Tuesday Night Open Thread

Frontline is airing a special on Adam Lanza. Reading the advance press releases, I didn't see anything that hasn't been published elsewhere, but for those who haven't followed much about him and his family, it could be interesting. Also, the CT state police say yesterday's CBS report that Lanza was copying the Norway killer is non-factual and inaccurate.

Showtime has added the 3 hour documentary on the History of the Eagles to On Demand. I've seen it twice now, and it is really good, especially the second part.

Oscar Pistorius' bail hearing continues at 9:00 a.m. South Africa time, which is midnight here. I'll probably post live updates again of the first few hours.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< CO Task Force Okays Marijuana Purchases by Tourists | Oscar Pistorius: Bail Hearing, Day 2 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why are the powers that be still (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    proposing cuts to Medicare?

    Obama wanted $400 billion in Medicare cuts. The new Simpson/Bowles (rob the old, the poor and the sick to give to the rich) proposal wants $600 billion in cuts to Medicare.

    The Center for Budget Policies and Priorities had charted a Medicare spending forecast made in 2010 and another three years later. The difference between the two is $511 billion. link

    These saves to the Medicare budget are already $111 billion more than what was declared necessary in 2010. Why slash more from the budget to pay for more tax cuts (reduced tax rates are included in Simpson/Bowles) under the guise of tax reform.

    BTW, the CBO 2010 (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    projections on Medicare were made in March 2010 when Obamacare was signed into law.

    The sequester will be bad (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    for the economy because of cuts in spending at a fragile period.   The B.S. (Bowles Simpson)  cuts are good for the economy because it helps reduce the deficit.  A sidebar: the sequester does not include social security and medicare, whereas B.S. does. Sidebar #2, Pete Peterson would like to give us B.S.

    Re: sidebar #2 (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by unitron on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:54:47 AM EST
    I think Peterson's been giving us BS all along.

    Jon Walker highlights response (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:13:37 AM EST
    how the Very Serious People have reacted to this lower projection.

    Instead of reducing the goals for deficit reduction, the goals have either remained the same or been increased. Instead of re-examining the need to cut Medicare benefits given that Medicare spending has slowed dramatically, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles actually called for even bigger Medicare cuts than they did before.

    The fact that deficit proposals never seem to change in response to changing realities shows that the real goal has always been to cut benefits. Deficit reduction is just an excuse to cut benefits that will be used regardless if it is justified or not. link

    Well, of course they called for (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:16:23 AM EST
    even bigger cuts - what I don't get is why anyone is listening to them.

    What's really disturbing is that all the talk - as factually fked up as it is - has filtered into the consciousness of the American public, and absent any effort on the part of the media to educate the public that cutting the deficit is the NOT the only answer to EVERY question, the public has bought in in sufficient numbers that their support is being used to keep these efforts going.

    Not unlike the support for the Iraq war, which was ginned up on lies the media happily wrote down and reported far and wide.

    From Charlie Pierce, reading about a new Pew poll:

    What worries me more in these new numbers is the fact that the propaganda of the country's deficit hysterics seems to be carrying public opinion with it.

    There is bipartisan agreement on this: Dealing with the budget deficit is urgent. That's a change. When Obama took office in 2009, during a cascading financial crisis, Americans put deficit reduction in the middle of a list of policy goals in a Pew poll. Now it has risen near the top. Seven of 10 Americans (including not only 81% of Republicans but also 65% of Democrats) say it is essential for the president and Congress to enact major deficit legislation this year. Just 4% say nothing needs to be done within the next few years...

    ...When asked which of four issues was most pressing - the deficit, guns, immigration or climate change - 51% chose the deficit, three times that of any other issue. However, there were some significant differences by race and ethnicity. Hispanics were inclined to choose immigration as the most critical issue; African Americans chose guns.

    I have a feeling that the Austerians aren't going to be any more willing to compromise given these numbers than is the average House Republican in the average safe Republican House district. However, I think that the president, and far too many Democrats in the Congress, will be. The train, it appears, is coming down the track, and the people standing on the track are cheering. Duck, you suckers.

    Just kill me now.


    Bowles-Simpson or (none / 0) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:39:22 AM EST
    any Obama bargain , grand or petite, seem determined to cut additional benefits for Medicare and/or social security( (e.g., chained CPI).    Interestingly, some Republican leaders are urging, as a solution,  a modification to the sequester that provides executive branch department heads with more discretion in cuts, rather than the lamented indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts. President Obama and the Democrats, apparently, have not warmed to that idea---can't use the cry of cutting first responders or eliminating drones.  And, of course, it would not enable the B.S./Peterson dream to become reality, at least for now, as a part of this manufactured crisis.

    Having the executive branch department (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:18:17 PM EST
    heads decide which cuts to make would ensure that any unpopular cut would be solely the responsibility of Obama and the Democrats. It would eliminate their ability to blame the Republicans or even share the blame with them. So I can see why the the Dems might be reluctant to jump aboard that train.

    Cuts to the safety net programs in particular must be a bipartisan effort in order to even out the blame.


    A little levity about the subject (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    since sometimes you just have to laugh to keep from screaming.

    James Carville: The sequester, many people don't know what it is, but it sounds stupid and cruel, so they think it's a Republican thing."

    Yes, a Republican thing all right. (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    Obama did, after all, agree to the bargain and signed the bill.  No signing statement either. But, Carville is funny.

    Well Obama did say (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

    I disagree with his statement only in the use of the words "mainstream," "moderate" and the time frame mentioned.


    The sequester also does not include (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    lowering tax rates, whereas B.S. does. Pete Peterson, Bowles, Simpson, and CEO's like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs would like to give themselves and their corporations additional tax cuts at our expense.

    Media descriptions of (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:00:48 PM EST
    B.S. rarely note that these two clowns could not even get their "Commission" to go along with their ideas, and that what remains is a rump co-Chair report.   And, now we have Bowles Simpson.2 being touted as if it had some backing other than the two of them, and, of course, Peterson et. al.  But, then, B &S have been on the paid lecture circuit, so there's that.

    Woman shot by oven ... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    ... while trying to cook waffles at her friend's house.

    An 18-year-old Florida woman was only slightly injured this week when she was shot by her friend's oven, police said.

    Aalaya Walker was visiting a friend in St. Petersburg Monday when they decided they wanted some late-night waffles, The Tampa Bay Times reported. So Walker began preheating the oven -- unaware that her friend, JJ Sandy, 25, was storing a magazine from his .45-caliber Glock 21 in the oven.

    Someone nearby (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:22:53 PM EST
    is shooting at cops and lit his house on fire and now the manhunt is on...

     So much for my nightly run.

    Jeez... (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:27:26 PM EST
    Stay away from the windows and keep low.  You never know.

    Is this the case? (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:07:16 PM EST

    According to Miami-Dade Police, at around 7 p.m. Tuesday, narcotics detectives were investigating a suspected marijuana grow house. "As they approached the door, the subjects inside the house, opened fire upon the detectives, and they immediately returned fire," said Zabaleta.

    Damn narcs...talk about menaces to society disturbing the peace!  Everything sounded hunky-dory till they came a knockin'.  


    That was it (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    Instead of the one suspect I heard early on, it turned out to be three. One was caught. One was found hung a short distance outside the police perimeter this morning (but they haven't said hung from what). And the third is unaccounted for, but could be the dead burnt body they found inside the house.

    Miami...the rules are different here.


    Hung... (none / 0) (#64)
    by unitron on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 06:49:18 AM EST
    ...or hanged?

    Gen. John Allen Retires from Military (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:08:35 PM EST
    Won't Command NATO in Europe

    Marine Gen. John Allen, the former top American commander in Afghanistan and President Barack Obama's nominee to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Europe, announced Tuesday that he will retire from the U.S. military after 38 years of service, citing personal reasons.

    "While I won't go into the details, my primary concern is for the health of my wife, who has sacrificed so much for so long," he said in a statement. "For more than 35 years, my beloved Kathy has devotedly stood beside me and enabled me to serve my country."

    Inquiring minds want to know how much time will be devoted to email activity.

    comment by Belswyn (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:11:39 AM EST
    had to be deleted because of overly long url. Link was to this article, on the stay of Warren Hill execution.

    Please put your urls in html format, long ones skew the site and I have to delete the comment.


    I give up... (none / 0) (#63)
    by unitron on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 06:48:19 AM EST
    ...what DOES Warren Hill have to do with Gen. John Allen?

    Gen. Allen's wife is apparently suffering ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:57:57 PM EST
    ... from an auto-immunity disorder (which sounds an awful lot like lupus). It's serious enough that they've determined that it's not conducive to her own health considerations for them to relocate to Europe, hence his decision to retire rather than accept the NATO command.

    Maybe the 21st Century Drone Wars... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    won't be so bad, as long as the government keeps using garden variety rubber cement to hold software in place in their unmanned angels of death, to crash-tastic results.

    Or the Chinese... (none / 0) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    North Koreans, Iranians or Russians can just hack the software.  

    That's what chip sockets are for... (none / 0) (#24)
    by unitron on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:56:45 AM EST

    "This makeshift approach was to facilitate easy removal of the chip for programming updates, the report said."


    to be picky... (none / 0) (#25)
    by unitron on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:59:38 AM EST
    ...it sounds like they didn't really use rubber cement but rather RTV (Room Temperature Vulcanizing) compound, the stuff that smells like vinegar while it sets.

    Which didn't make it any smarter a move.


    Ya can't call it a free country.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    when ya can't even buy your son a killer Sweet 16 present without being charged with child endangerment.

    that is crazy (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by nyjets on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    That was not a great sweet 16 present.
    What the heck was that mother thinking. That is text book definition of child endangerment. You do not hire strippers for a kids birthday party.

    Maybe this is yet another (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    example of why children should not have children.

    Not only is it like igniting a hormonal firebomb, but it doesn't teach a young man much about respecting women, either.  

    There's fun, kdog, and then there's stupid; kids do enough of the latter on their own - the last thing most of them need are parents egging them on.


    I guess at this point (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:19:02 PM EST
    we should be thankful she didn't give him an AK 47, or a twenty foot reticulated python (to be returned to the great American wilds later on) for his birthday.

    Please don't give her (none / 0) (#18)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:48:58 PM EST
    any ideas for his next birthday, jondee.

    You can critique the parenting... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 07:45:43 PM EST
    but child endangerment is laughable...c'mon.  

    I tend to think there are far better examples of bad parenting, most of which don't lead to arrest...but I don't wanna give the authorities any ideas.  


    Sorry (none / 0) (#20)
    by nyjets on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 08:00:45 PM EST
    But hiring a stripper for your teenage child is an example of bad parenting that most certaining should lead to arrest.

    Not enough chains and cages... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 06:38:47 AM EST
    in the world to make someone's opinion about bad parenting a crime...we need to limit criminality to actual real endangerment.

    If letting your son be an altar boy isn't considered    child endangerment, no way in hell hiring an erotic dancer for your 16 year old son can be...there is no grave danger there no matter how awful you think it is.

    I personally don't see what is so terrible, though you're talking to a guy who went to his first bachelor party at 17.


    it is not an opinion (none / 0) (#27)
    by nyjets on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    Hiring strippers for you underage kid is child endangerment. Period. It is not an opionion.
    And letting a child being an alter boy is in no way shape or form the same as hiring a stripper for your underage child. There is nothing wrong with the former. EVERYTHING is wrong with the latter.

    You are so buggin.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:53:10 AM EST
    have you paid no attention to what has been going on in Catholic Church for the last 600 years?

    There is no debate about what could possibly endanger a 16 year old boy more....zip, zilch, zero.

    But I don't think either should be a crime.


    not every priest is a pedophile (none / 0) (#30)
    by nyjets on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:16:40 AM EST
    Not every catholic priest was a predophile. MOst were not.
    Letting an underage teenager be an alter boy is not child endangerment. Giving a stripper as a birthday gift to an underage teenager is. And the latter is most certainly a crime.

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:34:49 AM EST
    we're not going to ever agree on that one;)

    Can you explain how the 16 year old was endangered?  Where is the threat to the child's well-being rising to a level that a violent societal response (aka arrest) was required?

    There was clearly no physical abuse threat, are you arguing mental/psychological danger?  Should we arrest parents who let their 16 years olds watch R movies?  


    One (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    thing occurs to me about this.

    Essentially, the mother is arousing her son.

    That, imo, ain't healthy.


    yes, serious boundary issues here. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 10:20:59 AM EST
    no (none / 0) (#32)
    by nyjets on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:40:33 AM EST
    No because a kid can watch an r rated movie WITH a parent.
    The law does not allow for exposing an underage child to a stripper. And yes, there is real harm to that.

    This kid... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:55:13 AM EST
    got a lap dance with his parent present.  What's the difference, a little physical contact?

    If the kid wanted no part of it and his mom forced him, then I can maybe see some harm...but I don't think that is the case.  I can think of one thousand things you can do to a 16 year old that are more harmful and totally legal, and I'm sure you can too if you put your mind to it.

    This arrest is indefensible.


    Would you feel the same way if (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:26:06 AM EST
    the child had been female, and her father had "given" her a couple male strippers, who then proceeded to straddle her face the way the female stripper did that young man?

    And if not, why not?  

    I have to say that even if it wasn't child endangerment, it's creepy and inappropriate on so many levels for a parent to do what that woman did.  If that's the kind of judgment she has, who knows how many other inappropriate, bad decisions she's made up to this point.  

    I hate to pull the parent card, but, honestly, kdog, I don't think you really have any idea just how hard it is to be someone's parent - or maybe I should say, how hard it is to be a good parent.  To think beyond the immediacy of the moment to consider the consequences in the future, to think about what it's telling the kid.

    Kids don't need their parents to be their best friends, they don't need them to be cool - they need them to be adults who provide structure and boundaries - those have to be imposed from the outside in order for a child to learn to internalize them so they learn how to make good decisions.

    Are there a million more things that are worse than what this parent did?  I'm sure there are - but that's not the point.  Child endangerment laws don't just apply to parents, they apply to anyone in contact with a child.

    Sometimes your free spirit is utterly charming, kdog, but when you get it wrong, it's usually about something that just makes my blood run cold, and this is one of them.


    Illegal or not (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    I'd say you nail it with this line:

    "it's creepy and inappropriate on so many levels for a parent to do what that woman did"


    Funny you should ask... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    it's almost a rite of passage for my family's women...though at a little older age.  My sister went to a Chippendales show with Moms for her 18th, and just recently we all celebrated my niece's 21st at Lucky Chengs where she was face straddled by a transgender performer...a good time was had by all.  We would have taken her for her 18th if we had known they wouldn't card her, we snuck her 19 year old brother in no problem.  I wasn't invited to the strip club for his 18th with his buddies and girlfriend....the no-liquor strip clubs here are 18 to enter.

    I got condoms and a Playboy subscription for Christmas at age 15...granted my family is more liberal than others, and I realize strippers for your 16th birthday is a little outside our cultural norms...but to automatically assume the woman is a bad mom is a mistake imo, different yes but not necessarily bad.  And certainly not criminally endangering her child...the pearl-clutching is cracking me up.  Lighten up people, good lord!  


    One of the more creative descriptions (none / 0) (#41)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    of liberalism I've heard.

    Liberal, Adjective... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values

    That's the McArab clan!  Or at least most of us;)


    Hate to tell you this but... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:06:49 PM EST
    Giving condoms and a Playboy to a teenager is not liberalism. It's actually pretty old school.

    Yes, being liberal means (none / 0) (#47)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    being open to new ideas and behaviors. But that doesn't mean automatically accepting every new idea or behavior. Liberalism is not "anything goes." Maybe that's libertarianism. But some of the scenarios you describe just strike me as kinda creepy.

    To each their own... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    but beleive you me a closer, tighter knit, more loving family is hard to find...I wouldn't trade my weird non-traditional family and upbringing with anybodys...we all turned out salt of the earth & relatively normal;)  

    It wasn't "anything goes", more like "open minded to anything"....that, to me, is classic liberalism.  


    It sure as hell... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    ain't abstinence only conservatism!

    For the record, the condoms collected dust for years...but I did enjoy the Playboy, I'm such a geek I enjoyed the articles and interviews more then the centerfolds.


    libertarianism is about as far from (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    liberalism as anything else you can think of...

    There's a difference between (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    18 and 16, there's a difference between a club and a private party - and there's an even bigger difference when it's the opposite sex parent who is hiring the strippers.

    I'm sorry, it skeezes me out no end to think about what kind of mom hires strippers for her 16 yr old son - just as it would skeeze me out if it was a dad hiring male strippers for his daughter.

    Buying your son or daughter condoms so that they can be safe when and if they choose to have sex is not the same as putting your child in an environment that generates and encourages sexual feelings and objectifies people.  Son gets charged up and then, what, decides the 15 yr old female guest at his party is where he's going to expend that energy?  Maybe if she's your daughter, you'd be cool with that, but it wouldn't be cool if she were mine.

    I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this with you - you just aren't ever going to get it.


    We're never going to get each other... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    on stuff like this...I can respect your opinion on the parenting, even if I disagree.  

    What I can't respect is the total acceptance of authoritarianism...anybody who thinks the authorities needed to be involved is a far greater danger to children, and all of humanity, than this mom ever could be.


    yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by nyjets on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:58:15 AM EST
    The physical contact is definitly part of the problem. And not I can not think of anything that is more harmful and totally legal. The mother should of been arested.

    Come On Bro... (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:02:59 AM EST
    ...it's one thing to get your 16 old a stripper, it's quite another to get someone else's 14 year old one, and it's ridiculous to get two for a party of kids in which some are still in in junior high.

    It also seems odd to me that the parent is in trouble, but the performers aren't.  If the act endangered kids, surely the people performing are just guilty, as well as the establishment that allowed it.

    Like it or not, society has generally established 16 as the age of consent.  There were 80 people at this party, so she wasn't the only adult, and because she was charged with 5 misdemeanors, I am guessing there were 5 kids who were younger than 16.


    you are right (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by nyjets on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    The stripper should be charged as well. Honestly I am actually amzed the stripper did not leave the second she realized she performing in front of kids.

    How far do we take this... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    I see your point about the other minor guests, the birthday boys mom had no right to make the call for anybody elses kid but hers, she should have cleared it with all the parents so they had the option to not let their kid attend.  But we don't know that any other parents objected, do we?...sounds like it all started by other patrons at the bowling alley clutching pearls and complaining instead of minding their own business.
    I do question choosing the bowling alley...shoulda made this a house party.

    I am shocked at how low of a criminal child endangerment threshold some here hold.  I still say you endanger your child tenfold by making them go to church.


    What everyone seems to be missing (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    Is that the age of consent in NY is 17 - which includes sexual touching - which means no one at this party who participated was legally able to consent to anything.  Looking at that picture, the mother is pretty lucky she isn't being charged with a whole lot more.

    She had no right to make that call, period. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:36:31 PM EST
    kdog: "[T]he birthday boys mom had no right to make the call for anybody elses kid but hers[.]"

    As someone who received an advanced sexual education way before his proper time, I know what it's like to be 16 going on 40. It's not a pleasant experience, and it's definitely not cool. I believe in letting our children be children, for as long as they are minor children. That includes letting them discover their budding sexuality at their own pace and on their own terms, and not at an adult's behest and bidding.

    Sorry, ol' buddy, but I'm really going to have to disagree with you on this one. If that mother was willing to do this to her 16-year-old son (and not for him), then what's the next step -- hiring a hooker to take his cherry?

    I think you know me well enough to know that I'm certainly no prude when it comes to matters of sexuality, but as far as I'm concerned, that woman didn't do what she did for her teenaged son's benefit. Rather, she did it to catch her own jollies. That constitutes child abuse in my estimation, and I think she's a bloomin' idiot who's getting exactly what she deserves.

    Now, where's my bong? Aloha.


    This is what happens when ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    ... GOP state legislators work for ALEC, instead of the residents of their own state:

    Anchorage Daily News | February 21, 2013
    Alaska state senator proposes bounty on sea otters - "An Alaska state senator is proposing a bounty on sea otters, the cute little marine mammals often seen by tourists swimming on their backs between cruise ships, sometimes munching on a fresh crab or clams. Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, sees the furry-faced critters as a growing threat to shellfish beds, particularly in southeast Alaska, where he is from. On Wednesday, he introduced legislation that would have the state pay $100 for each sea otter lawfully killed under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act."

    The GOP is patently absurd.

    Why do you think this is ALEC's work? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:10:34 PM EST
    I read the linked article. It is not unlike a situation we have here on the Columbia River where sea lions are decimating the salmon runs at Bonneville Dam.

    There is quite a bit of discussion about how to control the sea lion population, which has grown considerably in recent years. And one possible plan involves killing some of the sea lions. ALEC figures no where in this discussion. The Feds, Oregon and Washington, various Native American tribes, every group with a stake in preserving the salmon here is part of the talks, but no ALEC.

    It is possible that the state senator in Alaska introduced this bill at the behest of the fishing community. Where it drifts into rightwing territory is in trying to bypass the Feds, but that could be frustration with the Federal rules as much as it could be Tenther stuff.

    Not every GOPer angry with Federal regulation is a rightwing tool.


    Busy with my civic duty this week and part of next (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:17:02 PM EST
    Will be back here soon with stories, and questions for the legal eagles. I am learning a lot...some I did not want to know....

    Jury duty? (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    Felony. Or boring civil dispute. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 01:39:49 AM EST