Wednesday Night Open Thread

I just realized we haven't had an open thread since Monday. Here's one, all topics welcome.

< Holder Defends Aaron Swartz Prosecution | A Clearer Version of the Witness 8 Call With Crump >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seems (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 08:47:01 PM EST
    like not a whole lot of people conversing these days so threads are not filling up like they used to.

    Anyway, I hope everybody around here is doing okay. I miss all of you guys and wish I had more time to chat but I'm trying to double down on work as much as i can.

    God please not another Bush... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 10:05:47 PM EST
    What did I do to deserve this. George P. Bush.
    Enough enough enough!

    Well, you just know... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by unitron on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:07:57 PM EST
    ...that Jeb's thinking all he has to do for 2016 is pick the right Hispanic Veep choice.

    It's kind of scary when you hope the Tea Party is just as strong and just as nuts 3 years from now.


    Valerie Harper, TV's Rhoda Morgenstern from (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 10:56:47 PM EST
    The Mary Tyler Moore Show and the spinoff Rhoda,has been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. Her doctors have told her she has about 3 months left to live.

    This particular cancer occurs in approximately 5% of people who have another cancer. Harper had lung cancer a few years ago, and her doctors think that this brain cancer was caused by the lung cancer re-ocurring and metastasizing to the fluid around the brain.

    My thoughts go out to Valerie and her loved ones.

    she had a later series... (none / 0) (#4)
    by unitron on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:05:30 PM EST
    ...as some sort of city manager or department manager for a city which I thought quite good, her portrayal especially (so naturally it lasted only a short while).

    And it wasn't that thing where she took over for Sandy Dennis or the other way around.


    She played a city manager in the short-lived, (none / 0) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:12:08 PM EST
    it only ran from Jan.-June in 1990, show City. Previously, she starred in the sit-com Valerie. She was fired from that show during a contract dispute, and was replaced by Sandy Dennis.

    Sandy DUNCAN I think it was (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:44:57 PM EST
    And I hate Wheat Thins. ;-)

    Yes, Sandy DUNCAN. n/t (none / 0) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:03:08 AM EST
    Right you are... (none / 0) (#23)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:42:04 AM EST
    Sandy Duncan, with the glass eye.

    They're better if you melt cheese on them.

    Wheat Thins, that is, not glass eyes.

    Sandy Dennis was in the original version of Sweet November.


    Sandy Dennis to me is... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    ...Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?

    Let's play... get the guests! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:21:10 AM EST
    I believe (none / 0) (#11)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:55:14 AM EST
    that she also starred in a spin-off of the MTM show, called "Rhoda".

    And remember the spinoff Phyllis (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:58:22 AM EST
    My favorite spinoff was the Lou Grant Show (none / 0) (#43)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    Not a comedy. Billie. Animal. Mrs. Pynchon! A show your dad could have done a guest spot in...

    Whats with all the (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:59:11 PM EST
    "She's slept with so many black guys.." jokes at those roasts?

    Like that's the definitive expression of how low a woman can sink.


    There's always something weird (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:45:54 PM EST
    Or it wouldn't be a roast. Cloris sank to a donkey with her bit, tho. And, with these ones anyway, it's usually jokes about Lisa Lampanelli in that racial regard. She's on a lot of the roast panels and it's part of her, uh, chunky white gal schtick. But they ain't think tanks. Shot-glasses maybe, but not full tanks.

    shot glasses, lines (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 11:22:17 AM EST
    and slipping roofies to girls who got into the club with a fake I.D..

    It's a hard knock life. No wonder Giraldo couldn't take it anymore.

    But switch all those "black guy" jokes to say, Anne Frank jokes, and see how many thousand kinds of meltdowns result..

    The entertainment industry's still low-level racism friendly imo, and apparently the only male black actor who's allowed to speak a complete sentence without using the word motherf*cker is still Denzel; maybe Don Cheadle once in a while..

    As Ingrid Bergman said in the-still-fondly-remembered classic, "who's the boy over there playing the piano?"


    Giraldo said of Jon Lovitz at one roast: (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    "There hasn't been a more feminine Jew in the closet since Anne Frank."


    Actually, the joke that Giraldo got the most groans for that I remember was about Heath Ledger after he'd died. "It's a roast, phuckers, calm down," was his retort basically.

    But I get entirely what you're saying. At the same time, I do think it's evolving. Slowly. Painfully. But evolving. And art, comedy, whatever you think it is, is usually a decent bellweather of tolerance. Intolerance, too, all the time, sure, but the opposite as well. Ironies abound.


    Ironies abound.. (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 12:28:21 PM EST
    ain't it the truth..

    Evolving, devolving, and spinning around like a top all at the same time..

    And patience still ain't my strong suit, sorry to say.


    So, how 'bout that fillibuster? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by EL seattle on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:06:39 AM EST
    It was a surprisingly retro performance, I thought. But in a good way, like something from the early 1980s or before.

    (Towards the end I almost expected to see Mike Mansfield moving around somewhere in the background just at the edge of the camera's view. But it was getting late.)

    I tuned (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:53:47 AM EST
    into C-Span for awhile and heard Rand Paul emoting.

    I must admit, the way he was railing against the use of drones, and the non-denial denial by the Obama administration about whether they consider that they have the right to kill Americans on American soil without charge, trial or due process - well, it was something I wish I was hearing from a Democrat.

    In short, I would have liked a filibuster against Brennan instigated by Democrats who care about our civil rights, civil liberties, transparency and due process.

    But no.

    It is a Democratic president pushing Brennan.

    For me, things are really askew.


    'You can't always get what you want...' (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    As long as somebody took a stand and said what had to be said, that's what is important.  The letter after their name, their brand...totally unimportant to me.

    The Dem party you knew or thought you knew is gone, and it ain't ever coming back Jack...if it ever existed at all.  

    We gotta Stand with Rand, what choice do we have?  If it makes old-school Dems feel better, they can say they are standing against Lindsey Graham, who called Rand's filibuster "ridiculous".


    Rand already sat back down (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:47:59 AM EST
    He's now back to working against voter's rights, civil rights, and women's rights.

    I'll take what I can get... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    beggars (for liberty) can't be choosers;)

    And the Dems can go back to supporting (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    the droning of Americans here at home.

    And since it happened that one time (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:14:04 AM EST
    Oh...wait a minute....it has never happened.

    The Dems silence on the (none / 0) (#71)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    subject could be taken as tacit approval by some, correct?  Did any Dem raise objections at the Senate hearing?

    "By some" (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:08:25 PM EST
    "Some" still aren't convinced that evolution is real.  "Some" think Obama is trying to ban guns.  "Some" still think that Obama is a Kenyan Marxist.

    You can't worry about what the nutjobs think.


    At least one Democratic Senator has been (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:08:47 PM EST
    pretty vocal on the subject.

    I know that Sen. Ron Wyden (D)of Oregon joined Sen. Paul in his filibuster at least for a little while.


    With all those automatic assault rifles (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 12:59:31 AM EST
    in private Republican hands, the drones will have a true battle on their hands.

    And I am not a betting girl (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    But I am willing to bet that you belong to a militia Wile.

    Right, because that is what they support (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    It's what Dems voted for... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    I'd call that support.

    Oh wait, nobody votes for anything, they voted against Romney's assasination program...what I am thinking;)


    Right (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    ... and hating apple pie, baseball and puppies, too.

    Especially those d@mn puppies ...


    So what are the Dems (none / 0) (#68)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    going to do about this?  Sit back on their haunches?  Nothing.  

    Do about what? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    Has someone been attacked with a drone in the US?  Do you want the White House to double-deny the authority to use drones on US soil?

    I think you're red-herring is officially dead.


    Well, Wile, we'll watch you Repubs implode (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:30:01 PM EST
    Lots of rifts, there, lots of rifts.  Are you supporting McCain or Paul?

    And no bill, no legislation (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    To address what is soooo distressing him.  Activist and anti-drone lefty Jim Staro just pointed that out.

    He sat down (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    Because he had to go to the bathroom.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    feel as you do, kdog.

    I don't know if I could "stand with Rand" entirely, but I'm glad he said what he said.

    But, as witnessed below, he will be dismissed by people who should be, imo, giving him some credit for at least putting out there what is going on.

    To me, this Brennan is a horror story - regarding turning  an unseeing eye toward torture ---- Not my kind of guy.

    Why does Obama have to continually recycle these relics from the Bush era? Has he no imagination? Ooops. I forgot. Forgive and forget. Gotta move on. Sending us to war on lies --- well, that doesn't mean that we should do anything about it does it?

    I totally agree about what you said about the Democratic party.
    Completely kaput. The last person I heard that sounded like a Democrat was Howard Dean -- and we all saw what happened with him.

    I'm rambling... but I foresaw the end when people ignored Clinton's going along with the execution of a severely retarded man when he was governor and running for pres. He let that poor slob fry rather than look "soft on crime". (The condemned guy was so fkd up that he requested that they save his dessert from his last meal for after the execution.)

    We were all so fed up with GHWBush that we overlooked a lot just to get Bush out and Clinton in. Then, Clinton went after welfare recipients as I remember - bombed a civilian pharmaceutical company in Khartoum... and the left got more and more silent.

    And here we are.


    Definitely not... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    gonna stand with Rand all the time, he's nuts! ;)

    But he's also one of the very few who will at least speak out about our government assasination policy and the war on drugs and some other issues that are (supposedly)near and dear to freedom-loving liberal people.  He will buck his own party line once in awhile...sadly, that is saying something these days.

    Like you said, "here we are".  


    Rand Paul epitomizes the concept of ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    ... a broken clock telling the correct time for one minute twice daily. He and that other crackpot Ted Cruz have no business serving on a local school board or water commission, let alone as sitting members of the United States Senate.

    And John Brennan... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    has no business serving as a meter maid, never mind head of the CIA.

    Maybe Don (none / 0) (#79)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:29:55 PM EST
    is right, and Rand is right just once a day.

    That's something at least.

    On this, Obama isn't right all day long.


    Charlie Pierce has the "5-minute rule" (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    where the Pauls are concerned:

    Observation The First: the blog's Five Minute Rule regarding the Pauls remains largely intact. (This rule states that, for five minutes, both the son and the father, Crazy Uncle Liberty (!), make perfect sense on many issues. At the 5:00:01 mark, however, the trolley inevitably departs the tracks.) There was enough stuff packed in there about thousands of Iraqis who should go back home, and the Supreme Court's Kelo decision -- which, whatever you may think of it, was democratically arrived at -- to hold the rule still valid.


    Observation The Second: while I take Aqua Buddha -- and probably Mike Lee -- seriously as to the fundmental constitutional basis of their objections to what was under discussion, please to be giving me a break, Mitch McConnell, and Pat Toomey, and newly minted Senator Tailgunner Ted from Texas. None of these guys ever had a real objection that I ever heard to the drone program until it became the latest cudgel to use on That Person in the White House. (By comparison, Debbie Stabenow and Bernie Sanders have been dubious about it for months now, but they're Democrats and, therefore, do not count.) As Adam Serwer pointed out, four of Paul's newest fans voted in favor of indefinite detention.  I hope Aqua Buddha's ready for what's going to happen the next time there's a Republican president. It's going to be awfully lonely being him.


    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    I think the same thing can be said about the commander-in-chief.
    Whenever he talks, in a speech or off the cuff, he can seem to make sense for a minute or so at a time. After that, things... drift.

    Anyway, it's heartening to know that the U.S. government's perceived authority to target American citizens in "extraordinary circumstances" survived the vicious attack by Paul.

    I noticed that Obama's response via Carney was to say that the Pres didn't have authority to kill Americans on American soil via drone. He was quite specific. Drones. No.

    Thankfully, he left room for the use of poison, guns, a hammer, a bomb, contaminated water and bows and arrows as acceptable methods for the efficient disposal of American suspects.

    The Nation is secure.


    The guy lies (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:17:10 PM EST
    as easily, and effortlessly, as he breaths.

    He has the demeanor of that old KGB stereotype; he is one scary, scary dude.


    Know what else is near and dear? (none / 0) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:26:53 AM EST
    Life, and the belief one should not have to worry about getting blown to bits by some nut who holds a grudge.

    Did you just call our President... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    a nut who holds grudges? ;)

    Local cops already have the power to use deadly force on an armed suspect about to harm others, nevermind the Commander in Chief.  

    It is the use of deadly force on unarmed suspects who we think maybe might want to hurt somebody someday that has some of us troubled.


    Cops don't always limit... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    themselves to armed suspects.  

    Ain't that the truth... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:54:09 PM EST
    last thing we should be thinking about is loosening the rules of engagement between law enforcement and the citizenry....not to mention the CIA was never even supposed to be involved in domestic law enforcement operations.  Brave New World.

    "Minority Report" (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:11:32 PM EST
    Silly me--I thought it was just a movie!

    There are a multitude of things you can worry (none / 0) (#81)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:10:09 PM EST
    about as you walk out your door each morning. Just curious: Is the government's callous disregard for your constitutional rights one of those worries?

    kdog (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:57:48 PM EST
     "He will buck his own party line once in awhile"

    Rand Paul has a perfect 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for each of his two years in the Senate. He hasn't bucked the Tea Party one time ever.


    Tea Party... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    ain't the Republican Party...Lindsey Graham & John McCain have called him everything short of an arsehole for his filibuster of the Brennan confirmation.  That's not bucking his party establishment?

    Again, no argument about Rand's wrong-headed stances on some other issues, just that he's right on this issue, and Obama and his loyal lapdogs in the party are wrong...imo of course.  Brennan should not be confirmed.  


    Kdog, while I agree (none / 0) (#72)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    that Paul is right on this one issue (and the President and his minions are wrong), Mr. Zorba has a saying that he's fond of quoting:  "Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile."
    Because Paul is correct this one time is no reason to totally support him, since he's so very wrong on so much else.  At the end of the day, he's still the "blind pig."  Just sayin'.

    I agree... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:47:01 AM EST
    I don't support Paul on every issue, I've yet to find a politician I support on every issue...the day that happens I might have to think about retiring my bong;)

    Unfortunately I wouldn't know... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:00:21 AM EST
    ...Time-Warner took our C-SPAN away.

    But I did just now turn on the TV and catch the tail end of a CNN interview with Rand Paul.

    Life is very confusing when one finds oneself in (apparent) agreement with Rand Paul about anything.

    Can we at least get a new minimum requrements for a filibuster precedent out of this?


    "Ron Finley: A guerilla gardener (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:29:16 AM EST
    Ron Finley plants vegetable gardens in South Central LA -- in abandoned lots, traffic medians, along the curbs. Why? For fun, for defiance, for beauty and to offer some alternative to fast food in a community where "the drive-thrus are killing more people than the drive-bys."

    Watch the video. It is entertaining and inspirational.

    Ya know you're up to something positive... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    when you are cited by your local government for being out of compliance, as Mr. Finley was in 2011 by the City of Los Angeles.

    Great stuff. (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:07:34 PM EST
    I'm jealous... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:26:57 AM EST
    of how sweet the newfound freedom must taste like for these WA newlyweds planning to open a reefer store.

    From tyrannically forbidden to marry and make a living as they see fit for 28 years, to married and working to make their dream job a reality in 3 short months.  Lets just hope the feds don't crush all their dreams.  Linkage...perfectly poignant last name too, Bliss.

    The one thing that article... (none / 0) (#87)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:58:18 PM EST
    ...fails to talk about in getting a pot business off the ground is banking (or more accurately, the lack of).  I know you're a cash only advocate, but that's been a problem for dispensary owners here.  

    The banks won't do business with them - even the ones that are established customers with other "legitimate" business.  So, no loans for start-up/expansion and no place to keep the daily receipts.  

    Among other problems of a cash only business (meeting payroll, paying taxes, etc.), that makes those that are up and running attractive targets for theft/robbery.  

    Here's an interesting interview of one of the major players here with the editor of the daily paper.

    I hope we have the good sense to do something about that with the new statutes and regs that are coming this session.


    You know me too well;)... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:42:45 AM EST
    Banks treating you like you have the plague is what I'd call a blessing in disguise! ;)

    I can totally understand how it is an issue though, especially the credit card processing and line of credit...and when push comes to shove the big banks will do what the feds want so as not to jeapordize their get out jail free cards for massive financial crimes...but I'm sure they'd be willing to launder the money or do some under the table stuff, just call HSBC! ;)  

    I don't know what kind of regulatory hurdles there are or will be, but maybe there is an opportunity there for the formation of a new bank...there have been Farmers Banks and Marine Merchant Banks...why not a Marijuana Farmer & Merchants Bank?


    Obama and Paul Ryan (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    Charlie Pierce points us to Politico today, and gives us his usual sharp response:

    Sometimes, it's the way it does its business, and sometimes, it's simply what's in it.

       Obama, who has always regarded Ryan as one of the leading intellectual forces of the opposition...

    Is this a dagger I see before me? Let me plunge it into my eyeballs.

    His budgets don't balance. The CBO has his picture up on the wall like the mug shots of stalkers that hang in the guard shacks of Hollywood studios. Actual economists look at his work, when he actually shows it, which is not often, and they tell the tales of it to their children to scare their children out of ever becoming economists. His performance on the national stage last autumn was a clown show of epic proportions. He is a Leading Intellectual Force in a party full of people who eat oatmeal with their toes.

    More from Politico:

    By speaking directly with Ryan, Obama is hoping to enlist a powerful ally in convincing leadership to abandon its insistence on subjecting all future measures on the debt, deficit, taxes and entitlement reform to "regular order," the tortuous committee process dominated by party conservatives, according to a person close to the process.

    Charlie's reaction:

    It goes without saying, but we will say it anyway, and again, but there is simply nothing that the zombie-eyed granny-starver could propose that should be treated by any Democratic president any differently than a free introductory case of the mange. He has nothing to offer to any progressive vision of the country, not even the president's, which is admittedly a fairly pale one. He wants to demolish the social-welfare component of the government because he considers it philosophically illegitimate. He wants to establish an oligarchical system, not because it will profit him personally, although it will, but because he considers it the natural order of democracy. In every sense of the word, he is an extremist, the Louie Gohmert of economic policy. The president slapped him down to his face in an episode about which Republicans have not yet stopped whining. Inviting him back into the discussion can do nothing but make you wonder how securely the fix already is in.

    Makes me wonder, that's for sure, because you know Obama's not going to be talking Ryan into seeing things any other way.  Now, it's really just about nailing down the details.

    It (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:50:10 AM EST
    had been my impression that Obama had won reelection.
    But all I see is Boehner and Ryan and Cantor.

    I seem to remember that when the republicans shut down the government during the Clinton administration, Clinton was able to get across to the American people that the republicans were at fault and the consequences of their behavior were dire.

    And, soon thereafter, Gingrich was out of his speakership, and out of office entirely.

    But I don't see Boehner going anywhere anytime soon.
    Except maybe on the golf course for a few rounds with O.


    Think they talked about (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    this part of the budget?

    Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is pressing GOP centrists to accept a budget that would cut Medicare benefits for recipients who are now 56 years old.

    The House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate argues the change is necessary to help him produce a budget next week that balances within 10 years.

    He also says that the change must be made and that it is better to adopt it now than next year, when Republicans will face voters in the midterm elections.

    The problem for Ryan is that many Republicans have said his budget would not touch Medicare benefits for anyone who is already 55 years old. Members may have trouble supporting a measure that goes back on that commitment.

    Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    people who eat oatmeal with their toes.


    zombie-eyed granny-starver



    Anne, Paul Ryan can indeed be ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    ... an intellectual force for the GOP opposition inside the Beltway, if both that GOP opposition and the Beltway media elite such as Politico regard him as one of those intellectual forces.

    Now, that shouldn't by any means confer intelligence upon Ryan by default. Rather, I take it to mean that among today's Beltway Republicans, he's the only 2-watt bulb still flickering in an otherwise failed string of Christmas lights.

    Anyway, just because Politico posts something doesn't necessarily mean that it should be taken verbatim, either. And since Glenn Thrush never asked the president directly whether he does indeed regard Ryan as a "an intellectual force for the opposition," it naturally follows that Thrush has no way of knowing if in fact that's actually the case.

    Rather, Pearce is merely reporting Thrush's opinion, and then offering his own comment about Obama's presumed consideration of Ryan (per Thrush) as though it were an established fact, when it is not. Time may well prove Pearce right, but really, that's the stuff of echo chambers.

    Obama invited Ryan to lunch because the congressman is the chair of the House Committee on the Federal Budget, and as such, the president is obliged to converse with him directly in light of the need for at least a continuing resolution to avoid an otherwise pending government shutdown.

    Neither is obviously going to convince one another of the righteousness of their own party's respective cause, but that shouldn't be the point. As senior public officials conferred by voters with the task of governance, they still have to talk to one another -- for the same reason that my boss is scheduled to have a late lunch with the governor and the Senate President tomorrow afternoon, so that they might discuss some rather significant differences of opinion regarding the proposed Hawaii state budget for FY 2014, which the State House passed late Tuesday night and sent over to the State Senate.

    There will be numerous occasions this legislative session when we'd love to be able to draw a sharp line in the sand and not budge from the House's established position. But honestly, I think it's patently irresponsible to do so, if the alternative is seeing otherwise important and necessary legislation die an ugly death simply for the sake of assuaging someone's ego.

    One has to govern, in any event, and whenever public officials start folding their arms publicly in front of themselves, posturing and drawing lines in the sand for the live videofeeds and the nightly news, the result is generally anything but good governance.



    Laughter is the best medicine... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    and punishable by 15 days cage time or a $ 250.00 fine.

    Another case of a dime-dropper using the law as his personal weapon, and the law is once again happy to oblige.

    Mad props for the accused criminal laugher and his attorney for refusing to cop a plea...it may be the convenient thing to do to make it go away, but it only encourages the bastards.

    Well this is a doozy - (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    from the NYT.  The Senate has finished a 6,000 page study on systematic mismanagement if not outright lying about the conduct and efficacy of torture.


    By the account of people briefed on the report, it concludes that the program was ill-conceived, sloppily managed and far less useful in obtaining intelligence than its supporters have claimed.


    The report, according to statements from some senators and descriptions from others who have reviewed it, documents in exhaustive detail how C.I.A. officials and consultants who ran the program gave top Bush administration officials, members of Congress, the American public and even their own colleagues -- possibly including Mr. Brennan himself -- a deeply distorted account of its nature and efficacy. After a bipartisan start in 2009, Republican staff members refused to participate in the writing of the report, making the four-year effort largely the work of Democratic committee staff members.


    For his part, Mr. Brennan said at his hearing that if the report's 350-page executive summary was right, he had himself been misinformed about the program. That would be an extraordinary development, since he was deputy to the agency's third-ranking official in 2002 and 2003, when the program was at its height. He has said that he had no role in running the program and that he expressed disapproval of the brutal methods privately to unidentified colleagues.

    "I don't know what the facts are or the truth is. So I really need to look at that carefully and see what C.I.A.'s response is," he said.

    Setting aside Brennan's misrepresentation of his support for the program (which has been documented here and elsewhere), I find it hard to believe the CIA was solely responsible for this misinformation.  I imagine Cheney made some interesting phone calls during that time period.  I'm sure there's some CYA on the part of the Senate going on here, too.

    All the same what an unbelievable mess, and a shocking thing to hear from Brennan.

    Is it just me (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    or is the dreaded ABC News script loop error occurring again?

    Something was up. (none / 0) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:00:31 PM EST
    I was getting a script error using Windows earlier today.  Now that I'm on Firefox, it is working OK.  

    Drones and Missing The Point (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    Completely agree with this.  The debate is all skewed because drones are being viewed as some magically new device.  I understand we need to discuss the issue, but the con law issue should simply be whether we can kill people (American or not) for certain reasons in certain places. Whether it is drones or magic wands is irrelevant.

    Kevin Drum:

    "I know this is pretty obvious, but I just want to ask a question--or maybe make a point--very clearly: when it comes to the authority of the president to assassinate American citizens on American soil, drones are just a sideshow, right?

    What I mean is that if the president wants to kill someone on American soil, he already has loads of options. This is because, unlike Yemen or Pakistan, we control our own territory. If Obama wants to kill someone at no risk to U.S. troops, he can scramble jets; use a sniper; order a helicopter strike; lob some mortars from a safe distance; or fire off a missile from a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher.

    Right? There's really nothing new here. Presidents have always had the physical means to kill people safely, and the availability of drones doesn't really change anything. It's just one more weapon in their arsenal.

    Or am I missing something? Is there something truly special and different about drones that I'm not getting?"


    Are you missing something? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    Yes. I believe you are.

    Americans are entitled to due process.
    This is a very important constitutional issue in my opinion. It is something that I personally hold to be extremely important and extremely American. At least what I used to think of "American". Now, after 8 miserable years of Bush and 4 crappy years with Obama, I no longer know what "American" even means anymore.

    We are on the cusp of a succession of governments, Bush's and Obama's, that feels that this constitutional guarantee is not absolute. In short, he can blow to smithereens whomever he and his merry band consider to be suspected of sympathies with the enemy du jour.

    And the conditions for considering someone a suspect are becoming more and more elastic.


    Then I think you're missing the point... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    ...because the important question isn't "can the President kill me without due process of law with a drone", it's "can the President kill me without due process of law".

    There's nothing magical about moving drones in or out of the equation.

    Unless they''re planning a new law that says "Everybody still gets due process--unless we use a drone", or Holder manages to convince Roberts and Scalia that there's a magical invisible exception in The Constitution that can be invoked by the use of drones.


    Yes. I see your point. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    (T)he important question isn't "can the President kill me without due process of law with a drone", it's "can the President kill me without due process of law".

    I agree.

    And the answer appears to be, "Yes. He can."


    Kevin Drum's been hanging around (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:10:03 AM EST
    the Beltway a little too long, I think.

    So, for Kevin - and you, if you need it - here's the real question: does the government have the right to kill you without due process of any kind?

    If I'm an American with an explosive device strapped to my chest, standing in the town square and looking to kill, maim or otherwise injure people, I don't think anyone would argue that law enforcement confronted with that situation would be justified in the use of deadly force - if that was the only way to thwart my mission.

    But if I'm an American the government only suspects has a plan to do that, I think I have a right to due process before some government star chamber decides I have to die.  Get a warrant.  Arrest me.  Read me my rights.  Let me get a lawyer to defend myself.  Let me be heard before a judge and/or a jury.  Let me be presumed to be innocent and make the government prove otherwise.

    It strikes me as 10 kinds of alarming - and sad - that among the "loads of options" Drum mentions, one cannot find that increasingly antiquated process of warrants-arrests-grand juries-preliminary hearings-trials.  You know, the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing.

    I mean, really...it's hard to take seriously someone - like Kevin Drum - who has allowed himself to be led around by the nose by these specious and distracting arguments to the point where he completely abandons the Constitution.

    But, he may get invited to better parties now.  Score!


    You haven't actually done "it" yet (3.00 / 2) (#58)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    If I'm an American with an explosive device strapped to my chest, standing in the town square and looking to kill, maim or otherwise injure people, I don't think anyone would argue that law enforcement confronted with that situation would be justified in the use of deadly force - if that was the only way to thwart my mission.

    Seems to me if you are OK w/the police killing a "suspect" in this situation, you're splitting hairs w/r/t the government representative that ultimately makes the decision to kill a citizen.  You are still relying on the subjective opinion of someone "on the scene" or, as the gov't would see it, someone in the midst of the battle in real-time.  

    Fact is, as your example aptly points out, it's not always easy to get the "suspect" to the point where their true intentions can be determined at some later, more convenient time.  What if the "device" strapped to the person's chest is a box of chocolates made to look like a bomb?  What if the person is having second thoughts right before being killed by the police?

    If there's a discussion to be had we need to not  "find it hard to take seriously" those that don't believe you can just draw a line in the sand and walk away.  Especially in the context of the ambiguities in the Constitution, and the prior authorizations afforded the President by Congress, and citizen at the heart of this debate.  I'm not all worked up about the gubmint coming after me or any other citizen w/a drone.  There are too many other more pressing possible infringements on my rights to worry about.


    Truth is, I'm not "comfortable" with (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    killing, and I hope never to be.  

    And I wouldn't be comfortable with the police killing the explosives-wearing person without some effort to resolve the situation peacefully - at which point, that person would not be summarily executed, but afforded the due process to which he or she is constitutionally entitled.  

    I really am not splitting hairs - that, it seems, is the province of people like yourself, who want or need to find a way to justify the president's authority to issue kill orders with no due process.  

    Due process is not an ambiguity for me; I'm sorry that it seems to be one for you, but maybe the last 12 years of constantly being told it's okay for us to ignore it in the name of anti-terrorism has finally had the effect the government intended.

    And again, how the government chooses to deny you your due process rights is less important than that they are denying them.  Curious to know, though, what rights you find more important than your right to due process - or even why you seem to be suggesting that some rights are more important than others.

    On second thought, if your logic will be anything like that in your original comment, I don't think I want to know.


    Whatever (3.50 / 2) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    I feel no need to "come up w/justification for the President."  I support what he's doing.  These situations occur daily and noone is all up in arms about it.  Maybe the rarefied air you breath where you live, you're sheltered and this is the only thing that can get you all upset.

    For someone w/so much supposed maturity, your posts come off very childish sometimes.

    On second thought, if your logic will be anything like that in your original comment, I don't think I want to know.

    I understand that debate tactic however.  Insult to distract when you have no argument.  


    Do I need an argument in support (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    of due process now?  Is that what it's come down to?

    You could have spared all of us making an effort to understand your fractured logic if you'd just said that you support the president; remind me, has he even given an unequivocal answer about the extent of his authority with respect to kill orders on Americans in America?

    For all your disdain for those of us who think it's important to oppose the erosion and destruction of any of our constitutional rights - even the "not-so-important" ones - something tells me you'd not be so dismissive if you were the aggrieved citizen.

    Call me childish if it makes you feel better, although I'm surprised you'd need to take comfort in something like that given the smug satisfaction you take in our dear leader's decisions.

    ::rolls eyes::


    You love you some distraction in your arguments (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:14:48 PM EST
    You're worried about the President, when your due process rights were at risk long before he (or Bush for that matter) even came into office.  They'll be at risk long after regardless of some supposed claim feverishly believed by some on a blog.
    The White House says President Barack Obama does not have the authority to use a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil if the citizen is not engaged in combat

    and it won't be because of some obscure justification used to combat terrorists.  Good night.


    I was attempting to address the (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:22:54 PM EST
    immediate subject, raised by ABG, about the president's use of drones; had ABG raised the issue of state and local law enforcement's encroachment on our due process rights, with the same "what's the big deal?" approach he took to Drum's column, I expect I'd have addressed that, and in the same terms.

    I believe it was you who attempted to distract from the subject by accusing Scott of not protesting the abuse of power by law enforcement.  Not that you have any concerns about it yourself - at least that's how your everyone's-doing-it-so-what's-the-big-deal? reaction comes across.



    One thing I do know (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:36:13 AM EST
    Your approach to real problems does nothing.  Offer solutions, or as my husband mentors to those younger, "Options...not ultimatums".  I read all this gobbledygook on here lately about how our leaders have no imagination, that may be somewhat true but most of the people making this claim don't seem to have any either.  If you provide a framework for due process, the conversation shifts and the powers that be will at some point have to address why there is no due process and why they won't adopt a form of it.  But please Anne, continue in your constant daily exercises of self-righteous indignation over every topic imaginable.

    I was wondering when you'd show up (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:14:27 AM EST
    to make another one of your illogical arguments...

    Are you seriously trying to make the argument that there's no existing framework of due process?  Or are you saying that we have to pretend there is no framework because dealing with kill lists for Americans is "different" and  we have to have something new?

    It seems to me that our leaders have mostly avoided addressing not just the due process factor, but also issues of executive authority - or were you unaware that for months and months and months members of Congress and the media have been asking for the OLC memos on the kill lists?  Have been trying to exert their oversight authority and been stonewalled again and again and again?

    But maybe that's just more gobbledygook to you.  More noise and distraction.

    I actually laughed out loud when I read that you don't think people have any imagination.  Day after day, I read comments here by people who have ideas and solutions, and they get batted down by people whose only response seems to be "that won't work," or "no one will vote for that" or "we can't do that."

    So, who really lacks imagination, Tracy?

    As for my "constant daily exercises of self-righteous indignation over every topic imaginable," I'd just say two things: one, I've not been posting all that much lately - too busy with wedding and bridal shower plans and new grandbaby, and two, if my comments bother you, don't read them.


    How you lead the shutting down (2.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    of conversation and self-righteousdom here is all that bothers me. I hope some rethink all that.  It would be nice to get some information sharing  here again vs. constant self-righteous indignation.

    pot meet kettle (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:08:22 AM EST
    A very large kettle.

    Right, I run around here (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:14:43 AM EST
    Down rating every person who doesn't agree with.

    I've explained this before (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by sj on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 08:49:12 PM EST
    I downrate four things:

    1.  Obstinate stupid
    2.  Really, really bad logic
    3.  Hostility, both outright and passive aggressive.

    Originally I said three but I then I thought

    4.  making up your own facts

    deserved its own mention and shouldn't be bundled into bad logic.

    Most of yours are for the hostility category.  You do both outright hostility and passive aggressive hostility in pretty much equal measure.  However these days your hostility has brought in a healthy dose of 2 and even 1.  You don't generally hit 4 because you don't bring in facts at all -- real or imagined.

    You come here as if this is some Facebook shout-down that. you. must. win.  And as if maybe if you talk fast enough and insultingly enough that people will respond emotionally and somehow not notice that your comments are all emotion with no substance whatsoever.

    Disagree.  That's fine.  But have something more to back it up than just lots and lots and lots of words heavily peppered with insults.

    I don't know what's happened to you lately but it ain't a sight I like to see.  I never like to see a good mind going to waste.

    Anymore?  Thou talk'st of nothing.

    This isn't Facebook.  Learn the difference.


    Oh....see (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:15:58 AM EST
    There's my down rate too.  Right on schedule

    Tracy, if there's been any display of (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 04:34:42 PM EST
    indignation - self-righteous or just garden-variety - or efforts to shut down conversation, I think that's been your role of late.  When people stopped accepting your military-by-association background as the last word on these issues, you kind of lost it a little; there was a fair amount of "how dare you" that accompanied your comments, which I think qualifies as indignation.

    And once you lost your normally-deferential audience, you started trying to hold people to standards that would allow you to dismiss their opinions - you were trying to shut people up.

    I don't know if there's more going on with you than you've been willing to share, but I know I'm not the only one who wonders what the hell happened to you - your tone is different, your tactics are different, and often, your rhetoric and logic are a jumble of nonsense.

    Maybe you will say that those things are just a reflection of your impatience and frustration with all of us who won't stop questioning the Obama administration's policies and agenda.  There's a lot of information that drops into the blog, and if you don't like what you're seeing, nothing's stopping you from offering links to information you feel people need to know.  But if you are going to categorize as information the nearly-incoherent rambling you've been posting here, please don't be shocked if the reaction to it is negative.


    Bravo Anne (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    Nicely done

    would you have supported it if it were (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    George Dubya Bush doing it? Or are you simply a member of the IOIYAO club?

    If the circumstances were the same as (none / 0) (#85)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    al-Awlaki, and the AUMF or some similar Congressional order was in effect, yes.  I said above who the president is does not matter to me.

    How about the targeted killing of (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:48:35 PM EST
    al-Awlaki's 16 year old son? Would you please explain to me exactly what activities or circumstances you believe justified Obama targeting him for death in a separate drone strike two weeks after his father's death.

    Information leaked to the NY Times from (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    "anonymous assertions" by "current and former Obama administration officials."

    The missile strike on Sept. 30, 2011, that killed Mr. Awlaki -- a terrorist leader whose death lawyers in the Obama administration believed to be justifiable -- also killed Mr. Khan, though officials had judged he was not a significant enough threat to warrant being specifically targeted. The next month, another drone strike mistakenly killed Mr. Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who had set off into the Yemeni desert in search of his father. Within just two weeks, the American government had killed three of its own citizens in Yemen. Only one had been killed on purpose. link

    How many more "whoops, we made a mistake" do you think are justified by the circumstances and the AUMF?


    If Your Seriously Suggesting... (4.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:17:31 PM EST
    ...there is no difference between a person posing an imminent threat to others and person just standing  somewhere, well I don't even know what to say about that beyond it's probably the most ridiculous thing I have read this week.

    One clearly had intentions, whether he gets cold feet or the devise isn't real, any logical person would recognize that as a threat to the safety of others.  Not true of the other person, and because that person isn't an immediate threat to anyone, that person should be afforded all rights our Constitution guarantees to all.

    Well both should be, but that might not be possible for the one posing the threat.

    The other point is glaringly obvious, what if the intelligence is wrong and we kill an innocent American.  That where due process comes in and the government had to prove it, not just believe it.


    Did you protest this? (3.00 / 3) (#66)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    Wrongful death lawsuit filed in police shooting

    or 2 City Officers Face $30 Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

    or Family drops wrongful death suit against Appleton, police?

    My point here is two fold.  One, "due process" is violated every day in this country.  All of the above links were on the first page of a Bing search for "wrongful death lawsuit police".  No national press coverage, no one nervous.  Suddenly it's the President, and OMG! There must be some nefarious plot to destroy our liberties.

    Second, to your question, no I don't think there's a difference.  In all the instances above, the rationale for the force is, unnecessary risk to "our forces."  No one has an issue, except maybe the families of those involved.  At least the President (not just Obama, any President) is accountable to the people and under more scrutiny by the press.  IMO, makes it less likely for this to ever be an issue.

    Call for more transparency w/r/t to the decision making process.  Call for there to be public notification w/a deadline to surrender or something.  But to bemoan the potential loss of rights seems a bit late to me.


    OMG... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    ...so if I don't protest it means ?????

    I like the Constitution and dislike authority types who act as if they are above it and none of it is acceptable to me.  This link is about the President, that is why I only commented about the President.  Didn't realize I have to name every person in the country that violated someone rights to have an opinion.

    I used the word imminent on purpose.


    Actually, Kevin Drum has been ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:45:21 PM EST
    Anne: "Kevin Drum's been hanging around the Beltway a little too long, I think."

    ... hanging out in Orange County, CA (aka "Home of Richard Nixon & 'B-1 Bob' Dornan") too long. That's arguably the last intractible bastion of undue white privilege on the Left Coast, where even the Democrats harbor peculiar ideas about law & order, Mexican immigrants and defense spending.

    And anyway, don't you reside pretty near the Beltway yourself? Certainly, you're close enough that you could possibly be adversely effected by the irresistible pull of its self-generating magnetic field, and find yourself one morning waking up and muttering to your family and everyone on this site, "One of us, one of us, one of us ..."



    Navigating the Beltway is (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    traumatic enough that anyone with an iota of sanity should want to stay far, far away from it.

    Because it will take whatever sanity you have, for sure, and you'll never get it back.

    Wherever it is Kevin physically spends his time, it's clear that he hearts that inside-the-Beltway crowd...


    What??? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    Who - other than you - is making this debate about the particular "physical means to kill people safely"?

    The only part of the debate that makes drones different than other means of killing the the risk of collateral damage they (sometimes) present.  The real debate is whether (and under what circumstances) the POTUS can order the killing of someone (including US citizens) because he/she suspects they are a terrorist, with no due process.

    The "technology" issue you and Drum raise is nothing new.  It's called a "red herring".


    welcome back ABG... (none / 0) (#75)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    Makes sense to me (none / 0) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 08:53:15 PM EST
    whether I like it or not. I assume you were downrated for your name because there is nothing in your post that anyone could deny.

    Lots and lots of discussion to be had on this (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:45:44 AM EST
    Law enforcement uses lethal force on people in this country every single day.  Those people don't receive what many here call "due process" in this debate either.  They certainly don't get a trial when they are in the morgue.  I find the existing conversation around here very skewed because that fact is never brought up or acknowledged, but in the protection of the nation Obama and terrorists are held to different standard.  A standard that most minority neighborhoods in this country have given up hope of ever experiencing.

    You apparently (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:04:07 AM EST
    Miss the "all law enforcement / prosceutors / judges are bad and corrupt" comments around here.

    Don't miss those comments at all (2.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:19:02 AM EST
    And there are some balanced comments about the issues as well.  And it's all needed to have real discussion.  Obviously in this nation we are short on due process often, and there is a social acceptance for that too.  I don't see Anne in the streets though protesting to clean up what is at her doorstep.

    I don't see the drone debate as it exists here right now able to go anyplace other than Charlie Pierce's blog :). He has important things to say too, but he isn't god either.  Because the use of lethal force against American citizens and without the finer machinations of due process is accepted by the majority of Americans in certain situations,  I have never seen a way to change anything about the existing drone program until I saw that Armando is calling for some form of due process.  In the end how can the powers that be deny that forever?...and now they are being attacked on two fronts.  Sadly I've been exposed to a bit of military strategy and that greatly weakens your opponent, and confuses them.

    See, that's smart, that's imagination, that's getting where you want to go unless the only place you are aiming for is the bubble of self righteousness.  Perhaps the conversation around here shouldn't be shut down all he time?  Maybe?


    You don't see me at all, Tracy; (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    you have no idea what I do or don't do.  And whether I do or don't protest to your satisfaction or to some standard you arbitrarily set in the mistaken belief that you can use it to tell people to STFU doesn't matter to me - it doesn't work on me.

    I just find it amusing that when we little people call for due process, you have nothing but ridicule, but let Armando raise the issue and, well, all of a sudden the light dawns and it's a new day in Tracy World.  

    I don't know what's happened to you, but I can tell you that just labeling anything you don't agree with as being the product of self-righteous indignation is a lot like labeling anything women say as being a product of hormones: it's just another way to shut someone up.

    Must frustrate you no end that is' not working.


    All sorts of people point out a lack (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    Of due process all the time.  Some have better resources, press coverage, some are just flat out better fighters and better at framing and addressing the issue.  There are regional pressures and cultural pressures involved too.  With the spotlight on the drone program though, resources all currently right there.  If our best minds lay the groundwork, many people can move that conversation forward.  In time the focus will be off the drone program, and then it is much more difficult to get people interested and get social traction.

    Waste is a sin... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    somebody forgot to tell the Okaloosa County Sheriff.  And not only that, he made a big media production out of his evil ways....a sinner and proud of it.

    How would he like it if somebody took a bull dozer to the fruits of his labor?  People worked hard blowing all that beautiful blown glass for their customers to enjoy, and this douche goes and smashes it all, reveling in his ignorant intolerance.

    "Tolerance is permission, and we will no longer give permission through inaction," Ashley said.

    Seeing (none / 0) (#29)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    all that glass... reminded me of the old films of the feds chopping into barrels of beer with hatchets.

    Yes it does... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:07:54 AM EST
    but at least those barrels had demon alcohol in 'em back in the day, these bowls were empty...I musta missed the declaration of war against glass.

    I fear not for spring-breakers though...even if Sheriff Grab & Smash destroyed every bong, bowl, pipe, blunt, and pack of rolling papers in three counties there is always bible paper, apples, or ironically enough beer cans to smoke out of.  

    Imagination trumps knowledge and power;)


    Censorship is interpreted as damage... (none / 0) (#39)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    ...and routed around. : - )