actor/gay activist friend of mine on face book seems to think he resigned because the sh*t was about to hit the fan with the child rape cases against the church...with Ratzinger being held responsible for covering up for many dozens of Priests before he was Pope.

    From what I can gather (none / 0) (#54)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    He feels what the church needs is an active pope, not someone who is fading both physically and mentally.  One can only hope it is not Alzheimer's.

    As much as Catholics adored PJP II he was not the same as he deteriorated.   Modern medicine can keep someone alive much longer then they can be an affective leader.  I pray and hope this is simply an unselfish act of humility that comes from a respect for the church.

    Oddly for me personally it comes as I prepare to convert to Catholicism.  Should be some interesting discussions  with my fellow candidates as we prepare for Easter vigil.


    In one of the stories today I heard that (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:01:57 PM EST
    he has stated in the past that he did not want to end his papacy the way PJPII did, incapacitated for much of the last years. I do admire that attitude of service to the larger goal rather than the tradition of keeping the position until death.

    Benedict is not the same kind of inspirational figure as JPII. If he cannot be the workhorse, he is right to step down.


    I am skeptical that this resignation (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:01:46 PM EST
    is solely because of his age and physical infirmities. I do think there is a better than even chance that the ongoing revelations of abuse by the Church and its clergy and the very real possibility that Benedict XVI, back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, played a bigger role in all of it than we have been led to believe, is the impetus behind the resignation.

    I am a cradle Catholic. So, I view the Church and its machinations with a very clear eye. The Roman Catholic Church is the one of, if not the, oldest continuous political entities in the western world. It owes its longevity to a finely honed ability to maneuver the shark-infested waters of secular politics. And internal Vatican politics is just as vicious as anything the secular world has to offer.

    So, no, I do not believe the Pope is acting for purely altruistic reasons.


    That was my first thought when (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:32:08 AM EST
    I heard the news - probably because I had just seen "Mea Maxima Culpa," and it's the kind of thing that stays with you because the magnitude of the harm that was done, and the effort and money spent to keep it quiet or deny it altogether at the highest levels of the Church was mind-boggling.

    The other thought I had was that a failing body and mind would not be able to keep a shadow papacy from taking over in his name - although one would have to think that those closest to him would be of similar vision and ideology.

    The more one knows and learns about the Catholic Church, the less one is able to view the Pope and - as Charlie Pierce calls it - the Clan of the Red Beanie with much respect.  Yes, I'm sure there are many serving the Church who do so with honor and humility and grace, and who have tended their flocks with compassion, but I'm also sure one could find members of the Mafia and other large-scale criminal organizations who have done some good, too - it doesn't make it all okay.


    The papacy and altruism... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:51:13 PM EST
    ...are complete strangers.

    Let's hope then that we've seen ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:48:57 AM EST
    ... the worst of the scandals, so that you and the other newly converted faithful don't experience a rude awakening.

    Speaking personally as a lifelong Catholic, I think the Holy Mother Church needs a really stiff dose of humility and a thorough cleansing of its institutional soul.

    I hope the College of Cardinals take advantage of the opportunity now afforded them to lead the Roman Catholic Church in a new and healthier direction, and resist the temptation to give us more of the same ol' same ol'. The papacy needs to be brought current into the 21st century. Because right now, it's the spiritual equivalent of an old man yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn, because they're making too much noise and keep interrupting his porn movies.


    Given that both Pope Benedict XVI and (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:31:04 AM EST
    Pope John Paul II stacked the College of Cardinals with ultra-conservatives, I very much doubt the Church will be led in a new and healthier direction.

    The Catholic Church has proven itself to be an international criminal conspiracy. Until the Church loses the influence it has with  other countries it will see no reason to change.

    Now, if the Obama administration were to tell the Catholic Church to butt out of American politics, if the administration stopped listening to the bishops and refused to return Cardinal Dolan's phone calls, well, then, maybe the Church would start to reflect on its many sins.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    Pope Benedict appointed 67 of the 118 Cardinals eligible to vote for Pope.  The remainder were appointed by John Paul II (only the younger Cardinals, under age 80, are eligible to vote).  So, there are plenty papabile contenders ready to continue the march to the past, so the Onion need not worry.

    That Was Funny (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    Onion: Resigning Pope No Longer Has Strength To Lead Church Backward

    The writers at the Onion (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    are pure genius.

    Reality has a way of intruding ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    ... rather rudely upon the the stubborn and adamant. There is no question that Vatican governance needs a radical overhaul, so that the Catholic Church can be a relevant and effective institution in the 21st century world as it exists today, and not as the cardinals in Rome might otherwise wish its existence to be, were everyone meekly subservient, obedient and compliant to their decrees.

    Historically speaking, the Catholic Church actually thrives best when the faithful come to see it as a vehicle for the attainment of social justice in a ruthless world. Conversely, the Church loses its footing whenever its senior prelates identify more with the rulers than the ruled, and thus seek to impose their collective will upon the masses in lockstep with monied interests.

    I don't care who appointed the cardinals, and I don't care about their ideological constructs or political orientation. At some point, the men in the gold robes and ruby slippers are going to have to deal with the fact that the Holy See can no longer continue to function as the modern equivalent of an 18th century absolute monarchy. If they don't -- well, nothing lasts forever.



    When (none / 0) (#83)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    you mentioned humility, I think of those ornate garments that the Pope and clergy wear.

    It would be refreshing and revolutionary if they were to lose that look, and adopt something that is more humble.

    I am not a Catholic, and if what I have said is something that you might consider insulting, I apologize because that is not my intention.


    Actually, there are a lot of Catholics ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    ... who think likewise. No doubt, a vigorous show of humility and regret on the part of the cardinals would do the Holy See wonders in the eyes of the faithful.

    Agree (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    But can I say that as a former Catholic, the very term "the Holy See" is a perfect example of where it is imperfect and arrogant and holds itself above, separate and apart from all its members

    I was raised Catholic (none / 0) (#121)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:03:47 PM EST
    and I like the robes they wear, very nostalgic for me. I've been to plenty of other non-Catholic services where the Paster wears civilian clothes, and that's fine for them. Something about the ritual of Catholic mass that is very comforting, not that I've been in years...

    Whoa (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    I think I need to clarify my comments because that was an extremely casual voice of agreement with Don.

    I think in much more humility is appropriate in regular life.  When it comes to serving Mass I like the ritual as well -- as infrequently as I go.  But just walking about the Vatican, neither Pope nor Cardinals nor Bishops need so much self-aggrandizement.  Your choice of images here.


    The (none / 0) (#133)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    elaborate and gilded robes may be nostalgic. I can understand that.

    But I do wonder what it has to do with the teachings and life example of JC.


    Dunno. Catholic masses (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:20:31 PM EST
    follow centuries-old traditions and prayers, the robes are part of that scene. Maybe when priests teach you to turn the other cheek, encourages you to follow the big 10, etc., a robe steeped in tradition affords the speaker's message more respect or reverence or something than if he was in street clothes. I am pretty sure all the different pieces have some religious significance as well, and not at the least to the priest himself. If mass and other Catholic ceremonies were less traditional and more free form, then maybe the robes would seem out of place. ymmv.

    I agree (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:06:58 PM EST
    with you. Even though I've only been in a Cahtolic Church a few times, one of those was a folk mass and it just didn't have the same jibe. All the other churches I have been in donned robes and vestments except for the Baptist church. Even the country Methodist church i went to one time had a minister wearing robes and vestments. The whole suit/jean/whatever thing just doesn't connect with me either.

    Robes and vestments are one thing, but (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:40:40 PM EST
    when priestly robes look more royal than religious, it's kind of jarring - to me at least; I have trouble seeing or feeling humility and selflessness behind the glitter and glitz that cardinals and popes drape themselves in.

    I understand worship of God, but I've never understood the worship and veneration of men of the cloth that the Church seems to cultivate.  And I have a pretty big problem with the way they view and treat women.


    My mom always told me that priests were men like any other men. That said, we were raised to respect them just like our teachers, etc.

    I'll spare you the Fox link. But this is an (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:01:46 AM EST
    amazingly retro philosophy:

    To be happy, we must admit women and men aren't 'equal'
    By Suzanne Venker
    Published February 05, 2013

    This (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:58:20 AM EST
    is another example of how the GOP is stuck in the past. They are completely ignoring the economic circumstances of today.

    That is the article that Fox news (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:36:36 AM EST
    used a picture of a same sex wedding to depict the joys of a 'Traditional' Marriage.

    Thanks. Plus: (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    "Suzanne Venker, niece of reactionary Phyllis Schlafly"

    TROLL ALERT - SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    username: cengiz
    Hitting up lots of old threads.